UN Sees Faster Global Warming - will GW 'Global Warming' Bush care?

Great Debates
1

Today the UN released a report warning that there is new evidence that Global Warming
is caused by humans and is threatening the environment. I doubt it’s just a coincidence
the report is released on GW “Global Warming” Bush’s first day in office. Do you think
Bush will listen to these warnings and try to help the environment? I don’t, which is
why I think Mr. Environment Gore would be a better president.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010122/ts/environment_warming_dc.html

Monday January 22 9:56 AM ET
UN Sees Faster Global Warming, Humanity Responsible
By Tiffany Wu

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - The earth’s atmosphere is warming faster than
expected, evidence is mounting that humans are to blame and tens of millions
of people may be forced from low-lying areas as seas rise, the U.N. said on
Monday…"

{Edited for copyright violations. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 01-22-2001 at 10:44 AM]

2

Moderator, my title should say:
UN Sees Faster Global Warming - will GW ‘Global Warming’ Bush care?

Please fix it.

3

[Moderator Hat ON]

Done. I also “fixed” your OP’s copyright violations–don’t post large chunks of copyrighted information on this MB.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

4

Probably there’ll be no effect on U.S. policy in this area – nor should there be, as these stories are based on very little.

The TAR (Third Assessment Report) of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Pabel on Climate Change) contains a whole bunch of guesses about climate change. The most radically scary (although not the most probable) has global temperatures increasing by about 6°C. Since “World About To End” sells more newspapers (and is a better ground for bureaucrats to extract cash) than “Everything Copacetic”, that’s the story that got released.

Incidentally, there’s a difference between “global warming” and “global warming indisputably caused by human beings leading to severe impacts on quality of life and requiring that draconian measures whined for by self-anointed environmentalists be implemented yesterday at the latest”. The two do tend to get conflated, though.

5

I disagree with Akatsukami.

For the rest of the world this isn’t even an issue, it has to be addressed and Governments are putting considerable effort (and, crucially, ammending the tax sctrucure) in order to do something.

I think that in most of the first world democracies this issue is much further developed so I’ll offer a retrospective view of how we may have got here.

Thing is, we’re all in democracies - that means politicians need to get elected. They do that by offering the voting public policies they want. This is not, repeat not a Government led issue. The public has to become informed, actually cars and, here’s the rub, pay for the consequences of a healthier environmental policy. Then the politician’s will take notice.

The Environment wasn’t even on the recent election radar in the US – and that at a time when there were no important issues of the day to be debated (i.e. a war, the Communist threat, etc.). Also, the debacle the rest of the world was confronted with after the recent refusal of the US to adhere to Kyoto, the lobby system continuing to affect the US political agenda and the election of George W Bush all make me very pessimistic that the US will address this issue anytime soon.

IMHO, the public at large is not informed enough to understand what is happening so there is little reason for them to care. George at the behest of the corporations will continue to avoid the issue and propagate misinformation as well as continue with the same old ‘we do things differently here’ propaganda bollocks.

25% of everything that contributes to global warming emanates from within the US and that percentage will continue to increase as other nations try (albeit with mixed results) to reach their Kyoto targets.

6

Can someone clarify a few thing for me?

  1. What is the “new evidence that Global Warming
    is caused by humans and is threatening the environment.”

  2. Can anyone prove that global warming is in fact human caused and not a product of geological change that the earth has been known to go through in its history?

  3. Hasn’t this been one of the coldest winters on record?

7

Global warming but everywhere locally it gets colder:)

8

  1. The article I link to says in the first line, which I also included in my post, “evidence is mounting that humans are to blame and tens of millions of people may be forced from low-lying areas as seas rise, the U.N. said on Monday…”. If you read the article it expands on these points. I don’t know how much clearer it can be.

  2. Read the article.

  3. It has been where I live, but globally it is getting warmer: ``The decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the last century and the warming in this century is warmer than anything in the last 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere,’’ Watson said.

9

  1. Granted, I meant to ask for proof not evidence. However, pointing to that quote is still not evidence, it is just circular reasoning. Show me the evidence.

  2. I did read the article and the question of the possbility of geological change is not addressed.

  3. I would like to see the records from the last 1000 years that support the claim that this was the warmest year on record. I doubt that such records exist. Anecdotes may exist, but anecdotes aren’t facts. It is my understanding that any temperature records are really only acturate in the last 120-130 years, and even then, what was being measured? Air temp? Water temp? There are no long term records.

10

adam yax, the only way to get concrete, indisputable proof will be to do nothing and watch the climate change, and then say, in retrospect, “Yep, we screwed up. Too bad, really.”

Global climate change is supposed to occur on timescales of millions of years. We’re currently seeing changes which seem to be occuring on scales of hundreds of years. We can just shrug and hope everything turns out fine, but there is definite evidence that we may be causing it, and there is a chance these changes could have catastrophic results. If we were going to err, it seems like erring on the side of “being extra careful not to destroy the planet” might not be a bad way to go, even if it causes inconvenient environmental restrictions.

11

You’d think the potential effects of Global Warming were severe enough to warrant some kind of preparation…

12

A research study released late last week (it was featured briefly on abcnews.com but doesn’t show up in an archives search) found that tropospheric warming was not occurring as should be happening if greenhouse gases were forcing significant global warming. The report’s conclusion was that current suppositions about global warming may be inaccurate. Just one report, but cause for thought, especially in the light of the coldest November-December period on record in the U.S. and other dramatic regional shifts toward colder temperatures (as in Siberia). It’s curious (George) that all the recent record warm spells have been treated in the news as proof of global warming, while this cold spell is largely ignored.

Factors that have limited public acceptance of the need for drastic lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include 1) the notorious uncertainty inherent in long-range climate prediction, and 2) the perception that international organizations such as the U.N. are more interested in addressing redistribution of wealth than in fixing the environment. Under previous treaty proposals, heavily populated nations such as China would get to expand industrial production without significant restriction, while the U.S. would have to markedly scale back its economy.

I too see no coincidence in the timing of the U.N. “end-of-the-world” announcement. It’s meant to pressure the U.S. and embarass Bush.

It’s a lot easier to yammer at the U.S. and other Western nations about one-sided concessions than it is to address the exploding population and environmental destruction on an equitable global basis.

13

Jackmannii: It’s a lot easier to yammer at the U.S. and other Western nations about one-sided concessions

Whaddya mean “the US and other Western nations,” Jack? Most “other Western nations” do not agree with the US’s resistance to the Kyoto protocols and are restricting their own emissions even more severely.

14

They can do as they please, Kims. God knows the Eeeeuuugghhh (or E.U. for short) has fouled up enough already; many of us do not obsess about the need to follow it into the toilet.

15

Wasn’t there an “ice age” 10-20k years ago. IIRC glaciers penetrated far into the Northern US.

I’m glad we’ve had a bit of global warming since then, or all of y’all yankees would be moving down here :D.

16

**

According to an article on MSN scientist have known that the polar ice caps have been melting for the past 14,000 years. Prevailing opinions vary on how long it will take to signifigantly affect sea levels some saying 100 some saying 1,000 years.

Of course they are worried that perhaps the glaciers are melting at a faster rate and will cause a signifigant rise in sea level faster then expected.

What should Bush do? What can Bush do to help the environment considering this has been going on for 14,000 years?

Marc

17

Um, Marc, the question of global climate change is hardly limited to whether or not, or how fast, the polar ice caps are melting, or whether or not, or how fast, the sea level is rising. Saying that some aspects of climate change are (most probably) extremely long-term developments unrelated, or minimally related, to human activity is hardly enough to justify the conclusion that therefore none of it has anything to do with humans and there’s nothing we can or should do about it, which is what you seem to be trying to say!

To round out the scraps of information from your one “article on MSN”, you might want to try looking at some of the following references:

Enjoy!

18

The evidence has been mounting for a long time. This third IPCC assessment is just bringing it all together. And, by the way, while the IPCC is under the auspices of the UN, it is a scientific panel that represents the consensus of something like 2500 scientists around the world. kimstu has kindly provided you with some cites…Here are a few more to some recent papers:

T.J. Crowley, Science 289, 270 (July 14, 2000) [see also the summary by M. E. Mann on p. 253 of that issue].

M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, Nature 392, 779 (April 23, 1998) [see also the summary by G. Hegerl in that issue].

There are also some good jumping off points on the web. Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/0warming.html ,
a site at the University of Wisconsin discussing some of the politics of global warming: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog100/GlobWarm-Ideol.htm , and a site by a journalist who has gotten quite involved in this issue, with many useful references: http://www.heatisonline.org/

Why is it that global warming naysayers sound so much like evolution naysayers? No, it cannot be proven in the sense that one proves things in mathematics. The study of global climate change is a quite new science, but the evidence has been mounting steadily in the last several years. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that warming is happening and it is human-caused. In fact, I went to see a talk by one of the big global warming skeptics, Patrick Michaels (senior fellow at the Cato Institute and with his research funded in part by the Western Fuels Association, who have been at the forefront of the fight against the Kyoto Protocal et al.) last week. Even he now admits that human-induced warming is occuring although he argues that it is only occurring in limited regions and is unlikely to have a big impact…And, as I said, he is among a small minority of the scientific community (a fact he readily admits) in these latter views.

Maybe in some parts of the country…although I have no idea if it has been around the world as a whole. Yes, climate fluctuates. You really need to read up on the science before you can comment on it. Scientists are not just saying, “Gee…It sure has been hot here lately. The planet must be warming.”

This is admittedly a case when one may not be able to nail down the science absolutely precisely before taking some precautionary measures. The point is that if we wait until we know with more certainty exactly what will happen, it may be too late…or a lot more costly because the measures will have to be more drastic. There are several studies out there (UCS did one, 5 national labs of the U.S. government did another) that show that the costs to go most or all the way to meeting the Kyoto Protocol will be small, perhaps even negative. (This basic view has also been endorsed by a petition of some 2000 economists, I believe, including several Nobel Laureates.) There will also be other ancillary benefits in terms of cuts in pollutants.

19

· This is a very comprehensive, science-based climate change information web site. The first section is focused on understanding the basics of global warming and the greenhouse effect; later sections deal with trends, modeling, impacts, and adaptation options - http://www.pacinst.org/ccresource.html

· For a wide selection of recent scientific studies and news stories on climate change - http://www.TheEnergyGuy.com/Links_ClimateChange.html

· For a wide selection of web-based information sources on climate-related issues- from health to El Niño, from agriculture to satellites, and weather and climate news from all over the globe-see http://www.internets.com/climate.htm

· One of the most comprehensive, frequently updated information source on global change, put together by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security - http://www.globalchange.org/

· Office of Science and Technology. 1998. Climate change: State of knowledge. Washington, DC. (Also available at http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov

20

You are my hero. I simply do not have the time or energy.

My skin crawls, the hair on the back of my neck bristles, my stomach churns, every time I hear or read someone talking about how we aren’t * absolutely sure without any room whatsoever for the tiniest doubt, - in other words, we haven’t received a personally signed and notarized gurantee from God - * that global warming is real or that we have anything to do with it. Yes, we are, but even if we weren’t…should we wait until the planet is fucking wasteland before we act?

GOD…this is the one topic that makes me want to do nothing but swear and scream! Self involved FUCKS…

And this is the #1 reason I cannot BEAR to have that bastard in the White House. Anything and every other evil deed he might do can be undone - destroying environment cannot.

I HATE HIM!!!

I have to go, I’m starting to foam at the mouth.