Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document The Scientists Speak

by NY Times

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/opinion/20tue1.html

The world's scientists have done their job. Now it's time for world leaders, starting with President Bush, to do theirs. That is the urgent message at the core of the latest — and the most powerful — report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,500 scientists who collectively constitute the world's most authoritative voice on global warming.

Released in Spain over the weekend, the report leaves no doubt that man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (and, to a lesser extent, deforestation) have been responsible for the steady rise in atmospheric temperatures.

If these emissions are not brought under control, the report predicts, the consequences could be disastrous: further melting at the poles, sea levels rising high enough to submerge island nations, the elimination of one-quarter or more of the world's species, widespread famine in places like Africa, more violent hurricanes.

And it warns that time is running out. To avoid the worst of these disasters, it says, the world must stabilize emissions of greenhouse gases by 2015, begin to reduce them shortly thereafter and largely free itself of carbon-emitting technologies by midcentury.

As Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who leads the I.P.C.C., noted: "What we do in the next two or three years will define our future."

Deep in all this gloom is a considerable ray of hope: significant progress toward stabilizing and reducing emissions can be achieved using known technologies. This a hugely important message for policy makers and for those who say there's no point in spending money on the problem because the game is already lost. The world does not have to rely on pie-in-the-sky technologies, the report insists. What it really needs is a policy structure to encourage major investments in cleaner technologies that are already at hand or within reach.

The report's urgent warnings and its message of hope could not be more timely. Nations will gather in Bali next month to begin framing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012. Under normal circumstances, Bali would be the beginning of a long, contentious process; Kyoto, negotiated in 1997, did not take effect for seven years. What the I.P.C.C. is saying is that the world cannot afford to wait for another grand agreement, and certainly not for another seven years. It needs action now.

Every member of Congress should read this report. The Senate has begun hearings on legislation that would put a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. The bill is not perfect and, to some critics, not strong enough. But it is a worthy start and would move the United States toward the cleaner fuels and carbon-free technologies essential to the task of changing the way the world produces and uses energy.

Mr. Bush should also read it and order extra copies for members of his staff. After years of denial, the president now concedes that a problem exists. But he still insists on voluntary remedies and still worries about the costs to the American economy of anything more ambitious. If there is one message Mr. Bush and other world leaders must take away from the scientists, it is that the price of more delay will be far greater.

Comments 1 - 23 of 23 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #89345 by arogop on November 20, 2007 at 10:54 am

 avatarI certainly feel we need to do a better job with "managing" our enviroment. However I have a few questions before I support such "humans are evil and we are in major trouble" ideas.

1. Doesn't the historical record say the CO2 levels increase after warming occured and thus may not have that great of a green house effect?

2. Doesn't the historical record show (to the best of our knowledge) that these warming spells happen routinely and do in fact happen over short and long periods of time.

Andrew

Other Comments by arogop

2. Comment #89347 by thirdchimpanzee on November 20, 2007 at 11:03 am

Nobody said humans are evil in ignoring global warming, just stupid. En masse, we appear to have the herd intelligence of deer, and we do know better. This crisis could yet have a positive outcome in terms of comprehending our global impact, and our global connectedness - but make no mistake, this is a very big crisis.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

3. Comment #89350 by thompjs on November 20, 2007 at 11:08 am

arogop, Take a look at Scientific American from a couple of months ago. They have great article on climate change, modeling of climate change. I think it is great starting point to investigate the subject.

Other Comments by thompjs

4. Comment #89351 by Matt7895 on November 20, 2007 at 11:15 am

 avatarI think the denial of global warming is similar to the denial of evolution. In both cases, those in a state of denial are only doing so because they would be the ones to lose if the general consensus accepted them. So their goal is a contrarian approach - to steadfast hold an illogical position against overwhelming evidence. In global warming, it is the oil lobby. In evolution it is the fundamentalist mega-church lobby. Both are very powerful.

Other Comments by Matt7895

5. Comment #89356 by Klaatu barada nikto on November 20, 2007 at 11:30 am

 avatarHow do we appeal to politicians to manage the environment? Their answer to drought is to pray for rain. This isn't true of all of them, but enough to have kept this agenda stalled for years.

The scientists will probably be ignored until it's too late. Then science will be expected to bail us out of our energy and environmental problems.

Ignore it and wait for a miracle.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

6. Comment #89361 by annabanana on November 20, 2007 at 11:49 am

 avatarThis problem disturbs me deeply. I work for a state government in the U.S. regulating industrial facilities air emissions and I know that no big changes will come about in this state unless the federal government forces the facilities to change because our state doesn't have the power or even the expertise really to do so. Hopefully the president will quit ignoring the problem once he realizes that significant changes could occur during his lifetime and actually impact his life.

Other Comments by annabanana

7. Comment #89363 by Erik on November 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm

arogop,

You might also take a look at www.realclimate.org for the perspective of a climatologist on the very issues you raised.

Other Comments by Erik

8. Comment #89365 by Jamougha on November 20, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Andrew,


1. Doesn't the historical record say the CO2 levels increase after warming occured and thus may not have that great of a green house effect?


This is a half-truth that has spread pretty widely. the earth's climate is a set of positive and negative feedback loops. One of the positive loops is the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When temperatures increase, this causes greenhouse gases to be emitted naturally; they warm the earth further, causing more warming, and so on. This is obviously a cause for concern, not complacency.


2. Doesn't the historical record show (to the best of our knowledge) that these warming spells happen routinely and do in fact happen over short and long periods of time.


The climate is in constant flux. Yes, it's still possible that the warming we've seen in the 20th century in mainly due to natural variation.

Realistically though, if you pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere it's going to change the climate. This isn't a real area of debate as it's basic physics. The question is, how much will the climate change for a given amount of CO2, and how? If we maintain 'business as usual' then the effects of global warming may be quite mild and manageable. They may also be extreme and near-catastrophic.

Unfortunately, if we wait around to find out then it will be far too late to change our minds. The best available climate models give enough probability to negative or highly negative outcomes that it seems to make economic sense to deal with the problem.

Other Comments by Jamougha

9. Comment #89367 by bluebird on November 20, 2007 at 12:35 pm

 avatarThanks RDF for posting this update!

There are numerous battles in this "war". Locally, Kansas recently rejected permits for new coal powerplants: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802452.html & Missouri groups want to follow suit http://www.moenviron.org/

Our teen-age sons understand how vital this issue is, for their future children and the human race in general. We all have a vested interest.

Other Comments by bluebird

10. Comment #89372 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

 avatarI wonder will this convince the nay sayers? Somehow I doubt it:-) We will soon see a steady stream of familiar faces posting the same tired, long refuted, "creation" class arguments we've all seen before.

We can hope there will be fewer of them this time, the steady, relentless stream of contradictory info has got to be wearing some of the more sensible denialists down. I mean they are rationalists right? They've got to accept mountains of mutually supporting evidence. Right?

Good work scientists!!! We might get out of this unscathed, but it won't be because of prayer, and it will be in spite of the best efforts of the american republican party to bury us knee deep in CO2, depleted uranium and tele-evangelists:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

11. Comment #89375 by annabanana on November 20, 2007 at 1:25 pm

 avatarEven if the nay-sayers are somehow convinced of global warming, they'll probably respond with something daft like, "It's the beginning of the apocalypse" while preparing themselves for rapture and continuing on their merry, carbon dioxide-emitting ways...

Other Comments by annabanana

12. Comment #89379 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 1:33 pm

 avatar 11. Comment #89374 by crazy old man on November 20, 2007 at 1:25 pm
As far as our "pumping" CO2, there is a bit of datum that has always prevented me from making the next step to global warming warrior. I'm grateful for this thread because I've been looking to dispense with any baggage that may preventing me from getting on the right side of what appears to one of the defining issues of our time.


There is a pretty good post by Stephen Fry (here on the Dawkins site) on the subject.

You should also check out this site :
http://www.realclimate.org/

Enjoy:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

13. Comment #89394 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 2:04 pm

This is one of those cases where one needs to consider all available evidence -about the changing climate and about human nature- and reach a logical conclusion about how one must handle this very serious crisis.

I'm going to see about buying some land in Greenland. That baby's going to be big on the realestate market in a few years.

Other Comments by SilentMike

14. Comment #89542 by nickthelight on November 21, 2007 at 3:31 am

 avatarThis is news?

Other Comments by nickthelight

15. Comment #89543 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 3:42 am

 avatar
I have heard that CO2 the amount of which we humans are responsible for generating pales in comparison to the amount resulting from normal volcanic activity.


It is actually the other way around. Humans produce around 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, volcanoes about 0.3 gigatonnes.

Other Comments by steve99

16. Comment #89545 by steveroot on November 21, 2007 at 4:07 am

 avatarAn excellent book on this subject is Red Sky at Morning, by James G. Speth.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

17. Comment #89568 by annabanana on November 21, 2007 at 6:02 am

 avatarI can also tell you that in our state we have a continual increase in hydrocarbon emissions and oxides of nitrogen (in so much that we are about to have areas that will soon not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards) which are compounds that contribute to the formation of ground level ozone (which is also a contributor to global warming).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11838578/

http://www.scdhec.com/environment/baq/scozone.aspx?Page=scozone

Other Comments by annabanana

18. Comment #89626 by arogop on November 21, 2007 at 9:29 am

 avatar10. Comment #89372 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Let me reintroduce myself again. I am an American Republican. (and yet you and I have so much in common, How does that work? :) ) I represent a significant part of the party. We are just not in control of our party like when certain extremists took over the Democratic party and allowed the Republicans to really take control of all of the goverment for the first time in many many moons.

I am an atheist, a conservationalist, and have a scientific background.

I am also a skeptic. We have been forcefed so mush BS from both sides on this issue that it is very hard to determine where the truth lies.

The beauty of coming to a site like this is the free flow of ideas/knowledge and more importantly the criticism of said knowledge.

Other Comments by arogop

19. Comment #89629 by arogop on November 21, 2007 at 9:33 am

 avatarP.S. I am old enough to remember when those who now seem to have the "moral highground" on this issue were full of S**T and engaged in such deception and misinformation that it would make any mega church preacher proud.

Other Comments by arogop

20. Comment #89647 by octopus on November 21, 2007 at 11:03 am

It is very unfortunate that this scientific issue always ends up as republicans against democrats.
It is also unfortunate that scientists do not seem to have much credibility on this issue for some people - very often the same people who use science to fight religious superstition.

Other Comments by octopus

21. Comment #89837 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 21, 2007 at 9:49 pm

 avatar21. Comment #89626 by arogop on November 21, 2007 at 9:29 am

We have been forcefed so mush BS from both sides on this issue that it is very hard to determine where the truth lies.


I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is simply nonsense. Even a passing aquaintance with the subject over the last several years demonstrates an overwhelming consensus, which has built consistently. Even if this where not true, there are several independently compelling reasons to quickly move the US down the same road as the EU as regards energy efficiency.

If you are still a "skeptic", it isn't for rational reasons. You must try and detach yourself from whatever noxious ideology is blinding you.

The only developed country in the world that has "doubts" (other than the vast majority of it's scientific community) is the US. This is purely and simply cultural, it has nothing to do with science, except to use the tentative and provisional nature of all science, as a tool to confuse and obfuscate.

The prevarication on this subject should be punished politically for decades, even perhaps with the utter destruction of the republican party. Ah well, one can dream:-)

We may have much in common, but you'll find on the subject of AGW I tend to side uncompromisingly with the overwhelming scientific consensus, and I get testy at the presentation of a few cherry picked dissenting voices as an "opposing" view. Especially by non climatologists. The only sensible position for a non expert in a complex world is to determine if a consensus exists among the experts, and take their lead from them. The level of confidence in a given area, being related to the level of consensus.

Still, there is no sense in being a total ass about the thing. Judge Jones was a republican, and look how that worked out:-) My take is that you (and he) are probably in the wrong party, unfortunately the US system tends to corral people into two diverse, massive opposing camps. You chaps might think about proportional representation to fix that.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

22. Comment #91857 by arogop on November 29, 2007 at 1:06 pm

 avatar24. Comment #89837 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Wrong party... probably not. I'm a capitalist. I believe in less goverment not more.

Much in common... Absolutely.

Noxious Ideology... Yes it's called scientific proof/ or at least strong theories.

With the last point, Global warming/climate change is not there yet. The arguments presented to me are pretty weak to support that humans are fully responsible for what is going on. Should we spend money on it to find out the truth. YES. It is important. Should we wreak the economies of the world and punge us into a great depression based on a hypothothis. NO.

I would love to get rid of the oil in my life. I drive two E85 trucks. My gas truck is parked. If solar or wind was affordable I would get all of my electric needs from it. etc etc

Remember that the same models used for gobal warming can also predict global cooling if you make minor changes to some of your assumptions. (and these assumptions do not seem to be that great)

I want science dammit!! Not theology!!

Other Comments by arogop

23. Comment #143501 by FusionBeliever on March 14, 2008 at 6:56 am

It might be that the Earth is getting warmer; the cause is rising levels of carbon dioxide; the rise is all due to humans; the drop in global average temperatures 1940-1970 was due to aerosols; if the rise continues there will be serious consequences; the ill effects will overwhelm the benefits; climate model forecasts are accurate; there will be a tipping point, after which the situation cannot be recovered; Government action is needed, will work and will not have catastrophic unintended consequences.

But it's a lot not to be sceptical about. Bertrand Russell, quoted in The God Delusion (p52) says: "Many orthodox people speak as though it is the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake." For dogma, read the need for political action.

Not that I want to add to the heat. The debate here is much more civilized than elsewhere.

How about this: the world should aggressively chase the dream of abundant clean energy through nuclear fusion. At the very least, all spending on manned space flight should be diverted to nuclear fusion research, not least because space exploration on a grand scale will be necessary for humanity's survival in the future, and that will require massive amounts of energy.

Other Comments by FusionBeliever
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE