Apocalypse Never

This is an email I sent to PBS after watching 10 minutes of a program called The McLaughlin Group. jj
I was very troubled by several of the comments made by the "group" when the subject of climate change came up for discussion. One panelist said that "none of us" understand the science, yet that admission did not stop him or Mort Zuckerman from diminishing the recent conclusions of the Fifth IPCC Assessment Summary as apocalyptic and exaggerated. Zuckerman commented that a 2 degrees Celsius increase does not qualify as apocalyptic. And his scientific credentials are? The reality is that we are already locked into a 2 degree Celsius rise in mean global temperatures (Hansen). We have just passed the 400 ppm milestone in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels with no end in sight. The IPCC is a consensus report that has typically understated the seriousness of the effects climate change is already having on the planet and its biotic and abiotic constituents. If climatologists are sounding a bit " apocalyptic " these days its is because of the speed changes are taking place and the certainty that the positive feedbacks now in play have resulted in unprecedented changes already. Climate is not like a switch that we can turn off or modulate once we understand that we must act or leave a planet to our children that will become increasingly unrecognizable and dangerously unstable. The half-life of atmospheric carbon is a century or longer. The CO2 levels in 1850 were around 270 ppm. The paleo-climate ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica goes back 800,000 years and shows the CO2 levels ranged between 180-280 ppm during that time span. Time is not merely running out it may already be too late to mitigate climate perturbations that will result in mass extinctions and unprecedented human suffering, dislocation, and mortality. It is unconscionable that the "group", after admitting they didn't understand the science, would comment on national television about the exaggerations of the climate crisis. There is no debate about this. The science is robust, peer-reviewed, and embraced by 99% of climatologists( the guys doing the science). If pundits routinely speak authoritatively on topics about which they know nothing it is no wonder the American public is so clueless. If the "group" would like access to some authentic and very readable information about the present and future impacts of a rapidly warming planet, I suggest they read James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. Perhaps after they have gained a little knowledge on the topic, they can speak ethically and intelligently and about most formidable crisis humanity has faced. Is that an exaggeration? Not if you know what I know. It is an essential moral imperative that the media provide empirically based content. Up to this point you others have failed miserably to meet your responsibilities.
-- Best Wishes, jeff johnson
Human suffering can only be mitigated when all men assume responsibility for each other. - Fydor Dostoyevsky