David Suzuki: Climate change is here

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83



David Suzuki: Climate change is here

BECAUSE WE ENJOY relatively pure air, clean water, and healthy food systems, Canadians sometimes take the environment for granted. Many scarcely blink if oil from a pipeline spills into a river, a forest is cleared for tar sands operations or agricultural land is fracked for gas. If Arctic ice melts and part of the Antarctic ice sheet collapses, well…they're far away.

Some see climate change as a distant threat, if they see it as a threat at all. But the scientific evidence is overwhelming: climate change is here, and unless we curb behaviours that contribute to it, it will get worse, putting our food, air, water, and security at risk. A recent White House report confirms the findings of this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment report, and concludes global warming is a clear and present danger to the U.S.

"Climate change is not a distant threat, but is affecting the American people already," says White House science adviser John Holdren in a video about the report. "Summers are longer and hotter, with longer periods of extended heat. Wildfires start earlier in the spring and continue later into the fall. Rain comes down in heavier downpours. People are experiencing changes in the length and severity of allergies. And climate disruptions to water resources and agriculture have been increasing."

Recognizing the problem's severity is a start, but whether the U.S. will actually do anything is another question. Action to curb climate change is constantly stalled—thanks to the powerful fossil fuel industry, political and media denial, extensive fossil fuel-based infrastructure and citizen complacency.

But at least the U.S. and its president have unequivocally called for action. It's disturbing that political leaders in Canada—a northern country already feeling impacts, with a long coastline particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels—ignore the issue in their drive to make Canada a petro-power. Our government prefers to spend taxpayers' money to support the fossil fuel industry with advertising campaigns and billions of dollars in subsidies. A recent New York Times ad, worth US$207,000, touts oil sands and pipelines as "environmentally responsible." Despite opposition from communities throughout B.C. and the rest of Canada, including many First Nations, approval of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project is expected next month.

Perceived economic benefits (mostly short-term) trump the needs of all Canadians and their children and grandchildren for clean air and water, healthy food and a stable climate. Droughts, floods, water shortages, insect-plagued forests, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and melting glaciers don't matter as much as getting the oil, gas and coal out of the ground and sold as quickly as possible.

B.C. once showed promise with climate policies such as a carbon tax. Now the government in my home province is also pinning its hopes on the fossil fuel market, fracking our way to "prosperity" at the expense of long-term human and economic health, farmland and climate.

How can we allow governments and industry to continue leading us down this destructive path?

Some people say we must choose between the human-created economy and the natural environment—an absurd argument on many levels, and a false dichotomy. Even within the current flawed economic paradigm, it's far more financially sound to invest in renewable energy and diversification than in a dying industry.

Others, often driven by fossil fuel industry propaganda, doubt the evidence and question the credentials of thousands of scientists worldwide studying the issue.

The IPCC report involved hundreds of scientists and experts worldwide who analyzed the latest peer-reviewed scientific literature and other relevant materials on climate change. The White House report was overseen by 13 government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, Department of the Interior, Department of Defense and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It was written by close to 300 scientists and experts and reviewed by numerous others, including the National Academy of Sciences. It was also vetted by groups ranging from oil companies to environmental organizations. As an article on Desmog Blog points out, "If anything, this report is conservative in its findings."

The IPCC and White House reports are clear: solutions are available. But the longer we delay the more difficult and expensive they will be to implement. We can't just sit by and do nothing.

David Suzuki: Climate change is here | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Scientists Disembowel Latest Green Drivel from Obama
May 20, 2014 • 9:44AM
A group of 15 scientists has issued a scathing attack on Obama's latest environmentalist hyperventilation, the 829-page National Climate Assessment (released May 6), and offer a defense of Promethean Man to boot. The opening paragraphs give a flavor of healthy sarcasm of the entire document:

"The National Climate Assessment-2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
"As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of Climate Change, however scary, is not proof of anything...
"We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth's climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is not true."
(emphasis in the original)

What follows is an item-by-item rebuttal of five of the NCA's main points, including the claim of anthropogenic causes of warming; that recent years/decades have been warmer than past; and the error of relying on computer modelling, at one point concluding,
"Our climate is highly cyclical, driven by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide."
Among the signatories are: Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Joseph S. D'Aleo, a fellow with the American Meteorological Society; Dr. Neil Laverne Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida; and William M. "Bill" Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.

Rather than offer additional quotes, readers are encouraged to view the entire document, a total of 8 pages, with colorful graphic documentation. It can be viewed or downloaded (after creating a free account) here.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,767
12,590
113
Low Earth Orbit

Oh so many ifs...

B.C. once showed promise with climate policies such as a carbon tax. Now the government in my home province is also pinning its hopes on the fossil fuel market, fracking our way to "prosperity" at the expense of long-term human and economic health, farmland and climate
unicorn herding isn't putting food on the table?
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Scientists Disembowel Latest Green Drivel from Obama
May 20, 2014 • 9:44AM
A group of 15 scientists has issued a scathing attack on Obama's latest environmentalist hyperventilation, the 829-page National Climate Assessment (released May 6), and offer a defense of Promethean Man to boot. The opening paragraphs give a flavor of healthy sarcasm of the entire document:

"The National Climate Assessment-2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
"As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of Climate Change, however scary, is not proof of anything...
"We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth's climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is not true."
(emphasis in the original)

What follows is an item-by-item rebuttal of five of the NCA's main points, including the claim of anthropogenic causes of warming; that recent years/decades have been warmer than past; and the error of relying on computer modelling, at one point concluding,
"Our climate is highly cyclical, driven by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide."
Among the signatories are: Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Joseph S. D'Aleo, a fellow with the American Meteorological Society; Dr. Neil Laverne Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida; and William M. "Bill" Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.

Rather than offer additional quotes, readers are encouraged to view the entire document, a total of 8 pages, with colorful graphic documentation. It can be viewed or downloaded (after creating a free account) here.

The lead author on that also signed the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

It states in part: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

So that gives you a bit of background on where he is coming from.
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
Oh so many ifs...

unicorn herding isn't putting food on the table?


"
"B.C. once showed promise with climate policies such as a carbon tax. Now the government in my home province is also pinning its hopes on the fossil fuel market, fracking our way to "prosperity" at the expense of long-term human and economic health, farmland and climate."

You don't care about economic health, farmland, and climate ?

For a farmer or whatever you call yourself, you are quick to denigrate those that do.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The lead author on that also signed the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

It states in part: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

So that gives you a bit of background on where he is coming from.

Yeah so what, he's entirely correct, Gods agent in these parts is the Sun, that sun is irradiating intellect to this solar system, that intellect assembles birds fish and trees from matter by natural design carried in light. I suppose you believe humming birds were designed by Boeing. If you are an anti religious person what are you doing supporting the CO2 religion? He's coming from a place very close to my place, light is God, light is life. It is every persons duty and pleasure to cultivate his own religion, indeed the word religion means personal philosophy. Have you compiled one for yourself yet? Of course I'm not meaning the big box store religions I'm refering to reality. energy and matter.smiley
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Yeah so what, he's entirely correct, Gods agent in these parts is the Sun, that sun is irradiating intellect to this solar system, that intellect assembles birds fish and trees from matter by natural design carried in light. I suppose you believe humming birds were designed by Boeing. If you are an anti religious person what are you doing supporting the CO2 religion? He's coming from a place very close to my place, light is God, light is life. It is every persons duty and pleasure to cultivate his own religion, indeed the word religion means personal philosophy. Have you compiled one for yourself yet? Of course I'm not meaning the big box store religions I'm refering to reality. energy and matter.smiley

CO2 isn't a religion, it is a chemical compound. There is a very large body of scientific evidence regarding how it affects our planet.

You are free to make up your own religion if you want, but it has not relevance to a scientific debate.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,865
110
63
CO2 isn't a religion, it is a chemical compound. There is a very large body of scientific evidence regarding how it affects our planet.

You are free to make up your own religion if you want, but it has not relevance to a scientific debate.
More CO2 = more food
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83
It's the carbon part of the CO2 that you greenies have your panties all in a bunch over.

Just in case you didn't get the memo... Most (if not all) life on this planet is carbon based.

Therefore hydrogen bombs are good for us because H20.

 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
The lead author on that also signed the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

It states in part: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

So that gives you a bit of background on where he is coming from.

Yeah the other giveaway was blaming the whole thing on Obama. Thanks Obama!

It's the carbon part of the CO2 that you greenies have your panties all in a bunch over.

Just in case you didn't get the memo... Most (if not all) life on this planet is carbon based.

Really? Puh-leeze write a letter right now to the IPCC to alert them of this critical fact. I'm sure they've just overlloked it. Once they realize that organic chemictsry is carbon-based, they will be able to issue a retraction.

:lol:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
CO2 isn't a religion, it is a chemical compound. There is a very large body of scientific evidence regarding how it affects our planet.

You are free to make up your own religion if you want, but it has not relevance to a scientific debate.

No there isn't a large body of scientific evidence to support CO2 as the culprit in climate change, there is a large body of faux science barflegab foisted on unsuspecting innocents like yourself who gobble it up without a dime worth of applied critical thinking. You've been sucked in by bankers and their slave science mouthpieces who will say anything to keep their grants and salaries. Send me a post card from Dupeville will ya, I collect them. You are obviously not free enough to assemble your own philosophy or maybe you're just too damn lazy to do your own thinking and reading. insert smiley
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It's the carbon part of the CO2 that you greenies have your panties all in a bunch over.

Just in case you didn't get the memo... Most (if not all) life on this planet is carbon based.

There's carbon in beer too, and carbon in the ashes from the joint I'm smoking and the humming bird on the feeder is mostly carbon, these whackos hate carbon they hate little birds they're terrible horrible party poopers. They should shove their foorprints up their elimination orifices where it blongs with their heads.