Do you believe this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists re global warming?

Question

Or do you prefer the Rush Limbaugh/ Sean Hannity scientific viewpoint?

The UCS is a group of highly distinguished scientists including many nobel laureates. Many have served as scientific advisors to past presidents both Democratic and Republican.

Excerpt; "The peer-reviewed report, "Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast," incorporates and builds on NECIA's 2006 study that described how the climate of the nine Northeast states will change under two scenarios: one that assumes an increase in global warming emissions from continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and another that assumes substantially lower emissions due to an increased reliance on clean energy sources. The report documents the projected consequences of each emissions path.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/global-warming-to-hit-0044.html

www.climatechoices.org/ne/resources_ne/nereport.html.

Answer 1

Cons believe their right-wing pundits over well estabished scientific organizations any day. They are anti-science when it comes down to it.

====================

1) THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 45,000 MEMBERS
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

2) THE U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (ALONG WITH THE NAS OF THE G8 NATIONS), FOUNDED IN 1863, OVER 2,000 MEMBERS, OVER 200 NOBEL PRIZE MEMBERS
"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf

3) THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, FOUNDED IN 1888, OVER 20,500 MEMBERS
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm

4) THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1876, OVER 160,000 MEMBERS
"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century."
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf

5) THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGY SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 11,000 MEMBERS
"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

6) THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CREATED IN 1988, HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS FROM OVER 130 NATIONS
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined in footnotes as greater then 90% likelyhood) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns"
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

7) THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, FOUNDED IN 1848, SERVES 262 AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 MILLION INDIVIDUALS
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

8) THE NOAA'S NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER PALEOCLIMATOLOGY PROGRAM, FOUNDED IN 1992, HAS THE LARGEST ARCHIVE OF CLIMATE AND PALEOCLIMATE DATA
"Many scientists have now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect. It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind's input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html

9) THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, FOUNDED IN 1960, OVER 120 MEMBERS, SERVES OVER 62 PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH CENTERS
"Together, these data show that Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s. Global models at NCAR have simulated 20th century climate and found three main factors at work:
1) Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.
2) As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
3) Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming."
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

10) THE NASA'S GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, FOUNDED IN 1961, SPECIALIZES IN SPACECRAFT OBSERVATIONS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS
"A new NASA-funded study used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes, projects warming over the next 50 years regardless of whether or not nations curb their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon. If no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit). But if the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 0.75C (1.35F)."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20020919/

Answer 2

Ask yourself this, how much money, for research of course, were these climate experts getting before the accepted position was global warming was man-made? Do you think they are getting more funding now? Is making lots of money a big motivator for most people? Now, why were these climate experts claiming in the 1970's that global cooling, and the new Ice Age was imminent, and that the world had at the most ten years to stop polluting, to avoid ecological collapse and disaster? Al Gore claimed 12 years ago, that if pollution was not severely curtailed, the environment would collapse within the next 10 years. Do you realize how many millions of dollars Al Gore makes through his green credit companies? It's not a conspiracy, it is simply "snake oil salesmen" taking advantage of gullible people, so they can make lots of money!

Answer 3

the information has been sooo massaged on both sides. i've grown weary of it.

DIRTY--BAD

CLEAN--GOOD

seems super easy to me. by the way--it's the 21st century, right?

shouldn't there be at least 1 viable alternative to fossil fuels by now? even if we just discuss automobiles. the fuel crisis of the 70's spurred huge research, and much was learned. where did all that lead us? HERE!

individuals came up with ideas. good ones were probably purchased by "big oil". what does that say about the people who sold those ideas? i'm sure they knew what they were doing, but could afford their fuel consumption, so who cares.

again, it is the 21st century, right, RIGHT?

shouldn't "the peoples" standards be higher than the treatment we get from the "powers that be"?

your vote is not your vote. your vote is your $$$. " we the people" CAN make a difference. it takes a little thinking, about how, like lable shopping, or researching where and who you are buying from. you have to REALLY CARE!!!

Mark Twain: "thinking is the hardest activity any man can engage in. which is why so few do it."

Answer 4

There was a show I watched on TV last night, about a family in Canada that has been visiting this one famous glacier (the name of the glacier escapes me right now) for over 100 years. They have been photographing the glacier every year during almost that entire period. The Great Grandfather, the grandfather, the father and now the sons have taken these pictures and the pictures show that the glacier has been receding at the same rate for that entire period.
It was on the aboriginal network and was not about global warming but rather a show about this family. I did find it interesting though that they have this photographic evidence.


Sure, we have pollution and we need to curb our wastefulness, but lets concentrate on the really important things. The earth is going to warm whether we want it to or not. That's its natural cycle. How about instead we worry about whether or not we have any clean water to drink during those hot hazy days.

Answer 5

I'll take a peer-reviewed paper over an ignorant right-wing talking head anyday.

Global warming deniers have no alternative explanation for the acceleration in global warming. It's caused by humans:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYUrYRGadqG8IBJkxgXFDDsy6IX?qid=20070711133901AAvvAXX

Answer 6

Even if they dont believe what they READ, you would THINK they could believe what they can SEE.
http://www.everybodysweather.com/Static_Media/Polar_Ice_Cap_Melter/index.htm

Since neither Limbaugh nor Hannity are experts in the field of climatology, urban pollution or, for that matter, trustworthiness, I prefer to hear MY expert opinions from actual experts, with no hidden agenda, such as the ones who shill for Big Oil, denying there is such a thing as Global Warming.

And, as NO Con seems to want to address, so what if there IS no such thing as "Global Warming", per se? How is ANY of what is proposed (conserving, recycling, (thinking before wasting, in other words), etc.) a bad idea? How can someone in their right mind, with only the welfare of the planet and its inhabitanrs in mind, defend the continued waste and pollution which go on everyday, 365 a year?

Don't people WANT to take a deep breath outdoors, without contracting Black Lung Disease? Don't they WANT to drink water which doesn't have to come in plastic bottles (said water, incidently, costs more per gallon than gasoline does) and not have to have special filters on their taps?

Not to mention the fact that when the oil is gone, its gone for good. No more petroleum means no more petroleum products, such as ANYTHING made from plastic and a huge amount of what's made out of rubbers and baekelite compounds.No more artifical hearts, no more stocks for rifles, no more CDs (heck, no more CD PLAYERS), no hearing aids, no car interiors or dashboards, etc. I have no children of my own, so I can say the following with all sincerity, Your great grandchildren will curse your names for wasting something as valuable as petroleum in your gas guzzling penis extentions.

Answer 7

Everything has a consequence. If we are able to utilize an alternative fuel source, how can we we be sure it won't have some sort of catastrophic effect?

Best way to combat global warming is to significantly decrease the human population. There are far too many of us.

Answer 8

The Union of Concened Scientists were adamently opposed to Reagan's policies towards the USSR in the 80's, and, Reagan was right, they were wrong. Global warming, well, we need to keep a steady and sensible eye towards the future.

Answer 9

The NeoCons always shut up when you ask them to buy your below sea level land on the gulf coast. They know that's a bad investment but they will never admit that fact. A half inch rise in the average sea level could cost tax payers Billions.

Answer 10

Considering issues I have in dealing with the Union of Concern Scientists I rather trust a group of 4th graders. They are truly the most bias group along with Exxon to give me the facts of what is going on.
Here is a couple of examples:
Working at nuclear power plant we decided to build a baseball field to we petition the NRC a change in the license.
They made a big stink about saying we were unsafe because the NRC was soft on us.
I have many more.

So if you are going to quote Union of Concern Scientists they have just as much value as Rush does or anyone else who had an idea about global warming.

TO: trovalta_stinks_2 I am more than will to pay attention your sited information than the Union of Concern Scientists.

Answer 11

When they are ready to debate this, in the open and not run away from dissenting views from others in their community, then I might lend some credibility to them.