For those of you who think the existence of the phenomenon of global warming is debatable, Scientific American has an article by Michael Shermer entitled: “The Flipping Point: How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip.” (Quite a mouthful.)
Apparently the approach used by the environmental activists had turned him off to their message in the past. His mind was changed by, among other things, a speech by Al Gore which included before-and-after photographs of disappearing glaciers as well as Jared Diamond’s excellent book, Collapse.
He closes with:
According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.
Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.
I can’t understand there being any debate about the existance of global warming. I think many debate the cause. Some think it is from emissions, some think it is just a natural phase that our planet has done before.
However, natural phase or not, if we have means to stop it, let’s do it!
This has nothing to do with global warming.
You’re a lawyer, Doug, so I am interested in your take on this:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/14644311.htm
How can a city (i.e. taxpayer supported entity) settle a lawsuit for an undisclosed amount?
Unless the amount is $0, I don’t think they can. Seems like there was a case not too long ago where a governmental entity tried to argue that they could keep settlement amount or some other detail like that under wraps by going through their insurance company and the court ultimately decided that even if the money came from the insurer, it was still public information. I can’t recall the case exactly, so I might be horribly off. But, regardless, I would be very surprised if a nondisclosure clause in a settlement withstood a public records challenge.
Doug,
FYI, the author of _Collapse_ is Jared Diamond.
I have the book myself. :)
As long as President GWB takes his scientific advice from Michael Crichton, the Med student turned novelist… we can expect no support from the WH.
However major metopoliton cities like SF, Chicago, Green Bay are moving quickly to become more Green and promote sustainability. Also samll towns like Bloomington, Indiana. Hundreds of cities have signed proposals to contribute to the Kyoto Protocol. This issue must be local – driving the Federal government to support the will of the local/state governments.
Ha Branden,
Doug, Isn’t Dustin Diamond the guy who played Screech on Saved By the Bell?
Scientists disagree and thats based on scientific observation.I suspect that the Bush administration is ‘against’ global warming theory because if true it would require corporations to deal with it,and they dont want to.Theres more and more consensus that there IS warming, but is it temporary and how much of it is natural cycle? But waiting to be sure, may make us too late to act.
“Dustin” changed to “Jared”. Thanks for the correction. Yeah, Dustin is the guy who played Screech in “Saved by the Bell.” I used to watch 3 to 5 episodes per day while nursing hangovers in undergrad. What can I say? I sure am glad the Internet came along.
Totally agree on your points Lou…
except what do you mean by “Scientists disagree and thats based on scientific observation.”?
Of every peer-reviewed scientific paper written on climatology in the last 15 years – not one discounts that the current pattern of global warming is the result of human causes, primarily fossil fuels, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
I remember the Bush administration having found scientists who disagreed that there was global warming (that wasnt natural)but maybe not recently. By ‘scientific method’ I mean collectioning data and analyzing it and not by thumbing through the Bible or checking to see what positon your political contributors want.
No arguments from me Lou. Not sure which climatologists they might have found. I know Bush relied alot on a chat with Crichton who wrote State of Fear about what he saw as warming “hype.” Plus Big Oil just wasted a bunch of money is mischaracterizing a study 5 years ago about inland ice growth in Greenland. The authors blasted the ads in all the major Scientific publications which made some National newspapers.
There are a few scientists out there (I think one is named Fred Smith) who just can’t seem to be convinced by scientific evidence that we are causing global warming. They are (I’m sure coincidentally) well-funded by Exxon.
Like I said, the debate over “WHY” is pointless. We know how a greenhouse works, so we know that reducing emmissions would help. The “Natural Process” line might be weak and funded by oil, but who cares? If we see a comet on course to run into Earth, do we sit on our hands and say, “Well, it’s just a natural processs”?
Focus on what to do about it.
Jason,
A+ analogy, haha. I love it.