This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
To the 34% of American Adults Who Are "Worried a Great Deal" about "Global Warming"
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 not a low-carbon source of energy … and funding nuclear crowds out the development of better sources of alternative energy.
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 wars … all 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 -


Many scientists suggest “geoengineering” the Earth’s climate. But that could actually worsen climate change. It could also increase the risk of drought.
Future tense? They have been spraying this shit into the atmosphere and poisoning us with it since 1998. Fuck geoengineering - they are chemtrails. They are made up of nano sized particles of oxides of aluminum, barium, and strontium, and other shit including very weird, lab engineered infectious agents. People should look up some times and try to remember what the sky looked like when they were much younger.
BTW, anthropogenic global warming / climate change is a complete Rothschild banker scam. And yeah, I am among the 34% worried about it. It's part of the plan to get the world popiulation down to 500 million just as it says on the Georgia Guide Stones. Get out your ropes and pitchforks and make sure that the satanist Rothschilds and Rockefellers go first.
The government doesn't call them chemtrails. In their policies, specifically at the CFR, they are referred to as Solar Radiation Management or SRM. And yes, it is part of geoengineering, and it is policy. Pull your head out Fuckmeister and look into it by it's real name.
Zzzz...
You are an paranoid deluded idiot....
Put your tinfoil hat back on..
See for example
http://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/
doesn't work: the hoaxers are debunked repeatedly and global warming caused by human methane & co2 emissions is re-proven daily.
With zero error.
Until the hoaxers get over this no progress will be made intellectually: not ever has global warming been debunked and I mean not ever.
You are bat-shit crazy! Pull my finger, dumbass.
OMG, you're the kind of gullible idiot that would send money to save the Nigerian price OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Even when you've figured out that it's a scam you'll send more money because you're just HOPING that Nigerian prince will send you something. You're a loon. Good for a laugh, but a f'king loon.
He's not gullible. He's a paid agent.
Actually what I'm paid to do, right now, is operate conferences for all the big evil corporations like the Fed and Monsanto, etc. I don't speak to you on their behalf, I can't repeat what I hear but I do hear things. I think you would be severely challenged to name a ticker for an evil(tm) corp that I haven't run a conference for.
It was actually more than a year ago I heard of some shipping for large amounts of base metals, shipping for a very large bank we all know of. Naturally I never said a thing since it's my job not to but I found it very curious at the time. Sure enough a year later I still know why someone is richer than I am. I hear the 'news' far, far in advance of you.
What does base metal hording have to do with proof of man made global warming?
Furthermore, if what you have heard is so damning and damaging you would say what it is. Since you do not, out of apparent concern for your job security, it must not be THAT bad.
What does my work have to do with global warming? I was challenged on what I do for work, off topic, and I replied to the new topic. If you don't like it don't switch topics then accuse me of it. You did it.
We're all awaiting your daily proof report. I'll pop some corn.
You do realize that earth-worshipping environmentalism is a religion, right?
I worship no one and nothing. Ever.
I simply need food & water and I know where it comes from: Earth. I know what stops it: dumb fucks polluting my sources of food & water.
It's simple. This is the polite, academic and honest way of saying "don't fuck with my food".
The not-polite version involves firearms and explosives.
You forgot to remind him he's a LOOOON! Dude's crazier than a shithouse rat. Seriously, with the 'zero error' bullshit. LOON!
Has nothing to do with "earth worshipping." Nothing wrong with not wanting to destroy our (once) beautiful planet. The banksters who dreamed up this crap couldn't care less about the earth. Al Gore has a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla. The simple fact is that CO2 is having little to no change on the climate. However, chemtrails combined with HAARP are having a big change. And this is being brought to you by the same cockroaches who are bringing you climate change bullshit. Enjoy your drought, California.
HAARP hardware can only heat the upper ionosphere, not the lower troposphere. It's not an infrared emitter, for example. A lot of bogus claims are made on what HAARP does, starting with the energy requirements. For the massive amount of energy to cause global warming it's easy to measure that it comes from the sun, hits the earth, converts to infrared and is absorbed into the ocean, the atmosphere, etc. For us to produce this directly from HAARP we'd probably need every nuclear reactor ever built in human history just to do it ONCE. It's that much power.
I just HATE those American predator bombs. All they seem to be good for is blowing up women and children and their villages. I swear they must have sensors that seek out tits and ass. I'm getting so sick of hearing that bullshit.
Fewer women and children is what makes those bombs so good. It is a short term increase in carbon output but carbon savings over what would have been the lifespan of those women and children can be huge. They really are saving the planet by killing women and children. Let's have a parade!
All of New England is forecast to receive significant snowfall during the night of April 15-16, and the blast of Arctic air that follows could keep it on the ground for a day or two. Global warming is like Obama's economic recovery -- it's always happening everywhere except where you happen to be.
in other words, billions of people elsewhere are not experiencing this 'cold' and you'll pretend they don't exist because in America, the entire planet can be ignored and we can then dictate all global 'warming' from 'america' as the 'planet'.
funny how we don't hear these complaints of how 'scary cold' it is from Australia or Mexico or Brazil at the same time as you.
oh, why might that be? How about because it's been SUMMER in the southern hemisphere while you had winter, and in Mexico, it's hot all the damn time?
Dear NWO Agent,
A warmer planet would mean fewer and shorter droughts along with lengthened growing seasons. Global warming would permit the Earth to better feed all humans. For the little people, this would a great thing. For your oligarch paymasters, not so much. That makes it bad for you too since your income depends on the .01% paying to you spread disinformation and lies.
We aren't buying it.
Sincerely,
TheReplacement
What you're buying is that rising temperatures is 'cooling' and that clear proof methane & CO2 trap heat is 'a hoax' and what you buy is that the very well documented nature of hot air HOLDING water, not raining it, is also impossible.
So basically you're either crazy or very poorly educated.
You can take your "warmer planet, shorter droughts" theory to the Sahara and peddle it to all who will listen in their verdant fields of corn.
Right?
Right.
\facepalm....
I get it! Global warming is making it colder. But it's all so complicated that only a paid scientific PhD prostitute at the University of East Anglia can understand it well enough to fudge the data.
So what data was fudged?
There's no point attacking that singular accusation. I know it makes them waste time which is funny counter-trolling the trolls but honestly it's easy enough to find the tree-ring thing. With so much else of great importance you and I have already brought up, it is pointless going down the East Anglia road. What matters is they don't speak for anyone else.
So what data was fudged?
Let's start with your "degrees" in math & science.
We can start with your High School Diploma....
BTW, I never claimed a degree in Math....
It's amusing to listen to the rants of in-the-tankers who do nothing but get all frothy over "information" that fits the narrative they want to be the truth. You have been brainwashed by the zealots of the earth-worshipping religion.
Ask yourself why proponents of man-made global warming so desperately want it to be true. Hint: it has nothing to do with greenhouse gas.
Mass Transit and Mighty Thor will save the planet
http://thinkingaboot.blogspot.ca/2014/04/thorium-free-at-last.html
I am a glowbull warming denier. Ain't true. Distortion and hidden agendas motivate these lemming.
This article provides a bunch of misleading information:
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.
Fact: Natural gas is a hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane.
No one releases nat gas into the air; it is burned as it is released when it can't be piped somewhere or to a user. To let it vent would be hyper-dangerous and the eventual air-burst explosion would be devasting - that is why everyone burns it.
Nat gas is a GAS - water and gas don't mix naturally. I guess basis physics and chemistry are supposed to be ignored to make this lame argument work.
Water when enhaled in 100% toxic and a potent cause of death. Water retains heat. Let's control water. It is dangerous and causes glowbull warming.
NOAA Investigation Finds Massive Methane Emissions from Utah Fracking: 6% to 12% Lost to Atmosphere
Fracking could accelerate global warming
There you go again, GW. Pulling out all the stops on the bits of "data" that fit the narrative you believe ought to be true, but never really seeking truth. What's amazing is that you do not see yourself as a statist.
Holy shit, how dumb are you.
GW posts the article which basically lambasts global warming and sides with the hoaxers then posts ONE comment on his own article you don't like and suddenly he's with the "religious cult" just because you don't like it.
Thanks GW, that was a very good test.
Was it the porch test?
Turing test?
IQ test?
All of the above?
Get the fuck off the porch, korner, you're too fucking blond.
He even wrote "SCAM AND TRADE" as a section and "global warming" in quotes IN THE HEADLINE and you turned on him in accordance to your ideology faster than BATS collapsed its own IPO.
George,
That article you linked is a POS. Fracking doesnt cause any more methane than normal oil and gas wells.
I suggest you read down the article comments where the gentleman posted a somewhat techincal explanation of fracking and where the methane might come from. Then read the authors replies "I didnt want to get technical, but water its all about the water" lol.
If you want a highly detailed explanantion in laymans terms feel free to send me a message. There are legitimate concerns about fracking, this is definitely NOT one of them.
Peace!
If it weren't for fracking all those new wells would not be drilled....
And the number of wells needed to exploit shale assets dwarfs a conventional field...
Wrong!! We'd be drilling more unconventional gas wells with ever diminishing returns - Think tight sand, carbonates, coal bed methane (( 2 OF THREE REQUIRE FRACKING BTW!!)) Drilling shale is FAST, Drilling shale is CHEAP. Thats why we can do it at 2-3$ Natty.
Go drill a well in the foothills of the rockies for 7-14 months and compare the costs to your 14 day shale gas well.
Compare that to the costs of drilling a tight sand well. Still got to frac it. Carbonates? Frac it and Acidize it.
Now how much do you think the day rate of of an offshore rig is? Think 500k+
How much does an exporation well in Iraq or Libya cost to drill these days? HINT: Think north of 100 Million in some cases. You can drill the same wells in North America of 1-2 million in a fraction of the time.
The point is, finding oil and gas IS HARD AND EXPENSIVE! We're all fawked. Why do you think they are digging holes and cooking oil out of the dirt up north?
Open your eyes. The world is gonna change somethin serious right quick.
or we could just stop drilling and use less and sacrifice only our entertainment like Warcraft (requiring massive server farms), Minecraft (yes, this is a huge draw) and Nascar (duh, burning gas to drive in circles). It keeps Jeff Dunham and Bubba J in business but at what cost? At least Achmed is already a dead terrorist. His footprint must be tiny. It's all bones!
"Why do you think they are digging holes and cooking oil out of the dirt up north?"
To power more x-box 360's and bitcoin miners.
It isn't to do better farming, run more freezers or keep the lights on. Population & basic needs are not expanding anywhere near the level of energy consumption shows. It's going to entertainment. The 'circuses' part of 'bread and circuses'.
It's actually all part of the larger expanse of wealth misallocation from a war-subsidized energy-source paid for in a central-bank rigged fiat. If only you were smart enough to realize your 'hoax' calling and wasteful fuel burning for pure entertainment, not survival, is actually playing right into their hands as a model-slave. Debt-slave, fiat-slave, tax-slave, soon to be food-slave as Monsanto controls what territory global warming doesn't destroy.
They have satellites on watch constantly. I'm not shitting you, farmers can grow 10000+ acres of what's asked of them to have it paid for, or they can pay for the service in full. Monsanto will report patterns of damage to crops. But they're watching everything of that nature, not just for the farmers who paid for the service. Why the fuck is Monsanto watching every farm, every field, using satellites? All the time? Are you so dense as to suspect they're just providing a simple, honest service? Monsanto?
Buddy, you picked the wrong guy to try to blow smoke up his ass....
If it weren' for directional drilling and fracking, we wouldn't even be drilling at 10% of the current rate...
Here is the data on the cost per well:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=E_ERTW0_XWWR_N...
And here is the data for cost per foot...
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=E_ERTW0_XWPR_N...
Its Hilarious because people like you think fracking and directional drilling was just invented last week or something. Its been a normal oilfield practice for decades.
Whats also hilarious is the links you posted show a data series that stops at 2009 that clearly shows the costs doubling every 5-6 years. What exactly do you think the costs are today?Are you refuting the numbers that I posted in my earlier comment?
What exactly do you think powers a drilling rig? Not fairy dust. Think Diesel.
Modern directional drilling was invented in the 70's dude. While it's been known that wells could be steered with rotary assemblies since 1920s! The first horizontal well was driling in 1937! The fricking Chinese were drilling horizontals in the 1960's!!
http://directional-driller.com/page46/page46.html
Are you really trying to tell everyone that 90% of wells are directional wells? That is just simply wrong. Stats for North America.http://oilindependents.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Drilling-direction...
Now if you said something like this:
Then I would agree. As I said before FRACKING IS NOT NEW. The only thing thats new is fracking shale for oil and gas. We were fracking lots of wells before the shale oil/gas boom, and we'll be fracking lots of wells after its over.
Its not as if horizontal or directional drilling *causes* more wells to be drilled. It actually increases the productivity of a single well. It allows LESS wells to be drilled and more exposure to the reservoir. You can make gas out of a shale frack on a vertical well, you'd just need ***more*** wells to do it.
You need to check yourself for a minute and realize something: if we werent fracking the shale we'd be fracking something else like tight sand or carbonate reservoirs. The only reason were fracking the shale right now is economics. And as I explained earlier, drilling shale is cheap and fast. Drilling hard rock for tight sand is not fast nor is it cheap.
Directional drilling is expensive. It was refined as a necessity to improve the economics of drilling. If it were easy to get oil and gas we wouldnt be doing it.
I stand by my earlier assertion, Buddy. We're all fawked.
Good Day.
Lay off the strawmen...
The only reason a well gets drilled is that someone thinks they can make money by doing so...
"If it were easy to get oil and gas we wouldnt be doing it."
But it is easy: what's hard is doing with less luxuries after being bought into slavery using debt & marketing. I'd like to follow Bill Hicks in spreading those seeds. If you're in marketing, I'll add banking too, please, KILL YOURSELF.
I have 3 computers. 1 is never on and is very old. 1 is 3 years old and I use it every day but no more than 12 hours at a time because some of its action is scripted/automated and I turn it off if I'm out. A 3rd computer is a netbook which was so cheap that for what it could store & process it was worth $230 I paid. It's on maybe... 1 hour a month except if a problem pops up on the main computer: then I use it as the main computer until the desktop's up and running.
Very, very little power use there. No x-box, no ps2,3,etc, no Wii/N64/etc., no games on the computers, no TV. I have overtime, zerohedge, stock charts, LibreOffice for making my own charts and several large boxes of sci-fi books. It took power to print & ship them once but it takes me no additional power to read them. I rarely get to it but if I feel like re-reading the Dune series it's right there. Will easily keep me occupied by LED flashlight, 100 watt bulb or candle light if I desire.
Be entertained for less. It's that easy.
Nice deflection.
No It Is Not.
Didnt realize we were arguing about debt slaves, the number of computers you own and Monsanto. I'm just a simple guy who thought this was an argument about fracking causing methane.
Continue to entertain yourself.
Rgs,
BT-Out!
I like Georges patriotic anti banker/anti deep state stuff, but just like the Macondo saga (aka Deepwater Horizon) hes getting it totally wrong again when it comes to oil n gas.
You gotta learna bout this stuff, its pretty basic. Ask an oilfield guy what he thinks about this article. Tonnes of info on google, try to stay away from the eco-blogs though. ;-)
Long story short, the only difference between a fracked well and a normal well, is the water.
This is just plain wrong to associate fracking with methane. If the article took a more general stance like - "Pipelines leak". I might agree, but this implies that conventional gas well *don't* leak? Read the comments on that article the author has no clue what fracking is and where the methane is coming from, he just keeps saying "Yeah but fracking uses a lot of water..."
Now I crawl back into my hole now, see you in another 2 years, GW.
/rant
so fracking leads no more than any other gas well? Or maybe very carelessly because fractures are everywhere and there's no way to properly contain it, rather than drilling into an easily defined pocket?
You're worse than GW. You probably believe in abiotic oil too. lol
Seriously dude, Go Read a Book.
Oily bits
http://thinkingaboot.blogspot.ca/2014/04/thinkingaboot-oily-bits-climate...
I appreciate GW writing this. It is very interesting to see how hard one must work to talk some people out of believing something so obviously wrong, and it is interesting to see just how crooked American's leadership truly is. Big handshake to those man enough to admit that they were snookered.
but what's so obviously wrong is that "global warming is a hoax". What's so obviously proven is that we have measured global warming;
Americans in denial of this literally are finding a way to turn their eyeballs off to follow the religion of Hoax-Calling upon actual facts.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html
2010 and 2005 tied for warmest years EVER on record
AND YET: some people will post RIGHT HERE IN THIS COMMENT SECTION that we've had "no warming for 15 years!"
HOW BLIND must a person be, unable to see temperatures for the past 15 years, didn't look any single day in the past 15 years with their own eyeballs, to BELIEVE such a nonsense assertion?
Actually, there has been zero warming for 17 years, 8 months, and counting. Even the biggest AGW supporters like Ken Trenberth are now writing papers trying to explain 'where the heat has been hiding' and 'what caused the pause'. Surely you cannot have missed that?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-m...