Posted on 08/28/2004 12:26:22 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service
White House report says people cause global warming
13:10 27 August 04
NewScientist.com news service
People are responsible for the spike in global warming in the last 30 years, says a new US government report. The verdict, long accepted by most scientists, has encountered resistance from the Bush administration in the past, prompting experts to question if the president will now enact policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The report, titled Our Changing Planet, is part of a regular series that summarises recent and planned climate change research by 13 government agencies. It was released on Wednesday with a covering letter to Congress signed by the president's secretaries of commerce and energy, along with his science adviser.
The document reports that global warming in the first half of the 20th century, estimated at 0.2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, "was likely due to natural climate variation", including increased solar activity.
But the approximate 0.5°C rise over the second half of the century, most pronounced in the last 30 years, can only be explained when factors related to human activity, such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, are taken into account.
Simulating change
"There's nothing else we can blame it on, really," says Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, where computer simulations produced the result. "If we don't put the changes in carbon dioxide into our models, we don't get global warming out."
Thomas Graedel, an industrial ecologist at Yale University, has reviewed the US government's climate change research strategy and says the report's acknowledgment of a human influence on global warming is encouraging.
"Well over 98% of scientists competent in this area would agree with that," he told New Scientist.
But when a 2002 US government report to the United Nations drew the same conclusion, President Bush "pulled back" from the document, says biologist Anthony Janetos. He is director of the global change program at The Heinz Center, a non-profit environmental policy think-tank, which has some ties to Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of presidential candidate John Kerry.
The effect of humans on global warming in recent decades, according to a US government report (Image: Meehl et al, J. Climate, and Folland et al, Geophys. Res. Lett.) The effect of humans on global warming in recent decades, according to a US government report (Image: Meehl et al, J. Climate, and Folland et al, Geophys. Res. Lett.)
"The big question is what effect this will have on climate policy," Janetos told New Scientist. "The administration has been pretty consistent in saying they believe in voluntary actions [to cut greenhouse gas emissions]. I haven't seen any indication they've changed their mind, but if they had, that would be big news indeed."
Trenberth agrees, saying Bush's policy thus far has been to "take whatever nature throws at us, whether it's Hurricane Charley or droughts or the melting of permafrost" – events that global warming can intensify.
"Bush has said that if we do something about emissions, it will hurt the economy," Trenberth continues, and suggests developing renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Others experts have lobbied the government to regulate carbon dioxide through the Clean Air Act.
Administration officials could not be reached for comment, but James Mahoney, assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, said in a statement released with the report: "This research will help decision makers and managers in the US and other countries evaluate and respond to climate change."
It couldn't be the model. Nah!
Total crap. The sun causes global warming with some help from the odd volcano. We just aren't that powerful.
Are you out of your mind, or just forgot to take your meds today?
Shullbit! Crime in progress.
He compared a potential Bush second term to the second term of Tory John Major in GB, which turned out to be such a disaster for the Conservatives that the Labor Party has been securely in power ever since, and isn't going anywhere.
The writer also compared a potential 2nd Bush term to the 2nd Eisenhower administration, which saw the fall of Cuba, the U2 disaster, and a host of others which led to a decade of Democrats - Kennedy, LBJ, and the whole Vietnam War debacle.
His general point was that the damage done by a one-term Kerry administration would be far less than the damage done by a disastrous Republican term in 2004-2008, with the Democrats recapturing the White House *and* the legislatures in 2008. (Hillary immediately came to my mind.)
IOW, it's a "triage" election.
Oh, I understand. I'm in MO, and am going to vote for Pres. Bush. But this article really made me sit up & think.
The Bush campaign slogan should be, Big government, big spending, pander to illegals, pander to eco-terrorists, pander to the religion of peace, but not as bad as the other guy.
And, where the hell were our mighty heroes in the Republican party when conservative judges were nominated for the bench over the past four years? AWOL?
Anyone that thinks conservatives have been "winning" over the past four years despite a Republican President and Congress is a fool. If we are to win we need Republicans like Reagan that advance a conservative agenda, not largely a left-wing agenda of more spending, wacko environmentalism and amnesty for illegals.
Carl Rove and company, however, apparently know that Bush's following will allow him to do ANYTHING as long as he is a Republican.
With Republicans like Bush -- the President that has increased spending with a GOP congress at faster rate than any President since socialist Lyndon Johnson -- we don't need liberals or Democrats.
Does that mean the White House will now used battery powered limos, and a big glider instead of Air Force One?
A case can be made for gridlock on several fronts.
Further, what the hell has the Republican party done to fight for the conservative nominees Bush did nominate? Nothing. The Democrats have more backbone on the issue. That's what happens when conservatives elect non-conservatives to office.
Well as I recall it Bush has been trying to get dirlling in ANWR, killed us signing on to the Kyoto treaty, and generally speaking has been much friendlier to the farmers in the West than the previous bunch of enviro whackos....Apparently you have forgotten the CLinton years or such a "purist" that you would see us all die with the help fo the Kerrys of the world rather than vote for one such as Bush....I am sure eternity has a specil place for such as folks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.