If one can find anything positive in the current worldwide economic downturn (crisis might be a better choice of words), it is this; it might very well be the impetus which gets the world focused on global warming and moves nations to spend billions on research and new sources of renewable energy. As governments pour huge sums of money into stagnant economies, there is hope that we have finally arrived at the point where we can move beyond debating the effects of climate change and actually start doing something about it.
At the forefront of this new hope is President Obama who has introduced new energy measures and funding in both the recovery bill and his budget proposal which leads to no uncertainty in how seriously he understand the need for immediate action in combating the effects of global warming.
___
For more of Mario Piperni's illustrations and opinion on political issues visit mariopiperni.com
To view a slideshow of Mario's illustration art see: Series 1 Series 2 Series 3
Follow mariopiperni on Twitter!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
What are we going to do about it?
The planet quit warming about ten years ago when the sun started to be less active. That doesn't mean that the sun can't get active again and get our planet to be warming again but it certainly is not much we can "do about it".
Why is that Mario?
No Mario,
Not "all about the sun" but the sun has a much greater inpact on our climate than previously credited.
For years there have been scientists who have claimed this greater impact, insisting the greater level of sunspot activity that what occuring was having a large impact on the earths temperature rise.
Sometime around 1998 the sun began an unusually quiet period and that is when the earth stopped warming, as a matter of fact one year within 2007-2008 was an almost sunspotless year which drove our planets temperature to temperatures as low as they were 30 years ago.
This temperature platau and recent drop came about eventhough we humans have continued to pump billions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere every year.
Cause and effect Mario,
If we continue to pump billions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere and the predicted warming doesn't occur and in the face of a very quiet sun we have in one year a temperature drop of this magnatude, which is having the greater impact on our earth temperatures?
I just came back from your blog (so you got at least one visit from your promoting on Gather) and I see you are a full blown global warmist as I am a full blown skeptic.
David K and I have just finished a long discussion on the subject at;
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977596592
He finally restricted comments after 300 plus comments.
I presented a lot of information, Science and supporting research, you know the traditional skeptic stuff, to which David responded mostly with opinion and conjecture and postulation with plenty of insults thrown into it for good measure....but no science or research at all....funny thing is he's supposed to be a scientist.
I'm quiet aware that there are true believers out there and no matter what the science uncovers they believe that the IPCC has got it right.
So if you are going to respond like David, (I'm right and your wrong, consensus, the IPCC already took that into account) save yourself the frustration (I'm really pretty good at this skeptic stuff) just go read David's post and have yourself a good laugh (at me).
How'd you like that big global warming protest getting snowed out in washington D.C. yesterday?
Peliosi couldn't show up cause her plane couldn't land, the rep who sponsored it couldn't get there, all of those poor protesters protesting in the snow....watchout global warming is coming!
Isn't that rich?
You state that the IPCC might have it wrong as if the IPCC is a group of 3 individuals working out of their basement. You understand, I'm sure, exactly what the IPCC is and who the representatives on that panel are. You also know that EVERY academy of science from EVERY industrialized country in the world are in agreement. And, as I wrote in my post, every branch of science, working individually, all come out with the same conclusion.
So, here's the question again: how do you account for all of the above? Telling me that a hundred thousand scientists from 120 countries are all in on the same hoax or that they're all in on the big scam for the research money is...well it would be a little incredulous. So let's hear your answer.
You can skip to past the initial intellectual discussions if you want and search down to Dan's first comment. It just gets better from there.
I now return to my previous more fruitful endeavors.
As for Dan, he and many like him, just don't get it...and probably never will. They are victims of the massive PR campaign initiated by huge corporations like Exxon who would lose out should the push for new energy sources ever take full hold. So along with conservative politicians, they are doing their best to make it appear that there is a real debate about global warming in the scientific community. This of course is a lie.
So Dan and other conservatives listens to Fox and Limbaugh and they hear Republican members of Congress downplay the truth on global warming...and they buy it all because they just don't know better. Too many conservatives have been programmed to just go with whatever the party tells them to think and believe and, in effect, to shut down the rational and logical part of their brains.
"You state that the IPCC might have it wrong as if the IPCC is a group of 3 individuals working out of their basement."
I am well aware of the IPCC, their groups, authors and reviewers and although there are more within the IPCC organization than the 3 you mention there is many less than most people would expect.
A question first Mario,
"A conspiracy which would involve tens of thousands of the world’s top scientists from the disciplines of Biology, Geology, Meteorology, Oceanography, Physics and Paleoclimatology all working in concert to lie to us."
"a hundred thousand scientists from 120 countries"
Where do you get the basis for these numbers?
Seriously, there are at least 100 countries in the IPCC alone. Throw in the scientific communities from at least another 20 countries and there you go. (There are about 200 countries in the world)>
If you read my post, you'd note some of the scientific organizations who support the notion of global warming. They include EVERY major science academy from just about every country which actually has an academy of science. A hundred thousand scientists was most probably a conservative estimate. No doubt it's higher.
It's just a 'this sounds good to me' ball park, lets throw it out there number.
"I made them up. :)"
You did in fact make them up.
Well you'd have to guess because no one knows even how many scientists there are (I did an internet search and came up with no answers) to begin with.
Your list of scientific organizations and their members is much more verifiable.
But we can't expect that every member accepts the IPCC doctrine simply because the administrators of the organization has declared an agreement with it.
So let's look at some numbers that are even more verifiable.
Disclaimer:
Global Warmists have declared these numbers to be invalid because they have not been accepted as science or published in any scientific journal.
So if you are an ideologue and getting to the truth is not important to you they will not be convincing to you either...but here goes.
The people who know the science best are the people who work in the field and of scientists climate scientists are the people who know the science of climate change best.
Hans Von Storch and Dennis Bray circulated a survey among climate scientists in 1997, 2003 and 2008 (all of the 2008 results have not been released yet)
Hans Von Storch is Director of Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht and Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Germany, and is not a skeptic.
Here are some of the results: these are the 2003 numbers the earlier numbers are also published in the report.
of 500+ respondents:
Climate models can accurately predict climatic conditions of the future.
strongly agree= 1 Strongly disagree = 7
1 = less than 1% 7= 15%, on the agree side 1-3 = 36% on the disagree side 5-7 = 47%. middle of the road (not sure, don't know?) 4=18%
The reason I put this question first is to give an example of how much faith climate scientists have in models, models is what the IPCC uses to validate it's claims of catastrophic climate change to come and as the response shows climate scientists have little faith in models.
"To what degree do you think the current state of scientific knowledge is able
to provide reasonable predictions of climatic variability of time scales of 10 years?"
1= A great deal 7= None at all,
1= less than 1% 7= 9%, 1-3= 32% 5-7= 53% 4= 14%
They also ask the question inserting 100 years and more than 100 years as the time frame and the response gets even more lopsided towards the none at all side.
Climate scientist have little faith as a whole in the ability of science (let alone models) to predict future climatic events.
"Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes."
1= strongly agree, 7= strongly disagree.
1= 9% 7= 10%, 1-3= 53% 5-7= 29% 4= 13%
Now this question is the kicker, the whole of the global warmist argument is that man is the cause of global warming but according to this question 9% of the climate scientists strongly agree that man is the cause of global warming and 10% strongly disagree and a full 42% of them are on the disagree side or unsure.
If the science is not strong enough to convince the people who know the science the best then the science is lacking.
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
Enjoy reading.
But I couldn't match your's right David? How many times did you respond to science or research with science or research?
Answer:
Not hardly any,
I wanted to post 'none' but you did mention the IPCC reports a couple of times, or suggested I go read it, but that was about the extent of your contribution of science and research in your own thread.