Most reality TV has little to do with the real world. But here's an online show that will reflect what is happening in and to our world: 24 Hours of Reality will feature 24 presenters in 24 time zones talking about the climate crisis in 13 languages. It starts Sept. 14 at 7 p.m. local time in Mexico City and wraps with a live multimedia presentation from New York City by Nobel laureate and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore at 7 p.m. on Sept. 15.
Climate change is reality. It's happening in front of our eyes, and massive volumes of research from climate scientists around the world confirm that it will get worse if we fail to do something about it. The facts are no longer in dispute. Greenhouse gas emissions, mainly caused by humans burning fossil fuels, are warming the planet. And the consequences aren't pretty: health problems caused by pollution; increasing extreme weather events leading to floods, droughts, and storms; shrinking glaciers and related impacts on water supplies and agriculture; insect infestations; conflict over dwindling resources; threats to the survival of plants and animals... the list goes on.
Some people don't recognize how serious the problem is, delaying efforts to resolve it. And the longer we put off finding and implementing solutions, the harder and costlier it will be to overcome the impacts. Former World Bank chief economist Lord Stern estimated that keeping heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions below levels that would drive climate change to catastrophic levels could cost up to two per cent of global GDP, but failure to act could be economically disastrous.
People accuse me and other environmentalists and scientists of being "alarmist". But the situation is alarming, and it's even more alarming that some people ignore it, perhaps believing it will go away -- or that the crisis doesn't even exist. In part, this disconnect with reality is because industrial interests spend billions of dollars sowing doubt and confusion, continually promoting discredited theories -- just as they've done with issues including the dangers of tobacco smoke and the harmful effects of chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer. They tell us climate change doesn't exist, or that it's caused by volcanoes or the sun, or that it's part of a natural cycle -- even that God will regulate the climate to the advantage of humans.
But as Al Gore points out, "The deniers may have millions of dollars to spend, but we have a powerful advantage. We have reality." That reality includes mountains of published, peer-reviewed research by close to 98 per cent of the world's climate scientists, as well as real-time observation.
The David Suzuki Foundation's executive director in Quebec, Karel Mayrand, will deliver the 24 Hours of Reality French presentation at 7 p.m. French Polynesia time (midnight Montreal time). He'll be joined by two more Canadians, Peter Schiefke in Victoria at 7 p.m. Pacific Time on Sept. 14, and Carl Duivenvoorden from New Brunswick at 7 p.m. Greenland time (6 p.m. New Brunswick) on Sept. 15. They and others will show there is no debate among scientists and knowledgeable people over the existence of human-caused climate change. If there is to be debate it should focus on what to do about it. Doing nothing, as some of the industry shills argue we should, is not a viable option.
Solutions exist, although the cost and severity of the challenge is greater now than in 1988 when climatologists first called for emissions reductions. As more people become aware of the problem and its causes, and learn about the motives of the deniers, it becomes more likely that we'll find ways to reduce the consequences and put humanity on a path to healthier lives on a healthier planet.
We can't argue with people who deny reality. All we can do is to make sure the voice of reason speaks louder and that those of us who care about humanity join together to find better ways to live on our Earth. Please visit ClimateRealityProject.org to find out how you can tune in to 24 Hours of Reality. Choose the presentation and time zone you want, or take part in the entire event. You can even set up viewing parties with family, friends, neighbours, and colleagues. And spread the word. We need to speak up for the future of humanity.
The time to act is now.
Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation editorial and communications specialist Ian Hanington.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
Douglas LaBier: What Are the Emotional Drivers of Our National Unraveling?
George Monbiot: Top 10 climate change deniers | Environment ...
Scientific Journal Editor Resigns Over Climate Change Denier's Paper
Al Gore On Climate Change Deniers: It's Crucial To 'Win The ...
What Motivates Climate Change Deniers? : 13.7: Cosmos And ...
Fact is, it's too late. Fasten your seatbelt, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
I think Alan Caruba sums up the warming movement's meltdown: The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory
Sunday, September 11th 2011, 2:46 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
I have been predicting the death of the global warming theory since late in the last decade when it became obvious that the Earth had entered into a cooling cycle. By 2009 the leak of thousands of emails between the “scientists” whose computer models the claims were based upon revealed they were in a state of panic regarding this obvious phenomenon.
Employed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming (IPCC), those “scientists” have since been protected by the universities who benefited greatly from the huge grants of public funding they received. The issue of whether such men should be prosecuted for deceiving the entire world remains to be decided.
The lead player, Dr. James Hansen, still on the payroll of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is the man who told Congress in 1988 that global warming threatened mankind and the Earth. He has since switched to lying about coal and oil, two of the fossil fuels on which the economies of all nations depend, claiming they are deadly pollutants that must be abandoned in favor of “clean energy”, wind and solar.
[READ ON]
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8325
Also, the IPCC scientists and others Caruba is attacking were all cleared of wrong doing by several investigations, both internal and independent, which is why no one lost their jobs or were prosecuted.
And are you really agreeing that coal and oil are not deadly pollutants?
Alan Caruba is a public relations counselor NOT a climate scientist. He's not even a science journalist. Taking science advice from him is like tuning if to Dr. Phil for you're annual physical.
What do you drive right now?
You won't take my gas guzzler!
Please provide the science. Then provide how many times it was cited in the scientific literature...
The rest, people can see just fine...if they pay attention...
Pakistan, Australia, Japan, Russia, Vermont, Texas, California, Somalia...just in the last year alone.
heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts....they are all materializing. They are all growing in strength, not only science and observation prove this, insurance claims for flooding surpassed everything else for *the first time* last year....
Predicted and materialized...
I still want that paper on the "snow-less" claim...back it up
Thanks
41% of Americans do not know who the Vice President is
A Pew poll in 2007 found only 68% of Americans knew we had a trade deficit.
And what was your point again?
What do they believe in? Money and Power. Money is their only God and Power is their Goal.
Science denier Suzuki in action about GMOs:
http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/biotechnology/clips/11008/
Real scientists who study agriculture disagree with him. Suzuki is not a plant pathologist. He is not an ag scientist. He thinks Norman Borlaug was wrong about GMOs. Borlaug! He saved one billion people and won the Nobel Peace Prize for it! Does Borlaug have more cred than Suzuki? Borlaug supported GMO
http://www.torontoglobalist.org/2010/11/24/the-man-that-saved-a-billion-lives-norman-borlaug-gmos/
In any case, this is a global warming thread, and you are far afield. Suzuki has a right to his GMO opinion, and you can fight that battle somewhere else. I still support nuclear energy, even after Fukushima, but I don't blame a large fraction of my fellows in thinking I'm crazy for that support. Fukushima is exactly what Suzuki's caution over GMO's is about. Eventually, these game-changing technologies will revolutionize human society. But, if we rush into application, they could destroy it. Thats just a consequence of how powerful they are.
This is not a true headline. Two word are all that is needed to refute this ridiculous publicity stunt.
1. Albert
2. Gore
More content, less noise
Why aren't we sniffing through the hacked emails of fossil fuels executives? I dunno, but suspect it has something to do with 1984. In any case, climate scientists are under attack: it seems powerful oil lobbyists want to read through more of their emails. The scientists are mounting a legal defense, but despite all that extraordinary U.N. support that made them rich for telling a lie, they don't have enough money. They are asking for the public's financial assistance at this website: http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/donation/
Someone once said it would be a good day when defense companies had to hold a bake sale for new weapons systems. I would settle for a day when we are all sniffing through the hacked emails of oil company executives and filing legal action for more emails. Of course, they would have all the money they needed to keep that from happening. Unlike the scientists.
If we do nothing and the world goes to hell = no so good.
We do something and there is no global warming = we saved energy, polluted less and have more resources.
Can't see the downside regardless of your 'side' and really, unless you are truly knowledgeable what is the value of your opinion? Also, the status quo not working so well for most of us - let's adapt and change our behavior and thinking.
BTW your comment makes your comment propaganda
Why ask a non-expert to debate your 'experts'
Maybe because in some reality politicians hold more 'weight' than scientists?
It's not a reality show debate-off...and Gore isn't the issue, no matter how hard you want to deflect it towards him...
Cuz if you're going to question the way the deniers are funded, you also have to question the international "grant money circlejerk" used by the world's climate scientists. You know: they need grants to have a job (and feed their families), and grants are given out by panels of their peers ...their studies are reviewed by their peers...who also need grant money to stay alive. It's one big, happy club that functions on the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" model.
One thing that WAS crystal clear in the Climategate "scandal" is that anyone not toeing the established memes on climate change are/were ostracized, marginalized & basically booted out of their little club. And c'mon...did anyone not believe that was happening before those emails came out?
All of this has led to a regimented 'universality' that needs to be viewed just as skeptically as who's funding the deniers. It's almost like North Korea & 'human causation of climate change' is the Dear Leader!! Anyone who joins The Party will be fed...anyone committing heresy is exiled.
Any moderators want to field that one?