Letters to the Editor
-
Thank You! Great Article
Outstanding article! This is the first time I have seen an article in the popular press that acknowledges the underestimations inherent in the IPCC reports. Thank you for setting the record straight in such a clear fashion.
Now, what are we going to do about it? Most people will probably go in for some sort of “kick the problem down the road” techno-fix. They’ll look forward to buying a Prius, a front-loading washer, a few compact fluorescents and combining their errands and tell themselves that that is all that can reasonably be done. Sadly, such an attitude dooms us all. Look at the data (or the statements from those who collected/interpreted it). We need to cut our emissions by 80-90% by 2020 or risk watching some fearsome positive feedbacks kick in. And make no mistake about it, those feedbacks likely doom our descendents to truly horrible existences.
What does 80% reduction of carbon footprint look like? No fossil-fool powered wheelchairs for able-bodied people. No imported food. Massive increases in local, organic farms. Severe restrictions in meat consumption. Imposition of individual carbon quotas (like the gas, sugar and flour quotas we used while combating the fascist menace in the 1940s). No more cheap plastic crap from China. Can we handle it? Are we as tough as our grandparents or will we let the planet die because we just can’t show up at work with a little sweat on our brows? I’m currently not optimistic that we will make the right choice but would love to be surprised.
-
There is no certainty on this
"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact"
"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly.."
So Richard Lindzen Prof. of Meteorology at MIT, Freman Dyson at Princeton and Cary Mullis, Nobel Laureate are somehow incapable of reading the climate data? are laughable? is that how you reach conclusions, dismiss the opinion of anyone that disagrees with you? How come you cherry pick and mention only TV weathermen and the like. Inconvenient perhaps? Didn't Hansen at NASA have to admit his top ten hottest years in the U.S list was flat out wrong last August? after an amateur meteorologist called him on it? Aren't the accusations Gore's movie contained nine major factual errors agreed upon. The British ruled "An Inconvenient Truth" was one sided and could not be presented as the sole authority on global warming in educating their children. This is the British legal system attempting to ensure children are properly educated not indoctrinated.
"But then the doubters aren't interested in things like data and observations and peer-reviewed research"
That is pathetic. Do you really believe places like MIT would or could tolerate bogus Science or Scientists for one minute? Lindzens research and stance simply have to hold up or he would be out. The lifeblood of these places is the credibility of their Science.
Oh and one last thing. Snow and ice in China destroyed an area of forest larger than England recently, levelled it, greater than 90% of the land destroyed in some areas. That is I calculate 15 times larger an area than destroyed by the biggest U.S forest fire ever recorded back in 1910 (or around then).
Tell me, what destruction has global warming wreaked on this scale?
I just hope people continue to think for themselves and realize the "data" is only as good as the people recording it and that Science is riddled with politics, vested interest and big fat research grants and publishing rights available so long as you don't disagree too violently or publicly and ruin a perfectly good story.
-
climate change is interesting and all....
BUT, does any around here care that Turkey has invaded Iraq, and all our defense secretary can say is, "I hope they leave soon?"
-
The Other 10%
Deniers love to cradle the few "scientists" who have doubts about global warming, legitimate or otherwise. They conveniently forget the other side of the equation, the 10% (or more) who think the problem is much much worse than our bureaucratically driven government can admit. The facts are not in doubt, and the conclusions from those facts are becoming more obvious.
As usual, brother Joe has cut to the chase.
-
@Santos
Your argument only went 90% of the way to its concussion. Romm is preaching to the choir. There is nothing in his argument that would persuade a fence sitter (like me) to jump into the global warming camp.
It's kinda sad. This is a very important issue. So important that, even if Romm is completely wrong, we can't risk doing nothing.
As for Romm's article, it was basically a bunch of specious and petulant foot stomping. He's right dammit! He's right because he's better and faster and smarter and correcter than everyone else. Scientists that disagree with him are dumb, dumb, dumb! See what they say! Doh!
It's going to take a more mature argument than Romm's to convince me one way or the other.
-
Well, thanks for settling the issue...
...if this debate about global warming kept going I wouldn't have time to go skiing on the three feet of snow covering my fields in late February. Let's stop CO2 emissions because if it keeps getting warmer, I'll have snow coverage till mid-May next year.
Stupidest... theory... ever... At least I'll never run out of material to rip on my liberal friends, even though they're shaking their heads over this one already.
-
I agree with questioning...
Oh yeah Baron, sure, it is the number of people agreeing that counts. The truth by committee lets call it. What a wonderful idea.
Well Science for centuries has made its greatest strides
precisely because a few lone mavericks turned their back on
the "majority" or prevailing opinion. They flat out refused to listen to panels, commmitees, popes and princes (and Salon articles telling them how to think). They didn't seem to care only 0.00001% of people even remotely agreed with them (unlike your bold self).
Shout down their modern day counterparts at your peril. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Jenner, Einstein, the list goes on and on.. Goldberg single handedly figured out what caused Pellagra at the beginning of this century despite open scorn from the medical "community" (as did Jenner with smallpox centuries earlier). You can close your ears to difference of opinion but it is never a good idea.