Al Gore compared Global Warming to the Civil Rights Movement?

[Gunner]

Yet No words from the libs of this board. I guess its ok, he's a democrat. Yet Bachmann refer to slavery in a speech and you guys felt a tingle down your leg. So are you only insulted if it is someone you don't fundamentally agree with? Al would know considering his father, Albert Gore, Sr., (while supporting the Voting Rights Act of 1964) voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was okay for blacks to vote FOR Sr., just not sit at the same lunch counter with him.



<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=NSGT2S2CDF79Z5SB&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>


Al Gore pushed the rhetorical envelope yesterday when he compared skeptics of climate change to racists during the Civil Rights Movement. Gore was sitting down for an interview with Alex Bogusky of the Climate Reality Project, and suggested that young people today whose parents do not believe in climate change are asking the same questions now that race-conscious young people in the 60s asked their parents.


Algore: Jumping the shark
Gore explains:
“There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”
In some circles, according to Gore, just using the words “climate change” is considered taboo, as was the case with Southerners bringing up racism. The interviewer suggested the comparison may not be quite accurate, considering the scientific evidence available for global warming. However, Gore suggested that there is a moral component that both arguments share.

Later in the interview, Gore addressed comments made by Rick Perry about climate change, and saw his remarks as part of “an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole.”
“It’s not in [scientists'] nature to get ready to constantly defend themselves against political attacks. That’s not want they expected to be doing in their lives.”

 

[QueEx]

You're

Reaching ! ! !

. . . and coming up empty.

 

[Gunner]

You're

Reaching ! ! !

. . . and coming up empty.

You're rather chatty on other inferences as long as its not the left. It should be easy for you it involves race. Ok lets say Perry or Romney said it. Your thoughts.

 

[QueEx]

Its not just the dumb hypothetical that you want me to assume, but the initial comparison that you're trying to make thats not worth my comment. You fail to see that the comparisons are not analogous. That probably arises because you're just a Cheerleader --

constantly whooping it up for your side, instead of thinking. Just accept it, I did, you're not a critical thinker.

 

[thoughtone]

Legitimate republican presidential candidates!

 

[QueEx]

You're rather chatty on other inferences as long as its not the left. It should be easy for you it involves race. Ok lets say Perry or Romney said it. Your thoughts.

Let me say one more thing to you. If you want to argue the inferences, don't hide behind vague comments, just come out and show how you feel the comparisons or whatever are analogous.

BUT PLEASE, STOP posting up pictures of Black people who you dislike, for whatever reason, as examples of idiots. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether they are suppose to be liberals or conservatives, I think it shows a lack of reverence for your own (if you're black) to continue to post these stupid-ass images.

If you have a point, do your best to demonstrate the same using "Your Words" -- and stop with what I believe is tantamount to a mental desecration.

AND, just for your lack of information, Cynthia McKinney is not a favorite of mine by a long shot (do a search, there's plenty of McKinney materials on this board and you will see what I mean). Nevertheless, unless you're trying to make a direct point regarding something Ms. McKinney actually did or said, I would appreciate it if you would stop with the comic self-desecration.

Peace.

 

[thoughtone]

Legitimate republican presidential candidates!

 

[Upgrade Dave]

You're

Reaching ! ! !

. . . and coming up empty.

 

[Gunner]

Its not just the dumb hypothetical that you want me to assume, but the initial comparison that you're trying to make thats not worth my comment. You fail to see that the comparisons are not analogous. That probably arises because you're just a Cheerleader --

constantly whooping it up for your side, instead of thinking. Just accept it, I did, you're not a critical thinker.

Maybe you should rethink the precedent you established. Again you are not published. You copy and paste articles you agree with (mostly). So if we both are doing the same, doesn't that make you a cheerleader for the left. You voted for Obama. You fell for that shit hook line and sinker. How's the economy que? Where are the jobs que? Where are these green jobs? I support black conservatives those I identify with intellectually. Not because of race. You have a black president and the job numbers are around 16%. How that working out for the black community. You never speak about that because you hide behind race and you never call him on it. Yet you do you best to make excuses for his ass. Your silence on issues that affect your own community is pathetic. Yet if Mr. Charlie republican did it, you and your minions would be peppering this board with articles from the Root, Huffington Post or your favorite Mcclatchy newspapers.

The problem with you is that you would like to preserve the status quo in the black community. How has race issues you promote helped anyone? Que you are simply a propagandist creating diversions is what you do. 41% of black teens are unemployed yet you stick to garbage posts. The Congressional Black Caucus has finally awakened when will you.

 

[thoughtone]

 

[QueEx]

You're STILL

Reaching . . . and coming up empty !

Maybe you should rethink the precedent you established. Again you are not published. You copy and paste articles you agree with (mostly).

Wrong. I post articles on topics of interest, current events, etc., which I hope might spur debate and discussion of the issues contained therein. My whole interest in being here is to see if I can get people to intelligently discuss issues. Both sides of issues. (Hence, the reason for the no name calling rule).

Let me ask you: Is the reason you keep REACHING and failing to grasp the issues because you're basically a cheerleader, incapable of formulating thoughts and argument of your own ???

So if we both are doing the same, doesn't that make you a cheerleader for the left.

No, it makes you something that I would have to ban my self for, if I told you.

You voted for Obama. You fell for that shit hook line and sinker. How's the economy que? Where are the jobs que? Where are these green jobs?

You know that lil streak of hatred running up your back is starting to become you.

I support black conservatives those I identify with intellectually. Not because of race. You have a black president and the job numbers are around 16%. How that working out for the black community. You never speak about that because you hide behind race and you never call him on it. Yet you do you best to make excuses for his ass. Your silence on issues that affect your own community is pathetic. Yet if Mr. Charlie republican did it, you and your minions would be peppering this board with articles from the Root, Huffington Post or your favorite Mcclatchy newspapers.

LOL. I rarely, if ever, post articles from the Huff; I do post from the Root - because it is a Black-oriented publication (though I have noticed that many of us think the Root is too, right); and I would like for you to tell me the basis for your conclusion that McClatchy is left (I did'nt know).

Aside from that, I see that you do pretty good showing your emotional side. Now, let us see your analysis-side -- so that we can see there is more to you than being an angry, emotional, talking-point conservative.

Agreed ???


`

 

[QueEx]

P.S.

​

You voted for Obama. You fell for that shit hook line and sinker. How's the economy que? Where are the jobs que? Where are these green jobs?

These would be really good questions, had they not been asked to discredit the man merely because you and Limbaugh can't stand him. But serious discussion would mean you having to actually consider (1) his possible ineptness Vs. (2) the right-wing campaign to ensure that he fails -- and you've shown yourself completely incapable of fathoming the latter.

 

[muckraker10021]

Read or listen to the entire comments that former Vice President Gore made and NOT a truncated clip and it is a no-brainer that what he is saying is correct. The corpus of his argument is that for decades due to centuries of white supremacy, so-called white people clung to the falsehood that black people were innately inferior to them.White people actually believed they were some how biologically superior to Black people — despite science based evidence that they were not

Remember the fueled by hatred, white male mobs, after viewing the fight, indiscriminately killed any Black people they saw after Jack Johnson the first Black heavyweight champion of the world, defeated The Great White Hope Jim Jeffries in 1910. They just couldn't wrap their minds around a white guy losing a prize-fight to a ******; despite the obvious physical superiority and speed of Jack Johnson. If 'aliens' had landed from outer space and just looked at the two fighters; it was obvious who to bet on.

Despite irrefutable scientific reality whites actually believed that they were the superior race- in fact until the late 1940's some white hospital patients would routinely refuse blood from Black donors; they would rather fucking DIE than take the Black blood-
Despite the scientific reality that blood plasma is blood plasma regardless of race. Blood Type A or B or O is Blood Type A or B or O if your Chinese or Greek or Nigerian or Peruvian or Irish.

It wasn't until 1947 that Black men (Jackie Robinson) were allowed to play major league baseball; white people actually believed that Black men couldn't play pro- baseball.

Remember Black men were too dumb to play Quarterback in football and too dumb to be the head coach.

During the civil rights era, 1950-1968 whites would routinely call Black men 'boys' or ni66ers. Blacks could not try on clothing in stores. Schools were by law segregated. Swimming pools were by law segregated. etc. etc.

Gore was simply stating the fact that, just like most white people had to eventually succumb to the reality that there is NO divine or biologically based white supremacy and that their disdain, discrimination and hatred for Blacks was solely a product of their own racism; — similarly, those who castigate and denigrate climate change science despite overwhelming peer reviewed scientific research will eventually have to give up their 'disbelief' and face the reality that their skepticism was fueled by financial incentives (oil company money).

Would I have used that analogy if I was him speaking at a public forum and knowing that whatever I said would be sliced & diced by my agenda driven critics and put on blast on the internet and on the corporate television "media of deception"? NO!!

Mr. Gore, President Obama and too-many to list here, well intentioned "reality-based" public figures stubbornly fail to realize that the country is in the midst of an ideological civil war. 90% of the country is getting their information solely from television & talk radio, and these outlets are virtually totally controlled by reich-wing RepubliKlan oligarchs, whose goal is the complete corporate takeover (privatization) of the United States of America.

Factual nuanced arguments like Gore's must be left perhaps?? -in the masters degree program conference rooms of a university.

Sad to say what Gore said is way-over-the-head of most Americans. The few sentences of history I typed above are unknown to most Americans.

Now let us let one of those dreaded 'pointy headed' "reality based", intellectuals; attempt to explain Gore's comments to the dumbed-down masses. He is one of those guys the right calls 'idiots' who understand that 2 + 2 will always equal 4, whether the starting point is elementary school second grade math or the starting point is an quadratic equation. The acclaimed cerebral egghead, that well-read menace to our society Bill Nye - 'the science guy'will calmly explain to the brain addled <s>FOX</s> FAKE News viewers what's going on.



<param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjE2NTktNDkyODk?color=c93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjE2NTktNDkyODk?color=c93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="520" height="329" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjE2NTktNDkyODk" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>

 

[thoughtone]

 

[thoughtone]

^^^^^

 

[SPECTRE1]

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5aPlqGf_wfU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[muckraker10021]

<img src="http://i.minus.com/ibg5bk9Ex7oKxB.png" width="850">


It's Global Warming, Stupid

by Paul M. Barrett | November 01, 2012

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid

Yes, yes, it’s unsophisticated to blame any given storm on climate change. Men and women in white lab coats tell us—and they’re right—that many factors contribute to each severe weather episode. Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all.

Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. More than 15,000 flights grounded. Factories, stores, and hospitals shut. Lower Manhattan dark, silent, and underwater.

An unscientific survey of the social networking literature on Sandy reveals an illuminating tweet (you read that correctly) from Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. On Oct. 29, Foley thumbed thusly: “Would this kind of storm happen without climate change? Yes. Fueled by many factors. Is storm stronger because of climate change? Yes.” Eric Pooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund (and former deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek), offers a baseball analogy: “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”

In an Oct. 30 blog post, Mark Fischetti of Scientific American took a spin through Ph.D.-land and found more and more credentialed experts willing to shrug off the climate caveats. The broadening consensus: “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that.

Sandy featured a scary extra twist implicating climate change. An Atlantic hurricane moving up the East Coast crashed into cold air dipping south from Canada. The collision supercharged the storm’s energy level and extended its geographical reach. Pushing that cold air south was an atmospheric pattern, known as a blocking high, above the Arctic Ocean. Climate scientists Charles Greene and Bruce Monger of Cornell University, writing earlier this year in Oceanography, provided evidence that Arctic icemelts linked to global warming contribute to the very atmospheric pattern that sent the frigid burst down across Canada and the eastern U.S.

If all that doesn’t impress, forget the scientists ostensibly devoted to advancing knowledge and saving lives. Listen instead to corporate insurers committed to compiling statistics for profit.

On Oct. 17 the giant German reinsurance company Munich Re issued a prescient report titled Severe Weather in North America. Globally, the rate of extreme weather events is rising, and “nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.” From 1980 through 2011, weather disasters caused losses totaling $1.06 trillion. Munich Re found “a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades.” By contrast, there was “an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe, and 1.5 in South America.” Human-caused climate change “is believed to contribute to this trend,” the report said, “though it influences various perils in different ways.”

Global warming “particularly affects formation of heat waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity,” Munich Re said. This July was the hottest month recorded in the U.S. since record-keeping began in 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The U.S. Drought Monitor reported that two-thirds of the continental U.S. suffered drought conditions this summer.

Granted, Munich Re wants to sell more reinsurance (backup policies purchased by other insurance companies), so maybe it has a selfish reason to stir anxiety. But it has no obvious motive for fingering global warming vs. other causes. “If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible,” said Peter Hoppe, the company’s chief of geo-risks research, “all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing.”

Which raises the question of what alerts and measures to undertake. In his book The Conundrum, David Owen, a staff writer at the New Yorker, contends that as long as the West places high and unquestioning value on economic growth and consumer gratification—with China and the rest of the developing world right behind—we will continue to burn the fossil fuels whose emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. Fast trains, hybrid cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, carbon offsets—they’re just not enough, Owen writes.

Yet even he would surely agree that the only responsible first step is to put climate change back on the table for discussion. The issue was MIA during the presidential debates and, regardless of who wins on Nov. 6, is unlikely to appear on the near-term congressional calendar. After Sandy, that seems insane.

Mitt Romney has gone from being a supporter years ago of clean energy and emission caps to, more recently, a climate agnostic. On Aug. 30, he belittled his opponent’s vow to arrest climate change, made during the 2008 presidential campaign. “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet,” Romney told the Republican National Convention in storm-tossed Tampa. “My promise is to help you and your family.” Two months later, in the wake of Sandy, submerged families in New Jersey and New York urgently needed some help dealing with that rising-ocean stuff.

Obama and his strategists clearly decided that in a tight race during fragile economic times, he should compete with Romney by promising to mine more coal and drill more oil. On the campaign trail, when Obama refers to the environment, he does so only in the context of spurring “green jobs.” During his time in office, Obama has made modest progress on climate issues. His administration’s fuel-efficiency standards will reduce by half the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks by 2025. His regulations and proposed rules to curb mercury, carbon, and other emissions from coal-fired power plants are forcing utilities to retire some of the dirtiest old facilities. And the country has doubled the generation of energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind.

Still, renewable energy accounts for less than 15 percent of the country’s electricity. The U.S. cannot shake its fossil fuel addiction by going cold turkey. Offices and factories can’t function in the dark. Shippers and drivers and air travelers will not abandon petroleum overnight. While scientists and entrepreneurs search for breakthrough technologies, the next president should push an energy plan that exploits plentiful domestic natural gas supplies. Burned for power, gas emits about half as much carbon as coal. That’s a trade-off already under way, and it’s worth expanding. Environmentalists taking a hard no-gas line are making a mistake.

Conservatives champion market forces—as do smart liberals—and financial incentives should be part of the climate agenda. In 2009 the House of Representatives passed cap-and-trade legislation that would have rewarded more nimble industrial players that figure out how to use cleaner energy. The bill died in the Senate in 2010, a victim of Tea Party-inspired Republican obstructionism and Obama’s decision to spend his political capital to push health-care reform.

Despite Republican fanaticism about all forms of government intervention in the economy, the idea of pricing carbon must remain a part of the national debate. One politically plausible way to tax carbon emissions is to transfer the revenue to individuals. Alaska, which pays dividends to its citizens from royalties imposed on oil companies, could provide inspiration (just as Romneycare in Massachusetts pointed the way to Obamacare).

Ultimately, the global warming crisis will require global solutions. Washington can become a credible advocate for moving the Chinese and Indian economies away from coal and toward alternatives only if the U.S. takes concerted political action. At the last United Nations conference on climate change in Durban, South Africa, the world’s governments agreed to seek a new legal agreement that binds signatories to reduce their carbon emissions. Negotiators agreed to come up with a new treaty by 2015, to be put in place by 2020. To work, the treaty will need to include a way to penalize countries that don’t meet emission-reduction targets—something the U.S. has until now refused to support.


If Hurricane Sandy does nothing else, it should suggest that we need to commit more to disaster preparation and response. As with climate change, Romney has displayed an alarmingly cavalier attitude on weather emergencies. During one Republican primary debate last year, he was asked point-blank whether the functions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ought to be turned back to the states. “Absolutely,” he replied. Let the states fend for themselves or, better yet, put the private sector in charge. Pay-as-you-go rooftop rescue service may appeal to plutocrats; when the flood waters are rising, ordinary folks welcome the National Guard.

It’s possible Romney’s kill-FEMA remark was merely a pander to the Right, rather than a serious policy proposal. Still, the reconfirmed need for strong federal disaster capability—FEMA and Obama got glowing reviews from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Romney supporter—makes the Republican presidential candidate’s campaign-trail statement all the more reprehensible.

The U.S. has allowed transportation and other infrastructure to grow obsolete and deteriorate, which poses a threat not just to public safety but also to the nation’s economic health. With once-in-a-century floods now occurring every few years, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the country’s biggest city will need to consider building surge protectors and somehow waterproofing its enormous subway system. “It’s not prudent to sit here and say it’s not going to happen again,” Cuomo said. “I believe it is going to happen again.”

David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy, noted in an Oct. 29 blog post that Sandy also brought his hometown, Washington, to a standstill, impeding affairs of state. To lessen future impact, he suggested burying urban and suburban power lines, an expensive but sensible improvement.

Where to get the money? Rothkopf proposed shifting funds from post-Sept. 11 bureaucratic leviathans such as the Department of Homeland Security, which he alleges is shot through with waste. In truth, what’s lacking in America’s approach to climate change is not the resources to act but the political will to do so. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in October found that two-thirds of Americans say there is “solid evidence” the earth is getting warmer. That’s down 10 points since 2006. Among Republicans, more than half say it’s either not a serious problem or not a problem at all.

Such numbers reflect the success of climate deniers in framing action on global warming as inimical to economic growth. This is both shortsighted and dangerous. The U.S. can’t afford regular Sandy-size disruptions in economic activity. To limit the costs of climate-related disasters, both politicians and the public need to accept how much they’re helping to cause them.



<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>

 

[muckraker10021]

A possible life extinction event is on the horizon —less than 40 years away — and most human beings worldwide are either ignorant about the threat or are in willful denial. “It can’t happen” say the climate change deniers whose propaganda speech is funded by corporate overlords — who put $$$ profit making ahead of sustainable human existence on the planet earth. Could the consensus of the world’s top climate change scientists be wrong about their projections for the immediate future? Sure, there is that small chance, but the consequences of ignoring their warnings are so catastrophic that ignoring their forewarnings are akin to playing ‘Russian roulette’. The chart below shows the rapidly increasing negative trend of melting artic ice which is raising sea levels worldwide. The director of the World Meteorological Organization at the United Nations reported that the Arctic ice pack melted over an area larger than the United States during the summer of 2012. The corporate television media in the U.S. are scarcely reporting these dangerous megatrends ; instead they are 24/7 engrossed in the non-story of the football player with the imaginary cyber-girlfriend.

<hr noshade color="#333333" size="6"></hr>

Major Report Warns Climate Change Could Raise Temperatures By 10 Degrees Fahrenheit

by Ben Geman | January 11th 2013

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2...iguous-warming-fuels-calls-for-tougher-action

A major draft federal report concludes that climate change is already affecting U.S. residents through heat waves, droughts and other changes, and warns that temperatures could increase as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit if global carbon emissions keep soaring.

The third National Climate Assessment, released Friday, said there’s “unambiguous evidence” that earth is warming, and that climate change over the past 50 years is driven primarily by human activity, especially from burning fossil fuels.

“Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting,” states the draft report developed by a federal advisory panel.

“These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity,” adds the draft report, released through U.S. Global Change Research Program.

The report tallies the wide-ranging effects of climate change, such as water supplies stressed by declining runoff and increased risk of heat stress and waterborne disease, and notes that U.S. infrastructure is already being harmed by sea-level rise, storm surges and heavy downpours.

It also tallies regional effects of climate change in the U.S.

Environmentalists quickly seized on the report, which follows a separate federal announcement that 2012 was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 states, to call for more aggressive steps to drive down emissions.

“This could help restart a national conversation about climate change,” said Todd Sanford, a scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It gives us a road map for climate change. And the road is much bumpier if we continue along a higher emissions pathway.”

Carol Browner, President Obama’s former climate czar, said the U.S. has made progress in reducing emissions but more action is needed immediately.

“We can start with strict carbon pollution standards for power plants and we must significantly expand investments in community resiliency to protect people and the economy from the gathering storms — and floods, droughts, wildfires, and heat waves,” said Browner, who is now a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress.

The report finds that U.S. temperatures will continue rising 2 degrees F to 4 degrees F in most areas in the coming decades, and calls for effort to increase resilience to changes that cannot be avoided.

But it’s unclear how high temperatures will climb. The report provides a range of 3 degrees F to 5 degrees F by century's end if global emissions are reduced sharply after 2050, and up to 10 degrees F if they’re not.

Average U.S. temperatures have risen roughly 1.5 degrees F since 1895, and more than 80 percent of that increase has occurred since 1980, the report concludes.

The report is just the latest broad study or statement by a scientific body to conclude there’s overwhelming evidence that global warming is under way and that human activities are a major cause.

For instance, the National Research Council, in a 2011 report, noted that climate change is “very likely caused primarily” by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

However, a substantial number of Republicans dispute the conclusion that human activities are the primary driver of climate change.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said in a statement Friday that he plans to vet climate science in the new Congress.

“I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots, and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing,” he said in a statement Friday.

“It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions,” he said. The panel will have a hearing on the environment in coming weeks, according to committee aides.

While climate advocates are pouncing on the report, it’s unlikely to fundamentally change the politics of climate change on Capitol Hill, where bills to cap emissions or impose carbon taxes are moribund.

However, green activists are pressing for stronger executive actions, such as Environmental Protection Agency carbon emissions standards for existing power plants.

The broad new federal assessment was released in draft form Friday by the National Climate Assessment and Development and Advisory Committee, which is comprised of experts from academia, various industries and elsewhere.

The National Research Council will review the draft, which is also open for public comment.

The report was crafted under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which requires wide-ranging climate reports to the president and Congress.


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>

 

[charlie dark]

It's not a comparison of global warming and the civil rights movement, it's a comparison of the attitudes of those who were pro and against both movements, which is a legitimate comparison.

 

[QueEx]

Global Warning May Be More Dramatic
Than We Realize​

​

​

A new study on global warming has concluded that rise in global temperatures over the last century is even more shocking that you think, because the Earth should actually have been getting colder during that time. According to a study published in journal Science yesterday, the first decade of the 21st century was not just the hottest in living memory, but one of the hottest in the previous 11,000 years. However, the first decade of the 1900s, was actually one of the coldest of previous 11,000 years. That was also part of an overall cycle of cooling that had been going on for nearly 4,000 years—until it was halted during the Industrial Revolution.

The leader research on the study says that based on variations on the Earth's position relative to the Sun (on a scale of millennia, not seasons), "you would predict that we would be still cooling, but we're not." A temperature shift so dramatic in a span of just 100 years, has never been seen in the climatological record.

The massively quick shift lends more evidence to theories that rise in temperatures is not just a natural shift in the Earth's rhythms, and those who deny man-made global warming might argue. Whatever the cause happens to be, whenever we're reminded that temperatures are going up, we're also being reminded once again that no one seems inclined to do anything about it.

Even insurance companies, who are supposed prepare for the worst, have been reluctant to included climate change in their long-term plans. According to USA Today, a survey of 184 insurance companies found that only 23 had any kind of strategy to deal with a possible increase in weather-related claims. (Only 10 of those are in the United States.) Most won't talk about climate change in any kind of formal language and desperately try to avoid discussions of whether it's man-made. Some reward customers for using things like energy-efficient building materials, but most have not addressed the issue in any comprehensive way, despite $100 billion in weather-related disaster damage last year.

Worst of all, not even cute furry animals are enough to win people over to the side of taking action. At a global meeting on endangered species, this week, the U.S. failed to get a ban in place that would restrict the trade of polar bear parts. The species is not yet officially endangered but the shrinking polar ice cap may soon push them over the edge, particularly if they continue to be harvested for their body parts. The ban failed mostly because Canada, Norway, and Greenland, where most of the world's polar bears live—and the people who hunt them for a living—wouldn't support it. How can you say no to this face?
​

SOURCE