I'm holding all good thoughts for your mother and neighbors, and for you in what must be an incredibly stressful time. Shame on all those who deny and stand in the way of a just transition off fossil fuels!
The headline reads like a condemnation of all elected leaders. We must support and hold up good, honest, hardworking elected leaders who have worked very hard for a very long time to warn us about climate change, stop the spread of misinformation and pass laws and rules to slow it and mitigate the effects. There are good people in government. I don't mean to be critical but it is important not to send the wrong message.
Kathy actually raised that issue with the headline and I said it was clear from the article that she wasn’t condemning ALL leaders. I said you would have to be willfully misreading the article to come away with that sentiment. So that is to say I hear you, and the author agrees with you! But I stand by my assessment.
I'm sorry I upset you. Its just that people often just read headlines or read them and skim so headlines are important. I know you don't have a big staff and a headline writer and reviewers but I also stand by my comment. It was not meant to criticize Kathy or the content of her article. I very much appreciate your work. Thank you.
This is just one more sign that the United States is headed for a fall. By sending all of its spare money to Israel and Ukraine, they have damned the citizens to death and destruction from extreme weather events. There will be a lot more climate migrants heading to other places soon when all of this is somewhat settled because they will no longer have a home to return to and no money to rebuild.
You are greatly misinformed (uneducated is the correct term.) No extra money is going anywhere that is not already in The United States' Budget for FEMA. The weapons that go to our allies are paid for by the allies; and thus provide jobs for American citizens and workers. Stop watching Fox & Newsmax and read
Subject : Release of Fossil CO and the Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change
Fossil fuel combustion has increased at an exponential rate over the last 100 years e As a result* the atmospheric concentration of CO is now 12 percent above the pre-industrial revolution level and may grow to 1.5 to 2.0 times that level within 60 years. Because of the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric CO, the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from 0.50 to SO C. To place this in perspective, a AT of SOC -would exceed in 60 years the normal temperature swing between an ice age and a warm period which takes place over tens OE thousands of years.
The potential effect on the environment of a climatic fluctuation of such rapidity could be catastrophic and calls for an impact assessment of unprecedented importance and difficulty. A rapid climatic change may result in large scale crop failures at a time when an increased world population taxes agriculture to the limits of productivity. The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; the situation could grow out of control before alternate energy sources and other remedial actions become effective. Natural dissipation of COO would not occur for a millennium after fossil fuel combustion was markedly reduced.
As you know this is not a new issue. What is new is the growing weight of scientific support which raises the C02-climate impact from speculation to a serious hypothesis worthy of a response that is neither complacent nor panicky. The authoritative National Academy of Sciences has just alerted us that it will issue a public statement along these lines in a few weeks.
The present state of knowledge does not justify emergency action to limit the consumption of fossil fuels in the near term However, I believe that we .must now take the potential C02 hazard into account in developing our long-term energy strategy Beyond conservation, we must be prepared to exploit nuclear energy more fully. As insurance against over-reliance on a nuclear energy economy, •we should emphasize targeted basic research which could lead to breakthroughs for solar electric, biomass conversion or other renewable energy sources I am already working with OMB and other Federal agencies on a national climate research program which would lead to A better assessment of the C02 hazard. If you agree, I will work with OMB, ERDA, FEA, and NSF on alternate strategies for R&D, responsive to a possible CO hazard.
Any failure or refusal to acknowledge humans' role in worsening storms is holding us back at this point. It's important to have recognition like this from people who have witnessed their destruction firsthand. Thank you for sharing.
I'm holding all good thoughts for your mother and neighbors, and for you in what must be an incredibly stressful time. Shame on all those who deny and stand in the way of a just transition off fossil fuels!
The headline reads like a condemnation of all elected leaders. We must support and hold up good, honest, hardworking elected leaders who have worked very hard for a very long time to warn us about climate change, stop the spread of misinformation and pass laws and rules to slow it and mitigate the effects. There are good people in government. I don't mean to be critical but it is important not to send the wrong message.
Kathy actually raised that issue with the headline and I said it was clear from the article that she wasn’t condemning ALL leaders. I said you would have to be willfully misreading the article to come away with that sentiment. So that is to say I hear you, and the author agrees with you! But I stand by my assessment.
I'm sorry I upset you. Its just that people often just read headlines or read them and skim so headlines are important. I know you don't have a big staff and a headline writer and reviewers but I also stand by my comment. It was not meant to criticize Kathy or the content of her article. I very much appreciate your work. Thank you.
It’s ok! You did not upset me!
Good to hear Becky. I do not live in your country, but if you believe this, it would be good to hear about some real examples and people.
Sending prayers, hugs, and support to all down there. What a load of planet killing BS being spewed down there in Florida.
This is just one more sign that the United States is headed for a fall. By sending all of its spare money to Israel and Ukraine, they have damned the citizens to death and destruction from extreme weather events. There will be a lot more climate migrants heading to other places soon when all of this is somewhat settled because they will no longer have a home to return to and no money to rebuild.
You are greatly misinformed (uneducated is the correct term.) No extra money is going anywhere that is not already in The United States' Budget for FEMA. The weapons that go to our allies are paid for by the allies; and thus provide jobs for American citizens and workers. Stop watching Fox & Newsmax and read
Found this Memo To President Jimmy Carter
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
July 7, 1977 WASHINGTON, DC. 20500
TO: PRESIDENT
From: Frank Press
Subject : Release of Fossil CO and the Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change
Fossil fuel combustion has increased at an exponential rate over the last 100 years e As a result* the atmospheric concentration of CO is now 12 percent above the pre-industrial revolution level and may grow to 1.5 to 2.0 times that level within 60 years. Because of the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric CO, the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from 0.50 to SO C. To place this in perspective, a AT of SOC -would exceed in 60 years the normal temperature swing between an ice age and a warm period which takes place over tens OE thousands of years.
The potential effect on the environment of a climatic fluctuation of such rapidity could be catastrophic and calls for an impact assessment of unprecedented importance and difficulty. A rapid climatic change may result in large scale crop failures at a time when an increased world population taxes agriculture to the limits of productivity. The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; the situation could grow out of control before alternate energy sources and other remedial actions become effective. Natural dissipation of COO would not occur for a millennium after fossil fuel combustion was markedly reduced.
As you know this is not a new issue. What is new is the growing weight of scientific support which raises the C02-climate impact from speculation to a serious hypothesis worthy of a response that is neither complacent nor panicky. The authoritative National Academy of Sciences has just alerted us that it will issue a public statement along these lines in a few weeks.
The present state of knowledge does not justify emergency action to limit the consumption of fossil fuels in the near term However, I believe that we .must now take the potential C02 hazard into account in developing our long-term energy strategy Beyond conservation, we must be prepared to exploit nuclear energy more fully. As insurance against over-reliance on a nuclear energy economy, •we should emphasize targeted basic research which could lead to breakthroughs for solar electric, biomass conversion or other renewable energy sources I am already working with OMB and other Federal agencies on a national climate research program which would lead to A better assessment of the C02 hazard. If you agree, I will work with OMB, ERDA, FEA, and NSF on alternate strategies for R&D, responsive to a possible CO hazard.
Any failure or refusal to acknowledge humans' role in worsening storms is holding us back at this point. It's important to have recognition like this from people who have witnessed their destruction firsthand. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you for your good words!