Since 1990, every four years the US government has been required to issue a “scientific” report on climate change and its effects on the economy, environment, and public health. In typical George W. Bush cavalier cowboy style, the 2004 deadline for this report was ignored and the government was sued by green groups. Finally, the long awaited report was released four years late, and get this:
…most of the recent global warming is very likely due to human generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Very likely caused by humans-now that’s a definitive statement on climate change! Once again the US government has failed to make a clearcut connection between humans and climate change.
Why do we need our government to make an absolute statement that humans are to blame for climate change?
Without such a strong statement linking the human causes and effects of global warming, we are impotent to pass real legislation and regulations that will drastically curb greenhouse gases now! We can’t wait four more years for the next report to come out to say, “Yea, we are screwed and entirely to blame.” A definitive statement by the US government would end the silly debate about global warming that has distracted us from taking action beyond individual citizens. As Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, stated, “It’s important the government go on record honestly acknowledging this stuff.”
Why would the US government not want to make the connection between climate change and human actions absolute?
The climate science behind the report is not new, and neither is the White House spin. The “Scientific Assesment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States,” report states:
Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system. Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured.
Yet have no fear Americans! White House associate science director Sharon Hays declined to characterize the findings as bad, in a teleconference with reporters. That’s right, increased heat-related deaths and water shortages are not all bad. So what is not negative in the report: The doubt that humans are solely to blame. Now that’s something to celebrate!
I don’t know why the US government cannot admit human blame for climate change. It reminds me of my six-year-old daughter saying she did not drop ice cream on the floor, when she was the only one eating ice cream. Does the government fear it will get in trouble like my daughter and have to clean it up if it admits blame? Would such an admission open up even more litigation opportunities for the states, as well as for individuals to sue polluting corporations? Well, have no fear Americans, our president won’t even read this report. George Bush has already vowed to veto the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act before the Senate even debates the bill, because it will hurt the US economy. Oh yea, blazing wildfires, pestilence, and famine won’t hurt the economy at all.
It didn’t take Mean Joe Green four years to create a political cartoon on the climate change report). Although I disagree with Joe’s idea that the report is entirely “realistic”, given that it does not take a definitive stance on the human causes of climate change, at least the doom and gloom predictions of severe weather, water shortages, heat waves, etc. ring true. As biologist Thomas Lovejoy says of the climate report, “It basically says the America we’ve known we can no longer count on.” It’s a good thing Republicans live on another planet; they’re going to need it.
Related posts on the US government and climate change:
Great article Jennifer–btw, when I said "realistic" I was reacting with the shock that there was any realism in it at all. Of course, it has it's flaws–but it is much more realistic than I had anticipated. I should have elaborated on that. Thanks. MJG
I get the sense the U.S. government still considers the environment as a cost only line item rather than an area for economic growth and innovation. Sustainability shouldn't look like a bleak waste land. I wonder how long we'll continue to hold out from joining Kyoto..
- Chris
Well duh, of course it was brought on by humans. We are the only ones destroying the worlds natural resources in out of control numbers. Its just a matter of time.
JJ
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymtiy.com
I dont buy it. I am an extreme environmentalist and I am concerned over pollution, but global warming is a kind of hysteria and the deeper I dig into it the less likely it seems.
The newest data shows a cooling trend. Check into it before you jump on the bandwagon.
Your suggestions? Every productive thing that government could do is opposed by environmental groups. You guys are sticks in the mud. Guess what? I'm not going to quit breathing or go die.
Let me ask you some questions:
Do you support nuclear power? No, you don't.
Do you think people should all be using their own engines, period? No, you don't. You would rather we all use the bus (that's because you live in a city and you're ignorant).
Are you an engineer, someone who could possibly help the situation? No you're not. You're a city-dweller with a college education, granted, but you have nothing to offer. I don't know, maybe you work in Hollywood. You probably do drugs, further reducing your capability to help the situation any.
Hey, maybe you're a scientist. Maybe you're generating a lot of reports. Why don't you go make something that could help – like more efficient engines, or bio-degradable and mass producible packaging, or make a database of the carbon dioxide/oxygen conversion rates of all the plants, or help move the production dates up for alternate sources of fuel, or…you get my point.
Here's the rule – if you want to complain, you have to offer a set of helpful suggestions along with it.
These helpful suggestions cannot include reducing the population or reducing the rate of energy conversion.
We'll be expanding into the rest of the universe soon, regardless of what you want. We're just ramping up. We'd prefer to keep the planet around, but as far as survival of the species goes (and yes, that's our first priority, hard-wired into our DNA), it's a secondary objective. Everything else can die (though that would be unfortunate, since those DNA patterns would all be useful…hell, we may just store a lot of it in a database for later retrieval, it doesn't have to be alive), and we could still achieve our first objective – long term survival of the species.
You are welcome for the correction.
Duh its human caused
Preserving and protecting our environment is of great importantance, but we should do it in the name of human life/health/wellbeing, not in the name of fraud (global warming). Global Warming is a fraud. Al Gore is a fraud. Lets protect our planet for noble reasons…not for lies and propaganda. Nonetheless, good intentions or bad, we the global community must act on this yesterday! That being said, Al Gore, though fraudulent, is doing more for the environment than many of us…and we don't need his fortune to achieve it.
Newsflash, lol. Well, good article!
I completely agree that we would all *like* the US government to say that we, humans, are completely to blame for global warming / climate change.
However, the only responsible thing any government or scientific body can claim is the % likelihood that we are to blame.
Sure, that % may now be 99.9999% likely that we are to blame. Don't get me wrong – I am personally certain, in that way individuals can be, that we humans are completely to blame for climate change.
BUT as official bodies, no government or scientific outlet can or should come out and make blanket statements like "We are definitely to blame". Even we, the true believers in the need for action, need to admit the limits of our own knowledge and be straight-forward and honest with the public when making public announcements.
Lets say we're 98% sure we are to "blame"… and, given that, we need to start making some changes – NOW!. I mean, if you were 98% sure there was a really nasty corner coming up ahead of you, in the fog, you'd be pretty stupid not to at least think of slowing down, wouldn't you.
What makes you so sure the so called global warming is caused by man made effects? Advocates of man caused climate change cannot say with certainty that laws limiting carbon output will reverse the effect. I remember all the hype of global cooling in the 1970's with all the gloom and doom predictions of famine and freezing. Nothing happened. Then in the mid 80's and all of a sudden we were doomed to global warming. Now a new publication "The Australian" in their April 23 article, "Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh" by Phil Chapman (NASA astronaut), http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,2519… says the earth is in for a cool spell because of a lack of sun spots. In fact, the earth cooles by .7C ini 2007 putting us back where we were in 1930. (before all the evil industrialization). Additionally The Russian News and Information Agency posted an article "A cold Spell soon to replace global warming", 3/1/08 http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732-prin…. Within tha past 100 years the NY times has alternated between global warming and cooling wile citing climate experts. Each period has had their doomsday 'prophets'. So pardon me while I disbelieve all the ranting. None of the predictions of global warming have gome true. Yet these lunatics will change the story to suit their 'belief'. With Al Gore the chief evangelist.
Real Life Newsflash: Global Warming VERY LIKELY Only Barely Exacerbated by Humans!
But that's not nearly as good a story…
I think the reason that the US hasn't definitively stated that Global Warming is entirely caused by humans is because there's scientific evidence to the contrary. So, one of those needs to be disproven before any real connection can be made.
Oh, and your daughter's ice cream analogy doesn't work because the earth's climate is just slightly more complicated than a system including only your daughter, some ice cream, gravity, and the floor.
And the thing about wildfires, pestilence, and famine…
The damage that they do cause to related industries is rather small when you consider how much a little bit of proper schooling could have helped avert this whole "i'm paying more on a mortgage than i earn" stupidity.
Um, if you think CO2 emissions are bad for global warming, just wait until the far-northern methane stores (which have already started outgassing) start *venting*…
They're not convinced because they read the latest issue of Wired. (http://www.wired.com/wired/).
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. Humans have not been proven to be responsible for global warming and even if we are causing it, it is impossible to stop, especially with the developing world progressing economically. Environmentalists want us to push us back to the Flintstone era!
My opinion based on a scientific standpoint is that humans are not to blame for the less than modest increases in global temperature. May I conjecture that it is the lack of volcanic activity and other geological forces that have caused a temporary "hickup" on the temperatures. This is based on the evidence through the study on the opacity of the earth's atmosphere(the allowance of direct sunlight to make it to the ground) Micro-particles are lacking in the atmosphere in previous studies. The way we do this study is by observing the moon when it is a new moon(not to be confused with a full moon)and when the moon is the right distance from earth the light will shine as a hallow around the edges of the moon(this is possible due to the elliptical orbit of the moon)to see the light intensity reflected off of the moon's surface. The lower opacity causes an increase in intensity. And this causes more light to reach the ground. BTW, where can I find this document from the White House. Thanks. P.S. please respond for any inquiries.
"Very likely" is a statistical term it usually means that (with the current data) the probability that the theory is true is in the range of 95-99%. In science you never say without doubt because doubt is what makes science work. In a murder trial you would call "Very likely" something else "proof beyond reasonable doubt".
This is the US government is saying here that humans are responsible for global warming. It is the lay-mens and medias interpretation of "Very likely" that lets politicians off the hook. Your story helps feed the idea that given any chance something is wrong is reason to do nothing. The idea we need to push is "any chance it is correct means we must do something about it".
If I said that it was very likely someone will steal your car if you don't lock it, wouldn't you do something about that?
"This is the US government is saying here that humans are responsible for global warming."
I think the natural tendency for governments to seek more control would explain this statement.
I feel sorry for anyone who puts their complete trust in the state.
Sheep.
So, the scientist obviously think that it's man-made and catastrophic. Oh wait, no they don't!
http://www.petitionproject.org/
The Dems treat voters like children on this issue offering two options on this: Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax. What about the third way – listen to the science? It's the sun, stupid. The solar cycle modulates the cloud cover on the planet.
Leave the carbon economy in place. Problem however, is the intellectual construct of "BIG OIL". The state of affairs, actually is that "REALLY BIG OIL", the national oil companies like Russia and Venezuela and all the rest of the inefficient, and uncompetitive national oil companies (PEMEX) have driven prices through the roof by incompetence. They sit on 93% of the resources and reserves. The US is suffering from NIMBY for certain, but gas in Europe is about $9.00 a gallon and rising for the same reason. CO2 is plant food and the Democrats and their environmental lobby groups do not want you to know that.
For the record Bias, I live off-the-grid (and have for 15 years) in the mountains. I grow most of my own food, and I realize that each time I drive my car, I am contributing to global warming (and not MOST LIKELY, but DEFINITELY).
Rick, the link in the post that reads “Scientific Assesment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States,” report takes you to the document. Thanks for leaving a respectful disagreement.
Good old America tests atmospheric nuclear bombs 300 miles above Antarctica on 8-27-1958, 8-30-1958, and 9-6-1958. In 1985 a hole in the ozone layer is discovered over Antarctica.
IMO global warming is man made. But more specifically military made. The military/scientists have poisoned our earth. They are to blame. Global warming isn't a fraud. Blaming the citizens is the fraud.
Nuclear testing = poisoned earth = poisoned atmosphere and there is no take-backs. The damage is done. Thanks war mongers. Thanks Nazi CIA and Project Paperclip.
And if you drive your own car, do you buy gasohol to contribute to the tortilla prices in Mexico? I live on the grid; an economically efficient grid designed by markets through competition. I buy 100% gasoline which gets better fuel economy than gasohol, and my conscience is a clear as yours. My engine parts will not be eroded by ethyl alcohol and my vehicle is ten years old eaded for twenty because of gasoline. Did I mention I do not believe in using food for fuel.
Hey Jennifer Lance, I take it your computer is powered by solar, wind, or water – as well as your ISP, and for that matter the entire internet! lol (in case you missed it, since your posting – your using electricity, which in most parts of the world is generated in such a way that 'contributes' to co2 output)
Everything I've been able to read about this for many years now leads me to believe the current temp changes are nothing but normal – and mostly caused by our SUN. Thus explaining the climate changes noted by NASA on both Mars and Jupiter. I would suspect that if we were/are watching all planets, that there has been these same changes on all of them.
chrisPC88, my computer is powered by a micro hydro turbine that powers my home. You are correct thought about my ISP, etc.
Ms. Lance, I like your writing and your thoughts. Would that another planet could welcome the Republicans…
I have used DIGG to tag this article and will recommend that people visit this site regularly.
For the health of the planet, for national and international security, our own health, and our economies, it makes a great deal of sense to move away from carbon-based fuels, including gasoline and coal, toward renewable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power.
It is particularly interesting that Norway, an exporter of oil and natural gas, is planning to shift to wind power. They don’t have a “foreign oil problem.”
The claims often made by global warming skeptics that switching to renewable energy will damage our economy are simply untrue. We will damage our economy if we don’t make the switch: why would we want our future to be tied to the rising price of oil? The governments of Holland, Norway, Spain, Germany and the UK are making significant investments in renewable energy. Are they trying to ruin their own economies? I don’t think so, and the Euro seems much stronger than the dollar.
What we need to do is implement currently-available renewable energy technologies in the US, and in every country, while continuing to push forward with R&D on better, more efficient versions. The countries that delay will just end up buying the technology from the countries that act first. Germany and China are already building solar panel plants at double-capacity as a plan to meet the eventual, massive need in the US.
These specific suggestions are directed at correspondent “Bias” and to the general reader. The suggestions are concrete, straightforward and economically much more viable than continuing to buy oil at our current pace. They are much more environmentally viable than burning carbon fuels.
It really doesn’t even matter if there is dispute about man-made global warming or not, in the sense that these suggestions are a logical conclusion that can be reached without invoking GW. The predictions that are obviously and indisputably coming true are that Western economies are crumbling if and when they insist on remaining dependent on oil. That is happening now, and has been happening for a good while. So, let’s fix the problem while keeping the environment safe.
A few other remarks for the skeptics here:
I think is highly hypocritical of any American to clamor for more nuclear power. The truth is that we want that kind of power ONLY if the plants are built in someone else’s back yard and the waste is transported through and stored in someone else’s City, State or country. This fear is for good reason. Nuclear power plants are dangerous. They can explode. They heat up fresh water and air, which damages the environment. They provide material for terrorists and state-sponsored nuclear weapons. They generate waste that we don’t know how to store, that is highly toxic, and that lasts forever (or long enough that it might as well be forever). If people tell you that there are safe ways of storing nuclear waste, they are either misinformed or dissembling. It isn’t true.
So, let’s get solar, wind power, and other sustainable energy equipment fabrication plants and power plants built in coal country and elsewhere, to provide jobs, to provide the power for our future, to rid us of our need for foreign oil, and to protect the environment.
Much of the rest of the world is getting this right. There are problems, of course, like the environmental pollution caused by Chinese “wildcat electronics recycling efforts” that are poisoning air, land and water, and the Chinese polycrystalline silicon plants that supply conventional solar panels while dumping toxic waste in rural areas. This pollution of rural China is senseless. Western manufacturers know how to avoid it, and so do the Chinese, but China doesn’t have the national will to protect its own people or environment… kind of the way the White House wants the EPA to ignore science, to the detriment of the health and environment of the USA.
So, we must look to Europe in many cases to find the best working systems that combine economics and environmental concerns. Let’s get started!