Link to this page:
10,933 viewed the video (+22 in last 24 hours)
430 added this app (+0 in last 24 hours)
For every 1 person that add this app:
26 more view the video on average
No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why (video above)
Could humans have changed the earth's climate?
CO2 was slowly absorbed by plants over millions of years and locked away in coal and oil. In the last 200 years we released a large part of this CO2 back into the atmosphere. CO2 is at its highest for at least 800,000 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - easily demonstrated in the lab.
New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change.
The issue is a scientific one, based on observations. As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth. If you were ill would you trust a fellow blogger, a wingnut on the internet or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion?
Who are the real experts? Is there enough evidence for them to come to a consensus conclusion? National Science Academies would be a good place to start.
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC
"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified."
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC is not the UN, and should only be cited as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I've spoken to several people who have knee-jerk reactions to the United Nations, often equating it with world government.
This was rebroadcast on Christmas. This is the trailer, and here are the parts I saw (it's all in sequential order): Part 1
<-Greenland global warming, melting ice water positive feedback effect Part 2 <-Polar bears, baby bears Part 3 <-Emerging islands Part 4 <-Sinking islands Part 5 <-Lobbied politicians deny global warming Part 6 <-Illegal poverty-based Amazon logging, slash and burn deforestation Part 7 <-An Ohio nun's story, $25k bounty on her head Part 8<-Petrochemical factories, Leukemia back at home Part 9 <-Environmental racism, nothing is in a vacuum, everything is interconnected
Anderson Cooper gets tested for PBDEPhalatesPolychlorinated Bibpheny
A destabilized climate. Overpopulation->energy pollution->erratic evaporation and rainfall patterns from global dimming->affected agriculture/droughts/acid rain/amazon fires/exponentially increasing global warming effects from burning forests->released methane hydrates (8x stronger than CO2) from ocean floors (temperatures unseen in 4 billion years)
Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise. According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Clean Tech isn't a new field for VC. Draper Fisher Jurvetson has been investing in Clean Tech since 2001: Managing Directors Steve Jurvetson and Raj Atluru expound on what's big in 2008: Efficiency, Waste Energy, Thin Film Solar, Synthetic Genomics, and more.
In the news:
Fuel from algae scum [CNN Video]
Grow an acre of corn over a year will get 25-28 gallons of oil, palm oil trees gets 600-700 gallons per year, algae... 20,000-100,000 gallons of oil per year. No farming pesticides necessary, no deforestation, no crop yield dropoffs. Constant recycled water usage. $1 million per acre to build.
Fastest growing plant on the planet... algae reproduces every 24 hours, and some species as much as 6x a day. Algae is much cheaper, requires less maintenance, and reproduces faster. Much more economical than biofuel from corn.
"If Congress were to spend the full $150 billion requested by the Federal Reserve on solar installations for homes, they could cover about 4.3 million homes. If they were to cover all 81 million households, that would cost about $2.8 trillion. The current cost of the Iraq war totals about a half trillion dollars if you do not count the interest on the debt to pay for that war, which is usually tallied at about a half trillion dollars a year related to war efforts since 2003."
If you are skeptical please read the claims and answers section:
One thing to take away: Some make this a politicalissue and crusade against desired progress. It's really slowing progress down trying to debate endlessly. Pride, ego, and hubris are not a noble gain for humanity. Why is global climate change destabiliziation so important? Because it trumps all else: economic issues, political/war issues, social issues, energy issues, religious issues, wildlife/rainforest issues, and livable sustainability issues in the long run. It should be priority number one with regard to multi-national corporations and politicians of any country. Try not to become desensitized.
