Global Warming - Signed Sealed and Delivered

[Quixote1818]

Global Warming -- Signed, Sealed and Delivered
Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the principal cause.
By Naomi Oreskes, NAOMI ORESKES is a history of science professor at UC San Diego.
July 24, 2006


AN OP-ED article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-oreskes24jul24,0,7925596.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[Vincardog]

1. There you go dealing in FACTS and REALITY again. The republiCANTS live in

a faith based reality. Don't you remember how they "Make reality"? You can not test that kind of blind obedience. How long before the WSJ prints a correction?

[Bandit]

2. "Not a single paper, refuted the consensus position,"

Not a single paper, not one, nada, zilch. "The Debate is over"

[Uncle Joe]

4. I believe it's something like 928 to 0 peer reviewed studies

stating that global warming is for real and induced by human activity, of course with 0 in their corner, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board runs with it, how pathetic is that?

[Quixote1818]

6. It's more than pathetic, it's criminal!

Either they are academically dishonest or stupid! Their is no good excuse for what they have done. I lean on the side of them being dishonest however it could be a mix. Stupid and dishonest.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I agree with you Quixote, they are stupid and dishonest. The ironic

thing is, if the ice sheets in Greenland and the west Antarctic melt, I have read estimates of sea levels rising anywhere from 20-80 feet,if this were to happen, I believe the WSJ will be under water, along with the memorial to the victims of 9/11.

[redqueen]

9. Not stupid. 100% dishonest.

There's an agenda behind their recklessness. The corporate agenda.

[Quixote1818]

10. They are willing to sell out even if it means leaving a screwed up world

to their children and grand children. I can't think of anything more disgusting, greedy, uncaring and cruel. They are the lowest of scum on earth.

[Uncle Joe]

11. They may be 100% dishonest, but whatever their corporate agenda is,

they are stupid too, because no corporate profit is worth the destruction of the planet.

[redqueen]

12. No, they have their money.

These people really don't give two shits about anyone but themselves. I live with a couple of people like this. They just do not care about anything outside getting their own wants and needs met... not even their own kids. Their thoughts on the matter are "it's not affecting me, so I don't care". I've explained six ways to sunday how it affects them, and asked them don't they even care about harsher effects in the future that will impact their kids and grandkids. Their response? If anything, it's anger. Usually it's just a blank stare. Their hobbies are shopping, watching television, drinking, gambling, and talking crap about celebrities and other people they don't know.

[Uncle Joe]

13. You could have said the same thing

about the former French Royalty whom were separated from their heads,(except for the watching television part)

I still believe you can be 100 dishonest and stupid. If the world goes to absolute hell with unprecedented extinction of species and mass starvation, their artificial world will collapse. If humankind has to resort to eating these rich disconnected from reality bastards, I would think they would finally feel the effects of being stupid. I believe you can be book smart, have a college degree and still be ultimately stupid about reality.

[redqueen]

14. point taken

*sigh*

i wish something other than their own suffering would get through to these types. i really do.

[rman]

38. They don't need 6 billion slaves to keep their artificial world intact

I'd guess a couple of million will suffice, perhaps even less.

[Toots]

36. I believe they believe there is money to be had by "fixing" the problem

First they have to create a huge problem and then spend billions if not trillions of tax payer dollars in fixing the problem. They are not seeing the problem as so severe as to need their fixing just yet and need it to get just a little worse. Just my opinion as to why they appear so stupid..

[Quixote1818]

5. Yep, Al Gore brought this up in his movie

He said their had been over 900 peer reviewed papers saying mankind was influencing global warming and NOT one saying the opposite. The debate is OVER on this, yet as Al Gore pointed out, even with a record of 900 to 0 the news media reports this as if it's still under debate. It's maddening!!!!

[longship]

3. Recommended and kicked.

:kick:ed

[redqueen]

8. Why do the people that run / contribute to their edtorial page have jobs?

Haven't they demonstrated their complete and utter lack of integrity often enough yet?

:puke:

[Quixote1818]

15. kick

Kick because this is an important article and we need to be armed with the facts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. It's already irreversable.

http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=76062006

GLOBAL warming is irreversible and billions of people will die over the next century, one of the world's leading climate change scientists claimed yesterday. Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed the Gaia principle (that Earth is a self-regulating, interconnected system), claimed that by the year 2100 the only place where humans will be able to survive will be the Arctic.

What follows is a critique of that statement by other scientists who all agree that it is irreversible. They disagree only at the rate of the warming and what can be done.

I encourage everyone to read the whole article and all the opinions.

[Reckon]

17. Yes, but to say

it is irreversible is not the American way. It is a problem that must be solved.

[bananas]

32. I'm with you, dude.

We know the energy and resources are available.
We know the technological hurdles can be met.
The big question is whether we can stop killing each other,
can we stand to live in harmony with each other forever?
I say we can.

[pitohui]

18. why bother then?

if it's too late, it's too late, might as well live for today

i see nothing positive that can come from a focus on "the ball game is over, folks"

btw, considering that billions of people are already alive then it is technically true that billions of people will die over the course of the next century, a bit of a tautology that and not really useful if you want to get things done

[Xithras]

19. That is an immensely silly position.

Even if he is correct and widespread desertification occurs (a hotly debated topic...increased temps may also increase oceanic evaporation and actually lead to increased rainfall across much of the world), the claim that it will make us practically extinct is absurd. He seems to believe that humans can't live in deserts...which indicates that he's never been to Phoenix or Las Vegas.

This kind of alarmism always irritates me, because it is easily debunked and only serves to make us look bad.

[Quixote1818]

20. Not according to this article

Is global warming reversible?
— Tammy, Seattle

Wettstein: Global warming is indeed reversible, at least in the sense that we could, eventually, bring global greenhouse gas emissions (the "human" part of global warming/climate change) back down. The issue here is a matter of how long you are willing to wait. By way of example, every molecule of carbon dioxide (the primary human-caused greenhouse gas in terms of its influence on climate) released today will be in the air for several hundred years. So, if we are already having a demonstrable impact on climate as the science suggests, slowing greenhouse gas growth and eventually reducing greenhouse gas emissions (and thereby turning around the human forces of global warming) is a pretty major challenge for every world economy. This and other information is summarized in the IPCC summary for policymakers: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

[rman]

37. Human contribution to greenhouse gasses is not the same thing

as the effect of greenhouse gasses.

To say that "we could, eventually, bring global greenhouse gas emissions (the "human" part of global warming/climate change) back down" is not to say that we can reverse global warming. Certainly not any time soon, as the article does point out: "eventually", "how long you are willing to wait".

At best we may be able to slow it down a bit, and reduce the severity a bit. But dramatic climate change is inevitable. The effects of which are already being felt, and it's going to get a lot worse before the effects start declining.

Rather than focusing on trying to stop it, we should prepare to adapt to the coming changes to our environment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Did anyone who responded read the full article?

Just curious.

[lonestarnot]

22. I haven't responded, but I read the entire article.

[pitohui]

27. i did

i still don't see the point of posting it, unfortunately, the lead-in was the interview with lovelock which basically said, kill yourself now, it's all quite hopeless

you won't rally the troops with an 86 year old man's cynicism

it was nice to see that other scientists had more positive suggestions and even hinted that lovelock was just exaggerating for effect

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Which is why I asked if anyone had read the whole article.

According to the other scientists, Lovelock is probably wrong in his estimates, but they don't really dispute the "irreversible" part. Nor do they say there is nothing to be done to alleviate the effects.

What they do point out is that facing the real seriousness of the situation is imperative.

Hiding one's head in the sand may be more comfortable than facing reality but it hardly helps.

[bananas]

33. It's cooler under the sand

You know, you go to the beach, the sand is too hot to walk on, but if you dig your feet a few inches into the sand, it's cool enough to stand in.
So there is a certain wisdom to hiding one's head in the sand.

[lonestarnot]

23. That's like the fundies saying the rapture is coming so why

stop the wars.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. No it's not.

We're all going to die. Humans will be wiped out. All life will be snuffed out. Planet Earth is doomed.

'Tis true, whether we like it or not. It's not a question of if, but when. Whether it's 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, or 7.5 billion years when the earth is consumed by the expanding sun (at which time we humans will have been a long forgotten species).

We like to think that we humans are unique and special when, in reality, we're a rather incompetant life form in a long series of life forms, most of which are extinct. Compared to the lowly centipede which has been around for 450 million years we've barely arrived on the scene, and have much less chance of survival. Compared to the even lowlier sponges, 650 million years, we've been here for the blink of an eye. 100,000 years since recognizable homo-sapiens started rubbing sticks together.

Does that mean that we should give up and commit suicide to hurry along the inevitable in hopes of some luxury accomodation provided by a divinity we created to comfort us?

I don't think so. I prefer the Buddhist idea that we should, "Chop wood and carry water", live life. Which would include doing what we can to stop wars, alleviate poverty, create, check global warming, eat, shit, pet the cats, screw, fart, blunder around and try not to do too much harm, and all the other things that make up life.

Facing reality is just one of them. Something the fundies refuse to do.

[lonestarnot]

25. Yes it is.

It is an excuse to do nothing.

[stepnw1f]

26. yup (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Speak for yourself.

What is it about facing reality that tells you to do nothing?

[pitohui]

28. human nature is also part of reality

and like the man said, if we're going down on the titanic, might as well book first class!

lovelock's comments won't encourage anyone to do anything positive, i am not going to give up the pleasures of my one and only life if it won't do a damn bit of good anyway

[lonestarnot]

29. So what pleasures have you that are so harmful and

that you don't care to give up?

[bananas]

34. You don't know that, it's a belief, a religion

We can migrate off the planet and out of the solar system long before Sol becomes a red giant, the technological difficulties are minor compared to the sociological/psychological/religious issues.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Well, have a nice trip.

Where, exactly, are you planning to go?