This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

To the 34% of American Adults Who Are "Worried a Great Deal" about "Global Warming"

George Washington's picture




 

Preface:  A recent Gallup poll showed that 34% of American adults worried “a great deal” about “global warming”.  This essay is written for that 34%.

Many well-intentioned people are desperately trying to stop climate change …

And yet they are proposing things that will put more C02 and methane into the air and otherwise do more harm than good.

Frack That

Many propose nuclear and fracking as a way to reduce carbon emissions.

In reality, scientists say that fracking pumps out a lot of methane … into both our drinking water and the environment.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72 times more potent as a warming source than CO2.

As such, fracking actually increases – rather than decreases – global warming.

Are Nukes the Answer?

It turns out that nuclear is .

Mark Jacobson – the head of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, who has written numerous books and hundreds of scientific papers on climate and energy, and testified before Congress numerous times on those issues – notes that nuclear puts out much more pollution (including much more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have melted down. More information here, here and here.

Jacobson also points out that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant, whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently 55-65% coal.

Scam and Trade

One of the main solutions to climate change which has long been 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.

War: The Number One Source of Carbon

The U.S. military is the biggest producer of carbon on the planet.

Harvey Wasserman notes that fighting wars more than wipes out any reduction in carbon from the government’s proposed climate measures.

Writing in 2009 about the then-proposed escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman said:

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?

The continuance of fighting all over the Middle East and North Africa 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 warsall over the globe.

So whatever you think of climate change, all people can agree that ending the wars is important.  (War also destroys the economy.)

Anyone who supports “humanitarian war” by the U.S. is supporting throwing a lot of carbon into the air.

Dumb as a Mongoose In Hawaii

Many scientists suggest “geoengineering” the Earth’s climate. But that could actually worsen climate change. It could also increase the risk of drought.

Moreover, geoengineering would increase ocean acidification and decrease available sunlight for solar power.

And once we started, we could never stop.

Some of the geoengineering proposals are downright nuts.  For example, “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 studied and tested (and see this and this), involving such things as dumping barium, aluminum and other toxic metals into the atmosphere.

Remember, the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rats (which were eating the sugar cane used to make rum). It didn’t work out very well … mongeese are daylight-loving creatures while rats are nocturnal. So the mongeese trashed the native species in Hawaii, and never took care of the rats.

Similarly, 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.

So What’s the Answer?

If nuclear, fracking, cap and trade and geoengineering aren’t the answer, what is?

There are 3 main strategies which both climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on, because they have big upsides whether or not the Earth is warming:

(1) Reducing soot will quickly reduce melting of ice and snow. Reducing soot will be cheaper than the “decarbonation” which many policy-makers have proposed. And it would increase the health of millions of people worldwide

 

(2) Use specific smart combinations of solar, wind and geothermal energy

 

(3) Decentralize 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

We don’t need fascism to make this happen …  We just need a sound plan.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 04/19/2014 - 21:21 | 4676445 fwaynemartin
fwaynemartin's picture

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________________

Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
__________________

Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
__________________

Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
__________________

Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
__________________

Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
__________________

Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

[A] “Yes, but only just”.
__________________

Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
__________________

Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
__________________

Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
__________________

Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
__________________

Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
__________________

Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
__________________

Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
__________________

Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
__________________

Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”

Sat, 04/19/2014 - 18:41 | 4676189 fwaynemartin
fwaynemartin's picture

Flakmeister, while you criticize Dr. Roy Spencer who is a scientist and has worked in the climate field for several decades, you post links to John Cook who has no qualifications whatsoever,  admittedly so.

Isn't the Wayback Machine great? Why did John Cook alter his 'About Skeptical Science'?

http://is.gd/ltz5xO

 

About Skeptical Science

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.

Sat, 04/19/2014 - 18:32 | 4676173 fwaynemartin
fwaynemartin's picture

Flakmeister, you are very good at linking to your favorite source, such as John Cook, who has a long history of deleted posts, changing posts, even his own months after the fact.

One example of John Cook rewriting history on his blog. If you need more, there are plenty of examples.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html

 

Then there's this ROFL. Isn't the Wayback Machine a great tool?

http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page....

About Skeptical Science

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.

 

 

 

 

 

Sat, 04/19/2014 - 02:12 | 4675024 fwaynemartin
fwaynemartin's picture

If an accounting firm tampered with data like NOAA does, people would go to jail. Virtually all warming in the U.S. was accomplished by cooling the past and warming the present.

http://i.imgur.com/CMu2dCv.png

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.ta...

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz

 

Here's what they've done to Michigan's temperature record:

http://i.imgur.com/SG5K42w.png

According to NCDC, this past winter was the fifth coldest on record in Michigan despite there being record ice on the Great Lakes. March completely blows away all records for ice on the lakes, but the keepers of data claim it was still warmer than other years since 1895. They rely on useful idiots to believe whatever bullshit they are fed by government scientists that manipulate the data. 

 

Sat, 04/19/2014 - 10:16 | 4675325 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Write a paper and publish it....

Hell, the Kochs will bank roll you and Judith Curry will help, here is a link to  her e-mail at Georgia Tech

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/

Otherwise STFU.....

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 19:28 | 4671286 fwaynemartin
fwaynemartin's picture

Flakmeister,

  Hans Von Storch is a prominent climate scientist from Germany. Compare what he says to Tamino and see if it makes sense:

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_st...

 

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged asconsiderably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained bycontemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period  

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged asconsiderably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period

thatindicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find thatthe continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistentwith model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of theinconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or anoverestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruledout. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenicclimate change, but the second and particularly the third would.

 

BTW, a small change in cloud cover could account for virtually alll warming or cooling. Climate models cannot simulate clouds correctly, nor are clouds well understood. 

 

 

thatindicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find thatthe continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistentwith model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of theinconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or anoverestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruledout. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenicclimate change, but the second and particularly the third would.
Thu, 04/17/2014 - 21:03 | 4671543 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

He is fishing...

Not that it a bad thing, you always need reasonably competent people to question the prevailing wisdom on understanding. But his science is not compelling in the least. He has a lot more data to describe than merely the past  15-17 years, once he can "explain" 50 years people will pay more attention...

I also think that he is ignoring the known role of ENSO, a weaker than expected solar cycle and the real forcings from C02, CH4 and S02....

To get an idea of "natural variation" that is not predicted, e.g. volcanos, the actual solar output see: 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

and follow the discussion here

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

On the GCM model side consider the followng

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Models-Show-Remarkable-Agreement...

and if you are really interested in how well we understand the temperature follow this simple 2-parameter model

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/once-is-not-enough/

follow the links....

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 12:36 | 4665482 pagan
pagan's picture

I wonder about all this Climate change denialism among Americans. Too much Jaheeezus lovin? Is there a connection?

Is it the same crowd who denies evolution? There must be some religious hocus-pocus behind this idiocy?

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 15:04 | 4666253 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The overlap is very large re: AGW and evolution....

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 16:53 | 4666745 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, one of the reasons why the Zionists, operating through the internationalized ruling classes, were able to destroy the American democratic republic is that it was way too easy to deceive the Crazy Christians, because of their entrenched resistance to critical thinking.

Indeed, the smarter Crazy Christians tend to provide some of the most extreme examples of relatively good analysis, followed by collapsing back to totally bullshit "solutions." It is like they have a built in circuit breaker, which trips whenever their intellectual intelligence crosses over some certain lines of inquiry.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 12:19 | 4665411 Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

"Not my goddamned planet, monkeyboy!"

 

John Bigbootay

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 12:12 | 4665395 Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

Global warming is BOOOLSHEET.

 

Al Gore is a huckster.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 16:47 | 4666716 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

dizzyfingers, obviously, that the atmosphere is full of oxygen, and all of the ways that changed the planet, was due to LIFE.

Whatever the merits may be in your links, the FACTS are that the surface of the Earth has been changed by LIFE, to a degree that it is impossible to imagine what the "weather" would be without that history of LIFE.

Your conclusion appears completely crazy to me.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 08:38 | 4664585 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Global warming should have been sold as a national defense issue and that was a huge mistake of environmentals all along.  It was the one way they could have gotten the funding and research priority behind it nationally. 

Even if gloal warming doesn't occur at the rate it is projected, there is a very real and legit issue about oil and the ability to access new supplies of light sweet crude at a reasonable price.  I have always found that the same people who deny global warming are the same tards who magically think there is a an endless supply of oil apparently and all we need to do is just increasing drilling domestically and we'll have cheap gasoline.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 11:07 | 4665098 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

it has been sold as national security by the neocons, when it was suggested the northwest passage might open permanently, one of them said, there's an other way for the terrorists to come after us

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 08:33 | 4664568 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

It mystifies me on how people deny the earth is warming and the relatively diasterous effects this will have on human civilization.  Even just a 2-3 C increase will result in current failures or massive decreases in yields among most of the major current grain belts globally.  Already the grain belt in the US is shifting north further each year and DOA just had a study out on it and what has happened in OK and TX vs ND and SD.  Western TX is well on its way to becoming a pretty arid desert and parts are already beginning the initial stages of desertification.  

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 08:17 | 4664518 Riprake
Riprake's picture
Original Song Title: "I'm A Believer"
Original Performer: The Monkees
Parody Song Title: "I'm A Denier"
Parody Written by: Jeff Stambo

 

I thought earth was headed for catastrophe
I thought global warming was for real
Polar ice is melting
(I used to say)
Temperatures are high
(I used to say)
Pretty soon we're all just gonna die

Then I got a brain
Now I'm a denier
Not insane
Like I used to be
I'm informed
I'm a denier
Gore's a big liar yessirree

I thought truth was more or less a give-and-take
Theories could be proved by taking polls
Once you get consensus
(I used to say)
Then it's Q.E.D.
(I used to say)
There's no need to test empirically

Then I got a brain
Now I'm a denier
Not insane
Like I used to be
I'm informed
I'm a denier
Gore's a big liar
yessirree

 

http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/themonkees104.shtml
Wed, 04/16/2014 - 11:08 | 4665102 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are deluded....

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 12:14 | 4665399 Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

No, YOU are!

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 16:43 | 4666698 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

We are ALL, necessarily, relatively deluded.

No one human being can possibly know enough to predict the future. Any system of understanding is necessarily some relative system of more or less organized lies, which had a history of being rewarded by being able to operate robberies, in order for it to survive. Science cannot be separated from the history of social survival, which was predominantly the history of successful warfare based on deceits. Therefore, like I said in my previous comments, we are ALL necessarily relatively crazy!

Personally, I WISH that I could presume that human caused climate change was totally bullshit. However, I actually believe it is real, and is going to get way worse, faster, to a degree that there no longer is anything that human beings can do to stop that now. I think we are temporarily getting a break, from the natural changes causing some cooling, to cancel out the human induced warming factors. However, I still believe that human beings are NOT going to do anything to change until it is way too late to bother ... and it may well already be too late now?

Obviously, that is my own set of preferred "delusions," based on my own studies of these issues.

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 04:13 | 4668571 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. Michel Jarraud, Sec/Gen of the World Meteorological Organization. The WMO co-sponsors the IPCC which has a mandate vis-a-vis the UNFCCC. He started out as a weather researcher, likely the product of a relatively well established family, born in 1952 and hangin' ten on the baby boomer generation. Plays the career game successfully and finds himself presiding over an enourmously influential world body at the epicenter of the intense AGW debate. Talk about political tightrope! But after 10 years, it's his job to deliver the status report.I challenge any Zhr to put themselves in his shoes as he attended the AR5 WG2 press release 31MAR14 in Yokohama Japan:

"There is no pause" he said, when asked by a journalist in the Q&A. Why would anyone think that personally he gets his jollies telling the world that? He's a parent, probably had dreams of being a granddad and maybe great-granddad.

So where does he find the strength? Who here has a harder job? I suggest he finds his strength to tell the world point blank what the deal is because he still has some faith in the goodness of humanity and he loves his family. I propose that if there anyone on Earth that has no illusions regarding the seriousness of the climate crisis, it is Michel Jarraud. We should be thankful that he is just able to delude himself enough to fullfill the task of trying to tell global society that " we can no longer plead ignorance" and "there is no pause" without going insane.

Knowing what he knows, he's likely cried himself to sleep a few times. Yet he finds the strength to do an almost impossible job with grace.

Indeed, Radical, I have no doubt Michel Jarraud WISHES too, and is well aware of the worst-case scenario. I think Putin is too...

And make no mistake ZH, Flakmeister is on par with Jarraud's knowledge, he knows what he's talking about, like it or not. We are lucky to HIM!

 


Recorded Webcast of Press Conference (Working Group II Report, Yokohama)

WG3 just published and WG4 publishes October 31st of this year to complete AR5, six years in the making. AR6???

All Roads lead to Paris 2015 for CMP/COP21.

 

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 16:17 | 4666583 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I can see that you are sharp as a tack....

\sigh....

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 07:53 | 4664479 Blue Dog
Blue Dog's picture

Global warming is a joke. Why write an article about solutions to a nonexistent problem?

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 23:14 | 4663947 joego1
joego1's picture

I've got an electric car and some solar panels in addition to a wood gasifier which runs a generator. The main reason for this is it makes me more independent for when the SHTF. If as a side effect I make less polution then that is an added benefit. I agree with George lets decentralize power generation and dump the global economy.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 19:33 | 4663151 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Humans blamed for climate change ???

This article mentions how preparing and waging war is a big factor. However, I think that the results of the history of warfare creating civilization make rational responses to the threats of human beings changing the Earth's climate practically impossible.

The Grand Canyon of Paradoxes continues to be progress in science and technology channeled through social pyramid systems in crazy ways. Energy systems are controlled by their most labile components. In human terms, that means that civilizations are controlled by the people who are the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence. Another way to express the difficulty with human energy systems is that general energy systems flow along their path of least resistance, which takes the least action, and therefore, human systems flow along their path of least morality.

Those are the basic reasons how and why we end up with governments being the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gang of criminals, where currently those biggest gangsters are the banksters, who have been able to leverage up their control of the money system to control pretty well all other social institutions, like the public schools and the mass media. The upshot is that human society is controlled by Huge Lies, backed by Lots of Violence, which operate through infinite tunnels, where the lies become different at every level. As we approach Peak Everything Else, we are also approaching Peak Social Insanities, especially when it comes to theories about human beings causing global warming, and/or human beings running out of enough natural resources to be able to continue to strip-mine, in order to keep the currently established social pyramid systems growing.

After several decades of attempting to understand both of those issues, I believe I have as good as humanly possible overview. However, the crucial problem that I return to is that, whatever the degree of reality one thinks exists for the causes of climate change, or the limits to natural resources, one thing that is certain is that human civilization has developed to operate through the maximum possible deceits and frauds about itself.

TRUTH MAKES NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE TO SOCIAL SYSTEMS BASED ON BACKING UP LIES WITH VIOLENCE.

The essential problem with understanding human ecologies, and their relationship to their natural environment, is that the most important central feature, after life exists, is that the selection pressures which direct its evolution are the DEATH CONTROLS. Tragically, there are really no other better solutions than better death controls, which is why we are not getting agreements about any such solutions!

My current opinion is that there has already been lots of covert geoengineering, which was directed to be done by the ruling classes which have become criminally insane. My current opinion is that the mechanisms of greenhouse gases are real, and have already been triggered to go into exponential runaways, which can no longer be stopped. My current opinion is that we are temporarily getting a break from more cosmic factors, which would otherwise be causing a return to another ice age. However, the basic greenhouse gas mechanisms are going to continue to counteract that, until they overwhelm it.

While it might theoretically be possible for rational human beings to balance out the natural return to another ice age, with the human driven trends towards global warming, in reality, human society is utterly irrational and insane, because it is actually controlled by lies, backed by violence, which controls only care about the short-term. Hence, the GRAND CANYON PARADOXES are that progress in science, enabling technologies to become trillions of times more powerful, is being channeled through social pyramid systems, since globalized civilization was established through the history of War Kings, whose powers are now controlled by the Fraud Kings, while everyone, in their own littler ways, also necessarily participate inside of established systems of enforced frauds, and live by operating their own systems of organized lies and robberies. Inside of the history of larger systems, there is practically zero chance of people agreeing upon anything enough to respond more rationally to threats which would apply to everyone.

THE INTENSE PARADOX OF THE ROLE OF WAR IN GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE THREATS IS THAT THERE IS  NO REASONABLE WAY TO FORCE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THAT WILL NOT END UP MAKING THINGS GET EVEN WORSE FASTER, WHILE THE ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS ARE ALREADY SET UP SO THAT THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DESTROY THEMSELVES ANYWAY, BUT MERELY A LITTLE SLOWER.

What a thread of comments on an article like this tends to illustrate is that human beings have no other actual choices that to continue to muddle through the madness of systems of lies and robberies. Of course it is extremely difficult for people to agree upon the facts and what we should do, because the most important already established social facts are that civilization is operating through the maximum possible deceits and frauds. That was the real way that human energy systems already developed our current civilization, which means that almost everything we are doing was based upon attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance, which also applies to the issues about human beings driving climate change, at the same time as the limits to strip-mining the planet are being reached.

An article like this, and the comments and votes that it provokes, tends to prove my meta-crazy point, that our civilization is already quite crazy, since its foundation was the history of warfare in which success was based on deceits. Therefore, our real human ecology actually now operates through the maximum possible deceits, while our real political economy was built on top of that history, to be able to operate on the basis of the maximum possible frauds.

IF one was to have a saner discussion of the future relationships between human and industrial ecologies, and the natural ecology, then the death controls would necessarily be the central feature to that sort of sane discussion, which is WHY we are instead headed towards our civilization going through a series of psychotic breakdowns, manifesting Peak Insanities, because it is practically impossible for human beings to have any more rational ways to operate their crucial death controls. Any saner general agreements about how to operate human death controls is practically impossible. The Grand Canyon Paradoxes of technologies becoming trillions of times more powerful, while society continues to be a social pyramid system dominated by enforced frauds, is the general background upon which figures the problems of the degree to which human activities are changing the climate, and what we should do about that.

The ONLY real solutions to phenomena like climate change, and limits to natural resources, are to develop different human and industrial ecologies, in which the death controls, and the related symbolic debt controls, are the crucially central feature. Without any politically possible ways to debate and implement better death and debt controls, then the default is to manifest death insanities. It is already clear that the existing runaway debt slavery systems, which have generated debt insanity numbers, makes it be practically impossible to implement any good creative alternative solutions, since the current relationships between Alternative Energies & Society Adapted to Them would require, within the currently established systems, that those be financed by creating even more money out of nothing as debts, which can not be readily done, because our world is already drowning in its debt slavery situation. DESPITE THERE BEING AN ABUNDANCE OF POSSIBLE CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES, WHICH COULD BE INTEGRATED INTO BETTER SYSTEMS, the actual future shall surely default to become the psychotic breakdowns of the established systems, provoking death insanities, as the only ways that our current civilization could "cope," as the real ways that these problems will actually be resolved.

My opinion is that human beings are driving serious climate change, but that, so far, we are still getting a break from more cosmic factors mitigating the greenhouse gas mechanisms, which is why the climate models are not doing a good job of making predictions, since they tended to deliberate ignore those more cosmic factors, such as the Sun/Earth magnetic fields, etc. ... However, eventually, the natural cycles will return to reinforcing, rather than mitigating, the human factors that are driving climate change, and then, global warming will come back even more, with a vengeance. In my opinion, we have collectively operated with enough of an attitude of evil deliberate ignorance towards the longer term consequences of what we were doing, to have made that already become a runaway problem, which have no resolutions, except those which may make things even worse.

Since civilization is actually being controlled by entrenched systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which serve the interests of criminally insane ruling classes, while those they rule over tend to have already adapted to accept that situation, the real environmental problems, such as climate change, and the limits of natural resources, will surely provoke that civilization to respond by manifesting Peak Insanities, which will express themselves by causing the actual human death controls systems to runway much more to cause death insanities. The chances of changing that runaway death insanity manifestation during the 21st Century are similar to resolving the related issue of the runaway debt insanity situation. Our REAL society operates combined money/murder systems, by having both the ruling classes and those they rule over maintain attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance towards the basic facts about themselves.

Although progress in science and technology could theoretically change society enough so that creative alternatives could be implemented, a thread of comments like the one on this article underscores that what will actually happen will be based on people refusing to agree upon the facts, which means that we must necessarily default to resolving the current debt insanity situations, exacerbated by pressures such as climate change, and limits to natural resources, by manifesting some series of psychotic breakdowns of the established systems, which "solve" our problems in the most insane ways possible, since, as we reach Peak Everything Else, we will also be reaching Peak Insanities, as the real ways that human beings will most probably respond to those real problems.

Any creative alternative technologies, of which there are an abundance, will have to attempt to survive through more genocidal wars, and democidal martial law, because the entrenched established systems will not otherwise allow those to be implemented, unless those still continued the basic structures of the social pyramid systems, which are themselves the basic obstacle. BY DEFAULT, THE 21st CENTURY WILL MOST LIKELY BE ABOUT HOW THE RUNAWAY DEBT INSANITIES DROVE RUNAWAY DEATH INSANITIES.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 02:49 | 4664190 daedon
daedon's picture

Why paste the article here as though you wrote it, just put the link.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 16:01 | 4666505 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Strange reply, daedon!

Of course, I am writing bla, bla, blah like that above like rolling off a log, because I have been doing it for decades. The embedded links in my comment are to an overload of the same kind of stuff ... However, ironically, your comment confirmed my main point that generally people had a history of attacking each other too much, for too long, to be able to collectively do anything else than commit suicide together.

The weather is a heat engine, and when the greenhouse gas mechanisms overcome the natural brakes, and really run away, then the weather will get wilder in every direction, as it is now, with records being broken across America in all directions that one looks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R4BPTjfXOA&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

One of the basic reasons WHY the climate is NOT better understood, and the models have tended to be significantly wrong, is that we really do NOT understand the Sun. Rather, most models have presumed that the established theories were correct, and that they did not have to include changes in the Sun//Earth magnetic fields, and other related phenomena.

There appears to be a hidden history of political corruption behind most the of the climate models being made by mainstream morons, who did not have enough awareness of their funding coming through the banksters' systems of triumphant fraudulence, which use the profits from frauds to reinvest through the political processes to make more profit from more frauds. However, that does NOT mean that all the science is bullshit, only that some of the ways that it is presented were biased by evil ulterior motives.

Science is as social enterprise, within the social pyramid systems, which distorts, and even inverts, the discovery of more objectively true facts, due to a hidden agenda, (or even an open agenda, that most people deliberately ignore.) However, that does mean that there is no validity whatsoever to the scientific methods, and therefore, to relatively more objectively true facts, compared to other less objectively true facts. What it does mean is that it is way more difficult to discover more objectively true facts, since one can NOT trust official statements, nor the official "solutions" to problems proposed by those who dominate the current social pyramid systems.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 16:16 | 4666580 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The reason the 11-year solar cycle is not included is that one does not care about the "solar noise" when projecting 40 years forward. After all, you are averaging over multiple sunspot cycles...

Remember, the models are not trying to predict the solar behaviour and if you try to use a model to predict short term behaviour you are only fooling yourself...

It is all related to the standard definition of climate being a 30 year average....

To see this sort of thing in action, see

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/

Tamino is the Foster guy in this

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

describing this

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 16:31 | 4666666 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, partially, Flakmeister, but also, the mainstream science does not seriously consider the electric universe theories:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

Right now that link appears to not be working. (It often happens that important Web sites, with significant information, tend to be attacked. Maybe that is happening again to them now. These days, if your Web site has not been attacked, then probably it is not saying anything that matters to the alleged ruling classes?)

Anyway, the Earth's magnetic field strengh has decreased 15% in the last 150 years, and that strangeness appears to be accelerating. There may well be larger, as yet not understood, cycles beyond the apparent 11 year Sun Spot cycles, etc.?

I was already aware of the kinds of information you provided in your links, Flakmeister. What I am asserting is that human beings surely do NOT understand the more cosmic factors, and therefore, their models about climate that tended to ignore those factors were way off.

Remember, in the 1970s, the concerns started with the return to another Ice Age, and those concerns still have reasons to be seriously considered. However, my current view is that the greenhouse gas mechanisms are going to eventually overwhelm those, and when they do, that will happen at an exponential rate ... although that is really just my intuitive guess, since I too could not possibly know what the more cosmic factors are going to do in the future ...

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 17:31 | 4666880 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do yourself a favor and do not bring up nonsense like the electric universe with me unless you want to compare it's predictions with the experimental results from WMAP, PLANCK and more recently the BICEP on the CMBR...

And since we know that there are no predictions to be tested and zero evidence for the theory, you had best drop it...

And while I will be the first to admit that there is lot we do not know, I will make it very clear that we know a fuck of lot more than people here at ZH can imagine...

Real scientista are very smart and clever and love nothing more than being right and showing that someone else is wrong. It is called peer review and and it can be very nasty unless you know what you are doing...

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 20:32 | 4667537 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Well, Flakmeister, I now understand why so many other people who post comments on Zero Hedge tend to regard you as quite annoyingly arrogant ... I was living on university campuses for a dozen years, when I was younger, and I am not so ignorant of the history of science and scientific methods as you appear to presume that I am.

Clearly, you have never bothered to examine the predictions made by the electric universe theory, such as regarding comets, and so on ... It appears to me to have considerable merit, and is supported by a lot of emerging data from advanced astronomical measurements.

You appear to totally disregard the way that the real history of science has actually operated, as revealed by books like the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. Many theories had a history of being rejected for over a Century, before being vindicated. The aspects of how the universe operates cosmic electricity appears to me to be one of those cases.

You seem to share the overwhelming arrogance of presuming that Web sites like those run by Supicious0berservers, and the Thunderbolts projects are NOT scientific. I find that is quite common in the mainstream climate science guys, who tend to be morons about anything else, outside of their narrow focus. ALL THE "PEERS" CAN BE STUCK IN THE SAME WRONG PARADIGM!

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 23:09 | 4668102 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Time is too short to waste with bullshit like the EU, you might as well tell me you believe in astrology or seances...

And no, those sites are not scientific, not in the least...

(Hang out at RealClimate for an idea of what a real science site actually is)

Hate to tell you, but it appears you simply don't know enough the separate the Woo-like bullshit from experimentally measured Reality... And that is a shame because the real story of the Universe is so much more interesting anyway... 

PS You are now firmly in my whackadoo folder, admittedly a very civilly mannered one....

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 01:51 | 4672253 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Hah, back at ya, Flakmeister, you are now in my folder of mainstream morons who arrogantly presume that no alternative methods of knowing things have any possible merit.

I presume that you have never bothered to actually spend enough time to look at the most popular videos made by Suspicious0bservers or the Thunderbolts guys. They seem to me to be attempting to be quite scientific, while mainstream astronomy is stuck in the mud of "peer" reviewed preconceptions and prejudices, which make it impossible for them to be open-minded, as you too appear to be.

I again recommend seriously thinking about the broad history of science, where it is plainly obvious that science is a human enterprise, in which basic paradigms done during times of "normal science" can be later found to be fundamentally flawed, while other ideas that were rejected and ridiculed eventually turn out to have merit.


Fri, 04/18/2014 - 15:04 | 4673643 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Save your breath...

You have zero credibility...

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 18:45 | 4663146 Ariadne
Tue, 04/15/2014 - 16:11 | 4662505 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Big difference between global warming and pollution.

It's like people who see the floating seed from Cottonwood trees (Populus Aigeiros) and say "Those Cottonwoods are making my allergies act up"  or who ask for an antibiotic for a viral infection.

DUH!

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 16:12 | 4662494 pagan
pagan's picture

 

 

"(1) Reducing soot will quickly reduce melting of ice and snow."

 

No, this is wrong. Ever heard of global dimming? 

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 02:49 | 4664187 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I think you're forgetting that once soot's settled on snow, dark and not wafting in the air, it's heating up in sunlight because it's dark.

from Washingtonblog:

The MAIN Cause of Global Warming?

One of the world’s leading crusaders against global warming – Dr. James Hansen – said in 2003:

Soot in snow and ice, by itself in an 1880-2000 simulation, accounted for 25 percent of observed global warming.

In fact – while most sources now list soot as the second most important cause of global warming – it may even be in first place … at least in the near-term.  As the Christian Science Monitor reports:

Given the uncertainties in the estimates, black-carbon soot may even outpace CO2‘s warming effect, according to the 232-page study published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research–Atmospheres.

Indeed, the ability of soot to melt snow and ice is so well-known that, in the 1970s, scientists – including Obama’s top science adviser, John Holdren– proposed pouring soot over the arctic to melt the ice and so prevent the ice age which scientists feared.

* * * * *

Therefore, as from the article: humans are making soot so at least 25% of global warming is our fault, though one ought to figure out how much soot is not from human sources since obviously ash from a volcano will look/act like 'soot', settled into snow, but isn't from us.

 

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 18:06 | 4663021 pagan
pagan's picture

Here is a BBC documentary about the phennomenon on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RyNSzQDaU

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 16:05 | 4662475 esum
esum's picture

how many of these 34% have a job... that will take their minds off co2..... how many have a BMI under 50......

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 16:02 | 4662468 mraptor
mraptor's picture

The best meduim to long term alternative is Thorium based nuclear production :

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/motherboard-tv-the-thorium-dream

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 15:23 | 4662310 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

wait, I've got it!!
Since lots of fossil fuels are used to power electricity to generate bitcoin, bitcoin is not just a 'store of electricity' but also a store of CO2 emissions!!
We can therefore trade bitcoins to symolically represent the consumed carbon!
Genious, genious, genious!

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 05:52 | 4668653 MEAN BUSINESS
Fri, 04/18/2014 - 01:35 | 4672239 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I was joking! What I read didn't look promising nor doomed but it looks like a litecoin derivative. I dunno. Digging into that will no doubt take a lot of time and I'm not sure it's worth it. Anyhow, thanks for bringing it to my attention just in case.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 15:21 | 4662302 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

If nuclear, fracking, cap and trade and geoengineering aren’t the answer, what is?

 

How about coming to the reality that the idea of man-made global warming is a repeatedly-debunked hoax and that we should move on from the topic?

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 18:21 | 4663071 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Even if it was manmade, wouldn't more be gooder?  Warmer and wetter means longer growing seasons with fewer droughts.  The planet would be able to support more life than it can now.  The evil climate changers want to make the earth cold so the population is starved off.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 02:53 | 4664192 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Actually warmer air and wetter air doesn't always lead to wetter plants. If it doesn't rain because the air is more humid we'll do fine so long as our crops are rainforests. But our crops are corn, wheat, orchards with small trees, that kind of thing. They will suffer badly from the excessive heat and reduced rains. Given the rise of the mountains in BC and the drops into the Okanagan valley perhaps they will be fine. That rapid rising of warm air cools it so it drops the water. Rain.

Global warming as-is will cause more drought over existing farm land, starve us out, kill off most of the sea life that isn't already being killed by Fukushima and kill off no less than 75 % of humans in short order, probably 100 years. That least 25% and their offspring might make it another 100 but maybe not if those who survive were merely physically hardy for a while but not very smart.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 10:50 | 4665019 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Yes and we all know that tropical plants can never be transplanted to grow in other tropical regions.  This is true of all plants actually.  It is a myth that they ever grew potatoes in Ireland or corn in Africa.

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 01:41 | 4671425 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Or maybe you forgot the really warm air over Saudi Arabia and the Sahara desert and all that massive rainfall they both get.

Go on, try that transplanting. Cactus in Nunavut, bananas in Toronto, Kiwi in Thunder Bay and let's not forget Dragonfruit and Persimmon in Siberia. You do it, make videos of your successes & share them.

We'll all be looking forward to your results.

Avocado in Alaska? Go for it.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!