Al Gore: Climate Change 'Significantly Worse' Than Feared

[Hissyspit]

Source: AFP

Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Published: Thursday January 24, 2008

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.

Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Climate_change_significantly_worse__01242008.html

[Bonobo]

1. What do we tell our children?

This is frightening.

I just don't know what to tell my kids when they ask me.

I tell them the Earth will adjust, that many will die but not all, and not us.

I don't know what else to say.

Will my kids be affected then, Dad, they ask?

I just don't know what to say.

[otohara]

3. Teach Them Now to

recycle, use less water, etc...my pet peeve right now is plastic bags. I sent these out as Christmas gifts....http://www.chicobag.com/

[Bonobo]

4. I do, of course.

But how do make them feel hope without lying about the situation?

[LynzM]

27. I don't know, Bonobo

I'm not sure there's a "feel better" answer. I think we tell them that we each do the best job that we can to conserve the earth's resources, and that we talk to our friends and family and peers about how to make changes, and we find out what causes we can support. We cannot guarantee that it will be fixed, but we will each do the best we can. I think that's all you can truthfully say. Our kids, like it or not, are growing up in a (in some ways) much less certain world than we grew up in. :hug:

[Bonobo]

43. Thanks for that.

:)

[rtassi]

39. Just my opinion

but, maybe you could tell them, that its no accident that we are on this planet, at this time.. we are here for a reason .. it was our choice to be here ... to be part of the solution ... and in a universe with unlimited potential and power to create and re-create, there is no death in the way in which we are taught .. only re-birth. Live in your moment without fear, and give your creative self and your vigilant thought, to holding the image of a healing, loving planet, which will continue to support humanity until we have perfected ourselves, as God intends.

"There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

A thought, in this substance, produces the thing that is imaged by the thought.

Man can form things in his thought, and, by impressing his thought upon formless substance, can cause the things he thinks about to be created." ... Wallace D. Wattles

Faith and gratitude, NOT hope will be the glue that holds things together. I have kids also, and they ask the same questions ... they roll their eyes at first, but in their own way I know hearing this helps ... love them unconditionally all the time!

Peace,
rt

[Bonobo]

40. Gratitude yes. Always gratitude. Thank you for your lovely post.

Buddhism is for me, the best and only way to reduce suffering.

[WheelWalker]

125. Lesson One...Everything is impermanent

[jwirr]

121. This answer is beautiful. I am working to give my children, grand-

children and great grandchildren a positive answer. We must not give up. Then we are doomed for sure. Life as we know it will change but the human race has survived with a lot less than we have now. One of the things we have that should endure is knowledge. If we pass this on to our children and let them know that we plan to survive then they to will persevere.

[billyoc]

94. Tell them some of the smartest people in the world are working on the problem right now. n/t

[lunatica]

184. Answer according to their ages and anxiety level

The earth isn't going to end. People will adjust and there's no need to talk about death. And say what you want to hear yourself. Say everything will be OK because people like you and your kids are taking action all over the world. Give them examples of how people have always adjusted to extreme weather. The Innuit in Alaska, the Bushmen in Africa, the Nomads in the Sahara and the Indians in the Amazon Jungle. Take the time to discuss solutions to problems that will arise. For example ask them what they might think to do to catch rainwater, or to grow some food. Get their minds busy on solutions. No matter how bad things might get there will always be solutions to the problems that will come. Nothing is hopeless.

Take the approach that the glass is half full, not half empty.

[SharonRB]

16. I bought about 15 of these

http://www.1bagatatime.com. The baggers in the grocery store love them and they're only $1.99 or less, depending how many you buy. I keep them in the trunk of my car at all times.

[reggie the dog]

20. i reuse

plastic bags as garbage bags. that way I do not have to buy trash sacks.

[NoSheep]

91. So do I. And for dog poop.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. Teach them to swim.

[RaleighNCDUer]

177. What a GREAT picture!

Too bad we're seeing it in this context.

[BobTheSubgenius]

108. I am SLIGHTLY encouraged...

...by the almost universal reaction (positive, needless to say) at the checkout to my response to "paper or plastic?"...which is "Neither. I brought my own." At the stores I frequent most, the cashiers don't even ask any more, which heartens me a little further.

OTOH.....is this such an infinitesimal step that it simply doesn't matter? Just how nihilist are we feeling these days?

BTW.... "my own" is a bike pack, which I got into the habit of carrying around with me when I started using a bike as my primary mode of transportation. (I sorta "co-op" a share in a small pickup truck for appropriate situations). My admittedly weird point.....I see why women favour purses, especially LARGE ones. Carrying capacity rules! I grab my pack knowing it already has everything I'm going to need.

[AndyTiedye]

137. The Supermarkets Around Here Give You 5 cents off Per Bag for Bringing Your Own

assuming you buy enough groceries to fill them, of course.

Many of them also sell cloth shopping bags.

[Fovea]

159. You and me man.

And no one gives me crap about my messenger bag.
It is an old medic bag, and it works fine.

I do get some plastic bags for dog walking and occaisional epoxy work, but I have a bike trailer that I can haul 50lbs of food in.
I shop most of the year at the city market, about 3 miles from my house. It is a great ride, and the food is fresh and mostly local.

Of course, I ride on the dark side, because I ride bent.

[GMFORD]

152. Good idea. I'm going to do that too.

Safeway sells the cloth bags for 99 cents. Every time you use one you get a rebate of .05 so in no time they have paid for themselves. Plus they hold more than plastic and have nice comfortable handles, easy to carry.

Many benefits to using the cloth bags besides the environmental ones.

[fascisthunter]

6. Tell Them Greed Business Interests and Ignorance Killed Our Planet

conservatives hate facts

[bdamomma]

8. along with the debt this jerk has put on so many and our environment

our children have many tough obstacles to overcome but do we really want to saddle our kids with this crap. I don't.

[Lorien]

56. We don't have a choice. We possibly could have saved ourselves with Gore

in 2000, but they let BushCo steal it (the MSM, corporate America, repugs). Now climate change will do us all in within our lifetimes. What to tell the kids? I suppose we can lie and say that everything will be OK while we pray that they make it to 30.

[pitohui]

10. in my family we always fell back on not talking about it

growing up in the cold war era, with the missiles ready to be launched and the world ready to be consumed in flame with 15 minutes warning, well, we just didn't discuss it, we hid in somebody's basement who had a basement during the cuban missile crisis without quite discussing why we had to hide

is there any value to talking about this? will talking about it make one damn bit of difference?

if discussing it is helpful and gives them something they can do to feel helpful, okay, fine, but if discussing it is only to make them unhappy without making any change in the world, what's the point

let them raise the topic and otherwise just do the best you can

kids won't miss what they never had, when we were young, we played outdoors all day long and only came in at dark, today, the mother who allowed this would be arrested for child neglect -- and you know what? the kids don't know what they missed, they'll never know, so they're not bothered by it, it only makes us sad and once we're gone, the tigers, the frogs, the wild spaces are gone...it's sad to us because we had those things but it won't be sad to them, to them their own world of closed spacea and computers will be normal, how can they really miss an outdoors they never had?

[Kindigger]

84. Thank you

Yours was the post that helped me.

[onehandle]

13. Teach them to swim if they live in a coastal city. nt

[Bonobo]

17. Not funny.

My wife and family are from a tiny island. The dock comes right up to the houses. There is no room for sea levels to come up. A couple of feet would be devestating, 5 feet ruinous.

[onehandle]

19. A couple of feet would be devastating?

What do they do during high tide? Where in the world are they.

[Bonobo]

21. Here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ieshima%2C_Hy%C5%8Dgo

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. You might wish to plan for evacuation

I fear that the earth changes to come will be devastating to islands and coasts.

Do you have friends/relatives in an area that would be immune to flooding?

Also start stocking up on supplies. Make sure you and your children know basic first aid and survival skills.

[Bonobo]

41. I do not live there year round.

The thing that sucks is, it was going to be the place I went too when the US fell apart...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. Ah, then

I am so sorry for you. But it also means you have other places where you sometimes stay. I don't know if any are in the States, but if they are, check out survivability. Personally, I moved to the Ozarks on spiritual guidance and then found that it is considered a place with high survivability. And the nice thing is that people leave you alone.

[psychopomp]

106. Have you seen this?

Looks like that rock caught hell...

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter7.htm

[Bonobo]

117. Different "Ieshima" nt

[dysfunctional press]

54. a couple feet of ocean rise would be devastating to much of florida...

and it would make high tide that much higher, for one thing.

[FREEWILL56]

126. High tide? How about during a typhoon?

[Teaser]

24. You best move.

.

[BobTheSubgenius]

115. The island I live on is not so tiny.

I'm a good mile inland from virtually every seacoast, but still 20 feet above (current) sea level. A significant rise in ocean level would be devastating here, as well. Hell, it would be devastating for the entire planet. Once one has saved their own life from immediate extinction by moving to higher ground... or to what remains of the mainland....then what? It would be like another post-apocalyptic pot-boiler like Lucifer's Hammer or Swan Song, only for real. I'm not even sure I want to survive to experience that. Granted, it won't happen in a cataclysm, but so what?

Honest to God, my son and his girlfriend, both independently before they met, and then mutually agreed-upon after, is that the world is too f'ed up to bring more children into. And, again....honest to God, I can't bring myself to try to talk them out of that. Sure, it's their choice no matter what, but how sad is that?

[Teaser]

23. Teach them how to live in a hard world

.

[boricua79]

31. Tell them that Republicans

and head in the sand Democrats

Coupled with technocrats and communists in India and China and other places

condemned them to a poisoned world.

Tell them their parents were scared sheep...that didn't dare to revolt and change policies.

[woofless]

34. delete

[dysfunctional press]

57. tell them whatever you want- it isn't going to matter anyway.

nt.

[niceypoo]

93. Tell them that energy will be the safest bet for job prospects in the near future

All our priorities will change within about 10 years and the republicans will still be spouting the same conspiracy theories about Al Gore.

I do believe that, in the future, the US will be the one major power that resists doing anything about it. Thats what happens when one of your main political parties is basically a suicide cult (rapture right).

[defendandprotect]

59. Let's ask ExxonMobil . . . ? They're working for a new record-setting profit this year --- !!!

For more than two decades they've been lying to the American public ---
thru various propaganda campaigns and spending tens of millions to keep the
public from understand Global Warming while making huge profits.

Our legislators have also blocked information about Global Warming ---

Though some scientific info has gotten thru -- the Scientists Warning to Humanity in 1992 --
tototally ignored by the press --- corporate-media ---!!!

The Congress should enact retroactive Windfall Profits taxation on the oil industry.

[defendandprotect]

61. Further, I notice that despite overpopulation, despite growing knowledge of Global Warming ...

we have a baby boom in America -- !!!

WTF?

If you truly understand Global Warming and the chaotic weather to come, are you still
planning to have children?

[theHandpuppet]

69. Don't you know that subject seems to be taboo?

Overpopulation, that is. People want to hue and cry about the destruction of the environment, global warming, etc but we're not supposed to discuss the fact that as a species we have sowed the seeds of our own destruction, so to speak, by refusing to curb our runaway population. Which is why the situation really is hopeless. But what we refuse to address Mother Nature will, one way or another.

[defendandprotect]

150. Yes, we can see here the tendency to say, "Yes, I understand GW, but..."

on the other hand then totally ignore it's reality ---

but the oil industry and those who want labor have also been very successful at using propaganda to lie about the seriousness of both issues --

The last Pope was pleading for Italian women to have more babies about 3 years ago ---
in fact, he went to the Italian Parliament to suggest that they make Italian women
have more children!! And, why? Because labor is needed for business!!!

Certainly there is something wrong with our species -- HU man ... man and womb-man.

Look at the rest of nature . . .
Only so many birds in the sky ---
Only so many ducks on a pond ---

[kenfrequed]

75. With the rate of change...

I would say: "What are we going to tell ourselves?"

[damntexdem]

82. Easy: "Kick your legs and hold onto your flotation device."

This should all clear up in a few centuries.

[hunter]

132. Tell them they are lucky to live in interesting times.

Think of all the people throughout history who lived in a society that didn't change from the day they were born until the day that they died.

Well, that's what I tell myself anyways...

Sigh.

[tom_paine]

134. Teach them how to hunt, teach them how to grow food, how to network with neighbors

and so much other stuff that has been mentioned on DU and elsewhere.

Type "What to do after Peak Oil?" into Google, which will bring up many of the useful references because Peak Oil and Climate Change are, to us on the ground level, part of the same crisis.

[beezlebum]

139. i remember

as a child how scared i was. my mom always read magazines like newsweek and i'll never forget the first time i read the words "greenhouse effect" and "global warming" and "deforestation" and "save the rainforest." charts to explain what was going on made sense to me even at 9 or 10 yrs of age.

my mother always recycled. she'd say, "it's up to us, every little bit counts, i'm doing this for you and your future kids." we'd load up the boxes and boxes and boxes and drive across the river to a recycling plant. it was always fun to dump the cans.

mom discouraged plastic bottles, and she NEVER let us buy paper towels like all my friends had at dinner, or paper plates for birthday parties. when we went to the grocery store, i always blushed and cringed when she'd tell the cute bagger boy to please not bag individual items into individual bags, please pile as much as possible into one bag, no bag for milk and other bulky items, and of course he always rolled his eyes. i did not know a single kid with a mom like mine. and there was a time when i was afraid my friends would think she was a weirdo, but my friends ended up worshiping her.

when i first got married 8 years ago (the year i proudly voted in my first presidential election for Gore), my husband bought some paper towels and paper plates, and she gave me a stern lecture.

now it's frightening to me as a parent. frightening that, while things may appear to moving relatively slowly, one little change could cause massive havoc. i don't know what to tell them either, but i know that i took comfort in my mother's recycling efforts. i always respected her, but now, more than EVER i appreciate what she did. i hope i can do the same for my kids. i guess all we can do is educate them and teach them to do the right thing.

[slackmaster]

182. Swimming lessons might be a good start

Also how to ride a bicycle and grow their own food.

[xchrom]

2. indeed it is. -- gaining momentum on it's own.

increased CO2 from the developing economies of asia and south asia aren't helping.

[defendandprotect]

62. Of course what we are seeing of Global Warming is INCREASING--!!! . . .

There's a 50 year delay in Global Warming ---
We are now only feeling the effects of our activity up to 1958 --- !!!!

Include now A-bomb testing and new cars and population on the roads since then!!!

Plus airline traffic -- etal.

[gimberly]

72. Only up to 1958? Who came up with that number?

That figure seems fabricated, but I've got an open mind. Certainly an amazing statistic if it's true. AL

[defendandprotect]

147. 1958 . . .

Well, it's info that I've picked up along the way ---
there is a delay in GW --
You don't run your car today and then feel the effects today --- *

In fact, more than 100 years ago, they could see the effects of the industrial revolution on nature --- in particularly on trees.

But there is a delay --- at least a 50 year delay --

If I recall correctly, it was in the mid-1950's that the models of GW were showing the problem and the outcome. And by then, not everyone had a car and our population was
smaller.

I think Gore talks about a "delay" -- I don't know if he's specific as to time.

So, as we enter the period of time with ever increasing cars on the road -- and flights in the air --- the impact of GW will become even more severe.



*Naturally, we had a great clue about how unhealthy the gasoline-run car is when
you stand alongside of it on a very hot day and the car's air conditioning is running!
Or the fumes from a bus!!

It took a lot of nonsense and lies to overcome that reality!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

154. My understanding is that the "50 year delay" is only in the recovery side.

We feel the ill effects quickly - and now, more quickly than predicted just a couple years ago - but if all man-made influences were eliminated immediately it would take 50 years for the warming to reverse itself, as it would take that long for the changes in atmospheric CO2 and methane to return to natural levels.

[gimberly]

168. Thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense to me.

[defendandprotect]

175. Well. . . we're both speculating based on what we've read and heard . . ..

"If man-made influences were eliminated immediately" . . .
I've never seen a time estimate on putting this all back together again because there is going to have been tremendous damage done when you heat up the environment --- it leads to very chaotic weather conditions.

In fact, there is some thinking that the planet itself may not keep turning --- may not survive?
I guess we tend to think of nature as indestructible, but really it's not ---
Even if the planet survives, it may be thousands of years before it would be suitable again for live forms to reappear.

Natually, everything is going to start happening faster --- because in the past the activities which create GW were increased rapidly. Additionally, there's no way of knowing how this will all compound--!! For instance, the lake effect with snow --- the Great Lakes used to be frozen, so when the prevailing winds passed over they didn't pick up moisture --- now they do and then they dump snow when they next reach land.

Same thing with melting ice bergs ---
The more melting, the faster the melting --- ice deflects sun, but the melted areas will now aborb heat.

Mixture of salt and fresh water from melting iceberg?
The La Nina and El Nino systems which were once in every 1,000 year or once in every 2,000 year events which are now occuring frequently?
Death of species? Polar Bears --- Bees?
The UN has warned in December 2007 of serious food shortages ---

What about nuclear weapons ---
and nuclear weapon testing --- what role did they play in this?
Also, we exploded at least three nuclear weapons in outer space in ...
I think it was late 1950's or early 1960's ---
Meanwhile, it takes 6 months to properly shut down a nuclear power plant ---
We have at least 106 older plants across the nation ---
and there are plans in the works to build something like 30 more?

So, how might this all compound given tornadoes, clyclones -- increasingly forceful
hurricanes and winds?



PS: Because there were UFO sightings again in Texas recently --
a large spaceship more than a mile long and half a mile wide ---
similar to the Phoenix sightings of a few years ago . . .
I'll mention that often people who had these experiences would talk about warnings re our planet -- nuclear weapons, pollution, overpopulation. It's in some of those revelations that a time shift
of about 10,000 years might be necessary before EARTH was again able to support life??????

At least . . . that's some of what I've heard an read ---

[pitohui]

183. IIRC 1958 was the IGY when (many) measurements began or many baseline measures taken

i don't have time to look it up but someone else might, but i'm pretty sure 1958 was the International Geophysical Year and this is why many measurements/models start there

better measurements/models of course came when we had a better network of weather satellites in orbit around the other, something not possible at 1958's level of tech

i don't believe the current models are based only on what was in the atmosphere 1958 and earlier but there are probably some baseline models somewhere like this

you will encounter older literature, such as the 1950s isaac asimov essay someone ref'd the other day, concerning what was then called "the green house effect," and you will learn that many scientists did fear that such an effect was coming, even as far back as the 1950s, with a burst of concern in the popular media in the 1970s, again, we didn't have the weather satellite records or computer power to do much about those hypothesis just the good horse sense that came from observation of the "greenhouse effect" on a small scale

but people have known we had a risk of destroying our climate for a long, long time

hence 1958 is not a completely ridiculous year to cite, altho i'm not sure where the poster is getting this particular concept

[FourScore]

5. Get thee to the Greatest Page!

This is THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IMHO!!!!

[FREEWILL56]

130. I dissagree this is the #1 issue because

I believe the #1 issue is the greedy assholes in charge of governments (especially ours) and in charge of corporations that condone and do so much against nature only to further themselves now without one single care about the future or future generations. Without those assholes the addressing of the problem would be easier. No matter if it is purely from mankind, from mankind and nature, or just from nature it is a real problem and to just ignore it is comparable to ignoring a large cancerous lesion on your back believing it would've been there whether you sunbathed or not so you'll continue to sunbathe and not see a doctor to try and do something about it. i saw a program recently that stated they had found a lake under the antarctica about 2 miles down indicating the fast rate of melt occuring there.
I for one would like to have the punishment fit the crime when all of this shit hits the fan and let them try swimming 25-50 miles to see if they can survive without something solid to swim to like the polar bears have to. Who would be in charge to carry out said punishment is redundant as they won't cast punishment upon themselves let alone admit any wrongdoing. Pelosi can add that crimes against nature is off of the table too.

[the other one]

7. The Stealth Campaign continues,,,

Onward to a brokered convention and a Gore nomination...

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Ya think so?

If true. :woohoo:

[tinrobot]

29. If only...

I don't think Gore wants or needs to clean up the mess left behind by Bush. It would only distract him from his life purpose - saving the planet.

[Deep13]

49. Jesus, I wish.

Isn't it too late to file papers then?

[defendandprotect]

63. Is Gore talking about nationalizing OIL--? Or ELECTRIC CARS?

I'd love to hear him do it ---
but Gore also has a life long career relationship with the oil industry ---
what was the name of the company which has backed him?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

66. Clinton and Richardson were close to Occidental Petroleum too...

But government backing for Occidental's Colombia proposal runs far deeper than the Gore family's stock portfolio. The Nation has learned, from a government source and the internal memos of an Occidental lobbyist, that the Clinton Administration has been quietly helping the company--a generous donor to the Democrats in recent years--to win support in Colombia for its drilling plans. While Gore has strong ties to Occidental, the Administration's point man on the issue is Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who last year traveled to Cartagena and met with government officials on the company's behalf. Richardson has also hired a former Occidental lobbyist to work in a key international-policy position at the Energy Department.
snip>
Traditionally a Republican firm, Occidental was linked to the Democrats for many years primarily through Gore's father, Senator Al Gore Sr. The elder Gore was such a loyal political ally that Occidental's founder and longtime CEO, Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore "in my back pocket." When Gore Sr. left the Senate in 1970, Hammer gave him a $500,000-a-year job at an Occidental subsidiary and a seat on the company's board of directors. At the time of his death in 1998, Gore the elder's estate included hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of Occidental stock. The Vice President is the executor of the estate, which still includes the stock and whose chief beneficiary is his mother.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/050500-103.htm

[defendandprotect]

145. Not that the oil industry on it's own isn't greedy and suicidal enough . . .

we have to understand it's natural links to the war-making industry --- MIIC.

See: "3 Days of the Condor" --- Robt. Redford

See: "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

[AndyTiedye]

122. If Nationalizing Oil Would Help

Beijing would not look like this:


Aside from the Constitutional problems with seizing private property without compensation,
it is not clear how putting the government in control of the oil companies would do anything
to solve the problems associated with global warming or peak oil.

What would you have a state-owned petroleum monopoly do?
Are you looking for cheaper fuel by eliminating oil company profits from the equation?
Wouldn't that cause us to use even more?

[defendandprotect]

146. Maybe you haven't noticed Global Warming . . .????

What you are looking for with HONEST nationalization of the oil industry is returning the public's control over natural resources -- all of them.

We don't have to pound down all of our natural resources --
And, more likely we would have been on a more sane search for alternative energy of
every kind.

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

Stop thinking in terms of "fuel" --

Further, when there are profits involved, we use more --- not less.
Obviously, when we look at MPG, Detroit has been working for the oil industry!!!

[AndyTiedye]

170. What Are You Proposing to Nationalize? Everything?

What you are looking for with HONEST nationalization of the oil industry is returning the public's control over natural resources -- all of them.

Whenever someone puts "honest" in all-caps, it sets off alarm bells. Just so you know that.

Are you proposing the seizure of all private property of any kind?
If so, it is hardly fair to criticize Gore for not joining you on that quest.

We don't have to pound down all of our natural resources --
And, more likely we would have been on a more sane search for alternative energy of
every kind.

There are plenty of ways to accomplish that without having the government seize everything.
If that is not what you had in mind, please clarify.

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

GM is an easy target. Are you proposing to nationalize them?
They'll be run by the government soon enough in the person of a bankruptcy trustee.
If the government bails them out, they might end up with a controlling interest.
Either way, GM is an easy target, and you could nationalize them without running afoul of the Constitution.
But you were talking about oil.

Stop thinking in terms of "fuel" --

Your post was about nationalizing oil. I was responding to that.

It seems you want to nationalize everything.

Further, when there are profits involved, we use more --- not less.
Obviously, when we look at MPG, Detroit has been working for the oil industry!!!

For them to run themselves to the edge of bankruptcy at the behest of the oil companies would imply a level of financial control that ought to be fairly visible.
It would also give the oil companies an incentive to bail the car companies out, which they are not doing.
I think the real problem Detroit has is that they aren't car companies, they're truck companies. They have just about forgotten how to build cars.
Their small cars are awful. Unreliable, uncomfortable, poor fuel economy, not a hybrid among them.
They can't compete with the Japanese companies when it comes to building small cars. They never have been able to do so.

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. Nationalizing does not mean taking without compensation.

It simply means moving from private to national control. Much like 'eminent domain' - the government pays a fair market price to buy the owners out. Most employees would even retain their same jobs, but be paid by someone else.

What nationalizing would do is keep the company from spending millions in PR to prop up their own product and undercut competitors, like wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal power. The main reason most people think those are unviable options is because of oil company PR TELLING them they are unviable options.

It's not about making it cheaper - it's about utilizing a limited resource more rationally. Will we be better off in a hundred years and there is NO oil left?

[psychopomp]

160. Your post is misleading as that photo is of dust from the Gobi desert

Wind picks up the dust and carries it across China over to Japan every year. Sometimes the air here in Japan looks tinged the same color, just not as thick with desert dust.

[Apollo11]

76. I don't think Al Gore is campaigning for himself.

But I hope he would answer the call in the case of a brokered Convention.

First we have to make sure Hillary doesn't get 2025 delegates in her bag.*

GORE-OBAMA 2008 B-)

* But we already know that 50% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be women.

[RestoreGore]

103. You don't know Mr. Gore very well do you?

Such a shame his words and warnings have no meaning to you.

[beezlebum]

142. i'd be SO ready

to elect him again...

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.

[Control-Z]

11. This should be our number one issue

above all else.

There are so many people who just don't get it or refuse to believe it, though. A Bush loving Repug I was talking to just yesterday called it "global warnings". He thought buying American made cars would solve the problem.

:kick: and rec

[defendandprotect]

64. How many questions on this in the debates --- ????

[KansDem]

12. Aww, Al, just go away! You're wooden, too brainy, and no one wants to have a beer with you!

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

...at least that's what the media told us!

[YvonneCa]

129. Good thing you...

...put all those little red 'sarcasms' there...I was worried. :7

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

14. Gee, thanks, Al.

You could have put yourself into a position to enact some real and binding changes, but you blew it off and now we get to pay for it.

It would have been yours on a silver platter. :shrug:

[breadandwine]

50. Gore won't run, Hillary will get the nom and lose.

Gore gave every indication he was going to run. People walked up to him after speaking engagements and urged him to consider it and he said “I am.” He was coy, he did all the right things for a great winning campaign. But he didn’t have the stomach for a bare knuckle fight which is what it will ALWAYS take regardless of the concerts etc. etc. More is expected of those who can do more. Gore included. He chickened out.

He will not be the nominee. Gore also hasn’t endorsed Edwards even though that is the logical thing. Edwards will not be the nominee.

Hillary will be the nominee and she will lose. Why do you think Murdock loves her so much? Because she’s the power structure’s designated loser. She will drag down Democrats in the Senate and House. Our control of Capitol Hill is in danger if she’s the nominee.

There are only a couple weeks till she breezes through super Tuesday and nobody can stop her in just two weeks. She's way ahead in the state polls of Democrats. If her support dips the touchscreens will save her. The power structure wants her. They want her because they have dossiers on her a mile thick. No one has so much dirt in their resume as Hillary does and the GOP knows it. Her nomination is inevitable, and so is her loss in November. I'm flabbergasted that Gore didn't run. This was his moment. He could have united the party like no one else.

[ginchinchili]

107. To run for president you have to rely on too many fools...

like the ones who selected Hillary and Obama to be the top two candidates in the Dumbocratic primary. Gore showed tremendous restraint and wisdom by not running. Now we have to sleep in the bed the Democrats made by choosing someone without experience and someone with a lot of national ill-will felt toward her. This fucking country is hopeless. Too many morons making moronic decisions, and they're on both sides of the political divide.

[DiamondJay]

15. if you were a candidate, maybe then I would listen to you

[Bonobo]

18. Yeah, fuck the earth. I'm pissed at Gore!

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. ....

:spray:

[rosesaylavee]

30. I nominate this the

stupidist post of the year to date. You had a lot of competition, but by god, you did it!!111!!

[racaulk]

53. How would the article in the OP have more validity if Gore had declared his candidacy?

:crazy:

[DiamondJay]

89. because actions speak louder than words

[RestoreGore]

104. His actions are speaking loud to me

maybe you should look up what he is doing and what his organizations are doing to help solve this crisis before making such an ignorant comment.

[DiamondJay]

109. i did for a while, and still support him...

but he had the PERFECT opportunity to give himself the biggest position against global warming by running for president, and he blew it really really bad. He would have virtually been immune to Billary, because he is a part of their legacy, in every imaginable way. This nomination would have wrapped up, he woulda won every primary, he has it all, change credentials AND experience, and he can run on the Clinton Presidential Legacy without being part of the dynasty Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton progression. And he has already proved his electablility against the toughest opponent George W Bush, who was actually a much harder opponent than ANY current GOP hopeful could ever be because Bush could unite ALL wings of the party. nobody now can. And with Hillary and Obama, we run big risks with the dyansty thing on Hillary AND her Iraq war hypocricy, and Barack Hussein Obama's name, and inexperience.

[RestoreGore]

110. No, WE blew it

And got what we deserved.

[DiamondJay]

113. how did WE blow it?

and i'm referring to getting a good candidate, which we lack right now, we have OK candidates instead in terms of electablility

[dropkickpa]

22. Had to be done

[mak3cats]

28. Another K & R (n/t)

[Cheap_Trick]

32. these goddamn idiots who deny global warming

just to spite al gore are unfit parents who should have their children taken away from them. they are willing, at the very least, to destroy the planet their children will inherit from them. just because their masters who speak in talking points tell them to do so. did i say unfit parents? fuck that. they are unfit human beings.

[water]

51. Are you serious?

That's a very frightening sentiment, I really hope you're not that controlling in real life.

There is enough doubt surrounding the causes of climate change (and there are some who have said we are about to enter a period of cooling) that we should hold-off ripping away individual liberty.

Before you say "those that dissent have conflicts of interest", so do those supporting this hysteria. Not only do they want to further their careers by agreeing with popular opinion (something that scientists have done since the beginning of science), they also don't want to be left out of the committees that get to write public policy (imagine the feelings of self importance!).

Liberals are not supposed to fall into the "group-think = good, dissent = bad" trap.

Plus, we should be more worried about carcinogenic emissions, anyways.

[road2000]

33. Climate change deserves to be ignored.

That is the msm's take, now that Al Gore has made it clear he's not running.

For the duration of his prize-winning, rock-star status, and while speculation and hope still existed that he'd throw in his hat, this statement might have been covered. In fact, while he was able to keep us all guessing before the primaries, everything he said was seized and taken apart for its "real" meaning. It served to advance his agenda.

Yesterday, he endorsed gay marriage -- a huge issue for any courageous political figure to take up. That and his statement today at Davos remain on the front page at DU for a few hours, then sink like a stone. Without dissing DU, that's hardly the same as scrutiny (even negative scrutiny) in the Washington Post.

Sadly, I believe Al's ship came in and he missed it. Even more sadly, I believe henceforth he's sittin' on the dock, wastin' time.

K&R

[groovedaddy]

35. I fear you may be right... n/t

[dysfunctional press]

131. yep...when the president talks, people listen.

when a former vice-president and failed presidential candidate says something...not too many people take notice.

good luck with that movement Al- but "the people" aren't going to be willing to make any changes until the kind of catastrophe that means it's already too late to stop it starts happening.

[eppur_se_muova]

37. It's all getting worserer, fasterer. Er.

Sounds kind of like a new KO feature ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Tell me again how much you "need"

:eyes:

That's the stock answer to all suggestions of driving less, living in smaller houses, living closer to work, shopping locally, keeping the thermostat lower in the winter (I'm at 65°, and it's 4° F outside now, running the air conditioner only when you're actually on the verge of getting sick from the heat (some people in my building run theirs when it's 75° out). People insist that they "need" to drive to work when there's a perfectly good transit system, live in a house twice the size of the one they grew up in, even though they have half the number of children their parents did;live in the exurbs to afford said house, buy the same mountains of mass market junk as everyone else, keep the house warm enough to grow palm trees in the winter and cold enough that they have to wear a sweater indoors in the summer.

I think that too many Americans have unconsciously absorbed the Libertarian variety of selfishness.

[llmart]

186. Yeah, that always gets me riled up too......

I'm sick of the "but I need a big vehicle because I have two kids and a dog" blah, blah, blah. My parents had 7 children and we managed with one regular sized car, a very small house, one bathroom. I don't remember feeling deprived. We learned to share, compromise, work out our differences, do without, be happy with what we had.

[lutefisk]

42. Do not fear! Clinton & Obama will try to cut emmissions by 2050!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

They don't seem to have a real sense of urgency about the greatest threat to humankind, do they? Once in office, they'll care even less.

Why didn't you run, Al?!!!!!:shrug:

[toadzilla]

44. It's too late, and Al knows it.

[Deep13]

47. Yup.

I wrote to anyone who would listen in 2000 saying that we were running out of time on the global warming thing. That if we made drastic changes then, we might be able to head it off. 2009 is too late and whoever wins is still going to be a capitalist president and Congress.

[dysfunctional press]

55. if we stopped ALL carbon output tomorrow, the climate would still warm-up for 4 decades...

and we aren't going to stop carbon output anytime soon- it's still going UP.

[defendandprotect]

65. It's more than that . . . we have a 50 year delay in GW --- PLUS . . .

you also have to add in the INCREASED ACTIVITY during those 50 years --

So you're not only feeling the effects of what we did up to 1958 ---
you're going to be feeling the INCREASED ACTIVITY of everything we did after that date!!!

WHICH IS ONE HELL OF A LOT . . . !!!!

[water]

45. If this is real, it has to be adressed, but...

... there are already backlashes in Europe over this. Much like the "war on terror", it's used as an excuse to allow the government to control individuals' lives however it wants.

[SallyMander]

52. "If this is real"???

You are obviously not a scientist. Much as the media would like to portray "disagreements" and "conflict" in the scientific community, it just does not exist.

[water]

60. Well, clearly there is dissent, and those dissenters are always accused of having conflicts of...

interest.

I posted this somewhere else I think, but:

There is enough doubt surrounding the causes of climate change (and there are some who have said we are about to enter a period of cooling) that we should hold-off ripping away individual liberty.

Before you say "those that dissent have conflicts of interest", so do those supporting this hysteria. Not only do they want to further their careers by agreeing with popular opinion (something that scientists have done since the beginning of science), they also don't want to be left out of the committees that get to write public policy (imagine the feelings of self importance!).

Liberals are not supposed to fall into the "group-think = good, dissent = bad" trap.

Plus, we should be more worried about carcinogenic emissions, anyways.

[hatrack]

68. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ . . . how was "Atlas Shrugged", by the way?

Feel free to post any and all peer-reviewed scientific articles showing:

1. That levels of atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs are not rising rapidly.
2. That CO2 and other GHGs do not absorb long-wave radiation from the sun.
3. That this rapid increase in GHGs did not coincide with the Industrial Revolution circa 1750.
4. That this increase has not increased even more rapidly since 1958, from which point we have precise year-on-year tracking data.
5. That carbon isotope balances prove that atmospheric CO2 is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels
6. That most glaciers and icefields, especially mountain glaciers in the tropics, are not receding.
7. That the Arctic ice cap is, in fact, growing, rather than shrinking in extent and thickness
8. That oceans are, in fact, growing less acidic, rather than more acidic from the amount of atmospheric carbon they absorb
9. That Arctic ice in the Beaufort Sea is, in fact, not disintegrating right now, in January.
10. That no global average temperature records have been set in the last 30 years.

Come, Water.

Thrill us with your scientific acumen and your access to vast reams of press releases from the American Enterprise Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, the Cato Institute, James Inhofe, Fred Singer and Michael Crichton.

Make us proud to have you with us here at DU.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Kicking again for this post.

Thanks, hatrack.

[water]

90. I'm not denying that humans have caused an increase in temperatures, not am I denying...

...that temperatures have increased.

What we are trying to prove is:

1. There are other factors (possibly greater than human technology) causing the increase, like the sun (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html).
2. Earth might be about to enter a cooling cycle (http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html), making all of the worrying useless.
3. The money spent to combat global-warming is not cost-effective compared to the damage it has caused, and the money could be better spent reducing carcinogenic emissions. Or, leave the money in the hands of indiduals (the market) and allow it to innovate and create new products, increasing the quality of life much more than human-caused climate change could destroy it.
4. Most of the proposals allow the government too great a control on individuals' lives in the name of "climate security" (the right-wing has the "war on terror", the left- wing has the "war on climate change").
5. Many of the proposals (again, eerily similar to the "war on terror") are recycled from earlier far-left-wing proposals that had nothing to do with climate change. In other words: this presents the perfect opportunity to push their radical programs on the population (and it's always in the name of security).

[eShirl]

95. dear god, I cannot put you on ignore fast enough

I have a low tolerance for this kind of propaganda spew anymore

[hunter]

105. Do post back in ten years, won't you?

When Bush invaded Iraq I was participating on a discussion board where most of the people supported the invasion and they couldn't figure out why I was out on the streets protesting. The consensus there was that the war would be over quickly. I told them it would drag on for years and years, kill hundreds of thousands people and cost billions and maybe trillions of dollars, and that we would eventually have to withdraw as we did in Viet Nam. I haven't been back to that board for a long time, but maybe I'm waiting for us to cut our losses in Iraq and retreat so I can be entirely prescient about the disaster.

But it sucks to be right about something like this.

If you believe we will be able to increase "...the quality of life much more than human-caused climate change could destroy it" by creating "new products" I believe you are tragically mistaken.

The plane we are all riding in is going to crash. The decisions we make soon -- very soon -- will determine if it is a hard crash landing or a soft one. Either way, a lot of us are going to suffer and die.

I figure in ten years you'll be buckled into your seat with the rest of us watching the ground approach with frightful speed, like Mother Nature's Great Fist of Death. If anyone still believes the magic hand of the marketplace will intervene to set us gently down, they will keep that to themselves.

[malakai2]

111. And this little subthread says to me:

That I don't need to tell my kids anything, because it would be unfair to bring children into a world like this. They either grasp the way the world works and end up profoundly depressed that rational decisionmaking takes a back seat to deep psychology in pretty much everything we do, or they don't grasp the way the world works and make things worse for those that do.

Sorta like having to choose between being an Alpha or an Epsilon, except this time the Soma is illegal and the stakes are higher.

And that's also without stating the obvious that 6,500,000,000 plus 1 equals too many.

[DissedByBush]

116. Do not dare challenge dogma

Stop saying crazy stuff. Next thing you know, you'll be saying Bush's wiretapping was illegal or the War on Drugs has caused a massive erosion of the Fourth Amendment. Such anti-dogmatic positions will get you punished by the appropriate authorities. Do not question your masters!

All I know is I'm freezing my you-know-whats off due to this global warming.

Freezing? Warming? Hey, wait a minute...

[Nihil]

149. *Sigh*

> All I know is I'm freezing my you-know-whats off due to this global warming.
>
> Freezing? Warming? Hey, wait a minute...

:eyes:

[hatrack]

119. Oh, look! It's the Space and Science Research Center!

Never heard of them? Me neither (until a few weeks back, when the same shit surfaced elsewhere). From their website (emphasis added):

EDIT

John L. Casey
Director, Space and Science Research Center

Mr. Casey has accumulated over thirty years of professional experience spanning a wide variety of technologies, industries, and international endeavors, to include performing important services as a space policy advisor to the White House, and Congress. He has been a consultant to NASA Headquarters, and conducted satellite launch studies for the Department of Defense. His experience also includes being a former space shuttle engineer, military missile and computer systems officer, advanced rocketry and commercial space developer. He has an extensive executive management background in the start-up and financing of high technology companies. He has a BS degree in Physics and Mathematics and an MA degree in Management. He is active in his community in environmental and conservation activities and was past Chairman of GFSD, an international charity that provided aid to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can contact Mr. Casey directly at [email protected]

His scientific paper, "The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity" also called the "RC Theory," is available at the 'RC Theory" page on this site. It also includes a significant amount of corroborating research references as well as a link to the NASA web site that discusses the current changes in the sun's surface flow that presage the coming of the next climate change according to the SSRC.

EDIT

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html

Goh-lee! Mr. Casey has an undergraduate degree in math and physics! What about his peer-reviewed scientific publications record? Well, funny thing, if he has one, it isn't posted on his website.

Of course, he does now have two new colleagues, who weren't there the last time I checked the site. Dr. Boris Komitov from Bulgaria did have a link to an "important paper", which resulted in a blank PDF when I tried to link to it, but he does at least have (1) a Ph.D and (2) a background in astronomy. Too bad about the paper. There's also Dr. Ernest Njau, currently teaching at the University of Dar es Salaam, with a background in Electronics and Meteorology, including a Ph.D in Radio Communications, whatever that is.

You do understand the concept of "peer reviewed", don't you, Water?

[hatrack]

140. Yoo-hoo! Water! Oh Water? Got any peer-reviewed scientific studies to post?

In case it didn't quite sink in the first time, National Geographic and press releases from the "Space And Science Research Center" don't count.

[Nihil]

148. Umm ... we've seen EXACTLY how effective that approach is ...

> ... Or, leave the money in the hands of indiduals (the market) and
> allow it to innovate and create new products, increasing the quality
> of life much more than human-caused climate change could destroy it.
(Your bolding)

1) Did you see how "well-managed" the market was earlier this week?
2) Have you seen how much sheer crap has been "innovated" over the last few years?
3) Do you see any signs that the plutocracy is getting less powerful?

And you can still come out with an emphasised quote like that?
:crazy:

> What we are trying to prove is:

Have you got a mouse in your pocket or something?

Strangely enough, all five of your points are recycled right-wing/libertarian
topics that people interested in the environment have seen deniers post time
after time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

157. Followed the SpaceandScience link, to John L Casey.

Pursuing Casey, found these interesting opinions.

http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/68846-who-ssrc-what-relational-cycle-theory-2.html

Noteably, also googled Casey, and found, for such an important guy, nobody seems to have heard of him. No listings on the first couple pages - not worth searching beyond that.

He's a nobody, a corporate shill for the oil companies.

[Nevernose]

169. Because the fre market has worked so well to stop global warming so far, right?

[DissedByBush]

118. I must disagree, record temperatures have been set

"10. That no global average temperature records have been set in the last 30 years."

October 24, 2006 was the coldest for that day in South Carolina since accurate records started in 1887. There's a record for you.

Oh wait, I guess you were looking for record high temperatures, not cold.

[hatrack]

120. You do know the difference between Holocaust denial and global warming denial, don't you?

It's that subtle shade of difference between lying about an undeniable past and lying about an undeniable present.

Then again, this comparison's probably a little too linear, a touch too chronological for you, my cute little 80-post Freeptard.

Toodles, and pound some sand while you're at it.

[DissedByBush]

133. Do not question the religion! Heretic! Blasphemer!

If skepticism is not allowed, then Global Warming has become dogmatic religion, not science. Undoubtedly many approach it as science, but you obviously believe in the religion. We have Christian fundamentalists, we have Muslim fundamentalists, and now we have climate fundamentalists. I dare not question your belief, or I will burn in everlasting fire.

Thank you for proving my point.

[tom_paine]

136. That's funny. Using RW talking points which themselves are lies.

"If skepticism is not allowed, then Global Warming has become dogmatic religion, not science."

As always, wrap your lie (although I suspect they are not YOUR lies, you are just regurgitating without thought) in a half-truth, "If skepticism is not allowed..."

Now the lie, the huge, monstrous lie: "...then Global Warming has become dogmatic religion, not science."

Your own lie, not very well constructed, that a single cold day in South Carolina has any meaning in the context of multi-century global climate patterns is weak and almost laughable. As if that one tiny speck of data is meaningful when contemplating centuries and whole planets.

You have excellent scriptwriters, sir, for the rest of it. The best that $2,000,000,000 can buy. But then, you didn't buy them, did you? They were bought for you, and they dropped their chewed-up worms into your baby-bird's mouth, so to speak. Now you regurgitate them without thinking. I don't blame you. Thinking for yourself is a pain in the ass. Why not just reach into a quiver of pre-designed declaratives, made to shut down conversation and debate?

Skepticism is always required and part of science, especially global warming. Well, I am a scientists, and science works by "peer-review". Peer review is the method by which a scientist presents a hypothesis and other scientists in their field try to rip it down every which way from Sunday.

There is no peer-review in Religion. Attempting peer-review in religion, for most of human history, meant imprisonment or death. Even now, go to church and try to explain to them how they might, MIGHT be wrong about any little thing.

See how far your attempts at peer-review get you. But your comment is not designed to enlighten. It was written for you to be able to throw out and discredit debate in the shortest, briefest possible phrase. Good advertising and marketing is brief and intense.

But it is a lie, deliberately designed to conflate peer-reviewed science and dogmatic religion. Brilliantly constructed for you to hurl like a brick to shatter debate and conversation.

Again, I'd say "well done" but you had NOTHING to do with forming that lie. You just sucked it up and spit it out again. Not much talent required to do that.

Science is about hypotheses, and the fact is that where biological processes are concerned, there can never be 100% certainty, not like the fact that water boils at 100 C every time. It's much more complex that that.

But evidence comes in over time, making something 20% likely at first, then 50%, then 80%, then 95%, then 99%, then 99.9%, then 99.9% and so forth. Eventually, the evidence becomes so great it produces a consensus.

Can that consensus be wrong? Of course. That's why studies continue and skepticism is always welcome. However, as the sciences of advertising, marketing, psychology, and lying (Public Relations) have increased, ironically their progress is used to assault science, so that a 95% consensus in the scientific world is reduced to a 50-50 he-said/she-said in the media world.

The point you made, is not YOUR point. Don't insult us by pretending it is, it was written for you by Bushies who get paid for Public Relations and have a lifetime of experience in sophistry, psychology, and constructing Orwellian Lies.

And that is all it is, a deeply misleading statement conflating two doctrines, science and religion, which could not be more opposite. Go ahead, try to peer-review the Bible at your Church.

I have already wasted too much time on you, but that is why the people who design your lies make them the way they do. Short, declarative, misleading, and pseudo-authoritative. That way, in order to "unpack" the lie and debunk it, a hundred times more thought and effort and space is required.

By which time, most people have tuned out, and the lie remains.

Now, do what you do so well. Reach into your quiver of pre-written thoughts, none of which you had the least part in thinking up, and fire another short declarative burst of squid-ink to muddy the waters.

Do not attempt to discuss my points. You don't want to get caught up in debating logically and reasonably, not when you have this convenient handy-dandy quiver of lies that Bushies spent $2,000,000,000 creating for you. It's easy, and it doesn't required a lot of effort. Plus, because your pre-written "thoughts" have been designed by the highest-paid professional deceivers in the world, they are far far more deceptive and brilliant in their "scientific lying" than you could ever hope to form yourself.

So, go to it. Which pre-designed mud are you going to sling now? Do you dare try to speak your own thoughts? They aren't as good as what your scriptwriters have for you.

[tabasco]

176. Great post.

Thank you.

[Nevernose]

167. Do you understand the diff between weather and climate?

And then there is your own quote? "10. That no global average temperature records have been set in the last 30 years."

It didn't say "temperature records." It said, "GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature records."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

71. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

The 'dissenters' have been saying for the past 2 years that climate models 'could be wrong'. So it turns out they have been, but not because the models said it would get worse than it is, but because already it's happening faster than the models said it would.

Regardless, the majority of the dissenters are not even climate scientists. Give me one name of a reputable scientist who doesn't believe that climate change is real (and that we have caused most of the problem), just one, and I will consider your argument.

Just for you're info, I've spent the last 3-4 years reading the majority of the science out there. Hundreds of reports and peer reviewed journals. I have read NOTHING that makes me less concerned.

[lovuian]

81. I've been documenting Sea Level rise and its here and now

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PuMwVIfPgCs
A whole Alaskan village has to be relocated
there people have lived there for centuries
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LWJh1uzUEbQ
The Maldives believe they will lose their nation
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ohQfoofgRAs
There is land rising from the Sea like Edgar Cayce predicted
A island has been discovered where there was none
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TQVqcdx5RzM
The models were all bogus to keep the panic down
But I believe there is more here than CO2 there is HAARP which heats the ionosphere and the SUN maybe part of this too
Whatever scientist underestimated
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eZ-7uKPVbFs
Nasa warned everybody early on

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nkUuE4f1GIw
Miami is in BIG trouble their coastline is being gobbled up by sea rise
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-5tm3RPGkfU
The Melting is accelerated and these are from many sources sattelite
photos of Ice receding
England Coastline is receding
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O7Px6xFRsX4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nOTxoDRmdw4
Newfoundland homes falling into the sea

People have been watching the impending doom

[Viva_La_Revolution]

83. The pics of the ice breaking up in the North Pole actually scared me

Until the most recent info, I'd been able to tamp down my rising hysteria about what's happening, but it's coming so much FASTER than I thought it would. :(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=130167&mesg_id=130167

[DissedByBush]

151. Reputation

"Give me one name of a reputable scientist "

The problem is that by definition those who disagree are not reputable. Thus you have a self-fulfilling proposition.

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. Nonsense. 'Reputable' has very clear parameters, scientifically.

It's not just "does he agree with us". A reputable scientist is one who publishes peer reviewed articles in his own field, giving evidence for hypotheses that can be duplicated by other, disinterested parties.

If a molecular biologist is spouting off about astronomy - that's not reputable. If the author's results cannot be duplicated and indepently arrived at, it's not science.

The entire concept of the scientific method is founded on experimentation and proof, and good science is expected to overturn bad science. For a scientist there is one thing worse than being wrong - it is being unable to accept being wrong.

If your 'disreputable scientists' could provide sound scientific theories based on repeatable experiments they would very simply be 'scientists'. They are disreputable because their science is bogus, not supported by the scientific method.

There's no such thing as faith-based science.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

161. ok, fine... we'll drop the 'reputable'

Name one.

[DissedByBush]

162. Richard Lindzen

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Here are his qualifications from Wikipedia:

"Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, and American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory."

He is a critic of anthropogenic global warming, and contributing author to the IPCC's second study. He is also a very harsh critic of how funding for scientists tends to get pulled if their science veers from the dogma of anthropogenic global warming. So you may wonder why un-dogmatic scientific research tends to be funded by energy concerns, it's because there's almost no other funding available unless you follow the party line.

It is such political pressures, and the money to be made from it, that makes me doubt that much research in the subject these days is purely scientific.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

165. Richard S. Lindzen

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a global warming skeptic.

His academic research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. <1> He has published numerous papers regarding meteorologic and atmospheric topics. <2>

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." <3>

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension." <4>
via SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

Firstly, it is clear that Lindzen only signs up to the first point of the basic 'consensus' as outlined here previously, that the planet has indeed warmed significantly over the 20th century. While he accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased due to human activities, and that this should warm the planet, he does not accept that it is necessarily an important component in the 20th century rise. His preferred option (by process of elimination) appears to be intrinsic variability, but he provides no support for this contention.

In terms of scientific content, his testimony covers a few basic topics: the greenhouse effect, climate sensitivity, aerosol forcing and water vapour feedbacks. We have discussed these topics previously (here, here and here), and so my critique of Lindzen's comments will come as no surprise. He intersperses his comments with references to 'alarmism' which I will get to at the end.

Greenhouse Effect
Lindzen accepts the main principle of the greenhouse effect, that increasing greenhouse gases (like CO2) will cause a radiative forcing that, all other things being equal, will cause the surface to warm. He uses an odd measure of its effectiveness though, claiming that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a '2%' increase in the greenhouse effect. How has he defined the greenhouse effect here? Well, a doubling of CO2 is about a 4 W/m2 forcing at the tropopause, which is roughly 2% of the total upward longwave (LW) (~240 W/m2). But does that even make sense as a definition of the greenhouse effect? Not really. On a planet with no greenhouse effect (but similar albedo) the upward LW would also be 240 W/m2, but the absorbed LW in the atmosphere would be zero, so it would make much more sense to define the greenhouse effect as the amount of LW absorbed (~150 W/m2). In which case, doubling of CO2 is initially slightly more*, but as soon as any feedbacks (particularly water vapour or ice albedo changes) kick in, that would increase. Due to the non-linearities in the system, you certainly can't multiply the total greenhouse effect of ~33 C by 2% to get any sensible estimate of the climate sensitivity. So it's not clear what relevance the '2%' number has except to make the human additions to the greenhouse effect seem negligible.

lots more - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222


Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

The CORRUPT RICHARD S. LINDZEN,
DESPICABLE OUTCAST OF SCIENCE
Uh, oh. looks like he's all tied in with Reverend Moon AND big Tobacco too..
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html

Even more telling, though, is the attitude of businessmen, who increasingly see the wisdom of investing in CO2-mitigation strategies. Last winter in Miami, during a private meeting convened by an outfit called the Tudor Investment Corporation, more than a hundred portfolio managers gathered at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel to hear opposing speeches from Lindzen and Schneider on whether to factor global warming into investment decisions.

The two men separately made their case. Lindzen told the group that future warming wouldn't be dire. But when Schneider spoke, he appealed to the audience on blunt economic grounds. Catastrophic climate change, he argued, amounted to the kind of "low-probability, high-consequence risk" that investors usually seek to avoid. Tudor analysts could make their own decisions about whether he or Lindzen would end up being right, he added, and that decision would have huge financial consequences.

"I'm going to be right," Schneider added, drawing a laugh. "So then it's going to be a good thing you hedged."

After Lindzen and Schneider spoke during an afternoon session, Tudor's CEO, Paul Jones II, asked Schneider to come to his suite the next morning to chat about the company's future. "We had a long conversation on how they should invest," Schneider recalls. "It was not a matter of when, but how."

Lindzen left Miami without having done more than engage in cocktail chatter with Jones. He headed back to Newton and readied himself for the next PowerPoint presentation he had to deliver in a darkened room. But he wasn't bothered by the snub, since he believes he'll be vindicated eventually. :rofl:
http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-4.html

Richard Lindzen, the famously discredited global warming skeptic, surfaced again yesterday on the Opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, the preeminent "safety school" of choice among industry-funded mouthpieces looking to bash the hard facts and real science on global warming.

The Journal's editorial pages have long denounced global warming (even when its news pages have run great stories about its real effects), so it's not surprising that they would give Lindzen ample column inches to strut his tired, old stuff again.

In today's long-winded and convoluted attack on what he calls "the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers" who are addressing global warming, Lindzen moans and groans about how hard it is for shills like him to find funding these days. Now that even President Bush has accepted that global warming is real (although doing nothing about it), Lindzen whines that those of his ilk "have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse." (Duh!)

Email
Print
Lindzen's clunky "I am not a shill!" defense quickly evaporates upon closer look. According to Ross Gelbspan's Boiling Point book, Lindzen received $2,500 a day to consult with coal and oil interests here and abroad in the 1990s, a fact Lindzen does not refute.

It's a sure sign of progress when skeptics like Lindzen publicly admit that their funding is drying up. The debate is over....global warming is real and humans are causing it. By the sound of Lindzen's whining, the polluters seem to have caught on that their efforts at clouding the facts have failed, miserably. The American public is smarter than they thought.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/richard-lindzen-global-w_b_19010.html

This Monday, Newsweek will publish an op-ed by well-known climate-change contrarian Richard Lindzen, which concludes that global warming is nothing to worry about and may even be a good thing. "Why So Gloomy?" he wonders, and adds that "a warmer climate could be more beneficial than the one we have now."


Nothing new here: Lindzen's been making the same points for years, despite evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that he served on a prestigious panel chosen by the National Academy of Sciences that reported to the Bush administration that yes, temperatures are rising due to human activity. (The panel reported that global temperatures will rise 3 degrees Centigrade over the course of this century, with numerous serious consequences, including perpetual drought (PDF) in the Southwest. The contrarian Lindzen continues to insist it's just as likely they will decline, though he will not bet on it at less than 50-to-1 odds.)

The real news, as reported by Joshua Holland, is that in a biographical note the weekly publication declared that Lindzen "receives no funding from energy companies," although Lindzen has charged oil and gas interests $2,500 a day for consulting, according to Harper's, and wrote a speech on the "alleged consensus on global warming" for no less than OPEC.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/13/114644/561





Next?

[DissedByBush]

166. Expected attack

I was asked for real scientists and provided one, and expected such an ad-hominem attack on him. Standard fare when confronting religious fundamentalists.

As far as skeptics not getting funding for questioning "settled" science, he has been against such ideological methods for a long time, back to around 1990, when people were losing funding for daring to question. Oh no, respected scientists in the field daring to question the status quo (which was at the time 180 degrees from the Global Cooling of only a decade earlier). What will we do? Get rid of them all! We don't need actual science in this, our minds are made up.

That is why I see GW as more of a politico-religion than science. I see too many attempts to silence those whose research shows otherwise.

This is not Evolution, which has been studied over and over for more than a hundred years with nothing found that can discredit it. This is a new hypothesis, taken by politics and money into "settled" far quicker than the science can support. Hell, the idea of a black hole came about in 1783, and it took almost 200 years before their existence was completely accepted as settled, where proposing that they do not exist was considered basically dumb.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

171. expected attack? I figured you would have a better reply ready then...

Back up his science. Post any link that validates his assertions. What other scientist agrees with him? and Opinion pieces from newspapers don't count.

Your comparison to Evolution doesn't wash, by the way. We have ice cores dating back 750,000 years, each layer of which gives us the exquisite details of the climate for each and every year (show me an Evolutionary record that can rival that...) What those ice cores do show is that in all those years, there has never been such a dramatic and rapid climate change as what we have recorded in the PAST 10 years. Not the future... NOW.

[DissedByBush]

172. Thank you for the strawman

Even he says the temperature is changing. The question is the cause. Guilt-ridden, anti-civilization environmentalists would love for it to be us. That would mean they have the leverage for programs that most people before thought were rediculous.

One question, why was a major theme of the Bali conference that a massive redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor must be at the heart of any solution? Why did the carbon traders descend on Bali to peddle their wares?

Simple, because man-made Global Warming isn't about science. It's about fulfilling ulterior motives.

Remove the influence of all of those people with ulterior motives, remove them from funding decisions, and then we can start talking.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

173. yes PLEASE REMOVE ALL THE 'ULTERIOR MOTIVES' and just STICK TO THE SCIENCE.

Thank you for making my case. :)

[DissedByBush]

174. Exactly

I see we now agree.

Personally, I'm quite the environmentalist. All but the fridge and the oven is CFL bulbs, only use rechargeable batteries (both cost me a bundle), my cars (one small commuter, one family van) are just big enough for their needs, without overly-powerful engines. I was raised poor, so I'm used to keeping the thermostat down in Winter. If I were rich my "carbon footprint" would drop dramatically (solar, better house, etc.), no private jets and limos and the accompanying indulgences to be paid to the Archdiocese of Carbon Trading.

I do use some extra power to run Folding@Home, but that's going towards hard science to cure disease. What does the Global Warming canon have to say about that? Is it a sin against the Nature God?

[RaleighNCDUer]

179. Why do you bother if man-made CO2 is not responsible for

climate change? I don't get it.

[DissedByBush]

180. Environmentalism existed before Global Warming

People tend to forget that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

185. Again, if the CO2 level has no impact on the environment, then

working to reduce CO2 production is NOT an environmental action.

The fact that you continue to call it 'global warming' while citing climate change skeptics makes me doubt your bona fides.

[DissedByBush]

188. General conservation of resources is environmental

Remember when we were worried about pollution, you know the kind that causes smog and acid rain, the clear, demonstrable, visible, absolutely proven, direct results of our excess? Stage 3 smog alert today, can't play outside today, no baseball or bike riding for you kid. Why can't I see the hills when they're only a few miles away? Pretty chemically-colored sunsets though.

It's just how I was raised. All the cars I've ever bought, even going back to before "Anthropogenic Global Warming" hit the news, average out to about a 1.7 liter engine displacement, how about you? My relatively dumb younger days "Ooh, I have money and want to buy a sports car" resulted in a car with a whopping 2.5 liter engine, which with my family van skews the aforementioned average high.

[hatrack]

181. Ah, yes, the denialist version of "Some of my best friends are black/gay/Latino/Muslims."

Also interesting as to how quickly the "pagan Godless liberal anti-human extinctionist" rubber arrow came out of the quiver.

Good luck on finding reality - or your ass with both hands.

[DissedByBush]

187. Lay off, you're getting personal

My wife is pagan.

As for the extreme environmentalists, yes it is quite obvious that they are full of guilt and self-loathing for being human. Or they are anti-business, thinking business can only be bad for the environment. As if the socialism they like had any better record *cough* USSR *cough*.

[RaleighNCDUer]

178. I think all that real science confused him. nt

[Broadslidin]

58. With Florida Real Estate finally slipping beneath the Waves, Land Speculators are......!!

Falling all over them :smoke: selves just
a few miles to The North...!!

[debbierlus]

67. Omg. We are screwed.

The human race may not survive out the next century. Worse, all the beautiful & innocent animals.

I am going to go cry. (And, no, that doesn't mean I am giving up. I am just so sad)....

[halobeam]

70. k and r

[madrchsod]

77. delete

[ramapo]

73. Yes but....

The stock market was up triple digits for the second day in a row. Happy happy joy joy.


Nothing like false prosperity built upon unlimited debt and a decaying planet,

[cloudythescribbler]

78. we must go WAY beyond reducing Greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050; NET NEGATIVE WAY before that

These goals are based on models that EVERY YEAR turn out to be WAY overoptimistic. Norway is out in front now seeking to be Carbon neutral (100% reduction in footprint) by 2030, but even if that were to happen GLOBALLY, we might still be up proverbial shit creek without a paddle.

It seems that a MUCH more drastic approach will be needed to avoid damage that is FAR greater in cost and burden than the burden of shifting to alternative energy, something that could have been and should have been started in the 70s in a big way, when it was being advocated, while the power elite had other things to worry about (like suppressing authentic progressive dissent)

[aredwhiteinblue]

79. Wha???

What a load of BS!

[Bridget Burke]

80. Welcome to DU!

Perhaps you would like to expand upon your message.....

[road2000]

85. Yes.

I find it Blindingly Scary, too.

[superconnected]

98. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy your short time here!

[The Traveler]

86. The real situation is worse than that

The rate of extinction of species is simply astronomical. Earth's biodiversity is critical to the maintenance of temperature ranges as well as atmospheric chemical composition. Climate change is significant, of course, but is really just a symptom of the greater problem.

Humankind is killing off life on this planet, with the mindless frenzy of any virus.

I think it is too late to talk about delaying, stopping, or reversing climate change. That train has left the station. The issue now is how to survive the crash of a biosphere. How do we salvage and preserve its remaining content?

[Kokonoe]

87. I would like to mention that the Earth does not stop heating when it's "hot".

It does not stop getting hotter when things start dying outside.

[tavalon]

88. Quite a while back, I read a theory by a guy whose name is, I think, Lovelock.

It was called the Gaia theory and it posited that the Earth is actually a living entity and functions in a similar fashion on a macrocosm to the human body or more appropriately, we humans are like her in the microcosm and our parasites, good and bad, are like us in the microcosm and so on. I suspect that the theory goes the other direction as well, that there is a living entity upon which Gaia is attached. As soon as I read it, it just felt right. I've thought of Earth as Gaia ever since. When I watched Koyaanisqatsi and so in fast motion what we have done and continue to do to the body upon which we are attached, I was appalled. I'm still appalled, and yet, when I step back a bit, I'm more appalled that we thought we could get into a contest of dominance with our host. It's kind of equivalent to a few lice or a wart deciding to take on the body human and having the hubris to believe that it's even a contest. The outcome with the lice and the wart against the human is a foregone conclusion. Human will win. In the contest of dominance between human and Gaia, the outcome is, was and always has been a foregone conclusion. Gaia wins.

So the question isn't who is going to win, but rather how does the end play out? Will Gaia allow some to live or will she remove us all? I wonder if she has passions like we do? I kind of doubt it. I think that people's lives would turn out in fairer ways if Gaia had any more passion about us than we do about the wart, so I'm guessing that if she has passions, they have to do with greater things than her parasites. So, some or all of us will be removed and it won't be fair as far as who gets removed and who gets to stay and money may still play a factor in who gets to live and boy, does that chap my butt. But, as far as the bigger picture of our species' end, I'm kind of dispassionate about it. I've known for probably 20 years that we are dead men walking, and in the macrocosm, I'm okay with that. It was silly of us to attempt to dominate something so much bigger than us. We did the action, now we have the consequences.

Even knowing all of this for so very long, I've been doing things for that long to attempt to decrease my footprint on Gaia, not to get some recompense or even reprieve, but because it's the right thing to do. Do I think switching all of my bulbs to fluorescents and using reusable bags at the store and shopping locally makes one drop of difference? No, not really. But Gaia deserves respect and love for the life she gave all of us. The indigenous folk knew that, probably because they were closer to the edge of survival. We, especially here in America, are under the illusion that we are further from the edge of survival and so have forgotten to respect and revere her. That is why I do the things I do.

This is the first time I've written all of this down in one place and I know I sound dispassionate and well, pedantic. Please understand that I can't even think about any of this stuff when I look at my child, whom I love with more passion than I thought possible for a human to experience. It's doubly painful because he is one of the canaries in this coal mine. His little body was not able to sustain the level of toxins in our environment even at the level they were 13 years ago, much less today. I suppose the reason he is still here with us, is because we protect him so carefully from so many toxins and yet, he is severely autistic and his immune system attacks itself. If this comes sooner than I used to think it would, I don't know what I'll do. I'm willing to suffer for the sins of my fathers, I can't bear to watch him suffer for them. He doesn't have the mental capacity to understand why he suffers.

I'm sure some will ask why, if I've known for so long what is coming, why I brought him into this world? Well, actually, I didn't, but I tried to bring a child into this world, eight times, in fact, so I am not without responsibility in that area either. My immune system is also turning on me as well and kept me from being able to carry a child (Celiac Sprue). Now, even if I could, I would not choose to bring a child into this world.

Now, do I go out and shout this stuff from the rooftops? Hell, no, for a number of reasons. People don't like to hear about how bad it is without a solution also being brought to the table and I don't have one. Some people will just give up and start consuming like it's the end of the world (sad pun intended) and that is disrespectful to Gaia. I don't want to encourage that kind of behavior among my brethren. Lastly, and most importantly, somebody or many somebodies out there may figure out some amazing things that may save some of the humans, and that would be nice - my message of doom could possibly impact those people. I would like some of us to survive. Though, if I think about that too long, I might change my mind.

So, why did I write this now? I don't know. It bubbled up and I just wanted to get it out for once. Any of you out there thinking about ways to make this better, keep thinking, please. Any of you out there thinking of throwing in the towel and partying it up because there isn't a point, well, sometimes reverence and respect are the point.

[FirstLight]

100. With reverence and sorrow...

Tavalon, I hear every word you write and feel the exact same way. It is hard to ype this with the tears in m eyes...and the profound sense of loss and fear t the struggle ahead

I moved from a large city to the mountains 15 years ago... and found more REALITY in the forest and stream than in the things of man. I am ready to hike into the mountain range in front of my house an try my best to survive as the world goes farther and farther into it's throes of dis-ease...no, She's not very happy or healthy now. And I too, feel the pain of illness caused by this...disillusionment.

AND I have to agree with an early post here that stated we Chose to live at this time on the planet because there is somthing we are to do here. I knew this from a young age, that I was bon at this time because of SOMETHING that was going to happen in my lifetime..I look at my children and think about how young they are to have to deal with survival on such a level we have never known...and I respect them for choosing to join us here and help, and heal...because if anyone CAN show us how to make these changes, it IS them.

My daughter has a birth defct that could very well have been environmentally caused, I suffer from imunilogical illness, and we struggle with challenges, trying to be "healthy" while being too poor to afford the health food...and I live in a climate that is deadly in the winter and as the shortest growing season in the west... but if the Washoe Indians survived here for millenia, we can learn...

I don't know who said it, but I remember "War, famine and pestilence are the natural checks of human population control.." (someone could probaby correct that..I'm rusty and need to hurry and make dinner for my restless natives!)

At least those of us who are still standing after our humbling will be ready for the challenge
of working With Gaia, and not Against her :)

[OzarkDem]

92. Al, you need a political solution

endorse Edwards.

[cilla4progress]

96. TUNA :-(

Oh, and I don't know about you all, but I'm sure going to miss tuna.

It used to be a great source of lean protein; tasty & healthy...except for all the coal-caused mercury concentrations now discovered in it? Wonder how the tuna fish themselves feel about it. They'll probably be happy to be left alone from fishing by our species.

[amborin]

97. only SHADE coffee, please

want to help save the planet?

every little bit helps

coffee agriculture has changed significantly in the past several years....

typically, arabica (the best, most delicious) coffee is a shade-requiring tree/shrub

it needs the mixed forest canopy to shield it from the sun

the coffee trees, themselves, along with the mixed forest canopy are home to many, many species of birds, migratory and resident (endemic)

the pity is: increasingly, the shade-requiring coffee is ripped out and replaced with sun-tolerant coffee plants.....the forest canopy is completely elminiated.....pesticides are of course necessary....

the result: tragic loss of habitat, increased fragmentation, loss of many species and diminished biodiversity.....more pesticides in use, in the rivers, oceans, etc......

all: "fair trade" coffee is NOT ENOUGH..... it refers to the economic agreements between coffee producers, harversters, and suppliers...it does not concern the manner of cultivation

even "organic" is not enough.....in many cases, it's still sun-tolerant coffee

only "SHADE" coffee is okay, meaning it's grown in a traditional, rustic manner, traditional coffee trees shielded by a mixed forest canopy

in so cal, only Trader Joe's now carries Shade coffee....it's a pity......

i've written to Starbucks and other major coffee distributors.....

what can you do?

please help

so many migratory bird species are threatened.....the Cirulean Warbler was nearly extinct til the American Bird Conservancy and other orgs took action

Please, only consume shade coffee

[JuniperLea]

99. I knew it...

They were increasing the temperature incrementally on the model, instead of exponentially. I wondered about this when I first saw some data.

[gauguin57]

101. Wait. Michael Savage assured me Al Gore knows nothing about science.

Oh, I'm so confused! Whom to believe, whom to believe ...

:sarcasm:

[BobTheSubgenius]

112. Michael Fucking Weiner!

It's kneejerk, and I admit it. I can't even see that freak's name without knowing I have to fight a BP rise of several points. If there is a more vile person on this continent.....PLEASE....do not point me to them. I just couldn't stand it.

/end rant

[RestoreGore]

102. THIRTY YEARS WASTED

We have no one to blame for this but ourselves. The melting in the Arctic is unprecedented. Greenland is melting faster than ever predicted, and now cracks in the Earth's surface may also be helping to melt the ice faster from below while we continue to spew 70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere talking about it. I truly believe we have already passed a tipping point and need evasive action now. However, we won't get it because the human race doesn't get it.

It would seem we have a death wish because even when conclusive evidence is set right before our eyes all we do is look at it, say someting to the effect of, Oh my God how terrible, and move on. There is no urgency about it as there should be... and that is not only in regards to media and debates in this campaign, it is in general. And I am angry at people on progressive blogs who only played this up and talked about it when they thought Al Gore was running, and now don't seem to even give a damn about what he is saying.

Next month The Alliance for Climate Protection under the leadership of Mr. Gore is starting their campaign to make Americans aware of just how pervasive and crucial this is. Will it move people en masse in this country to get up and demand change? Will it make them do more themselves than just talk about it on a website? One can only hope, because from what I have read and seen, we passed the talking stage years ago.

What a crime that Mr. Gore's and others' warnings were not heeded thirty years ago by the political establishment... it is no wonder he has now opted to take this message out of that framework to the moral framework it belongs in. But yet, coal plants will still be built in this country with no one really standing up to stop it. Nuclear power plants will still be built with no one standing up to stop it. Congress will continue to defund alternate energy in lieu of continuing to massage their benefactors without us really standing up to stop it. And good men like Al Gore will be villified for taking this crisis on as his life's work simply because he dared to not run in the very system that ignored it for THIRTY YEARS.

[BreweryYardRat]

144. You're slightly in error.

"Nuclear power plants will still be built with no one standing up to stop it."

Nuclear plants are much cleaner than coal, even taking the waste into account.

Wind/solar is a cleaner source still, but if I have a choice between nuclear and coal, I'll pick nuclear every time.

[RestoreGore]

156. Nuclear wastes huge amounts of water as well as polluting water

And in a drought stricken world, that is simply not a feasible energy option. Nuclear may also be "cleaner" than coal in some ways, but it is not "clean."

[ShaneGR]

114. I've been following Climate Change closely.... and I'm just wondering...

What recent evidence, the report came out last year. Is there new evidence besides what the IPCC released?

[Harper_is_Bush]

123. I can't imagine anyone here should be taken by surprise over this...

...we've heard for ages that the IPCC was overly conservative in it's assessments.

Why this is not the #1 issue accross the board will be the big question asked with anger and disbelief by future generations....and by that I mean the kids being born now.

[sce56]

124. Not sure what it is but LA has Tornado Watches in effect right now!

Growing up here this is one of the least expected places in the us for tornadoes but they had water spouts yesterday off Long Beach now Malibu along with Long Beach Torrance and Lakewood are under another threat from a different cell

Active Watches and Warnings
CAC037-250600-
/O.NEW.KLOX.TO.W.0003.080125T0455Z-080125T0600Z/

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OXNARD CA
855 PM PST THU JAN 24 2008
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN OXNARD HAS ISSUED A

* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY IN SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA...
THIS INCLUDES THE CITIES OF LONG BEACH...SAN PEDRO...TORRANCE
AND LAKEWOOD

* UNTIL 1000 PM PST

* AT 848 PM PST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WITH GOOD ROTATION CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A
TORNADO. THE CELL WAS 9 MILES SOUTH SOUTHWEST OF LONG BEACH...
MOVING NORTH AT 25 MPH.

* OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE WARNING INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO
HAWTHORNE...NORWALK AND LYNWOOD

IF IN MOBILE HOMES OR VEHICLES...EVACUATE THEM AND GET INSIDE A
SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER. IF NO SHELTER IS AVAILABLE...LIE FLAT IN THE
NEAREST DITCH OR OTHER LOW SPOT AND COVER YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR HANDS.
SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OXNARD CA
903 PM PST THU JAN 24 2008
CAC037-250545-
/O.CON.KLOX.TO.W.0002.000000T0000Z-080125T0545Z/
LOS ANGELES CA-
903 PM PST THU JAN 24 2008
...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 945 PM PST FOR
SOUTHWEST LOS ANGELES COUNTY IN SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA INCLUDING
THE CITIES OF MALIBU...PACIFIC PALISADES AND TOPANGA...

AT 900 PM PST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR CONTINUED TO
INDICATE VERY STRONG ROTATING THUNDERSTORM. IT WAS LOCATED OVER
THE EASTERN HALF OF MALIBU AND WAS MOVING NORTH NORTHEAST AT
20 MPH. CITIES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE CELL INCLUDE
MALIBU...PACIFIC PALISADES AND TOPANGA.

IF IN MOBILE HOMES OR VEHICLES...EVACUATE THEM AND GET INSIDE A
SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER. IF NO SHELTER IS AVAILABLE...LIE FLAT IN THE
NEAREST DITCH OR OTHER LOW SPOT AND COVER YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR HANDS.



This was not the way it was when I grew up here in the sixties!

[Captain_Nemo]

127. Wouldn't it have been nice to have had him as President in 2000.

[teleharmonium]

128. Love ya, guys, but...

it's probably not a good idea to print reports on paper the size of three phone books on the impact of climate change !

[mac56]

138. Wow. You've got me absolutely dumbstruck.

Words can't express how ludicrous that post is.


:banghead:

[Pachamama]

135. British Columbia!!! The New California!

:eyes:

I'm betting that anything above Lattitude 52 will be where we can live and still grow things 20 years from now....

Sigh....and I'm not kidding....

[beezlebum]

141. surging of amazon deforestation in 2007

sure that's not helping things!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN169836020080117

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Deforestation of the Amazon has surged in recent months and is likely to rise in 2008 for the first time in four years, a senior Brazilian government scientist said on Wednesday.

The rise raises questions over Brazil's assertion that its environmental policies are effectively protecting the world's biggest rain forest, whose destruction is a major source of carbon emissions that drive global warming."

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0117-amazon.html
"Amazon deforestation surging due to oil, soy prices"

[FATCATs]

143. And nobody listens

He’s like a prophet crying in the wilderness

So when its too late what do we say, Oopps !

[Cant trust em]

153. Anyone who doesn't believe this is willfully ignorant

[Quantess]

163. That overgrown teenager, Glenn Beck, was just complaining about Al Gore

That annoying dumbass was whining about Al Gore's statements on global warming, sounding like a bratty 13 year old. I can't believe CNN Headline news lets Beck dominate their prime time, for at least 2 hours per night. CNN "Headline News" channel obviously wants to be just like Fox News channel. They suck.

[onyxred]

164. Even the Antartic ice is melting at an accelerated pace

According to an article I read recently.