You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Healing Inch by Inch?
Submitted by Leo Kolivakis, publisher of Pension Pulse.
Earlier today I watched the movie Any Given Sunday with Al Pacino. I've seen it before and love it because I use to play football in high school.
It was the summer of '87 when my high school football coach called me to tell me he needed me on the team as an offensive lineman. I was short relative to the others on the line, but was strong and fearless. I was so happy and honored he called me to be part of the team.
My job on the offensive line was simple. Protect the QB at all times and run a sweep play where I took out the defensive end to clear the path for my running back. We must have run that play hundreds of times and I remember that as painful as it got on my body, I loved the game and the team spirit.
Football was a big deal during my high school years. It still is as the Notre-Dame Cactus were crowned champions last November. One memory that stands out in my mind is a whopping victory we had over Lindsay Place high school.
I can't forget it because we annihilated them and acted cocky throughout the whole game. Our coach, Jacques Gauthier, wasn't pleased with our unsportsmanlike attitudes. The day after, he brought us to the University of Montreal field, which unlike our field was hard AstroTurf, and made us sprint the full length of the field about 40 or more times. It was cold and raining that night.
And boy did we sprint. When everyone started collapsing, puking, sucking up air, the coach whistled us in for a huddle. "The next time you guys want to act like arrogant jerks, remember this practice because I won't be as easy on you". Needless to say, we won lots of games, lost the championship, but never acted like arrogant idiots ever again.
The last time I saw my high school football coach was a few years after I got diagnosed with MS. He was fighting his own battle with cancer and we chatted about life. He died a few years later but I'll never forget what he told me, no matter how hard it gets, you keep moving forward. He was a great coach and a great man.
I don't know why I'm sharing this story but just like football, life is a game of inches. As world leaders get ready to meet in Copenhagen this week, it's unbelievable how much skewed coverage 'Climategate' is receiving.
I happen to agree with Tom Friedman who recently wrote this in an op-ed column, Going Cheney on Climate:
Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.
That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.
As this paper just reported: “Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record.”
This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.
What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.
When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.
If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.
But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.
Friedman reiterated this message with CNN's Campbell Brown, drawing an interesting connection between climate crisis and the financial crisis:
They are both based on the same faulty accounting. What we call the great recession has actually been an environmental crisis and an economic crisis coming together. How so? In the financial world, we allowed people to massively underprice risk (risk of subprime mortgages), we allowed them to privatize gains from selling those mortgages, then when it all blew up, we allowed them to socialize the losses...We are doing the same in nature. We allow people to massively underprice the risk of emitting carbon molecules, we allow them to privatize the gains from cheap coal and electricity, and we are socializing the losses by charging all those CO2 molecules on our kids' Visa cards which they will pay for in the form of future climate change.
One other thing on the financial crisis caught my attention this weekend. It seems there is a movement to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. Of course, while this amendment makes perfect sense, the banksters will fight it tooth and nail, effectively killing it before it sees the light of day.
But the inches we need to make a difference in this world are everywhere around us. I urge world leaders, corporate leaders, pension leaders, banking leaders and everyone else to listen to Al Pacino's inspirational speech below and carefully think about doing what's best for the common good. If there was ever a time we needed to band together and forge ahead, now is that time.
»
The less reasonable a cult is, the more
men seek to establish it by force
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
You are trying so hard to try this case in the court of public opinion because you would fail in a real court. In fact, a truck driver in the UK sued because his child was shown the Al Gore video in school and he argued it was not true. This is what the court had to say based on facts:
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.
A list of 32,000 scientists that disagree with man made global warming, including 9,000 PHDs, over rules those now discredited organizations and individuals we just learned cooked the books. I find it impressive that a small group of bankers of the same lineage also own the media and have put people of the same lineage in the leadership positions there as well (this makes domination through propaganda very efficient). Fortunately we have the internet and alternative media to expose the tyranny and express a diversity of opinion instead of just a concentrated ethno-centric perspective. This was not a simple statistical sampling error, it was blatant manipulation and then destruction of the evidence in the face of a FOIA request which is a crime.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php
http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition
In the spirit of full disclosure, if you are going to cite The Oregon Petition to make the case for no consensus, at least recognize that the main characters in the movement to debunk AGW are using sneaky public relations tricks and their own manipulation to cast doubt.
The link you provided stated a researcher was a "notorious climate change denier" - that is just simple emotional invective and is an attempt at an ad hominem attack.
The other link stated 17,000 scientists signed the petition which stated:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Read the statement again, any reasonable scientist would agree with it - in fact 17,000 signed it. The original call to action (petition request) outlined the arguments against AGW, and in science all you have to do is provide information to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis = null.
Not sure if you heard the latest in Copenhagen, Al Gore now stated that in five years there is an 80% chance that there will be no polar ice caps because they would melt. The scientist Al Gore was quoting came out and said he wasn't sure where Al Gore got his numbers from and that it wasn't a direct quote! You see, we can ad hominem all we want and it won't get us anywhere. I would prefer to look at the facts to avoid the hitler youth camp like situation of blind faith in anything - I don't like AGW fascists any more than the Hitler national socialists.
I actually recycle, dislike chemical runoff including mercury, want natural gas used instead of coal/oil, eat sustainable organic food, fight GMO, and am a big believer in preservation. Copenhagen is not about that, it's 1984 and A Brave new World put together with global world government and global taxes - the world bank is planning on being the administer of the carbon credits (it doesn't get more evil than that).
Let's face it, the AGW crowd doesn't have facts they just have the media propaganda apparatus on their side and they cut off microphones when people ask tough questions.
I have no strong bias one way or the other. As a person with a science background I can attest that while I may have expertise in my field of study, that doesn't mean I am qualified to make educated conclusions in other fields. It would be interesting to know the size of the mailing list which was used to generate this petition. If it was sent to everyone with a degree, it's initial impact would be lessened compared to the number of scientists not responding or chose not to agree. Lots of questions.
I haven't seen the Gore movie. No doubt he is spewing a lot of groundless rhetoric. But I will cast my skeptical eye to Monkton and others to ensure they are being honest and forthright as well. The amount of information surrounding this debate is a chore to wade through and I appreciate all points of view.
This author treats everyone like a five year old.
Get off your high horse, douchebag. You're no where near as bright as you think.
Sorry, did not know you were part of the Mensa club.
On a Football game we the rules, where the goal is, and who our mates are. We even have fair judges controlling the game, and whistle blows are obeyed.
How (in Earth!) does that resemble life?
Take me to your Climate leader
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/09
We also don't know how much of this is under the manufactured doubt category
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07-1?placeValuesBeforeTB_=saved...
HorseSHIT Leo, that's what this is. HORSESHIT
The Global Climate Change debate IS OVER.
Make sure you have the facts, and I do mean FACTS (vs BELIEF).
WATCH! (and then tell me what you think)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
To support climate change fraud simply because you want solar stocks to go up is stupid.
You should spend your time kicking intel in the nuts like every other person on the planet so that solar companies can get enough cheap silicon without having to be outbid by these 50 percent margin pigs.
Solar stocks will go up regardless of what happens at Copenhagen. I think some of you are totally missing the bigger picture here.
Am I leo. Isn't that what it's about? You're desire to see solar win big as an investment?
There's a trbe of african's who catch monkeys. They put a large piece of fruit in a tree knot and when the monkey grabs the fruit it can't get it's hand out of the hole. They come by bash it on the head and eat it's brains as the brain is mostly made up of fatty acids and fat is hard to come by in their diet.
Don't be that monkey. Don't let what you want interfere with what you want. Drop the fruit.
The only monkeys on this board are ZH morons who see conspiracy theories everywhere. I am telling you that solar companies are real, they are profitable or on the verge of profitability, and they will play an increasingly important role in our future energy needs. But more importantly, I firmly believe that "Climategate" was instrumental in stirring up a hornet's nest to derail talks in Copenhagen. Who are the real monkeys in all this? Some of you ZH conspiracy lovers have to look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you're being played by those who want to derail the talks.
Fuck Copenhangen. Fuck carbon credits. People don't need permission or authority or any of that crap to use alternative energy. And we damn sure don't need to do it with nothing but big government, big corporations, big this big that. Do it or don't do it.
Here's a bit of my electricity links.
http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
http://www.quadmodsusa.com/solarcells.html
http://www.altestore.com/store/
http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/20hpse.htm
http://www.3dlens.com/fresnellens.htm
This is what runs my computer.
http://www.abra-electronics.com/products/catalog/BP1210-Samlex-10-Amps-B...
http://www.mini-box.com/M3-ATX-DC-DC-ATX-Automotive-Computer-car-PC-Powe...
http://www.solardirect.com/pv/pvlist/pvsolarex/pvsolarex.htm
Fuck you for one reason and one reason only. You're insistance that everything has to be done in big totalitarian fashion. You are going to be screwed like you've never been screwed before as you wait and worry and try to get some huge freaking thing off the ground that never happens blah blah blah. People are using alternative energy, exploring alternative energy and they don't need a bunch of pussies who drive around in 4 mpg armored limosines and fly in fucking overpowered lear jets to do what they want to do.
When the power goes out because they've set up derivative trading bullshit all over the grid and allowed some jackass rich piece of shit to shut down or brownout entire pieces of the grid becasue he didn't make enough money from his peasants, you'll see what this really means and where it's really going. Do it shut the fuck up about it. It doesn't have to be a massive political movement that ends doing nothing but shoving non renewables down peoples throats and then taxing the fuck out of them for using them while riding thier ass in debt and bullcrap so they can never afford to become self reliant and outside the system.
To all global warming deniers,
DAMM I HOPE YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT!!!
To all religious folk,
DAMM I HOPE YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT!!!
To everyone else,
YOUR A FOOL FOR USING YOUR BRAIN...
"THE DANGERS OF ALLOWING THE PURSUIT OF SOMEWHAT IMPERFECT SUSTAINABLE CARBON ZERO HOUSING AS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN CERTAIN 'POCKETS OF FREEDOM' THROUGHOUT THE LANDS ARE NOT NEARLY AS GREAT AS THE DANGER OF NOT PURSUING IT AT ALL."
- Michael Reynolds
Earthship Biotecture
www.earthship.com
biotecture@earthship.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/nyregion/13about.html?_r=1&partner=rss...
Tough crowd, Leo. I believe you, though. And remember my theory about how the radishes are taking over the government? You won't believe this, but the cantaloupes have joined them too! Leo, what are we going to do?
I'm guessing that if you offered some evidence (other than an appeal to authority) for your own beliefs, that it wouldn't be 5 minutes before said evidence was shown to be balderdash.
This is one of the reasons why you see fewer and fewer "believers" post "evidence" any more. The average believer's evidence is so flimsy that almost anyone can debunk it.
Best not to present any facts. Just appeal to authority and call everyone an idiot.
WTF? Paul Krugman?! Paul Krugman is now your climate change expert?! Guy couldn't even get the economy right. And you're all in with this guy on climate change?!
You, sir, are a fool of epic proportions.
Of course the bigger fools would have to be anybody who actually invests with you. Are you familiar with IamNed by any chance?
The most frightening thing about man made global warming is that it is a front for a massive government takeover of private lives. Water vapor makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gases yet it is rarely if ever part of any climate model because scientists have no idea how it impacts climate. Scientists cannot predict when a cloud will form or disappear or predict the size of a cloud. How many times have you been told to expect a cloudy day and it is sunny and vice a versa? Now CO2 is a small portion of the greenhouse gases that make up the atmosphere and yes during the history of man on the earth there have been times when there is more CO2 and times when there have been less. Yet man is still here and will continue to be. As for rising sea levels it is just a scare tactic. Again sea levels rise and fall. It is not a symptom of CO2. Erosion caused by tides is the cause of rising sea levels not CO2. I cannot tell you how frightened I am to have every single aspect of my life controlled due to so called man made global warming. This farce will leave the world in worse shape than it is in now. Poor countries will become poorer and rich countries will become poorer. Revolution will occur when people see they have been duped and forced into global warming slavery.
It's worse than that. The models' assumption was that water vapor would be a positive feedback (the tipping point scenario), ignoring all evidence that clouds are a regulating mechanism. If Svensmark (get well soon!) is right, that proposition will get a demonstration hearing very soon. it takes a special kind of willful blindness not to fear a cooling world, when history is replete with the worst of mankinds actions in response. During past warm to cold climate shifts, the northern folk didn't just revert to Inuit diet and sing kumbaya in their igloos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE
Leo, most of these guys will never change their minds about global warming or any kind of environmental actions. It's like talking to a wall with them, no matter evidence you present to them.
The fact that they choose not to "believe" in global warming is all the evidence I need of their arrested thought processes...
...global warming or any kind of environmental actions...
by this logic, any dissent against any war is "supporting the terrorists"; good luck with your thought processes, einstein
Really? you got that "logic" out of what I said???
All I'm saying is that the majority of people will cling to their own belief and twist evidence to fit that belief. Yes, even believers will... but the vast majority of people are stuck in status quo of our current system and are afraid of change... better the devil you know then the one you don't, right???
"Really? you got that "logic" out of what I said???"
yes, and it's the most insulting "logic" that gets thrown around in the whole debate: insinuating that someone's opinion on man made global warming has any relation whatsoever to their passion for real environmental stewardship. this is EXACTLY like insinuating that someone's opinion on invading iraq has any relation whatsoever to "letting the terrorists win"
Alright, perhaps I went a bit too far with that assumption... Most people I speak too who dismiss global warming also tend to not give a dam about world around them either, it's economic expansion at all cost to them. But I will conceit that not everyone is like that...
thanks for understanding; I will concede to your point that there is no shortage of dipshits on my side of this issue either
This is how I see it:
1. The climate is changing, no question about it.
2. Some evidence suggests that humans contribute to this change.
3. The contributions could be neutral (no problem, in fact, no contribution), negative feedback (a good thing because it would moderate changes), or positive feedback (a bad thing because we could augment changes to the point where they proceed at rates that we cannot cope with or adapt to). The burden of evidence seems to be consistent with the latter one, not with the former two.
4. I have lost my faith in governments and fear their actions may simply cause more problems.
Conclusion - to me there is good enough cause for caution given the risk. It seems highly rational to take some precautionary measures, spending most resources on your own, but allocating some to community efforts.
Undecadent
(The CAPTCHA had a GOTCHA moment: it wanted me to represent twenty four with a single digit! Can only do that for ten, fifty, hundred, maybe M. Twenty four? Not yet.)
Leo posts stuff like this about once a month mostly for attention. He just pulled the Krugman card need I say more?!
Did anyone catch the debate between Krugman and Lomborg on Fareed Zakaria GPS? If not, watch it once it is posted and then come back to argue against my post.
"I don't know why I'm sharing this story but just like football, life is a game of inches. As world leaders get ready to meet in Copenhagen this week, it's unbelievable how much skewed coverage 'Climategate' is receiving."
Actually, the coverage does not really do justice to the damage Climate Gate ought to be doing.
I'm a scientist and do predictive modeling for a living. Some years ago, I had seen all the publicity about global warming and was, frankly, getting concerned. So I started studying the subject. Here is the status of AGW theory, treated as a scientific hypothesis:
1. The hypothesis is: CO2 causes a non-linear increase in global temperatures thru a positive feedback system. The main proof of that hypothesis is that AGW models using those techniques back fitted pretty well to data from 1970-1998.
2. I started looking for testable predictions made by the hypothesis where it could be tested against a null hypothesis. Astonishingly, the AGW community has NEVER done that in a rigorous manner. Instead, they produce "scenearios" from multiple models. Nothing resembling a valid confidence level accompanies the predictions.
3. I have found several testable hypothese that can be falsified. Here are four of them:
a. The 2000 IPCC scenearios can be treated as a forecast. That forecast fails miserably to predict actual reality and grossly overestimates the real temperature record. Until climate gate, in public, the AGW community first denied the 2000's were cooling and that if they were, that was normal variation (even though they do not produce confidence intervals so it's hard to know what they think normal variation is). BUT IN PRIVATE, Trenbleth (one of the main AGW authors) writes: "In truth, our models (the AGW models) cannot account for the decline in temperature since 1990 and that is a travesty." (Slight paraphrase.) So one testable hypothesis, that temperatures should have increased rapidly in the 2000's has been falsified.
b. Carbon based Global Warming has a fingerprint predicted by every AGW model--high altitude equatorial hot spot. Our satellites have been searching for 20 years for such a hot spot. It does not exist. Another falsified prediction.
c. Journal articles running the AGW models starting in 1920 and each year hence. Treating the predictions as a falsifiable hypothesis to test against actual temperature and precipitation. Conclusion, the models do pretty well a month out and are no better than random guessing more than a year out.
d. Glaciers have been retreating since long before there were SUV's. But AGW theory suggests that the rate of glacial retreat should have increased (possibly with a lag) since the 1940's (when carbon output got substantial). It has not.
As a testable hypothesis, AGW does very poorly and make predictions consistently at odds with reality.
Put this on top of what is clearly a pattern of data hiding and fudging (Hansen, Mann, Jones refusing to release their code or data) and the recent dislosure that the raw data from which all of the AGW predictions have been made were "lost." All we have is the normalized and processed data.
On data fudging, Hansen's repeated "adjustments" of the NASA data over time are amazing--every single one of them makes global warming more likely.
On processing fudging, Mann's hockey stick is hard to explain as anything except deliberate scientific fraud (he jimmied the normalization routine in principal components analysis so that only tree rings that showed 20th century warning were selected--ended up selecting only about 11 trees from hundreds of available trees).
So I wasn't surprised at all when I read the climate gate emails and code--the AGW case did not add up BEFORE climat gate. But, to be honest, I was shocked at the blatancy of some of the fraud and supression of alternative viewpoints. There are lines of CRU code called by the programmer "fudge factor" and that factor greatly increases 20th century temperatures and reduces the rest back to the 14th century. In fact, the programmer in that body of code expressly says CRU has no idea where it's data is, what is in it, or how it has been processed. He was trying to clean up the code and gave up--his comments are in the code itself and are very illuminating.
The bottom line, had I sold modeling results to customers that were as shoddily developed or validated as these models, I would have been out of business a decade ago. And they want to remake the entire world economy based on what amounts to smoke and mirrors--with their buds in charge.
"And they want to remake the entire world economy based on what amounts to smoke and mirrors"
Who the hell are "THEY"???
As a "scientist" you don't really qualify your theories very well???
Not being a scientist or making any such claims, I'll state that "THEY" the oil companies and fossil fuel industry want to continue controlling the world and don't give a dam how much they rape the earth to do it...
Friedman is a tool, he literally gets his marching orders during his golf games. Now Leo is either gullible or a tool himself.
Any idiot knows that the decade of 2000s is not the warmest decade on record unless the record begins at the turn of the millenium. Are you unfamiliar with the dramatic and unexplained fall in global temperatures in the last two years? Are you unfamiliar with cold records being broken in the last two winters and this fall?
Yes we know that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. We also know that we can measure temperatures with mercury. Does that mean that we can measure temperatures with mercury-polluted fish? Or that those who would state the obvious, that we can't, are for mercury pollution? While there is enough mercury in fish to poison you, there isn't enough to use the fish as a thermometer. Get a fucking clue. Calculate or look up how many molecules of C02 the mankind is adding to every 10,000 molecules of air every year. Stop aiding and abetting cruel criminals Leo.
right here, comrade. the real environmentalists (ie folks who actually have a history of standing up for the people of the world against corporate pollution and resource depletion) can smell the pig in this poke from a mile away. game over, ya fascist fucks. if I was still in resistance shape I'd be right there in the trenches at copenhagen with a whole coolerful of molotov cocktails for those assholes to choke on
Where are the serious environmentalists? Obviously not on ZH. Sheesh!
If we are true Evolutionists, the question is why be a "serious environmentalist?" Makes no sense.
There are a few just not very many... Most of the people on ZH are so obsessed with the idea of a giant governmental conspiracies that they refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions that government is always bad...
For the record I'm a Libertarian and I personally tend to support many of the things that Ron Paul is in favor of. Sound money, small government and limited military engagements. However I do admit that the world is not black and white but rather a shade of grey, and that the government does have a role when it comes to the environment. The truth is, if we left the idea of saving the environment up to industry we would quickly lose it. Business simply does not care what happens to the environment as long as they can make money doing it, it's simply the nature of capitalism and our own greed. The water we drink, the air we breath and the land we live on mean nothing unless they become scarce and a market is developed for them (by that point, off course it's too late anyway).
Whether climate change is real or not is not the question but rather, are we going to allow a few people in power to who have a very big interest in the status quo to hijack our future from us???
I really wish at least some of you guys think about this, Marla? Tyler? What do we gain and lose moving towards a greener economy? And what role does government have in this issue?
How do you define a serious environmentalist?
The problem for me is not accepting that humans pollute too much, or that the climate is changing.
Alright, I am on board.
The problem starts when I am told to 'trust the experts' and my opinion doesn't mean jackshit because I am not as well informed as the 'experts'. Whenever there is a call to just 'trust the experts' I become extremely skeptical, to say the least.
It is just one big power play, Cap and Trade and the Financial crisis.
Leo might have sold out, because even though he is exposed to so much truth here on ZeroHedge he seems to keep an ENTIRELY closed mind to everything posted here by the community.
here is a link to the CRU emails - searchable
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
But Leo, wait, I thought we all now agree everyone is an Evolutionist (at least all of the Democratic Presidential candidates indicated such in an early debate). So why wouldn't humans just evolve to handle hotter or colder temperatures? We are the moral equivalent of dogs and cock roaches you know. Why spend any resources trying to change things?? Maybe we can evolve to yet a higher form.....sorry, can't do that since nothing is really higher or lower - we are equal to all other species.
And if per chance the human race was eliminated by such heating or cooling, why would that be bad?? Are we happy or sad the dinosaurs got wiped out??
What is the "correct" temperature for the earth?? The one humans like the best?? How self centered is that? Consider what other species may evolve and thrive in a colder or hotter environment. Who is looking out for them (our moral equivalents)??
Oh you misguided pathetic narrow self centered humans who may think you are somehow different, even better, than a cock roach.
shorts and sandals for everyone, problem solved. can I get a gov. grant, for my research?
Leo, if I told you there was a 1% chance that the world would end if you did not give me a bllion dollars, what would you do? Would you say, like Friedman, "we have to give him the billion because we can't risk even a 1% chance the world could end"?
on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. its not how you die, its how you live. quit squandering your precious opportunity to experience the things in life, that enrich you, make you more than you were yesterday. I've seen a lot of peoples lives end, and global warming, had nothing to do with it. if you get stuck focusing on bullshit, you cannot see the truth. this reminds me of talking to a jehovas witness
Leo: whether or not AGW is valid neither proves nor disproves the solar investment thesis; why not just drop the junk science from your spiel?
If our cyclical climate changes are, as many scientists have suggested, due to changes in the sun itself, how does something as insignificant as a treaty or agreement truly change anything. The earths polar ice caps have come and gone many times in the earths history when there were no factories, refineries, gas powered engines.
EXACTLY !!! LEO IS A MINDLESS MYRMIDON,MIND-CONTROLLED BY THE MATTOID COMMUNISTS NEWS NETWORK. LEO, YOU AND YOUR ILK ARE MESMERIZED BY THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC; PROBLEM(GLOBAL WARMING)- REACTION(CARBON TAXES)- SOLUTION(GLOBAL GOVT. COMMAND AND CONTROL APPARATUS ESTABLISHED). OR THIS; THESIS- ANTITHESIS- SYNTHESIS. WAKE UP AND JUMP-START YOUR BRAIN, PATSY.
Unfortunately, the entire global warming question has become politically motivated. It is not about science any more, it's about politics and control. The "science" that supports global warming is scanty and tainted.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman-dyson.php
A couple years ago, I was driving in eastern Colorado, and I passed by one of those big wind turbine farms. It was a cold, overcast day, and the cloud ceiling was flat and hanging low, so that it was just below the hubs. In other words, the top of the structure was hidden in the clouds. Also, the wind was very light. So, what you'd see, was a huge post going up into the clouds, and then this huge blade would come slowly sweeping down out of the clouds, and then sweep back up and disappear. It was absolutely majestic, and even a little scary, to have an enormous blade suddenly appear out of the clouds, and swing down, and then swing back up and disappear again. The things you see when you don't have a movie camera. However, climate change "science" is a financial and economic fraud. But I do like the wind turbine farms.