Climate Change

Perhaps we can’t focus on more than one serious issue at a time, at least it seems that way often times. Man-made greenhouse gases are not going away, regardless of any “man-made” financial crisis.

If we are to have any reasonable chance of keeping the average global surface temperature below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the United States and China will have to do a great deal more to reduce emissions, along with emerging industrial powers like Brazil. “You first” is not a policy.

Water shortages, rising sea levels, population increases, security threats, desertification, deforestation, agricultural shortfalls, and disease are already having an impact on human society.

The misinformation and ignorance are no longer surprising. The question becomes are you going to just throw up your hands or confront this smug satisfaction? Go to RNC.

It certainly is my view that while the "free-market" financial crisis currently dominates the news, it is global climate change that will truly impact our lives. A new economic system however is critical if we expect to deal with climate change in a meaningful way. For one view on climate change go to

It's a sort of James Bond story. Were we warned about global warming thirty years ago? What might be the origins of the global warming skeptics? And, was the iconic Ronald Reagan responsible for blocking further scientific research? Go to Jason.

An excellent presentation by Dan Gilbert, Harvard psychologist and author, on why we don't respond more seriously to the threat of climate change and global warming. Gilbert offers four specific possibilities. Go to Climate Change.

What might Obama and McCain actually do about climate change?

From The American Association for Advancement of Science. Repetition+Reinforcement=Retention

A clever presentation on the choices you have.

Once we get beyond this year's election in the United States, which more often than not seems to be directed at semi-literate 9th graders, we will have to get down to addressing real issues and creating real policies that apply to a real world that is changing, possibly in ways we have not seen in maybe 10,000 years.

McKinsey & Company, the management-consulting firm, has completed an extremely valuable study in one particular area entitled "A Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction."

McKinsey in this study does not evaluate the science of climate change, but looks at abatement measures through a worldwide analysis of all the significant greenhouse gases, sectors, and regions, including the monetary costs of specific strategies, and focusing on three time periods, 2010, 2020, and 2030.

I came across the article yesterday in Salon.com, written by Joseph Romm back in February of this year and entitled "The cold truth about climate change."

Romm agrees with the global warming deniers that there is no "consensus" on global warming ... well sort of. It would be more accurate to say he doesn't like the word consensus because he thinks it's misleading and misunderstood by the general public and misused by both skeptics and the outright deniers.

It's a really good article because it is written for the non-scientist and addresses many of the deniers' favorite subjects like "it's the sun stupid" or "it's really cooling," and of course, "there is no consensus." The article points out how conservative IPCC projections tend to be and why. Be sure to check out the links, especially Skeptical Science as well as the numerous comments about the article. Go to Consensus.