Healy Hamilton, the director of the Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics at the California Academy of Sciences, talks with freelance science journalist Mark Hertsgaard about his latest book titled Hot: The Next 50 Years on Earth.
Dr. Healy Hamilton heads the Center for Biodiversity Research and Information at the California Academy of Sciences, and serves as adjunct professor in the Department of Geography at San Francisco State University. Her interests range from researching the effects of climate change on biodiversity to the evolution and conservation of cetaceans and seahorses. Among her latest expeditions was a trip to New Caledonia to find seahorses, pipehorses, and pipefish for genetic analysis.
Mark Hertsgaard, an independent journalist based in San Francisco, is the author of five books that have been translated into sixteen languages. He covers climate change for Vanity Fair, The Nation, Time and Die Zeit and has written for many of the world's leading newspapers and magazines.
Mark Hertsgaard is the author of five books that have been translated into sixteen languages, including Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future and On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency.
A correspondent for Link TV and The Nation and L'espresso magazines, he has written for The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Time, The Guardian, Die Zeit and other leading publications around the world. His next book is called, Hot: Living Through the Storm: Surviving the Next 50 Years of Global Warming.
Journalist Mark Hertsgaard argues the United States is the only advanced industrial nation that continues to debate the actuality of climate change. Though climate deniers only represent a minority of the country, Hertsgaard says their megaphone is large. He compares them to the tobacco industry lobbyists who denied smoking caused cancer.
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.27.2 °F (1.84.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
I agree Andrew, a low-level useful idiot like Healy Hamilton is merely regurgitating the doctrines of the dogma as required to earn her $235,000 per year salary . She doesn't really know any better.
Mark Hertsgaard on the other hand knows better. He works for Katrina vanden Heuvel who helps the International Monetary Fund ensure that taxpayers in poor nations remain in perpetual debt to the various banking cartels which run the IMF.
This is an invitation to join the world of the wise. A form of ego-manipulation propaganda. You have my permission to throw up.
Anyway; the funny thing about the guys who reckon that climate change deniers are paid off by the oil companies is in their denial of resource power. If multi, multi billion dollar oil interests wanted to kill the problematic AGW idea then they would. With their kind of money-power they can eventually have us believe pretty much anything they want.
So the funding for "climate change deniers" is conspicuous by its absence, is it not?
BTW: The woman on the right believes her own propaganda. The man on the left does not - he is calculating his every word/composure and has a distinct lack of any authentic sponteanous expression.
Ad Hominem attacks make a great emotional reinforcement for fellow true believers. For those of us who are more and more skeptical=== Not so much!
8/10 of 1 degree C in 200 years does not support the SKY IS FALLING!
The inability to explain such things as mid evil warming, little ice age, Roman warming, and the periods of CO2 increase that had temperature drops.
1940-1970 and 1990 to 2010 saw up then down temperatures for net zero change!
BAD SCIENCE! True Believers! = would be Richard Tubers aka dick taters!
What will it take? If by 2020 or 2010 or 2040 the sky is not falling? Temperatures + or - 1/10 or 2/10 of a degree from the 1975 to 2010 average!
Your AGW true belief does not make it so! History is full of the sky is falling fear mongers! Watch the FORA TV Can the Earth feed a Population of 9 Billion?
Just what year or years was the temperature and sea level perfect? Please tell us? Before 1820? The end of the last ice age? The middle of an ice age?
What is too hot? What is too cold? What is too high of a sea level and what is too low of a sea level?