This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -


Oh the fond memories of FROSH Week.... with the frecks died purple with wild mohawks, and the frosh meak and humble...
Hey Artsigh, how do you feel today?
Go Gales!!!
argh, that's GAELS, laddie!
ah...you see my friend you are THINKING like a computer scientist...nanoseconds...a year is an ETERNITY to you...But not to the climate...which does nothing but change. Even if we are somehow "changing" climate..scientific method dictates it would take MILLENIA to understand with any certainty due to natural climate cycles ( themselves dynamic). In the computer model we live in a nanosecond is 100 years.
I am thinking like me: no one else thinks like me. Ever.
I can think of eons or nanoseconds in equality, I have no preference.
Scientific method indicates we have already figured out how we are modifying our climate as easily as we figured out sulfur pollution to the air caused acid rain, and now we stopped doing it, and we figured out CFC's ate the ozone so we stopped doing that and thankfully it's repairing itself.
Your assumptions about my pre-supposed assumptions are nonsense. The data proves climate change is climate warming and that humans are doing it. If we stopped emissions of CO2 and methane for engines this problem goes away probably within 10 years. If the arctic permafrost melts first we all die, every human on Earth, within 200 years. End of species.
ozone ahahahahaha....yes, we found a chemical reaction that takes place in a lab and have extrapolated this idea to the entire atmosphere, nevermind that the entire creation and destruction cycle of ozone is modulated by EXPOSURE TO SUNLIGHT...
nevermind that CFCs are a heavy gas, anthropogenically most of which doesnt make it as high as the ozone layer, not in anything more than trace amounts.
but feel free to continue conflating correlation with causation. it makes for some interesting, albeit false, arguments.
Let me guess, you think CFCs are too heavy to make it up there...
Why don;t you write and paper and set the textbooks straight on applicability of the Kinetic Theory of Gases....
you are fucking hilarious...
and your little dog too!
And maybe 90% of all species in a mass-extiction event. 'Under A Green Sky'
and he stayed at a holiday inn last night, too
What we see now is a permanent warming, irreversible warming, because of excess CO2 & methane in the atmosphere, a rate of increase never happening in the history of all life in the known universe ever."
The lower tropospheric temperature has not increased in 15 years. The rate of increase is zero, currently.
There isn't anything that is irreversable, as to climate.
That measurement is very difficult and no one is convinced that the UAH methodology is correct.... Especially given their track record of in the past...
Whereas the the Stratosphere temperature is falling right in line with GW expectations and that meaurement is pretty straight forward....
Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
This is irreversible and the temperatures have all increased, including lower troposphere, many times when you say there's been none.
It's been measured so how can you deny the measurements? Faulty equipment?
"This is irreversible.." that absolute statement has some "wiggle room"... but over a very long time frame, so I will grant you that for our and our children's life time it is irreversible.
CO2 has a life time of over a hundred years... it is strictly a (new sources of CO2 emissions - Ma Natures CO2 removal rate)... and then integrate it over time...... lots of variables in the Ma Nature Removal rate, not linear, function of concentration of CO2 sinks and other positive feed back loops.....and has Rumsfeld would say the "unknown, unknowns...."
http://co2now.org/Know-GHGs/Emissions/ipcc-faq-emissions-reductions-and-...
I'm taking some liberty with predicting the future, that's true.
I'm predicting we're already too far into the chain reaction with the arctic methane being released and the anoxic conditions of the oceans getting more intense. I'm also predicting that what sliver of hope is required for a united human action to stop it requires humans be less corrupt and less stupid and predicting we humans are indeed too corrupt and stupid to meet that sliver of hope.
Maybe I just haven't learned to be an optimist yet.
I'm sure if I keep reading zerohedge that will turn around. Ya? :-)
MDBogus, hope may spring eternal but time seems to be what we're short of on this problem. Like the ZH poster's name, Rwe2L8, we may well be.
We are now about 20 months away from UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris, two arctic melts as I like to say. Who knows what we'll learn between now and Paris, but COP 21 is shaping up to be MEAN BUSINESS! I think everyone has pretty much figured out that AR6 might well be a waste of time...
(ah, 1984, the boys outside Vic Hall askin the girls to show them things. Ban Righ. and the old grease pole)
Tony Bonn: Nothing you say is found in science. The exact opposite actually. Are you a Chevron employee? Congressmans son?
We don't need Fascism to solv our problems.
Amen to that!
No, but the .01% need facism to solve their "problems".
Probably less than 30% of Americans comprehend that an imaginary friend is a mental illness, not a god.
No wonder only 34% of Americans actually understand there's such a thing as global warming. If you can't even admit what's real or what's not no wonder you can't read thermometers.
Denial of reality is a seriously deadly phenomenon of American culture.
Reduce waste of resources. What can be recycled should be recycled: this ensures we have more land to grow food on instead of filling it with trash. Reduce energy consumption: use things that need less power or cut the power off when you seriously have no need of it. Don't drive a car. At all. Maybe have a bug-out vehicle ready & keep it in good shape but a train, bus, bike or walking can accomplish a lot. Plus walking/biking is exercise and let's be honest - who here says they already get enough exercise to be fit?
Planes? Fuck the airlines. Nowhere you need to be is so important to justify the fuel burn for commercial planes PLUS if you're American, TSA wants to rape your asshole, grope your testicles and molest your children & grandma. You know it.
The changes required by the general population to make a difference are so dire that our society will rapidly disintegrated in civil unrest and conflict, so it is not going to happen voluntarily. TPTB are setting the stage to "cross that bridge" only when absolutely necessary.
Perhaps Thomas Gray's insight explains much... "Ignorance is bliss".
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.
Thomas Gray
"No wonder only 34% of Americans actually understand there's such a thing as global warming. If you can't even admit what's real or what's not no wonder you can't read thermometers."
The global lower tropospheric thermometer shows there hasn't been any warming in the last 15 years.
incorrect.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html
2010 and 2005 tied for warmest years EVER on record
"the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880."
*cough*"baseline"comparison*cough* idiot
NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:
The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there (you can read more about this in the last IPCC report from 2007). The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.
If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.
If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.
The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database. Wikipedia has a fine overview of this database. The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans. One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus, has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone. During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel).
How to deny data
Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics” know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements. Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible” – the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’” web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one. Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester. Anything goes when you have to deny global warming. Even more bizarre is the Star Trek argument – but let me save that for later.
Slowdown in the upper ocean
First: Roughly two thirds of the warming since 1980 occurred in the upper ocean. The heat content of the upper layer has gone up twice as much as in the lower layer (700 – 2000 m). The average temperature of the upper layer has increased more than three times as much as the lower (because the upper layer is only 700 m thick, and the lower one 1300 m). That is not surprising, as after all the ocean is heated from above and it takes time for the heat to penetrate deeper.
Second: In the last ten years the upper layer has warmed more slowly than before. In spite of this the temperature still is changing as rapidly there as in the lower layer. This recent slower warming in the upper ocean is closely related to the slower warming of the global surface temperature, because the temperature of the overlaying atmosphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the ocean surface.
That the heat absorption of the ocean as a whole (at least to 2000 m) has not significantly slowed makes it clear that the reduced warming of the upper layer is not (at least not much) due to decreasing heating from above, but rather mostly due to greater heat loss to lower down: through the 700 m level, from the upper to the lower layer. (The transition from solar maximum to solar minimum probably also contributed a small part as planetary heat absorption decreased by about 15%, Abraham, et al., 2013). It is difficult to establish the exact mechanism for this stronger heat flux to deeper water, given the diverse internal variability in the oceans.
Association with El Niño
Completely independently of this oceanographic data, a simple correlation analysis (Foster and Rahmstorf ERL 2011) showed that the flatter warming trend of the last 10 years was mostly a result of natural variability, namely the recently more frequent appearance of cold La Niña events in the tropical Pacific and a small contribution from decreasing solar activity. The effect of La Niña can be seen directly in the following figure, without any statistical analysis. It shows the annual values of the global temperature with El Niño periods highlighted in red and La Niña periods in blue. (Weekly updates on the current El Niño situation can be found here.)
One finds that both the red El Niño years and the blue La Niña years are getting warmer, but given that we have lately experienced a cluster of La Niña years the overall warming trend over the last ten years is slower. This can be thought of as the “noise” associated with natural variability, not a change in the “signal” of global warming (as discussed many times before here at RealClimate).
This is consistent with the finding that reduced warming is not mainly a result of a change in radiation balance but due to oceanic heat storage. During La Niña events (with cold ocean surface) the ocean absorbs additional heat that it releases during El Niño events (when the ocean surface is warm). The next El Niño event (whenever it comes – that is a stochastic process) is likely to produce a new global mean temperature record (as happened in 2010).
Kevin Trenberth, who has recently published a paper on this topic, explains the increased heat uptake in the deep ocean:
New results from climate modelling
A study by Kosaka and Xie recently published in Nature confirms that the slowing rise in global temperatures during recent years has been a result of prevalent La Niña periods in the tropical Pacific. The authors write in the abstract:
They show this with an elegant experiment, in which they “force” their global climate model to follow the observed history of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific. With this trick the model is made to replay the actual sequence of El Niño and La Niña events found in the real world, rather than producing its own events by chance. The result is that the model then also reproduces the observed global average temperature history with great accuracy.
There are then at least three independent lines of evidence that confirm we are not dealing with a slowdown in the global warming trend, but rather with progressive global warming with superimposed natural variability:
1. Our correlation analysis between global temperature and the El Niño Index.
2. The measurements of oceanic heat uptake.
3. The new model calculation of Kosaka and Xie.
Now to the most amusing attempt of “climate skeptics” to wish these scientific results away. Their argument goes like this: It is not possible that warming of the deep ocean accelerates at the same time as warming of the upper ocean slows down, because the heat must pass through the upper layer to reach the depths. A German journalist put it this way:
This argument reveals once again the shocking lack of understanding of basic physics in “climate skeptic” circles. First the alleged problem is lacking any factual basis – after all, in the last decades the upper layer of the oceans has warmed faster than the deeper (even if recently not quite as fast as before). What is the problem with the heat first warming the upper layer before it penetrates deeper? That is entirely as expected.
Second, physically there is absolutely no problem for wind changes to cool the upper ocean at the same time as they warm the deeper layers. The following figure shows a simple example of how this can happen (there are also other possible mechanisms).
The ocean is known to be thermally stratified, with a warm layer, some hundreds of meters thick, lying on top of a cold deep ocean (a). In the real world the transition is more gradual, not a sharp boundary as in the simplified diagram. Panel (b) shows what happens if the wind is turned on. The surface layer (above the dashed depth level) becomes on average colder (less red), the deep layer warmer. The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains. The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.
Incidentally, that is the well-known mechanism of El Niño: (a) corresponds roughly to El Niño (with a warm eastern tropical Pacific) while (b) is like La Niña (cold eastern tropical Pacific). The winds are the trade winds. The figure greatly exaggerates the slope of the layer interface, because in reality the ocean is paper thin. Even a difference of 1000 m across the width of the Pacific (let’s say 10,000 km) leads to a slope of only 1:10,000 – which no one could distinguish from a perfectly horizontal line without massive vertical exaggeration.
Now if during the transition from (a) to (b) the upper layer is heated by the greenhouse effect, its temperature could remain constant while that of the lower one warmed. Simple classical physics
I admit that global warming is a manmade lie to raise taxes on working people, and that people who still believe in manmade global warming are fucking buffoons....
There's plenty of angry, desperate people with no taxes to be levied for global warming who are very concerned about global warming, all around the world. Those who are poor & can't move but live where new floods, new droughts or rising seas happen will be killed or nearly killed. Lives ruined. They're not asking for taxes or saying you should pay any. They just don't want to be killed.
Why do you want them killed? The surest way to kill them is to keep global warming getting worse by pretending it isn't real.
"They" do want them killed.
BINGO!!!!!
The poor unproductive nations of the world are parasites in a finite world.
And it is not just the poor nations... it is the poor and unproductive in our society.
If you want to understand a bit more of this "mind set" in the American Culture suggest you follow up on some of Chris Hedges' works.
Chris Hedges is a Marxist fool. It's hard to believe he says anything of value (but he does, just rarely).
There are no unproductive nations of this world. Being poor is a function of their ability to fight back against predators. They are productive nonetheless. Extracting resources, supplying mercenaries, farmers, easy targets for political influence and mock-protesters-turned-"soldiers" ... very productive indeed.
So long as their life-spans stay under 50 they can be very useful as slaves to the elite. They can all easily be killed in battles or with industrial accidents when they get old enough or rise up, for a new batch of even more babies by then has matured just enough to join the new generation of global slavery for the elites.
Dear MDB, your question: "Why do you want them killed?"
The truth of the matter is that implementation of a solar/windmill energy economy requires that today's world population of 7 billion humans be reduced to 500 million.
So it looks like it is you that is proposing to "kill them".
And yet that is a non-answer.
No windmills.
No solar farms.
Just cut back burning the fuel to reasonable levels. No more burning fuel for fun, no more running machines for pure entertainment, no more polluting the air with that crap.
By all means if you need to run a generator being off-grid, burn wood for a gasification outfit or to cook, etc., go for it. Survival demands consumption.
Just don't make all the rest of us suffer for your desire to mine bitcoins, play X-Box, etc.
If you can run all that off fuel cells producing water instead of CO2, you know what: go for it. Odds are if you're doing that indoors you'll make use of the water for personal comfort, plants, etc., without it being my problem somewhere else on the planet.
I do not at all support solar farms, windmill farms, carbon taxes but my desire to see all that stopped is 100% detached from my analysis of the fact that measure global warming caused by humans burning fuels.
Why do you feel the need to kill us all by burning fuels for entertainment and forcing the rest of us to endure your pollution? Why can't you cut back or contain your shit so it doesn't spread? I don't care if you burn 100 tons of carbon a day as long as you keep it contained to your property (if you can). if you can I have no problem with you.
Our financial system is based upon growth.
Without growth the financial system collapses.
Growth is dependent on "net energy used"....
What you are proposing is a drastic reduction in net energy used. (EROEI is very low for WT and PV)
Suggest reading Gail Tverberg work,
http://ourfiniteworld.com/
Actually the current financial system is based on skimming and calling it growth. "growth" is a nebulous term never defined by the financial wizards of Oz. They care only that the skim is still there for the taking, they care not how it's sourced.
If we're more efficient with resources and sustainably so but do not remove the skimming parasites we'll still have efficiency growth, technology growth and - overlords.
What I'm proposing is a drastic reduction in the energy we waste for non-essentials. Purely for entertainment. We could get a lot done. An easy guide to look upon: both history of how we lived without electricity or gasoline yet found ways to be entertained, and how modern people in many parts of the world still do so. Food, shelter, medicine. That's important. Xbox, minecraft, bitcoin & Nascar really aren't. We will live just fine using zero power for those things. We'll find something else to be interested in. Maybe singing, dancing, painting, theater... I'm sure people can think of things but we can reduce power consumption now that is used for nonsense and not endanger our survival whatsoever in doing so.
Conservation of energy? What are you, a communist?
hahahaha +1 for the Lulz.
Remember radiation is actually nutritious... eat your radiation, hook up everything you have to NG and shut the hell up. The world will wither and die if we don't save the turtles... now lets go start a nuclear war.
It seems to me, actual pollution is debated less and less but global warming is constantly the topic. Hmmm..
That's because the actual pollution would offend people on corporate welfare.
For example, there's a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It comes from ammonia fertilizer that leaches from fields in Iowa, down the Mississippi River. But hey, you better not question those Farm Bill subsidies which go through the farmers to Monsanto and the farmers' banks. Who cares that nitrogen pollution is ranked as a greater hazard than global warming?
"t seems to me, actual pollution is debated less and less but global warming is constantly the topic. Hmmm.."
+1MM. YES!!!
I wish I could give you 1M upvotes. THAT'S IT!!.
Even been to a place where you can't swim in the water let alone drink it? Our kids are breathing toxins and eating poison, and we are worried about global warming? It's like a 20 year old meth addict being worried about arthritis and dementia. It's all bullshit, they don't want to talk about the real issue. IPhones and big TVs and cars, etc cause pollution (not global warming).
The earth will be perfectly temperate but there will be no clear air or drinking water..
"IPhones and big TVs and cars, etc cause pollution (not global warming)."
They cause global warming AND other pollution. Methane pollution, carbon pollution, decomposing plastic pollution & metals refining pollution.
And the carbon excess is much worse than just heating (measured and real): it's making the oceans acidic and this is killing off the food (small fish, corals) and shelter for our food (larger fish) which means we lose a giant food supply.
Some other concerns which seem reasonable to me but hard to prove large-scale is anoxic die-offs.
If enough fish corpses happen we get a giant reduction in oxygen during the rotting of those bodies and this causes a chain reaction of killing off even more food supply from the oceans and oxygen supply when plankton die.
This of course can lead to total extinction of humans easily within 2 centuries.
Needs ta eat me some vitamin R!
did you read a peer reviewed article saying that'll cure your retardation or something?
Actually I found it on the Simpsons which means I can trust 100% that vitamin R is good for me.
Global Climate Warming Change - it's called the weather.
It's amazing how many people do can't seem to comprehend the difference between day-to-day weather and long-term climate trends.
Ideology much?
To think that we puny humans have more effect on the planet or can outsmart an object 1,300,000 times larger than our planet...wait, is the Miley posing nude again?
It's not. It's what changes the weather forever to be warmer and will probably wipe out human life inside 200 years.
It doesn't matter.
It can get warmer, colder; that fact is there isn't a damn thing we could do about if we wanted to.
The people that are pretending they can do something about it, and want to ruin our lives in the process are the real danger that we CAN do something about.
It's such a coincidence that the politicians raising the alarms regarding "global warming" and their solutions just happen to be all of the stuff they've always wanted to do, but get thrown out of office when they tell the truth about their real agenda. More central government control, surrender of national sovereignty, more regulations, higher taxes....ect...ect...ect. It's funny how they always had the answer, even before the "problem" was revealed.
If the assholes 'preaching' this garbage honestly believed a word they were saying, they wouldn't have such a massive "carbon footprint". (multiple homes that use enough energy to power half of a residential neighborhood, private jets, ect)
it does matter.
We caused this.
We can cause the reverse.
We can cause stability. We are in charge and fully control it. 100%.
If this kills us it is an act of 100% fully aware suicide, not an accident of nature.
Governments are playing both sides of the argument: they have no validity and we should ignore them or perhaps dissolve them.
Governments play both sides of every argument. Never trust them. I don't.
private jets causing pollution causing global warming: might I suggest...
"We caused this. We can cause the reverse."
My favorite is the video of Joel Rogers, progressive leftist and executive bigwig of Globull Warmer Scammers R Us, who say that we could shut down the entire United States and it wouldn't matter one bit as far as stopping your bullshit fantasies.
Except it would matter plenty: India & China are next in line and their fuel burning will drop like a rock when they have no America to export to. You offshored manufacturing, they didn't just build up independently of America.
How about I put my carbon footprint ups your liberal ass!
I'm not a liberal.
LOL. 2 dumb fucks obviously don't understand what a "liberal" is. I don't vote for/with anything liberal, I don't believe in anything liberals do and most people who claim to be liberals or conservatives are in fact neither. They are sheep, bleating, unthinking followers who will say anything their leaders say. Faith & religion are a mental illness.
Be without faith, devoid of belief, using only fact and you can't ever be a liberal nor a conservative: merely an intellectual.