Cut the Drama: We Need the Senate to Create Clean Energy Jobs

Don Sheppard — Feb 26 2010 11:24 AM

I love the Earth. I am an avid hiker and love the outdoors. However, the supposed "science" that the global warming industry is built upon is completely wrong.
The data they based their conclusions on has been carfully manipulated to support their pre-existing views and was not provided in an open manner for legitimate peer review. None of the models have been able to modeel what is happening, and none of them take into account cloud reflectivity or, of all things, the SUN!

We should be more worried about keeping the Earth clean and making sure that the ecosystem is in balance than about unfounded science that blames things on a trace atmospheric gas and defends the unproven view with a religeous fervor.

You may now begin you unreasonable personal attacks on me with no facts with which to support them...

John Liffee — Feb 26 2010 02:33 PM

sigh ... Don, Don, Don....

Here's a question for you: Would you agree that the U.S. military establishment kinda has to strive for a clear-eyed, reality-based view of the threats we face as a nation? I mean, given that ignorance and misperception leads to things like dead American soldiers, box-cutter wielding terrorists somehow managing to fly planes into skyscrapers, the stakes are rather high. The military really has a strong vested interest in correct perception of reality, wouldn't you say?

You're okay with that premise? Good. Then perhaps you'll reconsider your views when you read the following, lifted from the current Quadrennial Defense Review (the chief public document describing the military doctrine of the United States):

Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas. In some nations, the military is the only institution with the capacity to respond to a large-scale natural disaster. Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their capability to respond to such events. Working closely with relevant U.S. departments and agencies, DoD has undertaken environmental security cooperative initiatives with foreign militaries that represent a nonthreatening way of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations, and developing response capacity.

Second, DoD will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on our facilities and military capabilities. The Department already provides environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations throughout the United States and around the world, working diligently to meet resource efficiency and sustainability goals as set by relevant laws and executive orders. Although the United States has significant capacity to adapt to climate change, it will pose challenges for civil society and DoD alike, particularly in light of the nation’s extensive coastal infrastructure.

In 2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space. Consequently, the Department must complete a comprehensive assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on its missions and adapt as required.

Need more? Okay, here's a description of another assessment that's the product of just about the entire federal government:

In 1989, then-president George H.W. Bush asked two important questions about climate change: what do we know, and how do we know it?

To answer those questions, NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State and eight other federal agencies mounted one of the most exhaustive endeavors in the history of scientific inquiry, a 20-year study conducted over the course of four administrations - two Republican and two Democratic.

The results were made public last June, in a comprehensive report.

This is how it begins:

Observations show that the warming of the climate is unequivocal.

Unequivocal. Leaving no doubt, open to no misunderstanding. That's what unequivocal means.

The global warming over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases,

the report continues.

These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices and other activities.

It doesn't get any more definitive than that.

What with the barrage of stale right-wing-radio talking points you're no doubt assaulting your ears with, you may not be able to hear me. Please, for the love of God and country, mute the earbuds for a minute and consider these findings and their source. I suspect you'll sheepishly change your position.

I'll never understand the aspect of "skeptic" arguments that hinges on the notion that the thousands of scientists whose peer-reviewed work was summarized in the IPCC report are in fact linked together in a massive conspiracy to perpetrate fraud on the entire human race. What possible reason could they have to do that? By and large, these are very bright people who could have made a lot of money in the private sector, but instead have chosen modest compensation and the satisfactions of the pursuit of pure knowledge. What possible reason could academic research scientists — and we're talking the global science community, not just a handful of "evil mad scientists" — have to do such a thing?

Btw, you folk do a disservice to the long and honorable tradition of skepticism in scientific research. You're not "skeptics"; you're quite literally anti-reality — you willfully refuse to accept the summary conclusions of every major scientific body in the world. And you endlessly regurgitate, regurgitate, regurgitate arguments that have been definitively punctured time after time after time. "Zombie arguments," we reality-based folk call 'em.

Andi Prama — Mar 1 2010 12:46 AM

Please watch my video
It’s about climate change (extreme weather conditions), earth catastrophe and our planet as we lives in.

Recent Earth catastrophes – Continental Drift: One huge continent became 2 continents, then 5 (or 6) and then?

Thank you.
p.s: Extreme greenhouse gas emissions makes climate change move faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7I_eFoIk64