This whole exchange illustrates the GW dilemma for me; no one can martial a comprehensive look at the evidence that really proves the case either way, hence the caution from Bob and Quehubo and others is not unfounded, even if it gets a bit strident...but no more so than some of the pro-GW views posted here too.
Dale, the reason the IPCC was started back in the late 80s was precisely to take "a comprehensive look at the evidence that really proves the case either way." that is what they have done back in '91, '96, '01, and last year. They broke up into working groups, they looked at all of the studies that had been done since the previous report, they compiled the results, and--they came up with the reports that they have come up with. Their last report said that they have "very high confidence"--which means >90% probability--that anthropogenic activity is causing a buildup of GHGs which is causing global warming and climate change. It isn't a matter of being "strident," IMHO, it is a matter of what the evidence along with the laws of physics and biology as we understand them strongly suggests. There is more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere than at any time in at least the past 800,000 years, and likely far more than that. Bird migration patterns have altered in the past couple of decades, as have plant habitats. The oceans are becoming more acidified. Trees are becoming more stressed, and less capable of defending themselves against pests and molds, due both to temperature changes and increasing dehydration.
I still remember the Nixon defenders back in '74-74. It was so obvious that the guy was guilty at least of obstruction of justice. But the defenders kept saying, "Where is the smoking gun?" right up until the tapes were actually made public. That is what this reminds me of. The Bush defenders must know how it feels--they are still (some of them anyway) saying, those WMDs are in Syria, they are buried somewhere, we'll find them. But they were wrong in that case.
In this case, there has been a 30 year study of the evidence. The IPCC has shown great caution in their review of the studies, typical of the scientific community as a whole. What forecasts they have made in their last report have so far been shown to be drastically understating the consequences of warming in the polar regions. One year a trend does not make. We'll have to see what happens over the next couple of years. Some of the skeptics have claimed that last summer was an aberration in the north pole, that there was a record build-up of ice this past winter. Well, we'll see. Let's see if the bases that are slated to be closed in Alaska because the ground they are built on is literally melting away, and making the structures unstable are actually reopened. Let's see if this summer isn't just as bad if not worse than last summer.
It isn't a matter of stridency. Just because you keep repeating the truth doesn't mean that you are "strident." That is a misreading, IMHO. I too don't see "huge train-wreck package passing Congress even under an Obama administration." Not for awhile anyway. A much broader public awareness and support must be built still before people will be willing to accept some sacrifice. But one way or another, we will be paying for this for decades to come. And I am definitely not trying to "fear monger" here, however it sounds. More extreme weather events are one of the predicted consequences of climate change. Both in number and in intensity. It includes drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes. One main question is, will people finally admit that the reason these are occurring is due to climate change brought on by our own fossil fuel use or will they continue to deny that this is so?
As for a comprehensive plan--there is no one comprehensive plan that is possible for a problem of this magnitude. There have to be many plans that pull in the same direction. It isn't something that will be "solved" in a year or two or even a decade or two. But every thousand mile journey starts with one step. |
