










U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts2. Comment #29874 by Stoic on April 5, 2007 at 9:29 am
The draft report predicts a variety of health effects as well, with "increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts,
3. Comment #29876 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 9:46 am
4. Comment #29879 by pastafarian82 on April 5, 2007 at 9:56 am
Comment #29876 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 9:46 am5. Comment #29883 by cassdenata on April 5, 2007 at 10:23 am
The fundies who believe that jesus is coming back is definitely part of the story but not the whole thing. The publics misunderstanding of science and their plain indifference to science as not essential to "anything" in their lives plays a larger role. If only people knew how close we came to destroying the earth before we even knew what was happening, with the hole in the ozone layer. If we would had used bromoflurocarbons instead of chloroflurocarbons for refrigeration (both provide the same service but bromofluorocarbons are much more destructive to the ozone and luckily, slightly more expensive) it would have been extremely destructive. The public doesn't understand the science of climate change. The public doesn't comprehend that science is a study of reality, it isn't (or shouldn't be) politically motivated, or emotionally charged. This disconnect from scientific research and reality is a big part of the problem. With a more all encompassing understanding of science, our political/economic and social policies could be mostly driven by that science. While many have begun to realize the threat of climate change and unstable foreign oil supplies, they rush right to energy sources that could possibly cause greater environmental and social destruction than oil/gas (I'm thinking ethanol here). If our policy were guided by science we would weigh the alternatives and base our answers on energetics, CO2 emissions and other issues.6. Comment #29884 by Monsterbeach on April 5, 2007 at 10:27 am
"Global warming". (Read between the lines when power use this as a mantra)7. Comment #29885 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 10:29 am
8. Comment #29887 by ridelo on April 5, 2007 at 10:51 am
Playtime for humanity is over? Do we have to act as grown-ups from now on? Or can we go on as technofreak but scientophobic chimps?9. Comment #29889 by Jiten on April 5, 2007 at 11:01 am
10. Comment #29890 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 11:09 am
While many have begun to realize the threat of climate change and unstable foreign oil supplies, they rush right to energy sources that could possibly cause greater environmental and social destruction than oil/gas (I'm thinking ethanol here).Cassdenata, I would be interested in learning the greater environmental and social destruction to be caused by the use of ethanol. Where I live they are pushing to build new ethanol plants (since our state grows a lot of corn, which is used to make ethanol) all the time because of its gentler effects on the environment. Just asking if you could share those with me, out of curiosity.
11. Comment #29893 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 11:21 am
12. Comment #29899 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 11:50 am
13. Comment #29901 by Jiten on April 5, 2007 at 12:00 pm
14. Comment #29902 by cassdenata on April 5, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I'll try to break it down but even though I have read much on this topic, I am no expert.15. Comment #29918 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 1:32 pm
16. Comment #29926 by Olliedog on April 5, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Wait, I though God Hates Fags?17. Comment #29931 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 2:42 pm
18. Comment #29934 by cassdenata on April 5, 2007 at 3:02 pm
From what I have read, solar power efficiencies have increased and new materials are being used to make them that are cheaper in the last few years. These technologies are all recent and would take some time to market. One problem with solar is the economics. The traditional silicon solar panel, takes a lot of energy to create and has a pretty limited lifetime. So it takes awhile to break even and then it needs to be replaced fairly rapidly.19. Comment #29937 by andyinsdca on April 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm
20. Comment #29943 by Dreamer's Dilemma on April 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Well, andyinsdca, it is quite simple really. The folks that frequent this site have already settled the matter of God/noGod and have moved on to other matters. Despite an earlier post's claim otherwise, they are politically motivated and emotionally charged and have thrown in their lot with the likes of AlGore, he of "Inconvenient Lie" fame. They are also rather intolerant of dissent, attacking those who disagree in a rather arrogant and condescending way, as only liberals can. Just watch the later posts and see for yourself.21. Comment #29949 by Jiten on April 5, 2007 at 4:56 pm
22. Comment #29958 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 6:13 pm
23. Comment #29959 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 6:29 pm
24. Comment #29962 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 6:48 pm
25. Comment #29965 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 7:11 pm
26. Comment #29967 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 7:33 pm
27. Comment #29977 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 9:39 pm
28. Comment #29980 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 10:14 pm
29. Comment #29988 by Veronique on April 6, 2007 at 2:00 am
30. Comment #29994 by E_L_G on April 6, 2007 at 3:22 am
Brian,31. Comment #30003 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 6, 2007 at 4:34 am
32. Comment #30004 by Seti on April 6, 2007 at 4:43 am
33. Comment #30005 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 6, 2007 at 5:10 am
34. Comment #30008 by E_L_G on April 6, 2007 at 5:55 am
Private Equity means the money doesn't necessarily follow the politics, so it is increasingly difficult to herd the international cats to a single purpose.35. Comment #30009 by Mikado on April 6, 2007 at 6:15 am
Wouldn't it be more productive to wait until the actual report is released and read that instead of press releases from people that clearly do not trust the alleged 'consensus'36. Comment #30012 by Fedler on April 6, 2007 at 6:32 am
37. Comment #30021 by Logicel on April 6, 2007 at 8:31 am
38. Comment #30024 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 6, 2007 at 8:37 am
39. Comment #30028 by ghostbuster on April 6, 2007 at 9:04 am
It's all about keeping your baloney detector clean; no matter where the baloney is coming from, one has to be able to detect it. Global Warming is appropriate on this site. Polite people were never to discuss politics or religion--too bad, they are the two dogmas that have f****d up the world.40. Comment #30044 by E_L_G on April 6, 2007 at 10:38 am
Philos,41. Comment #30068 by Veronique on April 6, 2007 at 4:54 pm
42. Comment #30226 by cassdenata on April 7, 2007 at 8:43 am
It's funny to me that we are debating this issue, whether it is true. It is based on pretty simple science. It is well known that CO2 is the reason our planet is not frigid, without which we wouldn't be here AT ALL. It is well known that extremely destructive and unpleasant climate change has happened in the past and will happen in the future. It is well known that burning fossil fuels and deforestation releases CO2. It is well known that there are some sinks in the environment that retain that CO2 and buffer the system. But beyond that buffering capacity, it is expected that CO2 will rise and so will temperature. The rest is just specific details.43. Comment #30227 by cassdenata on April 7, 2007 at 8:48 am
Oh ya and the Kary Mullis, the man who invented PCR is definitely the right guy to go to and discuss climactic and biogeochemical interactions between land, sea and air and the best way to model them. He is my go to guy. Did I mention that he believes he was encountered by an alien?44. Comment #30359 by DavidJMH on April 7, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,45. Comment #30367 by philos on April 7, 2007 at 9:26 pm
46. Comment #30559 by cassdenata on April 8, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Here is a report that a colleague just sent me including his words about the report.47. Comment #31490 by Veronique on April 13, 2007 at 12:35 am
48. Comment #31620 by MemeOrandum on April 13, 2007 at 2:02 pm
First of all sorry to enter this debate so late. Seems I missed out some of the good parts...:-)Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com
1. Comment #29873 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 9:03 am
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen