E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMSNBC's Thomas Roberts talks to Chris Hayes, host of "Up with Chris Hayes" about the impact of Hurricane Sandy and talk of climate change.
The climate change issue has been virtually a non-issue during the presidential campaign — but it's primed to take a higher profile after the elections, in part due to Hurricane Sandy's horrific aftermath. At least that's the view of Shawn Lawrence Otto, one of the founders of ScienceDebate.org and author of "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science of America."
Otto focused on climate politics during Wednesday night's installment of "Virtually Speaking Science," a talk show airing online and in the Second Life virtual world. You can hear an archived version of the hourlong program, hosted by yours truly, via the BlogTalkRadio archive or iTunes.
Hurricane Sandy already has re-energized the debate over the global effects of escalating greenhouse-gas emissions.
On one side, experts point to the fact that this season's warmer seas helped the storm keep up its strength as it moved northward, and that higher sea levels added to the strength of Sandy's storm surge. Such conditions are expected to be more common if current climate trends continue. On the other side, skeptics point out that Sandy's strength was in line with extreme storms of the past. For more on the back-and-forth over Sandy specifically, check out this posting by Columbia Journalism Review's Curtis Brainard and this one by Dot Earth's Andrew Revkin — and be sure to follow the Web links.
Otto sides with those who believe Hurricane Sandy will bring the climate debate back into the spotlight.
"I do think that, moving forward, it may be a watershed moment, so to speak," Otto told me on "Virtually Speaking Science." However, he acknowledged that the same claim could have been made for Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which didn't end up moving the dial appreciably on attitudes toward climate change.
Hurricane Sandy may not make voters more amenable to cap-and-trade schemes or a carbon tax, but it's more likely to highlight the flip side of climate policy: how to adapt to potential impacts and encourage climate-conscious innovation. More people are talking about the cost vs. benefit of storm surge barriers for the New York metro area, for example. Insurers may add disincentives for coastal development, in anticipation of higher sea levels or more frequent extreme storms. The federal government may provide more support for energy technologies that cut back on greenhouse-gas emissions.
That's basically GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's strategy on the climate issue. In his response to ScienceDebate.org's questionnaire, he said he favored "robust government funding" for research into low-emission, high-efficiency industrial technologies. He maintained that this kind of "No Regrets" policy would benefit America "regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize, and regardless of whether other nations take effective action."
President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has long championed the development of renewable-energy technologies as a way to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, even if such efforts have occasionally gotten him into trouble. An example of that is the controversy over Solyndra, a solar-panel company that went bankrupt after receiving more than a half-billion dollars in government-backed loans.
Otto speculates that Obama may have a freer hand to pursue climate initiatives if he wins a second term — and that post-Sandy reconstruction may serve as a rallying point for political allies.
There's some evidence this is already coming to pass: Just today, New York City's independent mayor, Michael Bloomberg, cited the climate challenge and the lessons from the superstorm as reasons for endorsing Obama.
"The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast – in lost lives, lost homes and lost business – brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief," Bloomberg wrote. "Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week's devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."
Bloomberg said Obama was taking major steps to reduce carbon emissions, while Romney abandoned "the very cap-and-trade program he once supported."
The mayor's endorsement probably won't have much impact on the vote in New York, a state that's as solidly in Obama's column as any state could be. But does it hint at a major change in the political climate?
For more food for thought, watch this archived video from a Capitol Hill debate between Obama surrogate Kevin Knobloch and Republican Mike Castle, who served two terms as Delaware governor and nine terms in Congress. The debate, titled "After Sandy: Climate Change, Science and the Next Four Years," was moderated by Otto and Climate Desk Live's Chris Mooney.
Update for 8:30 p.m. ET: The Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg sees deep significance in Bloomberg's endorsement, suggesting that it "turned climate change from liability into a potentially winning political issue in this presidential election," and may embolden Republicans who secretly support action on the climate issue to "come out of the closet." Do you agree? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More from 'Virtually Speaking Science':
- Sean Carroll on what lies beyond the Higgs boson
- Alan Stern on the Uwingu mystery space venture
- George Djorgovski on the future of immersive virtual reality
- JPL's Dave Beaty previews Curiosity's mission on Mars
- SETI Institute's Seth Shostak about aliens and UFOs
- Paul Doherty on solar eclipses and the transit of Venus
- Veronica Ann Zabala-Aliberto on spaceflight and Yuri's Night
- JPL's Dave Beaty on the search for life on Mars
- Shawn Lawrence Otto on science and politics
- Ig Nobel impresario Marc Abrahams on silly science
- Rocket scientist Robert Zubrin on Mars exploration
- Propulsion expert Marc Millis on interstellar spaceflight
- Sean Carroll on the puzzling frontiers of physics
- Rand Simberg on the private-enterprise vision for spaceflight
- Martin Hoffert on the future of energy policy
- George Djorgovski on science in virtual worlds
- Alan Stern on suborbital research and NASA's mission to Pluto
- Col. 'Coyote' Smith on the outlook for space solar power
- Tim Pickens on rocket ventures and the Google Lunar X Prize
"Virtually Speaking Science" is hosted in Second Life by the Caltech Virtual Astronomy Group. The Exploratorium's Paul Doherty will be my guest on Dec. 5 for a VSS program looking back at the year's astronomical highlights and looking ahead to 2013.
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I happen to agree with the 97% of the World's climatologists that GW is real but what I don't agree with is using a single event as evidence either for or against its existence. This is plain foolishness and anyone who is serious about debating this issue should know that GW can't be proven or disproven by a single event or series of events over a short amount of time. People, get over it!
You're correct...Big difference between weather and climate..Sometimes inter connected...
And Bloomberg acknowledged that. But unfortunately we can't get anyone's attention unless we hit them over the ahead; even if the hit may not have anything to do with the original problem.
People aren't going to change or demand change because they were hit over the head. Maybe of they were repeatedly beaten over the head, but by then it will be too late. Too few people care about what might happen 20 or 50 years down the road, and politicians can on think in terms of 2, 4, and 6 years. If America enacted every suggestion from the most ardent GW advocates there would still be China and India picking up the slack. People will take global warming seriously when there's ocean front property in Arizona. Sure that's a cynical view, but it's also closer to reality.
Sorry , The climate Debate , did not just change . The same republicans , will say the same things . The same Democrats will say the same . After we have basically killed our selves , The Republicans will say OOOHH CRAP you where correct all along .
No they won't. they will just change their screen names and start complaining about something else.
This is not a political issue. It's a science issue. If you're not capable of learning the science than please don't preach to others about how you know it all. 99% of the politicians have no earthly understanding of anything regarding science because they're LAWYERS. They're willing to use any words to convince their useful idiots.
the republicans have fought the idea of goble warming since the 60's well I guess Al Gore wasn't full of it after all. Sandy is republican I hope this country will wake up soon(before11/06/12) to the terror that party really is, I can't believe goble warming is still in question of existence. Remember a vote for Obama/Biden is GOOD DECIDING ! a vote for flip flopping mit not a good hit bush/cheney lift us in the toilet mits gonna make sure he flushes it. Save AMERICA vote DEMOCRAT from one of the 47% who remembers nixon was a crook, regan couldn't think for himself,bush was an idiot, and they all hurt THE AMERICAN DREAM.
Awwwwwww look, another storm and all the libs are screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING!"
I know it was a big scawy storm.. but it's gone now... dry your eyes.. it will be alright!
It wasn't the first. It wasn't the worst. There will be more.
I wonder if the decline of the Ice Age was also man's fault? Oh wait.....
This liberal reaction was fully expected, ignorance is so very predictable.
Suddenly they forget all about truly destructive storms when it happens to them. Just because it happened to hit a populated area doesn't make it a "Super Storm" The wind was hardly blowing hard. It wasn't even a hurricane when it hit. Mass Transit and dense population centers don't work so well when a little rain and wind hit do they?
Yes it is quite silly.
I guess you didn't see the pictures of it. Sandy blotted out the entire eastern seabooard area; it affected every state east of the Mississippi. No other storm in recorded history was that big.
True, it wasn't the first. But it was the worst since records were kept. And yes, there will be more - thanks to climate change.
Hopefully the next big one will take out Georgia and S Carolina or Texas and bang some sense into the red neck morons who have successfully stalled doing anything to stop this
Sadly we appear to be past the tipping point where anything can be done to reverse things
We did not all do this to ourselves
This was perpetuated by a small group of wealthy scum who make billions from selling coal and oil
Plenty of people tried to stop mindless growth and energy waste - Jimmy Carter, Al Gore but they were demonized by multimillion dollar propaganda campaigns
Now we will all reap the whirlwind
It may well do, but keep in mind these storms have hit thousands of times, some far larger over the years and will continue to do so. With our without us!
There may or may not be global warming, but if there is it is a simple cycle the planet goes through and will go through again. It has NOTHING to do with us! (OR U.S.)
It has to do with the desire of liberals to TAX!
And, you have peer reviewed papers in what scientific literature again?? None? Kinda what I thought...
Two third of democrats agree to compromise..Two thirds of republicans believe in no compromise..Could that be why congress,controlled by the republicans,has an approval rating of 12%.. Former republican senator Hagel is endorsing democrat Kerry because he believe the republicans have to computerize if the country is to move forward. That being said,I assume 95% of the congressmen and women won't be reelected.But not my congress person,he's one of the good ones.
Really you're not that dumb right?
Actually Congress has a higher approval rate today than 2 years ago. It is Obama who appears to have an approval problem. It is Obama who refuses to work with Congress as his job requires. It is Obama who will raise the average tax on the poor by $40 a week in just 2 months. It is Obama who is responsible for $4 a gallon gas, doubled grocery prices and doubled electric prices and if he is re-elected expect (AND DEMAND) gas prices to be $8.00 a gallon and wages to be down 20% across the United States. Expect tax revenues to be down 20% due not to higher tax rates, but a radically slower economy and expect the national debt to be at 23,000,000,000,000 dollars in 2016. Welcome to Obama's America. Land of the indebted and impoverished! Land of the incarcerated and weak!
Want ALL these things? You know who to check on the election ballet. I for one still believe in America and myself and am voting my conscience. I am voting Romney!
Yup, he has "championed" us into 4 trillion more in debt and there are a lot more failures than just Solyndra. Claims he is for the poor but takes tax money from the middle class to bail out the rich (auto makers, banks etc) which then turn around and repossess those very taxpayers cars and houses.
Yes, such a "champion" isn't he? LOL
Romney/ Ryan 2012
NO, you are wrong. So tired of this, Your Republican mantra about Solyndra is mostly false, its getting old and its in the way of making real change to more efficient clean and renewable energy management which will benefit millions of homeowners and car drivers in the future. The problem we find at the bottom of all this is profit motive and the gatekeepers who do not want to give up their antiquated and harmful cash cows. Methane gas on the ocean floor?, Can we say huge deep water well leaks among other things? Want more of those? Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants destroyed by Tsunamis? Want more Nukes? And what about that one shut down just now in the region that got hit by Sandy? Was that Indian Point, already determined to be too old and dangerous? Do they have back up generators for the nuke plant to cool the rods okay? With friends like that, who needs enemies?
The real problem with solar is not that it does not work, it works fine. So why the smear campaign? Perhaps the problem is that it will take business away from you because you cannot monopolize, exploit, or control it. There is no way for you to harness it so it remains decentralized as truly private enterprise For The People, freeing up energy costs for each individual homeowner on his/her property and this means less for the utility companies to charge and make a profit off the homeowner. For example, in the small city, one must pay city water and gas. In the country on the farm ten miles out of town we have someone with five acres and free gas from their own pump and free water from their own well.
Furthermore, you are blaming President Obama for exactly the things that he has been trying to get us out of that were put into place by trickle down economic strategies! You say Solyndra, well what about Enron??? In the case of Solyndra....the answer is easy....can we say pick up and move shop to China to pay lower wages and use cheaper materials for higher profits? It doesn't take the Wizard of Oz to figure this out, and do get some facts once and for all on this Solyndra thing or continue being a clown proved wrong but still spewing the entertainment talk show right wing bull phoody radio lines hoping to find another ignorant gullible sucker that will believe you.
If you re-read the above article you will see that it has already been mentioned by Bloomberg that it does not matter whether man made, nature made or both, it is still real and both causal factors is actually the case!!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to just look up and think about every petrol farting jet up there on the high sky travel grid everyday and you have thousands and thousands on top of the freeways on the ground.
It is way past time for air cars, or solar recharging electric nearly zero point vehicles for transport, and solar panels and Vertical Axis Wind Turbines in every back yard for homes now and screw your old fashioned secret monopoly land grabs and gold rush profits. Making money on what pollutes the air and water, on what poisons (GMfoods, plastic trash pollution and dead oxygenless zones in our oceans, oil leaks, nuke leaks, smog and ozone holes, sonar and X-rays, even wireless microwaves, acid rain, asbestos dust and free radicals from smokestacks, etc.), addicts (drugs and big pharma), and kills (cancer, war) living humans and all beings on the planet is shameful and downright criminal.
There is no excuse for it to continue when the discoveries of better technologies are already here. Just step down and let the innovators have their rightful patents. We would have been able to put all that wasted murderous war money into developing the new innovations that benefit us by now if we had elected a president in the eight years before President Obama with those policies, and there was one who won The People's Vote. On Solyndra...read this.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-taxpayer-money/
One guy is out there right now, really working on this disaster being the president while the other is looking like some actor, speculating on this and that all dreamy eyed. He is telling and selling you on how he would do it. He has no background no facts no anything to prove what he would do while the president we have now is working his backside off already for four years and now, making sure New Jersey and New York are getting the help they need the best he can.
Do you not hear what Bloomberg and Christie are saying about this??? You have no idea what Romney, will actually do behind those closed doors with his team of Kochs, Norquists and various Bush leftovers in his cabinet, and they will do just what they please with a majority in congress and the supreme court if you fall for the same crap they have put out there since Tricky Dick and actually let this elitist take that POTUS post. You will eliminate any checks and balances left. Do really think that they care about you? They are pocketing every thing they can and will throw middle class America under the bus, in fact they already have in Congress.
We are at a fork in the road and must face a future that demands our frugality, our change of habits and lifestyles, our values, our definitions of status quo in a massive way. These guys want to go back to the twilight zone and it never has and never will work. The rest of America must now Move On.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 (AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GORE in 2000, check it out!)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/18/al-gore/al-gore-optimistic-about-solar-energy-and-pretty-a/
Nope, YOU are wrong!
And type too much. What a bunch of drivel!
Global Warming Deniers - You're just a bunch of liars! And as the rest of us are on fire, you're just lighting the pyre!
Let us seek our peace, with nothing but relief; let us keep the faith - none of us are afraid!
Oh puhleeeez. Help us out. Point to repeatable scientific experiment that shows a small change in the concentraction of CO2 will catastrophically change the entire environment of earth assuming NOTHING else changes in that thermodynamic system. Please.
And, SeattleDad, puhleeze show us the repeatable scientific proof that shows introducing a known GHG into a system will NOT increase the temperature of that system.
The left wishes came true, no more CO2 emitting gasoline in NYC and NJ. weeeeee hooooo!!!!!!
The day is fast approaching when these storms are going to stretch from Canada to Florida AND be a Category 4 or 5. Then what are you all going to do, huh? (Bend over and kiss it all goodbye, that's what! This was just a warning shot across everyone's bow, so take it for whatever it is worth.)- RC
(If this one had gone into the Gulf of Mexico, it would have engulfed the whole damn gulf! Then what would you all be burning in your vehicles, moonshine? Just wait, the way things are going, it is going to come!) - RC
We all know that climate change is real.
But some of us who are sane also know that it is primarily a natural case of the change in the mother.
Not a case of change made by man.
Besides, it is irreversible.
Buckle up, and get on the ride.
You must have something similar to an I.Q. to ride this one.
Mothers can be raped.
Perhaps.
What do you want to do, give her an abortion of the human species of which you belong?
So, I'm guessing you're just going to sit there and watch the rest of us then?
Want to stop greenhouse gas emissions? Start building more breeder reactors. It's that simple.
I like it! But stop worrying about green house gases or all the plants will die.
BTW, Bloomberg is an idiot. If he spent half the time preparing NY for this kind of scenario (after Irene gave him a taste last year) that he spent "protecting" NY from 20oz sodas, NY would be a lot drier right now.
Yeah, you'd be singing his praises if he had come out for Mittens.
Rush Limbaugh, the entire right wing and the Republican party owe every person on earth for the misery and harm their climate change denial has caused. They should all have all their assests confiscated to begin to pay for what they have done.
Grow up and start using the grey matter between your ears. Guess what? Hurricanes happen. Not because of the hot air coming out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.
All severe weather is caused by man made global warming. To prevent weather disasters liquidate as much of your assets as you can afford and set aside a portion of your earnings to buy carbon offset credits from Al Gore.
That was funny, hopefully we don't have to ever hear about his safety label freak of a wife anymore.
you are a comedic genius! see if you can get on Conan.
Is Sandy a warning ? people have been warning of this for years now that the weather will get more extreme and man is helping do it by a very small percentage but that very small percentage is all it takes.
Science really is your friend and information is not a disease.
Don't hide behind a shield of science unless you can point to some reproduceable set of facts to back it up. The scientific method has not been used here.
dad: dont act like you know anything about science.
Climate change is a hoax.
--God
Yep , that's what he told me too.
invisible brain
God is invisible. So is His hand.
God is a hoax
-God
When science chooses truth instead of lying and personal integrity over politics, maybe I'll start to believe them. Until then good old natural cycles make the most sense to me.
the idea that all the climate scientists are lying is at best naive and at worst a delusional conspiracy theory. i am not saying we have manmade GW because i am no scientist. i cant interpret the data. but neither are you a scientist. neither of us know. but scientists are the people who brought us electricity, cars and everything else. i trust them and a whole community even tho some individuals are no doubt renegades as you will find in any walk of life.
The fact that man made global warming is back in the news simply hurts my head. The hubrus of journalists who listen to politicians and self important scientists who believe they can somehow model the complex thermodynamic system of our planet and somehow conclude that human activity is the primary force sending the earth's climate into an uncontrolled death spiral boggles my mind. Certiainly we can be more energy efficient prevent pollution of air and water. Certainly we can be more efficient and learn how we affect the earth. But to point to a SLIVER of time in the earth's history and jump to such idiotic conclusions defines reason. Of course their are 8 books explaining global warming. There are even more about the JFK assassination and how the CIA took down the twin towers. Consider that the glaciers covering North American melted primarily without the help of humans. Consider the earth was much warmer just a few hundred years ago. Consider that the plates of the earth are shifting and changing and volcanoes have the capacity to spew way more contamination into the earth than the measly humans. Consider the constantly changing galaxy around us. But holy cow! Pull your head out and realize that a comparatively small change in the concentration of a CO2 molecule is somehow DRIVING all of the changes in the earth's climate. Just because Al "yacht boy" Gore says so. How about the discredited scientists at East Anglia? Really people wake up! We've got real problems.
you are not a climate scientist so how the hell would you even know whether they can model for GW? Neither is Gore a scientist. Neither is any journalist or politician. And if you are a physicist or chemist, neither do you know. You either trust the climate scientists or you dont.
Climate scientists are required to tow the line... Those that do not are terminated.
The fact is climate change is NORMAL. Just 600 million years ago our planet froze from pole to pole and to the bottom of the oceans even at the equator. It may do so again. Over 111,000 years the sun heats up and cools impacting our planet.
Each second a volcano erupts more gases are emitted than we put out over a century!
We are small, insignificant and global warming has NOTHING to do with us! (OR U.S.)
Seattle and GHX, neither one of you have any idea of what you're talking about. Period. Volcanoes spew out more CO2 than all human activity over a century!?? MAYBE if it's a super eruption, but that would certainly be a global climate changing event in itself and that hasn't happened since the Tambora or Krakatoa eruptions. And, those events only changed the climate for a decade or so.
Seattle, to say there are "only 8 books about gloabal warming" is ludicrous! There are papers published nearly monthly backing the claims that humans do indeed have and are having an impact on global climate. All you or anyone has to do is think for one moment and more than a couple of inches past your nose. Take into account that we are releasing something which has been buried for nearly 300 million years and releasing it into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. Combine that with deforestation, population growing exponentially, energy demands for that growing population, millions of miles of pavement, etc, etc, etc, etc, and the picture continually becomes grimmer. Like I mentioned, all you have to do is THINK of everything we humans are doing to this planet then combine it with the growing release of CO2 into the atmosphere then it becomes clear that our future is not all roses.
GHX, the sun goes through a roughly 11 or so year cycle. Over the past decade or so the sun has been in a lull or low phase, but the temperature has steadily risen. Now, the sun is entering its higher output phase. So, what do you think is going to happen to our temps then??? NOT something myself and many others are looking forward toward.
The problem is that it's not Climate Change..it is Global Warming..Climate change is what sh's people decided to call it because the idea of global warming did not sit well with big corporate donors and Republicans in denial about the earth heating up because of humans, cars, factories,etc.
SO you are claiming "global warming" has NEVER at any time occurred in the past?
PROVE IT by going through the 500,000 years of ice samples drilled and which you claim demonstrate ONLY a stable global temperature to within 0.5 degrees for that time.
OK, PROVED YOU WRONG!!!! Now get out YOUR wallet ant PAY your OWN global warming TAX!!!! Money and tax profit is all this nonsense is all about!!! No wonder Obama is all over it!
These storms have hit this area thousands of times over the years and will do so again. There is NO global warming, just the same old climate change that has been a part of our planet for billions of years before we were here and will continue to influence our planet billions of years after we are gone.
Global warming is a tax and nothing more!
OK, GHX, prove it!! As you have told others on here to do. Do you seriously think that the thousands and thousands of scientists from many different fields from just as many countries are all coming to the same conclusions because they're in on some super secret conspiracy!??? If so, you got more problems to worry about than climate change!!
I find it ironic how the deniers here point to the lack of predicted damage from CFC’s decimating the ozone layer causing our extinction to the prophesied end of times from acid rain from our pollution pumping cars and factories.
What they fail to grasp is that we successfully recognized these dangers in the 1970’s and 1980’s and took preventive steps to save our a**es. That is why you can’t uses CFC’s in A/C’s anymore and why you have to get your cars emissions checked each year. So the ozone hole is healing and acid rain is being reduced. So much for the denier’s Holy Grail that we can’t affect the air. Guess they don’t remember the black cloud that was visible over L.A. from over 300 miles away back then.
One extreme weather event alone is not conclusive evidence of climate change. However, when over time these extreme events become more frequent and severe as compared with several decades ago, scientists are right to investigate whether human activity might have some effect on changes to the atmosphere that correlate with these observed measurable changes, including: increased mean temperature of Earth's surface, rising sea level, diminishing Arctic and/or Antarctic ice pack, more frequent and severe tropical storms including lengthening of the tropical storm season, more frequent and severe periods of drought, and increased frequency and severity of wildfires.
Most climate change denial is founded in the deniers' economic interest in continuing (and even increasing), rather than changing, the human activity that is thought to aggravate climate change; i.e., burning of carbon-based fossil fuels for the purpose of energy production. In fact, some fossil-fuel interests have financed the research of that small minority (less than 3 percent) of climate scientists who continue to conclude that climate change, if any, is the result of natural forces that would have occurred with or without the effect of human activity.
The other 97 percent of climate scientists, most of whom are employed by academic institutions and government and therefore have no economic agenda, have found sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that human activity, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, has had and will continue to have a profound effect on the Earth's climate. These scientists advocate that policy-makers implement measures to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The interests that oppose needed changes are powerful, and they enjoy support from many Americans who believe their quality of life might be adversely impacted by measures that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. Such changes include buying and driving autos and trucks with improved fuel economy or that use alternate fuel or electricity, generating more household and industrial electricity from renewable resources, living closer to the workplace, using mass transit where possible, making new buildings energy efficient and retrofitting existing buildings to make them more energy-efficient.
These lifestyle changes may seem inconvenient to many consumers; however, they will save money by lowering their energy cost in the long run. Furthermore, as the adverse effects of climate change become more and more apparent and severe, such as more frequent, devastating tropical storms, the economic cost related to these events eventually will exceed the economic benefit of continuing to burn fossil fuels that result in the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, the adverse effects of global climate change cannot readily be reversed. We have set into motion a giant battleship that will need many years, if not decades, to change course. The Earth's population continues to grow, and developing nations continue to demand more energy. Many low-lying coastal areas soon will be inundated. Their populations will need to be relocated. These disruptions will lead to economic strife, if not outright war.
The proper response to climate change must consist of a combination of policies that include adaptation, as well as a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Our grandchildrens' lives depend on it.
Well said however the mouth pieces of the rich and powerful are far larger than common sense
Until their illegitimate power is stripped away there will be little hope
My father reckoned the world could support 1 billion humans for the long haul. A number reached in 1800.
Without massive efforts to reduce population (hopefully through birth control and family planning than war, disease and starvation) all is lost.
I know we need more and more and more workers to pay the social security ponzi scheme, but all is lost without serious population reduction and fast.
The good news is that we need not do a thing in this arena. Mother nature has her own brutally efficient and time tested ways of dealing with the likes of us. Too successful? NOT!
We could have hammered this storm for days leading up to its landfall in order to weaken it, but unfortunately no one in government really believes in this. At some point people just have to give up trying to get other people to listen! Have fun, everyone! - Rick Carter
(Pulverized (milled) salt is the way to do it. But that is too cheap and easy, right?) - RC
(I am sorry, but if "The Truth" be known, I really don't know how to save humanity from itself.) - RC
(Believe it or not, there may actually be safe biological agents (together with fertilizer) which we could use to weaken or even kill these monstrous storms, but that is a somewhat perilous road to go down, if only because you have to weaponize these biological agents for use against Mother Nature, and those weaponization technologies really need to be closely guarded (once again because of these insane viral religions).) - RC
“Global Warming is a HUGE hit on Broadway. After traveling the world in smaller venues, like New Orleans , the entire Mid-West for several summer runs, Haiti, Japan, Thailand, Greenland and Iceland and don't forget the small Forest Fire sales through California and many many more , GLOBAL WARMING finally makes itself know, unveils the mask of "Hoax" in the the BIG APPLE the City That Will Sleep EVEN LESS under The Stage name SANDY. (Leagal name Katrina but sounded to Russian and Bush was president, and republican, so meh?) Yes folks catch GLOBAL WARMING while you can before it leaves your town and becomes…. CATASTROPHE.