By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
It's encouraging that Barack Obama is not a do-nothing president like George W. Bush when it comes to climate change.
But Obama's rhetoric Thursday on the issue at the G-8 Summit was a little shaky, even empty in some ways.
For example, Obama praised himself and Congress for agreeing to move forward on an effort to reduce harmful emissions that are warming the globe.
True, Obama and the Democratic-controlled House did pass a climate-change bill that makes an effort to drastically reduce those emissions.
However, the measure is bloated with special-interest favors for all kinds of industries in the U.S., and for farmers intent on the questionable effort to flood the market with subsidized ethanol.
And -- as Obama knows full well -- the U.S. Senate will not pass the measure in its present form. It's only going to get worse as the more conservative Senate whittles away at the environmentally friendly aspects of the House-passed bill.
Obama also said Thursday, "It is no small task for 17 (world) leaders to bridge their differences on an issue like climate change."
Again, while that statement is true, the pledges made by the U.S. and 16 other nations will take years to implement. They won't create the expected benefits in sharply lower emissions for several decades to come.
Finally, Obama conceded that "developed countries like my own have a historic responsibility to take the lead."
Agreed. And yet, under not just George W. Bush but also former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, the United States did far too little to advance the fight against global warming.
Other nations can be excused for feeling that the late-to-the-party Americans still have to prove they are serious about their involvement in battling climate change.
Delicious
Digg
Yes
That's why science speaks in terms of data and theory.
The data show an ongoing and increasing trend over the past century of the earth's warming, a trend that comports with the ongoing and increasing amount of emissions into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate.
The theory that the majority of the world's climate scientists ascribe to is that human emissions are a contributor to that warming trend.
Just like the theory in the 40s and again in the 70s that we were going into an ice age. At least interface admits that man-made global warming is a THEORY.
So let's pass c(r)ap-and-trade on a THEORY.
wrong standard
Consensus is not truth.
Science isn't about "proof" or "truth" -- it's about looking at empirical data and formulating the most probable theory that explains that data and provides useful prediction for the future.
That's why science speaks in terms of data and theory.
The data show an ongoing and increasing trend over the past century of the earth's warming, a trend that comports with the ongoing and increasing amount of emissions into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate.
The theory that the majority of the world's climate scientists ascribe to is that human emissions are a contributor to that warming trend.
Interesting
I think you might find there is NOT a consensus. No matter how much the Kool Aid drinkers keep repeating that lie it is still a lie.
For the remedial class...
Consensus is not scientific proof.
Thinking something is true is not scientific proof.
Belief in a theory is not scientific proof.
Results from a computer model are not scientific proof.
Researchers who are believers in mand made global warming have motives other than science for getting others to buy what they are selling. The primary motives are money and power.
Research grants are often millions of dollars a year. Research organizations compete fiercly to get those millions. Researchers who help the organization they work for obtain those millions benefit financially.
Global warming researchers are very close to having their theories completely debunked for the fantasy they are. Those researchers will then lose their grants, and very likely their jobs as well.
Non-profits that push the global warming agenda pull in millions of dollars a year in donations by implying things like baby polar bears are going to drown, using pictures of a polar bear cub sitting on an ice cube (complements of hollywood film technology). Executives of those organizations receive a generous share of those millions in donations. Donors who find out they have been duped quit donating. No donations = no money for the execs.
MONEY is ALWAYS a motive, so is POWER. All these people stand to lose very large amounts of money when the public realizes that they have been intentionally misled into believing something that is not true.
Consensus is not scientific proof.
Consensus is not truth.
not a "wild claim"
simple fact.
There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.
To be sure, a handful of scientists have raised questions about the details of climate models, about the accuracy of methods for evaluating past global temperatures and about the wisdom of even attempting to predict the future. But this is quibbling about the details. The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- a consortium of eight countries, including Russia and the United States -- now confirms that major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and non-human communities, as predicted by climate models. This information was conveyed to the U.S. Senate last month not by a radical environmentalist, as was recently alleged on the Web, but by Robert Corell, a senior fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former assistant director for geosciences at the National Science Foundation.
So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientists -- have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.
The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html
Vast Majority?
And Interface complains about "wild claims" with nothing to back it up.
this claim makes no sense
You're throwing out wild, nonsensical accusations. Advice: back them up at least a little bit. What's your evidence for these "carbon credit indulgences" and how the scientists of the world are somehow all profiting.
More deleting...
Posts are apparently being deleted if you disagree with the Star's position.
Consensus of SOME scientists does not make "global warming" real, nor does trying to mislead people by calling it climate change.
And yes, those who are believers frequently profit greatly from grants, donations, sale of indulgences in the form of carbon credits, etc.
plain fact remains
The vast majority of the world's climate scientists agree that the reason the world is warming is in some part attributable to human-caused atmospheric emissions.
..
hundreds AND millions, huh? And somehow got the vast majority of the world's climate scientists to go along with him in the hoax, including doctoring all of their data collected over decades that show a steady rise in global temperatures correlating with the uptick in CO2 emissions. That'd be a huge conspiracy!
Crazy stuff, man, crazy stuff.
I am not one to say it doesnt exist or we have done nothing to contribute to it. But the FACTS are that not ALL scientists have agreed on Climate Change and its causes and effects.
Yes Gore has a slew of experts to back him up...but some of them have turned out to be sociologists, pyschiatrists, etc that are not really "climate" experts. But that is here nor there, the facts are there are thousands of other experts who disagree one way or another.
And to slam through radical legislation that will change the way the entire country operates and does business is just ignorant and arrogant. Cap and Trade will hurt our economy and cause millions of Americans to pay far more.
An article I read the other day stated that energy efficiency will cost people more. And not in the case of building new energy sources, no companies like KCPL can CHARGE MORE to SAVE ENERGY and PROVIDE LESS SERVICE.
That does not make sense. That is like say hey Mr. Hybrid driver thanks for saving on gas and emissions now we are going to charge you $5 for gasoline because you save so much.
Let's also not forget that radical legislation that does not have the backing of the dirtiest polluters in the WORLD on board is plainly stupid. The Earth is not a vaccum. If China and India continue polluting their air it effects us, plain and simple. And destroying our economy and way of life as a spec on the planet is like the proverbial saying of creating a no peeing section in a pool.
There is no harm in President Obama taking a HARD LINE on climate change, renewable energy sources, etc...but having the intelligence and self control to wait, study and in the near future pass legislation that changes America for the better without a huge detriment. You dont jack up prices for current energies in the hopes of causing conservation if you have nothing else to push people toward.
Instead of spending trillions on the San Francisco mouse or other stupid pork legislation...spend that same amount on upgrading the grid system of the entire country to be able to handle other energy sources, build a coast to coast high-speed rail system, etc.
Right now this congress and president are slamming through legislation so they cna claim they have done something...so they can claim power and so called results.
Yet looking at the history...results are not coming from their actions. Six months after a stimulus that was mandatory and critical to saving the country from disaster...a stimulus that required flying a congressman back to D.C. the same day as his mothers funeral...only for obama to wait 4 days to sign it...that six months later less than 20% of the money has been spend and unemployments continues to increase.
Later this month the minimum wage will increase, horay for democrats, and sorry to the thousands who will lose jobs or never be hired because of it. Horay for climate change, cap and trade, government healthcare....sorry to the millions who will lose jobs, lose money, go bankrupt....but hey Obama can claim results.
Maybe things turn but if we have not made a dramtic swing by this time next year...I think we will be seeing Democrats in a world of hurt come November 2010.