NEXT 2008 | ENVIRONMENT

Learning to Love Climate ‘Adaptation’

It's too late to stop global warming. Now we have to figure out how to survive it.

By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK

Dec. 31, 2007-Jan. 7, 2008 issue

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: Cathexis @ 01/18/2008 12:52:39 PM

Comment: I agree that we are probably past the point where we have any options ... at least any that preserve our current way of life. I believe the ice melt is going to occur much faster than they are currently predicting, for example.

But I want to make certain we don't forget something, in our rush to adapt: the people who perpetuated the problem even after all sane people recognized it as a problem. We go through the same thing with every crisis (tobacco, pollution, etc.): 1. They deny the problem and call it quackery. 2. They attack the science and methodology. 3. They attempt to fog the matter and introduce doubt in people's minds (e.g., paying for biased studies). 4. May admit the problem, but claim it is not as bad as it is. 5. May admit the problem but claim it is due to other reasons (we're not to blame, and thus, shouldn't be exp[ected to change), beyond our control. 6. Crisis hits: Whine "rather trhan trying to assign blame, let's all just work together to solve the problem."

I've seen the same pattern for several decades, now, and I am sick of it. Greed and ideology do NOT trump facts and science. WHEN the results of this folly come down on us -- and they will -- I want to revisit every naysayer and deceitful weasel that made the situation as bad as it was and I want some accountability -- at least among the politicians, CEOs, so-called "think tanks," and pundits.
Posted By: eeyore9 @ 01/08/2008 8:53:47 AM

Comment: How about we quit arguing over what the science shows--or doesn't--and look at the question of climate change as a matter of risk. Yes, it's a fact, the climate has never been in stasis. It's also a fact that global temperatures have risen measurably in the last 50 years, that the Greenland ice sheet is melting and exposing landscapes never seen by modern man, that atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen to levels that the consensus of the worldwide scientific community says is likely to produce a warmer world and that combustion of hydrocarbon fuels for the last two centuries has vastly increased the rate at which carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere.

These are all facts. They may, or may not, all be related in some way. Now, what are the risks? If we choose to reduce our use of hydrocarbon fuels, we will gain some benefits at some costs. A benefit would be reduction of our dependence on imports of oil from politically unstable countries. Another would be cleaner air. Another would be halting the environmental destruction caused by mountaintop-removal coal mining, which dumps the tailings from mining into valleys (the tailings then release various poisons and heavy metals that contaminate the streams that still flow in what's left of the valleys). Another would be weaning ourselves from use of fossil fuels that, by definition, are finite. They were millions of years in the making. The earth can never renew them as fast as we are consuming them. On the other hand, doing all this would be costly and disruptive. Not a lot of fun.

If we choose no action, what are the risks? Probably the only one that matters is this: If taking no action is the wrong choice, by the time we all agree on that, it will be too late to take effective action to halt the damage. The climate is not a bicycle. We can't slam on the brakes to turn around if we don't like where we're going.

Dispute the scientific consensus if you like, but we are moving into a situation humanity has never faced in its history. In dealing with this situation, let us consider what impacts our actions or inactions may have on the seventh generation.

Do you have children? Do you want to? What will you answer when they ask why we didn't act earlier to avoid the development of the world they will inherit? Balance the risks for them, and for their children, and for their children for the five generations beyond.
Posted By: SteveLeMaster @ 01/03/2008 11:00:03 AM

Comment: Lady, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

What happened to the world when the ice age never occurred in the 70's?
Posted By: SteveLeMaster @ 01/03/2008 10:58:58 AM

Comment: Lady, you're nuts.
Posted By: veldenf @ 01/02/2008 4:25:32 PM

Comment: Another wonderful article by Newsweek "Alarmist in Chief" Sharon Begley.
She doesn't seem to get it. The science of the Alarmists is so flawed, it is becoming hilarious now.
One wonders if this woman is able to read stuff other than the dreaded Summery for Policymakers by
her favorite institution the IPCC.
She should dive into Newsweek's archives and dig up some articles that were written by the
mag's Science writers in the 70's about the Consensus of the coming of the Next Ice Age.
I know this very well, we spent 6 months in Highschool in 1972 working on a project describing the
arrival of this catastrophe.......It seems now we wasted 6 months of our time.
L'histoire se repete.......
Posted By: bostmaguy @ 01/02/2008 11:41:21 AM

Comment: Newsweek's enviro-alarmist and resident green propagandist's latest future-forecasting puff piece on why we can be so 'stupid', especially with her looking out for our well-being, is as idiotic as the nutballs whispering in her ear. She has predictions galore based on very bad science already discredited by far wiser persons than her and Gore, but that doesn't stop Begley from scolding us dumb Americans who are in for a very bumpy future. It's one thing to have confidence in your predictions based on sound scientific principals and be right. It's another thing to have confidence and be so disastrously wrong. And as Begley knows, only time will tell if her gloom and doom ever comes true. And by then, no one will remember she was a prominent doomsayer in a major newsmagazine.
Posted By: pilsener @ 01/02/2008 9:42:35 AM

Comment: Not to get to personal,but based on her comments in the above column calling Sharon Begley "an alarmist who ignores facts", doesn't seem too harsh.

"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming ??? the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly."
http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200712190004
Posted By: Jarhead68 @ 12/31/2007 9:24:10 PM

Comment: If you care to read ALL the science and ALL the articles written about "global warming" or "climate change", as the looney left likes to call it these days, you will find that the real concensus is that Algore is a pathetic snake oil salesman akin to the guys who roamed the Old West selling magic elixir to the ignorant masses. Fortunately, most of us are a whole lot more educated and well-read than our forefathers so people like Ms. Begley are not able to feed us the Marxist version of how it ought to be. This hocum is meant to cripple the US economy. The rest of the world would love to see us crumble and become a third-rate nation. The Marxist-Socialists being bred in this country are bound and determined to bring us to our knees before the holy alter of the UN and the thugs who run it. A pox on their house. Quit the UN and throw the anti-American slime into the East River. We can convert the building into low-cost housing for "The Rich." You know them. Their the ones who support the democRats with massive contributions.
Posted By: Jarhead68 @ 12/31/2007 9:22:33 PM

Comment: If you care to read ALL the science and ALL the articles written about "global warming" or "climate change", as the looney left likes to call it these days, you will find that the real concensus is that Algore is a pathetic snake oil salesman akin to the guys who roamed the Old West selling magic elixir to the ignorant masses. Fortunately, most of us are a whole lot more educated and well-read than our forefathers so people like Ms. Begley are not able to feed us the Marxist version of how it ought to be. This hocum is meant to cripple the US economy. The rest of the world would love to see us crumble and become a third-rate nation. The Marxist-Socialists being bred in this country are bound and determined to bring us to our knees before the holy alter of the UN and the thugs who run it. A pox on their house. Quit the UN and throw the anti-American slime into the East River. We can convert the building into low-cost housing for "The Rich." You know them. Their the ones who support the democRats with massive contributions.
Posted By: Dollerhide @ 12/31/2007 8:05:43 PM

Comment: Longer runways, eh? That makes sense. I remember all those times that airports have shut down on hot summer days because the air wasn't dense enough.... wait, that's never happened?

How fun it must be to look down upon the ignorant masses, too dim to "summon the will" to prevent their own destruction. How wise and pure you are to forewarn us of our own undoing!

Adaptation is what successful species do. Every day. Floods and droughts and forest fires are not new phenomena, as much as you'd like to portray them as harbingers of doom.

But I know that "Hey, Everything is Probably Going to be Fine" doesn't sell at the newsstand, so I understand why y'all keep up the act.
Posted By: fredflintstone @ 12/31/2007 7:46:30 PM

Comment: Go outside. Likely, the temperature is similar to what it has always been at this time of year. Go to the ocean beach. In most cases, the sea level is that same as it was when you were a child. Scour the countryside for real evidence of warming. Outside of alot copies of "An Inconvenient Truth", there is little if nothing to be found. Don't be taken in by charlatans who tell you to believe, even though your own eyes tell you differently.
Posted By: GustoMaybe @ 12/31/2007 5:51:57 PM

Comment: dumb ass writer
Posted By: stoptheglobalwarmingscam @ 12/31/2007 4:33:39 PM

Comment: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......
Posted By: Fire Capt. @ 12/31/2007 3:48:31 PM

Comment: Not only is this concept turning into a new religion, but the priests and priestesses get to write their own articles for major magazines. Talking with aglobal warming alarmist reminds me of the good old days of talking to Moonies at the airport. You get that same vacant stare that leaves the distinct impression that the lights are on but no one is home.
Posted By: sailor23 @ 12/27/2007 10:45:19 AM

Comment: Carbon Dioxide has increased about 100 ppm over the past 100 yrs. with no temp increase until the last 50 yrs. The average temp. has risen 1 degree since then. In no way is this sufficient to melt the ice caps at the rate they are melting. Something else is at work here.
Lets take a look at the Magnetosphere. What if it's force has rapidly and significantly decreased, as happens during a reversal of polarity. Maybe we should be buying lead underware instead of Priuses (Priusi?).
Jerry Schwanke, Laughlin Nevada.
- Posted By: G Jiggy @ 12/31/2007 18:46:27
  
  Comment: I hate to rain on your parade, but the acrtic ice caps are thin but the antarctic ice cap is the thickest on record since they started measuring. Look people, the earth's climate isn't in stasis and never has been (and probably never will be). At any one moment it is either warming or cooling. It's not a big deal. It does it. You can't stop it. The real facts are that humans, animals and crops function a lot better in warm than they do cold, so put me down for warmer. And let's all move on kids.
  
  Oh I almost forgot, recent measurements show that we are in a bit of a cooling trend . . .
Posted By: SpringheelMac @ 12/24/2007 5:29:52 PM

Comment: "Nobody cares about the environment." -Rush Limbaugh
Enough said. We're in for it.