The author of this post, ‘B’, is spot on: climate change is real, the polar ice caps have massively melted, Florida is gradually going underwater, record high temperatures are being recorded worldwide. Here in central Europe, we’ve just had the hottest, scorchingest, driest summer on memory. Even the very old have said they’ve never seen anything like it. From May through September it was an inferno with hardly any rain. All the trees were scorched yellow or red, trees were losing their leaves in June! Fucking fried right off, never seen anything like this. If this happens again next year, we are seriously fucked.
As the author B points out, it is the short term profit motivation inherent in our capitalist system that makes each generation only think of immediate short term gain, and fuck future generations: let them fix what the problem we’ve created for them. SHORT TERM PROFIT at the expense of the Earth and future generations is the total essence of the USA! But this type of greedy selfish thinking is exactly what will keep, and has kept real measures from being put in place to stop burning fossil fuels, massive logging of the Earth’s forests, clearcutting, deforestation, C02 gas emissions, etc. All of the measures to reverse global warming cost money–so they will never be implemented! Not as long as we suffer under neo-liberal capitalism as we now have in the 21st century. Sadly, I personally don’t think humanity is up for this challenge. By and large, humans are selfish, shitty little monkeys who can’t see past their nose. The climate change genie has been let out of its bottle: in fact it may already be too late to reverse anthropogenic climate change and the massive impact it will have on this planet. This is what is coming: EXTREME drought and heat waves will massively disrupt farming worldwide: this will cause massive food shortages, massive increases in cost of basic foodstuffs; massive areas of the Earth will be made unliveable, such as the Middle East, and massive parts of Africa, S.W. USA, Balkans and southern Europe will become a blast furnace every summer. Mass migrations from drought/heatwave stricken areas; massive die-offs of flora and fauna; wars will be fought for depleted water supplies (this is already happening in S. Africa! There is no rain, and water is now strictly rationed). Climate change could very well spell the end for humanity, or at least a total breakdown in civil society with looting, stealing, martial law etc. The Pentagon has been quietly preparing for such potentialities. It is disheartening to read the comments under this article, it only further reinforces the very negative opinion I already have regarding the stupidity of human monkeys (monkey fits better than ‘beings’).
Anyways, for those who understand the severity of the coming climate change upheavals, here is a most excellent website for debunking all of the commonly used climate change denial arguments, I highly recommend it for those among you suffering from interaction with climate change denial idiots-
https://skepticalscience.com/
Very thoroughly researched, very recommended reading.

Posted by: Deschutes | Sep 29 2018 8:40 utc | 104

Nuclear is not a solution: a) in estimating the environmental damage, one should take into account the entire cycle of extraction, purification, combustion and disposal in order to compare it to other sources of energy. … c) the only solution is in renewable energies (solar, wind, geo, etc.), but they don’t fit the business model of our present economies. Because they are decentralised (therefore democratic)
Posted by: Bongocero | Sep 29, 2018 4:30:54 AM | 100
Ah, you just beat me to it! I was just about to come to that. Too true.
As I intimated above indirectly (last paragraph of BM99), nuclear power stations are costed fraudulently because they do not cost the effect on the environment. As you correctly state the waste products are expensive to deal with and can only be stored for future generations to pay for, but the most blatent fraud in the nuclear costing is the decommissioning of the power station. No power station on earth can last forever, and when it is closed down it has to be safely decomissioned – the cost involved is astronomical compared with the running costs during use. By excluding decommissioning costs nuclear power APPEARS to be relatively cheap, but that is pure lies: when the decommissioning costs are accounted for it is the most expensive electricity source available by far.
By excluding the decommissioning costs and passing personal financial incentives to government ministers, the nuclear industry are able to put the decommissioning costs entirely on the taxpayers, making huge profits selling the first half of the project and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces for the second half while they make a run for it.

Posted by: BM | Sep 29 2018 8:49 utc | 106

One big difference between the AGW believers and the “deniers” is the deniers usually site science while the believers claim fossil fuel propaganda or spout insults.
The big elephant in the room the 97 or 99% of all scientists believe man is creating climate change. How this is calculated is they take a database and cull out the papers that mention climate change, global warming, etc. Of those they throw out the casual mentions and keep the serious assertions. The most famous of the 97% was done by Skeptical Science, which is not skeptical but full on AGW run by cartoonist John Cook, made their assertion based on 168 papers out of database of 12,000 PAPERS. Look it up. Plus they don’t explain their methodology for throwing out skeptical papers. All of these “studies” are done the same way. All based on culled papers from a database. If you look for an actual survey done by contacting scientists themselves what you do come up with is the Petition Project signed by 33,000 scientists and professionals that claim AGW is bunk. Oh but not all of those are scientists. Correct but Al Gore, Bill McKibben, George Monbiot, Bill Nye the Science Guy and most others at the forefront of the AGW movement are not scientists either. If the science supporting AGW is solid why the deceit in the 97% of all scientist claims? When DR Judith Curry believed in AGW she was considered one the top scientists on climate. When she turned denier all that changed and she eventually left academia due to smears and threats the usual for scientists who don’t believe. After she went over to the dark side there was a list of the 20 most important women in the climate arena they only listed 19 leaving her name out intentionally. Of the 19 only ONE was a scientist and they were all AGW.
There are plenty of sites that will show Arctic ice extent if you care to look. Sunshine Hours posts graphs from the Danish experts. Still plenty of ice there and far far from disappearing. Comparative measurements are based on the satellite era which began in 1979 when Arctic ice was at a high point. Records go back much further and show nothing abnormal in the Arctic.
According to the US government agencies the Antarctic has been gaining ice for decades. But it’s melting down there according to the true believers. Censorship by omission. The West Antarctic Peninsula is showing melting due to volcanoes and vents melting it from underneath. Look it up. As they continue to look they are finding all kinds of volcano’s buried under the snow and ice of Antarctica. In the Arctic, and around the world, they have found lots of erupting undersea volcano’s adding heat to the ocean. A couple of years ago David Attenborough did a scare program of the ongoing disaster of Antarctica. The island he was using to document the effects was located OUTSIDE of the Antarctic circle.
Greenland has been rapidly gaining snow and ice for years contrary to true believers. A few years ago there was scare headlines about the huge melting of the Greenland ice sheet because on one day the temperature got above freezing for a few hours. No measurements given. But all those icebergs coming from there! Correct. When the ice sheet expands the part that is in the ocean eventually breaks off because it expanded too far. No warming involved. A few years ago the believers showed a picture of a Greenland island they claim was buried for centuries until AGW reared it’s ugly head. Whereupon someone located a book published in 1957 showing that same island completely exposed
As far as storms and fires human recollections formed over decades have no relevance and only cover a small area. According to official figures hurricanes and especially tornadoes are down. Record low numbers of tornado’s in recent years even though we are better able to identify them versus years ago. The west always has fires, for many forests they renew only when burned thanks to mother nature, and today’s are peanuts compared to decades in the past. Look up the official government figures. As it is recent fires have been made worse because environmentalists won’t allow the forests to be cleaned up and the dead “fuel” removed. They won’t even allow fire breaks to be constructed to make fires easier to control. The recent droughts in that area that are called records are far from it. Droughts in the west in the past have lasted hundreds of years. As it is the current era is considered a wet one in climate history. Let’s not also forget disasters made worse by humans building in forests, floodplains, and barrier islands.
The ozone hole has only disappeared in the media. It’s still there. It only occurs when Antarctica is in winter and some scientists believe it is the extreme cold not humans causing it. Just as with C02 the amount of gasses that humans released were supposedly the cause of the hole are a drop in the bucket compared to what the oceans release.
According to the proven laws of physics, Henry’s Law in this case, the amount of C02 absorbed by a liquid is based on temperature and pressure. The warmer the liquid the less it can hold. Pop open a warm soda to prove it. Thus the reason C02 lags temperature. As we have come out of the Little Ice Age the oceans have warmed thus releasing C02. If we are indeed going into another ice age the oceans will again absorb more C02 as they cool. Look it up. Satellite pictures are showing that as the C02 is increasing the earth is getting greener. Many scientists insist the atmosphere is starved of C02 and could use a lot more.
President Obama made a huge deal out of climate change. He insisted that any world leader visiting him should have climate change first on the agenda. His department heads publicly stated they would have no deniers working for them. Papers like the LA Times and Huffpo would not print “denier” stories or comments. The IMF and World Bank made climate change a consideration when giving loans. In this climate it’s easy to believe “denier” scientists when they say they can’t get their works published or get government grants. A government employee wouldn’t dare give a grant to a “denier” no matter his qualifications fearing losing his job. Compared to what the governments around the world, and rich enviros like Greenpeace and Sierra Club, hand out to “prove” climate change the money spent by the fossil industry is a drop in the bucket much of which is spent to support scientists who do unbiased work but can’t get a government grant because they are “deniers”. Under Obama’s EPA they encouraged Sue and Settle where they would encourage enviro groups to sue the EPA who would then immediately settle. The EPA had activists write the studies that the EPA based their ruling on. When Congress asked to see these studies the EPA refused and continues to do so. Trump hasn’t complete rid the EPA of Obama’s activists thus no surprise the 7 degree claim in the report.
Government agencies have been caught fudging the temperature numbers to cool the past to make it look like constant warming. For years they also denied, until they could no longer deny it, the urban heat island effect. Cities with their buildings and roadways soak up not reflect the suns rays skewing the temps. With most official weather stations located at airports which used to be out in the wilds but now buried inside urban sprawl the temps are inflated. Rather than relocate the instruments to a proper site they “adjust” the numbers. Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat got his start by documenting the sites of official temperature instruments. A huge number badly sited next to buildings, parking lots, some next to air conditioners, and other poor sites. A retired geologist named Morton did studies of towns of similar size near each other on the same elevation with the only difference being the siting of the temperature instruments. Properly sited the temps were always lower. Dr John Christy did a study of city temps versus temps of well outside of the cities in open country. He found that that while the city temps were higher due to the heat island effect those out in the boonies showing the real temps were unchanged over a long period of time.

Posted by: snedly arkus | Sep 29 2018 9:06 utc | 108

@snedly arkus #109 –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=9PUmKHBtnlA
You’re wrong about arctic ice: “gaining ice for decades” LOL. Watch the above video which explains your cherry picked argument about the arctic gaining ice leaves out all of the other factors involved such as Antarctic land ice vs sea ice. You commit an ‘error of omission’ and conveniently deny all of the factual data that indicates massive ice loss in Antartica.
Another laughable claim you make: “hurricanes are down”. Massive, extreme hurricanes hit Puerto Rico, Houston, Florida etc with numerous articles pointing out how climate change has created larger, much more extreme hurricanes as we have had. But for you, you glibly claim ‘hurricanes are down’ LOL. Get outta here clown.

Posted by: Deschutes | Sep 29 2018 11:21 utc | 110

Posted by: BM | Sep 29, 2018 4:23:51 AM | 102
Most of Western science these days is too corrupt and in the pocket of corporatism. It is in important respects no longer even scientific. Furthermore the very nature of Western academia is fundamentally flawed by the financial structures (i.e. research funding structures) on which it is based, which induce scientists to cultivate “niches” for themselves in which they pursue entire careers just to play a game of building up one scientific theory and knocking down a competing theory, instead of honourably setting out to discover the truth.
I’ve long called this the corporate science paradigm, using the term as Thomas Kuhn used it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Modern civilization’s scientific establishment incarnates this paradigm.
This is the usually unspoken (at least in the most honest, explicit form) but firmly enforced ideology and practice of modern science:
1. Science is reduced to technological development.
2. This technology must be high-maintenance in terms of wealth, complexity, secrecy, vulnerability, energy, and natural resources. Optimally, it maximizes destruction and waste.
3. This technology must be dedicated to goals of power, corporate profit, and in general manipulation and control.
Under this paradigm, to seek understanding is not part of science. At best it’s a preliminary to the real activity of science, which is to seek manipulation and control. In the same way, science has no mission to serve humanity. Science is purely nihilistic from the point of view of human well-being. It has no mission beyond serving the power goals of elites, and beyond that a generalized manipulation/control imperative which is the core psychic trait of modern STEM practitioners, to the point that they comprise a fundamentalist cult called scientism.
We can’t reform the existing science establishment. This establishment is what it is, the corporate science paradigm. On the contrary, this paradigm has to be superseded by an ecological science paradigm, arising from outside the system, which will liberate science from the cynics and psychopaths who have hijacked it, restore the desire for knowledge in itself as an integral part of human culture, and put science to the only proper use it can be put, the only proper use anything artificed by humanity can be put, human well-being.
As for the existing, institutionalized paradigm, it’s long been a truism that its cadres simply have to die off like the dead weight they are.

Posted by: Russ | Sep 29 2018 11:58 utc | 112

@snedly arkus #109 – you say-

According to the US government agencies the Antarctic has been gaining ice for decades. But it’s melting down there according to the true believers.

You’re doing exactly what the author of the US govmnt study you allude to said would happen. Jay Zwally warned that climate deniers would distort his studies to fit their narrative-

The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear. [Nature, 10/2/15]

You cite this author’s study as proof that there is no climate change, and that his study backs this up; but you conveniently leave out what the author of this study says as above. And you probably did this knowingly in a deceitful way which reflects very badly on you. You’ve lost any credibility you had.
Source for my quote-Media Matters
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

Posted by: Deschutes | Sep 29 2018 12:16 utc | 114

It seems to me, spectacularly asinine to suggest that the dominant lifeform of planet earth and it’s destructive and violent lifestyle style has little impact on the biosphere it operates within. Hubris extremis comes to mind, I may have just made that up……. that being said I’m not convinced part of the equation isn’t a natural part of Earths OS.
My main contention with the whole deal is based on facts that cannot be denied… such as the solutions to mitigate climate change are actually ON THE SHELF as I write this. Not only are they on the shelf today their use on a massive micro scale would clean the air land and soil for future generations as well as ours. So we get a better cleaner world even if it turns out humans aren’t the sole cause, it’s a win win.
That governments just sell the fear for future generations instead of acting, makes me think of brown…… err I mean green shirts.
None of this should suggest that one and all should not or need not practice the three R’s.
Organic style vegetable gardening is the perfect place to see in action concrete examples of a better way….shuld be mandatory imo, just like firearm safety courses should be.

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Sep 29 2018 12:57 utc | 116

What you feel on your own skin outweighs all the grant-seeking, corrupt scientific “mouthers” and their manipulated data & convoluted arguments.
I live in the tropics, a stone’s throw from the Caribbean Sea. For several reasons I’ve had to endure 6 summers here. Pure misery for this – by blood – Northern European. Until three summers ago. I got tired of having my printer jam and of my papers and hand-written research notes sticking to my forearm when I lifted my arm from my desk along with the personal discomfort. Despite my hatred of air conditioning, I finally bought one and installed it. I used it maybe 20 days max that entire summer. I was amazed. I used it not at all last summer nor this one. A Vernado fan set to low is sufficient for my working area, and a ceiling fan lets me use a blanket at night.
Each summer has been slightly cooler than the last. This summer even in the car we often go without AC! I swim in the sea every morning for 7 years now, and there’s been no change whatsoever in the sea level, but I always try to be back inside by 9:30 – the Caribbean sun is no joke! Not for us palefaces anyway.
I had planned to relocate next year, but now I’m wondering if I’m not living in one of the zones that may be able to produce food over the next ten years (if we’re lucky)of a solar minimum…..the downside here is the fragility of the infrastructure, as in electricity, and the general uselessness of the natives (poverty, poor or no education, corrupt government, usual 3rd world woes.)
I once thought Uruguay was the solution if the predicted global fry-up actually manifested. The country sits atop the largest replenishing aquafier in the world, and draws energy for dependable electricity from hydro, has good agriculture and meat production, miles of sea coast, great wine, best seaport in SA, a capable population of Spanish & Italian heritage and no more than a few million (by memory – impt for good govt, once in excess of 10 million, citizens lose control and the beast grows and grows), mild climate and does have 4 seasons, no hurricanes or earthquakes, but will they be able to grow food in a solar minimum? If I knew the answer was ‘yes’, I’d be in Montevideo yesterday!

Posted by: anne | Sep 29 2018 13:12 utc | 118

Keynes is often quoted out of context. “In the long run we are all dead” is not a call to fatalism, but for direct action! The idea is that sure, “in the long run” market forces may solve all of our problems, but that doesn’t matter if we are hungry and cold today. Of what use is it to say that someday the sea will be calm again, if tpday we are being tossed about in a typhoon?
And as far as greenhouse gasses go: sorry, the issue is not emission targets. The issue is population growth. Conservation is a slow and expensive process, but jamming in more people, is easy. Faced with government-inspired population increases, efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are simply pointless. There is no realistic plan that can work, nobody has one. If we can’t touch population, then yes, anyhting else really is pointless.

Posted by: TG | Sep 29 2018 14:00 utc | 120

Deltaeus @ 38 — yes:
>> The media are not uncertain [about AGW],
>> however, and I do not have a ready
>> explanation for why that is.
>> Although, if pushed I’d refer you to Matt
>> Taibi’s magnificent 2010 article on
>> Goldman Sachs with its reference to how
>> the idea of climate change can create a
>> huge market for GS to manipulate.
History show that, like other empires, the Oceania regime sacrifices any number of humans that get in the way of it expanding and maintaining its domain:
– constant offensive global war
– toxic chemical manufacturing/importation that makes their serfs sick and obese (40%!) but not obviously starving and thus not protesting
– opposing any causes originating from outside the aristocracy, until an internal cause (e.g. “civil rights”) threatens military operations (e.g., recruiting cannon fodder).
History also shows that the regime’s propaganda network reliably markets the regime’s existence and plans.
So, despite the prop network supporting all the foregoing criminal behavior towards the serfs, are we to believe the prop network pushes AGW for the benefit of the serfs?
I’m convinced the answer is “no”. That doesn’t mean that AGW is a complete fraud. But, it does tell me to look for the agenda that serves Oceania’s empire, because the network markets nothing that doesn’t.
As you noticed, Oceania’s aristocrats promote carbon credit trading as a “solution” for AGW, even though many (who lack skin in the carbon-trading scheme) argue a simple tax would work much better. Why? For me, the primary contrast between the two schemes comes down to cui bono:
(a) Tradeable carbon credits would be traded across national boundaries and, like other forms of wealth, would be bought up and held by whichever country currently prints the global reserve currency. Also, enforcement schemes — monitoring manufacturing everywhere down to the electrical generation to power 3D printers in people’s homes — would have to be transnational.
(b) Taxes would be collected by each local taxing authority. The few independent sovereigns will spend some of the money locally. Even subordinate puppets might “skim too much” before paying off their Oceania or other foreign masters. Also, enforcement schemes would end up relatively federated.
Bottom line: Tradeable carbon credits would provide transnational oligarchs with a fantastic way to control everything.
Humorously, if AGW is simultaneously a real phenomenon, then:
– AGW theory proponents are correct that it’s a problem
– AGW theory opponents are correct that it’s a ploy for control
Not so humorously, if that’s the agenda, then it means the AGW industry, like much of the non-profit industry, is a tool for global domination. Should we be surprised?

Posted by: dumbass | Sep 29 2018 14:51 utc | 122

Posted by: dumbass | Sep 29, 2018 10:51:06 AM | 122
Humorously, if AGW is simultaneously a real phenomenon, then:
– AGW theory proponents are correct that it’s a problem
– AGW theory opponents are correct that it’s a ploy for control
Not so humorously, if that’s the agenda, then it means the AGW industry, like much of the non-profit industry, is a tool for global domination. Should we be surprised?
Certainly, the way the corporate system (its governments, its media, its academia, its scientific establishment, its political class) depicts climate change and the range of alleged “solutions” (all fake) it allows to be discussed and deployed will all be toward nothing but goals of power and control. That’s all the economic civilization is capable of.
Those who call the political aspect a scam are correct. But like I said above it’s totally illogical and irrational to make the leap from there to thinking the physical phenomenon itself isn’t happening. To give a similar example, just because the agrochemical cartel and its patron governments and media systematically lie about the efficacy of the pesticide paradigm doesn’t mean insect and weed pests don’t exist.
(I must point out that it’s not only de jure deniers who recognize the political scam built upon the facts of climate change; there’s plenty of people like myself who understand the physical reality and the cause, and who for that very reason reject sham “solutions” like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, any of which would simply reinforce the economic activities driving the destruction while pretending to restrain them. But the only real solution is to abolish those activities.)

Posted by: Russ | Sep 29 2018 15:18 utc | 124

It is my understanding that President Trump has been briefed by the global cooling scientists, but the extent government is still full off global warming indoctrinated bureaucrats. It appears to me that the Trump administration is not about to fight long term paper predictions as there is little to gain, especially when they have effectively cut off UNIPCC funding and reversed/eliminated global warming-based regulations
Their main effort is turning the major elements of government: executive, congress, senate, judiciary republican red for 2019. Then they can drain the swamp.

Posted by: Ed in Kanata | Sep 29 2018 15:28 utc | 126

Posted by: Geoff | Sep 29, 2018 10:32:50 AM | 122
As a friend used to say, “don’t believe that human activity is affecting the environment, stand behind a bus, where do you think that heat is going?” That’s just one bus on one street.
No need to go that far.
Just put your hand next to your computer fan. Where do you think that heat is going? That’s just one computer on one desk.
Or put your hand on your chest. Where do you think THAT heat is going?

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 15:34 utc | 128

under normal conditions, the excess heat is radiated back into space from what i understand. based on well understood science, the excess co2 is interfering with that process. the balance has been disrupted, and now the climate is changing.
oh, and btw “greenland” was used as a name to attract the rubes. think of erik the red as an early real estate agent or developer.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29 2018 15:58 utc | 130

yes those are all sources of fossil fuel emissions. that’s what is changing the climate, not volcanoes.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29 2018 16:30 utc | 132

Total bullshit here on this one.
AGW is the ultimate con from the globalists .
Their most successful effort so far in their long planned scheme of total world control over me, over you, and over everything that moves or might move.
With all so many so willing so conned, so contented, so gulled, to fall into, andor even leap into the globalists’ pit.
Never again should anything on this site be trusted .

Posted by: Joey | Sep 29 2018 16:56 utc | 134

moon of alabama was not a place i expected to see so much corporate propaganda in the comment section.

“…the deniers usually cite science while the believers claim fossil fuel propaganda or spout insults.” Reasonable and articulate Post by: snedly arkus | Sep 29, 2018 5:06:01 AM | 109
Can we have a show of hands? The posters citing science as opposed to consensus: How
many of you are fossil fuel industry shills or otherwised induced by fossil fuel industry
propaganda? Myself, I am NOT, and the suggestion that I am a dupe is rather worrying,
because this is exactly the same as when this topic was discussed at Cafe Utne in 2001.
At the time I was roundly accused of being the victim of petroleum propaganda,
or rather: this was the monicker employed to discredit my arguments out of hand.
I wasn’t an industry shill or a propaganda dupe then, either. I have an Old-Left kind of
Third-World perspective based on a lifetime living in small cities and villages in Mexico.
This debate on the issue-of-the-day, the confusingly-named “Climate Change” is dismaying.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 29 2018 17:01 utc | 136

name one bit of science cited by deniers, guerrero. i am willing to accept that you are ignorant on the subject. as far as i remember, you didn’t attempt to cite non scientific sources like anthony watts or judith curry, who are fossil fuel shills-curry used to be a legitimate scientist who worked on the BEST study that confirmed the science, but she since resigned and has taken to make her living off casting doubt (but not, you will note, publishing papers) on the science, like a handful of other legitimate scientists. if you want scientific sources, consult the royal society, and aaas, and realclimate.org. quite why you believe the science is dubious is not clear to me. what do you think would happen if you claimed evolution was a conspiracy by satanists, or the moon landing was faked by globalists; i suspect you would receive considerable criticism.
our present system is an out of control capitalism, run by giant megarich corporations. oil and coal companies are some of the richest. they are not going to push a change to resouces like solar and wind that will cost them a lot of money. that’s why they funded the propaganda campaign, and why most governments have been dragging their feet on dealing with the problem.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29 2018 17:17 utc | 138

to me the most rational course is to use whatever voice we can and use the political process however we can, as long as it exists.
There is a name for that kind of course.
If the only solution for the problem is the final solution, then thanks, but no thanks.
We already live our lives by choosing to die later than sooner, so be it. As they say, at long term we are all dead anyway.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 17:51 utc | 140

Posted by: Russ | Sep 29, 2018 2:03:04 PM | 142
Bravo maestro. Agree 99%. Only one tiny detail I disagree with:

If I had to bet, I’d bet that civilization will continue to do its worst until it collapses on its own.

No point to bet if you can’t collect when you win. 🙂

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 18:18 utc | 142

Antares @144
Actually, Newton’s law of gravity is just an approximation that has since been superseded by Einstein’s theories (which then became the best available approximation). No one really knows what gravitational force really is but it doesn’t stop Newton and Einstein theories being useful. Ditto climate science.

Posted by: ADKC | Sep 29 2018 18:54 utc | 144

According to Doctors for Social Responsibility, besides the cancer clusters around every nuclear energy site, nuclear energy is NOT carbon neutral. The mining processing and transportation of fuel uses considerable amounts of conventional energy. When Fukushima failed, it was because of the electricity that worked the cooling pumps was cut off.
The average water use of a nuclear energy plant is a billion gallons a day. Fresh water consumption by energy plants outstrips every other use, including agriculture.
It’s not that highly dangerous nuclear waste is ‘difficult’ to get rid of, as of today it is impossible to get rid of. The first rod, used in the first nuclear plant is still with us. The American West is peppered with failed experiments. Metal containers buried in vesicular basalt leeching into acquifers. holes dug on reservation land deceptively called monitored nuclear storage,fuel reprocessing plants leaking toxic material into aquarters and springs that empty into major rivers. Waste material made into building and paving materials without informing consumers.
Hanford, the nation’s worst site, besides producing radioactive tumbleweed which blows across the landscape, heavy machinery used for clean up becomes contaminated and must be buried along with the rest of the toxic material….rinse and repeat.
When Handford was active, it regularly released contaminated water into the Colombia River…..etc. etc.
Waste material with a 20000 year half life is incompatible life, human and other.

Posted by: CD Waller | Sep 29 2018 19:10 utc | 146

@88 grieved.. thanks.. i agree with your view and analogies as well… the whole conversation is bizarre for some strange reason..
@90 jackrabbit.. good post.. thanks
thanks BM and Russ for the numerous comments..

Posted by: james | Sep 29 2018 19:34 utc | 148

So, can anyone explain the melting of the Arctic?

Posted by: Grieved | Sep 29 2018 21:19 utc | 150

The world has to actully be preparing for a WWIII that will make use of climate altering technology, creating earthquales and severe storm weather.
I would urg everyone to collect as much data as they can for observed climate change operations, and after the dust from the wars settles, sue the hell out of Donald trump, the State of Israel and the organisation of the U.S. navy. Break their fortunes/holdings to a thousand pieces and scatter them to the affected poppulace all over this planet.
Let the U.S. of A without even a single fleet of fishing boats on the face of this planet. Strip them out from everything even remotely resembling of a weapon or platform capable of carrying one.

Posted by: Greece | Sep 29 2018 21:48 utc | 152

Quotes from Original Article:

We need a certain locally distributed base capacity in our electricity networks to provide energy when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow.

The sun won’t shine and the wind won’t blow since American military with widespread military istallations and private groups are altering the climate to their whimm.
ANSWER: Construct a case and SUE THEM.

The effects of climate change, higher temperatures, rising sea levels and generally more extreme weather, will hit the poorest people the most.

Yes it will. Poor Greece it is being used as a live open air experimental lab
for all kinds and purposes re: “Climate Change”, “Societal Structure change”. Behind the scenes Germany, USA, Russia work hand in hand. Just ask the Syrians (that Russians are supposedly liberating and Germans are allegedly sympathetic too) and soon ask the Greeks too.

The consequences will be mass migration on a never before seen scale, widespread lack of consumable water and large violent conflicts arising from both.

Oh, there’s already an operation fr forced migration from Pakistan, Syria through Turkey to Greece. Operators/supervisors: USA and Germany. Stooges: “Countries of the Group of Visengrad”, usefull idiots: Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Syria. The final plants of the plan after relocating enough mass of M.E. populace in Greece – Bulgaria – Western Turkey is to close the borders of North and force them to famine. Then with nazi-cold calmness observe and note the effects of the experiment.

Two countries may hope to profit from the rise in global temperature as it will increase their access to natural resources that are currently covert by ice. The U.S. (with Canada) and Russia may be the winners of the trend. Most other countries will be losers.

Sure. Both posses research and scallar weapon technology. Russians through research and capturing of Nazi projects. USA through acquiring nazi projects and Tesla research.
HOWEVER, BOTH ARE IN NEED TO CONQUER WESTERN-TURKEY GREEK-BULGARIAN TERRITORY TO FINALLIZE THEIR PLAN ON GLOBAL WEATHER CONTROL, for some reason….well the reasons are pretty obvious to space scientists, nuclear physicists, quantum mechanics experts and …archaelogists.
“When The Least Expected Expect The Unexpected”
Dog Eats Dog.

Posted by: Greece | Sep 29 2018 22:20 utc | 154

Posted by: Pft | Sep 29, 2018 2:03:10 AM | 97
So we have a model of the atmosphere that doesn’t know how clouds work but is the basis for climate predictions of global warming.
If climatology is science then so is psychology and economics. However the basis for global warming theory is not climatology but physical chemistry:
1. Molecules absorb light, some better than others.
2. CO2 is good at absorbing infrared light, and releasing it radially out. Sometimes back towards earth.
3. Necessarily, as the concentration of CO2 rises, more infrared light will be returned.
“Spaceship Earth” pretends that we, on a spaceship, hurdling through space, have the choice to throw parts off the ship with no idea what they do or how to replace them.
Thanks b. I think lately you’ve just been knocking them out of the park.

Posted by: TSP | Sep 29 2018 22:49 utc | 156

dumbass @154:
Are you claiming that a carbon trading scheme is not a means of control?
No, I’m not claiming that. I’m claiming that opportunists came up with the carbon trading scheme well AFTER scientists started warning about global warming.
I’ve seen enough carefully orchestrated propaganda campaigns in my lifetime …
Yes, me too. But they are usually much more transparent. You can generally find evidence of scheming that is coincident or proximate. In this case, the ‘scheme’ came years later. It was designed to enrich bankers.
Could there be some connection? Any thing is possibly, but I don’t see it here.
=
The good news, as I noted in my previous comment, is that no one that is serious about countering global warming believes the trading scheme makes any sense. There are a number of flaws. I won’t bore you with the details which can easily be found online by anyone that is interested.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 29 2018 23:52 utc | 158

@159 NemesisCalling
Thanks for this. I also have great respect for your postings, and this comment is measured accordingly. If I read the charts correctly , they do seem pretty close over a 15 year period.
So what are the Russians thinking? And that’s a serious question.
My principal question is rather more, “what is happening?” than “why is it happening?”, so I’m not especially concerned with deconstructing the original science involved here. I’m also not a party to the CO2 debate, or whether it’s human-caused. I’m still trying to discern the actual condition of the Earth’s climate right now.
As james pointed out, the very discussion of this is already polarized, and it shouldn’t be if all we’re trying to do is establish situational awareness. We can largely agree, for example, that the true statistics on US unemployment are very different from the official ones, and we know from our everyday experience which set of numbers makes most sense to us.
And yet we can’t find a settled agreement on what should be fairly straightforward numbers – what’s the state of the two poles, are the glaciers melting, and so forth?
Back in the day, I saw plenty of charts like these, maps of glaciers that were shrinking visibly, etc. Videos of Antarctic ice calving, and such. And there seems to be no controversy over the simple fact that the atmosphere is warmer, and this affects moisture retention, evaporation, storm power, etc. Once you take out the two huge issues of cause, and what to do about it, the fact-finding issue itself seems like it should be fairly simple.
And yet it’s not. It has always been a polarized issue, but this was originally caused, in my observation, by special interests rather than simple human disagreeableness. And it was clear 10 years ago that the forces we are accustomed to seeing at work to obscure issues on behalf of the bad guys were playing the same game with climate change. If it was a psy-op, it was elaborately elliptical, and there was no need for it to be that sophisticated back then. Even now, when everyone is hip to false flags, the tactics haven’t become especially more subtle, so it’s hard to believe that what looked like deliberate obfuscation back then was anything other than exactly what it looked like.
Goldman invented carbon trading, I think, way after the fact, as has been noted. Then the sides started to switch a little. I think there was less need to obscure climate change, because suddenly there was a way to exploit it.
All of this was before Snowden showed on what a stupendous scale the ruling forces would act to deceive their general populations. So now I know about 9/11, and I’m prepared to doubt the moon landing because of the radiation belt. I could look at climate change with fresh eyes too.
But I suspect I would be looking at Russian data rather than trying to sort the deeply polluted waters of western propaganda. I don’t trust anything coming out of the US except its greed. Russia, however, is a different matter. I will watch with interest to see how the Russians get humans to the moon. And I may start looking at their climatology. I think their physical science is way better than the west, as they seem to demonstrate with finding oil where no one else does.
So, thanks for the tip. I will continue to wait for more clarity to emerge, and to ponder all this.

Posted by: Grieved | Sep 30 2018 1:12 utc | 160

Grieved 160
Pacific Islands are a good gauge.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011
“Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession”
In the news from time to time, a few populated Islands are now getting the occasional high tide inundate them, which has not occurred previously – apart from storm events.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 30 2018 1:35 utc | 162

@ Grieved who ended their latest comment with: “I will continue to wait for more clarity to emerge, and to ponder all this.”
That is exactly what the elite want you to do. A confused public is a hamstrung one as well.
I am not picking on you but simply pointing out that I have watched environmental politics for the past 50 years and manufactured polarization is the feature, in spite of being the bug.
It gets back to the incentives we in the West live our lives under and the subsequent risk management and investment decisions that have and continue to be made under that mindset. Those decisions favor the rich over everyone else…..kind of like the monotheistic religions that never call out private finance directly as the ring that binds them all….
I want humanity to see that its macro decision about the social organization including private finance is key to the what might be classed as a anti-humanistic decision that can and should be changed.
Do we know exactly what we want public finance to be? No, but it being structured to support the global commons and prudent “growth/investment” decisions would be a huge improvement. Do any think if finance was public instead of private society would be struggling with setting prudent direction like answering basic questions and sharing/moderating to consensus answers about our current climate?
I posit that climate change is a given and having seen our limited understanding of so much else I question if/when we will ever be sure we know what is going on. But keep generating all this textual white noise of each others confidence about the situation instead of beating on the “how to make global finance public” conun”drum” with me.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 30 2018 1:41 utc | 164

The good news about it being atttributable to human ‘civilizational’ causes is that when societal energy systems break down there will begin to be a reversal as nature takes over – see past civilizations. Humans didn’t disappear; they adapted. But please don’t build any more nuclear power stations! Those things are not biodegradable. Without civilization managing their care, they will become huge poisonous derelicts, and we already have enough of them to give the world a lot of future heartache. Wherever there is one, even under optimum societal circumstances is going to provide heartache to future generations.
My advice is think positive; grow stuff. And make peace. This is the only home we’ve got.

Posted by: juliania | Sep 30 2018 1:49 utc | 166

Pft: Little Ice Age
IPCC had this to day about the Little Ice Age:

… the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries…. [Viewed] hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age” can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels.

In it’s latest (2014) report, IPCC states: “Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels…” This change, expected a short 80 years from now, would be many times more than the <1°C change during the Little Ice Age.
What does this mean in practical terms? As we have been warned, climate change can have severe effects in some places while other areas seem stable. So some areas will be super hot, others will have super storms, while in some places people are shaking their heads and saying "what climate change?"

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 30 2018 2:20 utc | 168

Along the same lines of asking where our focus should be Paul Craig Roberts has written a posting asking why all the identity politics about the latest appointment to the US Supreme Court and no focus on the genocide in Yemen.
Where Does Our Attention Belong: Kavanaugh or Yemen?
His ending lines:
”
The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive.
Clearly, the American idiots have no idea whatsoever what a moral issue is.
”
I want us to stop rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and change the rules we live by to our/humanity’s favor.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 30 2018 4:41 utc | 170

“Climate” will keep on climating. CO2 is a trace gas and humans contribute something like 3% of that trace amount. There was a period of warm weather in the Middle Ages when humans contributed CO2 from cooking fires and burning coal, I’m guessing. But humans are supposed to twist themselves into pretzels because of their negligible CO2 contribution?
PS – what the heck is “climate change”? “Warming” had to be disappeared because there wasn’t any so what new scam awaits us? Your entire article is about rising temperature so you really mean warming, warming, warming. CG is is a dishonest term, sort of like “kinetic action,” “humanitarian disaster,” “political solution,” “democratic values,” “coalition partners,” “brutal dictator,” “animal Assad,” “chief sponsor of terror,” “loyal ally Israel,” “only democracy in the Middle East,” “accidental attack,” “Saudi allies,” “Attorney General Sessions,” “Syrian civil war,” “Russian hostility,” etc.
It’s astonishing to see an analyst of your caliber swallow the CC scam like a whole fish.

Posted by: Col. B. Bunny | Sep 30 2018 5:03 utc | 172

Col. B. Bunny:
CO2 is a trace gas
It’s not the amount of CO2 that’s at issue but the effect that it has on the global climate.
Example: Compared to your body mass, you can be killed by a tiny amount of a toxic substance.
[humanity’s] negligible CO2 contribution
The human contribution is not negligable. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is expected to double since pre-Industrialization, and could go higher than that.
CG is is a dishonest term
Yes, it is. Climate is always changing. Some use the term “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) instead. But whatever you call it, it’s important to understand that systemic problems like global warming usually have a delayed onset.
Example: the 2008 financial crisis, which built up over years.
Systemic risk defies estimation. The warning signs are not familiar and often not clear. And the climate deniers play on that. Just as stock promoters insist that the market will continue to rise right up to the day that it falls dramatically.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 30 2018 5:55 utc | 174

Sorry, that was incomplete
Jack Rabbit @168
Well, IPCC follows Manns hockey stick which sought to minimize temperature variation using tree ring proxies and dubious statistical measures. Nancy Berters Ice core data indicate that surface temperatures were around 2°C cooler during the Little Ice Age. Also there is a significant historical written record showing the impacts of what was abnormally cool weather during the Little Ice Age. The very fact that recent tree ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree ring data for figuring out how warm it was 500-1,000 years ago.
In any event since the end of the LIA in 1850 temperatures have risen 1.1 deg C , or 0.6 deg C above normal using IPCC data for LIA . During this warming period which coincidentally (or not) coincides with the industrial era, CO2 level have increased from 280 ppm to 420 ppm. Warming due to CO2 or CO2 rising due to the warming?
That begs tbe question why the ice core data did not detect changes in CO2 due to previous warming/cooling periods during current interglacial periods.Brooks Hurd, a high-purity-gas scientist noted that the Knudsen diffusion effect, combined with inward diffusion, is depleting CO2 in ice cores exposed to large pressure changes and that it minimizes variations and reduces the maximums (Hurd 2006).
Some estimates show that deep ice core data may underestimate CO2 levels by as much as 30-50% hiding the fact 420 ppm has been seen before during this interglacial
Shallower ice core data is more accurate and show higher CO2levels.Siple ice core data from shallow samples dated1890 showed 328 ppm CO2 which was the same as Mauna Loa data in 1973. To solve this “problem,” these researchers made an ad hoc assumption: The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped! This was not supported by any experimental evidence. The “corrected” proxy ice data were then smoothly aligned with the direct atmospheric measurements from Mauna Loa .

Posted by: Pft | Sep 30 2018 6:10 utc | 176

amazing that so many people who seem to exhibit critical thinking when it comes to claims about the white helmets or the skripals uncritically swallow propaganda from the fossil fuel companies. you really think scientists aren’t aware of the sun? pretzel attack at 29
The Skripal tale is so full of contradictions and unbelievable ‘facts’ that most of those who actually bother to think about it and read up a bit come to disbelieve the MSM / official story. The white helmets have been critised and discredited for a long time now, and often by ppl others respect (e.g. Beeley).
Such stories have in common that they rest on interpretations and/or assumptions about the motives that spur human actions in interactive situations – the stuff of human drama. Humans having evil intentions to garner advantages, humans pretending to be what they are not, humans presenting ‘tall tales’ to spur others to hate and fear someone, all this is familiar from everyday life and the narratives we construct about it.
By contrast, the grand stage on which all takes place – the earth in the cosmos, its characteristics and life, and the place and role of humans within it can only be grasped by so-called ‘abstract’ thinking based on what we today call Science. Many ppl as far as I can see simply don’t understand the basic concepts of global warming etc.. or … they just don’t trust theorizing that they can’t integrate fully into their own body of knowledge. So there’s that!
They don’t see or feel any change, have no personal experience to relate climate change to, don’t trust news reports, can’t get together different strands/facts into a general scheme.
The other part is I suppose an unwillingness to confront inevitability. There will be no turning back, the change is inexorable and certain, the various problems will be (actually they have already begun…) deathly to human beings.
These are the reasons the lies and propaganda of big corporations, the elite, can take hold, be accepted. Particularly in the US I’d say.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 30 2018 8:47 utc | 178

@46 hopehelly. You wrote:

I remember when they said acid rain will kill all forests. And the ozone holes will make us all sunburned and riddled with skin cancer. They do not talk much about acid rain and ozone holes nowadays – are those issues fixed?

As oldhippie noted @72, skin cancer is way, way up. When we were children (I’m in early fifties) it was still relatively safe to play in the sun for hours even without sunscreen. These days we keep our children out of the sun almost completely and slather sunscreen on the few exposed parts.
Human have managed to poison the atmosphere and remove the layer of natural protection we enjoyed. This is clearer than the climate change argument.
The complexity of the climate change issue is that both sides can be right:
1. humans can have changed the atmosphere to make the sun more deadly and to increase temperatures and create more tropical storms and radical weather in the short term (our hard work has mostly been done in the last 150 years, an incredibly short period of time for the planet, even a short period of time for our species). We are moving quickly.
2. At the same
What’s certain is that Jose Garcia @77 is absolutely right: we create more waste when we know better. There’s no excuse for disposable plastic at this point. We could simply replace plastic with bulk foods where you go and buy your food in your own glass containers. Bulk food has its own issues with rodents and insects, but don’t forget all your food was bulk before put into small plastic containers. We know better and do worse. It’s unbelievable.
My partner and I tried to reduce all consumption of plastic with foodstuffs (we already eat a lot of vegetables and do our own cooking from scratch so we’re good candidates). It’s almost impossible (and we have immediate access to six major Germanic world food chains: Hofer, Lidl, Kaufland, Billa, Spar, Mercur. We were only able to reduce about 1/3 of our plastic consumption (mainly by cutting out the last of the plastic bottles). Meat comes in plastic. Vegetables are often wrapped in plastic. Rice is sold in plastic. Sugar is sold in plastic. Most pasta is sold in plastic.
I remember in the seventies we had most of this right: almost all glass containers had to be reusable. The bastards who run our economy were then able to get away with replace reuseable glass with disposable plastic and tetrapack. As a society we have to hold our business people more accountable for their decisions and not let them get away with this kind of ball and cups game.
Keep in mind the nightmare of disposable plastic I’m outlining above is in Europe where the consciousness level on these issues is much higher than in North America or most places in South America or in Russia (I’m naming places I know first hand). It really makes me angry to see the professional climate change deniers allowed to peddle their “cigarettes don’t cause cancer, bad thoughts about tobacco do” for pay. The wacko libertarians who do it for free (and there seem to be a lot of them at MoA, though many seem to be driveby commenters who have Google search notifications on for this topic) are an even greater mystery to me.

Posted by: Uncoy | Sep 30 2018 11:52 utc | 180

Pft
I meant to get back and address more points in your earlier comment. Now you have added to your comment. I would just add:
>> While you and others question the severity of the forecast there are others that believe that the IPCC has been infiltrated and influenced to tame their dire warnings. The Mann ‘hockey stick’ has been relegated to a footnote.
>> increased greenhouse gases are problematic even if you think that the temperature increase would be with a “normal” range. The CO2 causes ocean acidification, and the trapped energy mean increased weather severity.
>> The IPCC sees Little Ice Age and other such events as localized. I am not a climate scientist so I would defer to them. Global warming is a GLOBAL event.
>> It is noteworthy that even the Trump administration (very pro-oil) does not disagree with gloabal warming. Energy companies ceased disputing the science long ago and turned to public relations/propaganda.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 30 2018 14:30 utc | 182

@184 adkc.. thanks.. that was my quick read too, but i don’t have the heart to immerse myself in the details.

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2018 17:54 utc | 184

@ Guerrero 186
The tribulations of climate chaos and all the other ecological crises are likely going to hammer you and yours long before they engulf the decadent population of Anglo-america, though in the end it’ll get them too.
How on earth does it serve you to deny this campaign of destruction they’re inflicting upon you? Do you also deny their NAFTA pesticide/GMO campaign against Latin America exists? Do you also deny their “Drug War” campaign against Latin America exists? Do you also deny their coup attempts in Venezuela and Honduras? Do you deny that globalization is going to turn the Amazon into a desert even before global warming gets its full licks in?
If you don’t deny these, why do you deny the climate chaos which is going to rock Latin America hard?

Posted by: Russ | Sep 30 2018 18:21 utc | 186

Posted by: Russ | Sep 30, 2018 2:21:48 PM | 187
Well, it seems high concentration CO2 is blamed for the climate chaos. The problem is that CO2 is not a ‘classic’ polluter like plastic bags, motor oil, freon or some obvious artificial chemical. CO2 is a natural breathing byproduct of aerobic organisms, including us.
So it is not the same when you say stop littering plastic bags around or stop spraying freon and when you say stop emitting CO2.
Whey you say stop littering plastic bags, fine, you change your behavior, get more careful organize collection and disposal and littering issue is solved.
When you say stop spraying freon, fine, you find the less damaging substitute and use that. Not a biggie, and not the first and last material we substituted tor the better one – asbestos is another good example of hazardous material we stopped using when we found that is harmful.
However, when you say stop emitting CO2 you are asking for something different. You are not only asking to stop burning fossil fuel – you are asking to stop burning ANY fuel. Burning ethanol produces CO2. Burning wood, straw, grass, paper, produces CO2. Burning glucose in our cells produces CO2. You cannot say stop emitting CO2 because you effectively say stop living. That is deeply immoral because you ask for someone else to die so you can live.
And the issue is not in too much CO2 emission anyways. The problem is that the concentration of CO2 is rising (if that is indeed a problem, but lets assume it is), that just means that CO2 absorption cannot keep up with emission to maintain the CO2 concentration constant. We just need to increase CO2 absorption and the issue is gone.
How to increase CO2 absorption, simple, put more plants out there. Plant trees. Let the weed flourish. Take the land from British lords and turn those stupid golf courses back to beech and oak forests.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 30 2018 19:36 utc | 188

Guerrero @186 You quoted me and then mis-interpreted my position.

I cited what you had said without attribution. It was only explaining how *I* understood the issue.

I don’t believe for one second that the west (which you refer to as anglo-american) are going to address climate change in any meaningful way. I don’t think there is any sign at all that North American’s are going to ‘pull themselves together and address a climate emergency’.

I agree. So what’s the point of instructing the children of villagers about the global warming threat?

The restructuring of the world economy that would be required to address climate change would clearly benefit poorer countries such as Mexico, and the rest of Latin America, because everything would need to be done as locally as possible. Unfortunately, I do not see that this is going to happen; war in Latin America (re: Venezuela) seems the more likely foreseeable event.

There’s a already vicious war going on all around us that has been intensifying since about 2007.
There’s no hope that “the West” will solve anybody’s problems, and especially not on a grand scale.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 30 2018 20:06 utc | 190

ADKC@184
Climate scientists have generally failed to incorporate all factors in their climate models. This is similar to the fable of the blind men and the elephant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Increasing CO2 is a major factor in climate change but it is a gross oversimplification to ignore the hundreds of other factors that influence climate change. Perhaps CO2 is presented to the public because the simple minded and poorly educated population cannot grasp the complexities of systems dynamics.
Your citation from the climate change connection is yet another oversimplification as it does not adequately address the influence of various particles of cloud condensation and how their presence has different warming and cooling effects depending on altitude in the atmosphere. For a more detailed discussion of this atmospheric chemistry problem see:
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm
While climate change is a threat to the earth there are more immediate threats that will result in mass extinctions long before human CO2 becomes a issue. Three near term problems come to mind:
(1) Collapse of Western civilization due to a failed corporate capitalism model (includes the EU too):
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-coming-collapse/
(2) Global environmental collapse due to human destruction of the ecosystem:
http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf
And more recently visualized in the book doughnut economics:
https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/
(3) Nuclear Winter which includes massive increases of particles and chemicals into the upper atmosphere.
I do appreciate that “b” has provided a forum for those of us who are still blind to the climate change problem. Hopefully many commentators have learned something from the dialogue!

Posted by: Krollchem | Sep 30 2018 22:15 utc | 192

sigh, no guerrero, wattsupwiththat and jonova aren’t “science”. neither one is a scientist for one thing.
the science is clear, and individual study of the ozone layer will not lead to a refutation of the basic science. it doesn’t matter if co2 occurs naturally, that co2 was in balance. it is the extra co2 that is the problem.
hopehely, we need to stop burning co2, yes. we need to use renewable energy. i’m not sure why the fossil fuel propaganda has taken such hold here.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 1 2018 0:04 utc | 194

the mann hockey stick has been replicated a number of times; if it is a footnote now it is because it is so well accepted.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 1 2018 0:20 utc | 196

@195 preztelattack – “i’m not sure why the fossil fuel propaganda has taken such hold here.”
I have a theory. We are so accustomed now to seeing through propaganda that when we see through a certain theme, the last thing we want to do is study the host of false stories that go into that false theme. There are few of us who can even stomach it, let alone justify the time spent on it.
I was thinking about this because it struck me how slender is the science cited by those here calling climate change a pure hoax. As with you, I wondered why that was. Hence the theory.
We do live in an age when thousands of voices can call a thing true, and barely a handful of sources exists to prove it a lie. Climate change just happens to be one of those contrary things, where it truly does seem that the good guys are the thousands of actual scientists and researchers, and that the bad guys are the handful of sources serving to discredit the theme.
It seemed to me that a lot of study goes into accepting the reality of climate change, but not much to decide that it’s a hoax. But I don’t mean this dismissively. I mean that once you’re inclined towards a view, it doesn’t take much to support it. It really didn’t take me much study to see through 9/11, once I was ready to review the facts. There was the masterful, 5-hour documentary that summarized the work of hundreds of people over several years, so it was pretty simple. But becoming inclined to an open-minded review of this took some time to get to.
I used to be very deeply into the science and effects of climate change. I dropped all discussion of it in order to discuss, in sites like this, what was happening geo-politically. I was aware that the wars were obscuring the decay happening behind their smoke, but it seemed important to understand these things.
And as I’ve made agreement with various points of view here and elsewhere, I’ve frequently noted that same attitude of “seeing through hoaxes” being applied to climate change. Saker actually banned the subject some years ago, and I call that wise. Now b seems to invite discussion of this. I said it was brave of him. Perhaps it is time.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 1 2018 0:59 utc | 198

Jack Rabbit @183
Well, everything seems to come down to what the highly politicized IPCC says. Do a little research on who they are at the top levels and their motivations. Even our hated fake MSM defers to these high priests of AGW. The Trump administrations agency deferred to IPCC in making their claims about the mininal impact of their proposals impact on climate simply because it was so minimal (less than 0.1 deg by 2100) . Thats far simpler than confronting the IPCC models. Going with the flow.
As for Big Energy capitulating, why not. Do people not understand how interlocked these companies are with banking and global finance who stand to make a killing over the Global Warming Industry?
If they sell less oil so what, they a monopoly and are price makers. The can raise prices and save on exploration costs.
It may be that mans CO2 emissions could extend the duration of the current interglacial. I dont deny CO2 has some influence , just argue the extent of the influence which can be negated by feedbacks .
What are the motivations in deceiving us?. Living standards are directly related to energy availability and cost. Reduce availability and increase cost and living standards and life expectancy plummets. Fewer social security and medicare care payments
There are also some factions who seek a new global religion based on environmental and resource preservation so as to impose austerity on the people who will embrace it more readily for religious reasons than they would for political or economic reasons.
And some have proposed a new economic order based on carbon credits and a carbon dollar to replace the USD, Euro, Pound, Yen and Rmb as international currencies for foreign trade.
The same bankers will control this currency and credit subject to oversight by the Priests of the NWO religion. A global theocracy of sorts with monotheism replaced by pantheism
Make sense?
Now explain the motivations for Denial if indeed AGW was truth. Lot of money could be made on a War on AGW. Even Big Oil could be bought off. Government simply needs to buy the oil to keep it off market like we did with crops and hogs in the depression. We could fight wars against those who emitted too much CO2 so MIC is happy. Bankers could create /loan money to fund the wars, oil purchases and alternative energy. DHS could go after CO2 terrorists (fat people, flatulence, excess consumers, climate deniers)
In fact, that may be coming even if AGW is fake.

Posted by: Pft | Oct 1 2018 1:14 utc | 200