skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Jake Schmidt’s Blog

"The Island President" - Mohamed Nasheed - on the Daily Show talks global warming

Jake Schmidt

Posted April 3, 2012 in Solving Global Warming

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

(Former) President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night talking about global warming, his efforts to get world leaders to rally around finding a solution at the Copenhagen Climate Summit, and the next steps.  As I discussed there are implications for all of us implied by his story.  [Part 1 discussed more about the current political situation in the Maldives and Part 2 focused on global warming.]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

He talked about the challenges faced at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009 and what was accomplished:

“In 2009 the idea was that countries can come together and have an understanding that they would not poison the environment and the atmosphere to an extent that we would not be able to live…I would argue that Copenhagen was a victory.  For the first time the United States, China, India, Brazil, big emitting countries agreed to limit their carbon emissions. They were not able to agree on the amounts of it, but they were able to agree on the principle of limiting it.”

And he talked about the backdrop to global warming negotiations with the new catch phrase for efforts – “don’t be so silly” – and provided a call for citizens to demand action of their leaders:

“I’m afraid politicians only do the things that their people tell them to do.”

I hope you watch the movie – The Island President – feel inspired to demand that politicians act and take action to let them know that you want them to reduce the carbon pollution that is causing global warming.

Share | | |

Comments

Myron MeseckeApr 3 2012 02:17 PM

If the people of the Maldives truly believed they were threatened by man made CO2 they wouldn't be building new airports to bring in more planes full of more tourists. They would instead shut down all tourism to the Maldives.

http://maldives.net.mv/1784/maldives-prepares-to-build-two-new-airports/

"Both the companies were also granted two uninhabited islands for a period of 50 years to develop into tourist resorts."

50 years? I guess there isn't imminent threat to the Maldives from rising sea levels.

Jack SavageApr 3 2012 02:31 PM

Spot on, Myron.

I am sick to death of being menaced and mugged by this imaginary threat.

It is time we all rose up and said : "Enough!"

J PApr 3 2012 02:50 PM

Well, in fairness Myron, the article you linked doesn't say who granted those development licenses. It's widely accepted that Nasheed's party got almost none of their agenda pushed through the legislature due to their opposition having majority control there. I wouldn't be surprised if these developments were the work of the anti-Nasheed faction. All the article shows is that there are still some idiots in the Maldives who don't believe in climate change, just like we have in America.

salvatoreApr 3 2012 08:04 PM

It's not like tourism is most of their economy, or anything. Wait.

Didja know this March was the warmest on record in 90 US cities?

BSApr 4 2012 09:03 AM

No offense, salvatore, but the US is something like 2% of the earth's surface.

The phenomena is called GLOBAL warming. Many other parts fo the globe had cold winters. One or two months don't mean a whole lot.

Below is a chart of global temperatures which as you can see, have been flat for 10+ years. The most recent months even appear to show cooling, although there's not enough data to know if that will be sustained or just an anomaly.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

Jake SchmidtApr 5 2012 10:26 AM

BS and Jack,

Actually the graph you pointed to is only a small snippet of an overall larger graph which shows that temperatures have been significantly increasing. See NASA graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif. Or you can watch it happen here: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/131-years-of-global-warming-in-26-seconds/

In addition, the US has just shattered a huge number of temperature records: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/climate-centrals-record-temperature-tracker/.

The science is clear and the connection between rising carbon pollution and climate change is clear.

BSApr 5 2012 09:44 PM

So explain to me why the earth has not warmed in the past 10-12 years. Why has the greenhouse effect taken a break.

Explain it to me.

Yes, I know the earth has warmed in recent decades. However, it has warmed far less than the IPCC predicted, and it hasn't warmed in the past 10-12 years.

The recent warmth in the US has been the result of La Nina. It has been more than offset by brutal cold in Alaska, Europe, and Canada. Thanks for twisting the facts, but I'm not fooled.

Explain why the earth hasn't warmed in the past 10-12 years.

Blake WoodApr 6 2012 01:28 AM

Re: BS
"Explain it to me."
Not sure if you really want facts, but...
1998 was a really really hot year, but 2005 was worse, and 2009-10 as well. the trend is still upward
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Bs: "...and it hasn't warmed in the past 10-12 years."

I say BS!

BSApr 9 2012 11:33 PM

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

One year doesn't make a trend. Look at the NASA data. Even the 5yr moving average has been flat for about six years. The data is right in front of your face. It's up to you whether you're willing to accept it or not.

If you don't like that, you probably also won't like the fact that the planet cooled significantly this past fall/winter. Again, NASA publishes the data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif . Of course a few months doesn't make a trend, but environmentalists are quick to point out the warm winter in the US (a tiny % of the earth's surface) but ignore that places like Europe, Alaska, and Canada had cold winters....

I'm not the one who is avoiding facts.

The biased website you referred me to says that ocean temperatures are a better indicator of the global temperature trend. OK, fine. Here you go: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ . That's the global ocean temperature graph that the NASA global temperature page links to. Ocean temperatures today are the same as they were in the mid or late 90s. So I guess that means warming stopped MORE than 12 years ago. Thanks for leading me to that realization.

BSApr 12 2012 08:20 AM

Jake, come back. Where did you go. Why do the NRDC bloggers always make themselves scarce when I insist on sticking to the facts?

Blake, you, too. Come back. Let's discuss further.

Jake SchmidtApr 12 2012 08:41 AM

Dear BS,

I've noticed you have a habit of wanting to post comments consistently and repeatedly and don't seem to be persuaded by the facts so unfortunately I don't have the time or desire to attempt to rebut every one of your incorrect comments. Sorry I'm busy trying to address global warming, not convince a clear skeptic that he is wrong.

You seem to have your facts wrong again from your stream of comments. I quote from NASA: "The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000" (see: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html).

BSApr 12 2012 10:28 AM

Look at the red line on the graph. Is it flat or not?

You do realize that in order be consistently warming, you need to have lots of #1 warmest years, right?

Saying that the year was the 8th warmest doesn't mean anything. Hypothetically speaking, you could have declining temperatures for 7 years in a row and still have the 8th warmest year.

John LiffeeApr 12 2012 11:43 AM

BS,

Yknow, when confidently retailing garbage about pipeline safety and economics — topics that you clearly bring some professional knowledge to — you can sound almost plausible. But that simply goes out the window whenever you address climate change. You say:

Look at the red line on the graph. Is it flat or not?

It's flat(ish) ... IF YOU BLIND YOURSELF TO THE OTHER 95% OF THE GRAPH, WHICH SHOWS WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST 100+ YEARS.

Non-myopic humans will, as Jake and NASA say, see that "nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000" — that global surface temps in recent years follow on a disturbing, century-long warming trend, and continue to push the envelope.

Go stick your head back in the sand somewhere, please.

BSApr 12 2012 01:57 PM

"It's flat(ish) ... IF YOU BLIND YOURSELF TO THE OTHER 95% OF THE GRAPH, WHICH SHOWS WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST 100+ YEARS."

Please do not distort the point I am making. I said the earth has not warmed in the past 10+ years. Clearly, there was significant warming before that. The point is that the earth has not warmed nearly as much as predicted, and that warming has stalled even as greenhouse gas emissions are at historic highs.

I'm asking the NRDC to explain both of those things. So far they cannot. Can you?

KFApr 12 2012 07:16 PM

Please check out a website called..

Principia Scientific, Intl.

Read it with an open mind. We all want the same thing....the Truth, and not just An Inconvenient Truth.....

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Jake Schmidt’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In