Climate Change must be tackled NOW

You naughty boys. Please contradict where the following are incorrect....

1) the President's own science council found that climate change was real, that human activity was a significant factor, and that the consequences were deserving of attention

2) the majority of climatologists holds the above to be true

European agriculture -- you know, that luxurious economic activity we get our food from -- just lost 3 billion euros.

This warming thing you mentally choose to ignore, based on little more but condescending arrogance, is here.

This warming thing also has the tendency to never leave a closed system, but to keep working inside of it. You say: don't panic, it's those silly commie environmentalists who want to take away your freedom who're getting hysterical.

When o when will you contend that there is a real problem here;

Scientists debunk Bush's global warming
February 25, 2003: Seventeen scientists can't be wrong. At least not when they're experts on a panel convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (at the request of the Bush administration), and they issue a scathing report on the White House proposal for addressing climate change. According to the experts, President Bush has taken "a good first step" but the administration's strategic plan needs "major improvement." Specifically, the Bush plan lacks "a guiding vision, executable goals, [and] clear timetables," according to the experts. They also noted that the administration's overall goal -- to determine the seriousness of global warming in order to make sound decisions about how to address it -- could never be achieved at the paltry funding levels proposed in Bush's 2004 budget request. Even more embarrassing for the White House, the experts ridiculed the idea of conducting research on questions about which there is already scientific consensus -- namely, that climate change is happening and it's primarily caused by carbon dioxide pollution generated by human activities. Bush officials pledged that some of the panel's recommendations would be reflected in the final proposal, expected to be released in April.

"The scientific panel's underlying conclusion amounted to a collective, 'Duh.' The message to the administration was that global warming obviously poses a serious threat to the world, and it's long past time for the White House to stop debating the science and start doing something to fix the climate change problem," said David Doniger, policy director of NRDC's Climate Center.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced a bold new attack on global warming, pledging a 60 percent cut in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollution by mid-century. Characterizing global warming as a national security issue, Mr. Blair said economic strength goes hand-in-hand with a safe, healthy environment and promised to encourage the U.S. and other governments to follow Great Britain's lead. Mr. Blair's new plan contrasts sharply with Bush administration global warming policy. The White House continues to oppose global warming pollution standards, favoring voluntary self-policing by polluters. Moreover, the president's stated target for global warming "emissions intensity" -- emissions relative to economic output -- translates into a 14 percent pollution increase over the next decade.

Thomas: the only serious evidence you believe in is the stuff of dreams, pal. Go see a shrink, and try not to procreate.

What may result is called a "positive feedback loop." Global warming enhances conditions that feed forest fires, while a large increase in fires releases more greenhouse gases into the environment. Greenhouse gas emission contributes to global warming - a cycle that constantly feeds itself.
Fighting fires

The projected 2°C (3.6°F) warming could shift the ideal range for many North American forest species by about 300 km (200 mi.) to the north. If the climate changes slowly enough, warmer temperatures may enable the trees to colonize north into areas that are currently too cold, at about the same rate as southern areas became too hot and dry for the species to survive. If the earth warms 2°C (3.6°F) in 100 years, however, the species would have to migrate about 2 miles every year.
EPA - Global warming and impact on forests

On the positive side, CO2 has a beneficial fertilization effect on plants, and also enables plants to use water more efficiently. These effects might enable some species to resist the adverse effects of warmer temperatures or drier soils. On the negative side, forest fires are likely to become more frequent and severe if soils become drier.
EPA - Global warming and impact on forests

Most of the early CO2 research was done on juvenile trees in pots and growth chambers, which may limit the usefulness of some conclusions. New research is beginning to emerge that focuses on larger trees or intact forested ecosystems. Recent reviews of this newer literature (Curtis, 1996; Eamus, 1996a) indicate that acclimation may not be as prevalent when roots are unconstrained; that leaf conductance may not be reduced; and that both responses depend on the experimental conditions, the length of exposure, and the degree of nutrient or water stress. These results imply that forests could produce more leaf area under elevated CO2 but may not gain a benefit from increased WUE. In fact, with increased leaf area, transpiration should increase on a per-tree basis, and the stand would use more water (Eamus, 1996a). Elevated temperatures would increase transpiration even further, perhaps drying the soil and inducing a drought effect on the ecosystem (Eamus, 1996a).
IPCC - Regional Impacts of Climate change

Forests play a large role in global water and energy feedbacks and account for most of the world's terrestrial evapotranspiration, which is about 64% of the precipitation. Most of the world's freshwater resources originate in forested regions, where water quality is directly related to forest health.
IPCC - Regional Impacts of Climate change

Carbon stocks in frozen soils and wetlands, which have accumulated over centuries or millennia as a result of natural processes, are vulnerable to releases due to changing environmental forcing (e.g., warming or changes in the water table). Because of the large areas involved, such responses to indirect or natural effects could result in potentially large emissions.
IPCC Meeting on Current Scientific Understanding of the Processes Affecting Terrestrial Carbon Stocks and Human Influences upon Them (pdf)