We Need to Save the Earth
Two months after Copenhagen, things on the global warming front are in a downward spiral.
At the summit meeting itself, nations failed to agree on binding commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. And the resignation a few days ago of the main U.N. person dealing with climate change is yet another blow. Yvo de Boer departed mainly out of a feeling of despondency at the state of affairs, according to news reports.
Another top climate change official, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has come under withering fire and calls for resignation for errors in the panel’s research and for the contracts he has secured in recent years for the Indian nonprofit he runs, The Energy Research Institute.
The fact that some errors crept into the IPCC’s most recent report (issued in 2007) is embarrassing. And Pachauri should have been more careful about drumming up business for his organization. But to claim that such missteps prove that global warming constitutes a fraud is a hoot. As Pachauri told me when I interviewed him in December 2008: “Thousands of people are part of what some of these people say is a conspiracy? My God! This is a conspiracy on a scale that’s absolutely astounding!”
Scientific organizations have come out with recent statements reaffirming that global warming is very much a reality.
“Over the last few months, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been attacked for minor errors in its sprawling 2007 report on climate change,” says a Feb. 10 press release by the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Overall, the IPCC's conclusions remain indisputable: Climate change is happening now and human activity is causing it. Nations around the world will have to adapt to at least some climate change, including sea level rise, changes in precipitation, disruptions to agriculture, and species extinctions.”
But minor scientific details haven’t stopped climate change deniers from seizing the moment. Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming has called for Pachauri’s resignation and an independent panel to investigate his organization. And the Utah House earlier this month passed a resolution questioning global warming, as Terry Tempest Williams reveals in our coming issue.
Such know-nothings draw sustenance from a deep distrust of basic science in the United States, including on climate change.
“It is a skepticism that stands in contrast with prevailing views in Europe and has been linked to the influence of U.S. talk radio, the ‘oil lobby,’ an enduring love affair with cars, and a history founded on limiting the role of government,” reports Reuters. “Science can be controversial in a country where evangelical Christians make up a quarter of the adult population. Many, for example, doubt the theory of evolution because they believe it contradicts the Bible.”
So, only 43 percent of Americans believe that global warming is caused due to human activity, and only 44 percent believe it to be a “very serious problem” versus 90 percent of Brazilians, 68 percent of the French and 65 percent of the Japanese population. The result? Widespread opposition even to the inadequate climate change cap and trade bill still stuck in the Senate.
If only the threat facing us weren’t so serious.
Amitabh Pal is the Managing Editor of The Progressive magazine. To subscribe for just $14.97 a year, just click here.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Tags:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead
|
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
Arun Gupta and Michelle Fawcett | We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
Breanna Lembitz | I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
Ed Rampell | The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
Stephanie Fairyington | March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Ruth Conniff at the People's Legislature in Madison
Standing for Justice at the Capitol. Matthew Rothschild.
Come to Progressive Talks and Events
Feb. 18, 5:30 p.m.
Ruth Conniff, Progressive Principles Conference at Yale University 11-1
Read more >>
Thursday February 16 at 7:30 p.m.
VandeBurg Room, Pyle Center. Madison, WI
Not Just Gandhi: The Tradition of Nonviolence Among Muslims in South Asia
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>
Friday February 17 at 7:30 p.m. Kate Clinton at the Barrymore with Michael Feldman in Madison.
Thursday February 23 at 3:30 p.m.
Garden Key Room, Student Union, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Islam Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>








Comments
Fine --- now explain to me how this "Mega Crisis" will be alleviated by allowing Global Financial Oligarchies to sell "Right to Pollute" credits for, what my studies have led me to believe, is one of Earth's life giving gases, and due to it's solubility, we are in no way menaced by, the same as Life was not menaced by CO2 levels close to 7x current levels, in past eras containing abundant well diversified animal life?
And, are you stating that, for Gaia to exist, she needs Human Beings to be conscious of her?
This gets, as one might suspect, rather into the Metaphysical Domain.
And since all Metaphysics lead to Quantum Mechanics, and vice versa --
Next thing you know, we will have to bring "Schrödinger's Cat", into the discussion, as applied to the probability of anything existing, if not observed.
But let's stick with the original question of mine, and
leave any physicist's house pets out of this ---
How will it help, setting up a system, whereby the world's wealthiest, gain further control and added wealth, by being allowed to sell "Right to Pollute" credits?
Why not address real pollution concerns, less profitable to the Elite, perhaps even financially inconvenient to them?
I think I know the answer to that last "Rhetorical"
question of mine.
Also, I read Leakey's "The 6th Extinction", years ago, and found the history conveyed, by this self educated man, to be interesting.
As to these other sources you quoted, which I also have studied and traced their origins ---
"- The summary chapter by Jared Diamond's book Collapse.
- The UNEP GEO-4 report.
- Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update, by Dennis Meadows."
I find them to be agenda propaganda and suspect.
These sources can be linked to Radical De-Population
agendas and Eugenicist Organizations.
And these type of groups, generally do not give a damn about "the future of the lives of our children, nephews, nieces, and the grandchildren".
Perhaps "Theirs", but certainly not "Mine" nor "Your's", unless I am talking to someone, who is further up the Food Chain, than I suspect.
But define "Mega Crisis", for me?
I am not denying it's possibility ( non carbon dioxide
related), but it seems almost a religious tenet, the same as Fundamentalist Christians are assured of an oncoming Apocalypse, Armageddon , and a Tribulation, which I can not discount either, at this stage of the game.
It's all about, "the search for truth" with me, which is apparently not much in vogue, at this time.
First, this from a piece, trying to explain away the fraud --
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-r...
Turns out, the following "Climate Data" was a mound of Horse Manure also ---
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527432.800-sifting-climate-facts...
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/un-warning-over-himalayan...
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/scientists-slam-ipcc-blu...
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/ipcc-ignored-leading-scie...