Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

It Isn't Morning in America Anymore -- It's Dusk on Planet Earth

By Bill McKibben, Tomdispatch.com. Posted May 12, 2008.


If we want to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, we've got to cut CO2 emissions.
Advertisement

Even for Americans, constitutionally convinced that there will always be a second act, and a third, and a do-over after that, and, if necessary, a little public repentance and forgiveness and a Brand New Start -- even for us, the world looks a little Terminal right now.

It's not just the economy. We've gone through swoons before. It's that gas at $4 a gallon means we're running out, at least of the cheap stuff that built our sprawling society. It's that when we try to turn corn into gas, it sends the price of a loaf of bread shooting upwards and starts food riots on three continents. It's that everything is so inextricably tied together. It's that, all of a sudden, those grim Club of Rome types who, way back in the 1970s, went on and on about the "limits to growth" suddenly seem how best to put it, right.

All of a sudden it isn't morning in America, it's dusk on planet Earth.

There's a number -- a new number -- that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A few weeks ago, our foremost climatologist, NASA's Jim Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several co-authors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

So it's a tough diagnosis. It's like the doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high and, if you don't bring it down right away, you're going to have a stroke. So you take the pill, you swear off the cheese, and, if you're lucky, you get back into the safety zone before the coronary. It's like watching the tachometer edge into the red zone and knowing that you need to take your foot off the gas before you hear that clunk up front.

In this case, though, it's worse than that because we're not taking the pill and we are stomping on the gas -- hard. Instead of slowing down, we're pouring on the coal, quite literally. Two weeks ago came the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide had jumped 2.4 parts per million last year -- two decades ago, it was going up barely half that fast.

And suddenly, the news arrives that the amount of methane, another potent greenhouse gas, accumulating in the atmosphere, has unexpectedly begun to soar as well. Apparently, we've managed to warm the far north enough to start melting huge patches of permafrost and massive quantities of methane trapped beneath it have begun to bubble forth.

And don't forget: China is building more power plants; India is pioneering the $2,500 car, and Americans are converting to TVs the size of windshields which suck juice ever faster.

Here's the thing. Hansen didn't just say that, if we didn't act, there was trouble coming; or, if we didn't yet know what was best for us, we'd certainly be better off below 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. His phrase was: "if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." A planet with billions of people living near those oh-so-floodable coastlines. A planet with ever more vulnerable forests. (A beetle, encouraged by warmer temperatures, has already managed to kill 10 times more trees than in any previous infestation across the northern reaches of Canada this year. This means far more carbon heading for the atmosphere and apparently dooms Canada's efforts to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, already in doubt because of its decision to start producing oil for the U.S. from Alberta's tar sands.)

We're the ones who kicked the warming off; now, the planet is starting to take over the job. Melt all that Arctic ice, for instance, and suddenly the nice white shield that reflected 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space has turned to blue water that absorbs 80% of the sun's heat. Such feedbacks are beyond history, though not in the sense that Francis Fukuyama had in mind.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: climate change, pollution, carbon dioxide

Bill McKibben is a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org. His most recent book is The Bill McKibben Reader.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
right
Posted by: metoo on May 12, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
coal fired plants are being built as we speak, all over the globe. Even Europe has 50 about to go online. Obama is from a coal state, do you really think he's not supporting coal?

McCain likes Nuclear, and Hillary likes alterniatives, but since Hillary is History we're going to be stuck with Obama's dirty coal or McCain's waste, hell of a choice don't ya know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What the . . . Posted by: Scientz
» nucléaire est le futur ! Posted by: finleyd
» RE: right Posted by: Gibsongirl
Demand Destruction
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 12, 2008 1:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Petroleum and related products spiral upward in price the rate of consumption should fall. This tipping point effect is called demand destruction. It should also change the amount of carbon-based pollution.
I wonder if anybody has run the math on how significant an effect this will have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Demand Destruction Posted by: Spock
INSPIRATION TO ACTION...
Posted by: skizum on May 12, 2008 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo, Nice work! My hat goes off to all of you, Bill and friends, for creating this wonderful goal oriented concept. I'll be donating 75% of the proceeds from one of my concept projects to 350.org over the summer. I hope it helps spread the word regarding this critical goal.

In the meantime, it might be a good idea to initiate a few other simultaneous campaigns to help us understand and adjust our behavioral patterns so that we can start to create a truly sustainable world.

I'd also like to post 350.org on a new forum being created to showcase great conceptual thinking.

My only hope is that we don't have to get burned too badly before we learn 'hot'...perhaps. that is what it will take ultimately motivate us into action.

If you are reading this, please help spread the word; our lives really do depend on this. The most effective way to get these ideas to sink to take root in the mainstream will be through repetitive messaging on a grass roots level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can Climate Change lead to Political Change?
Posted by: williameon on May 12, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or
Can we solve The Climate Change Problem? without making important Political Change First?

Changes like:
Addressing the problem?
Signing Treaties?
Changing our Direction and Priorities?

They are all question marks now with the
Polluter's in Control

Eliminate the influence Polluters have over our Government.
Stop Privatization.
Close the Revolving Door

Focus on Conservation, Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Ending our Fossil Fuel Addiction.

Where can the most good be done?
Stopping the WAR would stop wasting resources.
Oil will drop by HALF!

If they start Bombing Iran
Oil will go up to $200 DOLLARS a BARREL! And
Talk about Pollution?
The American Military is the Worlds Biggest Polluter.
We are still #1 in something.
While Humanity gets flushed out the window.

$7 Dollars a Gallon at the pump.
Take about the economy being Dead in the water.

Dead Eye and The Shrub are stealing every last Nickel they can get.
They are determined to drain the last drop of BLOOD out of the Iraqi sand and American People.
They swear no allegiance to God or Country.
They are Corpirates
Part of a False Flag Operation
America has been Hi-Jacked by
Corpirates.
Chimp/Chainey
Oil soaked Chicken Hawks!
Part of the
Halliburton/Carlyle Junta

They fly:
The Skull and Bones


Sellouts to the Highest bidder.
Defenders of The Aristocracy sworn to Secrecy and GREED.


How do we stop them?
Shut the WAR down.
Strengthen Pollution Law.
Kicking the Polluter’s Lobbyists out of Washington
Stop the Graft
Breaking the control
The Dirty Fossil Fuel Pushers have over US by
KICKING OIL!

Freeing the Media from their Control.
Provide the information and facts
Instead of Propaganda and Fluff.
Take the Money out of politics and
Put Sanity back in.
Reinstitute: The Bill of Rights, Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Revoke the Unpatriotic Act.

SURGE
PURGE
&
REBOOT!

Put the common People back in charge instead of:
Corpirate Spooks, Snooks, Clowns and Crooks.

Level the playing field.
Publicly finance all elections

Broaden representation in our Government by including everyone, making room for more and different Voices/Parties.
There are plenty of good examples out there to emulate.
Take the best of what we have and the best of what the World has to offer and change our System of Government for the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 reduction is fuitile
Posted by: H.R. Chuckn'stuff on May 12, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I respect McKibben's work, but it's futile.

Read this:

James Lovelock in the Daily Mail.

We're all doomed! 40 years from global catastrophe - and there's NOTHING we can do about it, says climate change expert"

According to the climate change scientist James Lovelock, this is the beginning of the end of a peaceful phase in evolution. By 2040, the world population of more than six billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine. Lovelock believes it is too late to repair the damage. Government targets are "futile". Britain contributes such a tiny amount of emissions compared with countries such as China that our self-regulatory measures are pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CO2 reduction is fuitile Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: CO2 reduction is fuitile Posted by: prieten
When are people going to wake up?
Posted by: Farasien on May 12, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that somehow we're going to 'stop producing more' is completely flawed. I've written in several posts that the epitus to do so is not there. Let's remember that as long as something is even marginally profitable, it will NEVER be stopped. The bastards in the seats of power throughout the world only care about their bottom line, not the consequences of their actions. In the opinion of the international power brokers, a few million or billion deaths are nothing next the the loss of a few billion dollars. In fact, its profitable to kill people- this is why we still, despite our insistance that we live in an 'evolved' society, have war at all. Think appealing to the government is going to help? It might have- a century ago or more- before the CEOs and other corporate scumbags infiltrated and nutered the flagging power of the people with large bribes and post-'public-sector' employment or consulting contracts.

The only way anything is going to really change is to have a French-style revolution first. Until the heads of the money men are literally rolling in the streets and the blood of the Bastards who killed the soul of this and all other nations is running in the gutters where it belongs, we're getting more of the same.

And to them, if that means the world burns, so be it. There will always be some kind of business, even if its in the sale of coffins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When are people going to wake up? Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» It's Not Just The Rich Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
CO who?
Posted by: uncleeddie on May 12, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One problem Bill CO2 does not! I repeat DOES NOT cause global warming. It's a complete myth perpetrated by doomsday fanatics like you and
Big Oil Gore. It's about the Carbon Tax Stupid. If the focus goes onto taxing Corporate profits and not a carbon tax then the issue will die along with all the CO2 chicken littles. Just open your mind and view objectively the famous ice core analysis from an Inconvenient Lie and superimpose the CO2 graph over the temperature graph. Then you must eat crow like I did and realize temperatures on average rose 400-800 years ahead of CO2 rising by the same levels. Repeat temperatures rose BEFORE CO2 levels. Thus the HOAX that man is strictly to blame for temperature rise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CO who? Posted by: EinMD
» RE: CO who? Posted by: uncleeddie
» RE: CO who? Posted by: particle
» CO2 warming is a fact Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: CO who? Posted by: cwilsondrum
» RE: CO who? Posted by: Spock
» RE: CO who? Posted by: uncleeddie
It's that gas at $4 a gallon means we're running out, at least of the cheap stuff
Posted by: FrogHollow on May 12, 2008 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PART ONE

"It's that gas at $4 a gallon means we're running out, at least of the cheap stuff..."

How did We Get Here?

Back in the 1960's and 1970's when environmentalist proposed the deployment of “alternative energies” and "tough conservation standards on auto and plant emissions" they were meet with catcalls and ridicule by conservative and right-wing ideologues. These proposals were meet with insults such as “Hippie energy,” “Moonbeam madness,” or “enemies of our way of life,” with the charge of “anti-Americanism,” and “anti-capitalism” labels.
 
President Carter wanted to increase funding for new technologies with lower omission requirements for autos. These needed policies were shouted down.
 
The Reagan years saw all such proposals blocked ideologically with funding cuts in the Federal budget and with constructive alternatives ignored by government, the corporate media, and in the public discourse.
 
During the Herbert Bush and Clinton presidencies it was more of the same but with much greater pretense and phony concern.
 
And then, the bed rock ideological opposition of George W. Bush (Dick "the great white  hunter" Cheney), and the Republican dominated Congress, by the Oil Lobbyist, and by  successful conservative movement of Stone Age reaction that combines -all worked together to prevent new alternatives to fossil fuels – they also exercised and exhibited their Neanderthal essence.
 
As a result of the policies promoted by the Republican Party, the Oil Gang, the Conservative pundits, public research into new forms of energy was actively delayed, -it was blocked and condemned: the development and deployment of new energy sources and new technologies were held back-while sane people had to listen to the conservative chants and their verbal voodoo economics about "the glory" of “Free Market Competition” (thus government was assigned no role, regulation of omissions considered taboo). These groups did this in order to RETARDED AMERICA'S ENEGERY SECTOR, to hold back new technologies, and to gain self-interested control OF THE ECONOMY via  conservative government, global corporate control of petroleum production, tax, trade, and banking policy.
 
FOUR DECADES HAVE BEEN LOST. Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, Ralph Nader, the “hippies,” the environmentalist and New Age-ers had correctly sized -up reality  while the Conservative Ideologues got away with steadily damaging our country and its' future.
 
We are now paying the price at the gas pump for the dominance of these Stone- Age Thinkers. Today, global Petroleum corporations have a monopoly ( brought about by constant “deregulation,” Government retreat, and by an expansion of corporate “tax loopholes, credits, and rebate tax policies (carry back and carry forward provisions, foreign sales exemptions, etc., etc.,) and by a selective advantage in government for petroleum and coal producers ( basically for their owners, CEO s, stock holders and with astronomical gain flowing to speculators)
 
These New World Global PIRATES currently control
the price of crude oil,
the price per-barrel,
the profits attained after refinement,
the profits from distribution,
the wholesale supply and whole sale price per gallon,
and they control of retail supply and retail pricing.
Welcome to unchained economy of market greed, to Rush Limbaugh's speculative casino world and to unrestrained dominance of global and finance capitalism:
welcome to the coming of $5 per gallon, and salutatory greetings to the glory of unending price gouging by the Petroleum Gangsters.
 
>A.Z. Arrow

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Price of gasoline
Posted by: FrogHollow on May 12, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PART TWO

The global corporations have their hands in your purse, in your wallets, and in your savings account. They use their myth about the goodness of market capitalism along witj practical measures to control, monopolize, and gain by a tax on your salary via a constant rise in the cost of living. These corporations take their profit off the top and create wealth through theft. They have their idol worshipers and a fall back to a conservative mentality that lets them get a way with it. Their lobbys purchase their will in Congress. The Bush administration is made up of ex-oil CEOs.
 
Americans must demand total price controls and tight regulation on the price of gasoline, heating and diesel' fuel for the sake of consumers.
 
We must use our government and Constitution to fight and to destroy the global petroleum gang if we are to survive and thrive as a people and as a nation.

.A.Z. Arrow

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Price of gasoline
Posted by: FrogHollow on May 12, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Part Three

HOW TO STOP PRICE GOUGING AT THE PUMP AND FIND NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY


I filled my car yesterday for a $3.66 per gallon.

I ASK YOU TO think back to when a gallon of gasoline was $1.50 at the pump. It was not that long ago Do you recall a single major oil producer or global petroleum corporation going bankrupt because they lacked income, or could not make enough money at a $1:50 per gallon? No.

Locally, Home heating oil is now l sold at $3.95 per gallon (I use wood heat).

The petroleum industry and global oil producers will never regulate themselves. They are bent on ever grander price gouging.

The excuse made by the talking heads and mouthpieces for the petroleum corporations is that “crude oil has risen to near $100 dollar per barrel.” Like I give a hoot, since the petroleum corporations set those monopoly prices in the first place. They are simply PRICE GOUGING and using this excuse as camouflage for their greed.

We fill up, they drain dollars.


The oil companies made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROFIT when gasoline was sold at $1.50, and when Heating Oil was priced at $2.00 per gallons. At the time, they did not go bankrupt and their tax filings indicate that they made billions of dollars in profit.
Further, no matter how high, or how low, the cost per barrel it does not put money into my pocket. IT IS SIMPLY NECESSARY SPENING REQUIRED TO RUN MY CAR. And as I watch the price of gas climb I know, because it was whispered into my ear by my empty wallet that the oil corporations will prosper and profit no matter what the price. That's why they call it 'Black Gold”.
Yesterday, the gas pump sang me a song about gouging with a chorus humming “astronomically expensive.”

I have heard a rumor that some people want even higher prices so as to force “conservation of fuel.” (I can't walk that far.) So I suspect that they must own stock. I do not. And I consider that perspective ridiculous because it would force me to never go anywhere by auto, and believe that increased price for gasoline can only be realistic for people with incomes larger than mine.

THE PRICE OF GASOLINE IS TOO HIGH!

A Workable Government Solution for Consummers:

a Value added tax on price gouging monopoly corporations at 100% above a reasonable price.

The oil companies made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROFITS when gasoline was sold at $1.50, and when Heating Oil at $2.00 per gallons. They did not go bankrupt Back then they were rolling in money.

So, tax every cent over $1.50 per gallon at 100%. Tax every cent over $2.00 per gallon for heating fuel at 100%.
The revenue generated by this tax on price gouging could then be shifted to a trust fund and used for research and development of new alternative sources of energy such as Black light Plasma, cars that burn salt water as fuel, or electricity generated from solar, tidal, magnetic, biomass, wind, and water energies, or by cold fusion.

The revenues collected on the tax on diesel fuel would provide truckers a direct rebate ( a fund distribute directly to the drivers themselves rather than siphoned-off by shipping corporations or dispatchers).


And added to my proposal above:

Diesel fuel is now over $4 per gallon.This causes price increases throughout the entire economy.

Thus: A needed %100 percent Tax on diesel fuel and revenue collected would provide truckers with a direct rebate ( a fund distribute directly to the drivers themselves rather than tax code allowances currently siphoned-off by shipping corporations or dispatchers) Give every cent per gallon of diesel fuel above A FAIR MARKET PRICE ($2.00 per gallon) back to truck drivers as an income rebate or subsidy.

~Arrow

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Price of gasoline Posted by: kiatoa
McKibben & Co. - that won't work!
Posted by: Last Chance on May 12, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pollution is bound to get worse as the human population grows to 7, 8, 9 10 billion people, all demanding more goods and services that produce more green house gas emissions and more garbage. So, unless we reduce our human population through family planning clinics Worldwide, our life-supporting environment and our civilization will collapse into chaos and species extinction, ours included. Ultimatum

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

doing the impossible
Posted by: grmartin on May 12, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Advanced civlizations have always destroyed their nests, just as we are doing now - abet on a global scale. But this time we have the advantage of powerful science and media communication. Will this make any difference at all? It better, no place to run to now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

climate/religion/politics/ecoomics mere aspects
Posted by: bozhidar on May 12, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is only one reality. politics, religion, fishing, music, warfare, etc., are mere parts of the only nature we have.
perhaps every aspect of our infinitely-valued nature ought to be changed for better.
thus structure of governance must also change; it being possibly the most important actor/factor for our well-being.
our wishful thinking along with our fears is also a mere part of one reality in which each aspect of it is connected with each other aspect.
how to change, let's say, canadian structure of governance? we could vote for socialists instead for politicians who represent the plutocrats.
just like in US, we in canada also have a plutocratic rule. and most or all plutocracies are extremely warlike.
we could also buy less; thus putting pressure on middle class to join us in the struggle to obtain a better rule.
swiss have the best rule. thank u.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, the solution is easy, but the monkeys in charge are busy flinging feces at each other.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 12, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Halt all expansion of fossil fuel energy use, by government decree.

2) Provide major subsidies and tax breaks to any family that is energy-independent as part of a major government-led marketing campaign aimed at explaining the severity of the global warming and pollution problems.

3) Provide major subsidies and tax breaks to solar PV and thermal manufacturers, wind turbine manufactures, battery manufactureres, and organic and sustainable farmers. Halt all subsidies to coal, petroleum, natural gas and nuclear.

4) Begin phasing out all energy import to the Unites States, including from Canada and Mexico, as the world's biggest infrastructure construction project begins.

Oh, I guess we'll let Japan and Germany do all that, huh?

Stupidity and greed - those are the defining qualities of the current "leaders of American society", whether they are in the government, the media, academics, finance and industry, or whatever.

Did Prozac kill the dream, or was it indifference?

Same thing, actually.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some FACTS About Climate Change That Contrast With This Muppet's Nonsense
Posted by: opmoc on May 12, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.

11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.

12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.

13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.

14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: you suck wind Posted by: cwilsondrum
The simple life….
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on May 12, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can you blame people for wanting the simple life. Most people don’t walk to work in the USA or large urban areas. Shit most people dont walk unless it is to the fridge. Every cut a tree down with a hand saw? Plant a field by hand? Break rock with a pick? Pave a road by hand with stone? Mow the yard with a push mower? Ride a horse to work?
It will be crazy when as a tourist one will see people so fat they have to drive around the grocery store in a motorized chairs because they are too weak to support their fat bodies in rural India or China. I imagine what they must think when they come to the USA and see this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perplexed
Posted by: Jean Siracusa on May 12, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a college professor teaching Biology and Conservation. For twelve years I have brought current, important and complex topics to my students for discussion. They respond with the comments that they never hear or see these topics, (global warming, GMO's, current agricultural practices, consumerism,) and the myriad of other complicated issues of great concern to the human and non-human inhabitants of our planet on TV or read about them in the local media.

I am appalled that some of my fellow colleagues appear to be as ignorant of these issues as are these students, especially those in the sciences who seem to have no idea of the swiftness and consequences of the warming of our earth and the relationships of our consumption and food production habits to the problems our planet faces today. The actions of these professionals who are financially capable of purchasing what they want indicate that they have become prodigious consumers unaware that their actions are contributing to a problem that they superficially understand.

I wonder whether new teachers and other professionals merely learned differently with a lesser emphasis about real science, life, a work ethic, health, food production, and the interconnectedness of those elements with the other non-human forms of life on earth, that, therefore, they teach and work from a narrower perspective.

I am perplexed that so many people have little or no idea of most critical issues, and wonder if it is because these issues are misrepresented in the mainstream media or not discussed at all.

My students tell me every semester that they learned more in my class than in all the other classes they have taken. Many of these students are non-science majors who take my class to fulfill a science requirement. I understand that I have made a difference in their lives, and also in those whom these students communicate with. What seems impalpable to me is that the mainstream media including public stations do not engage in truthful investigative reporting or stand up for what they believe. It is imperative that dignity and honesty return to the mainstream media, so that we can become an informed society and begin to solve a few of the many problems facing humanity today.

I applaud and am thankful to those who are working toward change but I am beginning to feel that there is so much at stake and so much to lose that my efforts are miniscule in proportion. We are trying to speak to a superficially motivated population who has no clue that they are on a freight train heading toward a cliff at 1000 miles an hour, because their information is brought to them by a corrupt media controlled by big business to gain political favors and huge profits. Watching television is a passive activity where people learn what they should eat, drink, wear; what drugs to take and why, and all of the other flawed superficial trite drivel that is classified as entertainment on this medium.

Long ago, I chose to do what I could that would make a difference somewhere, however insignificant because I believed that we could change the world if everyone made small contributions locally in their communities. There are many who are doing this today, and if we can increase awareness in mainstream America as contributors of these related articles have, we may have an opportunity to restore our planet and make it habitable for all life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Perplexed Posted by: leemiller38
» RE: Perplexed Posted by: Jean Siracusa
» RE: Perplexed,about Media Posted by: ibzear2
» Not to worry Posted by: civilsociety
POPULLUTION
Posted by: crazy carlos on May 12, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
UNCLEEDDIE ETAL, PLEASE READ "SIX DEGREES" BY MARK LYNAS. I LIVE IN COLORADO. JUST OUTSIDE DENVER IS ST.MARY'S "GLACIER"--IT IS MELTING GUYS. i HAVE BEEN TO PATAGONIA, THE ICE IS MELTING RAPIDLY. I WANT TO SEE THE AMAZON JUNGLE BEFORE IT IS GONE SO I'M GOING THIS YEAR
VIA PERU OR ECUADOR--THE MOUNTAIN ICE THERE IS RAPIDLY MELTING--THAT WATER IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF BOGOTA,QUITO,LIMA AND SANTIAGO. EXCEPT FOR QUITO, ALL ARE CITIES OF 5M+ people. THIS CONDITION EXISTS IN DOZENS OF PLACES AROUND THE WORLD--THEY SURVIVE ON GLACIAL WATER. THE TOOTH FAIRY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. GUESS WHO THAT LEAVES??

IF THE TIME LINE OF 2012 IS ACCURATE, (WHICH SIX DEGREES ALSO USES)THEN WE ARE WAY TOO LATE. MY THOUGHTS ARE TO DETERMINE WHERE THE METHANE RISK IS HIGHEST AND TRY AND CAPTURE IT, LIQUIDIFY IT LIKE NATURAL GAS (CURRENTLY BEING DONE)AND PERHAPS AT LEAST MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF A REPEAT OF WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED TO THE DINO'S 65 MILLION YEARS AGO PLUS IT DOES TEMPORIARLY SOLVE THE IMMEADIATE "PEAK OIL" PROBLEM. 6.5 BILLION PEOPLE ONA PLANET THEY HAS A CARRYING CAPACITY OF MAYBE 2.5 BILLION IS A RECEIPE FOR DIASTER. (THE PLANET WENT FROM APPX. 2.5 BILLION TO OUR CURRENT SIZE IN LESS THAN A CENTURY) TO DO NOTHING IS TO KISS OUR ASSES GOODBYE. IN THIS REGARD SPECIAL KUDOS TO CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM FOR THE BENEFICIAL PREACHINGS OF GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY.

CRAZY CARLOS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Are you planning to fly there? Posted by: crazy carlos
» RE: POPULLUTION Posted by: uncleeddie
Typical U.S. centric small-world analysis.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 12, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
China is turning on a new coal plant every few days. The newly-minted middle class in China (and similarly India) are snatching up Buicks because of the youthful, raw sex appeal of old-folks cars in that country.

The decline in the dollar inversely correlates--by necessity--with both an increase of the value of foreign currencies and foreign commodities.

So tell me: how do you impose your carbon-credit schemes, your mandatory CO2 cutbacks, your other "visions for the future"...on sovereign nations? Invade them for their own good? Sorry George, we can't afford another misadventure, thanks to you.

When gas hits $5.00, you're going to see many, many 1976-89 carbuerated hoopties still thumping and twitching to the beat along our city streets get consigned to the scrap heap (there's a lot of fairly expensive scrap metal to be reclaimed in cars before they went with polymers), and you're going to see many, many SUV's get parked.

They'll be getting out of the way for the emergence of the Chinese and Indian driving classes, if current trends hold. Besides, with our ecologically diverse nation, the only thing we would be generally worried about is the release of H2S from sequestration.

That'd be sort of a deal-breaker for mammalian life, not to mention lots and lots of other guys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Mongoose Trick - speaking truth to tyranny & tyrants
Posted by: Spock on May 12, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has it occurred to anyone on either side of this issue that the problem we face regarding global warming is first a question of Pascale's Wager (look it up)? Even if we weren't sure of the effects of global warming and what'ts causing it, to do nothing is not to play the odds. Stupid, in other words. We're running out of fossile fuel energy, anyway (less than fifty years left). The history of man comes down to a race between death by global warming and the end of what's causing it. Or, "Between education and catastrophe," as Bertrand Russell put it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It was H.G. Wells ... Posted by: Bbear41
Climate Change is for morons
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on May 12, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate Change is politics that caters to the lowest common denominator. They assume you're too stupid to understand a simple exponential growth equation. They assume you're too stupid to understand Hubbert's Peak. So they make up a bunch of crap about greenhouses and drowning polar bears. Meanwhile there are very serious problems that are beginning to unravel the entire economy. But they've got the general public so dumbed down that by the time the brunt of the shockwave is upon us, most people are going to think the tooth fairy is what caused it. That is about as dumb as believing CO2 is a problem.

THE EARTH IS NOT A GREENHOUSE WITH A PLASTIC COVER. IT IS A PLANET WITH AN ATMOSPHERE, SURROUNDED BY A COLD DARK VACCUUM, AND CONSTANTLY BOMBARDED WITH RADIATION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Climate Change is for morons Posted by: cwilsondrum
» RE: Climate Change is for morons and you... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
Addicted to growth
Posted by: Last Chance on May 12, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who are personally invested in a growing economy (stocks & bonds) realize they also need a growing population, so naturally they oppose any reforms that might threaten their investments. Thus, global warming, overpopulation and ecocidal pollution are politically motivated myths. They have to be (!) If Saving the Earth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Addicted to growth Posted by: richholland
» RE: Addicted to growth Posted by: Last Chance
It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature
Posted by: willymack on May 12, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Want to know what the ultimate gross-out is? We apparently don't have all that long to wait to find out. Our insanely wasteful and polluting way of life is about to catch up with us, as Nature seeks an equilibrium temporarily upset by "human activity". As usual, the ones most affected-the first ones to die off-will be those who pollute and waste the LEAST. The days of food riots will be looked at as the good old days in comparison to what happens next as the Third World vents its wrath on those who brought death and destruction on so many merely for the sake of a "high standard of life" for so few. The sad part of all this is that once an equilibrium is established, and the worst of the dieoffs are behind us, the cycle is very likely to start anew. Ruins of past "civilizations" attest to this. It appears that civilization as we know it is unsustainable, and we're doomed to stay on the merry-go-round because we're collectively too dim witted to get off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, improve public transportation and start respecting people who are frugal and conserve.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 12, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public transportation has been BANKRUPTED into DECAY by Big Auto, Coal, Oil, etc ... Until we can win over pols who will stand up to these kinds of vested special interests and repair the DECAYED public transportation infrastructure by REFORMING the bus routes to accomodate more places and people, improve the metro rail systems by switching to light rails, and cut down the OBSCENELY high fees on bus/rail fares, all this lecture on cutting down CO2 emissions will continue to fall on deaf ears. Even in Europe, there has been some improvement in public transportation though I hear that much remains to be done to keep it in gear.

Another thing you'll never hear from either the Far Right or the Far Left is the fact that we need to start and continue respecting and learning from people who conserve, reuse, recycle, and even renew what they have. For example, when some of us good people are surrounded by brain damaged wasteful spenders who look down and/or frown upon people who reuse their plastic bags as often as possible, giving a rebuttal is never so easy. Sure, I have no problem counter-attacking by pointing out that we fight wars for oil to keep burning and wasting plastic all the time but how are we going to prevail when we're left to trying to come up with our own strategies for convincing people to save on plastics? The "conservatives" were successful for getting their base to listen and "accept" their reckless ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why nuclear power is required
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal fired power plants that put 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every
year for each 1000 Megawatts generated for one year. Nuclear plants put ZERO
CO2 into the air. The CO2 cost of building coal vs. nuclear is the same and
negligible. The CO2 cost of mining and transporting coal is large and not
included in the 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. The mining and transportation
cost of nuclear fuel is zero since Yucca Mountain is full of fuel that needs to be
reprocessed and put back into reactors. Each 1000 Megawatts of nuclear power
needs so little uranium that you could easily carry an equal weight in a suitcase.
Burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal makes 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. As I
have pointed out many times, burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal puts enough
U235 into the air and cinders to fuel a nuclear plant, or enough uranium +
thorium to fuel hundreds of nuclear plants if breeding is allowed. There is no
way to get there from here without nuclear power, like it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen Buses in Cities and Compressed Air Cabs..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 12, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One big difference would be to stop using Diesel in our buses especially in the major cities..and start running them on Hydrogen as almost every bus in Germany is already using hydrogen..

This would not only cut CO2 but also NO2 which is a known carcinogen thus we could cut cancer rates as well saving billions in medical costs not to mention lives..

One of the problems with switching to Hydrogen is the availability of fueling stations but in the case of buses which already share a central common hub and parking and fueling depot conversion to hydrogen would be more than simple..!

Then also we could switch city cabs to run on compressed air vehicles which do 65 mph already and run all day on $2.00 worth of compressed air as are built by Ta Ta in India this would also greatly reduce emissions in our major cities and could be done immediately..

To bad our politicians from Obama to Bush to Clinton to McCain to Gore never mention this stuff and are all worthless self serving lying bags of human excrement..!

"So it goes.."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another natural thing that has happened many times: EXTINCTIONS
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]