nothing to do with mormonism or christianity. It's a big government wealth re-distribution scheme.

Really -- and your qualifications for making this statement are?

It's an interesting blog post. We are in a last ditch effort to save the planet for our descendants and counter the tons of mis-information and dis-information being bought and disseminated by the fossil fuel industry.

This is exactly what big tobacco did regarding lung cancer. And it worked, for a while. But, when users continued to die of lung cancer, ultimately the gig was up. But, with climate change, the consequences will affect all of us. I often wonder why some Christians seem determined to deny climate change.

Dh and I were staying in Deer Valley last spring. All of the trees that should have been budding were bare. I mentioned this to hotel staff and asked why. The answer: winter is no longer cold enough to kill a particular type of beetle. The beetles have killed the trees. Whole hillsides of dead trees were all we could see in any direction. Just one manifestation of a warming planet and the consequences.

A subset of the beetles was resistant to winter temperatures, and survived in increasing numbers, as the other ones died off and failed to pass on their winter-hardy genes. These more durable beetles propagated in greater numbers, and laid waste to the forest. This may have happened irrespective of temperature trends.

Or, another sub-specie of the beetle invaded that eco-system.

Or, there was a marked increase or decrease in rain.

Or a different pest invaded that eco-system, and the current analysis is incorrect, and will be corrected.

Just as the Devil is a catch-all fall guy for all sorts of bad things, "global warming climate collapse" (or whatever it's currently being called), gets the blame for all sorts of things, including my lost car keys.

http://www.parkrecord.com/news/summit-county/fungus-attacks-local-aspens/

"It is basically a foliar fungus that attacks the aspen," says Abraham. "It attacks the trees in the springtime when the trees are budding out. The fungus spreads on the leaves, and then the leaves turn brown or black, and then they’ll fall right off."

The fungus is called Marssonina, and it’s nothing new in these parts, say Utah tree experts."

"Periodic outbreaks have been observed by pathologists and others in the middle Rocky Mountains since the early 1900s," researchers add.

"The conditions this year, he says, included a wet spring that came at the same time that the aspens were budding and the Marssonina fungus was spreading its spores."

"It’s more an aesthetic concern. It won’t necessarily kill the trees unless it hits the trees multiple years, and then it could possibly cause some mortality."

I was just speculating on possible alternate explanations.

Thanks for the specific info, Darren. You bolster my point that all sorts of unpleasant things are blamed on "Warming Global Climate Catastrophe" (hard to stay current with the hysteria). That also explains why my "Check Engine" light keeps going on and off.

Not until they stop using religion to brainwash people into living in an artificial reality in order to deny truth and scientific fact -- just like Mormonism.

And, as others have previously noted, I haven't mentioned any strategy to solve the problem. I'm trying to stop the denial of the problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2017 06:47AM by anybody.

joesmithspit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nothing to do with mormonism or christianity. It's
> a big government wealth re-distribution scheme.

Please, by all means, explain how "hey, we need to stop polluting our atmosphere with so much CO2" is a "big government wealth re-distribution scheme."

We'll wait.

"Big government wealth redistribtion scheme" describes the Q perfectly.

The only problem with the premise is that the poster doesn't realize whom "big government" is, and sadly, sadly, fails to follow the money.

I would ask the poster of the phrase, not that I trust the post to be much more than trolling, just whom and what [he] supposes the energy companies are unable to buy?

Certainly, they can afford the poster's opinion, who refuses to look behind their veil.

That is the battle, OP. Those who refuse to do the work, and do much of the heavy lifting for the "Q," because it is easier to believe than to change, spread "the word" of those whom would not deign to lift a finger in support of their "members."

Not having addressed a single point in the linked article, the poster cried, "It's true!" while refusing to cast his eyes upon the apostate words of one who dwells outside of the programming, outside of the box of a -very- wealthy design.

Most of us have seen and experienced the effects of the "but-it's-true" thinking, but not everyone is bold enough to oppose those who control the money. Some members even believe that the Q are fighting "the good fight."

Members think that authority is power. Money is power. He who has the money has the power. Does "big government" own the Federal Reserve? Who does? The poster should question the tenets of his belief in "big government."

Had the poster made it about 1/8 of the way through the article, he might have seen which "side" "big government" has a history of supporting. But that would challenge his beliefs, and that would be painful.

johnsmithspit, you can't have it both ways. Who controls the money, and therefore, "big government?" Do you really believe that "science" has more money than "fossil fuel" producers? That would be an astonishing belief. If "science" really, truly held the reigns of money, the reigns of "big government," what sort of car do you suppose you would be driving today?

It seems a definitely American thing to deny climate change. In the UK I know lots of very conservative Christians (some I'd say were fundies) and, obviously, plenty of Mormons. None of them deny climate change and find it baffling that anyone would.

What is about the USA that makes people more likely to take this view?
Tori

The USA wants to be its own man, its own boss.

I see that in the company I work for.
It is a European company.
However, there was a US way of doing things and then there was the rest of the world way of doing things within the company.

It is so pervasive we even have an acronym for it.

WOUSA -World Outside USA.

Maybe lots of people are not denying the climate is changing.

Perhaps the "skeptics" are not convinced that:

1. The end of the world is nigh because of some warming. There is a lot of hyperbole when it comes to climate change claims. Obviously the more moderate research doesn't get reported by mainstream media because it isn't as exciting as predictions of catastrophe.

2. The impact of burning hydrocarbons is going to end in a few decades anyway. Oil & Gas is a limited resource. We are depleting it, and it will end. Do we stop burning oil & gas willy nilly because it runs out, or becomes too expensive, or does the world end first?

3. The "cure" for climate change seems overly focused on a one track solution - cut CO2 emissions. Only promoting other items that impact climate as seemingly secondary, stuff like huge population growth, deforestation, water and land pollution.


For the record:
I support renewable energy development and use.
I support attempts to clean up our environment.
I support sustainable use of our limited oil & gas reserves.
I work for a major oil & gas company.

I just don't buy into the extreme views propagated by many on this topic.
I don't like the black and white thinking, the "you are either for us or against us" mindset.
I don't accept the name calling, and the deliberate use of loaded words, like "denier".

I'm not near as nuanced in my response as you are. I'd just like to add.

^ Most understand that the climate is changing.
^ Most skeptics are skeptical of the source and impact of the change.
^ Most deniers are reacting to hyperbolic attitudes in like manner.
^ My use of the word most is utterly unsupported, I just like to recruit unknowns to my cause. (that's a joke by the way)


So to sum up. The climate is changing, because that's what it does. Humans are influential in the change because that is how it works. Science has identified the problem because that what it does. We ask politicians to solve it, why?

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We ask politicians to solve it, why?

Because politicians have a proven track record of resolving problems? Particularly large scale problems that are far beyond the scope of their current election cycle.



There might be some sarcasm in my post. Just thought I'd make that clear.

I don't think most believers in climate change think "the world is going to end" because of climate change. Nothing short of a giant meteorite might do that but there certainly enough to be concerned about and the efforts made by politicians in the USA and leaders throughout the world fall FAR short of what is needed to slow climate change down to prevent the damage it's going to do.

In my opinion it's better to prevent as much damage to the world as we can NOW instead of later. The effects are IRREVERSABLE.

It's just depends on how many species of animals we wish to prevent from going extinct and how many people we want don't want die or lives severely affected due to climate change.

Btw I also agree that population, deforestation etc are a huge contributor as well. How to get all of this under control is the problem.

Ex-CultMember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In my opinion it's better to prevent as much
> damage to the world as we can NOW instead of
> later. The effects are IRREVERSABLE.

This is an example of the hyperbole that bugs me.
Most of the effects of a warmer planet are going to be reversible if it cools again. Which it will at some point in the future.
I agree, that some effects can't be undone, like the extinction of some animal or plant life. But most will be.

I also think most of the extinction of animal and plant life is driven by human over population, not particularly by the planet being a tad warmer thanit was 100 years ago. The need to create more and more farmable land, the need to expand with more and more concrete, the need to consume and pollute, are more devastating to animal life than an extra degree of temperature.

Darren Steers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ex-CultMember Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > In my opinion it's better to prevent as much
> > damage to the world as we can NOW instead of
> > later. The effects are IRREVERSABLE.

> I also think most of the extinction of animal and
> plant life is driven by human over population, not
> particularly by the planet being a tad warmer
> than it was 100 years ago.

You are exactly right, Darren. Despite the horror of Chernobyl, with people gone animals are flourishing. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

Most of you boomers will be dead by the time the effects will be apparent. The Earth isn't going to end overnight. What will disrupt human life are the side effects (more frequent extreme weather, sea level rise, famine, shortages, mass migration, war). Many people on Earth now don't have access to a steady source of food or water and anthropogenic climate change will make this even worse.

Oil and gas will never go away totally but will be more and more limited in use over the next hundred years. A lot of effort has gone into denying the obvious but it won't work forever.

Reality has an awfully nasty habit of catching up with you.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oil and gas will never go away totally but will be
> more and more limited in use over the next hundred
> years.

I agree Oil & Gas will not go away, because it has a lot more value and uses than burning for transport, or electricity generation.

As it depletes though, it will get more and more expensive, naturally driving humanity away from the transport and electricity generation uses.

There will come a time, probably not too far off, that this point is reached.

Are you able to suggest an acceptable rate of oil and gas consumption that is acceptable for the planet? Then we'd be able to recognize when we've reached that point of the product being too expensive to just consume as we do today?

>
> Reality has an awfully nasty habit of catching up
> with you.

But which reality?

The reality proposed by moderate climate change researchers, or the more extreme ones that get the attention of the mainstream media? Obviously not every climate scientist is predicting the end of the world, although they all agree we should do a better job at being stewards of this might fine and beautiful earth.

We can all agree that we should take care of mother earth, it's just the right thing to do.

Man made global warming is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

... anyone that denies this should be fined and jailed as they are contributing to the problem... in fact, many countries are already doing just that.

yeppers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ... anyone that denies this should be fined and
> jailed as they are contributing to the problem...
> in fact, many countries are already doing just
> that.

Can you back up this claim with evidence?
MANY countries are jailing people that are doubtful (or even full out denying) about human dominated climate change?

yeppers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man made global warming is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC
> FACT.
>
> ... anyone that denies this should be fined and
> jailed as they are contributing to the problem...
> in fact, many countries are already doing just
> that.

Will we be allowed to cite academic studies that show otherwise before or after we call our lawyers?

University of Wisconsin-Madison:
“The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”
http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/#sthash.wF3JfOez.f12lxQGD.dpuf";


"Jasper Kirkby, CERN particle physicist and originator and spokesperson of the CLOUD experiment, said: "We found that nature produces particles without pollution.

"That is going to require a rethink of how human activities have increased aerosols in clouds."

The results may turn the whole climate change debate and projected temperature increases upside down, they said.

Climate change projections had always taken it that the amount of aerosol seeded clouds in the pre-industrial age would have been much less than since industrialisation.

But the findings mean the amounts could have been the same or just slightly less.

An abundance of clouds in the preindustrial era - something the new study hints at - would mean less warming in the future.

This means current estimates of projected warming in the 21st century could be reduced, the study concluded."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/674557/Has-climate-change-been-disproved-Large-Hadron-boffins-cast-shock-DOUBT-on-global-warming


"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes aerosols as the single biggest source of uncertainty in human-driven climate change. Part of the problem is that we have no way of measuring just how cloudy the planet was in the preindustrial era.

Thanks to this uncertainty, and despite our precise measurements of the effects of human-induced greenhouse warming on climate, the estimates for projected climate change have entertained a wide range of numbers for projected warming, and these numbers haven't changed for the past 35 years."
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-climate-change-study-about-clouds-2016-5


CERN's findings expand on these:

"A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth's cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations."
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html


And CERN's findings confirm the suspicions long expressed by the much-attacked former NASA scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer:

"I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth — due to natural changes in cloud cover — are responsible for most of the warming."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

Are these quotations taken from shills paid by the Oil & Gas industry? ;o)

Darren Steers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are these quotations taken from shills paid by the
> Oil & Gas industry? ;o)

Shills, everywhere shills!

It is a well-known fact that the European Organization for Nuclear Research, (known as CERN) is a puppet for big oil.

The National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark would be a hotbed of climate deniers if it weren't for the fact that they're not: http://www.ecra-climate.eu/33-members/partners/165-technical-university-of-denmark-dtu

And rumor has it The University of Wisconsin is a secret arm of the Koch Brothers Cabal. This finding is based upon the fact that one lecturer admitted to voting for a Republican a long time ago.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will we be allowed to cite academic studies that
> show otherwise before or after we call our
> lawyers?

Sure, you're allowed to.
You didn't, though.

You posted some links to some studies that showed there are other things that can and do influence climate.

Which isn't news. And which doesn't "show otherwise" -- that human activities are changing climate.

Yes, there are indeed other things that influence climate and can change it besides humans pouring tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That there are such other things doesn't mean humans aren't pouring tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and thereby changing the climate.

By the way, isn't it interesting that you claimed to have "academic studies" making your point, and the only one of your links that agreed with your point wasn't an academic study at all, but a blog without any "academic studies" in it at all?

I think it is. I really don't care what "Dr. Roy Spencer" believes. I care about what can be shown factual by evidence. Spencer has no such facts, so using him as an appeal to authority is a bit silly, and entirely worthless.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, there are indeed other things that influence
> climate and can change it besides humans pouring
> tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That there are
> such other things doesn't mean humans aren't
> pouring tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and
> thereby changing the climate.
>

Honest question: Are you aware of any study that tries to quantify the percentage of human impact?

We all know we're in an interglacial period which is marked by warming regardless of anything we do. And there are reliable studies showing significant factors like our orbital path and aerosols caused by sun activity on cloud cover cause warming as well.

Humans undoubtedly are having some impact, but how much? Is it possible the natural factors are causing 90%, and there's no need for us to expend much time or money on fruitless remedies? This is the most important question in this discussion. If we can be proven to be the cause of 90% of it, we should act. But if we see historically these changes happen without any human intervention whatsoever, maybe we should concentrate on evolving into a society that copes better with a warmer environment rather than fighting a force we have no chance of beating.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honest question: Are you aware of any study that
> tries to quantify the percentage of human impact?

Several dozen, actually.
Here's one to get you started:

https://skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html

if you google "quantifying human impact in climate change," you'll find dozens of others.

> We all know we're in an interglacial period which
> is marked by warming regardless of anything we do.
> And there are reliable studies showing significant
> factors like our orbital path and aerosols caused
> by sun activity on cloud cover cause warming as
> well.

As I pointed out above, that there are other factors affecting our climate isn't a surprise at all, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the human impact of dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There are also "natural" (and human-caused) factors that can and do cause climate cooling. Understanding the facts about ALL of those factors is what matters. And we're getting there, with the evidence of human-caused warming becoming clearer and clearer as we do so.

Why, pray tell, do you seem to accept all of the science detailing other factors, but completely dismiss all of the science (largely done by the same people using the same methods) detailing the human impact?

> Is it possible the natural factors are
> causing 90%, and there's no need for us to expend
> much time or money on fruitless remedies?

No, it's not. The facts clearly show otherwise.

And this is perhaps the most important part: we don't have to expend much money on remedies (that even if the climate science were wrong, which it isn't, wouldn't be "fruitless.").

Switching to non-fossil-fuel energy sources isn't very expensive to begin with, and over time is far *cheaper* than using fossil fuels. That's not "fruitless" even if the climate science is wrong. In fact, we *have* to do so eventually, because fossil fuels are a limited, non-renewable resource. Starting to switch over now, doing it a bit at a time, is economically efficient and long-term smart, as well as being a reasonable response to the climate change science. It's being proactive, not reactive as Darren pointed out above.

You should wonder why the biggest investors in "alternative energy" right now are the gas and oil companies, if your dismissal is correct. They know that their current operations making money aren't going to last, and they're investing in other energy sources -- even while some work hard to deny science in an effort to suck as much money from their current operations as possible.

>This is
> the most important question in this discussion. If
> we can be proven to be the cause of 90% of it, we
> should act.

Why the arbitrary threshold?
What if we're 50% of it -- we shouldn't act?
How about 20% of it?

If we're ANY of it, we should act, IMHO.
And we should act because it's economically efficient, economically smart, our only long-term option, and environmentally smart even if ALL of the climate science is wrong. Which it isn't.

I'm looking out my back window at a solar farm built in my valley about 2 years ago. This facility produces electricity for my community, and at a rate that is about 1/2 of the rate from my utility's natural gas-fired plant 80 miles away. It produces no CO2. It uses no non-renewable resources. And it saves me and the utility money. What's the problem? This is SMART in every possible way.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2017 10:57AM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm looking out my back window at a solar farm
> built in my valley about 2 years ago. This
> facility produces electricity for my community,
> and at a rate that is about 1/2 of the rate from
> my utility's natural gas-fired plant 80 miles
> away. It produces no CO2. It uses no
> non-renewable resources. And it saves me and the
> utility money. What's the problem? This is SMART
> in every possible way.

I like solar power, I like alternative means to generate electricity.

But Solar isn't CO2 neutral. Obviously, it required CO2 to manufacture, transport and install.

These installations are also typically given tax breaks to get them up and running, so it is true that it can produce electricity at a low cost once up and running, but to get it there in the first place probably took subsidies.

The problem with them is that they haven't really removed the need for the natural gas powered generation 80 miles away, because there is still a need for electricity on days that are not conducive to producing solar power.

I actually think we can solve this problem by building smart natural gas power plants, ones that are specifically designed to be run at different rates to accommodate better the fluctuating renewable power generation.

Yes, it cheaper, simpler, and more efficient to build a hydrocarbon powered generator designed to operate at 90-100% efficiency all the time. But with a little extra cost, a little more imagination, and little better engineering there isn't a reason we couldn't build one that works reasonably well at the 10-100% range. One that is easy to ramp up and ramp down in its generating production.

So on sunny/windy days, when renewable power is plentiful and flowing through the grid, we run the conventional systems at 10%. On the other days we turn up the natural gas powered plants, and since we designed and built them to be able to do this, we get the best of both worlds.

Think outside the box folks. Don't look at the problem of climate change in black and white terms. Or in a them versus us mentality, using negative words and terms to describe those that don't agree with you.

Darren Steers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Solar isn't CO2 neutral. Obviously, it
> required CO2 to manufacture, transport and
> install.

Yes -- in all it's CO2 "footprint" is about 1/200th the gas plant's over 10 years of operation, though.

> These installations are also typically given tax
> breaks to get them up and running, so it is true
> that it can produce electricity at a low cost once
> up and running, but to get it there in the first
> place probably took subsidies.

The cost I gave took the tax subsidies into account.
And the gas plant's cost to operate assumes a constant gas price, which may or may not occur. The solar farm's costs are almost entirely up front -- maintenance and operation costs compared to the gas plant per year are thousands of times lower.

> The problem with them is that they haven't really
> removed the need for the natural gas powered
> generation 80 miles away, because there is still a
> need for electricity on days that are not
> conducive to producing solar power.

True. That's less of a problem in my area (sunny SoCal), more of a problem in other areas. Utilities are working on battery storage farms to mitigate that, with the goal of eliminating the gas-fired plants.

> Think outside the box folks. Don't look at the
> problem of climate change in black and white
> terms. Or in a them versus us mentality, using
> negative words and terms to describe those that
> don't agree with you.

I agree completely.

That's a strange response. Who is faking something?

It is telling to me that the first thing you jump to is a strawman.

TMSH thinks it's some kind of grand hoax or conspiracy.

I see no possible reason why a cabal of scientists would do this.

I do see a reason to deny human activity is causing runaway climate change.

You're not very good at this, are you?

You seem entirely unable to have a reasoned conversation on this topic. No reputable scientist denies there are natural forces infuencing our climate. Many recognize non human influences are significant.

Yet when I ask the simple question, "How much of global warming can be proven caused by humans?" you resort to lying about my position as claiming it's all a hoax.

Maybe leave these discussions for the grown ups who can actually discuss the relevant questions without resorting to straw man arguments.

I'm listening...

Agree with Darren that there is plenty of hyperbole on both sides. I think his comments to be a pretty reasonable basis for discussion on what to do.

I think the denialist hyperbole is the worst. It is basically magical thinking, which is why there is such an overlap between denialists and American religious fundamentalists. Denying the geologic age of the earth and denying climate science are pretty similar exercises.

That said, it is the hyperbole on "my" side that I find the most disturbing, because it is so unnecessary. The reality is quite a sufficient argument. For example, as Darren pointed out, we are not destroying the planet. It will be chugging along long after the petrocene is over and done with.

We are increasing the odds of certain very unpleasant short-term events. Oh, say half of Bangladesh under three feet of salt water, driving a migration of 80 million Muslims into India. That probably wouldn't end well. Or a global crop failure of about 25% for three years in a row. Something like that could happen. That would starve hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion or two. That wouldn't end well either.

Flooding of Bangladesh is pretty much a matter of when, not if. Crop failure is more speculative, but it is not a crazy speculation. Those are quite bad enough. Can the end-of-the-world hyperbole.

I also wonder if there will be a point during the rapid collapse of society and the elimination of all humans that don't live as far North as Canada (the tropical paradise it is to become) that the Green movement will finally accept that nuclear power is actually part of the solution?

Or will they remain stubborn to the very end?

But running them as private utilites won't work.

The Navy has had an excellent record with nuclear power and a new standard class of reactors similar in design and owned by the gov't but run by a contractor would be a better solution. Fuel can also be re-processed in breeder reactors and spent fuel can be glassifed so it's inert to possible groundwater contamination.

I never said how they should be run and maintained.

Just making an observation that the universe is nuclear powered. Except our sun of course, our sun draws it energy and light directly from Kolob.

And surely Chernobyl would have been a state owned and run facility? After all it was in the USSR, wasn't everything state owned?

Some Christians believe in man made climate change. Others don't. My understanding is that Al Gore is a Christian. The Pope seems to be a Christian and believes in climate change. Christianity and belief in climate change aren't connected at all. Why try to demean Christianity by connecting Christianity and belief in climate change?

Evidence is simply a body of facts. Accepting evidence does nothing. What is needed is a comprehensive solution that binds the evidence together. And with this equation it isn't as simple as 2+x=4. It is more like 2+x=?, with 2 being the data we have. Belief is a perfectly acceptable word in this case.

The point is that you could have posted a letter to an Atheist Climate Change Skeptic. Why single out Christianity when there are plenty of Christians who share your stance.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

https://ricochet.com/424431/13-ridiculous-predictions-made-earth-day-1970/

I'm still waiting to hear how those afraid of global warming have changed their lifestyle. For example, I assume you have given up cars, or anything transported by fossil fuel burning trucks, trains, or planes.

I try to burn less fuel for other reasons, like saving money, and getting more exercise riding my bicycle. And we fight multi-trillion dollar wars so we can have cheap oil.

So as per usual, government tries to make energy cheap, and then we wonder why people use so much.

Kind of like government subsidies for corn, then wonder why people consume so much high fructose corn syrup in pop, etc. Then we need to create government programs to fight obesity and treat all the health problems.

And after all this, people continue to look at government to solve our problems. Fascinating!

Right now I'm working toward two degrees, one in environmental science and the other in environmental studies, and I can't begin to describe how exasperating it is to have to keep rehashing and reiterating the same basic information. It's a nuanced issue, but the evidence is overwhelming clear. Climate change isn't a "belief" any more than other natural phenomena (parasitism, island biogeography, evolution, whatever).

ren Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a nuanced issue, but the
> evidence is overwhelming clear. Climate change
> isn't a "belief" any more than other natural
> phenomena (parasitism, island biogeography,
> evolution, whatever).

I think the issue isn't that people are skeptical that the climate is changing.

The questions often are:
Is it as simple as CO2 emissions?
If we stop burning hydrocarbons in 50 years (when oil is running low anyway) is everything going to be fine?
Do governments have a good track record of solving large multi-national problems? Or do their solutions typically have a lot of unintended consequences?
Etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to anthropogenic climate change, which I know many skeptics of. And as for the CO2 emissions, that's definitely most at fault. While there are natural cycles in global temperature and CO2 levels, our current ones are much, much higher than historic levels and likely won't be coming down very soon, since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time in comparison with other greenhouse gases like methane.

You're right that there's no clear-cut solution, though. Now we're just trying to do damage control and shift toward things that won't worsen the problem. I personally think solar is one of our best options, since, although it's admittedly much more expensive than fossil fuels at the moment, it doesn't pose the issues of killing birds/bats (wind turbines), require destructive mining (nuclear), or alter waterways/impede anadromous fish (hydropower).

One thing that is often overlooked is that solar, wind, and electric cars all require substantial mining to be effective.

There are energy farms in CA that are installing truck trailer sized battery arrays in the 30,000 pound range to store solar and wind energy. Electric cars have batteries in the multiple hundreds of pounds range per car. Even if it is all carefully recycled, that's a lot of lithium, present and future need. And it all comes from mines. All mining tends to pollute water because it fractures a lot of rock, exposing whatever is in the rock to ground water.

This is a big issue, and nobody seems to be talking about it.

Very true. I just think solar is, out of all of those, the most worth investing in, especially because it has so much potential for integration into urban environments.

This quarter I decided to double major and get an A.A. degree in pollution prevention/resource management (most of the classes are about energy use and sustainable design), so I'm hoping those will expand a little more on the subject, since most esci classes don't really do a fair job of weighing the pros and cons.

A study released last month (March, 2017) funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation quantifies the sun's impact on climate change for the first time. They predict the sun will cause global temperatures to decrease in the coming decades:

"Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this [IPCC] assumption [that recent solar activity is insignificant for climate change, and that the same will apply to activity in the near future].

Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html#jCp

Another first I noted above is a study that shows the earth's specific orbital path and influence of nearby planets seems to have a significant impact on our climate. You can historically trace ice ages to specific astronomical conditions present at the time.

University of Wisconsin-Madison:
“The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”
http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/#sthash.wF3JfOez.f12lxQGD.dpuf";;

As I've noted before, human activity is certainly having some impact, but a cooler sun cycle in the coming decades is shown via modeling as likely having a greater impact on cooling the earth than any of our efforts.

Isn't it okay to throw this data into the conversation?

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I've noted before, human activity is certainly
> having some impact, but a cooler sun cycle in the
> coming decades is shown via modeling as likely
> having a greater impact on cooling the earth than
> any of our efforts.

That's actually *not* the conclusion of even the links you gave.


> Isn't it okay to throw this data into the
> conversation?

Yes, it is. But as I pointed out above, that there are things affecting the climate OTHER than human activity doesn't change the fact that human activity is affecting the climate.
And all of the data above is already factored into climate change models. Guess what? Human activity still pushes us into a warming climate, even with all the other things we know of.
Yes, the models are *estimates* and can be wrong. And there are very likely things we don't yet know about as well. Those unknown things, however, are just as likely to make things worse as they are to make things better.

We *know* our polluting is a problem. Dealing with it is economically efficient NOW, and long-term our only choice.
Why are you so insistent that we not deal with it?

The "big oil" companies are dealing with it, even while they put out false "facts" to try and delay the rest of us dealing with it until they're ready to fully profit from other forms of energy production. They're convinced of the facts of human-caused climate change, and the fact that their current business is time-limited, and they're investing hundreds of billions into "alternative" (non-fossil, renewable) energy sources.