Blogcritics Comments on Climate Change Suddenly Looks a Lot Closer

Comment by Chad Kister

Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:26:39 EDT

Climate change is indeed immensely startling, as I reveal in my newest book, Arctic Melting. But in addition to showing the horrific climate change crisis that we face, Arctic Melting also shows how we can meet all of the world's energy needs through efficiency, wind and solar. Rather than focusing solely on the problem that we face, we should instead also focus on the solutions, and all of the other problems that will be solved as we switch to renewable energy to solve the climate change crisis, such as coal mine destruction, acid mine drainage, acid rain, mercury and particulate pollution and the adverse effects of oil development and petrol smog, all of which would be solved as we switch our energy to efficiency, wind and solar. We must make this the central organizing principal of our governments and institutions, and if it is not, we should use the courts and have mass demonstrations to demand that it is. I feel especially compelled to take action as a U.S. citizen, as I am aware and apalled by the fact that with 4 percent of the world's population, we emit 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Chad Kister Athens, Ohio (United States)

Comment by Hoggle

Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:00:34 EST

Hmmm - except that the preview is not accurate, darnit. right click on my examples and view source to find out how it's done.

Comment by Hoggle

Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:59:13 EST

Yes, the topic got derailed when you dangled the bait for David in post #43 :) [Alas only basic html is allowed and I don't think it's possible to demonstrate it here as MT will always try to make anything between arrowheads active. Comments Editor] I think the recent spate of articles concerning US states and cities ignoring the whitehouse on global heating (warming sounds so benign - James Lovelock uses heating and I think I will too) shows that Bush is increasingly isolated and marginalised in this fight for survival. See here

Comment by Deano

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:21:18 EST

It's not just isolated with climate and global warming science. It's popped up at NASA as well... "A BUSH presidential appointee to NASA told a web designer for the research agency that he would have to go through the site and stick the words 'theory' before every reference to the big bang. George Deutsch, 24, a man whose qualifications include being a 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign worker, was seen by Bush as the ideal man as his appointed spinner to NASA." It continues... "He said that the Big Bang is not a proven fact it is just opinion. "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator. This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA," he wrote." Here is the original article; http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29502 (sorry I have no idea how to make the link active...) [The next time you're logged into blogger, create a new post with a link in it. Click HTML View and you'll see how it's done. Comments Editor]

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:32:50 EST

Top climatologist accuses US of trying to gag him � 12:57 30 January 2006 � NewScientist.com news service NewScientist.com staff and AF NASA's top climate scientist has accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out after he called for swift cuts in emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming in a recent lecture. James Hansen, director of the US space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his forthcoming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website and requests for media interviews, the New York Times reported on Sunday. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," said Hansen, who told the paper he would ignore the restrictions. Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at NASA, denied that there was any effort to silence Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts." Acosta said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination." Different planet Hansen has been issuing about the long-term threat of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, and has had run-ins with various US politicians. He said that "efforts to quiet him" had begun in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on December 6, 2005, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In this talk he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, but that without leadership by the US, climate change would eventually leave the Earth "a different planet". US administration policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions. "After that speech and the release of data by Dr Hansen on December 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such statements continued, those officers and Dr Hansen said in interviews," the Times reported. Hansen said "it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase 'to understand and protect our home planet'". Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, is reported as saying there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up". However, he added: "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:00:53 EST

I believe the subject is Global warming? But I did love your pretty highlighting! Again... until sea water actually laps at the steps leading up to the front door of the Bush White House, any reports and facts concerning global warming-no matter how scientific-will be considered opinion, and most likely will be altered to reflect that point. It'd be so wonderful to stay on topic!

Comment by Hoggle

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:55:08 EST

Jet said:

Okay, so what you're saying Hoggle is that any FACTS reported in any newspaper that don't support the Bush position is opinion-typical

I said

Something other than newspaper speculation or accusations of pressure groups is needed, if it is to qualify as evidence.

So, no, that's not even close to what I'm saying. You made a claim to have multiple sources, and I asked you to back that claim up, specifying that it would be a waste of time to produce such secondary sources. However, a newspaper article that publishes first-hand evidence, such as the downing street memo, is perfectly valid. Articles that make unsubstantiated claims are worse than useless for getting at the facts.

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:40:33 EST

Actually, Natalie, until sea water actually laps at the steps leading up to the front door of the Bush White House, any reports and facts concerning global warming-no matter how scientific-will be considered opinion, and most likely altered to reflect that point. You've written a very good article, consise and to the point, too bad it won't be taken seriously...

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:34:10 EST

Natalie, the real isssue in the Guardian article is not how many metres the sea might rise - that's a foegone conclusion in the wake of the ice melting - but when? If it is later than three weeks from now, no action will be taken to abate or prevent it.... That, apparently, is human nature.

Comment by Natalie Bennett

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:15:14 EST

From today's Guardian: "Half of Greenland and vast areas of Antarctica are destined to melt if global warming continues at the same pace until the end of the century, scientists warned yesterday. Their research shows that the loss of so much ice will trigger dramatic rises in sea levels, ultimately swamping low-lying regions of Essex, Lincolnshire and Norfolk and threatening the flood defences of cities such as London, Liverpool and Bristol. The last time so much ice was lost from the poles - in a period between ice ages 129,000 years ago - global sea levels rose by four to six metres. Experts believe many coastal regions would suffer long before sea levels rose significantly, because even a minor rise will make storm surges more devastating and increase the risk of flooding. A rise of one metre would in effect close the port of London as the Thames barrier would need to be raised for 300 days a year to protect the city, according to one scientist."

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:02:08 EST

Okay, so what you're saying Hoggle is that any FACTS reported in any newspaper that don't support the Bush position is opinion-typical Okay, Dave-where IS the yellow cake??? Why hasn't it been found? You'd think the White House would have if splashed all over the front pages and screamed from every pulpet from Jetty Falwell to Rush Limbaugh, to Dave Nalle's right-wing pulpits. This site's political wing makes Fox New's "Fair and balanced" reporting look like the CBS Evening News in comparison! If you were to print out every political post on this site and stacked the pages neatly on your desk, they'd fall off the right side (and hopefully in to the waste basket) Why? For God's sake-Dave Nalle is the political editor of this site! Read any five-Hell any Two of his posts or comments and you can see that anyone even slightly right of center politically has a snowball's chance in hell here... Insults, personal attacks that have nothing to do with this post/string to follow...

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:59:51 EST

The world climate may or may not be changing, but the climate at BC hasn't. Nigh every article turns into a debate over the Iraq war. For a change of pace, I suggest, as I have previously, that the danger we face is either from sudden climate change - like those mammoths found whole and frozen with food in their stomachs - or from cooking like frogs in a pot - unaware that the climate is killing us until it actually does.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:56:37 EST

Two points about the yellowcake forgery issue. First, it was not forged by the Bush administration, but received by them third hand from sources they had no reason not to believe. Second, it was highly believable because in the past on three separate occasions the Iraqi government HAD bought yellowcake from Niger. Dave

Comment by Hoggle

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:51:41 EST

Please tell me some of your sources. Links would be nice. Something other than newspaper speculation or accusations of pressure groups is needed, if it is to qualify as evidence.

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:39:12 EST

According to many sources, it was a lot more than just one report that got altered my friend.

Comment by Hoggle

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:32:58 EST

You appear to have misread the report. One specific report was proven to be a forgery, but evidence from other sources was available to the UK when they made their conclusion, and not the forgery. Their conclusion was supportable at the time. It may have been wrong, but it was not 'wrong' when it was made. I make no comment about the 45 minute claim, whcih is a whole other can of smelly worms.

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:32:27 EST

Which is why it's well documented that thw White House was forced to admit they were wrong...

Comment by Hoggle

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:17:48 EST

But of course, Wikipedia is controlled by vested interests and cannot be seen as authoritative :)

Comment by Hoggle

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:16:47 EST

The details of the 'Yellowcake Forgery' can be found here specifically the Butler report: Conclusion 499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded. and Conclusion 503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that: a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible. c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British Government did not claim this. d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. Although sources other than the Niger documents are mentioned, no evidence of this is advanced.

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:49:02 EST

Ah the truth is only a google away... I quote from the BBC... "Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC. On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January. But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech. Both President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the claim, based on British intelligence, that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger as part of its attempt to build a nuclear weapons programme. Mr Blair is under fire from British MPs about the credibility of a dossier of evidence, which set out his case for war. And in the US, increasing doubts are being raised about the American use of intelligence. " WHITE HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME (and probably the last)OFFICIALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE NIGER CLAIM WAS WRONG!!!

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:13:53 EST

If you look at his transcript, he says it's from "Africa", it was only disclosed later that it was from Niger. And pulllllllllllease bring on this overwhelming evidence. Where are these rockets, and WMD's and where are they reported? I want to see photos!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:47:03 EST

Jet, there was no vagueness about where the nuclear fuel was coming from. Iraq has purchased yellowcake from Niger before and the sources clearly said Niger and Bush also said Niger. Nothing vague about it because Bush had every reason to believe it at the time mhe said it. And, of course, we now know that the WMD program was not fictitious at all, much though some choose to deny the increasingly overwhelming evidence. Dave

Comment by Jet in Columbus

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:40:59 EST

Bliffle, the comments #31 & 32 were inspired after I saw a report about it on CNN (judged a decidedly leftist network by some but not by me) and after some further googling I found the resulting reports to be most disturbing, that the White House would actually edit scientific reports to suit their own needs, leaving the original author's name to give the altered documents credibility. Sort of what Bush did during his State of the Union address concerning the fictious Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the reports of their purchase of nuclear fuel from somewhere vaguely in "Africa" I should think.

Comment by Bliffle

Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:34:21 EST

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a press briefing that Cooney's editing was part of a broad review by 15 federal agencies, including policy people like Cooney as well as scientists. "Everybody who is involved in these issues should have input in these reports, and that's all this is," he says" No, he's wrong. The report is issued over the names of the scientists as representing their thoughts and conclusions. Thus, tampering by outsiders is deceitful.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:03:39 EST

To #35. Can you be sure that your low snowfall is the result of warming rather than a reduction in precipitation? The precipitation pattern changed dramatically this winter. The US east coast got lots and lots, with record amounts of snow late into the year. We're talking a foot of snow in Virginia in February, which is virtually unheard of. Down here in Texas, like in Canada, our precipitation was low, but we had the most hard freezes we've had in a decade. That would suggest the opposite of global warming, but as I'm sure you're aware one year does not a trend make. troll: Dave - I look forward to your post presenting the data...though I'm not as interested in the question of 'human cause' as in whether or not there are things that humans can do now to influence the trend The thing is that if humans don't have the ability to cause a climate shift, then they may not have enough invluence in the environment to stop one either. Or even worse, they may have enough of an influence to help the ball get rolling, but not nearly enough to stop it once nature takes over. Natalie B: one more thought. If I'm wrong (not sadly that I think there's a very high risk of that) what will be the outcome? A cleanier, healthier human society (fewer pollution deaths, fitter humans due to more walking and cycling etc), new technologies developed (wind, solar etc), more self-sufficient societies (fewer "food-miles", more sustainable farming). Which is why I support most of the same ecological measures you likely do, but not for the same reasons. More efficient vehicles and pursuit of alternative energy are just as valid for conservation and economic reasons and even national security reasons, so as you say, why not do them since they only benefit us. Where I draw the line is things like Kyoto which harm the US and do nothing at all to help the worldwide environment. Dave