Must-read Jeremy Grantham: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes

Posted on  

"Must-read Jeremy Grantham: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes"

Calls out the disinformers: “Have they no grandchildren?”

Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future.

Uber-hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, a self-described “die hard contrarian,” tells it like it is in his blunt 2Q 2010 letter:

1) The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year.  This is certain and straightforward.

2) One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise.  This is just physics.  (The amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, has also risen steeply since industrialization, which has added to the impact of higher CO2 levels.)

3) Several other factors, like changes in solar output, have major influences on climate over millennia, but these effects have been observed and measured.  They alone cannot explain the rise in the global temperature over the past 50 years.

4) The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system.  It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise.  But, the past can be measured.  The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased.  But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century.  A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, fl oods, and other extreme weather events.

Grantham’s only missed point is that listening to the disinformers — aka continuing to do little — makes the high end of the warming the likely outcome (see M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F “” with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F and Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path).

5) Skeptics argue that this wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: “Why spend money when you’re not certain?”  But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.)  This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued.

Grantham knows his Weitzman and the fat tail of the damage function (see Harvard economist: Climate cost-benefit analyses are “unusually misleading,” warns colleagues “we may be deluding ourselves and others”).

6) Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infinite loss? And, he answers, “Infinite.”  In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal?  The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less.  The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fired power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important.  Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious:  costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war.  And, to Pascal’s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: Definitely life changing, possibly life threatening.

See Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost — one tenth of a penny on the dollar and Scientists find “net present value of climate change impacts” of $1240 TRILLION on current emissions path, making mitigation to under 450 ppm a must.

7) The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity.  This features nowhere in economic cost-benefit analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless.

See for instance, Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred.

8) A special word on the right-leaning think tanks:  As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise.  In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons – seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation.  Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science.  Not a good idea.

9) Also, I should make a brief note to my own group – die hard contrarians.  Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market.  And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists who lead finance theory attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market efficiency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged.  The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was man-made.  (See the attachment to last quarter’s Letter.)  Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same.  Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy?  At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers.

10) Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for “¦ what?  Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks?  Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news.  Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure.  I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profi ts, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results.

11) Why are we arguing the issue?  Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy.  Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments.  In short, they are conservatives by training:  never, ever risk overstating your ideas.  The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot.  They are also well funded.  That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths.

We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable.  The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding errorIn some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation –  making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down.  I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”

12) Almost no one wants to change.  The long-established status quo is very comfortable, and we are used to its deficiencies.  But for this problem we must change.  This is never easy.

13) Almost everyone wants to hear good news.  They want to believe that dangerous global warming is a hoax.  They, therefore, desperately want to believe the skeptics.  This is a problem for all of us.

Postscript

Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me.  In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures.  Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it.

Grantham gets it.  Too bad his fellow contrarians — including the status quo media — don’t.

Related Post:

Tags:

« »

35 Responses to Must-read Jeremy Grantham: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes

  1. Humans are discovering that arguments and politics alone cannot directly affect physical science.

    Now it is like we suddenly discovered that the entire human race is in free fall. And now we can either deny gravity or start knitting a parachute.

    First we need to admit that we have a problem, know the science, and look for the best way to mitigate and adapt.

  2. Tim Maher says:

    Pretty much sums it up.

    My only question (and this is for the political scientists in the room) is when is the next opportunity to do something about this in the US?

    What are the most likely outcomes?
    1) Repubs take over congress in the Fall and no movement on climate legislation for at least another 2 years?…4?…6?

    2) Repubs take over congress in the Fall and they decide to pass their own water-down climate legislation that Obama has no choice but to sign?

    If you think that number 2 is more likely, then I have a follow-up question: After the Repubs pass their useless climate bill, when will the US get a REAL chance to pass a climate bill? 2014? 2016?

    At this point only one thing is for certain: the Earth is going to see some serious warming.

  3. Mike says:

    It is worth mentioning that these “libertarians” do not object to big government when they want to invade country county to get its oil. Over so called conservatives want government to make sure you have you proof of citizenship on you at all times. It is a myth that there are any libertarians.

  4. PSU Grad says:

    I’d like to ask these “libertarian” types two questions. First, do you use the Internet? Second, do you have a GPS device?

    Why those two questions? Because how do these “government is good for nothing” types (see Rand Paul’s latest prouncements) think the Internet and GPS came about? What private company funded the startup R&D for those two staples of modern technological life? The answer, of course, is that it was the US government which funded the development of both. Yes, private firms engaged in much of the R&D. But the funding came from government, mostly through the military.

    One extreme right PA “think tank”, which doesn’t care for much of any state government spending, had a bizarre idea after the Michael Mann exoneration. They claimed it was a “whitewash”, so they wanted the PA state government to investigate Mann. Riiiiight…..state government spending is bad unless it’s for your own pet project. This same “think tank” uses a former accountant with no atmospheric science training as their “climate expert”.

    Narcissists all.

  5. doug jones says:

    Part of the equation has to include an unfailing resolve. Those with vested financial interests (the energy industry) will continue to be unfailing in their resolve to maximize profits – no surprise there. This means that those advocating change must be equally as committed to action over the long run. So when you ask “2 years? 4 years? 6 years? More?” the answer has to be “yes to all of the above.” Without fail.

  6. Peter Mizla says:

    The serious warming is starting to have dramatic effects globally. The amount of warming in the pipeline is setting us up for more unpleasant weather events- add to this ever rising CO2 – climbing at the rate of 2.30ppm a year.

    As climate change becomes the preeminent issue this decade- the fortunes of the GOP will hang in balance for decades to come- their decision to deny will make their majority short lived.

  7. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    Investment idea: Highly reflective but pretty roof coating, say white with a gold or silver fleck. I keep on hearing how black is so good looking and I live in a hot climate.

    Double glazing was unheard of in this state and now it is being manufactured here (using German technology). Really good if your neighbour is totally addicted to base (the double brick walls help too).

    Many power grids seem to be stressed, how often have we heard appeals to save power. Solar may not seem competitive against grid power, but against no power it becomes very attractive.

    Finally solar hot water, adds up real quick in temperate climates.

    Even if you do not believe in global warming, it is clear many do and so there is a market to tap. Think; if people believe in global warming, what will they want? Despite the idiocy of main stream media, many do get global warming and will buy accordingly.

    Doomsayer thinks Alaskan Real estate will look good, providing the melting permafrost will leave a house for you. Might be the last place to go snow skiing.

  8. Raul M. says:

    To further the design of the cool roof concept,
    I suggest that a fiberglass pole of the tent style
    could be used to outline a curve for the paint design.
    With the fiberglass pole one could make a line space for
    say cool tan on one side and cool gold on the other side.

    Also, having known people who rent and soon move from low
    priced housing, I suggest that having a cool roof could
    make a big difference in how long the rental property
    is continuously rented.

    Also, having loaded furniture into a semi on a hot summer
    day, I suggest that having a cool roof on the trailer could
    make a big difference in the look that the workers have after
    having worked. Also, the cool roof would make it easier for
    refrigerated semi-trailers to keep refrigerated.
    Also, travel trailers and motorhomes would do well with cool
    roofs.

    Well, enjoy such a fine travel trailer, but oh so hot upon
    entering after having traveled fo far to the Fl.vacation.
    Wouldn’t you rather try the cool roof option?

  9. fj2 says:

    Currently projected for commercialization by mid-century, extremely inexpensive molecular strength materials 100 to 200 times the strength of steel per weight have the potential to create vast virtually carbon-free built environments through massive energy conservation, ease of use, and design.

    Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute has been a strong advocate of light-weighting to improve automobile efficiency and race car designers have used this strategy it to be the equivalent of a large source on “found” power.

    Extreme light-weighting provided by the likes of carbon nanotubes and graphene has the potential to provide considerable benefit. Iron-strength paper announced a couple years ago uses nano scale cellulose particles to make bio-degradable paper stronger than cast iron with what seems to be a fairly simple process at extremely low cost — potentially replacing carbon fiber — since cellulose is the most abundant organic product on the planet.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/06/09-01.html

  10. Paulm says:

    Welcome to global warming america

    Floods close Chicago interstate, damage Iowa dam
    http://usat.me?39412148

  11. Jeff Huggins says:

    And what did you hear, my blue-eyed son?
    And what did you hear, my darling young one?
    I heard the sound of a thunder, it roared out a warnin’,
    Heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world,
    Heard one hundred drummers whose hands were a-blazin’,
    Heard ten thousand whisperin’ and nobody listenin’,
    Heard one person starve, I heard many people laughin’,
    Heard the song of a poet who died in the gutter,
    Heard the sound of a clown who cried in the alley,
    And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard,
    And it’s a hard rain’s gonna fall.

    Excerpts from “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall”, Bob Dylan, 1963

  12. Peter Mizla says:

    Global warming to those either uniformed or misinformed crosses all education levels. I have met ‘educated’ people; Pharmacists and College Professors who deny a problem exists- or say the earth goes through climate cycles.

    For many of those less formal schooling the need to ‘educate’ can be more difficult.

    In the end, as the number of dangerous weather events begin to dominate the news cycle- and affects more of the population negatively- perhaps more will realize problems really do exist- by then however it will be far too late. Scary-

  13. fj2 says:

    Transportation systems will likely have to go near net-zero and better using highly modular lighter-than-human-weight vehicles in agile systems; a terrific opportunity as reinvention will have to be worldwide and highly value-based to establish local monopolies like iPhone and Droid X on wheels, maglev, linear induction motors; on streets, ultra small elevated monorails, and through evacuated tubes.

  14. Raul M. says:

    Oh, it’s already too late?
    Curious that some could report that we should not believe
    that our markets depend on loans and backing of the loans.
    Bankers seem to believe that market does depend on backing.
    If national debt has backing for further progress then …
    If national debt doesn’t have backing for further progress
    then …
    So they say don’t rock the boat.
    Might be.
    Some how the boat rocked by storm, though, and excessive
    pollution shouldn’t leave us speechless, when the warning
    is to get out of the water.

  15. Leif says:

    It’s the energy! On average Global warming has raised the earth’s “average” temperature ~ 1C or ~2F. “Average” is the operative word here. Daily weather is the earth’s climatic attempt to balance out temperature/pressure imbalances. Added energy intensifies those interfaces in many ways. That added warmth has increased evaporation by ~4%, adding the equivalent of ~1.5 times the Volume of Lake Superior to the atmosphere. (about 3X by 2050!) Anyone notice significant rainfall anomalies in their area lately? Heavy rain in turn represents latent heat that is added to the storm system interface and intensifies those storms. Warming does not accumulate evenly, with increased warming at the poles and less at the equator, on “average,” which in-turn sets up a stronger interface between cool or cold Arctic polar weather systems and the mixing with warmer tropical weather systems. This attempted equilibrium takes place year around, summer and winter when it is cold. Recall that average temperature increase is ~1C. This means if your average winter temperature was -10C, it is now -9C, and still cold enough for snow. In fact cold records are still being broken. However, where as 50 years ago the record cold and warm records were broken about equally, today twice as many warm records as cold records are broken. A sure sign of warming in my eyes!
    That in turn implies that EVERY OTHER extreme weather event can be attributed to global warming…

  16. Brooks Bridges says:

    Loved this piece. Concisely makes all important points. He hits one that has driven me crazy – that the naive deniers can see conspiracy among scientists (all that grant money!) and can’t imagine one by the fossil fuel industry with hundreds of billions at stake if status quo isn’t maintained.

    @7: “Investment idea: Highly reflective but pretty roof coating”

    1) My electric bill is 1/2 or less of neighbors in similar houses for an 80 deg setting. Our attic insulation – lousy but have white asphalt shingles. Location – across Chesapeake from Annapolis.

    2) Google: “asphalt shingle paint”. You’ll find several specifically designed to keep house cooler – light to white colors. They also say it greatly extends life of shingles and coats shingles and gaps to make them less likely to get blown off. Behr makes one such roof paint.
    3) Suggested civil disobedience – paint your historically correct black roof white.

  17. PurpleOzone says:

    Relatives put white shingles on their roof. Not hard to do. Looks fine.
    They are in the middle of installing a geothermal heating/air_conditioning system. 270 ft wells dug and heat exchangers at bottom. Expensive, but within range because their furnace/air conditioner needed replacing soon, and the tax credit is on 30% — at present.

  18. PurpleOzone says:

    Does S. F. Singer have children/grandchildren? Not so far as I know.
    Sen. Inhofe is proud he dragged his grandchildren out to build an igloo on the Mall in D.C. Someday they will not be proud of him.

  19. Bob Wallace says:

    Tim –

    “What are the most likely outcomes?
    1) Repubs take over congress in the Fall and no movement on climate legislation for at least another 2 years?…4?…6?

    2) Repubs take over congress in the Fall and they decide to pass their own water-down climate legislation that Obama has no choice but to sign?”

    and…

    3) Repubs take over Congress in the Fall, resulting in either #1 or #2. Then in the ensuing two years more and more Americans become very concerned over global heating and return Demos to power in 2012 when a very strong climate bill can be written.

    4) We get really busy and hang on to control of Congress, then pass a strong climate bill in 2011.

    The campaign season opens in a few weeks. Those most concerned about climate change might see it in their best interests to work for keeping Republicans out of control.

  20. catman306 says:

    As I see it, the only way to get the people thinking about climate change and energy choice is to get the media behind it. Since the rich and wealthy control the media, it must be shown to those wealthy and powerful, worldwide, that it is in THEY’RE interest to make some changes in the way our civilization does things. They would probably want to become even more wealthy and powerful as a part of the extensive changes that are necessary if we’re going to save the planet’s ecosystem from our activities. But when things go from bad to worse, the rich and powerful may realize that an intact civilization is worth much more to them than one that’s badly broken, and so it will be in their interests to do whatever they must to save it, even if it means a personal loss. Then THEY would alert the media, congress, and the president, that climate change will from now on be dealt with in a proper, science based, way..

    We’ve got to get the rich and powerful on our side.. It turns out that we’ve got something that the richandpowerful will buy, sooner or later: long term survival for our human civilization. I hope that they buy survival, for our earth as we know it, before it’s too late. There is a closing date on this sale, but we don’t know what it is. And the price goes up everyday.

    If I were rich or powerful I’d want a different source of information about climate change than that provided by our main stream media. I’d have advisers that read ClimateProgress so they’d really know what’s what with global warming. The media are just ‘yes men’ for the richandpowerful, they keep saying what they think the richandpowerful want to hear so they keep paying the bills.

    What if the richandpowerful wanted to know the facts about anthrogenetic climate change instead of the non-sense they seem to be getting now?

  21. Mark says:

    Stunning animation and a stirring, optimistic message, this video is excellent!

    http://www.vimeo.com/12772935

    We can’t rely on our ‘leaders’, they do not have the courage, integrity or the imagination to address the problem of climate change.

    We’re going to have to learn to use collaborative ways to empower ourselves to find the solutions we need… We have the tools, we just need to use them properly

  22. Prokaryotes says:

    Breaking Leaked Information!!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_naQhynOg0

  23. Raul M. says:

    #22
    very nicely said.

  24. Jerry Grantham has provided an excellent summation of the current state of affairs to which I’d like to add a couple of bits of data.

    On point 6 – Here is a fine video detailing a similar line of thinking logically about the possibilities and the risks:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

    On point 10 – There are over 7,000 lobbyists for fossil fuels surrounding our 535 “representatives”. These messengers of corruption are armed with leafy green by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world for the specific purpose of subverting our “public servants” from the public will and the public welfare. Meanwhile, whistleblowers have risked and sometimes sacrificed their positions to reveal just how similar the tactics of Big Oil are to Big Tobacco. The money trail from Big Oil to the coffers of deniers is well documented in numerous instances, while ClimateGate was debunked as an overblown exaggeration (duplicate emphasis intended).

    Here’s a little more data and discussion on corruption, and the misplaced power of those little green worshipped slips of paper:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/

    http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=E01&year=a

    http://2greenenergy.com/say-adios-to-campaign-finance-reform/2426/

    I’d be very interested if anyone can show with anything like the same level of defensible documentation that there’s a similar level of financial motivation and lobbying on behalf any true conspiracy of scientists and environmentalists to deceive the public as to the great risks we’re facing with climate disruption.

    Craig Shields, Editor, 2GreenEnergy.com, and author, Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies (2010)

  25. Mark Shapiro says:

    Ho.Lee.Cow.

    This is the best summary I have ever seen, and about as good as I can imagine. From a pure capitalist, amazing.

    This can’t be read by too many people. Maybe Judith Curry can review it now that she’s finished Montford’s book . . .

  26. Raul M. says:

    Back in the day-
    when I first started to learn of so many new
    thing in my environment as a young child, I
    made such a big mess in the house.
    When mom saw the mess and I then saw her response
    to the huge mess-
    1) I denied responsibility
    a) She maintained that I had responcibility
    2) I indicated that I couldn’t do anything about it
    because I had other things to do.
    b) She learned to tell me that I did have time.
    3) I just walked off knowing that she had other
    opinions than mine.
    c) she maintained that sooner or later I would learn.

    Of course, after some hard knocks and many years I
    grew up to see that even if I have other opinions
    others are still in charge in many ways.

    But, the mess makers being in charge, well grow up.
    Many probably think that even though climate scientists
    have been pointing to changes for many years, the truth
    is that the standard of living has increased.
    May I say that such is a divergence from the concept that
    if we take care of nature, it will take care of us.

  27. Raul M. says:

    To see now that there are some who aren’t such mess
    makers and that they are in charge of their own areas
    is encouraging.

  28. Raul M. says:

    Of course, later I learned that when given the responsibility to
    ensure that advertisers claims were based in the reality of
    collective work by so many caring individuals, I stepped aside
    and continue to let them have their way.
    So the methane and hydrocarbons when released from the Gulf of
    pollution will be enough to add how much to the new weather trends.
    Oh, I think I just fell over.

  29. Raul M. says:

    So if the Gulf is a box and the new water comes from
    A)South side of Cuba
    B)Runoff from coastal areas
    C)Rains
    And the hydrocarbons, methane, dispersants, and other well
    emittances leave the Gulf by way of the
    A)Loop current north of Cube
    B)Shore landings
    C)Becoming atmosphere based gasses, particulate matter and aerosols.
    Certainly the microbial interaction will have an affect.

    But because the rain may carry a certain amount of the
    pollutions back to the water only changed somewhat from
    the atmospheric interaction with other elements- that is a
    different adjustment to the figuring.

    Well, my eyes are opened to a huge new mess.

  30. Raul M. says:

    The landfill deposits should be figured separate from
    ordinary shoreline contact because it is harder to know
    value of the deposits and because of the changes possible
    to the deposits as well as the difference in the time
    possible before the deposits reappear.

  31. Raul M. says:

    Of the incoming water there are variables associated with
    such water as the hydrocarbon levels of that water are elevated
    on account of CO2 absorption from the atmosphere from past decades.
    So the amount of out gassing will need to be established from
    present data rather than virgin waters.
    Also the elevated temperatures of vast portions of the Gulf’s
    surface waters should be correlated to the at depth(s) temperatures
    to calculate changes in concentrations of the water and pollutants.
    Henry’s Constant Law maybe used to gain understanding of the
    difference between different temperature areas.

  32. homunq says:

    It’s kinda depressing that stating the obvious can be awesome.

    How can we wake up complacent Senators to the need for filibuster reform? For right now, I’d be willing to pledge not to vote to any senator who doesn’t commit to voting on new Senate rules at the beginning of next session. If they’re not going to go to any effort to make their votes count, why should I?

  33. Joseph S. says:

    Leif,

    You wrote: “That in turn implies that EVERY OTHER extreme weather event can be attributed to global warming . . .”

    YES! It’s a big mistake when environmentalists concede that “we can’t link any single weather event to climate change.” Of course we can! The anthropogenic CO2 is a “new” input into the climate system; it is absolutely a part of what creates all weather, including the increasingly common and damaging storms we see worldwide.

    Really, everyone who cares about the future should stop wrongly conceding that we can’t link the weather to greenhouse gas emissions. The US public is already oblivious to what’s happening to our climate, so let’s not make it worse by appearing unsure about things that we actually do know.

    Joseph S.

  34. Andrew WHO says:

    The earth is not an inert object,a supermarket of things for us to take.It is a highly intlligent being of unfathomable dimensions.If we do nothing, it will slow or shut human growth activities down.

    There has been a domino phenomenon of disruptions: the fall of wall street( stripe),the disruption of the China factory, the rupture of the oil line,the weakening of the human immune system and psyche,war and famine. Most of the breakdown has been seen as examples of our own follie and greed. The breakdown has been accompanied by natural disasters, which no doubt our follie contributed.

    But there can be another intepretation, one unfortunately with no emperical evidence. That is: the natural disasters and continuous failure of human edeavors,are really the great intelligence’s counter measure to rebalance the earth.

    This bolg brings new consciouness. Does the great intelligence interact with this consciouness? Will it point a way that will bypass the limits of human language,law,political system and scientific logic. The Answer is with her.

    The above spiritual advocation will seem lack of rigor in this blog. It is a humble attempt to interact with the more “materialist/mechanic view” of this great blog.Mostly to bless the blog, to wish the great intelligence will empower it to bring self change.

  35. Jean says:

    I have 2 smart friends dedicated to stopping Nuclear power /weapons.I think they are not alone in the anti nuclear community.Please read and send in your learned comment to the “Oklahoma Observer”The only small news paper fighting Sen Inhofe..SOS At the Oklahoma Observer online:

    http://www.okobserver.net/2010/07/21/nuclear-energy-causes-global-warming/

    Nuclear Energy Causes Global Warming

    BY MORTON S. SKORODIN, M.D.