Climate Alarmists Gain Stature by Demonizing Opponents

power-lines-sunsetThere’s a lot of blaming and shaming going on right now in the global warming debate.

And somehow, it’s now standard practice to demonstrate loyalty to the climate cause by actively bemoaning “carbon pollution” or “the warmest year on record.”  Essentially, the more people publicly lament “climate change,” or criticize “climate deniers,” the more they prove their worthiness to the mission.

The presumption seems to be that as long as one actively embraces and promotes the theory of man-made global warming, that person is absolved of guilt in the matter. Such people have shown themselves to be loyal to the cause. They can rest easy because they’re involved, they’re doing something.

There’s a great irony here, of course, since everyone in the Western/Developed world shares a responsibility for this perceived, man-made crisis.

(Side note: There are very good reasons to doubt the overriding theory of anthropogenic global warming, and to believe that changes in solar activity bear heavily on the matter. But for now, we’ll leave aside questions of “cause,” and simply focus on the current, heated political discourse.)

Here’s the root issue: Whenever one texts on an iPhone, or shops in a store, or takes the subway to work, you’re benefiting from the advanced, high-energy world in which we now live. Yes, they could go completely off the grid, by walking (not driving) to the woods. And they could grow their own food, and trap the animal skins needed to replace their petroleum-based shoes and clothing…

The point is, it’s fine for Sens. Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse to point an angry finger at fossil fuel advocates. But they are undoubtedly taking a car home at night, and switching on the lights in their homes, and opening the refrigerator to heat up some leftovers for a late dinner.

The safety and security of American society were built on this high-energy mix of power generation. It’s what keeps the lights on 24/7, delivers clean drinking water, treats sewage, drives elevators, and powers hospitals.

Sadly, the “renewable” energy championed by the climate community doesn’t ramp up to meet these needs, in part because of the unreliable, intermittent nature of wind and solar power. This appears less important to the climate community, however than denigrating anyone who questions the validity of man-made warming or points to the limitations of wind and solar power.

There’s a wonderful irony here, of course, because the climate community absolutely needs the climate skeptics it witch-hunts. Demonizing a “denier” offers the ultimate opportunity to prove one’s loyalty to the movement.

What’s at work now is almost the moral equivalent of “carbon credits.” By targeting dissent and hectoring global warming critics, climate advocates are not only able to justify their own, continued use of high-energy (I.e. fossil fuel-based) power, but also to elevate their stature within the climate movement. It’s the same mentality that allows one to cheer for the prosecution of ExxonMobil despite a lifetime of filling the tank at a gas station.

It seems more and more appropriate to deem the global warming movement a “religion,” particularly in its targeting and punishment of heretics. But where this will end is a troubling question. The McCarthy era may prove instructive, however. When the climate movement starts to attack its own, we may see some sort of pause or a moment of clarity. For now, though, the real effort is for critics to keep speaking their mind, and to not remain silent in the face of coercion and intimidation.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (38)

  • Avatar

    Oneninetysix2zero

    |

    There can be no lasting change without awareness – THAT is what the “alarmest” message has been. And NO ONE denies the benefits of high energy use but there are alternatives to fossil fuels and they are becoming more widespread, cheaper and accepted.
    Now, if only the denialists would get out of the way and stop obstructing progress on both fronts, our grandchildren may have a fighting chance to live in a sustainable world.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Steven Capozzola

      |

      Thanks for your comment. I have to disagree with your enthusiastic assessment of renewable energy. Wind and solar, though heavily subsidized, have failed to scale up to the robust, reliable energy generation needed to power a modern society’s critical infrastructure. (A key problem, as Europe is learning, is that wind and solar are intermittent and low-yield— and thus they require “spinning reserves” of power generation from gas and/or coal.)

      My standard is, what can provide the greatest opportunity for human health and flourishing. Though I had high hopes for renewables, it appears that the answer is actually gas/coal/nuclear power.

      As for your summation on “denialists,” I’ll bet we’d agree that climate changes, and that the earth has indeed warmed over the past 150 years. But all my study leads me to conclude that the AGW theory is heavily flawed. CO2 rapidly fails as a greenhouse gas, and the presumed water vapor feedback does not account for cloud formation. More significant to me, however, are the various impacts of the tremendous increase in solar activity over that time– which I see as the far more likely explanation for the rise in temperatures, as it was in prior warming periods over the past few thousand years.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Keep commenting as if you have not been proven a serial LIAR.
      Just because you’ve paused and returned your past is to be forgotten ?
      IT IS NOT FORGOTTEN
      You are a phony
      A regurgitative idiot
      and
      A PROVEN SERIAL LIAR

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Oneninetysix2zero

        |

        Hey JayPee,
        Found anyone yet who agrees with your ludicrous no-greenhouse gas theory – aside from that fake lawyer / creepy pedophile dude and the other guy who keeps getting kicked off WUWT, of course?
        BTW, are you ever going to show us some actual evidence for that ahemm “theory” or have you just been lying to us about that?

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    ONENINETYSIXZERO
    Yes there are alternatives to fossil fuel like bird blenders delivering intermittent power .
    Unfortunately the scary global warming promoters are after quite a bit more than
    a “sustainable world ” aren’t they ? If they were all so sustainably minded why are they opposed to nuclear ?
    The warm fuzzy sound of sustainable comes wrapped with other agenda’s . Population
    control (planned civilized genocide ) , fuel poverty to really screw over the poorest in society , taxation to transfer wealth to so called have not “developing countries ” ,
    and massive subsidies to businesses that flame out even when propped up by taxpayers . In the true sustainability righteous world your grandchildren won’t even get born .
    Yes we should conserve ,adopt innovative technology when it makes sense , but don’t bullshit people with utter nonsense that the earth has a fever to achieve political and self dealing business goals . Cut the lying and some progress might get made without the side show agenda of gold diggers . Stupid statements that the science is settled
    when the area of study is really beginning just trash the credibility of the crooks pushing their agenda . Pouting and threatening when their business plan is blown off course because not everyone is buying their propaganda .

    Global cooling was another farce that was supposedly scientifically sound . WRONG .
    Obstructing progress ? Really … like what out sourcing jobs to a country that thinks justice comes in the form of a bullet to the back of the head and people are walking around with masks on rather than breath a sewer .
    Scary global warming was an orchestrated scam using scientists completely inaccurate climate models as the “scientific proof ” .

    So what exactly are denialists ? People that disagree with the scary global warming con game ? Count me in .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Oneninetysix2zero

      |

      These “bird blenders” kill less than 0.01% than what ordinary household windows or power lines do and that is mostly from the old style smaller and faster spinning turbines of decades earlier. These days, ornithology groups work with the power generators to choose the best locations and Wind is booming across America accounting for more than 5% of our TOTAL electricity – an 800% increase in less than a decade with no end in sight. In some states, like Iowa, it is almost 30%.
      Like I said, it is time for denialists to stop dragging America backwards – embrace the future of clean renewable energy – it is coming no matter how many nonsensical articles by non-qualified hacks are written for the willfully ignorant. You grandchildren will thank you for it.
      BTW, you may not be aware that 2016 is currently the hottest year ever recorded. – the imaginary pause that sCeptics clung to is a fairy tale that has finally been put to rest and that means it is also time to accept the reality of man-made global warming.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    What denialists are you referring to exactly? I for one do not “deny” that climate changes. What i do take issue with is the alarmists insistence that public policy be based upon an utterly invalidated Co2 warming hypothesis. So far every single IPCC “consensus science” based model prediction has failed when compared to experiment. Thus it fails the Scientific Method.

    Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,

    “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

    None of us “oppose” so called alternatives to fossil fuels as long as they are really affordable and can compete without artificial subsidy’s. So far Wind, Solar and bio fuels fail this test. The market will decide.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    I see Drewski the Banned Trollski has yet another “new” login. Yep! His “overwhelming consensus” of 196 failed models is still batting Zero…

    What a Maroon…

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Oneninetysix2zero

      |

      Riiiiight. 196 (all) countries signed the climate accord and 0 (zero) chose to follow sCeptics and yet I am the one batting zero. See the inconsistency in that logic, One Trick?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        196 members of the CAGW fan club signed the climate discord.

        Why not go to a Trump rally and see how many Hillary fans you find? Or poll the Mickey Mouse Fan Club to see who their favorite mouse is? Or maybe attend a National Baptist Convention and see who they believe is Lord and Saviour?

        And this is Drewski’s best argument. 😆

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    oneninetysixzero
    As you said a “climate accord ” a toothless unenforceable piece of paper weaker than Kyoto but necessary to partake in the next climate conference . When China doesn’t even have an unenforceable obligation till at least 2030 you know they could have
    saved the paper. Certainly wind has a roll in some markets and other forms of renewables make sense providing the customers of feed in tariffs are willing to take the higher cost . In a previous life we surveyed customers how much extra they were willing to pay and like it or not anything over 5% met with very negative response .
    The issue isn’t really about renewables because they existed and were growing where the market existed and were the source was reasonably competitive .
    The issue is unscientific and highly inaccurate climate model predictions being used to create an exaggerated scare story to achieve political objectives and $$Billion subsidies that are an unnecessary waste of limited resources .
    Do you see China as a “developing country ” worthy of $Billions in hurt feeling payments as they happily clean out North America’s manufacturing ?
    Those Grandkids you are referring to are going to be in a race to the bottom in wages if we don’t use competitive energy to our benefit and quit exporting jobs .
    Not everyone wants to work for the government .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Oneninetysix2zero

      |

      You make me laugh Amber – the issue is not, nor has it ever been, climate models it is the current OBSERVATIONS and TRENDS that is indesputable. And speaking of “unscientific”, every earth, space and amospheric organization on this planet seems tohave a different opinion than you do. Tell me again, why should I listen to you?

      On China: Ratifying the agreement fits with Beijing’s domestic political agenda of being seen to make efforts to clean up the environment, after years of breakneck industrial development led to soaring air, water and ground pollution.
      In order to fulfil its obligations under the Paris agreement, China would need to cut carbon emissions by 60-65% per unit of GDP by 2030, compared with 2005 levels, and boost its use of non-fossil fuels so they accounted for 20% of its energy consumption. 
      Ranping Song, of the Washington-based World Resources Institute, said China had taken “more and more concerted and aggressive actions against climate change” in recent years and Beijing’s decision to ratify the Paris deal underscored how it now recognised climate change as a global problem to which China was vulnerable as well as the need to tackle severe environmental pollution at home.
      It also showed how China’s leaders believed they could turn the fight against climate change into “A NEW ENGINE FOR GROWTH”. Song said: “[The old development] model is no longer working and, just out of its own economic interests, China is looking for new ways to SPUR THE ECONOMY.”
      Speaking at the opening of the B20 business forum in Hangzhou, China’s president Xi said China would continue to confront the causes of climate change and environmental degradation and vowed to close coal mines and steel mills as part of that effort.
      “I have said many times that green mountains and clear water are as good as mountains of gold and silver. To protect the environment is to protect productivity and to improve the environment is to boost productivity,” Xi said. “We will unwaveringly pursue sustainable development and stay committed to green, low-carbon and circular development and to China’s fundamental policy of conserving resources and protecting the environment. In promoting green development we also aim to address climate change and over capacity.”
      He added: “We will make China a beautiful country with a blue sky, green vegetation and clear rivers so that our people can enjoy their lives in a liveable environment with the ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS CREATED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.”
      Ratifying the agreement would “further advance China’s green, low-carbon development and safeguard environmental security”, it said. The move was also “CONDUCIVE TO CHINA’S DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS”. 
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/03/china-ratifies-paris-climate-change-agreement

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        @ zero
        YOU ARE A LIAR
        None of the sources you like to parrot use raw collected data as is !
        They all use ” adjusted ” manufactured numbers specifically determined to bolster their preconceived outcome.
        They are committing FRAUD and you
        ARE LYING !

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Oneninetysix2zero

          |

          JayPee,
          What you know couldn’t fill a thimble, what you don’t could fill an ocean. If radiation signatures of Oxygen atoms are used in the measure of satellite temperatures and/or the satellite drifted off course or some surface stations traditionally took readings at 7am and others at 3pm, how would you be make sennse of this data unless it was “adjusted”. Adjusting or “calibrating” data is as old as data itself – science 101. Check it out, you just might learn something.
          BTW, as you have yet to produce a single shred of verifiable evidence for that (chuckle chuckle) theory of yours even after years of requests, you clearly are the biggest liar on CCD.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            @ Andrzejewski who is a zero
            Idiots like yourself are easily persuaded by repetitive lying.
            People of genuine intelligence aren’t and that’s precisely why you’ll never gain any traction here.
            Keep making an ass of yourself though.
            I don’t think it’s just me who’s enjoying it.

          • Avatar

            Oneninetysix2zero

            |

            And JayPee deftly avoids yet another opportunity to provide evidence for his (giggle giggle) no greenhouse gas lie.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    oneninetysix2zero
    Who cares what China says it’s what they do .
    Climate models exaggerating the effects of CO2 were used to sell this overblown scam . No one questions “climate change ” or that humans likely have some effect on the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels but what really is a laugh is the
    notion humans are some how going to regulate the earths temperature through less use of fossil fuel .
    Over 30,000 scientists do not support the proposition of spending $trillions to try and control earths temperature that has been warming since the last ice age.

    The global warming fear industry is built on the premise of climate model projections that consistently overstate the effects of CO2 and cannot accurately factor in natural variable influence . Accepting that the earth is in a warming cycle and humans have some role there are as many if not more benefits of higher CO2 and a warmer climate .
    Natural climate variables are not about to be usurped by a trace gas beneficial to life . Global warming is good as long as it lasts .
    Despite China political speeches their emissions of pollutants harmful to humans
    and the environment have skyrocketed and will continue to do so .
    They don’t seem to be concerned about rising seas as they build islands in the South China Sea and massive oil and gas drilling platforms .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Oneninetysix2zero

      |

      Amber,
      Are you talking about that discredited Oregon Petition of 20 years ago? The one that has dead movie stars and Disney characters on its list of “experts”? The organization which apparently listed a delapidated barn as it headquarters (no other structure was at its address) and deliberately copied the style and formatting of the stationary used by the National Academy of Sciences in order to scam a response?
      THAT is what you cite as counter evidence?!?
      BTW, why hasn’t it been updated since last century? Don’t you find that a wee bit curious?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Albert Einstein stated the theory of relativity more than a century ago. He never had to repeat it nor embellish and digress over it since it stood for itself.
        I don’t expect you to understand what that means since you cannot distinguish reality from fantasy.
        Btw, when did what you call the Oregon Petition become discredited and by whom ?
        And where did you come up with the imaginary list of ” experts ?”
        Once again
        YOU ARE A LIAR!

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Oneninetysix2zero

          |

          The theory of relativity isn’t dependent on a changing climate but man-made global warming is. And Einstein didn’t use dead presidents to provide validation for his theory but the Oregon Petition used them to scam the willfully ignorant.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Oregon Petition had over 30,000 scientist signatures , 9000 with PHd’s. Trying to discredit it because of a few alleged (planted ) false signators is laughable .
    If you were so confident about the countries that signed the most recent version of a climate intention document actually following through you wouldn’t be wasting your
    time on this site . Even Jim Hanson knows it’s a joke and will do nothing .
    Continuous improvement towards less fuel use is a very good thing and has been going on for over 100 years . Just because some think the earth has a fever
    does not justify $ Trillions of dollars in subsidies to” renewables ” , and funds being transfer to the UN or any other entity . After all that is why the global warming scare industry started . Global cooling was supposed to be a scientific fact in the 1970’s too .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Oneninetysix2zero

      |

      In the past 20 years, we have lost more than 50% of the Arctic ice mass, seen an increase in annual sea level rise and had ALL of the top 10 hottest years. Plus we now have GRACE satellites and ARGO buoys to better analyze the oceans and ice as well as 10,000 new studies written by hundreds of scientists in dozens of different fields.
      Don’t you think any of that new information would have a bearing on what actual scientists — verifiable scientists – believe TODAY?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        4TimesAYear

        |

        “we have lost more than 50% of the Arctic ice mass”
        So? It grows back every winter. It’s been ice free before – a recent alarmist’s article even admits it’s no big deal.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Oneninetysix2zero

          |

          “So, it grows back every winter”.
          Uhh no.
          In 2016, the Arctic ice extent “grew” to its lowest maximum ever recorded. And the Arctic may have been ice when the earth’s tilt and/or were different but that probably took thousands of years to minutest itself – not in decades as we are seeing now and especially not when we have been simultaneously experiencing low and deep solar minimums that we have had in the past 2 decades.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Oneninetysix2zero

            |

            And/or orbit

          • Avatar

            Huub Bakker

            |

            “In 2016, the Arctic ice extent “grew” to its lowest maximum ever recorded.”
            Scary stuff! The maximum recorded ice extent in 2016 was 11 million sq km. The average over from 1981(shortly after the record started) to 2010 is 12.5±1 million sq km. So we have the lowest maximum in less than 40 years and you want to get hot under the collar about it. There is no trend in this data. Read some history from the 1920s when the Arctic ice extent was much less than today.

      • Avatar

        Huub Bakker

        |

        “Don’t you think any of that new information would have a bearing on what actual scientists — verifiable scientists – believe TODAY?”
        You seem to have a very high opinion of ‘verifiable scientists.’ The trouble is, who are the ‘actual’ scientists? Many of the people who claim to be scientists don’t deserve the title, while many amateurs adhere much more closely to the scientific ideal. And don’t tell me that scientists are the ones publishing peer-reviewed papers; recent surveys suggest that up to half of all such papers are wrong. A scientist is not identifiable by the degree they have, the job they hold or the number of papers that they publish; they can be identified by the quality of their science.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    oneninetysix2zero

    |

    “Read some history from the 1920s when the Arctic ice extent was much less than today”.
    Well Huub, that would be wonderful news if that were true, which it is not, but please, knock yourself out and produce some evidence for us.
    And yes, it is scary stuff. Although the winter maximum extent trend is not tracking as sharply or as dramatically as the summer minimum trend which is showing a 40% drop in extent and a jaw-dropping 75% drop in volume, it is still, however, tracking downward. This is in spite of a cooler sun over much of that period.
    As you know, shrinking ice produces a feedback loop – less summer ice produces less sun reflection which means more sun absorption which means warmer waters which means less ice etc, etc, — well, you get the idea.
    BTW Huub, are you aware that July and August were the hottest months ever recorded (in 136 years of instrumental records, that the 20 hottest years have all happened since the early 1990’s, and that global sea ice is currently the lowest it has ever been (in the satellite record, of course)?
    And in regards to those “verifiable” scientists: They are the ones who produce peer-reviewed studies, went to real universities and have scientific credentials next to their names — not to be confused with the vast number of authors who play act at being scientists and like to write poorly-referenced mumbo jumbo as evidenced on this website.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      @ Andrzejewski
      Not only are you lying.
      Even if what you parrot were true –
      SO WHAT ?
      You or any of the grant sucking phonies you parrot have ever demonstrated
      nor will ever demonstrate that there is a
      Greenhouse Effect.
      The myth of the GHE has not only never been proven but has been
      soundly demonstrated as impossible.

      Yet dopes like you keep shystering away as if it’s part of the ten commandments.
      Keep blathering Andrzejewski.
      We’ll keep laughing.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        oneninetysix2zero

        |

        “The myth of the GHE has not only never been proven but has been soundly demonstrated as impossible.”
        And yet there are countless experiments showing just the opposite — I even posted a Myth Busters video to you of the CO2 experiment. Their verdict (which, coincidentally, matches that of everyone else in the sane universe)? Greenhouse gases are real.
        FYI, that laughing you think you hear is a sign of dementia. All the LYING to yourself needs to stop immediately.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          The never ending parade of lies.
          There has not been so much as ONE
          scientific method experiment proving there is a
          Greenhouse Effect

          NOT EVEN ONE !!!!!
          Stop lying.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            oneninetysix2zero

            |

            “NOT EVEN ONE !!!!!”

            LOL Maybe that is only true thing you have ever said – “Greenhouse Gas Experiments” produces Google 938,000 hits in less than 1 second.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Climate changes and the Arctic ice is no different . Arctic ice was being reduced before
    Dicaprio and Gore were been flying around pumping hot air drama .
    Anyone fond of ice is sure to find it with an Arctic average winter temperature of about minus -30 F. Even a couple of degee warming ,( if that is your fantasy) ,will
    not be changing things to create climate Armageddon and as everyone knows climate has always changed with or without Hollywood personalities trying to whip up hysteria .
    Ice free Arctic ? We can always hope. Antarctica which is about 5million square miles in size (bigger than the USA ) is growing so ice shortages are not going to be
    an issue . A problem maybe once we return to an ice age cycle long after the Hollywood drama queens are gone .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    oneninetysix2zero

    |

    Amber: “Antarctica which is about 5million square miles in size (bigger than the USA ) is growing so ice shortages are not going to bean issue .”
    Uhh sorry to burst your delusional bubble Amber, but Antarctic sea ice is actually the LOWEST EVER RECORDED for this date (September 16). https://sunshinehours.net/category/antarctic-sea-ice/

    And FYI, Antarctica is a CONTINENT which means that if its LAND ICE does melt, it adds to ocean levels. As far as recent Antarctic SEA ice growth in the SOUTHERN WINTER, it does not offset the Arctic ice loss as the sun’s radiation is now being absorbed by the larger open ocean in the NORTHERN SUMMER. The reverse cannot happen in the SOUTHERN SUMMER as Antarctic sea ice will never retreat beyond the continental boundary.
    So, apparently, Hollywood is correct about this scary scenario – a warmer world from the 40% of extra man-made CO2 (not 1% Amber) melts the Arctic ice in summer which means more sun is absorbed into the larger open ocean which means even less ice which means more melting permafrost which means more methane plumes which means more greenhouse gasses (sorry JayPee but reality is reality) which means Holy Sh*t.
    I suppose that is why ALL of the nations on the Earth are taking this AGW theory seriously and why these ZEROS (Amber and other sCeptics) are floundering about making up more and more absurd and false conspiracy theories to try and get fewer and fewer people to buy into their delusions.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ zero

    Nothing you say is of any materiality given the fact that there is no greenhouse effect.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      oneninetysix2zero

      |

      Tonto; “JayPee says greenhouse gasses not real Kimo Sabe.”
      Line Ranger: “JayPee drinks too much fire water Tonto.”

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    oneninetysix2zero
    The planet has been around about 4 billion years and the” Records” you refer to are from t 1979 onward . Those records show a growing trend line of sea ice in Antarctica and a decrease in the Arctic .
    With an average high temperature of minus – 49 degree F and
    an average low of minus – 56 degree F atmospheric global warming temperatures would have had to fry the rest of earth before the Antarctic ice turns to water .

    Volcanic activity is a little hard to blame on people driving their Volvo’s and Antarctica is susceptible to such natural climate variables that a carbon tax is not about to control .
    Good if it warms up . That trend is not new or alarming . The so called “records ” are actually covering a period of about 40 years compared to the warming and cooling cycles that are known to have occurred over a 4,000,000,000 year period .
    Even the scariest failed climate models were predicting a 3 or 4 degree change
    and that isn’t close to doing much if anything to a place with an average warm temperature of minus – 49 degree F .
    No question the Arctic has warmed as it has done without any meaningful influence from anyone but Mother Nature . El Niño may be dissipating and more ice may be formed if that is a big worry . Assuming we are in a long term exit from the recent ice age there is little humans will do to alter that coarse and even if we could why would
    we ?
    The earth has experienced periods of higher CO2 and warmer temperatures yet some how Mother Natures version is no problem because of coarse we know we can’t do a thing about taking Mother Natures 4 billion year old seniority .
    If humans help warming along good I’m all for it because we are not going to pull rank in any event .
    Let’s find something real to tackle with the $$ Trillions of non repayable, borrowed money , debt mountain we leave are leaving oneninetysixzero’s grand kids .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    oneninetysix2zero

    |

    Right now, the trend lines for Arctic, global and Antarctic SEA ice are all downward but, granted, there is a lot of variability in the Antarctic. And, of course, the Earth has been hotter and colder over the past 4 billion years, but personally I don’t want to live in a swamp or a desert or have my city under water. The major issue is the extraordinarily rapid change of temperatures of the past 130 years. For 7 decades, each and every decade has been hotter, for 4 decades (and perhaps even earlier), Arctic ice has been shrinking at a rate where it will, in fact, disappear in our lifetimes during the summer months. This is all happening in the blink of geologic time and civilization will not adapt easily.
    We were warned about this exact scenario years ago and every year since, more scientists, more studies, more records, more scientific organizations, more intelligence organizations, more military organizations, more corporations and more nations signal that man-made global warming is real and we better start doing something about it and now.
    And I do not understand your reluctance to hold onto a dirty fuel that makes very few rich, employs relatively few people as it creates geopolitical chaos and alters the chemical mix of the atmosphere when so many alternatives are available. Alternatives that can be plugged into a smart grid for reliable power, employs 10 times more people, gives America a huge advantage in the future technology, makes our air and water clean again even as it gets cheaper and more efficient.
    Its a win win and it is inevitable so either get on board or get out of the way.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.