James Hansen has a new paper out, co-authored with six other scientists: "Climate Change and trace gases." It appears in the current issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and Hansen says: "In my opinion, among our papers this one probably does the best job of making clear that the Earth is getting perilously close to climate changes that could run out of our control."
Steve Connor has a writeup in The Independent. Sounds like scary stuff:
"Civilisation developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end," the scientists warn. Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. "To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet from the one on which civilisation developed and for which extensive physical infrastructure has been built," they say.
Yes, but what about the coal executives and corn conglomerates? Are we willing to sacrifice their interests just to save the world?
Discover how climate change is affecting our world
Comments
View as Flat
WWAGD?! Posted 10:36 am
19 Jun 2007
Maybe We're Burning It for A Reason
Maybe we need to burn that hydrocarbon fuel as part of natural development.
After all, as Gold tells us, it's abiotic and inexhaustible.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:58 am
19 Jun 2007
uhg
Has nothing to do with exhausting the supplies of carbon on the planet.
It has to do with the temperature of the planet.
Elements on the other hand survive in even the most harsh planets.
Humans, don't.
Last I checked, we'd like humans to stick around on this planet.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 1:10 pm
19 Jun 2007
Hansen for Pope!
To paraphrase Stalin's response on being told that the Pope was concerned about Soviet treatment of Eastern Europeans ("How many divisions does the Pope have?"), how many lobbyists and campaign contributions does Hansen bring to this debate?
Seriously, everyone should read this paper.
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 8:43 pm
19 Jun 2007
Serious ?
>> Seriously, everyone should read this paper.
Hey it is much easier to ignore reality, after all what can any single person do ?
Hansen is not stupid, though I am sure you wish he was.
S O S Save OurSelves, omegafour.com
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 2:48 am
20 Jun 2007
The cataetrophe and the anti-Nuk Chicken Littles
David, if you and your fellow environmentalist anti-Nuk Chicken Littles would introduce yourselves to the world of sanity, we might find a solution. Every second you waist fighting nuclear power plays directly into the coal industry's hands. Grow up, and stop serving coal interests.
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:05 am
20 Jun 2007
yeah...
"You either want to invade Iraq, or you're on the side of the terrorists"
False Dichotomy isn't something anyone with a legit arguement should need to use.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 11:52 am
20 Jun 2007
False Dichotomy or an indispensable part of the so
Thinking in terms of False Dichotomy is part of the problem. It is so irrational to compare nuclear power to invading Iraq. It is just so insane.
Charles Barton
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:59 am
20 Jun 2007
It's actually rather appropriate.
It's actually rather appropriate.
Nuclear is the reason we invaded in the first place.
Permalink