Will the Democrats fight to save us from Global Warming?

[Karmadillo]

I wouldn't claim anything close to expertise in this area, but it does seem we're quickly approaching and, perhaps, passing the point of no return. Assuming the Democrats were to gain the White House, the Senate, and the House in 2008 (a big, big assumption), would they take the steps necessary to give us a fighting chance for a semi-decent future?

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/27034/

What Part of 'Global Warming' Don't We Get?
By Bill McKibben, Prairie Writers Circle

It's time for the denial to end, but Washington is governed by a bipartisan consensus that somehow the laws of physics and chemistry don’t apply to us.

Forget about the hurricanes. Put them out of your mind. We'll never know for sure that any particular hurricane is caused by global warming, so just don't think about them. Instead, concentrate on the other evidence for climate change that's appeared recently:

*In August, Russian researchers reported that an area of tundra larger than France and Germany combined was rapidly turning into bog as the permafrost melted.

*In early September, British researchers reported that warmer temperatures were causing the soil to heat up and dramatically increasing rates of decay. The temperate forests and fields of the United Kingdom are becoming, in essence, semitropical.

*In mid-September, researchers reported that arctic sea ice had shrunk by 20 percent. "The feeling is we are reaching a tipping point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not recover," one scientist told reporters.

*And in late September, European researchers reported on the biological effects of 2003's record heat wave, the one that killed 15,000 people in France alone. In Italy, they said, corn yields dropped by about 36 percent. Oak and pine also grew more slowly, the study found. In fact, overall there was 30 percent less plant growth that year.

What do numbers like these -- all from the best peer-reviewed journals -- show us? That global warming is not some distant problem waiting to appear, some hypothetical trouble we should start preparing for. They show us that the world is already changing with deadly speed. Every time we burn coal and gas and oil, we send carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and now that carbon dioxide is trapping enough heat to create a new planet.

more...

[brmdp3123]

1. Another interesting article

ttp://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

[Karmadillo]

4. More on global cooling and George Will and all that

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too . But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scienti press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

lots more if you're interested...

[populistdriven]

2. No, some may try to fight but will lose

I have no hope that this global disaster can or will be prevented

[Marc A]

5. Democrats no, Oprah yes

I'm not big on giving Oprah props, but she did have a great show last week dedicated to Global Warming. She had on Leonardo DiCaprio and an expert (I don't recall his name) and they gave very practical advice on what we could do right now.

The Oprah site has more:

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200510/20051027/slide_20051027_350_101.jhtml

(props to my girlfriend for DVR'ing the show and apologies if Oprah and the show have already been discussed))

[EC]

3. Ever hear of "Earth in the Balance" by Al Gore?

The Democratic Party is well aware of our Environment...

[Warren DeMontague]

7. That's why we need AL GORE in 2008

among other reasons.

[Karmadillo]

14. I've heard of it. Did the Democrats attempt to

implement its proposals the last time they controlled the government?

[Warren DeMontague]

6. I dunno. Whadda the "Values Voters" think about it?

Maybe if it had something to do with porno in video games.

[Toucano]

8. It's too late. Better to get some waders and sunblock. n/t

[Deja Q]

9. 33 years ago people were talking of all this too...

Nobody did anything then.

So it's all hyped up rubbish. :sarcasm:

Let people do nothing now.

Besides, :sarcasm: ,the earth has more forests now than it ever had before. (which is sad people think that; I've noticed more and more species in my area that I've never seen before because they're indignious to the NORTH. Why the hell are they coming down here? Because of "development" up north.)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

10. No. (more)

Our current system only allows for knee jerk reactions that cannot be taken until it's too late.

[Jim Sagle]

11. The Democrats are yellow. They won't even fight to take office when they

are elected.

[AJH032]

12. We need to make this an issue in '06, '08

Democrats do MUCH better in polls on the environment than Republicans do. So, let's make this an issue. Let's make Kyoto, global warming an issue. Let's make it important!

[welshTerrier2]

13. Democrats tap dance around this issue ...

Democrats will talk about global warming as a real problem ...

Democrats will talk about price gouging by the oil companies ...

Democrats might even talk about the need for a windfall profits tax ...

and Democrats will talk about protecting ANWR or other ecologically sensitive sites from oil drilling ...

sounds good so far, doesn't it ??

but Democrats are afraid to speak the truth and challenge Big Oil head on ... Big Oil has a stranglehold on Washington ... their lobbyists infest our government like a cancer ... all foreign policy and all of the use of our military overseas has been nothing more than a gift to Big Oil to act as their private security forces ... we help them topple regimes where oil can be found ... we procure new sources of oil for them and we protect their pipelines by stationing troops at key foreign locations ... the whole thing is totally obscene ... it is government for, of and by Big Oil ...

so the real issue, at least the primary issue, is NOT global warming ... the effects of global warming are likely to be catastrophic in the near-term ... by the underlying issue is raw power ... Big Oil's got it and the Democrats seem unwilling to acknowledge that Big Oil is an enemy acting in their own selfish interests and against the interests of the American people ...

the Democrats are playing it safe when it comes to issues like global warming because they refuse to tackle the "evil ones" head on ... they worry that this is a political battle they can't afford ... what they don't seem to understand is that continuing the current energy policy and allowing Big Oil to dictate terms to our government is not just bad policy, it's bad politics too ...

if and when Democrats really step up to the plate and engage the real struggle, the American people will rally behind them ... i'm afraid today's elite Democrats just don't have the courage or vision to understand that ...