Bush left in the cold by climate allies/ Undeniable Global Warming

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=596062

Bush left in the cold by climate allies

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
26 December 2004


George Bush's two closest allies in his attempt to sabotage international action to combat global warning last week dramatically distanced themselves from him.

Saudi Arabia announced that it had approved the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty on climate change which President Bush has been trying to kill. And Australia, while still rejecting it, parted company from the United States by saying that it was prepared to negotiate its successor.

The moves follow a tense international negotiating session in Buenos Aires where, as The Independent on Sunday reported last week, the US brought the talks to the brink of collapse by obstructing even anodyne proposals. This breached an assurance given by President Bush in 2001, when he pulled out of the protocol, that America would not try to stop other countries reaching agreement.

New negotiations are due to begin next year on a successor to Kyoto, which will come into force in February, following Russia's decision to ratify it last autumn. Tony Blair regards progress on climate change as one of the top priorities of Britain's presidency of the G8 group of the world's most powerful nations.

..more..
===================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26065-2004Dec25?language=printer

Undeniable Global Warming

By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

..more..

There are a lot of interesting phrases in all of these articles. Things like "major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" to disguise the fact that there is a lot of dissent not on global warming, but its cause.

While the increase of global temperatures is a documented fact, the *cause* is still very far up in the air. THe IPCC is traditionally staffed with people who support anthrogenic theories and rejects all dissent. Several major scientists and scientific bodies disagree with the IPCC but are routinely ignored by the mainstream press.

even the Pentagon agrees:

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

..more..

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

===
some other older articles:

Global Warming Spirals Upwards
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0328-08.htm
---------------
**'US Climate Policy Bigger Threat to World than Terrorism'
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0109-02.htm
Published on Friday, January 9, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
----------------
**Revealed: how global warming will cause extinction of a million species
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2113
---------------------
**Global Warming is Here Now,Say U.N. Delegates http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121403G.shtml
--------------
**Global Warming Kills 150,000 People a Year, Warns UN
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121303G.shtml
--------------
**Earth Warming at Faster Pace, Say Top Science Group's Leaders
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-01.htm
----------------
**Climate Change Laid to Humans
Report Warns There's 'No Doubt' Industry is Primary Cause
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1204-04.htm
----------------
**Carbon dioxide levels blow sky high
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1076856.htm
----------------



but if you want to read recent and archived articles on this and related subjects, here is a good place to start:
-Climate Change Portal http://www.climateark.org/news

Along with names, what articles and links can you provide?

and yet they deny what is so obvious to the rest of the WORLD...

THE READINGS OF CO2 at the SOUTH POLE HAVE REGISTERED A 20% INCREASE OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS.... are we blind....?? Can we refute what is in front of our eyes?? If you are GW Bush I guess you can.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

GOPers are the ones who hit the panic button over global warming. Oh no, they say. Don't put the environment before our profits. Call all environmental protections "junk science" and make fun of all the tree huggers.

So you hold on a minute there and turn off Faux News. Your brain has turned to mush.

Desalinization in the gulf stream is very possible. Hell, it is a fact right now. The only question becomes at what salinity level does the gulf current redirect or stop altogether.

Remember this from basic, freshman earth science: the gulf stream is what makes most of northern Europe inhabitable. And much of North America. Take away the gulf stream and its moderating effects and look what is left.

Welcome to DU!!! I also remember the ice age predictions, most were not from CO2 bouncing sun light away from the earth. It was from the ice caps melting. That is a problem and is causing problems. You need to read up on this stuff before spouting off like you are and also you need to provide links to support what you are saying. I hope you will learn something here, I was a republican once until Reagan. He was not fiscally consevative and his policies did a lit of harm. I liked Bush 1 except for the Contra involvement. Stay around and learn something, take some time and read and learn while you are here.

quick, your post won't be deleted..

can't say that here.. :-)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

try to interfere with every other nation who believes in SCIENCE. Unbelievable to read our rogue nation brought the talks to the brink of collapse. Don't like it? Don't sign it. And then butt the hell out.

For those who pooh-pooh this, our OWN scientists had more proof in a report they were FORBIDDEN from releasing before the election. All that matters to this regime is $$$$$ and power -- nothing else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2869734&mesg_id=2869734


:hi:

:evilgrin:

this one appears to have been posted two hours earlier than the other (and it is too late to delete).
This also includes the WP editorial. :-)

corporate america and ALL OF ITS BRIBED SUPPORTERS, are why money comes before all else.

It will, literally, mean our destruction.

So much the better. No other species developed money and most of them are still in existence. (until the prevalence of mankind, of course.)

mmm.. never thought of that

and they don't have to pay rent either. Unfortunately, we just destroy their habitats, so that solves that problem
..damn freeloaders!