“We are experiencing dangerous human disruption
By on Sep 1st, 2006 at 11:14 am
“We are experiencing dangerous human disruption
of the global climate and we’re going to experience more,” American Association for the Advancement of Science President John Holdren told the BBC. He added that President Bush is “wrong…in the assumption that we can wait for better technology, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, before we even start to do anything about climate change.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I live in a state where it is changing rapidly, and I have absolutely no PATIENCE for any naysayers…
Lowly fruit fly bears ‘disturbing’ news
September 1st, 2006 at 11:19 amScientists have found evidence of global warming’s effect at the genetic level by studying how invasive fruit flies have changed over the past two decades.
Washington State’s Glaciers are Melting, and That Has Scientists Concerned
The snow capped Olympic mountains that used to be there year round – is totally GONE. Even in the winter – the snow is sparse. We used to freeze every winter – the ground at least a foot or two. NOT ANYMORE. Annual plants are surviving through the winters, and a garden in town with a banana plant – OMG – has produced FRUIT! I used to joke that our cedar trees will die off, and that we will soon be growing palm trees – not a joke anymore, in the Cascade range, the CEDARS ARE DYING OFF.
September 1st, 2006 at 11:23 amCalifornia’s enactment of greenhouse gas emission caps is an important step in getting U.S. emissions under control. However, I am afraid we will have to wait until the next presidential elections for change at the national level. Even if a bill passes a democratically-controlled congress, if Dems win big in 2006, Bush has made his obstructionist position clear. In 2002 he rushed out a voluntary faux program to reduce emissions intensity (emissions divided by GDP) because he was getting heat for withdrawing from Kyoto. But he won’t sign legislation that calls for real mandatory emissions reductions. The earliest we can expect that is in 2009 AB (After Bush).
September 1st, 2006 at 11:28 amA big hurricane is going to hit the tip of Baja, Mexico, in about 3 hours with 120+ mph winds, so the resorts there will probably all be destroyed by winds and storm surges too! Welcome to the future everyone where every summer hurricanes will take out cities!
September 1st, 2006 at 11:50 amIn 1990, CO2 emissions were 5005.3 TgCO2Eq. By 2000 they were 5864.5, an increase of about 17%. CO2 emissions in 2004 were 5988.0 TgCO2Eq, a 2% increase over 2000 levels.
US total aggregate greenhouse emissions change since 1990: 13.3%
Countries with a similar or larger change since 1990:
Spain
Monaco
Portugal
Greece
Ireland
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Finland
Austria
Japan
Italy
We’re doing a fine job at reducing our rate of greenhouse emissions since the 90’s.
September 1st, 2006 at 12:39 pmPlease disregard Hippie. In a previous thread I showed how Hippie cherry picks data to construct a specious argument about trends in CO2 emissions. Hippie is a reactionary global warming denier, nothing more, wallowing in his own ignorance.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pmOh, and by the way, just to illustrate Hippie’s weak debate skills, he makes this false statement even though it contradicts the very data he has just presented:
We’re doing a fine job at reducing our rate of greenhouse emissions since the 90’s.
By your own numbers, Hippie, we haven’t reduced anything.
What a freakin’ idiot.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:40 pmIn a previous thread I illustrated how RealScientist doesn’t understand fundamental concepts of climate. The data are not cherry picked. Do you have emission data for the 1980’s or the 1970’s? Wasn’t your argument based on speculations rather the real proven data?
The data shows that we have reduced our rate of emissions. Do the math.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pmRealScientist – hippie (which I have a hard time calling him, because the FACT is hippies were antiauthoritarian – anticorporation – and peace-loving people), most like than NOT drives an emission spewing SUV. I just know it!
September 1st, 2006 at 1:56 pmBicycle and 1966 VW bug. I purchase green energy from my utility company, unlike Al Gore.
If you can’t refute the argument with science or facts, resort to personal attacks.
September 1st, 2006 at 2:14 pmgood for you, hippie – but my statement about what HIPPIES really are about – I STAND BY THAT
September 1st, 2006 at 2:37 pmIn a previous thread I illustrated how RealScientist doesn’t understand fundamental concepts of climate. The data are not cherry picked. Do you have emission data for the 1980’s or the 1970’s? Wasn’t your argument based on speculations rather the real proven data?
The data shows that we have reduced our rate of emissions. Do the math.
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — September 1, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Well, you didn’t, but you are a brazen liar. I went to the exact source where you got your data (and that you are hoping no one else visits). You carefully selected two points in time that bracket the recession, during which there was a brief decline in CO2 emissions. You disregarded the long term trend, which is up, up, up. Also, you are such a doofus numbskull that you present data showing that CO2 emissions have increased over three select time periods (you even put increase in boldface!), then you say “The data shows that we have reduced our rate of emissions”. Last I checked “reduced” is pretty much the opposite of “increase”. Look it up.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:03 pmHere is a summary of a Reuters article that addressed the question of emission levels of industrialized countries relative to 1990.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:11 pmWhat don’t you understand about rate of change as a means of measurement used in comparative analysis? Please define rate of increase, then try again. You aren’t a scientist are you?
September 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pmI went to the exact source where you got your data
No you didn’t. I sourced the annual report to the United Nations based on very detailed, proven factual data. You’re source is is a very generalized graph that predates my source and is speculative.
Once again, the description of my source.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares the official U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks to comply with existing commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under decision 3/CP.5 of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, national inventories for UNFCCC Annex I parties should be provided to the UNFCCC Secretariat each year by April 15.
I gave you the source before. You were too lazy to look it up. I then found the link for you (I’ll find it again for you) but you haven’t bothered to read it.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:39 pmHmm. I don’t understand rate of change, huh? Here is what you wrote:
In 1990, CO2 emissions were 5005.3 TgCO2Eq. By 2000 they were 5864.5, an increase of about 17%.
You specified the weight of CO2 released in 1990, and the weight in 2000. That has units of weight per time. The way I understand it, that’s a “rate of emission”. You then say this rate of emission has increased by 17%. Then you make this astounding claim:
The data shows that we have reduced our rate of emissions.
A wee bit of a contradiction there, huh? But you don’t mean to contradict yourself. You are just confused, because you don’t understand even the rudiments of the language of math. I believe what you are trying to say is that the rate of increase of CO2 emissions has gone down. This is not the same thing as saying the rate of CO2 emissions has gone down (it most certainly has gone up, even according to you). Believe it or not, scientists think it makes a difference how these things are worded. That you don’t instantly recognize the difference between what you are saying and what you think you are saying pretty well proves that you are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. So don’t get snotty with me. I know more about the Calculus (the math of rates of change) than you can imagine there is to know.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmsorry…not a priority of this administration…..right country/wrong administration.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pmSure, emissions have increased. Did I say they didn’t? No. The US has decreased the rate (of change, of growth, of increase, whatever) compared to the 90’s.
If you understand so much about “Calculus”, then how is the rate (of change, in this case increase) different in this decade compared to the 90’s? If you want to use comparable time frames, then project the 2% rate of change over 4 years across 10 years. That rate of change is less then the rate in the 90’s. The rate (of change, in this case increase) is less in this decade when compared to the 90’s.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:24 pmSure, emissions have increased. Did I say they didn’t? No. The US has decreased the rate (of change, of growth, of increase, whatever) compared to the 90’s.
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — September 1, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about, Hippie. I think you need to go back to the George C. Marshall Institute for some additional training before you head out on the Think Progress beat again.
I don’t debate imbeciles.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:38 pmOf course you can’t debate RealScientist. All you have is name calling and personal attacks. Care to take another quiz on the findamentals of climate science or is that “out of yor realm of expertise”?
September 1st, 2006 at 5:14 pmCare to take another quiz on the findamentals of climate science or is that “out of yor realm of expertise�
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — September 1, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Hey, pathological liar, care to show us where the first quiz was? Yeah, liar, there was no first quiz. I don’t talk about the fundamentals of climate science here. I don’t need to, because the science is already settled. You keep saying that you showed this, that, and the other thing about what I do or don’t know about climate science, but the truth is you have no idea what I do or don’t know, nor have I claimed to know much. When I take trolls like you down, I do it by pointing out that science illiterates like you who don’t know what the word “rate” means are in no position to challenge thousands of scientific experts. But of course, that isn’t what this is really about. What is about is that you are a propagandist working for the fossil fuel industry as part of one of their astroturf campaigns. Absolutely shameful.
September 1st, 2006 at 5:59 pmIf we take Hippie with a pistol’s analysis as fact, the economy is in an extreme depression. Compare job growth and the stock market since January 21st, 2001 compared to the eight years prior to that date. BushCo say it is booming!
September 1st, 2006 at 6:47 pmsay sb says
September 1st, 2006 at 6:48 pmOT, but: The US missile defense system has had its first successful intercept (decoys?), this is the first successful test of an operational missile defense system since Sprint did it (with decoys) in the early 1960’s. Sprint had a nuclear warhead.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:03 pmOT, still, but, bye the by: Russia had a successful test in 2004.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:20 pmLeft: Climate change, CO2, greenhouse gas…
Right: la la la la la (fingers in ears)
Left: Glaciers melting, forest fires, hurricanes, drought…
Right: la la la la la (fingers in ears)
Left: Cities under water, cropland destroyed, food prices through the roof, heat wave deaths skyrocketing, forest fires engulfing homes…
Right: Hey! Do you want to embolden the terrorists?! Stop blaming America first, you commie pinko far-left anit-american flag burner!
September 1st, 2006 at 11:57 pmYeah, and you know why we can’t wait for technology to save us? Because Bush has given so many advantages to big business that big business is not concerned about keeping profits up by innovation. As long as ‘business as usual’ keeps bringing in the profits, businesses are not about to undergo serious risktaking in pushing the envelope. You really think BP is thinking Beyond Petroleum when petroleum is giving them the biggest profits they’ve ever seen? You think they care if their reserves are depleted? Noo, money eases the mind.
September 2nd, 2006 at 11:15 amWhatever befalls the Earth – befalls the sons of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life – he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.
September 2nd, 2006 at 9:26 pm