Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation.
I love it:
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Note the comments. Any comment condemning the editorial is deleted. You have to be lockstep or you are out.
Sadly because it was newspapers doing it, no one noticed…
Where is all the ice? Some say it is growing elsewhere. Its colder here than it has ever been. Polar Bear population is growing etc.
Who here disagrees that one net/net/net measurement of warming would be the ocean sea level? And who here can deny that sea level has been slowly, gradually, without reverse, going up the last 50 years???
Just asking.
For you Mr.Fusion (while my other post is being accepted by moderator for URL links)
he Super Plumes when they erupt can cause huge warming of the water, changing global climates if under water, or can discharge huge clouds of CO2, which could cover entire continents for years. The Department of Applied Science at New York University has done a study on the Carbon Dioxide release which would come with a Super Plume associated with a mid-Cretaceous size event. There is some evidence of this occurring previously. This would have caused global warming. They have developed a carbonate-silicate cycle model to try to quantify the possible climatic effects of such insanely huge CO2 gas releases. They say;
“utilizing four different formulations for the rate of silicate-rock weathering as a function of atmospheric CO2. We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm. Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees C over today’s global mean temperature. Altered continental positions and higher sea level may have been contributed about 4.8 degrees C to mid-Cretaceous warming. Thus, the combined effects of paleogeographic changes and super-plume related CO2 emissions could be in the range of 7.6 to 12.5 degrees C, within the 6 to 14 degrees C range previously estimated for mid-Cretaceous warming. CO2 releases from oceanic plateaus alone are unlikely to have been directly responsible for more than 20% of the mid-Cretaceous increase in atmospheric CO2.”
Super plume CO2 releases are only one problem associated with such events the devastation to those regions where eruptions occur are in immediate danger of annihilation, from poisonous clouds, Earthquakes, lava flows, etc. If those areas are within high-density populations the issues for loss of life and property make this last Florida’s Hurricane Season look like a pussycat. Perhaps we ought to open our minds and imagination and see what we can do to control our environment and provide protection to Earth’s populations.
Oddly, I don’t feel qualified to doubt or dispute the scientific consensus about global warming, or evolution, or the effectiveness of condoms. WTF is wrong with you crackpots?
Cherman, you have me convinced. It makes absolute sense to believe that you are correct and 98% of the world’s climate scientists are wrong, and are in a coordinated conspiracy.
This is exactly what you have to believe to be a global warming denier.
I have no idea how the deniers’ argument — who are actually claiming that 98% of all climate scientists are lying — is any different from anti-evolutionist arguments.
just like “swine flu” aka mexican flu, aka h1n1…
We’re all learning how to jump through the hoops…training is important
ahh good. More leftist liberal symbolism over substance. I was starting to forget what it looked like.
Gary, you have to understand the non-experts here on Dvorak Uncensored are perfectly competent to contradict the findings of actual scientists. They know how to use a keyboard — what more could you need?
#3 Fat_Anarchy
No one is denying climate change. They are denying the idea that humans are the main cause behind it.
#30 Mr. Fusion
Here’s 31,000 for you http://www.petitionproject.org/
#38 Wretched Gnu
I don’t think anyone is claiming that 98% of climate scientists are lying. But I would propose that whomever gave you the number of 98% is.
And for whatever the real percentage of climate scientists that support manmade cliimate change is, I wouldn’t say all of them are lying either. There are a number of reasons why a scientist might believe something that is false.
Just because something is “proven by science” doesn’t mean it is absolutely true. There are a lot of ways to interpret data and there are a lot of factors and unknowns that are unaccounted for; especially when dealing with something as large and complex as Earth’s climate.
This whole debate is a lot more complex than simply saying “if you don’t believe 98% of these people then you must be wrong” There are many underlying factors in and around the “science” at play here.
#16 bobbo, keeper of light
Haven’t joined the hoard. I’ve been posting on some other threads around why the west, and the US specifically, needs to lead the world in efficient energy. It’s about self-reliance and innovation. It’s about world leadership. It’s about being ahead of the curve with the coming energy crunch.
This thread is broad brushed fear mongering, and there is a lot of it coming from both sides.
#43 qb agreed
This debate is becoming more left vs. right crapola. Both arguments are fishier than an anchovy milkshake.
Let get back to a common sense environmental agenda such as energy efficiency and independence, sensible water management, reduction of pollution and preservation of biodiversity.
The creation of a divisive political hegemony by greedy elites is not going to address these issues.
Time to change the name of the blog to “Climate Change Debunked While You Wait.”
I saw this in The Guardian (UK), and if they’re censoring comments, they aren’t doing a very good job at it. I learned a new word there today: “warmist”. Attaching labels to people makes it easier to pigeon-hole them and their views.
Easy way to solve global warming
1) Rubbers for Africa and Asia
2) Common sense for developed nations.
The 3rd world can’t keep having babies like mad, and the developed world doesn’t need to have available 1500 different kinds of MP3 players.
Bobbo,
“Some say it is growing elsewhere.”
Show me.
Idiot.
#33, bip-bop,
I noticed none of the sources you list are peer reviewed. And no, the Cato Institute is not a neutral organization. Nor is a personal blog that doesn’t cite their references but only lists them and expect the reader to search for the information.
But, alas, so many people don’t understand the concept of peer review or objectivity.
The Oregon Petition has been debunked.
So where are all these scientists again?
BTW, I caught only a bit of it, but on CNN’s Anderson Cooper Show, Bill Nye demolished Patrick Micheal’s complaint about the “East Anglia Emails”. The CATO Institute showed its true colors again.
Dvorak got tired and just let Cherman to be the very opinionated troll on chief for this blog. Just read the post titles, trolling at its best and is working …
Are you scared yet kids?
Last time, the boots were black, this time they are green.
#50- And yet the IPCC’s list of consenting scientists has dwindled by the hundreds too. And many include people with little or no science background. As well as some opposed to actually being included in the list. But got their names put in there, anyway. But you rarely hear about that. The consensus is that the consenting scientists lists is consistent. What trash!
56 newspapers around the world, eh? Now you see what happens when the majority of the world’s press and publishers, are all owned by a small number of conglomerate entities. That answer to no one, as to what lie they push as news and facts, to promote whatever secret business deals they’re also a party to.
Just as certain American atheist newspaper magnates were behind the Scopes “Money Trial”, in order to help promote Evolution as Man’s origin. And later controlled what went into school books. Now we have kids with guns, in classrooms, because they taught they’re no more than evolved animals. And survival of the fittest replaces morals a fake God wrote down. Yeah, real nice alternative morality that suits the warmongers, like Cheney, real nice.
So you have to ask yourselves, what are the owners of these 56 newspapers getting from all this “concern” about the world’s weather? When they’ve had precious little concern about anything else before now.
You made several good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most folks will consent with your blog.