by Mark Silva
The only thing slower than the advance of the glaciers during the Ice Age, perhaps, is the acknowledgement of the Bush administration that there is a problem called “climate change’’ in the modern world, and that the activities of human beings have a lot to do with it.
“90-percent likely’’ – that’s what the White House says today.
This is particularly pertinent today, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body, issues its fourth assessment report. And it will have some relevance on Monday, Nov. 26, when President Bush receives the U.S. winners of the Nobel Prize at the White House, including Al Gore, the former vice president who shared the prize for his work on global warming and collected more votes than Bush in the presidential election of 2000.
“There’s a lot of misconceptions out there about the administration's position on this,’’ says Sharon Hays, representing the U.S. delegation at the IPCC meeting in Valencia, Spain, where they have spent the better part of the past week hashing out language on which all can agree.
James Connaughton, chairman of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality, says: “In 2001, the president clearly acknowledged what the National Academy of Science told him: That surface temperatures of the Earth are warming, and humans are part of that equation. Now… there’s different formulations of that over time. Different scientists say it differently. But that's sort of the simple conclusion, and he's been consistent in that view since.’’
Hays: “The president gave a speech back in 2001, I believe it was, in which he articulated his thoughts on climate change science. And when he made that speech, he echoed very clearly what the National Academies of Science was saying about climate change and the human attribution issue, which was, at that time, six years ago, less clear than it is now. And so his words echoed the National Academies of Sciences, which, in turn, were really a restatement of what appeared in the last assessment, the 2001 IPCC assessment on climate change.
“So the president has been saying the same thing as what the scientists have been saying about climate change, whether or not humans are playing a role in it, since 2001. More recently, the President made a speech at the Major Economies meeting that he convened where, again, he cited the IPCC directly in articulating the administration's view on climate change science. So it is and has been absolutely in sync with the what the science is saying.
“What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening,’’ Hays says. “So back in 2001, the IPCC report said that it was likely that humans were having an impact on the climate. And "likely" has a very specific meaning in IPCC reports. It means that scientists think it's about 66 percent, or two-thirds, likely to be true. In the more recent report, the one that came out in February of this year, the IPCC said that it was very likely that humans were having an impact on the climate. And that, again, has a very specific meaning, meaning 90 percent likely.’’
Now, if you’re looking for a lot of confidence that the government is on top of this problem, read some of the press briefing that Connaughton, Hays and Harlon Watson, senior climate negotiator for the Department of State, have given on the occasion of the IPCC report today:
DR. HAYS: “Welcome, everyone, from Valencia, Spain, where the hour is late, as Kristin said. We are here to talk about the IPCC's -- and that's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- Fourth Assessment Report, which was finalized a little bit earlier this evening, about a half an hour ago or so.
“Harlan and I and the rest of the U.S. delegation have spent the last five days and couple of nights negotiating the final version of the Synthesis Report, which is the fourth and final piece of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, while we've been here in Valencia…
“Now, you're probably aware of the three earlier reports that have already been released in final form, in February, April, and then this last summer. Those three reports focused on different aspects of climate change science, and that were, just briefly -- the first one was on sort of the physical basis for climate change: Is it happening? Why is it happening? What are projections for future changes to the climate system?
“The second report, which was negotiated in Brussels, was on the impacts of climate change, as well as adaptation to it. And the third report, which was negotiated in Bangkok this summer, focuses on mitigation options.
“So, as you also may recall, each of these reports get produced in two major parts. And so, the first part is a very large -- on the order of a thousand or even more pages -- technical document that's written by scientists, and presented by them to governments for acceptance, in IPCC parlance. And the second piece is a summary for policymakers, which is also written by scientists, but is approved by governments after a line-by-line review process, and that makes up the negotiation, like the one that we've just been working on.
“So today's report is very similar in that there is a summary for policymakers, that we worked on most of the week, ending with a 24-hour marathon negotiation that lasted until earlier this morning and then picked up again later in the morning. And there's also, with this report, in addition to the summary for policymakers, or SPM, there is an underlying report. It's not quite as big as those earlier three reports; it's a much, much smaller underlying report.
“So this report is a little bit different -- the Synthesis Report is a little bit different from the first three, in that it's a synthesis. In other words, it's an attempt to bring together information and concepts from the three earlier reports and put them together. That being said, there isn't anything new here from a science perspective. The only thing that's new is the attempt to synthesize.
“Now, the synthesis itself is a fairly difficult task, in that the amount of information in the three underlying reports is very large, very complex, and the very process of synthesis involves interpretation, and that, in itself, adds an additional element of complexity, I think. On top of that, of course, you have the IPCC process, with which -- I really want to emphasize this -- the U.S. is very, very pleased to be a part of -- but that body is complex in and of itself, in that many nations and thus many perspectives are represented.
“So it's been a long week, but we have a completed report that will be released tomorrow morning -- hence the embargo. And before I talk a little bit about what's in the report, I think it's really important to recognize -- I really want to point to the achievement that's marked by the completion of this report. It's worked on by scientists all over the world, and it's had tremendous support from the U.S. in making it happen.
“So a couple different elements to that that I think are worth noting. First of all, U.S. government funding for climate change science is a major part of the science
-- the scientific results and scientific studies that underlie the entire Fourth Assessment, all three reports that preceded the Synthesis Report. And that's a significant investment. I think it's on the order of $12 billion since 2001 in climate change science that's funded by the U.S. federal government.
“The other element is the work of the many, many U.S. scientists who authored chapters of the report or reviewed chapters in these reports, or were co-authors on the overall reports themselves. So many, many U.S. scientists have been involved in actually writing this report.’’
“Asked about the U.S. trying to downplay the benefits of mandatory controls and the accomplishments of the Kyoto Protocol, Hays said this:
“First of all, the scientist authors of the report are in the room when the governments are undertaking these negotiations, and the role that they play in the negotiation -- even though they aren't represented as a delegation there -- is very important. And I think all governments -- certainly ours -- gives a lot of deference to the scientist authors, in terms of their opinions on various points that we're discussing.
“Our position, the U.S. position, going into each of these meetings, has been a very simple one, and that is to make sure that we get the science right. We think it's very important that these reports reflect, in a very rigorous way, the science that these scientists who write the underlying reports have told us about. They are the ones that write these large technical documents. And the goal of the summary for policymakers is really just to provide, in a very abbreviated fashion, useful information to policymakers. But that information comes from those underlying reports, which the scientists themselves write.
“So in these negotiations, it is true that we ask lots of questions, and we engage in an energetic discussion with other delegations and with the scientist authors. But ultimately, like I said, our goal is to get the science right, and when the scientists have an opinion on that, we listen to it very, very carefully.
Connaughton: “To the extent it is about mandatory measures, that representation is an inaccurate representation of the Bush administration policy. President Bush has backed mandatory fuel economy requirements. President Bush has backed mandatory renewable fuel requirements.
“President Bush has backed a whole new suite of mandatory appliance efficiency requirements at the federal level. President Bush has supported the Department of Energy's work with the states, who currently have legal authority to set renewable power requirements; the federal government does not have that authority, but the states do -- and we have assisted them with that.
“And then finally the states have the authority on building codes, and our Department of Energy has been working with the states to update their building codes to achieve more efficiency in new and retro-fit buildings.’’
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
There is no debate; it’s political propaganda NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/
Posted by: Dr Coles | November 17, 2007 10:22 AM
What great news. We in Chicago will welcome a whole lot of Global Warming. The winters here are too darn cold. Get the bikinis ready for New Years Day in Lake Michigan.
Posted by: Sierra | November 17, 2007 10:23 AM
WOW! 12 billion dollars spent in last 6 years! No wonder the scientists pounce on anyone who dares say man made global warming is bunk ... there goes $2 billion in funding per year! It pays to be chicken little.
Posted by: K W Smith | November 17, 2007 10:48 AM
Now that their own personal hero, vice president bushbo says he's 90% certain human activity is contributing to climate change, do you think pillow, bruciee and juanieeD will change their opinion and admit its true? They believe everything else the vp says, including that we can "win" in Iraq.
Posted by: rncbs | November 17, 2007 12:09 PM
We should stop polluting and clean up what we can and keep it that way. What is the matter with leaving things a little better than you found them? Besides, we are not only doing harm to the environment, we are doing harm to ourselves and future generations. I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to grasp that. Or are they just plain selfish and don't care?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | November 17, 2007 2:36 PM
Ive had my thinking cap on all morning noodling over this (doing my homework per Dr Coles), and I dont think the problem is a political as it is scientific, so let me throw the gauntlet at my fellow scientists in the Swamp:
If carbon dioxide emissions makes global warming and atomic bombs can cause nucular winter, cant we come up with the correct balance of both to have a perfect 72 degrees globally all year round?
Not advocating nucular war, mind you, just set them off in some place like Idaho.
Republican and voting for Ron Paul, I remain....
Yours very truly
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | November 17, 2007 3:13 PM
Please, mommy government, save me from the scary climate change! Hold meeeeeeee! Wahhhhhh! Wahhhhh!
Posted by: Duncan | November 17, 2007 3:45 PM
wow... it's too bad "Dr Coles" cannot understand English.
The UK court did not say Gore is a fraud. Nothing even close.
Plus, it's fallacious (ad hominem) to claim the issue is false because you dislike the messenger.
No wonder the USA is fading, selling it's souls to the oil sheiks when the lack of intelligence is at the level of dufus Coles.
Posted by: Ican Readenglish | November 17, 2007 4:06 PM
At the tipping point
By Ban Ki Moon
Friday, November 16, 2007
UNITED NATIONS, New York:
We all agree. Climate change is real, and we humans are its chief cause. Yet even now, few people fully understand the gravity of the threat, or its immediacy.
Certainly I did not. It was only after I took a recent fact-finding "eco tour" of vulnerable regions that I realized the true magnitude of the danger. I have always considered global warming to be a matter of utmost urgency. Now I believe we are on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act.
Last week, in Antarctica, I saw extraordinarily dramatic landscapes, rare and wonderful. It was the most vivid experience of my life. Yet it was deeply disturbing, as well, for I could see this world changing. The age-old ice is melting, far faster than we think.
You have heard how the famous Larsen ice shelf collapsed and disappeared five years ago. A giant slab of ice 87-kilometers long - the size of some small countries - vanished in less than three weeks. What if this "Larsen effect" were to repeat itself on a vastly greater scale?
At the Chilean research base on King George Island, scientists told me that the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet is at risk. Like Larsen, it is a continuous sheath of floating ice, comprising nearly one-fifth of the continent.
If it broke up, sea levels could rise by six meters. Think of the effect on the coastlines and cities: New York, Mumbai and Shanghai, not to mention small island nations. It may not happen for 100 years - or it could happen in 10. We simply do not know. But when it happens, it could occur quickly, almost overnight.
It sounds like the script of a disaster movie. But this is science, not science-fiction.
Dr. Gino Casassa, a leading Chilean glaciologist with the Chilean Center for Scientific Studies and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that recently shared a Nobel Prize, worries particularly about the Antarctic Peninsula - a finger of land on the northern coast that he designates as one of three global "hot spots," along with Central Asia and Greenland.
Temperatures there are rising 10 times faster than the global average, he has found. Glaciers are visibly retreating. Grasses are taking root in Antarctica's barren soil, including one used on American golf courses. In the summer, it rains rather than snows increasingly often. A decade ago, Dr. Casassa was a skeptic on climate change. Today, he fears a calamity.
I am not scare-mongering. But I believe we are nearing a tipping point. These are signs. I saw them everywhere I visited.
In Chile, researchers told me that roughly half of the 120 glaciers they monitor are shrinking, at rates twice as fast as a decade or two ago. These include the glaciers in the mountains outside the capital, Santiago, that provide fresh water for six million residents. To the north, increasing drought threatens the country's mining industry, a mainstay of the economy, as well as agriculture and hydroelectric power.
I spent a day in perhaps the world's most magnificent national park, Torres del Paine. Like Antarctica, it was beautiful, pristine and majestic - and equally troubling. The snows of the Andes are also melting faster than we think. I flew over Grey glacier, a virtual ice sea framed by towering alpine peaks. In 1985, it retreated a full three kilometers in little more than two weeks. Yet another demonstration of the abrupt, unpredictable and potentially devastating Larsen effect.
I ended my travels under a great Samaumeira tree on the island of Combu, not far from Belem in the Amazon river delta. This was the heart of the fabled "lungs of the earth," the tropical rain forest prey to the de-forestation and land degradation that accounts for an estimated 21 percent of global carbon emissions.
Scientists say that climate change could turn the eastern Amazon into savannah within decades. My own itinerary had to be changed at the last moment because a tributary of the Amazon I planned to visit, near the port of Santarem, had run dry from drought.
All this might have been discouraging. Yet I left Brazil immensely heartened. Largely unnoticed by the rest of the world, Brazil has transformed itself into a quiet green giant - a leader in the fight against global warming. Over the past two years, it has cut deforestation in the Amazon by half. Vast tracts of jungle have been placed under federal protection.
In Brasilia, President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva assured me that the Amazon and its immense treasure chest of biodiversity was the common heritage of mankind and would be preserved. Brazil leads the world in renewable energy. It is one of only a few nations to successfully produce biofuels on a large scale. Yes, controversy surrounds the program. Some fear that land currently used to grow food will be converted to fuel. Others worry that forests will be cut to make way for biomass plantations.
It is up to governments to balance social costs and benefits. But the important point is that Brazil is acting. Its efforts to combat global warming are worth watching, as lessons for us all.
For too long, we have underestimated the urgency of climate change. It is time to wake up. Last month, the UN Environment Program released its GEO-4 report, calling for "drastic steps" in the face of a challenge that "may threaten humanity's survival." This weekend in Valencia, Spain, I will present the latest synthesis report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is sobering reading.
Yet its conclusions are encouraging. The over-arching message: we can beat this. There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change.
A report last week from the International Energy Agency was also cautiously upbeat. Global energy demand is rising more quickly than most estimates suggest - increasing 57 percent by 2030, according to IEA projections. But the amount of power generated by renewable sources, excluding hydroelectric, is expected to grow five-fold or more. As we see almost daily in the financial news, global business is going "green" in a big way.
All this sets the stage for the critical UN Climate Change Summit in Bali two weeks from now. We need a break-through: an agreement to launch serious negotiations for a comprehensive climate change deal that all nations can embrace. The challenge will be to lay out an achievable agenda of issues, from transferring alternative energy technologies to helping developing nations finance their own programs for fighting and adapting to climate change.
We are all responsible for this. Climate change respects no borders; solutions must be global.
Ban Ki Moon is the secretary general of the United Nations.
While the Greedy Old Prostitutes (G.O.P.) aren't paying attention a growing majority of Americans are paying attention (note: this doesn't include the big oil company loving Republicans).
"We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve" - G.W.Bush - 2005
So we're staying in Iraq so Duhbya doesn't get laughed at?!
Posted by: Mission Accomplished?.....no | November 17, 2007 5:19 PM
It would appear to me that it isn't worth gambling that this information is propaganda. People need to take these issues seriously. The earth is much more important than whatever status quo we are trying to protect for our own convenience.
Posted by: Reverend Rock | November 17, 2007 6:01 PM
UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True.
Posted by: Dr Coles | November 17, 2007 10:22 AM
Dear Dr. Zuess....What world do you live in where all the poor have all the health coverage they need and you can twist the UK courts findings into a lie for your agenda?
Posted by: bill r. | November 18, 2007 10:52 AM
The world's problems are so large and complex that no government or governments in political concert with each other can now solve them. There is only one thing that will provide the means and solution for humankind to survive past this present century, the ORE-STEM Complex and its global interlinked Satellite Incubator Centres. For if the leading scientific minds in the world in concert cannot do this, no politician or others can. It is as simple as that. The problem is of course that politicians will not listen to the independent mind and voice. They only listen to themselves and their so-called informed advisers, but where this thinking has been found totally wrong time and time again. For just one instance amongst countless is when the chief scientific adviser to the PM in the United Kingdom in WW2 stated to the prime minister that the Germans had not the technology to produce a flying bomb. But where only two months later they were reigning down on the UK. This time though, the destructive force of nature will be reigning down on us and will do its worst. But as always it has to be said, it will be the people who ultimately suffer and not the politicians or their astute advisers. Mark my words, politicians will do relatively nothing to stem what has now been put in motion by the powerful in industry and politics in return for a quick to medium term financial return and no other. Destroying the planet in the name of self-interest is a crime against humanity and it should be seen that way.
Therefore people will have to come to the reasoning, sooner or later, that the ORE-STEM complex, thought out by some of the foremost scientific minds (the late Dr. Glenn Seaborg included who was the major thinker on the matter – Element 106 Seaborgium) is the only answer. For to stop the now ever-growing human destructive juggernaut in its tracks, only something of an immense undertaking of an equal magnitude will do this. The sooner politicians and industrialists realize this, the sooner the world may have a chance to prevent what is on the horizon for humankind.
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland
www.thewif.org.uk
Ps. Note that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC is one of the World Innovation Foundation's newest Honorary Consulting Members. There are now nearly 3,500 Global Consultant Fellows and Honorary Members of the WIF who see a new way forward for the world-at-large and a strategy for Survival in the long-term sustainability for Mankind.
Posted by: david hill | November 18, 2007 12:01 PM
A few things we/I can do now:
I will turn off a few extra lights.
I will not water my lawn as much and never in the winter.
I will drive slower until I buy an electric car.
I will plant two trees this year.
I will flush my toilet less. If it is yellow, let it mellow, if it's brown send it down.
I will act, but not spread panic.
I will laugh more and fight less.
I will re-post this comment 3 times.
Posted by: superhero1 | November 18, 2007 12:12 PM
Dr. Coles, hereby referenced as Dr. Anger or Dr. Death since he is now adding comments about health care for the poor (not the topic of this blog nor mentioned by myself, it appears he is trying to extend the malarkey propaganda from his agenda-laden website) and referencing the UK court.
Would you like to reference the UK court, Dr. Anger? Let's go with this:
The UK High Court judge, a climate - layperson with a full court docket, found the film worthy enough to be shown in British schools. It is still being shown there, albeit with "warnings that nine points (out of thousands!) have been questioned and should not be taken as absolute fact. This is well referenced in the judges written decision.
Some other broader points need to be addressed:
The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon. This was also reported in the U.S. Experience shows that when the vested interests do not like the message, they tend to use diversionary tactics to create uncertainty or to fund individuals and groups to shoot the messenger. In this instance, it appears they are trying to do both. According to these reports, Mr. Dimmock will still not fully reveal who funded the case.
The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex. The parties involed regularly seek the advice and feedback of scientists to understand the latest research. It's not easy, even for Ph.D.'s, to explain the concept of the "non-linearity" of the climate system even after decades in their respective fields. Imagine trying to translate that complicated scientific evidence into a clear and compelling message with only a single slide and 20 seconds to make your case. It isn't simple. In many cases, particular points had to be truncated and shortened from the original research. A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws. The original science cannot speak to moviegoers. The UK judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform "an analysis of the scientific questions" in his ruling.
As important as anything, the sciene behind climate change is transparent and open. Free and open to peer and critical review.
The same cannot be said of the people behind the scenes who fight climate science and putting our world in peril. So far, Dr. Death, you've simply been name-calling and grandstanding. You have offered nothing.
Posted by: Ican Readenglish | November 18, 2007 12:20 PM
The President is just doing this for PR. I agree with Dr. Coles Al Gore is an imposter trying to sell higher taxes and more government control. It would hurt businesses and corporations.
I love President Bush but, I won't buy this line Dr. Roy Spencer former NASA scientist says it's all bunk. I know it is I live in cold Springfield as I write this snow is expected for Thanksgiving and Gore calls it global warming he is a fraud.
But, you liberals love to drink kool aid theories turn up the thermostat and put a log on the fire and just dream Al Gore dreams.
As for me and my family we're laughing. Jerry White, Springfield, IL P.S. All liberal schemes are done to raise taxes and increase government regulations.
Posted by: Jerrry White | November 18, 2007 3:37 PM
"Posted by: Dr Coles | November 17, 2007 10:22 AM"
I took Dr. Coles at his suggestion and found this (following a near-verbatim post to Dr. Coles' of today).
Posted By:T at September 8, 2007 6:51 PM
"Dr. Coles posts all over the internet. He is extremely biased. InteliOrg is a trademark of Dr. Coles. I believe it's safe to say he's to the right of right-wing conservatives. Be skeptical, very skeptical."
Just 'cuz they post from the right doesn't MAKE 'em right...
Posted by: Op109 | November 18, 2007 5:31 PM
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!! The 4 hottest modern dates ever have not even been gotten close too.deaths from extreme environment down 95% since 1920. the physics of green house gases are non existent. The antartic ice is growing. they cant even
predict the weather 3 days from now!! THE SKY IS NOT FALLING..THE SKY IS NOT FALLING..screw the UN they have no power or authority over anyone or anyting they are a debating society thats it..KICK THEM OUT!! use the UN lot for a WALMART!!! THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!!!!!!!
Posted by: Joe Paco | November 19, 2007 5:47 PM
Good job Paco.
environment-related deaths have decreased because technology has gotten better.
You really can't compare.
Posted by: Ellsha | November 26, 2007 8:15 PM
i want to start,a unit for PRACTICAL CLEANING OF THE ENVIRONMENT,that includes implanting kits,training staff,awareness,all in the third world countries,how can some one help me.thnx.its a non profitable campaign,for environment only.thnx
Posted by: dr muhammad hussain | December 16, 2007 11:33 AM