Global Warming Study Blames Humans, Warns of Catastrophe

Polarbears_1road.jpg Scientists, asserting that human activity is “very likely” the cause for the rise in earth’s temperatures, release grimmest report yet on the realities of global warming: “…a broad array of scientists, including authors of the report and independent experts, said the latest analysis was the most sobering view yet of a century in thousands of years of relatively stable climate conditions will suddenly be replaced by a new normal of continual change. Should greenhouse gases continue to build in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.”

road.jpg Polar Bears losing ground

Goreroad.jpg Al Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize by two Norwegian Parliamentarians. Conservative MP Boerge Brende told: “Al Gore with his movie and his dedication and his active diplomacy among world leaders has really moved the issue forward.”

road.jpg British government to screen An Inconvenient Truth in all secondary schools.

road.jpg Think Tank with close ties to the Bush administration is offered bribes to dispute global warming report: “Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.”


  1. ian says

    This was a CO-nomination

    From Canada’s Globe and Mail:

    “Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore and Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chosen as a nation builder by The Globe and Mail last year, have been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their wide-reaching efforts to draw the world’s attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian legislator said yesterday.

    “A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference,” Conservative member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told the Associated Press.

    Mr. Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Mr. Gore and Ms. Watt-Cloutier before the nomination deadline expired yesterday.

    “Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Mr. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila [Watt-Cloutier] works from the ground up,” Mr. Brende said.”

    This should be corrected on the main page.

  2. Matt says

    Hum? So if we keep emitting these gases the temperature will match that of what it was 125,000 years ago? Does anyone know why the climate was that hot 125,000 years ago? What caused that global warming because it sure wasn’t humans unless we were an industrial society that went extinct due to polluting and no one knows it.

  3. burnssuit says

    I personally don’t know – a result of increased volcanic eruptions, a rebound effect from a colder-than-usual climate? The point being made, however, has more to do with the rate of change – this is happening over the course of roughly 200 years, which is a monumental temperature increase over a very, very short amount of time.

  4. Matt says

    Thanks for the insight Burnsuit. I have another question. How do we know what the temperature was 200 years ago? It’s not like we had the sophisticated meteorlogical equipment we have today and my guess is we weren’t taking temperatures in the Artic and Antartic since no one was even exploring there that long ago? I’m not debating that global warming exist but I’m debating the accuracy of the data from that long ago.

  5. burnssuit says

    Counting tree rings, stalagtite/stalagmite growth layers, glacial ice core samples, sediment layers along coastlines. Just about any process that has variable rate of increase/decrease depending on temperature. The methods are quite reliable, but there is a lack of data over some time periods and for some regions of the planet, simply because none of these things are present to be examined.

  6. burnssuit says

    While An Inconvenient Truth is a great intro to the topic, I’d also recommend checking out literature put out by the scientific community (articles from the magazine Science, for example). They actually detail the methodology and statistical significance of climate change and atmospheric composition data – the kind of background info you can whip out when you need to win an argument :)

  7. Matt says

    Thanks for the input gentleman. I will have to order these online as a lot of the libraries in my area are in bad shape and/or have been developed into condos.

  8. jimmyboyo says

    Matt please do a little more research before posting.

    131,000 years ago the Eamian Interglacial period saw a rise in temperature ONLY!!!!!!!! stress ONLY!!!! in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE….not a world wide phenomenon.

    Stress ONLY the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE not a world wide phenomenon unlike what scientists are finding today which is a world wide phenomenon. The earth is made up of more than the northern hemispher?

    Anyway; said rise in temperature was due to Changes in orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion)

    The rise in temp during the Eamian Interglacial period can NOT be compared with what we are facing today due to the fact that the 1 only affected a hemisphere while another affects the entire planet.

    Matt you are coming across as not someone who has serious questions, but rather an apologist for exxon mobile which by the way has recently acquiesced and admited that YES global warming is occuring, man made, and Exxon Mobil is glad to join the fight to fix the problem. Did you get the inter office memo??? It was 1-2 weeks ago when they did an about face.

  9. Zeke says

    Matt, with all due respect, you are displaying the very type of ignorance that makes this debate so frustrating. You could find the answers to all of your valid questions with VERY little effort, IF you were actually interested in being informed. Try doing some research on the web or going to a library or simply watching PBS or the Discovery channel once in a while.

    Though you are polite in your queries, I have no doubt that your targeted questions are intended more to confuse and distract others from thoughtfully considering the overwhelming scientific evidence being presented and not because you have a genuine desire to know the answers to your questions.

    It seems odd that most people who argue about the extent of human contribution to global warming, and the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports it, are the same people who can be found on WorldNetDaily discussing the “scientific” evidence that the world was created by God over a six day period, six to ten THOUSAND years ago. They don’t even believe the world EXISTED 125,000 years ago so they arrogantly scoff at any discussion about the temperature of the atmosphere prior to its CREATION. Matt could be brought up on charges of heresy, simply for asking a question about the temperature of the earth 125,000 years ago.

    This is the sad reality of what happens when a modern society allows the State to be unduly influenced by the Church and the self interests of corporate greed. We get a state sponsored school system that is more interested in supporting and promoting the interest of corporations and the beliefs and misconceptions of churches (that still insist on believing and promoting 5,000 year old myths) even when those teaching are absolutely contrary to scientific evidence and known fact.

  10. jimmyboyo says

    PS the peak of the temp rise during the Eamian Interglacial period was 125,000 years ago a period of 6,000 years saw a change in temp of 1-2 degrees while as global warming today is seeing the change in temp by 1-2 degrees world wide within 100 years

    A huge difference that shows that the 2 can not be compared and that the human factor is having an impact

    Summed up

    Eamian Interglacial period temp rise 6,000 years and only in northern hemisphere

    global warming temp rise 100+ years affecting entire world

    Can not be compared to each other at all

  11. Matt says

    Zeke and Jimmyboyd,

    Sorry I am trying to confuse people by asking questions and that I’m part of the Exxon-Mobil apologist. Zeke, why are you bringing God into this debate. I have not mentioned anything about my religious beliefs. You have no clue if I have religious beliefs at all. And to your point about societies being influenced by religion and how they should be seperate; All societies are influened by their religion from the Greek-city states of Sparta and Athens praying to Athena and Aires to the Romans all the way into the middle ages till now with this country and the Islamic nations. Deep down there is no seperation of church and state. Even if there is a speration of church and state legally, the people who run the state are still influenced by their religious beliefs.

    To your point about easily finding these answers, I would have never known to search the Eamian Interglacial period if Jimmyboyd had not stated it here in his comments. These comments give me a place to start with my own research. Burnsuit and Rey were kind enough to give me their views and information regardless of what they thought of my motives.

  12. Leland says

    Before some Snark Queen who cares more about being “witty” than the environment, or some ubiquitous Repug lurker, reminds everyone that Gore also claimed to have “invented the Internet,” may I point out that he never did. What he actually said, during the Presidential campaign in 1999, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, was, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

    While verbal qualifiers, e.g., “helped,” might have made it more clear to the stupid, to those who aren’t he clearly was not saying he personally created the Internet. Rather, much like his efforts regarding global warming now, he was one of the earliest major office holders, first as a Congressman and, then, as a Senator, to educate himself about the importance of what was being developed, and gave a series of influential speeches about it, just as he is now on the environment, urging support for the technological research that led to the conversion of Arpanet, the military’s communications system, into what is now available to the world. According to a 2001 article in “Rolling Stone” [you know, a year AFTER Bush stole the election], Vinton Cerf, one of the “fathers of the Internet,” and even Nuke Gingrich, gave Gore credit for his legislative role in helping make it a reality.

    The phrase falsely attributed to Gore, “invented the Internet,” first appeared in………wait for it………a Republican Party press release, and the nonexistent “liberal media” ran with it, not bothering to verify the exact quote or its context.

    One of Gore’s weaknesses, like Kerry, and other Democrats, is their fear of hitting back. Not only did his campaign allow the lie to spread unanswered for several days, but overestimating the intelligence of the American people and press [something the Repugs NEVER do] the first response they scripted for him was a joke about also having invented the camcorder, interpreted by many as an admission that he HAD actually said what the Repugs had claimed he did about the Net.

    His and his campaign’s naive sense of humor hurt him further when he joked at a union event that when he was a child his mother would sing him to sleep with the song, “Look for the Union Label.” “USA Today” treated it as a serious statement and called him a liar because the song wasn’t written until 27 years after he was born. Even the “New York Times” bought into it, mentioning it in a lengthy article about Gore’s alleged “tendency to embellish.” A week later, someone on their editorial page, having finally watched a tape of the speech, questioned that interpretation but it was too late. And, eight years later and barely a week ago I heard a late night comedian once again reference the claim Gore NEVER MADE that he “invented” the Internet.

    For a much deeper, documented look at what’s really behind the curtain of US politics and the media [you know, the ones who helped convince voters Bush is a “compassionate conservative”], I could not more highly recommend, “WHAT Liberal Media?” by Eric Alterman, from which this information is taken; now available in paperback from [unlike Amazon] non-Repug-supporting Barnes & Noble, and elsewhere.

  13. jimmyboyo says

    Lelland ^5

    75% of the world’s media (including tv, radio, magazines, and newspapers) are owned by only 8 companies. 8 Multi-national corporations who all, as shown in public records, contributed to the bush re-election campaign and not 1 penny to kerry. That little tid bit right there shows that there is not and never has been a “liberal media”. they also contributed to Bush election campaing way back when and not 1 penny to Gore.

    Before someone says BUT BUT TED TURNER. Ted Turner has not owned CNN etc for almost 2 decades. he sold out to Time Warner and was eventualy pushed ff the board.

  14. burnssuit says

    Jesus Christ…what’s with you people jumping down everyone’s throats around here? Matt asked a couple sincere questions, and you ripped his frickin head off. How about we have a CIVILIZED discussion? Living in a society with OTHER HUMAN BEINGS means that they do not all have the same knowledge base and assumptions as you. This is not a constructive way to have a healthy, informative dialogue. I certainly hope you don’t approach everyday conversation in this fashion, as you’re not going to win over many minds by being that snippy and argumentative.

  15. Will says

    Matt, if you are that ignorant of global climate science as evidenced by this statement:

    “To your point about easily finding these answers, I would have never known to search the Eamian Interglacial period if Jimmyboyd had not stated it here in his comments.”

    then, why in the world would you think that you yourself has any reason to doubt the solid science that has gone into this report. Do you a Ph.D. in a relevant science? Here you have scientists from 100-odd countries around the world coming to the same conclusion that human activity is likely to contribute to global warming, and, yet, you have doubts. Sheeesh.

  16. anon says

    It seems rather incongruent to apply the Nobel peace prize to a movie about global warming. The two are not related. It would be better to name it “Humanitarian of the Year” or something, in which case Al Gore would hardly qualify. He does also have a creepy tendency to take advantage of suffering in his own family for political gain, such as his sister’s death and his son’s accident. Global warming is now more a shibbolith than an actual environmental movement, since it’s all talk. Maybe we can now all sing a lament about drowning polar bears. Everyone, hold hands….

    Corporate donations to political campaigns have been banned for a long time, but despite various “reforms” and curtailing of free speech rights, campaigns have been raising ever more cash to run off of. Hillary Clinton is now planning on foregoing all federal moneys to avoid limits on spending. This completes the reform reversal started by the Dukakis campaign in 1988 with “soft” donations (1980 and 1984 were squeaky clean by comparison).

  17. Leland says

    Further to the danger of the Right Wing extremists manipulating information, just as important to our ultimate quality of life is that a “think tank with close ties to the Bush administration” is like saying, “my Aunt Pitty Pat with close ties to our family.” This is but another example of their treating “Truth” as a commodity to be bought and sold to those with the most money and the least morals. Remember that [too] little stink when it was revealed that “experts on marriage” who testified and editorialized about the horrors of gay marriage were on the Administration’s payroll?

    Again from “WHAT Liberal Media?”: a ten-year old quotation from William Barody, the former president of the American Enterprise Institute that paid people to dispute global warming: “I make no bones about marketing…. We pay as much attention to the dissemination of the product as we do the content. We’re probably the first major think tank to get into electronic media. We hire ghost writers for scholars to produce op-ed articles that are sent to the one hundred and one cooperating newspapers—three pieces every two weeks.”

    They also were one of the funders to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars of the racist nonsense of Charles Murray and his book “The Bell Curve” [endorsed by gay Repub Andrew Sullivan—remember that the next time you see him exalted by “The Advocate” or Equality Forum]. AEI stacked the deck in the initial release of the book only to reviewers expected to be sympathetic to it theories and indifferent to his lousey “science.” Just like “word of mouth” for a film, but less accurate, they created a juggernaut of uncritical acceptance in much of mainstream media before an objective analysis of his “data” could be employed and publicized. “Much as Blance DuBois depended on the kindness of strangers, Charles Murray depended on the ignorance of pundits.” – Alterman. AEI also sponsored “The End of Racism” [more aptly titled, “The Justification of Racism”] by the slimy Dinesh D’Souza [you know, the frequent guest of the shows of “Advocate Person of the Year” Bill Maher]. D’Souza popularized the slur, “the pathologies of black culture.”

    Whenever you see something associated with AEI, the Hoover Institute at Stanford, the Center for Strategic & International Studies, or the Heritage Foundation, understand you are facing the multi-tenacled modern equivalent of the Nazi propaganda machine [even though many Jews are at their highest levels]. They will say ANYTHING, or pay others to, that will advance their shared extremist agenda. While a large, much more sophisticated part of it today, “the military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned about half a century ago were garden gnomes by comparison.

    And remember that Heritage, currently the most aggressive and dangerous of them all, was started with seed money by Joseph COORS whose heirs continue to pursue many of his demagogue’s dreams even as HRC embraces them and GLAAD and the LA Gay Community Center takes money from them [Mary Cheney was formerly their paid “liason” to the gay community]. HRC gave them a 100% BUY BUY BUY YOU STUPID QUEENS! rating in their latest guide, ostensibly because of their gay-friendly employment practices. In other words, gays who work for them are “protected” 8 hours a day in their bottling plants while many of those who profit from their work—still, despite the sale to Molson—labor 24-7 in the vineyards of the American Taliban against us. Remember that the next time HRC or GLAAD asks you for money. Any more questions how we got in the mess we’re in?

  18. Cory says

    Human beings fascinate me. After reading these comments, I am DUMBFOUNDED. Basically, the assumption here is that hundreds or scientists, PhD’s, MD’s, researchers, have all independently come together and determined that the very recent and alarming rate in climate change is much more severe than once believed. I am exhausted with trying to educate people on this logic. Human beings are burning fossil fuels, gasoline, coal, etc. at increasing rates daily. The planet Earth is very much similar to a small room. There is only so much pollution that room can handle as the vegetation that the ecosystem relies upon for the recycling of clean air is being destroyed at alarming rates (the wildfires of the California coast, the deforestation of land for more homes, suburban sprawl, trees being harvested for wood in paper products are all examples of this issue). Examining the past 100 years will demonstrate that the industrial revolution and the advent of the automobile and assembly line, electricity, etc. have greatly taxed our planets eco-system. Do to this, the planet is responding with a factually proven increase in hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes (London had tornado for the first time, I believe, in recorded history last December), droughts, rising sea levels, melting ice. You mean to tell me, that this is NATURAL?!?!?! Yes, the planets’ climate does change, but NOT as quickly as it has in the past 100 years. Human beings have sped it up so quickly that the planet can NOT keep up with the changes resulting in drastic ecological damage and harm. I equivocate this to the “smoking phenomenon”. The general public KNOWS that smoking is bad, but yet continues to deny it’s harmful effects as doing so would be an admission of guilt that our lifestyle is harming the planet and thus humanity, similar to our lifestyle with automobiles, electricity, paper products. Humanity has become so dependent on the very things that are destroying us, it is an “inconvenient truth” to understand that our way of life will be our destruction. Continue believing what you want. Personally, I will be conservative and err on the side of caution and assume that these scientific studies are, in fact, scientifically accurate. As for everyone else, denial is not just a river in Egypt; pretty soon it will be a river in your backyard…

  19. Zeke says

    Matt, if you remember correctly I defended you on a related thread yesterday but I have become convinced that you are not nearly as ignorant as you claim to be, unless you are 12 years old. If you have the ability to access Towleroad then you have the ability to do research to answer your questions through forums that are much more informed that the Towleroad message boards (no offense intended fellas).

    I think it’s highly more likely that you are quite intelligent and very clever. Once I came to this conclusion, right or wrong, I became more suspect of your tactics and less interested in humoring you.

    If my conclusions are incorrect, and you are genuine in your queries, then I apologize to you but please be aware that your questions and rhetorical style are eerily similar to denialists that are paid the big bucks by corporations to confuse the public with questions and “facts” that they know are bogus.

  20. Matt says

    Thanks again for the support, Burnsuit. Will, I never said anything about doubting someones science. I asked questions regarding how they came up with their figures. Yes, I’m skeptical. I don’t know a lot about global warming or the debate surrounding it. That’s why I’m asking questions and encouraging debate so I can either become less skeptical or more. Any scientist will tell, which I am not one, that you have to be skeptical to make sure you find the true causes of things.

    To cory,

    I am sorry you are tired of educating people on this logic. You seem to think that everyone should know this knowledge. I feel the same way in regards to Meth and Unsafe sex practices. I was under the assumption there is a ton of information out there on this subject and everyone should know about it. But the truth is, they don’t. I became part of a gay outreach group and was shocked how people didn’t know the very basics of HIV transmission. The same goes here, I know there is a ton of information out there about this subject on both sides of the debate but I still didn’t know the basic knowledge. Some I have read today I don’t understand. I have read one report that said we were suppose to be going into an ice age but obviously this is not true since we aren’t in one. It’s a lot to digest for someone new to such a debate.

    To Leland,

    You can have your beliefs and the Repugs, as you call them can have theirs. Name calling them only stregthens their resolve to disagree with you. You attract more flys with honey than with poison. I understand people are passionate about religion and politics. I was going to include global warming here but really I feel that there are a lot of politics in play here regarding the global warming debate.

    Just in closing, we just need to be a little kinder to one another. Would you rather intelligentely talk about something with someone you disagree on or have them say nothing and never come to understand your point of view.

  21. Mark m says

    Well said Zeke.

    Thank you and Cory and Jimmyboyo and Burnssuit for addressing Matt’s questions.

    I would commend you, Matt on being open to research this topic. But I have to express the same doubt as some others here. Your posts indicate that you are NOT a dense individual. You are articulate and intelligent.

    That’s why it’s so hard to to believe that you wouldn’t know that ice core samples show climate data from many thousands of years ago. Your motivations are being called into question because your questions serve to obfuscate this issue more than enlighten or even challenge it.

    Extinction and climate change have been happening on this planet for billions of years, but we are the first species to have the ability to speed up change through our technology and living habits.

    There are no other mammals that can impact their environment to the degree we can and their numbers are certainly no where near 6 billion.

    The issue isn’t that evil humans are destroying Mother Earth. Mother Earth has been through worse and came out fine. We are destroying our civilization, and if we’re not careful, our species. At this point, I’m not sure we’re worth saving. Our technology is evolving faster than we are.

  22. Daniel says

    I think it’s obvious that Matt is causing global warming by HEATING UP THE SUN. It connects to that post a few days ago. Shame, Matt, Shame. How dare you ask questions? How dare you?

  23. Anon says

    Yes, Leland, it must be disappointing to know that even Democrats are not on-board the campaign finance reform agenda in practice for ’08, but in fairness, none of the lead candidates are going to use public money for the primaries or the general election, and this is only because they don’t want to play by the rules. This includes the architect of campaign finance himself, John McCain (so saintly, he banned criticism of himself 60 days prior to any election). And you, of anyone, should be willing to call a spade a spade.

    One could hardly call “The Bell Curve” anti-Semitic as it touted Jewish intelligence levels throughout. In order from low scores to high (from the book): blacks, whites, Asians and Jews. Now, I’m not sure what rightwing agenda that is, or what corporate agenda that is, please let us know. It would be racist if only for the problem that it would be anti-white- supremicist (you could argue that it’s agenda is white-sepratist I guess). The book also has men and women with the same average score, hardly a rightwing sentiment, but did note that women have a much lower standard deviation and therefore would not be expected to do as well (in the same numbers) as men in college. One could argue this has been disproven because more women get bachelors degrees than men these days. Likewise, it doesn’t correspond so well with some standardized tests. Then there is the whole argument over the nature of intelligence itself. The concept of “G” has not been proven and has some difficulties with people who have extraordinary skills in some areas but defects in other areas. Measuring “G” has long been controversial.

    Now, leftwing kooks come up with Maoist ideas like “gender is culturally imprinted on people” and “science is a Western patriarchal form of oppression”. So, you can match kook for kook on both left and right.

  24. burnssuit says

    “”Contribute”? You didn’t contribute anything but faux-naïve right-wing obfuscation”

    Chill out, dude. As someone who works in a research laboratory, let me vouch for the fact that SKEPTICISM IN SCIENCE IS HEALTHY AND NECESSARY. You want to know a surefire way to get someone to disagree with you? Bite his head off for asking questions instead of answering them.
    In my field, it is normal for our contractors to question our experimental protocol and the integrity of our data – it would be very worrisome if they did not. If the evidence support climate change is so strong, can we not simply present the facts and let them speak for themselves? Do we need to bring politics into this at all? It depresses me greatly that something like climate change is considered a “partisan” issue for many in the US, but upon reading many of the comments here, I am not surprised in the least bit.

  25. a says

    having read the thread- as others have pointed out- the issue isn’t asking questions, the issue is that the questions being asked are easy to look up. If the person above claiming to be a scientist, really were that- let me ask you what university do you teach at or scientific endeavor in which you are involved that doesn’t require that people be inquisitive enough first to figure out the answers on their own, and then ask more thoughtful questions. last i checked, when i got my degree in genetics, that was one of the things that they expected of the students. but then maybe things have changed.

  26. the yankee says

    I think global warming is a lot of crap. I also believe the human species will endure. I’d be happy with some warmer winters here in the Northeast.

    Unfortunately the rest of the world is pointing their sharp fingers at the USA while they also drive their cars and run their factories.

    I find it all to be very boring.

  27. mark m says

    No, Yankee, you’re wrong, the USA is not taking the blame alone. China is also noted as another huge contributor to global warming. The superpowers are to blame. East, West, Communist, Capitalist, it doesn’t matter.

    And I agree, the human species will probably endure. It’ll just be in caves instead of cities.

  28. Cory says

    Exactly, Mark M. Thanks to everyone for their compliments and comments, it’s refreshing and a relief to know that this reality is not lost on some of us. I hope it’s not too late, I really do…

  29. Matt says

    Interesting note on the polar bear picture used in this blog post. These polar bears are standing on what is called an ice sculpture. It is creaded by cold ocean waters and waves and cold air temperatures. While it may look like a melting ice berg it is not. It is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

Leave A Reply