Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 28, 2018

Trump Administration Acknowledges Climate Change - Predicts Large Rise In Global Temperatures

The Trump administration admits that climate change will increase the global temperature more than anticipated:

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees [Fahrenheit] by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.

That increase though, says the Trump administration, is no reason to stop emitting gases that, for a large part, cause such warming:

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

"The child already fell into the well, there is no longer any need to cover it."

The administration uses such faulty reasoning to eliminate regulations that are supposed to limit 'greenhouse' gas emissions. It is set to allow higher emissions from cars and trucks.

For millions of years plants on earth used the energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and water into hydrocarbons. Where those plants were later covert with volcanic ash or sunk into the sea, geologic pressure and time converted them into coal, oil and gas. Since the start of industrialization humans have used an enormous amount of these dead plants to generate energy. Coal, oil and natural gas - the hydrocarbons - oxidize in exothermic reaction. They burn and give off heat which humans transform into various kinds of usable energy. The emissions from such fires are basically the stuff from which the plants were created - carbon dioxide and water.

A large part of the energy from the sun that hits the earth is reflected back into space. Carbon dioxide and other gases (Methane) in the atmosphere lower the reflection rate of the earth, they trap the energy (heat) the sun shines onto earth within the atmosphere just like the glass of a greenhouse traps the heat inside. Spectroscopic measurements from space over several decades show a decrease of reflections from earth at the spectral range of carbon dioxide. Long term measurements on earth of carbon dioxide concentrations correlate strongly with the general temperature increase.

All this is well known and not controversial. But, as John Maynard Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. Humans are not willing to give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far away future generations. The 2015 Paris agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions was largely a scam. Hardly any country stuck to the endorsed targets. After the Fukushima disaster the Merkel government in Germany decided to shut down nuclear power plants but increased the use of brown coal for electricity production.


It was a 'populist' decision, sold as a "green" policy even as it was the opposite, and contradicted the commitment to decrease emissions. The Obama administration allowed a huge increase in fracking which, next to the hydrocarbons, releases a large amount of other greenhouse gases.

The decision by the Trump administration is wrong. Yes, we will likely not be able to stop a global temperature increase in next few decades. But future generations also deserve our compassion. We must still do our best to limit the long term increase by ending the use of hydrocarbons wherever possible.

It will not be easy to replace hydrocarbons as a source of energy. Large amounts of electric energy are difficult and expensive to store. 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. For now nuclear energy is still the most climate friendly way to generate this base capacity. It also creates highly toxic waste that is extremely difficult to get rid of.

The effects of climate change, higher temperatures, rising sea levels and generally more extreme weather, will hit the poorest people the most. This within the U.S. as well as in a global frame. The consequences will be mass migration on a never before seen scale, widespread lack of consumable water and large violent conflicts arising from both.

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.

While short term human greed will likely prevent a reduction in hydrocarbon use, and a slowing down of climate change, there may be other effects that could suddenly turn the trend. A large volcanic eruption or a big asteroid impact could cloud the earth and bring back (much) colder times. Some yet unknown effect in the atmosphere that is not anticipated in current climate models could stop or reverse the current trend.

The human race is able to adopt to extreme climates. Humans can live in deserts as well as in the arctic. But such extreme climate zones do not allow for high density populations. The current number of people on this planet may prove to be too high to sustain. Climate change itself, through large scale conflicts and famines, may well provide for its own natural regulation. Reduced to some 100 million individuals humanity may well survive. Nature will not be compassionate in effecting such.

Posted by b on September 28, 2018 at 18:15 UTC | Permalink

« previous page | next page »

One big problem is, the scientists themselves won't acknowledge that, but take the lead in touting fake pseudo-solutions ... That's why I call the scientists, liberal hand-wringers etc. "climate crocodiles", because they do nothing but cry crocodile tears even as they refuse to even consider the changes necessary.
Posted by: Russ | Sep 29, 2018 2:47:58 AM | 95

Unfortunately, most of Western science these days is too corrupt and in the pocket of corporatism. It is in important respects no longer even scintific. 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.

On climate change per se: the only way of making drastic climate change action financially economic in the present world is to deconstruct the massive and fraudulent accounting distortions that behave as though the environment/climate is worthless and corporate damage to the environment and climate is cost-free for the poisoner while being high-cost for the poisoned. Michael Hudson had some very good words on this topic if I recall correctly. If environmental poisoning were costed realistically to the poisoner, it would quickly become uneconomic. But because the entire social system is based on fraudulent interpretations of reality which are specifically set up to support maximally exploitational systems, we are propagandised to accept a relationship with the environment through which we are destroying the planet.

Posted by: BM | Sep 29 2018 8:23 utc | 101

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. In this respect it is far more dangerous that fossil fuels; b) if the disposal and storage of nuclear wastes isn't a crime to future generations, then I don't know what is?; 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), the energy market would not be controlled by some "key" players, and this is the problem with such sources. As George Porter, the 1967 Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry, once said: "if sunbeams were weapons, we would have had solar energy long ago".

Posted by: Bongocero | Sep 29 2018 8:30 utc | 102

Science has never been based on a consensus. It is only when we dare to leave the consensus behind that science kicks in. Think about Copernicus.
Posted by: Antares | Sep 29, 2018 4:11:25 AM | 97

There were so many great scientists in the past, but modern science in the West is largely dead. It is too corrupted by corporatist interests, and too far degenerated through misdirection of the few remaining non-corporate funding structures (academic dreaming spires corruption, furthering one's own career rather than seeking the truth).

Posted by: BM | Sep 29 2018 8:31 utc | 103

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-

Very thoroughly researched, very recommended reading.

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

100 Bongocero "the energy market would not be controlled by some "key" players"

I much more envision a future where people are forced to install solar panels that are connected to the grid in such a way that the energy company can monitor everything and hand fines to people who behave irresponsibly. At the same time it gives access to all smart devices. Irresponsible behaviour then covers virtually everything.

Posted by: Antares | Sep 29 2018 8:40 utc | 105

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

wars will be fought for depleted water supplies ... The Pentagon has been quietly preparing for such potentialities.
Posted by: Deschutes | Sep 29, 2018 4:40:03 AM | 102

The US was already seeing 20 years ago that the most critical resource for manipulating the world geopolitically and financially in the future will be drinking water not oil. On the urging of US think-tanks, US corporations started buying up water supply organisations in every country around the world willing to sell. Their think-tanks were meanwhile pressuring local and state governments to privatise state-owned water resources, which US corporations were the first to buy up. I think I have read suggestions the pentagon was linked to some of these policies, and they certainly include water resources in their analysis of regional geopolitics.

Posted by: BM | Sep 29 2018 9:02 utc | 107

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

AGW is a THEORY like evolution and creation and it appears to have become a religion on its own. The USG funds many AGW studies and funds NO studies that try to disprove AGW or look at normal cyclical cycles. The thermometer was invented in 1710. It has not been somewhat uniformly used until only recently in the modern human era. With that use has come expansive building and paving that radiates surface heat. Even today, with modern instrumentation it is not uniformly used across the planet.

What the AGW crowd fails to look at is human activity through history effected by the normal cyclical heating and cooling of the planet. The Maunder Minimum is one example when the Thames froze over and the British were ice skating on the Thames. The French revolution was induced by crop failure caused by global cooling. Civilizations rose and fell dues to these variations in the Earths climate. The ancient near east was hit by massive droughts. You can find them in the biblical accounts of history.

The Roman warm period was a high point. The Germanic invasions were helped greatly by the rivers freezing over during extreme cold climatic periods. The dark ages was a cold period climatically. You can point at just about ever rise and fall of a civilization throughout history and look at mass movements of people and find the global heating and cooling cycle wreaking havoc on crops. Armies formed and moved because their stomachs were empty. Gengus Khan was ONE of the the Mad Max movements of that era and there were many others. The Vandals are another example. They moved first to Spain then to North Africa due to climate change.

CO2 is an essential trace gas. In other words, humans would not be here without CO2. Plants sop it up readily hence were we have interrupted the carbon cycle is when we have cut down forests to build ships for the ancient war machines and where we cut up the rain forests for palm oil and similar activity. The feared minuscule increase in CO2 which is already minuscule is going to cause no issues. Methane has a short transit time in the atmosphere and has been gassing off the planet long before we came here. Herds of buffalo farts were around long before us.

The real problem are the declining O2 levels. As we kill our plants and oceans with pollution our oxygen levels will fall even more dramatically. This will kill us off long before the AGW theorists.

The Globalist Idiot State complex is pushing the AGW agenda and they have paid off many with grants and have used Nazi style propaganda tactics to push their stupidity and their THEORIES on their fellow travels. All Gores movie was nothing but image manipulation and voice over use to drive the herd off the cliff and off the cliff you will go.

Has a warm planet where you can grow food been better for humans or a cold planet? Is it easier to grow food with machines powered by fossil fuels or by hand? Are you ready to make massive changes you your life based on a THEORY?

Its 3rd grade math at its best.

Posted by: dltravers | Sep 29 2018 10:30 utc | 109

@snedly arkus #109 -

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

personally, i'd be far more concerned with anthropogenic global toxicity, i mean, the global warming trend is on its own, anyway. we missed that boat, and species and ecosystems are dissappearing far faster due to poison than to warming.

so i guess it comes down to what gives out first, us or them. i mean, coal, oil, plutonium, lithium, etc. are finite resources afterall.

anyhoo b, look on the bright side!

Posted by: john | Sep 29 2018 11:50 utc | 111

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

My favorite version of de jure denier "logic" always has been when they cite pre-human mass extinction events caused by climate change in order to claim that because those events were natural, therefore this current one must be just as natural. (Of course one of those followed upon an asteroid impact, which if we call it "natural" is rather stretching the term. It's really as much of an aberration as the modern bonfire of the fossil fuel vanities.)

Of course a great surge in GHG concentration and temperature has to have a cause, and whereas volcanism was usually the cause in the past, today it's self-evident that the main driver of this event is modern civilization's industrial emissions and wholesale destruction of sinks.

And even if one truly believed, contrary to all the evidence, that the modern surge is mostly somehow from "natural" causes, how could that possibly lead one to think it's therefore not destructive to artificially emit so much GHG?

The logic seems to be: "Since I have to go out driving in a monster blizzard anyway, I might as well get drunk first."

Posted by: Russ | Sep 29 2018 12:08 utc | 113

@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

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

"Humans are not willing to give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far away future generations. "

This kind of sentence, so often seen in discussions of these issues, so misses the point. The vast majority of humans DO NOT HAVE THESE 'COMFORTS AND PROFITS'. The minority of humans who do have them are the more selfish and narrow-minded ones.

Posted by: paul | Sep 29 2018 12:54 utc | 115

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

The problem is we has so many unknown unknowns. Here are a few examples of how unknown the future is regarding our climate.

"I doubt there will be a human on Earth by mid-2026"

Climate Models for the Layman with Dr. Judith Curry

Posted by: TJ | Sep 29 2018 13:11 utc | 117

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

Paul @ 115

I agree with you although I'm sure b will also agree but his point as rendered is also equally valid and different, IMHO.

Clearly, the faux attempt at environmentalism by the developed world which created pollution as a byproduct of industrial success is simply one way to maintain control and choke off the attempt of developing societies to move up the wealth ladder. "We've got ours so fuck you and also fuck future generations too" is probably another way of stating it.

The overarching point of which I'm in total agreement is the Earth shall not heal while we are continuously overpopulating the planet with a violent, irrational scientific minded deeply religious group of foraging chimpanzees with the gift of gab. (hat tip L.F. Celine).

Our very existence, or the "success" of our species has thrown the world out of ecological balance and mother nature will sooner or later rectify the imbalance.

Posted by: donkeytale | Sep 29 2018 13:17 utc | 119

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

It really surprises me how few empirical observations there are here on the changes to the earth's environment over the course of a lifetime. The scientific evidence that one can compile whilst consulting a computer screen is interesting, but I suppose I must come from the school of naturailsm.

Living in New York for 30 years, it used to be cold in the winter. I was working outside, which I have done most of my life, on January 1st in the 90s, and on that day it was in the 70s and there was pouring rain. Definitely part of a warming and extreme weather trend it seemed to me because gradually there were fewer and fewer snow days. I guess living and working in New York it doesn't really matter what the weather is that much except for going to and returning from work. I was often taken aback when one on of my trips into a building, someone would inquire what the weather was outside.

I guess that all doesn't matter, but now I read the news about the situation in Syria and elsewhere, and I look out my window here now in what passes for "countryside" and I observe the behaviours of the folks who come and go, and I hear the grinding of machinery as it approaches and swallows everything else up, and I go out on a highway periodically and see the constant stream of traffic even further north of here towards what passes for wilderness, and the effects of humans, everyone myself included, seems kind of obvious and it doesn't look that good. Everything seems so apparently interconnected, but people seem more preoccupied with triffles like Trump.

Where's all this going? how much buying and selling and expansion can there possibly be before this epoch of the human experiment reaches a decisive moment. Can't be that much longer before something fails it seems to me. 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.

Posted by: Geoff | Sep 29 2018 14:32 utc | 121

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

1.climate doesn't change till something causes it to change.
2.this time humans are causing it to change.
3.anthony watts, the ex tv weather guy, and judith curry, the ex scientist, are not reliable sources.
4.the government did not issue a warning of the impending ice age in the 1970's.
5. every major science organization on the planet recognizes that the science is sound. i am all in favor of personally studying a subject, but your level of expertise is not going to approach that of the scientists who have spend decades doing it.
6.there was a fossil fuel funded study of the causes and effects of climate change, the BEST study. its conclusions agreed with the science. since then, to the best of my knowledge, the fossil fuel industry hasn't funded any more studies.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29 2018 15:11 utc | 123

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

dumbass @122

For whatever reason, some people believe that AGW is a scheme to introduce
Carbon Credit Trading (CTT) as a means of control.

That is not true.

CCT was proposed many years after the first IPCC report, which summarized a building consensus that itself was many years in the making.

Also, as a device to control carbon emissions, CCT has many recognized flaws. No one that is serious about climate change considers it to be practical. IMO CCT is considered only in those places where financial services have great political power like US and UK.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 29 2018 15:23 utc | 125

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

How do we cap the volcanic eruptions that actually "pollute' far more than humans?
Concrete plugs no doubt,but only in the mouths of the AGW believers.
Total ice in the world is increasing overall, and the grand solar minimum is upon us,
a mini ice age is more likely.

Posted by: Winston | Sep 29 2018 15:34 utc | 127

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

no, volcanoes aren't causing it, fossil fuel emissions. it should be cooling slightly, but it's not. the consensus is not based on a popularity contest, it is based on thousands of scientists all over the world, in a variety of economic systems who believe in different ideologies, doing science which has resulted in that consensus. newsflash, a theory in science is very well supported, see the theory of evolution or plate tectonics. there is a consensus that if you jump off a tall building things will not go well for you. should we distrust that consensus, too?

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

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29 2018 15:52 utc | 129

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

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29, 2018 11:52:48 AM | 130
no, volcanoes aren't causing it, fossil fuel emissions.

From what, from passenger cars? Sure, but so what?
The largest source of emissions is agriculture. Both production and distribution of food.
And transport of goods. All those container ships and transport planes use fossil fuel to move stuff from place to place. Individual people can drive electric cars and ride electric trains but those monster container ships will still go on diesel or mazut. And airplanes fill fly on kerosene. There is no environment friendly alternative fuel for those guys.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 16:26 utc | 131

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

OK, fine. Fossil fuel emission is changing the climate.
So what? Is it good, bad, or neutral?
If is good or neutral, what is the point of arguing about it? Panta Rhei.
If is bad, what realistically can be done to address the issue? How can fossil fuel emission be eliminated from the modern civilization? What other energy source is practically available? Just do not say cold fusion please.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 16:47 utc | 133

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's bad.we didn't evolve in this kind of climate, and neither did many other species. our civilizaton and agriculture are based on the "normal" climate. see coastal cities for an example. is happening far to fast to adapt to by evolution.
3. we can get off fossil fuels asap. possibly using nuclear as a stopgap. if we don't, we're toast.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29 2018 16:57 utc | 135

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

We cannot fly plains and drive most of the ships on nuclear.
Nuclear power plants are complex and expensive technology. Only few countries know how to make them. And some of those know-hows are actively preventing other countries to develop the technology and also refusing to build the plants for them.
So, it does not look good.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 17:15 utc | 137

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 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

i agree helpfully, it does not look good at all. but hey, maybe the people trying to push a war with russia will provoke a real war to end all wars, for a few thousand years anyway and we won't have to worry about it. 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.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29 2018 17:32 utc | 139

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: hopehely | Sep 29, 2018 12:47:59 PM | 134

How can fossil fuel emission be eliminated from the modern civilization?

It can't be. Modern civilization by definition is 100% dependent upon the fossil fuel burn-off, and this burn-off is the direct cause of all the institutions and practices characteristic of this civilization. Since these institutions and practices are purely wasteful and destructive of humanity and the Earth, it's good that fossil fuels are finite and will soon be economically, if not physically, impossible to extract at anything like current levels.

Of course the best would be if humanity could organize to put a stop to the orgy of destruction even sooner than that; that's a baseline for any real action on the climate crisis and all the other ecological and social-cultural crises. But I'm a pessimist about that. If I had to bet, I'd bet that civilization will continue to do its worst until it collapses on its own.

What other energy source is practically available?

To continue this obscene binge of waste and destruction? None. There is no substitute. Thank God for that.

Posted by: Russ | Sep 29 2018 18:03 utc | 141

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

there is a consensus that if you jump off a tall building things will not go well for you. should we distrust that consensus, too?

Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 29, 2018 11:52:48 AM | 130

The law of gravity is not based on consensus but on proof. Your example doesn't match.

Posted by: Antares | Sep 29 2018 18:39 utc | 143

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

@ hopehely 143

Too true.

Posted by: Russ | Sep 29 2018 19:08 utc | 145

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

Posted by: Antares | Sep 29, 2018 2:39:11 PM | 144
You don't get it.
The law of gravity says if you jump off a tall building you will fall down.
OTOH, the consensus is that the falling down from a tall building is not good for you.
Got the difference? The law of gravity does not say what is good or bad for you. It will just say that you will collide with the ground at speed v = sqrt(2*g*h) (ignoring air resistance), where g=9.81m/s2 and h=height of the building.
Who knows, maybe it is a good thing. One less source of heat, CO2, H2O and CH4 messing up our precious and delicate atmosphere.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 29 2018 19:10 utc | 147

@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

Dear b, you seem to be very worried of coming climate change. Let me bring some relief, there will not be any Thermaggedon caused by raising CO2.
The 'warming' property of CO2 are explained mostly on its lack of transparency for the 15 micron wavelenghts – which is about the infrared emission at -60°C.
One of the best places to observe this warming atmosphere would be Antarctica where we have temperatures around that value and scant water vapor. CO2 is there almost only greenhouse gas, so what is happening?
Have a look at Jo's post here about Antarctica's temperature trend:
If we look at the air above the ice... brrrr...

Now you would say, the major global temperature measurements show an increased warming overall. Global trends are important.
Unfortunately much of this measured warming is result of adjustments. In my view the best way to understand the adjustment process is too look at their own historical data.
Steven has done a lot of such work. He takes again and again the old charts and compares them with the new display:
Bear in mind that these adjustments are a continuous process, year after year after year.

What about warming oceans?
Interesting to note here is that the oceans build a cool skin at the surface (due to the process of evaporation). This creates a temperature gradient with cooler water at the surface and warmer several centimeters below.
This in my view is a great impediment to warming the oceans from the atmosphere, bearing in mind that the infrared radiation from the atmosphere will not get beyond several microns in water!
Well our instruments measure actually ocean cooling.
How does it show warming? Adjustments. Hear it directly from the horses mouth: Correcting ocean cooling.

But, but the sea level rise?
Initially satellite measurements found no sea level rise. The defunct John Daly had captured the first results on his site that is still available, you can find it at the bottom of the article:

It was only after recalibration that satellite measurement show 3mm sea level increase. To note is that this increase does include also an adjustment due to the post glacial movement, sea basins are suppose to get bigger.
Important to note is that there is no acceleration observed. The best is to look at the tide gauges data, for instance here:
or here:
The complete list:

Most projections based on tide gauges show an increase of about 1 mm/year.
Interesting to note, envisat, the european satellite measured no increase, only post mortem was the data revised and adjusted to show increase.

As Bjorn Lomborg says, climate activists need to dial back on the panic.
He still expects a certain warming that I personally think is erroneous, but one point he notes is very important: plants love CO2.

I remember having found in some Freeman Dyson post the estimation that due to the increased CO2 we have some 15% more food. He has some good speeches about the climate histeria.
Plants love co2. It is not without reason that most greenhouses work with artificially increased CO2 about 3-5 times more then in the atmosphere.
Now that 15% at 7 billion people will translate in food for 1 billion and something. I think this is a very very important point not mentioned at all by climate activists. This is an inconvenient truth you see?

There is a nice database here, where one can search per plant name and find how it reacts to increased CO2:
The results are globally seen:

Contrast with the situation before, when actual carbon starvation (!) was measured:
(To note is also that increased CO2 helps plants to withstand drought.)

It is also said that changes like this never happened before, before the climate was changing in millennia not decades and this does not give time for the biospehere to adapt.
Well actually in the medieval warm period it was warmer in Greenland, the vikings had farms in areas which are now permafrost. It is explained that it was not global but only Greenland – even if many studies beg to differ.
But there were much more dramatic changes. Younger Dryas is one such case.
“The NordGrip drilling project in Greenland has extracted ice cores from the ancient ice sheets there which reveal that the world's most recent ice age ended precisely 11,711 years ago.”

Yes but ocean acidification is the real problem. Raising CO2 in the atmosphere is poisoning the ocean.
First oceans have a ph around 8+ so are basic not acid.
Second the total quantity of CO2 in the oceans surpasses the atmospheric CO2. It is about 40 to 100 times more.
The oceans' water is not saturated with CO2

The truth is, we have no clear idea of the CO2 cycle on Earth.
New discovery under the continental US:
“Scientists have just discovered a 1.8 million square kilometre lake semi-molten carbonate (CO2) compounds under our feet”
We need to bear in mind that the ocean crust is much thiner then the continental shelf. Here an example of a giant eruption undersea (the biggest volcanic eruption on Earth in a hundred years) of which very few heard:
We have no clue how many hydrotermal vents and volcanoes are down there, a recent estimation runs into the millions.
What we know is that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere was regulated by the oceans. What “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore showed was the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last several hundred of years. It showed how nicely CO2 raised in the atmosphere when the global climate warmed in the interglaciation periods.
You see the CO2 in ppm following temperature. This is due to the oceans releasing more CO2 during the interglacials.
What it also shows is that CO2 is not the climate driver. Even with more CO2 released it cooled down instead of creating a runaway warming.
Currently we have about 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. Our measurement show it increasing with about 2 ppm per year.
One immediate result is the increase photosynthesis. As I mentioned above plants love CO2, especially C3 plants.

Posted by: LP | Sep 29 2018 19:35 utc | 149

So, can anyone explain the melting of the Arctic?

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

Posted by: Greece | Sep 29 2018 21:39 utc | 151

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

@ Russ: Agree.

@ JackRabbit:

This is the first time I discern a possible difference in our opinions, despite me reading most of what you wrote, at least in the past year or two that I've become familiar with pseudonyms, here and on your own blog. I offer that as sincere flattery, especially in case anything I write next sounds obnoxious. That being said...

Are you claiming that a carbon trading scheme is not a means of control? On its face, it's a means of control. The only "gray" area is whether it's (a) a completely innocent way to control greenhouse gas emissions aka economic activity around the globe or (b) a way for transnational oligarchs to obtain *another* control over global output, a form of control that might become critically important if the petrodollar fails.

You claim "it's not an attempt by one group of oligarchs at global domination" and offer as evidence the claim that a purportedly independent global body took years to recommend it. I've seen enough carefully orchestrated propaganda campaigns in my lifetime now to dismiss this "evidence" you offer.

Lastly, to repeat: I'm open-minded about AGW theory itself and wouldn't mind a local tax on carbon emission as a way to reduce pollution generally.

Posted by: dumbass | Sep 29 2018 21:57 utc | 153

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

So, can anyone explain the melting of the Arctic?

Posted by: Grieved | Sep 29, 2018 5:19:38 PM |

Grieved, there are natural variations and what we've seen so far is within those parameters. The medieval warm period must have been warmer based on the viking settlements in Greenland. At the beginning of the Holocene it was much warmer. Theoretically we are at the end of the warmer period and inching towards the next ice age, a little warming would do no harm.

"During the Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago, sea levels were significantly higher than they are now. Modern coastlines are 2 miles down from where they were during the Roman invasion of Britain in 43 AD, strongly implying that surface air temperatures were much warmer ~2,000 years ago compared to today."

The initial calculation for the CO2 warming, if I correctly remember, was giving the figure of 1°C per doubling. The question is if we ever reach a doubling with the biosphere gobbling up increasingly more.
The real question is if we will be able to measure any warming.

There is indeed a growing CO2 in the atmosphere. Will it get as far as 600 ppm by the end of the century? That could result in 0.5°C warming if the calculation is correct, with much faster grow for trees and all C3 plants due to more CO2.

Historical CO2 lagged temperature, CO2 the tail not the dog:

Frankly I do not think the hopes for the northern passage will be fulfilled, but lets see. If there will be warming it should start at the poles according to theory.

Posted by: LP | Sep 29 2018 22:34 utc | 155

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

name one bit of science cited by deniers, guerrero.

Well, for example, the science Posted by: LP | Sep 29, 2018 3:35:54 PM | 150

In 2001, I participated in a discussion forum about the Hole in the Ozone claims:
i.e. that chlorofleurocarbons were rising to the ionosphere and destroying the ozone.

At the time, I did my best to inform myself so I wouldn't be embarassed by my ignorance.
But the challenges i assayed turned those true believers into nasty epithet throwers.

These were sophisticated folks too, but the way they handled science was
not good enough to compete with my posts in the give-and-take of the dialog.

Instead of having an honest and forthright discussion in the socratic method,
I was repeatedly called incorrigibly ignorant and the dupe of oil companies.

For example, no one would come to grips with my argument that the cfc molecule
is 8 times heavier than the atmospheric oxygen molecule, that CFCs had not been
experimentally observed in the upper model; it was only modeled to be up there!

I entered this debate as a way to learn by testing ideas in a dialog forum.
I had no idea that the scientific method itself was not to be countenanced.

At the time I was entirely open to be educated, but the posters never really
tried to counter scientific argument with scientific argument - only invective
and aspersions and repeated assertions that I was some petroleum industry shill.

I learned much about atmospheric science, but even more about
how the 'Hole in the Ozone' claims are apparently indefensible.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 29 2018 22:59 utc | 157

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

@Grieved 151

Respect to a poster and writer I sincerely admire, but it isn't.

The ice has been remarkedly consistent in the past 15 years, with 2018 being a high point in the last five. If you look closely, you can actually see the emaciated polar bears gorging on walrus butt.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Sep 30 2018 0:11 utc | 159

@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

During the last 730,000 years there have been ten major glaciations separated by interglacials. Previous interglacials have been up to 5ºC warmer in polar regions than the current interglacial.

Wobbles in the Earth’s orbit have produced repeated cycles of an average of 90,000 years of cold climate followed by an average of 10,000 years of warmth.

During the last interglacial period, sea level was 6 metres higher than today. Air temperature was anything from 2ºC to 6ºC warmer.

The last glaciation started 116,000 years ago. Ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice expanded. Temperature and sea level fell. During the last ice age there were short periods of warmth followed by rapid collapses into bitterly cold conditions. Humans were lucky to survive the last glaciation. The last glaciation finished 14,000 years ago. There was rapid global warming and rapid sea level rise followed. Sea level rose at least 130 metres at the rate of 1 centimetre per year.

During a relatively warm period 6000 years ago, sea level was 2 metres higher than at present. Temperature was also higher. Fluctuating warm and cold conditions continued during a period of thousands of years characterised by warmth.

In the Roman Warming from 250 BC to 450 AD, temperature was at least 2ºC higher than today.

In the Dark Ages there was a bitterly cold period causing crop failure, famine, disease, war, depopulation, expansion of ice and increased wind. There was great social disruption and climate refugee gangs wandered Europe looking for food. Civilisations such as the Mayans collapsed.

In the Medieval Warming (900–1300 AD) Ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice contracted, enabling sea exploration and settlement at high latitudes. Grain crops, cattle, sheep, farms and villages were established on Greenland which was at least 6ºC warmer than today. The population increased and there was enough food to feed the additional tens of millions of people.

The Little Ice Age started in the late 13th Century with a decrease in solar activity. The Little Ice Age was characterised by rapidly fluctuating climate and extraordinarily cold periods during solar inactivity . There was crop failure, famine, disease, war and depopulation. There was social disruption, and wandering climate refugees . The Vikings on Greenland died out. The Little Ice Age ended in 1850 and since then there has been another warming trend that we are in until solar inactivity or something else switches us to cooler times

Posted by: Pft | Sep 30 2018 1:19 utc | 161

Grieved 160

Pacific Islands are a good gauge.
"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

To Grieved and others requesting data about climate change:

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Warm up
Over the past 50 years, the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula has been one of the most rapidly warming parts of the planet. This warming is not only restricted to the land but can also be noted in the Southern Ocean. Upper ocean temperatures to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula have increased over 1°C since 1955. It has now been established that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is warming more rapidly than the global ocean as a whole. Studying climate change in Antarctica is important because it enables scientists to predict more accurately future climate change and provide information to politicians and policy makers.

The warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is causing changes to the physical and living environment of Antarctica. The distribution of penguin colonies has changed as the sea ice conditions alter. Melting of perennial snow and ice covers has resulted in increased colonisation by plants. A long-term decline in the abundance of Antarctic krill in the SW Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean may be associated with reduced sea ice cover. Large changes have occurred in the ice cover of the Peninsula. Many glaciers have retreated and ice shelves that formerly fringed the Peninsula have been observed to retreat in recent years and some have collapsed completely.

I don't think it can be asserted that these changes are not due to human causes. You only have to look at what is happening in the ocean as far as an accumulation of plastic there to make a corresponding supposition about what is happening in the air. These changes are unprecedented, historically speaking.

Posted by: juliania | Sep 30 2018 1:40 utc | 163

@ 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

as grieved pointed out earlier, the lack of trust in some or all of the official data given out today is valid..if you use the previous example of the tobacco industry and their work at trying to obfuscate the connection between cigarettes and cancer, the question then becomes, is the oil industry, or corporations more generally, interested in protecting their own short term interests over the long term interests of the people and planet i know where i would place my trust, and it isn't with corporations or gov'ts run by corporations at this point in time..

but maybe a better place to address this topic is whether one thinks people are making the planet uninhabitablet? how many extinct species of animals or plants have been observed in the past 50 or 100 years?

while i have faith in people to correct the wrongs of the past, i don't know that corporations will do anything other then change their name and move on to the next goal of financial domination... what is monsanto, blackwater or acher daniels name today, or any other corporation that top priority is the bottom line without regard for the wealth and health of the planet?

after reading so many books on farming from wendell berry, i realize corporate agriculture is not sustainable.. how is that affecting the health of people and the planet, specifically in places with corporate agriculture dominates? does this have anything to do with climate change? i think it does.. i think what we do to the planet on a small scale, is reflected on a wider scale.. how about slaughter houses, or places where instead of manure being a natural part of the cycle of replenishing the earth, we use chemicals to help sustain it? am i supposed to put my faith in dow chemical, as opposed to what my observation of corp agriculture demonstrates?

now, maybe these parallels i am making with corporate agriculture don't apply to the topic of climate change.. i can only say, that based on what has happened the past 50-100 years on this front makes me very uncomfortable of putting my trust in any corporation or gov't that appears to be primarily supporting these same corporate agendas... it wasn't until someone decided to hold those corporations pouring poison into the rivers and estuaries in the various communities, that these same corporations found alternative ways of dealing with their toxic garbage... we still haven't figured out a way to deal with the extras that come with nuclear power at this point and so, my question would be at what point are people going to grow up? i don't expect corporations to lead the way in anything here...

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2018 1:45 utc | 165

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

To rework an adage from my youth

If finance was public then education (climate science) would have all the money it wanted and the military would have to hold bake sales for weapons.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 30 2018 1:52 utc | 167

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

Thanks I have looked into ocean temperatures as well - they suffer from the same problem (I didn't want to make my comment too long so there is much I skipped).
I think you misunderstood my comment. Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

Posted by: Deltaeus | Sep 30 2018 3:48 utc | 169

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

It has always been a polarized issue, but this was originally caused, in my observation, by special interests rather than simple human disagreeableness.

Nota bene:

In my own case, at least, (this I know for sure) my view of the matter was certainly NOT
"caused by special interests". I don't have TV and this was (for me) the advent of the Internet
when I participated in that 2001 extended forum debate regarding the famous "Hole in the Ozone."

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 30 2018 5:02 utc | 171

"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

I am not presuming to state 'the truth'. Only that what I learned about atmospheric science by
studying the Hole in the Ozone emergency is the reason I am distrustful of popularized science.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 30 2018 5:25 utc | 173

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

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 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 the question why the ice core data did not detect changes in CO2 due to previous warming/Cooling periods during interglacial periods.

Posted by: Pft | Sep 30 2018 6:09 utc | 175

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

Jack Rabbit@174

Man contributes 4% of total CO2 emissions annually which is 1% of total CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 itself is responsible for no more than 15% of the GHG effect (water vapour/clouds is over 70%). The atmosphere contains only 2% as much as CO2 as the ocean, which is the biggest source of CO2 for the atmosphere (as well as sink)

At one time earth had CO2 levels as high as 5000 ppm. Dinosaurs and plants loved it. The earth survived and now by comparison is a snowball. No more dinosaurs though.

As for predictions. Section 14.2.2. of the Scientific Section of Third IPCC Assessment Report, (2001) titled “Predictability in a Chaotic System” says:

“The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system.”


“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”

Posted by: Pft | Sep 30 2018 6:32 utc | 177

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

The 2015 Paris agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions was largely a scam. - b.

Yes. Worse: It was a kind of ‘cover’ for the first World Efficiency Exhibit - in fact a huge commercial fair which took place in Paris around the same time. All the big FF cos. and the Greenwashers were there. Deals for billions were made. This 5 min. video clip is in French and shows the ‘greenwashing speech’ with familiar figures (some are just dopes, Moscovici however it not) - very little of the fair itself is shown but what one can see is enough.

This is the announcement for the 2017 edition in Eng. (couldn’t find the one for 2015)

This event offers a meeting space built on a powerful four-dimensional programme: Business Matchmaking, Expo, Showcase, Summit, and Training.

These elements create a powerful platform for linking solution providers and market decision makers to deploy resource-efficient innovations and technologies.


Posted by: Noirette | Sep 30 2018 9:13 utc | 179

@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

One and Two above should read:

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 time a new ice age could be coming. The change in the activity of the sun could be more radical than human activities. I.e. we could make the planet scorching hot for one hundred to five hundred years before being plunged full on into an ice age.

I've expanded the comment into a longer post. The gist is above though. Thanks for your post B. Feel free to amend my comment above and delete this one if you're doing any deep housecleaning.

Posted by: Uncoy | Sep 30 2018 12:58 utc | 181


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

Jackrabbit @183

Pft presents a lot of information in his posts which is just not true, partial or misrepresented. It would take a long while to unravel, research and respond to all of the points Pft raises. However, even cursory research begins to show that Pft is deliberately spreading misinformation that is intended to be difficult to unravel and to obfuscate.

For instance, the absurd points about past earth temperatures being okay for dinosaurs totally ignores the issue that humans weren't actually around back then.

Pft deliberately treats water vapour as a greenhouse gas when it might best be regarded as "effectively" a greenhouse gas. Global warming (caused, for example, by CO2) causes increased water vapour in the atmosphere which results in further global warming.

From article in Climate Change Connection:

"The addition of water vapour to the atmosphere, for the most part, cannot be directly attributed to human generated activities. Increased water vapour content in the atmosphere is referred to as a feedback process. Warmer air is able to hold more moisture. As the climate warms, air temperatures rise, more evaporation from water sources and land occurs, thus increasing the atmospheric moisture content. The increase in water vapour in the atmosphere, because water vapour is an effective greenhouse gas, thus contributes to even more warming: it enhances the greenhouse effect."

(Bizarrely, elsewhere in the responses to this post other climate change deniers posit that water vapour [clouds] will reduce global warming because clouds will make the Earth more shady.)

Pft also refers to CO2 levels in the past as proving that C02 does not cause warming. This confuses two different (but also re-inforcing) processes; 1. that global warming causes increases in CO2, and 2. that increases in CO2 causes global warming. There is more about this in this New Scientist article.

Every single point that Pft refers or alludes to is just mistaken or misrepresented. Pft does it well but he is fundamentally dishonest and a 'bad actor'

I am willing to listen to those skeptical of global warming but it all looks very much like most deniers are part of a deliberate disinformation/obfuscation campaign.

Nowhere near enough is being done to address global warming so the climate change deniers are definitely succeeding in their aim.

Posted by: ADKC | Sep 30 2018 16:32 utc | 183

@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

it all looks very much like most deniers are part of a deliberate disinformation/obfuscation campaign.

Is that the way it looks from where you are? Well, from where I am in Guerrero México, the idea that
Northamericans are going to pull themselves together and address a climate emergency is ludicrous!

You are saying that the decadent population of Anglo-america has finally got it right at long last?

The good people I know in the villages and in the city are all under enormous economic pressure;
getting food on the table today is the pressing concern of nearly all of the persons of my acquaintance.

Yet the academic-scientific institution of the overlords have discovered the solution to a problem
that is so big nobody except a specialist can even conceive of it! I think that if this emergency were real, there would NOT be wide-spread public awareness of same and it would not be taught in the schools.

Why don't they think of a way for people to be employed and have an honorable way to survive?

Why not address a real and pressing emergency! People die and are too humble to call out
because they know that their neighbors have their own serious problems;

This is a real emergency! Not a pie-in-the-sky theory that nobody will even defend with
scientific method and socratic dialog, rather epithets and aspersions; it is all too ridiculous.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 30 2018 18:11 utc | 185

@ 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

Guerrero @186

You quoted me and then mis-interpreted my position.

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'.

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.

Posted by: ADKC | Sep 30 2018 19:19 utc | 187

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

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? Russ at 197

Are you kidding? People are executed in the street here every day;
we are in the very eye of a Fast & Furious Operation Phoenix hell.

NAFTA (the TLC) is an oppressive, hopeless system
I was opposed to it before others had heard of this.

The GMOs are effectively satanic. The attacks on Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela
and other Iberoamerican governments are, of course, noxious in the extreme.

No, I do NOT deny that globalization is ravaging and destroying the environment.
Are you kidding me? To my view, the globalisation process is entirely anti-human.

Posted by: Guerrero | Sep 30 2018 19:53 utc | 189

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

Posted by: Uncoy | Sep 30, 2018 7:52:49 AM | 181

We could simply replace plastic with bulk foods where you go and buy your food in your own glass containers.

It will not work. Bulk items are sold by weight, so they have to be weighted at checkout. If they are in your glass containers, it will not be possible to determine net weight accurately. That is why you put bulk stuff in thin plastic bags. The weight of the bag is negligible. And the bags are nicely rolled so they do not take lot of space. Cheap and convenient.
Paper bags are used at some places, but they are bulkier. They work well for bakery goods (rolls and croissants etc), sold by piece.

Posted by: hopehely | Sep 30 2018 20:23 utc | 191


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:

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:

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):

(2) Global environmental collapse due to human destruction of the ecosystem:
And more recently visualized in the book doughnut economics:

(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

Krollchem @193

My post was merely about how misleading Pft posts were and how every single point he made didn't really stand up.

It is impossible to deal in detail with such issues in a forum like this. Every poster can be accused of oversimplification so I don't really know why you're taking issue with me. However, not every poster can be accused of being intentionally misleading and this was the accusation I was levelling against Pft (and it was important to do so because he was very adept at it).

Models always have limitations and always need to be improved. But models exist (have to be used) because it is impossible to conduct planet wide experiments in a timely manner (because there aren't enough planets [only one Earth] and timescale is too long).

CO2 is 'the' major green house gas (but all green house gases are increasing). The basic premise is that increased concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will absorb more long-wavelength heat radiating away from the surface, reducing the rate at which it escapes into space, thereby retaining more heat energy near the surface in the form of increased temperature.

The absorption is a measured property of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The temperature near the surface therefore must rise with greenhouse gas concentration. This increased temperature near the surface will then affect further things like water vapour concentration and cloud formation. These secondary effects may accentuate (positive feedback) or counteract (negative feedback) the initial warming, but they can’t prevent it because it is what caused them.

There are many secondary effects, many of which would accentuate global warming.

Since real measured greenhouse gas concentration and real measured temperature are both rising, it is very likely that the real atmospheric system has insufficient negative feedback to be stabilised. At some higher temperature, negative feedback 'might' increase sufficiently to halt further increase. And it might not. Most models say (1) surface temperature won’t stabilise and (2) various secondary effects could lock into runaway temperature increase. It would be stupid to bet on what the models say is an unlikely possibility, and find out for real that the models were right by baking ourselves and our environment to extinction.

The collapse of western civilisation is not, per se, a threat to human existence.

The destruction of the eco system is related to the same destructive behaviours (of, lets face it, western civilisation) that have brought us global warming. Dealing with one probably will help greatly with the other.

A nuclear winter after a nuclear war? Brought to us again by western civilisation.

Your basic message is that global warming can be safely ignored (at least for now); personally, I doubt that it can.

Posted by: ADKC | Sep 30 2018 23:27 utc | 193

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 climate change problems are easily seen and easily conceived of; look at the increase in extreme weather that is causing so much damage worldwide. it is basis science going back to the early 1800's. that so many people are getting their "science" from frauds like watts is very discouraging.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 1 2018 0:07 utc | 195

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

sigh, no guerrero, wattsupwiththat and jonova aren't "science". neither one is a scientist for one thing.

Just a minute. I never heard of those people! My view is primarily based upon independent research
I did in 2001 on the Hole in the Ozone emergency. I learned a lot about atmospheric science, And
I discovered that my debate counterparts were just not up for any one-on-one style socratic dialog.

My experience was that, having rejected the "overwhelming consensus of scientist" approach,
I suffered ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack, and accusations of being an oil shill.

The behaviour of those protagonists of the Hole in the Ozone theory was what convinced me that
their case could NOT really be made in the face of respectful skeptical questioning. They ran away
from taking responsibility for their position and eschewed any honest collaborative investigation:

All my counterparts could think to reply was that I was there on behalf of some fossil fuel company!

At the time, I learned enough about atmospheric science to wonder how a clorofleurocarbon molecule
weighing eight times an atmospheric oxygen molecule could migrate to the upper atmosphere and not
just fall down on the ground. To me this is a scientific question and the failure to engage in scientific discourse, except as a device to promote some idealistic scheme is what eventually convinced me
that this whole thing had to be a distraction or a deception and a misuse of the scientific process.

(Where I am, home-refrigerators are cooled with what I take are bootleg CFCs. The price of DuPont
Corporation's patented substitute is of an order of magnitude more expensive and, now, thinking about
it, i doubt that an ordinary mexican refrigerator repair man would even know where to buy that stuff)

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 0:54 utc | 197

@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

@198 Guerrero

2001 was 17 years ago, my friend.

That was the year I believed that planes took down the towers. Turns out the impressions that fit my experience were wrong.

Maybe it's time to step back a little, and revisit the subject from the ground up? Just a thought, offered in solidarity.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 1 2018 1:04 utc | 199

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

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.