Posted on 12/05/2007 7:23:56 PM PST by ricks_place
Over 200 of the leading climate scientists impelled government leaders to take radical measures to slow down global warming as "there is no time to lose."
A petition from at least 215 climate scientists calls for the world to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It is directed at a conference of diplomats meeting in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate the next global warming treaty. The petition, obtained by The Associated Press, is to be announced at a press conference there Wednesday night.
The appeal from scientists follows a petition last week from more than 150 global business leaders also demanding the 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases. That is the estimate that scientists calculate would hold future global warming to a little more than a 3-degree Fahrenheit increase and is in line with what the European Union has adopted.
In the past, many of these scientists have avoided calls for action, leaving that to environmental advocacy groups. That dispassionate stance was taken during the release this year of four separate reports by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But no more.
"It's a grave crisis, and we need to do something real fast," said petition signer Jeff Severinghaus, a geosciences professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "I think the stakes are way way too high to be playing around."
The unprecedented petition includes scientists from more than 25 countries and shows that "the climate science community is essentially fed up," said signer Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada. It includes many co-authors of the intergovernmental climate change panel reports, directors of major American and European climate science research institutions, a Nobel winner for atmospheric chemistry and a winner of a MacArthur "genius" award.
"A lot of us scientists think the problem needs a lot more serious attention than it's getting and the remedies have to be a lot more radical," said Richard Seager, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
The organizers of the petition two Australians, two Germans and an American would not comment about their efforts before their 11 p.m. EST (0400 GMT) press conference. But several scientists who signed on talked of losing patience.
"Action needs to be taken and needs to be taken now," said Marika Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who signed on. "The longer we wait, the worse it's going to become."
Negotiators in Bali are working on the initial groundwork for a treaty that would take effect after 2012, the expiration date of the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty the United States did not sign. However, no one expects concrete results at the closed-door sessions.
NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, who signed the petition, said "the time for half-measures and the time for voluntary agreements and the time for arguing about 1 percent here and 1 percent there those things are no longer relevant."
Schmidt noted while scientists have been dismissed by some as unrealistic, the call for a 50 percent emissions cut by business leaders "helps give credence to the idea that it's achievable."
Policy analysts, who were not part of either petition, split on how meaningful the two petitions are.
What is happening is people are agreeing "that the cost of inaction is on the high side and the cost of action is affordable," said Joseph Romm, a policy analyst at the liberal think-tank Center for American Progress, energy business consultant and trained physicist.
But Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute said "scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change." Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists to weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits, he said.
Granger Morgan, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, said he sees "a growing realization among a wide variety of players that we've got to stop talking about this and start some action." But, he added, "I'm not going to hold my breath that we're going to get anything."
I'd be interesting to see the background of the signers. You know they are believers as most are in Bali.
Okay, I have got this one....Leading LIBERAL BOLSHEVIK Scientists insist on strong global warming treaty.
Much better.
Best regards,
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to
safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H. L. Mencken
They should stop exhaling.
“Quick....it’s so dang cold so early this year, we must pass this into universal law before the dolts realize what a hoax this is!”
~~ AGW™ ping~~
Was in Barnes & Noble today and in the Christian Book section of the store was a title in large bold letters you could not miss about 5 shelves up: GLOBAL WARMING
Thought, how odd!
How do you define a “leading scientist?” One who adheres to the anthropogenic theory of climate change?
One who leads ass (donkeys).
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 could be reduced with good chemical engineering and good research, in order to develop something to remove CO2 without drastically reducing emissions.
The climate scientists advocating this superregulation of industry are socialists.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Charles Mackay, author of “Incredible Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”(1841)
“take radical measures to slow down global warming as “there is no time to lose.”
Because the climate looks like it is cooling right now! The megastorms predicted for 2006 were nonexistent, and 2007 hurricanes likewise did not meet predictions.
We must lock down the treaties RIGHT NOW before the sheeple wake up and stop us!
PRAVDA.....Now that is all you need to know.
>>
Over 200 of the leading climate scientists impelled government leaders to take radical measures to slow down global warming as “there is no time to lose.”
<<
In the 1930’s many leading scientists impelled government to take radical measures to slow down the reproduction of “undesirable” groups.
“The masses of Negroes ...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit...” — Margaret Sanger
On the list of Signatories I see few climatologists.
Is there a difference?
“Leading climate scientists”
s/b
“Infamous Demagogues”
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.