NOAA's prophetic pronouncements get reax

NOAA's prophetic pronouncements get reax

Summary: From Greenpeace, hated by global warming deniers--Greenpeace USA Climate Campaign Director Damon Moglen issued this statement:“The White House report on climate change is a stark confirmation of what scientists have been saying for years: unless we dramatically curb our emissions, the world will face unprecedented climate disruptions that will lead to drought, flooding, rising seas, food insecurity and mass displacement.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
6

From Greenpeace, hated by global warming deniers--Greenpeace USA Climate Campaign Director Damon Moglen issued this statement:

“The White House report on climate change is a stark confirmation of what scientists have been saying for years: unless we dramatically curb our emissions, the world will face unprecedented climate disruptions that will lead to drought, flooding, rising seas, food insecurity and mass displacement. But it begs the question: are the President and Congress taking the action necessary to avert this crisis?

As the report makes clear: ‘Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices [we] make today.’ With international climate negotiations veering off course and an inadequate global warming and energy bill moving through the House, the time has come for President Obama to move from words to deeds and commit to doing what is necessary to avoid runaway climate change.

To minimize the risk of truly catastrophic climate change, scientists say we must take action to keep global temperature rise as far below 2 degrees Celsius as possible. Today’s report confirms that to stay within this threshold, we must take aggressive action now and that ‘earlier cuts in emissions would have a greater effect in reducing climate change than comparable reductions later.’ It is troubling that, even as this report was being finalized, senior Administration officials refused even to commit to a 2 degree limit on warming and argued that the world should emphasize long-term action over the near-term targets most important to head off climate change.

The Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that to avoid the worst climate impacts, the United States and other industrialized countries must cut their emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Yet the targets being developed by Congress, and supported by the President, fall far short of this goal. If we are to avert climate catastrophe, the President must deliver on his campaign pledge to set climate policy based on science, not politics.

To do so, President Obama must commit the United States to keeping global warming as far below 2 degrees as possible, and lead America and the world in meeting that target. We call on the President to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to create U.S. climate policy with scientific integrity, and to take that policy to Copenhagen in December as evidence that the U.S. will do what it takes to solve the climate crisis.”

Specifically, the President must commit the United States to: • Keeping global temperature increases as far below 2 degrees as possible; • Achieving real emission reductions of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020; • Eliminating offsets that undermine real emission reductions; and • Providing the substantial international funding necessary to stop emissions from deforestation and help developing countries adapt to unavoidable climate impacts and leapfrog the dirty energy sources that would further exacerbate the problem."

SUMMARY OF NOAA'S FINDINGS.

Topic: Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

6 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Nobel -Peace- Prize

    Clarify that please: the IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel PEACE Prize, not any science or technical prizes there. That's same one as the terrorist Yasser Arafat, and he seemed to have had the same result on the "peace" process in the Middle East as the IPCC has had on the as yet unproven hypothesis of global warming due to anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide contributing to the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
    joeschmo1of3
  • RE: NOAA's prophetic pronouncements get reax

    <i>If we are to avert climate catastrophe, the President must deliver on his campaign pledge to set climate policy based on science, not politics.</i>

    If Al Gore and Obama and the IPCC were to be using real science, and if they were being "truthful" to the American people, then the whole garbage science of "global warming" would've disappeared from sight a long time ago.

    As it stands, the data in the last 10 years are reflecting a cool-down of the planet. Ion other words, for 10 years straight, the planet has experienced lower temperatures. It is very apparent And the IPCC and the "global warming" proponents are deliberately ignoring that data. The data does not fit their models or their goals. Their goals are not "saving the planet". Their goals are to institute more government control over people's lives.

    Every time any "real" scientist challenges to a debate any of the so-called "global warming" proponents, be it a scientist or a politician, they refuse by claiming that the "science" is settled and there's nothing to debate.

    The truth is on the side of what this article calls "global warming deniers". The science behind global warming is nothing but junk science. It is faulty in the data gathering, in the data analysis, and in the results. But, where it is most faulty is in the computer models being used to receive and analyze the data. When the basic principles of science are violated in every step of the science, then all that you are going to get is garbage. Heck, in real science, if just one step in the science if faulty, then the "science" cannot be trusted at all. Yet, in "global warming" science, where the science is faulty every step of the way, we are being told that the science is settled. What we have as global warming proponents are nothing more than shysters. What we have when people write articles defending the junk science are non-thnkers or shysters themselves.

    The fact is that, global warming is nothing more than "junk science". It's not enough to report on the IPCC or Al Gore or Obama's wishes. What matters is the true science. Global warming science is nothing more than fiction disguised as "science".
    adornoe
    • The real agenda: Totalitarianism

      From the moment you are conceived until long after
      you are dead, there is no activity that you
      partake in life that does not involve emitting
      carbon. Once governments assert their "right" to
      control that, there is no aspect of your life they
      will not be able to regulate. It literally will
      be the end of freedom as we once knew it.
      JohnMcGrew
  • This is what happens when the inability to use the "scientific method"...

    ...is replaced with the methodologies that the
    social sciences are forced to use; mainly that
    you get the irresistible opportunity to pick and
    choose your data, or just make it up if it
    doesn't exist.

    The reality is that aliens caused "global
    warming":

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226031342582079
    75.html

    BTW: Since the earth has actually been cooling
    since around 1998 due to the lack of sunspot
    activity, notice the writer's use of the new
    operative term: "climate change", replacing the
    until recently more popular "global warming".
    The earth's climate has been continually
    "changing" since the first two specks of dust
    adhered to each other some 4 or 5 billion years
    ago.
    JohnMcGrew
  • RE: NOAA's prophetic pronouncements get reax

    JohnMcGrew,

    All you need to do to prove that global warming is an ongoing and serious problem is to look about you. It's clear that the planet has been warming for some time now due to the fact that glaciers are receding all over the planet, sea levels are rising, weather has become more extreme all over the world, the ice pack at the poles has been melting and populations across the planet are being effected by this warming. I live in Michigan and I have observed that the climate has grown warmer in the last few decades overall. Winters are not nearly as extreme here in Michigan as they used to be. Finally, it's clear that such measurable warming is taking place all over the world. Stop listening to the mainstream media and start looking about you with a critical and scientific eye. Use your common sense. That's my two sense on this.
    wolflight
    • Have you looked outside your window lately?

      I hate to break this to you wolfight, but I have
      been ?looking around?. In fact, perhaps it?s
      you who ought to poke your head outside, as even
      in Michigan it hasn?t warmed up yet:

      http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/col
      d-spring-worries-northern-michigan-strawberry-
      growers/

      You are several years behind the curve. The
      operative term for the political movement is no
      longer ?global warming?, as there hasn?t been
      any since around 1998. The new term is ?climate
      change?, which is much more practical (and
      silly) since the climate is always ?changing?.

      This year, we've had snow in places where it
      never snows, like Baghdad.

      http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5huPkYk4bGVvo
      1Sa1tWeH-tgENiFw.

      It?s the middle of June and less than a week
      from the summer solstice, and yet most of the
      country has yet to experience summer. In the
      southern regions of Canada, they haven?t even
      put the snow plows away yet.

      Some glaciers are actually growing?

      http://news.aol.ca/article/glacier-grows-
      despite-global-warming/646019/

      ?as well as the Antarctic ice sheet which
      continues to accumulate faster than it
      dissipates.

      The reality is that since 1998, the planet has
      been cooling?

      http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article
      /122

      ?as the amount of radiation we receive from the
      sun has been diminishing:

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig3_irra
      diance.gif

      In fact, we?re approaching an all-time record
      for a lack of sunspot activity:

      http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/02/where-
      are-all-the-sunspots/

      Who would have guessed that it?s the sun that
      has the dominant effect upon global heating and
      cooling?

      I stopped ?listening to the mainstream media?
      and started ?looking about you with a critical
      and scientific eye.? decades ago. It?s your
      opinion that is dominant in the mainstream
      media. You certainly won?t find anything I?ve
      written here expressed on any major television
      network or newspaper. Use your common sense.

      Ask yourself this: Of all of the ?pollution?
      that industrial society is responsible for
      releasing into the atmosphere, why is it that
      the environmental movement and various political
      agencies have fixated upon a single naturally
      occurring gas with relatively minimal heat
      retaining capacity?
      JohnMcGrew