And in Copenhagen it will be essential to the progress we must see in order to avoid a global catastrophe.This is a well written article about Mr Gore and in reading it I was struck by something I too failed to acknowledge in the past: That what happened in 2000 as tragic as it was for democracy and indeed the world may actually have been part of a greater plan to bring Mr. Gore to his true destiny. And now we must bring ourselves to our own as a species.
I thank him for the inspiration and hope he continues to bring to all of us despite the slings and arrows. And I also agree with the author, his pictures do not do him justice. ;-).http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/al-gore-interview-climate-change
And in... more
SHOCKING NEW NASA DATA / NEW PREDICTION = "3 TO 5 YEARS NO ICE IN ARCTIC"
THE PERMAFROST = IS NOW THAWING....
3-5 years All Arctic Ice will be gone. Five years after that... no ice on either pole!
Watch Video as prehistoric methane gas is released under the ice from the thawing permafrost below is ignited.
NEW DATA: The original time to reach the permafrost thawing tipping point wasn't predicted to happen until 2050.
We need to understand what is happening and how the effects of what is now taking place... will change all our lives in the "months and few years ahead".SHOCKING NEW NASA DATA / NEW PREDICTION = "3 TO 5 YEARS NO ICE IN ARCTIC"
THE... more
Dan Miller's presentation focuses on why the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports are actually best case scenarios. For example, IPCC climate models do not include the effect of melting permafrost releasing greenhouse gases, even though the permafrost is melting now and it holds more greenhouse gases than all that mankind has ever released.
Another example is that IPCC predictions of sea level rise only take into account thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of glaciers; the largest factor, disintegration of glaciers, was not included because it is hard to model. The result is that sea level rise will likely be substantially higher this century than the IPCC predicts.
Miller discusses several other potential catastrophes that are not included in IPCC predictions and also discusses tipping points that could put climate change solutions out of our reach in years or decades, the psychology of climate change, and why it is difficult for people to respond to the threat posed by a warming earth.
His talk concludes with a discussion of ways to address climate change and the risks and opportunities that companies face due to the climate crisis.
The prospects of saving the world's coral reefs now appear so bleak that plans are being made to freeze samples to preserve them for the future.
A meeting in Denmark took evidence from researchers that most coral reefs will not survive even if tough regulations on greenhouse gases are put in place.
Scientists proposed storing samples of coral species in liquid nitrogen.
That will allow them to be reintroduced to the seas in the future if global temperatures can be stabilized.
'Well it's the last ditch effort to save biodiversity from the reefs which are extremely diverse systems," said Simon Harding from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).
According to recent research, one of the world's most important concentrations of coral - the so-called Coral Triangle in South East Asia - could be destroyed by climate change before the end of this century with significant impacts on food security and livelihoods.
-more at link-The prospects of saving the world's coral reefs now appear so bleak that plans are... more
The natural park of spain "LAS TABLAS DE DAIMIEL" is death.
This problem is very importan of the world
the complete notice in every languages in the web.The natural park of spain "LAS TABLAS DE DAIMIEL" is death.
This problem is very... more
"Tech Transfer" is a phrase everyone who's serious about climate change should have at the top of their "to advocate for" list. what KINDS of technologies to develop is a conversation to have. Another one is whether or not to share them with developing countries who would otherwise burn coal and oil. Sounds like a no-brainer. So why the hesitation?
Because of today's climate( no pun intended) with environmental, health, food shortages, and philanthropy, The Bill and Melinda Foundation is never in short supply of issues to address and solve. Agriculture is a perfect place to start...Because of today's climate( no pun intended) with environmental, health, food... more
Suppose you're on a luxury cruise ship (with no lifeboats) a thousand miles from anywhere.
While you're sipping your martini and sunbathing, an announcement blares over the loudspeaker. "This is your captain speaking. We've got a leak in the ship. We're all going to drown unless we get to the bottom deck and start hauling out the water as fast as it comes in. We need everyone's help!"
Being a sane, smart, non-suicidal person, you race to help, screaming for everyone else to do the same. On the way, you pass a batch of people still sunbathing. "Didn't you hear the captain?" you ask, liberally sprinkling your question with profanities too vile for this family-friendly blog.
They laugh at you. "That captain is full of crap. This ship isn't sinking."
What would you do? You could call them more vile profanities, but they are essential to your survival, so you'd want to use every manner of persuasion to get their help. You could kick them overboard so the ship had less to hold up, but that would waste time, which, according to the captain, is running out.
That's the challenge of Climate Change as allegory. Let's extract the meaning.
The captain represents the expert scientists who tell everyone there is a problem. You (starring as yourself) being sane, smart and non-suicidal, conclude the captain is an expert and knows what he's talking about. After all, you trust him to pilot the ship while you sleep, get drunk, watch bad dinner theater and marinate your privates in a hot tub alongside complete strangers and their privates. You're living every day with a trust that the skipper knows his stuff. It would be absurd to suddenly doubt his ability to judge the vessel's seaworthiness.
The arrogant deniers in the story represent, well, arrogant deniers.
I know, I know. We should respect others' opinions, but science isn't a question of preference or taste. Acknowledging Climate Change is a matter of everyone believing the experts that they rely on for everything else in their lives (scientists) from car safety to medicine to food production to whether or not a container labeled "microwave-safe" really is, on and on and on.
Can we please give scientists priority on matters of science?
Back in the day, I read science magazines a lot. I still do, though not as much. Back then (and now) all the science magazines spoke about global warming as a fact. The popular news didn't speak of it a peep. That changed when Al Gore hit the scene with An Inconvenient Truth and raised the alarm on Climate Change. Suddenly all the political (non-scientist) opponents of Mr. Gore, who have never ever discussed science in any depth, are speaking like Doctorates of Meteorology, claiming with absolute certainty that Climate Change is a hoax. I believe their dislike (or jealousy) of Al Gore has clouded their judgment.
This is what is so terrifying about Climate Change. We need everyone's participation to reverse, slow or mitigate its effects, but some people just can't stand the fact that Al Gore was the messenger. That's one psychological breakdown of Climate Change denial, but there are alternate explanations.
For example, the denial might be rooted in a disconnection with the earth and a lack of understanding of its connectedness. It's hard for short-sighted people who have never poked their heads beyond the confines of their own asses to worry about Climate Change. So what if an iceberg melts? They say. It doesn't affect my water supply. Who cares if honeybees die? I can always just go the store and get food.
[...more at link...]Suppose you're on a luxury cruise ship (with no lifeboats) a thousand miles from... more
Sign up to host your own 1Sky Climate Action Party, where you'll bring together people from your community to call your senators and plan your October 24th event pushing for Senate and international action on climate. You've stepped up to be a climate leader in the past, so we're counting on you. Create your own Climate Action Party today!Sign up to host your own 1Sky Climate Action Party, where you'll bring together people... more
You know, at this point I say, SO WHAT? It isn't as if this Congress is even going to give us a bill that the Earth NEEDS. 17% reductions of GHGs by 2020 is PITIFUL. Dragging your feet on giving us REAL fuel emissions standards is PITIFUL when scientists have already stated we could be getting 80 miles to the gallon in our cars. And where are the subsidies for the AFFORDABLE hybrid plug- ins for the middle class? Ignoring Arctic melt because you want to secure sea routes for the resources there is PITIFUL. Ignoring the effects your cronyism in the agricultural sector are having on the environment is PITIFUL. Continuing to allow the practice of mountaintop removal is CRIMINAL.
So by all means, U.S. Congress, show the world your true colors and just how bought and sold to the coal and oil industries you really are even at a time of planetary crisis. Then go to Copenhagen hanging your heads in shame. Approving the Alberta Clipper pipeline to pipe in dirty bitumen tarsands while trying to tell the world the U.S Is ready to tackle climate change is also an insult to our intelligence. But go ahead, continue to think you can rickroll the American people with your doubletalk and ignorance. The day will come when your decades of inaction will have the full effect and your petty, selfish, politically partisan drivel will be seen for the irrelevance it is.
This also proves their level of consciousness about this is nil. It is not now a question of them having the luxury of a CHOICE as to whether they can pass this in time or not. This is a moral imperative that scientists state must be done and done right to stave off the worst effects of a crisis that will change our way of life. This in essence IS our healthcare bill, because without a sustainable planet we have nothing else, including health.
__________
Excerpt:
The fate of U.S. legislation capping carbon emissions weighed heavily on delegates at U.N. climate talks starting Monday in Bangkok, with the Americans saying delays in passing the bill could deter commitments from other nations.
Negotiations on a new U.N. climate pact have been bogged down by a broad unwillingness to commit to firm emissions targets, and a refusal by developing countries to sign a deal until the West guarantees tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance — something rich countries have so far refused to do.
"The more specific we can be, the easier it is to press others to be equally specific," Jonathan Pershing, the chief U.S. negotiator at the talks, told The Associated Press. "We have a lot of things we want from countries. ... The less we can put on the table, the harder it is to achieve that outcome."
The two weeks of U.N. climate talks in the Thai capital are drawing some 1,500 delegates from 180 countries to boil down a 200-page draft agreement to something more manageable, aiming for a new international climate pact this year.
In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its first bill to cap carbon emissions. The Senate, currently embroiled in debate on health care, is expected to take up the legislation as early as this week.
But Pershing said he doubted there's enough time to pass a climate bill in Congress before the year's biggest climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December, which aims to reach a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012.
end of excerptYou know, at this point I say, SO WHAT? It isn't as if this Congress is even going to... more
The melting of the polar ice caps has supervillains all in a panic. It's not just that global warming has stolen their thunder (though that doesn't help). The melting ice has also revealed their secret Arctic lairs.The melting of the polar ice caps has supervillains all in a panic. It's not just that... more
One incredable woman who has been fighting for this country and its future for at least 3 decades Meet L. Hunter LovinsOne incredable woman who has been fighting for this country and its future for at... more
The Mobilization for Climate Justice is a North America-based network of organizations and activists who have joined together to build a North American climate justice movement that emphasizes non-violent direct action and public education to mobilize for effective and just solutions to the climate crisis. The Mobilization for Climate Justice invites communities, organizations and activists across North America to join us in organizing mass action on climate change on November 30, 2009 (N30).The Mobilization for Climate Justice is a North America-based network of organizations... more
Natural gas prices are at a 7-year low, it generates less emissions than coal, and we happen to be in the middle of trying to reform our energy policies to make them cheaper and less polluting. Natural gas could be our last shot for getting a better climate bill this year, as John Laumer writes--it could prove a viable source of relatively low emissions energy while we transition to even cleaner sources like wind and solar. So why is natural gas getting boxed out of the climate bill?Natural gas prices are at a 7-year low, it generates less emissions than coal, and we... more
This is my website!!! :D It's non-profit and teaches the basics of global warming!!! PLEASE VISIT!!! :)This is my website!!! :D It's non-profit and teaches the basics of global warming!!!... more
Americans fall into six distinct groups regarding their climate change beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, according to a new report, 'Global Warming's Six Americas,' by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities. The researchers, who surveyed 2,129 adult Americans in the fall of 2008, found that these 'six Americas' include:
The Alarmed, (18 percent of the population) are most convinced that global warming is happening, caused by humans, and a serious and urgent threat.
The Concerned (33 percent) believe global warming is a serious problem and support an active national response, but are less personally involved and have taken fewer actions than the Alarmed.
The Cautious (19 percent) believe global warming is a problem, but are less certain it is happening. They neither view it as a personal threat nor feel a sense of urgency about it.
The Disengaged (12 percent) do not know much about global warming or whether it is happening and have not thought much about the issue.
The Doubtful (11 percent) are not sure whether global warming is happening, but believe that, if it is, it is caused by natural environmental changes and is a distant threat.
The Dismissive (7 percent) are actively engaged in the issue, but believe that global warming is not happening and does not warrant a national response.
'When we talk about 'the American public' and its views on global warming, that's a misnomer,' said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and a co-author of the report. 'There is no single American voice on this issue.'
However, the researchers found that the groups sometimes actually behave in similar ways, albeit for different reasons, said Leiserowitz. For instance, all six support actions that save them money, with the Dismissive just as likely to have made energy efficiency improvements to their homes as the Alarmed. Likewise, all six groups support rebates for the purchase of solar panels and fuel-efficient cars, including the Dismissive.
'Too many climate change education and awareness campaigns have been like throwing darts in a dark room,' said Leiserowitz. 'Climate change is ultimately a human problem. If we want to constructively engage Americans in the solutions, we have to first know our audience.'
The study was conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. It was funded by the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy; the Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation; the Surdna Foundation; the 11th Hour Project; the Pacific Foundation; and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
BBC Interviewer calls claim that Arctic ice would disappear by 2030 “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism”
Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.
However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.
He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment, eugenicist rhetoric which will be familiar to our readers and anyone who has watched Alex Jones’ Endgame documentary.
As the Watts Up With That blog highlights, “Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.”
Similar claims that the north pole will be “ice free” crop up almost every summer yet are routinely disproved.
Indeed, it was discovered that during August 2007 to August 2008, Arctic ice had in fact grown by around 30 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of Germany.
A new peer reviewed study has also discovered, “Total annual precipitation in Greenland ice sheet for 1958-2007 to be up to 24% and surface mass balance up to 63% higher than previously thought.”
As we reported last year, climate scientists allied with the UN IPCC were also caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, in another shocking example of mass public deception.
In November 2008, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that the previous month had been the hottest October on record. It later emerged that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.
Watch a clip from the Sackur- Leipold interview below.
"Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXEBBC Interviewer calls claim that Arctic ice would disappear by 2030 “misleading... more
Analysis of projected midcentury August temperatures for a list of 21 major American cities, under a fairly conservative warming scenario, suggests some startling changes ahead. Graphics show increased number of days over 90 and 95 in major cities. Simple easy to follow animations.Analysis of projected midcentury August temperatures for a list of 21 major American... more
Greenpeace has had quite a bit of coverage of late on TreeHugger with their latest actions of climbing Mount Rushmore to put pressure on politicians regarding climate change, and climbing to the roof of HP to get the company to remove toxins from their products. We wondered whether some of their actions would have impact. Well, here is one campaign Greenpeace has been pushing that has resulted in positive change. Thanks to their Kleercut campaign against Kimberly-Clark - makers of Kleenex, Scott and Cottonelle brands - the company has resolved to get all of its wood fiber for tissue products from environmentally responsible sources.
Working with Greenpeace on a new set of supply chain standards, the company has enhanced the Endangered Forests and increased the use of both Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified fiber and recycled fiber. By 2011, Kimberly-Clark will ensure that 40% of its North American tissue fiber is either recycled or FSC certified, and the larger goal is to get to 100%.
"We are committed to using environmentally responsible wood fiber and today's announcement enhances our industry-leading practices in this area," said Suhas Apte, Kimberly-Clark Vice President of Environment, Energy, Safety, Quality and Sustainability. "It is our belief that certified primary wood fiber and recycled fiber can both be used in an environmentally responsible way and can provide the product performance that customers and consumers expect from our well-known tissue brands. We commend Greenpeace for helping us develop more sustainable standards."
Congrats, Greenpeace, on a victory for forests. Considering the sheer amount of tissue products sold by Kimberly-Clark, this is a substantial improvement.Greenpeace has had quite a bit of coverage of late on TreeHugger with their latest... more
