As a nation, we face three interrelated crises that collectively threaten to destabilize our way of life: the climate crisis, the continuing economic crisis and the security crisis, all stemming from our absurd overdependence on foreign oil, the largest reserves of which are controlled by sovereign states in the Persian Gulf.
Fortunately, there is a growing realization that the solutions to the climate crisis are also the most important solutions for the other two crises. We can simultaneously protect our climate and establish stability for our economy and our national security.
-- Costco Connection, November 2009
***
Perhaps not too surprisingly the December issue prints some letters to the editor that are not favorable to Gore.
Here's something interesting (i.e. dirt) on Dr. Fred Singer who is featured there.
In 1994 Singer was the Principal Reviewer of a report authored by Kent Jeffreys titled Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination which was published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), a right wing[13] think tank of which he was a Senior Fellow.[14] The report attacked the United States Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science". Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views, according to a peer-reviewed commentary by Derek Yacht and Stella Aguinaga Bialous.[15] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot stated that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[16] Monbiot wrote that he did not have direct evidence that Singer had been paid by Philip Morris.
So I wonder how much of a consensus is there on global warming? Or is it a few nutballs that disagree? (not to say that a few nutballs can't be right)
From wikipedia:
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions.
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement.
***
Then again, some say wikipedia is biased. Actually I didn't really know when I wrote the previous sentence, but I had a hunch that almost everything is attacked by somebody. Kind of reminds me of the right-wing smear on snopes.
***
[7/28/10] I wonder... Why don't most Republicans believe in global warming?
No comments:
Post a Comment