GET FREE E-MAIL UPDATES: SEND US YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WITH SUBSCRIBE IN THE SUBJECT LINE
or subscribe to our
Twitter service

UNDERNEWS

Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See prorev.com for full contents of our site

December 8, 2009

A FEW REASONS TO TAKE CLIMATE CHANGE SERIOUSLY

Arctic & Antarctic
 
ANTARCTIC ICE MELTING FASTER THAN THOUGHT
GREENLAND ICE MELTING FASTER
STUDY: IN 20 YEARS NO ARCTIC ICE IN SUMMER
WATCHING THE ARCTIC MELT
LARGE ANTARCTIC GLACIER THINNING FOUR TIMES FASTER THAN A DECADE AGO
ARCTIC ICE AREA SMALLEST IN 800 YEARS
OLDER ARCTIC SEA ICE DECLINING
ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE
HUGE ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF ON BRINK OF COLLAPSE
IMPORTANT GLACIER MELTING AT MORE THAN GLACIAL SPEED
ARCTIC ICECAP MELTING IN WINTER AS WELL AS SUMMER
SCIENTISTS FIND METHANE TIME BOMB IN ARCTIC
POLAR BEARS RESORT TO CANNIBALISM
ARCTIC ICE MELTING FAR FASTER THAN THOUGHT
ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF CONTINUES TO BREAK UP. . . IN WINTER
GREENLAND IS RISING WITH LOSS OF ICE
ANTARCTIC RISE IN FRESH WATER WORRIES SCIENTISTS
NEW ARCTIC SEA ICE UNABLE TO SURVIVE SUMMER SUN
FAST MELTING GLACIERS ENDANGER GLOBE
ICE LOSS IN ANTARCTICA MATCHES THAT IN GREENLAND
SUMMER ARCTIC SEA ICE COULD DISAPPEAR BY 2012
ANTARCTICA'S PENGUINS FADING BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE


Climate change

GLOBAL TEMPS SET TO RISE OVER TEN DEGREES BY 2100
HOW CLIMATE CHANGE COULD PRODUCE DRASTICALLY COLD WEATHER
DAILY RECORD HIGH TEMPS BEAT RECORD LOW TEMPS BY 2 TO 1 OVER PAST DECADE

REPORT: CLIMATE CHANGE WILL FORCE 75 MILLION PACIFIC ISLANDERS TO RELOCATE
CLIMATE CHANGE ALREADY AFFECTING COUNTRY
MIT STUDY: 90% PROBABILITY OF 6-13F DEGREE RISE IN TEMPERATURES BY 2100
WHAT A WORST CASE CLIMATE SCENARIO MIGHT LOOK LIKE
EPA DECLARES GREENHOUSE GASES A PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT
UK'S CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR SEES ECO DISASTER LOOMING BY 2030
SCIENTISTS: FIVE FOOT RISE IN SEA LEVEL BY 2100 POSSIBLE
SCIENTISTS TELL CONGRESS HEAT WAVES MIGHT MAKE LIFE UNBEARABLE IN SOME CITIES
TOP SCIENTIST: CLIMATE CHANGE IRREVERSIBLE
TREE DEATH RATE DOUBLES
HOTTER SUMMERS WILL DRASTICALLY CUT CROPS YIELDS

WEATHER-RELATED DISASTERS DOMINATE
EXPERTS: WE'RE MOVING TOO SLOW TO PREVENT CLIMATE CATASTROPHE
SCIENTIST WHO WARNED OF GLOBAL WARMING 20 YEARS AGO SAYS TIME IS RUNNING OUT

GREENHOUSE GASES HIGHEST IN AT LEAST 800,000 YEARS
WARM CLIMATE CAN BRING BEETLE INFESTATIONS THAT LIMIT FORESTS' ABILITY TO ABSORB CARBON
CARBON AND METHANE IN AIR UP SHARPLY
EARLY GLOBAL WARMING SPOTTER SAY IT'S WORSE THAN WE THINK
PRINCE CHARLES SAYS ECO CRISIS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS SERIOUSLY AS WAR
RECOVERED HISTORY: SECRET PENTAGON REPORT SEES ECO DISASTER COMING
2007 WAS WARMEST YEAR EVER FOR EARTH'S LAND AREAS
EVEN CLIMATE ACTIVISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW BAD IT IS
REPORT DETAILS BUSH'S MANIPULATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE INFORMATION
CLIMATE CHANGE MAY WIPE OUT OR DAMAGE 60% OF AMAZON BY 2030
SCIENTISTS UNITE ON DANGER OF CLIMATE CHANGE


WHY THE EARTH IS RUNNING OUT OF TIME
'VERY UNLIKELY' WE CAN AVOID CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE


Drought
 

TREE RINGS SUGGEST SOUTH CAROLINA HAVING WORST DROUGHT IN 800 YEARS
LAKE MEAD MAY BE DRY BY 2021

Labels: ,


2 Comments:

Anonymous L said...

Sam-

I have no doubt that human activity has some effect on the environment. This is an idea that is proven to my satisfaction every time I look out the window. I try to maintain a skepticism about most things, but I accept that the AGW hypothesis as a general principle seems reasonable enough to probably be true. The question that the hacked CRU e-mails has raised for me is: Even accepting the hypothesis, how bad are things really going to get, assuming mankind does nothing to change the course it’s on? That some climate experts felt compelled to fudge the data to make things look worse than they really are suggests to me that the super-dire forecasts one hears ad nauseum might be a tad bit exaggerated. Throwing up a bunch of doomsday scenarios proves nothing, Sam, except that you can do a Google search.

Even accepting that the scientific community is mostly honest and interested only in furthering knowledge, how good are scientists at informing government policy? Scientists tend to become enthused with technical feasibility. Practicality is another matter. Any money they can get that furthers the pursuit of scientific knowledge is good. Whether the broader social good is served, well, who knows? Take for example photovoltaic cell technology: A PV cell array can turn sunlight into electricity, and that is pretty neat, but does it make sense for the gov’t to subsidize these things? A California homeowner can get 60% of his PV solar project paid for with state and federal subsidies. My reading of the ROI calculations I’ve seen tells me that PV technology is not ready for large scale deployment, but spurred by ‘Green’ fever and an economic notion that spending a lot of money on anything is what’s needed right now, a ton of money is going to be spent soon on PV solar technology, and other inefficient 'alternative' energy technologies.

Another thing that has to be said: There are a lot of non-scientists who have made ‘global warming’ theory their life’s passion. Some are plainly nuts — the ‘Gaia’ cultists, for example. Then there are the people who have a large financial stake in the worst case scenarios being held as common belief — the most famous of these: Al Gore. Mr. Gore has positioned himself to become a billionaire by trading in carbon credits. Mr. Gore got the idea for carbon credits by talking with Enron’s Ken Lay. Then there are the Goldman Sachs traders who are licking their chops at the prospect of the profits they will derive from trading in carbon credits. People who stand to make a lot of money by some government policy’s being enacted should have the grace to declare themselves conflicted and not involve themselves in the specifics of policy debate. In the present case, those who stand to profit the most have written the policy.

As much as one might want to frame ‘global warming’ theory as a question of purely scientific interest, that just ain’t so.

December 9, 2009 7:14 AM  
Anonymous m said...

Should the potential for climate change be taken seriously -- of course. Should the risk of that possibility override all critical thought on the matter -- of course not.

In the run up to Iraq II, the propaganda process run by the Bush cabal was a tip off that there were massive problems with their justifications. The same is true for global warming. Every summer is hotter than the previous summer. Every year is hotter than the previous year. We have just had an announcement that the decade is the hottest ever. Even if global warming in excess of normal variation is correct, it would not occur in such a manner. There would be cooler times and warmer times.

NASA has admitted to using statistical chicanery to fudge the data on the hottest years of the 20th century. Not in the late 1990s as was ballyhooed, but in the 1930s.

When NASA made this admission, as now with "climategate", the press panders with unending climate change blather to overlay any criticism of their pet hypothesis. This is not a discussion of science, it is propaganda. No different from the unending stream that attempts to justify the criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

December 9, 2009 9:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home