Man, it was freaking -20 here last night. I have no doubt global warming is going to be *the* issue of the 21st century, but I'm too cold right now to argue the points.
Es nada! It repeatedly got down to the -30's where I lived in Colorado (froze my house one time... very bizarre to see a solid block of ice in the toilet ).
It was a very good speech, you can watch the webcast at www.moveon.org. If Gore gave this kind of a speech with this kind of passion in 00, we would all be better off. The pre-written transcript, which doesn't include all his comments is below. And FWIW, he opened with a lame joke about global warming and the coldest day of the year, so you got something in common with him basso. Beacon Theater, New York January 15, 2004, Noon Thank you, Carol, Joan and Peter. And thanks to all of you for coming here today. lt was an honor to work with Carol Browner on environmental policies in the last administration and I am grateful for her leadership of Environment 2004. I want to thank Peter for his leadership as Executive Director of Moveon.org and I appreciate all of those who have worked in the trenches with both of these organizations that are co-sponsoring today’s speech. I want to say a special word about Joan Blades, who traveled from California for this event and who, along with her husband, Wes Boyd, co-founded Moveon.org. She has been from the beginning a moving force behind the emergence of this dynamic new grassroots movement in American politics and public policy. I have made a series of speeches about the policies of the Bush / Cheney Administration towards the major challenges that confront our nation: national security, economic policy, civil liberties, and today: the environment. For me, this issue is in a special category because of what I believe is at stake. I am particularly concerned because the vast majority of the most respected environmental scientists from all over the world have sounded a clear and urgent alarm. The international community – including the United States – began a massive effort several years ago to assemble the most accurate scientific assessment of the growing evidence that the earth’s environment is sustaining severe and potentially irreparable damage from the unprecedented accumulation of pollution in the global atmosphere. In essence, these scientists are telling the people of every nation that global warming caused by human activities is becoming a serious threat to our common future. I am also troubled that the Bush/Cheney Administration does not seem to hear the warnings of the scientific community in the same way that most of us do. Here is what we are talking about: PICTURES 1 THROUGH 8 Even though the earth is of such vast size, the most vulnerable part of the global environment is the atmosphere – because it is surprisingly thin – as the late Carl Sagan used to say: like a coat of varnish on a globe. PICTURES 9 THROUGH 12 I don’t think there is any longer a credible basis for doubting that the earth’s atmosphere is heating up because of global warming. PICTURES 13 THROUGH 65 So the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. Global Warming is real. It is happening already and the anticipated consequences are unacceptable. But it is important to understand that this crisis is actually just a symptom of a deeper underlying cause: PICTURES 66 THROUGH 126 Yet in spite of the clear evidence available all around us, there are many who still do not believe that Global Warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere. And wealthy right-wing ideologues have joined with the most cynical and irresponsible companies in the oil, coal and mining industries to contribute large sums of money to finance pseudo-scientific front groups that specialize in sowing confusion in the public’s mind about global warming. They issue one misleading “report” after another, pretending that there is significant disagreement in the legitimate scientific community in areas where there is actually a broad-based consensus. The techniques they use were pioneered years earlier by the tobacco industry in its long campaign to create uncertainty in the public’s mind about the health risks caused by tobacco smoke. Indeed, some of the very same scientific camp-followers who took money from the tobacco companies during that effort are now taking money from coal and oil companies in return for their willingness to say that global warming is not real. PICTURES 127 AND 128 In a candid memo about political strategy for Republican leaders, pollster Frank Luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: PICTURE 129 The Bush Administration has gone far beyond Luntz’ recommendations, however, and has explored new frontiers in cynicism by time and time again actually appointing the principal lobbyists and lawyers for the biggest polluters to be in charge of administering the laws that their clients are charged with violating. Some of these appointees have continued to work very closely with the outside pseudo-scientific front groups even though they are now on the public payroll. Two Attorneys General have now publicly accused officials in the Bush White House Council on Environmental Quality of conspiring with one of the outside groups to encourage the filing of a lawsuit as part of a shared strategy to undermine the possibility of government action on Global Warming. Vice President Cheney’s infamous “Energy Task Force” advised lobbyists for polluters early in the new administration that there would be no action by the Bush White House on Global Warming and then asked for their help in designing a totally meaningless “voluntary” program. One of the industry lobbyists who heard this pitch later made an unguarded speech to his peers about the experience and said the following: “Let me put it to you in political terms. The President needs a fig leaf. He’s dismantling Kyoto, but he’s out there on a limb.” The White House has routinely gone out on a limb to involve large contributors representing companies charged with violating environmental laws and regulations in the drafting of new laws and regulations designed to let their clients off the hook. The story is the same when it comes to protecting the American people from pollution. The Bush administration chooses special interests over the public interest, ignoring the scientific evidence in favor of policies its contributors demand. Consider Mercury, an extremely toxic pollutant causing severe developmental and neurological defects in fetuses. We know its principal unregulated source is coal-fired power plants. But the Bush Administration has gutted the protections of the Clean Air Act, revoking an earlier determination by the EPA that mercury emissions from power plants should be treated as hazardous air pollutants. Even Bush’s own FDA issued warning about mercury in tuna. Are you all right with that – the President saying that Mercury shouldn’t be treated as a hazardous air pollutant? Consider toxic wastes. The Superfund has gone from $3.8 billion to a shortfall of $175 million. The result is fewer cleanups, slower cleanups, and a toxic mess left for our children. That’s because the Bush administration has let its industry friends off the hook; the tax these polluters used to pay to support the Superfund has been eliminated, so that you, me, and other taxpayers are left holding the bill. Are you all right with that – the country’s worst polluters getting off the hook while you and I pay? And consider the enforcement of environmental laws. For three years in a row, the Bush administration has sought to slash enforcement personnel levels at EPA. Offices were told to back off cases, leaving one veteran EPA servant to say, “The rug was pulled out from under us…You look around and say, “What contribution can I make here?” Are you all right with that – the EPA being stripped of its ability to protect our air and water? I’ll tell you who’s all right with that. A recent review of contributions to the Bush campaign from utility industry executives, lawyers and lobbyists showed that 15 individuals were Bush Pioneers – those who raised at least $100,000 for the Bush campaign. We’ve seen this radical change in our parks too. Just ask the coalition of more than 100 retired career park service employees who wrote a letter saying that their mission to protect parks’ natural resources has been changed to focus on commercial and special-interest use of parks. These are not small shifts in policy – they are radical changes that reverse a century of American policy designed to protect our natural resources. Here’s what America used to be. Yellowstone Park was created in 1872, in part to preserve its forest, mineral and geothermal resources. Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 championed this philosophy, setting aside millions of acres of forest reserves, national monuments and wildlife refuges. This balanced approach – combining use of needed resources in the short term with conservation for future generations -- has been honored by Roosevelt on down the line, president after president – until this one. In preparing this series of speeches, I have noticed a troubling pattern that characterizes the Bush/Cheney Administration’s approach to almost all issues. In almost every policy area, the Administration’s consistent goal has been to eliminate any constraints on their exercise of raw power, whether by law, regulation, alliance or treaty – and in the process they have in each case caused America to be seen by the other nations of the world as showing disdain for the international community. In each case they devise their policies with as much secrecy as possible and in close cooperation with the most powerful special interests that have a monetary stake in what happens. In each case the public interest is not only ignored but actively undermined. In each case they devote considerable attention to a clever strategy of deception that appears designed to prevent the American people from discerning what it is they are actually doing. Indeed, they often use Orwellian language to disguise their true purposes. For example, a policy that opens national forests to destructive logging of old-growth trees is labeled “The Healthy Forest Initiative.” A policy that vastly increases the amount of pollution that can be dumped into the air is called the “Clear Skies Initiative.” And in case after case, the policy adopted immediately after the inauguration has been the exact opposite of what was pledged to the American people during the election campaign. The promise by candidate Bush to conduct a “humble” foreign policy and avoid any semblance of “nation building” was transformed in the first days of the Bush presidency, into a frenzied preparation for a military invasion of Iraq, complete with detailed plans for the remaking of that nation under American occupation. And in the same way, a solemn promise made to the country that carbon dioxide would be regulated as a polluting greenhouse gas was instantly transformed by the inauguration into a promise to the generators of CO2 that it would not be regulated at all. And a seemingly heartfelt declaration to the American people during the campaign that he genuinely believed that global warming is a real problem which must be addressed was replaced after the Inauguration by a dismissive expression of contempt for careful, peer-reviewed work by EPA scientists setting forth the plain facts on at global warming. These and other activities make it abundantly clear that the Bush White House represents a new departure in the history of the Presidency. He is so eager to accommodate his supporters and contributors that there seems to be very little that he is not willing to do for them at the expense of the public interest. To mention only one example, we’ve seen him work tirelessly to allow his friends to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Indeed, it seems at times as if the Bush-Cheney Administration is wholly owned by the coal, oil, utility and mining companies. While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors he is a moral coward – so weak that he seldom if ever says “No” to them on anything – no matter what the public interest might mandate. The problem is that our world is now confronting a five-alarm fire that calls for bold moral and political leadership from the United States of America. With such leadership, there is no doubt that we could solve the problem of global warming. After all, we brought down communism, won wars in the Pacific and Europe simultaneously, enacted the Marshall Plan, found a cure for polio and put men on the moon. When we set our sights on a visionary goal and are unified in pursuing it, there is very little we cannot accomplish. And it is important to recall that we have also already succeeded in organizing a winning global strategy to solve one massive global environmental challenge: PICTURE 130 AND 131 Instead of spending enormous sums of money on an unimaginative and retread effort to make a tiny portion of the Moon habitable for a handful of people, we should focus instead on a massive effort to ensure that the Earth is habitable for future generations. If we make that choice, the U.S. can strengthen our economy with a new generation of advanced technologies, create millions of good new jobs, and inspire the world with a bold and moral vision of humankind’s future. PICTURES 132 THROUGH 138 We are now at a true fork in the road. And in order to take the right path, we must choose the right values and adopt the right perspective. PICTURES 139 THROUGH 142 My friend the late Carl Sagan, whose idea it was to take this picture of the Earth, said this: “Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know. Everyone you ever heard of, ever y human being who ever WAS lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering , thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar”, every “supreme leader”, every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds , Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light… The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand… There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.” * PICTURES 143 AND 144
What I don't understand is why neck-radio listening, slobbering halfwits like TJ and BS want to turn global warming into an us vs. them sort of issue. Global temperatures are on the rise. Is this natural, sun-related, perhaps, or a result of human-generated greenhouse gasses? Is there an overall negative to decreasing greenhouse gasses generally, irrespective of anything else? I'm interested in talking about this, as are many others. You guys take a brief break from your Hillary is a Lesbian tirade or whatever meaningless jag you're on now to mock the idea that there may be such a thing as global warming and also to mock the idea that human activity may be behind it, as obvious as that seems to thousands of scientists everywhere. I just don't get you people; I really don't.
Here is yet another strong report on global warming: Study: Europe to have more killer summers Monday, January 12, 2004 LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Extreme summers and scorching heat waves similar to the one that killed an estimated 20,000 people across Europe last summer could become more frequent in the future, climate scientists said. Last summer's record-breaking temperatures were very unusual but global warming and an increase in climate variability means more heat waves are likely in years to come. "It is likely that these types of events will become more common," Dr Christoph Schar, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH Zurich, told Reuters on Sunday. "Our simulations show that, roughly speaking, every second European summer is likely to be as warm, if not warmer, than the summer of 2003." Summer temperatures change slightly from one year to another but they have become more variable with stronger fluctuations in temperature making it more difficult to predict changes and more likely they will be extreme. Schar and scientists at the Swiss meteorological service MeteoSwiss made simulations of future climate from 2071 to 2100 using records from the past 150 years and assuming that concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from cars and factories would rise to twice their current level by the end of the century. Their predictions are published online by the science journal Nature. "By the end of the century we will still see some normal summers, looking from today's perspective, but the mean would be more like 2003 and the maximum would be even warmer," Schar added. In some parts of Europe last summer's temperatures were up to five degrees Centigrade (8 or more Fahrenheit) higher than normal over a period of three months. Such a rise over a day or week is not unusual but over three months is rare. "The previous record in Switzerland, in 1947, had been three degrees C," said Schar. The searing heat wave is thought to have contributed to an estimated 13,600 extra deaths in August in France. In Italy, where the mercury soared to 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit), reports suggested deaths rose 20 percent during the summer. The elderly were most vulnerable to the extreme heat which also caused forest fires, crop losses and water shortages. The World Health Organization has warned that the death toll from global warming will continue in coming years if current trends continue. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/01/12/europe.climate.reut/index.html
Be prepared for a flood of links to unknown academics from obscure colleges toting studies funded by ExxonMobil, the Club for Growth, and the usual suspects. Gore, in his speech, did a good job of shining a light upon the disinformation tactics of the right wing.
From Waxman's web site... _____________ The Science on Global Warming When President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, he promised the American people that “my Administration’s climate change policy will be science-based.”[1] In fact, however, the Bush Administration has repeatedly manipulated scientific committees and suppressed science in this area. Chair of International Science Panel In early 2002, the State Department successfully opposed the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to the top position on the preeminent international global warming study panel.[2] Dr. Robert Watson had been chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. An internationally respected scientist and recipient of numerous awards and honors, Dr. Watson had been the Director of the Science Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and chief scientist at the World Bank. Under his leadership, the IPCC had produced a report predicting an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit in average global temperatures by 2100[3] and concluding that “[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”[4] These conclusions were affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.[5] After the release of the 2001 report, ExxonMobil lobbied the Bush administration for Dr. Watson’s ouster. A February 6, 2001 memo sent by ExxonMobil to John Howard of the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House criticized Dr. Watson and asked, “Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?”[6] ExxonMobil opposes the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming and gives over a million dollars a year to groups that question the existence of global warming.[7] Subsequently, the State Department opposed Dr. Watson’s reelection to head the panel. The Department gave no scientific rationale for this decision. In April 2002, lacking the support of his home country, Dr. Watson lost his position as chair.[8] One leading researcher, Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, commented to Science: “It is scandalous . . . . This is an invasion of narrow political considerations into a scientific process.”[9] Information about Global Warming The Bush Administration has also suppressed scientific evidence on global warming. In September 2002, the section on global warming was removed from an annual report on the state of air pollution.[10] Then, in June 2003, the Administration published a supposedly “comprehensive” report on the environment without any information on climate change. According to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, the Draft Report on the Environment used “the most sophisticated science ever” and represented “a comprehensive roadmap to ensure that all Americans have cleaner air, purer water and better protected land.”[11] However, this report contained no information on global warming. Instead, the document stated, “This report does not attempt to address the complexities of this issue.”[12] Politics, not the complexities of science, led to the deletion of the section on global warming. The New York Times reported that when an earlier draft of the report containing a section on global warming was sent to the White House, the President’s advisors demanded major revisions. [13] Specifically, the White House opposed mention of research demonstrating sharp increases in global temperature over the past decade compared to the previous millennium. The White House even objected to the reference to a National Academy of Sciences report on the human contribution to global warming that the White House itself had requested and that had been endorsed by President Bush in speeches that year.[14] Administration officials replaced these sections with a reference to a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute questioning climate change evidence.[15] The White House even sought to replace the scientifically indisputable statement that “[c]limate change has global consequences for human health and the environment” with a statement about the “complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components.”[16] An internal EPA memorandum circulated during the editing process noted that after these changes, the section “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.”[17] Another memo stated that by accepting the White House changes, “E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science.”[18] In the end, EPA officials chose to eliminate the section on global warming entirely. Russell Train, who served as EPA Administrator to Presidents Nixon and Ford, wrote in a letter to the New York Times: I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the E.P.A. during my tenure. The E.P.A. was established as an independent agency in the executive branch, and so it should remain. There appears today to be a steady erosion in its independent status. I can appreciate the president’s interest in not having discordant voices within his Administration. But the interest of the American people lies in having full disclosure of the facts, particularly when the issue is one with such potentially enormous damage to the long-term health and economic well-being of all of us.[19] Analyses Requested by Congress EPA has long had the important role of providing technical support to Congress by analyzing proposed legislation upon request. During the Bush Administration, however, EPA has refused to conduct or release analysis of several key pieces of legislation related to greenhouse gases that are opposed by the Administration. President Bush has proposed the Clear Skies Act, which would reduce emissions of three pollutants from power plants but would not regulate carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas. In July 2002, Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware introduced competing legislation that sets tighter emissions limits and includes carbon dioxide.[20] Senator Carper requested that EPA provide a detailed analysis of his legislation, as it had done for Clear Skies, to enable Congress to compare the two approaches. EPA, however, refused to release its analysis of Senator Carper’s bill for months. When the agency finally released some information, it limited the report to the costs of the bill, continuing to withhold the information on benefits.[21] EPA’s complete analysis, which was not released, showed that Senator Carper’s legislation would be more effective and only slightly more expensive than the President’s Clear Skies Act. Specifically, it projected that Senator Carper’s bill would reduce emissions to levels lower than those projected under the Clear Skies Act, cost only two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour more than the President’s plan, and save 17,800 more lives, as well as including controls on carbon dioxide.[22] In addition, EPA has refused to complete an analysis that could demonstrate the feasibility of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have introduced legislation to establish national mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush Administration opposes this legislation. In the past, EPA has analyzed numerous proposals for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Senators specifically requested EPA to analyze the costs and benefits of their bill. However, the Administration blocked the completion of the EPA analysis, which preliminarily found a $1 billion to $2 billion impact to the economy, in favor of an Energy Department study, which concluded that the impact would be $106 billion.[23] Commenting on EPA’s refusals, William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA Administrator under President Nixon, told the New York Times: Whether or not analysis is released is based on at least two factors . . . . Is the analysis flawed? That is a legitimate reason for not releasing it. But if you don’t like the outcome that might result from the analysis, that is not a legitimate reason.[24] _________________ [1] White House, President’s Statement on Climate Change (July 13, 2001) (online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010713-2.html). [2] Battle Over IPCC Chair Renews Debate on U.S. Climate Policy, Science (Apr. 12, 2002). [3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policymakers (2001) (online at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm). [4] Id. at Preface (online at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm). [5] National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001). [6] Memo from Randy Randol, ExxonMobil Washington Office, to John Howard, White House Council on Environmental Quality (Feb. 6, 2001) (online at http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf). [7] Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming, New York Times (May 28, 2003). [8] Global Warming Official Out, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Apr. 20, 2002). [9] Battle over IPCC Chair Renews Debate on U.S. Climate Policy, Science (Apr. 12, 2002). [10] Jeremy Symons, How Bush and Co. Obscure the Science, Washington Post (July 13, 2003). [11] EPA, EPA Announces Unprecedented First “Draft Report on the Environment” (June 23, 2003). [12] EPA, Draft Report on the Environment 2003, 1-11 (online at http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roeAirGlo.htm). [13] Report by E.P.A. Leaves out Data on Climate Change, New York Times (June 19, 2003). [14] Id. [15] Id. [16] Id. [17] Id. [18] Id. [19] Russell E. Train, When Politics Trumps Science (Letter to the Editor), New York Times (June 21, 2003). [20] S. 3135, 107th Cong. (2002). [21] EPA Withholds Air Pollution Analysis, Washington Post (July 1, 2003). [22] Id. [23] New Estimates on Senate Carbon Dioxide Plans, New York Times (July 30, 2003). [24] Critics Say E.P.A. Won’t Analyze Clean Air Proposals Conflicting with President’s Policies, New York Times (July 14, 2003).
Inferring from Basso's argument, he believes that the earth's climate is linear. I will try to put this as simply as the argument he put forth. We covered this briefly in some class in college. No model of climate activity uses a linear approximation - it reacts more like a spring. Inputs to a spring will result in an move in the extremes before stabilization. Hence, it will get both hotter and colder before stabilizing to a new norm.
In case it's not clear, if the earth was getting warmer or colder, it would not just simply be warmer or cooler all the time, nor just slightly skewed one way every day. This simplified linear model does not reflect reality.
Nice explanation, Woofer, and thanks for all the facts that "thin-skinned" science-literature people have posted. basso, the reason it's not funny is that we, as a nation, are championing greenhouse gases like no other. The science (upon which 98 out of 100 climatologists agree), points to a significant human effect. The underlying fact that so-called greenhouse gases can only act to raise global temperatures is agreed upon by 100 out of 100 climatologists. The 2 out of 100 non-global warming climatologists simply argue that the human effect is negligible at this point in time. And if you'd really like that little bit of warmer weather, as you joke, then make sure you live inland by a very large distance. Coastal cities will not share your mirth.
I thought basso's post was funny. You can be concerned about greenhouse gases and still think it was funny. As a matter of fact, I am almost 100 % sure that some remark like that will be Gore's opening joke when he speaks.
Well, I did laugh at the juxtaposition, but in public, I'm going to be stuffy about it. That's just because there are far too many people with little access to or little interest in the real science. So, it's a little joke, and it's funny, but I think a lot of people will then shrug and say "Kyoto, whatever, dumb hippies." And a lot of people in the know thinks it's a little more important than that. Since greenhouse gases don't really do anyone any good, what's the harm in cutting back? Well, there's one very well-connected faction with one real big ($$$) answer to that. Otherwise, nobody's opposed to cutting back. Sorry to be so un-fun, basso.
