Click here for a film loop of the 'Break Up' of the Beaufort Sea, Alaska that BEGAN on DECEMBER 8, 2007. Thank you.
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE WATCH (click here)
CURRENT ISSUE: January 2007
IPCC's Working Group I
Summary Released
By Laura EdwardsWestern Regional Climate Center
On February 2, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their report from the first of three Working Groups: "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis". This document states that there is "very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming". The report goes on to state that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature during the last century "is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". Over 2500 expert scientists reviewed the document which summarizes with confidence the burning of fossil fuels has led to the warming of our planet and the planet will continue to warm. What does this mean for California? Figure 1. From Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. Reduced mountain snowpack is one risk outlined in the report....
Why would a 'journalist' place the very lives in California 'in danger' NOT 'at risk,' but, in danger to satisfy the 'old glory days' of the Republicans? Why? Scientists for decades have been invalidated by morons such as George F. Wills that are allowed to publish in newspapers that are suppose to have discretion and dignity. I guess this '? editorial ?' by Wills states more about the 'tabloid' aspect of "The Washington Post" than anything else.
Snowpack in the Sierra affects water resources throughout California's urban areas and Central Valley agricultural regions. Lake Tahoe is at center, right; San Francisco Bay and Monterey Bay are visible low on the coast.
Chu and Ahnold need to mean. Summit might be a good idea. A sustainability summit for California.
Steven Chu
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1997 (click here)
Steven Chu is a certifiable genius. Certainly, George F. Will OF "The Washington Post" is NOT !
But, why be hesitant? After all 'information' speaks for itself. It should stand up under the most intense examination of detail, right?
Well. Yes. And no. Precise information, when it doesn't 'suit' the political agenda of a hostile press, can be manipulated. Of course, the manipulation is justified by stating 'the public has to understand.' So, someone like George F. Will comes along and DECIDES. No different than Bush when he became THE DECIDER. So, Will comes along and DECIDES 'the public that leans to the right' needs to be supported in the media and write a column criticizing a SCIENTIST.
Where Will's credentials allow such a thing, no one asks. But, he does it just the same.
What would make ANY society 'look the other way' while heritage, climate and the future of generations are jeopardized for the 'sake' of ? energy ?
For DECADES now, people that 'lack conscience' but are afforded 'power' over the material available to the average public, are allowed to publish any darn negative opinion as VALID over that of profounding correct and compassionate scientists. Scientists that have dedicated their lives to achievement and recognition for those achievement, that risk reputation at the hand of such 'spectal' seeking journlists to warm the public of the dangers that await them.
The public needs to make choices about 'the intention' of such reporting and comment before a JOURNALISTS credentials can be counted on regardless of status within the profession.
California's snow pack is in DANGER and the people of that state have a water supply to be concerned about AS WELL as the LOSS of the impact of that snowpack on their CLIMATE.
End of discussion !
An Alaskan Inuit Girl (click here)
Vanishing Alaskan Ice Pack
