- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
traumatic: "I said earlier, the change is constant and has been for the entire history of the planet."
And as I said earlier, the rate of change is not constant, it hasn't accelerated this quickly before for the entire recorded history of the planet, and it was and is both predicted and explained by fossil fuel burning.
traumatic: "You read about the IPCC being a "scientific body." I didn't know economists were scientists."
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a "scientific body." And per the NAS (and with several other national science academies):
There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate... Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
traumatic: "The sooner we realize that cutting down on CO2 emissions, while definitely a good idea, isn't going to stop climate change (I mean, that's ludicrous if you've actually thought about it.)"
It's also a straw man: climate scientists don't say that. What they say instead is that cutting down on CO2 emissions will slow the rate of climate change.
traumatic: "the sooner we can all get back to the business of not living in fear of something we don't know anything about"
Climate scientists know a lot about global warming, even if you dont.
