BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Climate experts issued their starkest warning yet aboutthe impact of global warming, ranging from hunger in Africa to a fast thaw inthe Himalayas, in a report on Friday that increased pressure on governments toact.
More than 100 nations in the U.N. climate panel agreed a final text afterall-night talks during which some scientists accused governments of wateringdown conclusions that climate change was already under way and damaging nature.
I am bewildered how the non-believers of Global Warming can still dismiss anyand all facts and information regarding this issue. I can understand them notbuying into the whole theory, and being skeptical, but at least be open mindedand objective and do a little research of their own.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated theClean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissionsstandards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to globalwarming.
The Washington Post Reported: (This is a short article and worthreading)
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decidewhether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," JusticeJohn Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothingsuggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gasesas air pollutants," the opinion continued.
The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling"repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on globalwarming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as anair pollutant subject to EPA regulation.
Now let's not forget what Bush said in his some of which we have heard in prior State of The Union Address's
It's in our vital interest to diversifyAmerica's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We mustcontinue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater useof clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power.(Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybridvehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel.(Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol --(applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agriculturalwastes.
America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
Mostof the extreme opposition of Global Warming, simply believe it is totally boulderdash,they do not even slightly entertain the idea. They throw out the handful ofnames of scientists that disagree (which most of them do not disagree with theentire issue, just with some of the theories)
Live Science has their take inan article and in another article theybreak down the reasons of skepticism on Global Warming . There are otherlinks associated with these articles, and I would encourage anyone to grab a cupof coffee, tea etc and take some time to read these.
Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Bush Administration's policy on greenhouse gas emissions. The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency "" for its unwillingness to regulate carbon emissions from cars, and that the regulate them:
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take afresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuketo Bush administration policy on global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives theEnvironmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissionsof carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
This is a historic ruling by the Supreme Court. This court battle began under Clinton. The Clinton Administration filed a in an effort to force utilities to enact pollution control, especially pertaining to coal power plants. Today, the justices overturned a ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia -- saying that the lower court over-stepped its authority by not recognizing Environmental Protection Agency regulations of 1980.
In a nutshell, since the very beginning of the Bush years back in 2001, the Administration's excuse for not reducing greenhouse emissions was that they lacked the power to do so -- which is hypocritical when you take into account how Executive power has expanded in other areas. Justice John Paul Stevens, who , said the Administration's reasoning was "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance withlaw."
I bet you can guess which which justices dissented from the majority:
Chief Justice John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
I am going to write much more about this today and tomorrow, and give you a glimpse at what this really means for the future of environmental law.
When you listen to people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck consistently discredit the general scientific consensus on global warming, you might ask yourself, "What will it take for these people to put science ahead of right-wing talking points?" The answer is maybe a lot. And by the time they do come around, if at all, it will not be until their beach-front Florida property is in jeopardy. When they complain about losing money in real estate, they will still be a lot better off than some of the poorest nations in the world.
:
Consider Bangladesh, a country of 147 million people packed into a mostly flat delta region slightly smaller than Iowa.
As the world warms, sea levels could rise 2 feet, or more, by 2100.
"Even a rise of one foot will put a huge amount of that entire country under water permanently," said geographer Susi Moser.
She is among National Center for Atmospheric Research scientistswho contributed to an upcoming international report on the likelyworldwide impacts of climate change.
"And these are not the same people who live in Laguna Beach,"said Moser, who works at NCAR's Institute for the Study of Society andEnvironment in Boulder.
"These are people whose entire livelihood depends on theagriculture in those coastal regions," she said. "Millions would bedisplaced."
Even with the diverse economy that we have here in the United States, we will be affected. But just imagine what it will be like for countries whose economies rely on one or two natural resources for their well-being.
If you are a Republican and want to get a spot on any energy-related committee, you had better think twice before embracing science. As revealed, House Minority Leader John Boehner pre-screened candidates for the select committee on energy independence based on their previous statements about climatology:
Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. NicoleGaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. WayneGilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independenceand Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohiorefused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have notcontributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and wasdenied a seat.
Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers(R-Mich.), both research scientists, also weredenied seats on thecommittee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered anadvantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowedRepublican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on aglobal warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of makingglobal warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywoodlefties.
The phenomenon here is that a tiny number ofinfluential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters aremarginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubtsomething like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too.It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
You would have thought that the Republican leadership would want former research scientists on all climate-related committees. Of course, that logic only assumes that people like John Boehner care more about solutions than political gain. Am I ignorant or what?
Here is your latest dose of fair and balanced journalism. Last night on the hit Fox News show "HANNITY and colmes", right-wing author Christopher Horner compared environmentalists like Gore to the Unabomber. Read this transcript for yourself:
HANNITY: But again, if we're having this real disaster -- civilization is in jeopard -- why doesn't he just reduce his pollution of the planet?
HORNER: Yeah, it's about time somebody in this movement other than the Unabomber go off the grid, swear off private jets and start walking the talk.
This is by every means outrageous. But it's not the first time that a supporter of the American Enterprise Institute think-tank went off the deep end and made this Unabomber comparison. Robert Tracinski, a conservative philosopher, wrote just that in a January 2, 2000 column titled, "." And it just so happens that the American Enterprise Institute is the same right-wing group bribing scientists by if they agree to publicly debunk global warming. Very sad.
, one of the world's most leading geophysicists, visited the University of Wisconsin late last week and spoke about the geothermics of climate change. Most notably, that temperature changes caused by greenhouse gases are more significant in the Arctic:
“Although the global average is only a jump in a few degrees, certainplaces, like the Arctic, could warm up to 10 degrees and have direconsequences,†Chapman said.“The quantity of ice in the Arctic regionis only about 40 percent of what it was 50 years ago.â€
Chapmansaid global warming is caused by human activities. He presented theaudience with an equation that had three factors: the number of peopleon the planet, how much energy each person uses and where that energycomes from. Chapman said the severity of global warming depends onthese three things.
He then spoke about ways to reduce theinfluences of these three factors. Some of the solutions includedreducing global population, using less fossil fuels, using morerenewable energies and other ways to reduce humanity’s impact on theenvironment.
“We should not be worrying or debating inWashington whether it is warming or not; meteorological temperatures,sea level rise and drill-hole temperatures are all independently givingus the same answers: the earth is warming,†Chapman said.
On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has released the names of the 15 members that will be on the new . The committee will be chaired by Edward Markey (D-MA), and the ranking Republican minority leader will be James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).
If you have Showtime, set your Tivos and other DVD recorders. This Sunday at 8 PM ET, Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth":
This is two weeks afterits director, Davis Guggenheim, won the best documentary Oscar,stirring up detractors who sneer at Gore’s crusade as â€a convenientlie†while lumping him with crackpots, lefties and that Hollyweirdcrowd.
This is absolutely huge! Most Americans who saw the movie tended to go either because they liked Al Gore or they had very strong opinions about global warming. Starting this Sunday, the movie will be broadcast in front of a much wider audience. We will see how Gore's powerpoint is accepted among a more eclectic demographic.
Researchersfrom the Texas A and M University have released the results of theirresearch showing increased Asian pollution has added to the strength ofstorms in the North Pacific, a phenomenon which may contribute toglobal warming.
The team, led by Renyi Zhang, studied storms in theNorth Pacific region between 1984 to 2005 and concluded that increasedpollutants from a rise in coal production in developing countries Chinaand India had caused stronger storms in the region.
Theresearchers said in their paper that these stronger storms wereinstrumental in the makeup of the global atmosphere and the increasedpollutants may have an negative effect on global warming.
Related News:
.
Sean Hannity has that are skeptical of the evidence pertaining to global warming. (Hey Sean, call me when you find 10,000 scientists that are willing to believe that claim.)
Many Evangelical Christians across the country are becoming environmental activists. That worries powerful leaders like Jerry Falwell. In a sermon two Sundays ago, that Satan is trying to distract Christians with fake issues like global warming:
MoralMajority founder Jerry Falwell, who has worked for decades to involveconservative Christians in politics, said Sunday the debate over globalwarming is a tool of Satan being used to distract churches from theirprimary focus of preaching the gospel.
"IfI decide here as the pastor and our deacons decide that we're going toget caught up in the global warming thing, we're not going to be ableto reach the masses of souls for Christ, because our attention will beelsewhere, " Falwell said in Sunday's sermon at Thomas Road BaptistChurch in Lynchburg, Va. "That's pretty wise for Satan to concoct."
Richard Cizik, a government-affairs specialist for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), recently for his advocacy of green-friendly policies in the face of global warming.
In related news, a French study finds that global warming has affected the .
Recent Comments