This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Common Ground On Climate
Preface: I studied global warming
in the 1980s at a top university. My environmental credentials are solid
by any measure. I have no dog in the climate debate, other than to do
what is best for the people and the planet.
The American people are deeply divided on climate change.
An April Rasmussen poll found:
When it comes to global warming, 47% of voters say climate change is
primarily caused by long-term planetary trends. Thirty-six percent
(36%) disagree and believe human activity is more to blame. Ten percent
(10%) are undecided. While more voters have blamed planetary trends
since January 2009, this is the widest gap between the two since July of
last year.
There is a huge and perhaps
unbridgeable gap between global warming activists and skeptics (using
the terms the various groups themselves use). Each side continues to
make arguments about how the other is uninformed, corrupt or plain
stupid (just look at the comments to this article). Counter-productive
measures are being contemplated, but we are too busy arguing to notice
... or to take effective action to demand something smarter.
Unless we agree on common ground and demand that our politicians take
constructive actions, no positive policy changes will be made and -
instead - ineffective or even harmful policies will be enacted.
A Window of Opportunity
A few weeks ago, one of the largest coronal mass ejections ever observed reinforced dire predictions by NASA and other government agencies that heightened
solar activity in the next couple of years could knock out power grids
throughout many parts of the world and lead to numerous nuclear
meltdowns.
Many scientists were also worried that increased
solar output could warm the Earth. As I wrote 5 years ago, after
explaining in detail the affect of carbon dioxide on climate:
Scientists have also found that cosmic rays linked to global warming are increasing. The sun is simply getting hotter. Indeed, solar output has been increasing steadily ever since scientists have been able to measure it.
Not impressed yet? How about this: there is evidence of global warming on Pluto, on Mars, on Neptune's moon, and on Jupiter.
And guess what? The next "solar maximum" -- the 12-year peak of solar activity -- might be a really big one (see also this article).
However, just this week, scientists from the US Solar Observatory and the US Air Force Research Laboratory have discovered
- to their great surprise - that the sun's activity is declining, and
that we might experience the lowest solar output we've seen since
1645-1715. The Register describes it in dramatic tones:
What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening.
Scientists who are convinced that global warming is a
serious threat to our planet say that such a reduced solar output would
simply buy us more time ... delaying the warming trend, but not stopping
or reversing it.
On the other hand, scientists who are skeptical about global warming say that the threat is a new mini ice age. (Remember that scientists
have been convinced in the past that we would have a new ice age, and
even considered pouring soot over the arctic in the 1970s to help melt
the ice - in order to prevent another ice age. Obama's top science advisor was one of those warning of a new ice age in the 1970s. And see this.)
Common Ground Number 1: Use the Reprieve to Harden Nuclear Reactors or Decommission Them
Whatever
you believe about climate change, if you are a person of good will you
presumably can agree that a period of reduced solar output gives us some
extra time to harden our nuclear reactors from the risk of a power
outage. If you are not familiar with the extreme danger, please read this.
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, the near-miss in Alabama, and the still-fluid situation in Nebraska,
we should count the lower solar output is a blessing in terms of giving
us the time to preventing global nuclear problems during the next
mega-solar event.
Common Ground Number 2: Authoritarian Rule Is Never Justified
Noam Chomsky and James Lovelock (environmentalist and creator of the "Gaia hypothesis") have both said that they would be okay with an authoritarian approach to tackling global warming.
But whatever one might think about climate change, all people of good will can agree that fascism is never justified.
Common Ground Number 3: Let's Not Do Something Rash Which Makes Things WORSE
Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' " Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.
The
harm caused by many of these methods have not been thought through ...
and they could cause serious damage to our health and our ecosystems.
So
- whatever you think about climate - you can obviously agree that we
should approach climate change from the age-old axiom of "first, do no
harm", making sure that our "solutions" do not cause more damage than
the problems.
Common Ground Number 4: Reduce the Carbon Footprint of War
As Harvey Wasserman notes,
continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will more than wipe out
any reduction in carbon from the government's proposed climate
measures. Writing about the escalation in the Afghanistan war,
Wasserman says:
The war would also come with a carbon
burst. How will the massive emissions created by 100,000-plus soldiers
in wartime be counted in the 17% reduction rubric? Will the HumVees
be converted to hybrids? What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs
that destroy Afghan families and villages?
[See this
for proof that the military is the biggest producer of carbon.] The
continuance of the Afghanistan, Iraq, Libyan and others wars completely
and thoroughly undermines the government's claims that there is a
global warming emergency and that reducing carbon output through cap
and trade is needed to save the planet.
I can't take anything
the government says about carbon footprints seriously until the
government ends the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and
elsewhere. For evidence that the Iraq war is unnecessary, see this. Read this
for evidence that the U.S. could have taken Bin Laden out years ago
and avoided a decades long war in Afghanistan. And for proof that the
entire war on Muslim extremists is unnecessary for our national
security, see this.
War is also very harmful to the economy. See this, this and this.
So whatever you think of climate change, all people can agree that ending the wars is important.
Common Ground Number 5: Reduce Soot
Without taking a position on carbon dioxide (which I've been reading about for 30 years), I have extensively discussed that soot has been discovered to be a leading cause of snow and ice melting in the Arctic and the Himalayas, and soot has a much faster influence on temperature than CO2. It is also relatively easy to reduce soot.
In addition, breathing soot is horrible for people's health, so reducing it is a win-win.
So all people of good will - whatever your view on climate - should agree that reduction of soot is a worthy goal.
Common Ground Number 6: Abandon Cap and Trade
The proposed solution to global warming being pushed by the powers that be - cap and trade - is a scam. Specifically:
- The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming
- Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions
- Our
bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley,
Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into
carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this).
As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former
Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:
Obama
must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal
bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy
homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading
and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have
announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers
enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign.
Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these
same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.In
other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives
and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going
to make billions from carbon trading.
So if cap and trade is not the answer, what is?
Decentralization of power generation and storage.
That would empower people and communities, produce less carbon,
prevent nuclear disasters like Fukushima, reduce the dangers of peak oil, (and thus prevent future oil spills like we had in the Gulf), and have many other positive effects.
Conclusion: Let's Use This Window of Opportunity
The
dramatic shift this week in scientist's forecasts for the sun's output
gives us a window of opportunity to make sane policy choices.
Let's use it.
Both
global warming activists and skeptics can agree on the 6 points of
common ground discussed above. Whatever we may disagree on, we should
all demand from our politicians that they adopt policies in line with
these 6 points which are win-win for everyone ... and the environment.
»
- advertisements -
"especially cheap/decentralized renewables"
Exactly. Decentralization does nothing for TPTB, so they don't want that. You WILL stay on the grid.
You lost me with the statement "cosmic rays caused by global warming".
cpu
I also studied at university and enjoyed meteorology so much that I almost changed majors, thatwas the very early 1980's (fuck off if you do not like my apostrophe use) and at the time the major fear, real scientifically founded near panic, was we were on the verge of a new ice age. And to this day the data and arguments for that are still stronger than for the runaway greenhouse alarmists.
But, the fighting over which side has better data or whether or not warming is anthropogenic is a false argument being forced by people with an agenda other than what is best for all of us, rather they have created a huge straw man out of partially forged and falsified research in order to profit, or in some cases simply to scare people and governments into action now because they believe later is too late.
The real truth of it is that warming has been going on and was under way long before man and his machines had the numbers to have any influence, the question is not, should not be "are we causing the warming," but rather "how much are we speeding up an otherwise natural process?" Then you get to the meat of it, a crash course of smaller carbon footprints for 7 billion people and growing would destroy the very global economy of scale that supports that population in the first place. It would take very little economic pushing to topple the economy and devastate our financial ability to deal with even consequences of warming no less causes.
Unfortunately, the two scientists that originated and pushed the theory of warming used computer models that did not give them the results they sought, so they spent ten years changing the parameters and inputs until they got a runaway greenhouse as they like the data to show. Now all results have to be suspect, we will never know the truth of this any more than of any other blasted conspiracy. And at 53 I am so not caring. I have no kids so I did my part and plan to use incandescent lights till I am in my box and buried.
Can somebody who believes in climate predictions please explain to me how it is possible to calculate those predictions?
To make a model of climate some differential equations need to be solved with numerical math. With enough computing power that is doable. But there is a small problem: Any difference between actual data and model input data, in other words the measurement error, will grow exponentially. That means that after enough iterations the model diverts from the reality and loses predictive power.
This argument is about math; has anybody who believes in predicting the climate found a new way to solve differential equations?
You're asking whether math can define a chaotic system like the atmosphere. The answer is that mathematicians have PROVEN that such a definition is impossible. Read chaos theory. Global Climate change advocates cannot understand math, otherwise they would know that all the mathematical models of the atmosphere are a lie. The Republicans and Rush Limbaugh have it right. If you want to cut the heads off this hydra we call the central government, you insist on lowering taxes. That's the only way to gain popular support. The masses will never fathom chaos theory, but they CAN barely understand the math of how the government is fleecing them. Let Obama and the Dems have their way. Let the government overspend and go bankrupt. That's the plan.
Actually I don't think it is about prediction. It is about whether our current climate is changing more than "before" and whether that change is statistically meaningful. I think defining "before" is key. Years, centuries or millenniums? I don't know how it should be defined - not my area of expertise, but I know how you define "before" would greatly affect the results.
Also it does bother me that this whole issue has been cast into "believers" and "non-believers". Its not a matter of belief - I think we need to gather more data and better define the variables.
I like this article George, but I think it's too little, too late.
The fraudsters just need to go away quietly before they get the lynching they deserve. Let the prosecutions and lawsuits begin, to recover damages, and to put them out of business for good.
These people were willing to commit mass genocide and crimes against humanity on the basis of their willful lies. They maliciously ruined the careers of honest people with integrity in the process. They are still arrogant, and remorseless, and there is zero chance of rehabilitation. With them on still on board any serious future policies will lack public credibility. And as a practical matter, anyway, their research going forward is useless because it will forever be suspect. With the bad apples purged, grants will again go to those that are doing honest research so we can get real data.
These guys need to get the lifetime ban they deserve and were more than willing to impose on their 'skeptic' colleagues. The Black Sox players got banned after cheating in the World Series, and this global warming fraud is serious business and deserves no less.
The evidence for declining sun activity has been there for two years now. Our Sun is going (again) into another 'Maunder Minimum', or, "Little Ice Age". The previous one lasted about 80 years, somewhere around 1645 and 1715. The sunspot activity was been actively recorded for hundreds of years. They managed and so will we. We don't need central planners around waiting to tell us which people will have to die to make room for Doomsday.
The real outrage of all this is that the global warming fraud was easily outed by millions of average citizens worldwide after just 10 minutes on the internet, but the hoaxers and politicians were so arrogant, they thought they could get away with it:
CO2 is not a toxin, it is necessary for all life on Earth. It is now only 385 ppm, at all time lows, while the average has been 1250 ppm over the last 150 million years, and it's been as high as >5000 ppm.
CO2 makes up just a tiny 3.5% of all the greenhouse gases --- and man only produces 3% of that small amount --- the vast majority of CO2 comes naturally from rotting organic matter bacterial activity the world over, it's called.... the Carbon Cycle.
Water vapor actually makes up 95% of the all the greenhouse gases and all of it is natural, not changing.
And none of the gases matter anyway, as Dr. Lidzen (the expert) at MIT has shown over 20 years of research that since our 'greenhouse' planet has no roof, most of the thermal energy, indeed, is just re-radiated back into space anyway.
Nice to see that someone else recognizes that water vapor and its ability to form clouds is the major driver for both heat reflection (during the day) and absorbance (at night). So, a valid model of the net heat gain or loss needs to include the major green house gas, H2O, tu they don't because the model would be so complicated as to render prediction impossible, so climate "modelers" choose to focus on the minor gas, CO2. Oh, and water's infrared absorbance cross section is about 50-100 times that of CO2 which means it takes 50 molecules of CO2 to absorb as much IR radiation at night as water.
Or as everyone has observed: clouds during the day means lower surface T, clouds at night means higher surface nightime T.
+1
Minor correction: ALL of the solar energy is re-radiated back into space. Maybe even more than all, if you consider heat from the molten core. Otherwise we would burn up.
"The fraudsters just need to go away quietly before they get the lynching they deserve."
Where's the fun in that?
But not to worry, the NWO elitists pushing the AGW scam are incapable of backing off, and they _will_ keep this bullshit up until they get the tar and feathers (or worse) treatment.
It should be most entertaining.
Polls asking the public as to whether they believe in global warming are meaningless.
The public only knows what they see in the media; how many have ever talked to geologists to find out *why* they think what they think? Almost no one, that's who. People's opinions are shaped by politics and denial and self-interest, not by an objective analysis of the situation.
Polls asking the public as to whether they believe in global warming are meaningless.
The public only knows what they see in the media; how many have ever talked to geologists to find out *why* they think what they think? Almost no one, that's who. People's opinions are shaped by politics and denial and self-interest, not by an objective analysis of the situation.
The solutions that are offered for so-called "global warming" tip the hand of the warmistas. The solutions call for more central control, taxation and Wall Street funny business. Another tell is the reaction of these so-called environmentalists to the Gulf oil spill and Fukushima. The silence is deafening.
Time to face the facts. Some people, including powerful people, bet their money on this scam. They are going to lose it all, and they are simply going to have to get over it.
FAIL.
But if Global Warming states ALL weather will become more severe, at least Republicans who get their science from Rush Limbaugh will get killed, and that's at least fair. I challenged my Republican pals to ask Rush how he tells the difference between science (list 1 thru 10 examples) and how he recognized information coming from an oil industry shill or a lobbyist. So far, no Republican has dared ask.
The Great Buffoon doesn't know. It probably tastes the same as idiotic assertions made by avaricious megalomaniacal Tax Pigs.
So the old method he uses for telling the difference between the two thermometers in the medicine cabinet won't work this time.
Who gives a fuck, none of us control the pursestrings here.
You can hug a tree all you want.
It won't make a bit of difference if the Baron doesn't want it.
Thanks for your effort though GW
Let ne help.
Here is a link to Norse saga DATA.
10th century diary accounts, not mythology.
The Vikings spread out,first Iceland then Greenland,
After a few (Recorded) generations the cattle and wheat crops in Greenland and Lief Eriksson heads south in a ship with his entourage to seak greener pastures.
He discovers grape vines and names the region Vinland.
6th grade history?
The climate changes, get used to it,dont buy the climate change NBC sales pitch.
Things change.
Oh linky! http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Norse+sagas
...and use this window of opportunity to dig yourself Zero Hedge survivors' hole.
Use this window of opportunity to dig yourself Zero Hedge survivors' hole.
Let's use this window of opportunity to dig a hole.
anthropocentricity models are the ne plus ultra of egoism...or just plain bullshit
I must chime in my tuppence here and suggest that the most "common" of the things that are hitting the ground regarding human caused climate change, or "global warming," reminds me of the sort of stuff that a polite person picks up with a baggie when their canine companion deposits it in the neighobors yard.
The insistance that there is a consensus among scientists is nonsense. Just because a dissenting opinion is often shouted down when it questions the conslusions of dubious evidence does not make that opinion invalid.
When there is REAL evidence that CO2 is a precursor to increased global temperature then you'll find me considering the value of reducing my "carbon footprint."
Real scientist cringe when they hear the term "settled science". There is no such thing, to accept science as "settled" is to abrogate the scientific method. Albert says the science on Climate Disruption is "settled" and that says it all.
We would have to first agree that man's CO2 and/or carbon emissions does not, cannot...cause global warming.
Simply because mans footprint of CO2/carbon is minuscule in relation to what nature herself puts out in the form of volcanoes, decaying vegetation, forest fires etc.
Yes, oil is nasty...nuclear has its inherent dangers...windmills kill golden eagles requiring regulatory "adjustments" to how many can be intentionally killed in the course of a years operation of an industrial wind farm...wave technology?...geothermal?...more dams?...who knows.
Probably more stand alone power sources from home.
But, again, no conversation (with me) on any of it can begin without an acknowledgment that some of our "best & brightest minds" were suckered by charlatans of the statist/financial kind...even today I read where sea level change is being adjusted (by those who should be scientists not activists) to account for land rise...not mean sea level (which is unchanged)...this is how stupid "global warming science" has gotten...self serving pricks.
Admission first, then we can move on.
I don't know. Has Naomi Klien chimed in on this issue?
Fusion should be the focus. However we don't need to focus all on one thing. Better transmission capabilities, and safer ones, and how about having some redundancy by making some of those things involved in their transmission here IN america. That way, if we get smacked by the sun, or emp, we don't have to wait months or years to get our power back on.
Decentralization is a fairly good idea as well. Efficiency isn't a cure all, but if you can make things more efficient within a given reasonable cost, and from what I've seen it can, then it should be done in concert with other approaches.
Remember, green or no, Fusion is the GREENEST and has the most powerful energy producing potential. So it really is the something people of both sides can agree on. We need more energy, and even the most fascist green can't bitch about it since it doesn't produce carbon.
But with big banksters monetarism as the game, good luck with any of that.
Only a Glass-Steagall inspired American Credit System will CREATE the opportunity for such projects to be undertaken, without shortcuts, with no dangerous decisions needing to be made in order to pay back bankster loans (so they can rape someone else with the money).
Glass-Steagall
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'm guessing based on your post that;
1. You aren't a scientist or an engineer either.
2. You've never designed and built anything that converts energy.
3. You've never studied heat flow and the resultant economics that determine energy costs (or you would understand the main drawback to decentralized power generation that makes it more economical to build hugely expensive distribution systems).
4. You've never looked into how fusion is the scam that keeps on giving (it's a jobs program for ever more expensive, time-consuming projects that never deliver -notice how they keep going for ever larger scale - and very likely are charging up a blind technological alley).
So please, before granting any common ground to those who 'have no dog in the fight', but want to 'be reasonable' about the plan to take utter control over the life blood of civilization - and your survival - take the time to learn the economics of the energy that it takes to sustain life. You may come to the conviction that only freedom allows the common man access to enough energy to thrive. Give them a hand on the throttle that controls your energy, and it's a short drop back to pre-industrial times. Please don't cut them any slack they don't deserve. Their aim is control. If they get that control, they OWN you.
Diversity, do not focus too much on fusion. Fusion electric is a neutron radioactive waste generator. The electric power input required after 45 years of engineering designs has only increased, while none have achieved break-even or a sustainable reaction. Sustained controlled-Fusion makes a marvelous death-ray for killing everything shielded or not.
Fusion "Green" as any hydrogen fusion device conveived. What do you expect from the Green military-industrial complex? -think critically-for yourself-
We can find common ground when the warmists/statists/communitarian fascists do not feel the need to fake their data..
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/19/faking-sea-level-data/
Wow, a post of GW on energy I can mostly agree with!
But on decentralization of power generation one needs to consider that besides all advantages (the main being able to use the "waste heat") there are also huge disadvantages as exhaust emission control systems grow in numbers, each which requires monitoring and maintenance.
As one serious environmentalist engineer put it years ago: "the worst thing I can imagine is decentralized waste incineration"
i.e. everyone burns his waste in his oven (without any exhaust filters etc.)
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
George - nice common ground points, I like it.
I believe we are polluting the Earth, but don't believe we are warming the climate.
There are too many "green" solutions that are feel-good B.S. to sell something.
You've got a good common sense list though.
#7 Should be "Reduce Human Population", but we usually take care of that without trying (sooner or later).
Thanks for the excellent balanced article, although the comments seem dominated by the anti-warmist vitriol.
I am not a scientist, and unlike those with strong views either way who presumably have studied climate science, I have no idea about whether we are warming the climate through emitting CO2.
What appears obvious though is that the growth-orientated, corporatist system under which we live, is causing massive environmental impacts on the planet's carrying capacity.
The droughts linked to hydro-power, massive deforestation, destrcuction of eco-systems and natural habitats, soot filled air unfit to breathe, clouds of radioactivity drifting in the wind, oceans of rubbish floating our seas, depleted soils, fish stocks, fresh water, depleted everything.
Die-offs are something surely to avoid, and if we could all live with less, buy less, travel less, or certainly much less by cars, we still have plenty of everything. To help make these sane choices easier to make, we do need to change the system.
I personally favour Happiness Economics and using measures like General Well Being of Gross National Happiness, as a potential solution.
George - you have this paragraph twice in your post, third paragraph under heading "A Window of Opportunity"
"However, just this week, scientists from the US Solar Observatory and the US Air Force Research Laboratory have discovered - to their great surprise - that the sun's activity is declining, and that we might experience the lowest solar output we've seen since 1645-1715."
I think that if they had introduced it as a "Carbon Tax" it would have at least been kind of honest...but then again a carbon tax would result in the monkeys being thrown out of office - and - no place for their future employers to rake-off billions.
I have no dog in the hunt on Global Climate Change - but I know absolutely who I do not want profiting either way...scumbag bankers.
I believe in Heaven and Hell - and I hope that there is something waaaay special available for the bankers and bond rating analysts and their minions - the politicians. On the other hand - if the Hindus are correct - you're going to look wonderful as a half-caste syphlitic prostitute...
I love that old Beatles song "Taxman". Tax the air you breathe. Cap and trade would do that. How about a little common sense. We exhale CO2, plants breathe it in. There is no connection between GW and CO2, except for the other way. Through history when the climate gets warmer, it causes the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere to go up, not the other way around.
The reduced sunspot activity is important. And the relationship is kinda the opposite of what you would think. Some danish researchers have published a paper on their research about the relationship of clouds, cosmic rays, and the sun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA
This is long video in 6 parts but is well worth it.
The theory is quite simple. If you remember the high school/college experiment with a cloud chamber, when a cosmic ray enters the cloud chamber it cause a streak of tiny water droplets in the chamber, that we can see, thus proving cosmic rays. When there are more of these cosmic rays going through the atmosphere, they tiny water droplets act as seed and cause more clouds to form. The clouds reflect the suns energy, and more clouds make the planet cooler, less clouds make it warmer.
The number of cosmic rays is due to a magnetic effect. The earth has the van allen radiation belts that trap cosmic rays and other radiation and does not let it go to the surface. The van allen belts are formed by the earth's magnetic field. The sun also does exactly the same thing with its magnetic field which kinda encompasses the whole solar system. When the sun has more magnetic activity it acts to trap the cosmic rays in its own radiation belt formed from its magnetc field, just like the earth. Less solar activity, means less solar magnetic activity.
So, when the sun's magnetic activity gets really low, as is predicted by the three studies mentioned by GW, more cosmic rays are let into the solar system and when the earth's magnetic field also reduces in strength as is happening now, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere and we get more clouds, cooling the earth. That is why we have had 5 of the coldest winters on record in the last 3 years (N and S hemisphere) and why it just seems to be cooler everywhere. Don't believe the BS about 9 of the warmest years on record in the last 10 years, it's very simply a lie, put out by the same political groups that are trying to pass cap and trade. The earth has been cooling significantly.
So, flame if you wish. But please watch the video. It's very good.
Actually the correct position and more or less official name is: "Climate Change".
The actual theory postulates both colder and warmer. There is plenty to fear on the colder side of the equation.
This does not rule out any shenanigans by the sun, asteroids, or volcanic activity.
It is scientific fact, like it or not, that greenhouse gas emissions by human activity seem to be accentuating the normal cycles
This would not be much of problem except that some scientists think that more input may lead to adverse impacts that cannot be reversed. Some don't like the odds for humanity and don't want to gamble. Some want to gamble doing nothing because it involves change.
The change itself is very costly upfront but very cheap long term. The odds are against doing much because powerful commercial and religious groups oppose it and the worse offenders have really no way to cut back. Peak Oil may do more to curtail emissions than cap and trade. But once again. That is probably too late.
Those against it have lied a lot, generally have no science appreciation as they tweet, don't like evolution either, or teachers. Lots of people love to live at the base of the volcano, been that way for long time. They even worship it.
Way to make a big, fat, bald assertion, conveniently impossible to prove or disprove. Since you can't prove it, fok yew. No, you don't get to stand with a gun between me and my source of heat and food. Socialist wimp.
I think he proved it shirley, " it is a scientific FACT--- SEEM to be...."
Proved in the negative I'd say (& I believe the apostrophe is correctly placed, Moriarty).
Hey Olldmanagain,,
Tryin' to lump me in with the unwashed, huh? Well, I just so happen to be an engineer, with several very successful inventions to my credit. I know my way around math, scientific method, the whole bit. I bet you're the one who doesn't know shit about science, else why would you fall for such non scientific clap trap as AGW.
Oldmanagain is doing his part to help alleviate global warming by keeping his computer turned on for extended periods of time while reading ZH. I have been reading comments for ~15 to 20 minutes now I would assume he has been at it for longer than myself. Oh wait I forgot electrcity is magically created by channelling the impulses of my brainwaves the deeper I think. Actually I guess I am right as electricity is created through my thoughts and actions. Wheres my patent?!
Please try to keep up.
In the 1970s it was "coming ice age." Then when it turned out the planet was warming a little after all, it became "Global Warming" but that didn't make it sound enough like we are guilty. So it became "AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming." But it turned out average people couldn't remember or pronounce that, which kind of undermined the desired effect. Then it became clear around 2008 that oh oh, the planet was starting to get cooler again. Thus the famous CRU email "hide the decline". Anyway, the term 'warming' had to be dropped, since it seemed too many people were finding out about the decline regardless of efforts to fake the data. So the new scary phrase "Climate Change" was trundled out. But... oops! The Warmists forgot to include the bit about how we should all feel guilty and pay lots of money. So that one was quickly changed to "Climate Disruption".
And that's where we are now. The climate changes don' cha know, and IT'S ALL OUR FAULT! So pay up.
It may be true that there are signs of global warming, and also btw of global cooling, but certainly no science that definitively points to CO2 as the cause of global warming. It has already been exposed in the alternate media that AGW is simply a power grab, essentially for control over all energy production, which means, obviously, control over everything.
Common ground? I guess you aren't a student of history with regards to religious conflict. Reason doesn't even begin to enter the equation when dogma is questioned.
Sorry to be cynical, but as someone skeptical of AGW, I been called too many names and suffered too many personal attacks to believe common ground can be found.
The difference between dialectics; what GW proposes, debate; what his contradictors oppose and vindictive hate; what the ideologues spout, gives us the whole gamut of why human discussion always end up in bed in a good fukk feast or in street battle breaking wildebeest!
I second this. It's been my experience that the Warmists invariably resort to personal attacks, distortions, table-pounding, alleging that all dissenting research must have been funded by the coal mining lobby, and so on. It seems that since they are convinced they are 'saving the planet' and by definition all opposition to their dogma is either misled or inspired by personal greed, then anything goes.
As far as I'm concerned, the only 'common ground' is that the Warmists and the rest of us will all be shivering as things get colder.
I can agree with the 6 points. I've been studying global warming since the early 1970's and I think it's a hoax. Diaries from Icelandic fishermen indicate that the edge of the polar ice cap was much further north between 800 and 1300 AD than they are today. Records from English monks also prove that grapes for making wine were grown 500 km further north than they are today. The global warming crowd are just using the environment to push a socialist agenda.
+1
GW is a hoax. The dumb fvckers pushing GW here have no clue. This is the same banker scum and their elite pals scamming taxpayers for carbon credits and other BS. Includes f**tard Al Gore.
Major & "prestigious" universities in the USA scam billions from taxpayers doing worthless and largely fraudulent research. The grant system for research money is largely a scam. I have seen it as have friends of mine who worked on projects. The pub(l)ic has no clue. Medical research at un's as well.
By "studying" I assume you mean listening to talk radio and your religious leaders. If you had any scientific training you'd know how utterly stupid you look.