RE: Climate Change, Sunday, November 29, 2015 8:52 AM Re: The article today (Nov 29, 2015) about up-coming Climate Talks where science has become 'peripheral' to deciding what emission levels will protect human civilization. Peripheral? How can this be? Is it peripheral to knowing at what temperature water boils? Or how about the calories and nutrient content of food needed for a healthy life? In these and many similar questions, a favorite phrase I often used during my 30 years as a Research Forester/Economist was: 'If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.' I hate to lump policy makers with politicians but here its appropriate. Clearly, 'we' that is our elected/appointed officials, don’t really want to know. In Forestry, sustainable forest management-- 'logging' is an unjustifiable 'ideological' claim. Although, humans cannot avoid using resources to survive. Nor are we actually doing the research to clarify the problem--ie matter and energy flows, structural relations among biotic and abiotic components over long periods. Moreover, consider the ideological right-wing nonsense about what humans need to thrive and prosper. Of course, a key reason for our self-imposed ignorance is the power of sundrie big-industry interest groups--or do I go too far. Sincerely, Dennis Bradley
2
What the Paris climate meetings won't do: change anything. Arguably the most coherent critic of these and other "talks" is Dr. Bjorn Lomborg:
"If every government does everything pledged for the Paris climate conference by 2030, it will reduce global temperature increases less than 0.05°C by 2100, a new peer-reviewed research paper by Dr. Lomborg finds. Even if promised reductions were continued for the following 70 years and there was no “CO2 leakage”, the reduction in temperature increases will be just 0.17°C by 2100."
"The price tag of pre-Paris climate pledges emissions cuts will leave the global economy around $1 trillion short every year for the rest of the century—and that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double."
That's $1Trillion a year ($85Trillion) for a change of 0.17 degrees. And that has nothing to do with improving air, water and land pollution. Of course, world war may exterminate several billion of the population, which may be a pollution proxy.
The global warming agenda? As it is being framed and organized, one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the public.
"If every government does everything pledged for the Paris climate conference by 2030, it will reduce global temperature increases less than 0.05°C by 2100, a new peer-reviewed research paper by Dr. Lomborg finds. Even if promised reductions were continued for the following 70 years and there was no “CO2 leakage”, the reduction in temperature increases will be just 0.17°C by 2100."
"The price tag of pre-Paris climate pledges emissions cuts will leave the global economy around $1 trillion short every year for the rest of the century—and that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double."
That's $1Trillion a year ($85Trillion) for a change of 0.17 degrees. And that has nothing to do with improving air, water and land pollution. Of course, world war may exterminate several billion of the population, which may be a pollution proxy.
The global warming agenda? As it is being framed and organized, one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the public.
11
And just how will these officials travel to Paris? By CO2-spewing jet aircraft. Worldwide, jet aircraft spew more than 700 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. As the New York Times reported a couple years ago:
"One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person...air travel emissions now account for only about 5 percent of warming, that fraction is projected to rise significantly, since the volume of air travel is increasing much faster than gains in flight fuel efficiency. (Also, emissions from most other sectors are falling.)"
While everyone wrings their hands about those filthy coal burning third world types, not much thought is given when we board a jet aircraft. Think about it before you book a flight to that faraway "eco" resort.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-a...
"One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person...air travel emissions now account for only about 5 percent of warming, that fraction is projected to rise significantly, since the volume of air travel is increasing much faster than gains in flight fuel efficiency. (Also, emissions from most other sectors are falling.)"
While everyone wrings their hands about those filthy coal burning third world types, not much thought is given when we board a jet aircraft. Think about it before you book a flight to that faraway "eco" resort.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-a...
5
The Earth is not at risk. HUMAN SURVIVAL is at risk. This planet will continue with or without us. A carbon tax will not change anything and is, in fact, among the silliest proposals out there. A carbon tax would vaporize into the kingpins' pockets. Humankind's myopia has a cost...
6
Meanwhile, Australia is flying live cattle to China on 747s.
2
How about a procreation budget? Human population is the basic driver of climate change.
7
Growth of ice sheets reached their furthest point south during the Last Glacial Maximum about 26,500 years ago. They covered most of North America. The planet then systemically warmed and here we are living in a temperate climate. My question to all of you climate alarmists is this: back then, did the change in Earth's climate, resulting in melting of glaciers over HUNDREDS of miles, come about because of human beings? Probably not. So what makes you think we are actually having that significant of an impact now? I agree 100% there is global warming, but it has nothing to do with man. I realize you think you are more important than you really are, but do not project that egomania to think that man in general has that much impact on the planet.
7
Wake up people - here is what the worlds worst negotiator brought to us:
China and Japan have plans to build massive amounts of coal-fired power plants, while the United States is not only not building new coal-fired power plants, but it is also shuttering many of its existing coal-fired power plants because of Obama Administration policies. China is building one coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days, while Japan plans to build 43 coal-fired power projects to replace its shuttered nuclear units. The United States, on the other hand, cannot build new non-CCS coal-fired power plants and is shuttering existing coal fired power plants. These existing coal-fired power plants retiring in the United States are among the cheapest source of electricity generation in this country. To replace these plants with new generating capacity will cost the nation and thus taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars.
as far as next week’s climate change summit in Paris would be a “powerful rebuke” to terrorists - Obama is essentially saying 'Take that ISIS, we are going to hamstring our economies, limit our growth, kill our jobs, destroy our energy sectors, and centrally plan our economy. That will really show ISIS. They will run in fear.'
China and Japan have plans to build massive amounts of coal-fired power plants, while the United States is not only not building new coal-fired power plants, but it is also shuttering many of its existing coal-fired power plants because of Obama Administration policies. China is building one coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days, while Japan plans to build 43 coal-fired power projects to replace its shuttered nuclear units. The United States, on the other hand, cannot build new non-CCS coal-fired power plants and is shuttering existing coal fired power plants. These existing coal-fired power plants retiring in the United States are among the cheapest source of electricity generation in this country. To replace these plants with new generating capacity will cost the nation and thus taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars.
as far as next week’s climate change summit in Paris would be a “powerful rebuke” to terrorists - Obama is essentially saying 'Take that ISIS, we are going to hamstring our economies, limit our growth, kill our jobs, destroy our energy sectors, and centrally plan our economy. That will really show ISIS. They will run in fear.'
10
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon once said:
“The environment has long been a silent casualty of war and armed conflict …”
Three examples instantly come to mind: The two Gulf Wars and the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.
During the two Gulf Wars, Iraq was bombed with hundreds of missiles containing depleted uranium. A number of scientists have linked the marked increase of cancer rates in Iraq and in its neighboring countries after these wars to the shells used in these missiles, maintaining that the radiation from these weapons has poisoned the soil and water of Iraq and its neighbors, rendering the entire environment within these regions carcinogenic.
What the eight-year Iran-Iraq war did to the largest wetland ecosystem in the Middle East, the 5,000-year-old Marsh, home to the Arab culture, was more devastating, however.
The Marsh, a vital area of the region in terms of biodiversity, formed a crucial stop for millions of migratory birds traveling between Siberia and Africa. It provided nursery grounds for economically important Persian Gulf fish and shrimp, as well as other marine and freshwater species.
To “prevent the world from tipping over into full-scale catastrophe late in this century,” the Paris Climate Meeting should therefore address the devastating effect of wars and military industrial activities on the environment, including
the intensive Russian and American air and land bombings in Syria and Iraq.
“The environment has long been a silent casualty of war and armed conflict …”
Three examples instantly come to mind: The two Gulf Wars and the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.
During the two Gulf Wars, Iraq was bombed with hundreds of missiles containing depleted uranium. A number of scientists have linked the marked increase of cancer rates in Iraq and in its neighboring countries after these wars to the shells used in these missiles, maintaining that the radiation from these weapons has poisoned the soil and water of Iraq and its neighbors, rendering the entire environment within these regions carcinogenic.
What the eight-year Iran-Iraq war did to the largest wetland ecosystem in the Middle East, the 5,000-year-old Marsh, home to the Arab culture, was more devastating, however.
The Marsh, a vital area of the region in terms of biodiversity, formed a crucial stop for millions of migratory birds traveling between Siberia and Africa. It provided nursery grounds for economically important Persian Gulf fish and shrimp, as well as other marine and freshwater species.
To “prevent the world from tipping over into full-scale catastrophe late in this century,” the Paris Climate Meeting should therefore address the devastating effect of wars and military industrial activities on the environment, including
the intensive Russian and American air and land bombings in Syria and Iraq.
11
Obama's legacy will be defined by his pressure to pass and
success at passing the TransPacific Trade bill. Activists around the world have opposed the TPP, warning it will benefit corporations at the expense of health, the environment, free speech and labor rights.
How he can push this bill and claim to be concerned
about the environment, the price of prescriptions drugs,
the interests of the 99% is alarming. It makes him
unbelievable in anything he says or does. With this bill
Obama has betrayed us in ways we never could have imagined.
This deal will undermine environmental regulations (e.g., nuclear energy, pollution, sustainability).
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED! TPP is being decided by congress people now.
As has been stated by many economists, we need to give attention to the fact that " not infrequently, powers use the moments of collective trauma to engage in radical social and economic engineering ." We must be aware and not distracted by worldwide chaos.
success at passing the TransPacific Trade bill. Activists around the world have opposed the TPP, warning it will benefit corporations at the expense of health, the environment, free speech and labor rights.
How he can push this bill and claim to be concerned
about the environment, the price of prescriptions drugs,
the interests of the 99% is alarming. It makes him
unbelievable in anything he says or does. With this bill
Obama has betrayed us in ways we never could have imagined.
This deal will undermine environmental regulations (e.g., nuclear energy, pollution, sustainability).
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED! TPP is being decided by congress people now.
As has been stated by many economists, we need to give attention to the fact that " not infrequently, powers use the moments of collective trauma to engage in radical social and economic engineering ." We must be aware and not distracted by worldwide chaos.
From the article:
"Paris will almost certainly not produce an ironclad, planet-saving agreement..."
From George Carlin:
"Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet...
"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?
"The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
"The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?
"Plastic.”
"Paris will almost certainly not produce an ironclad, planet-saving agreement..."
From George Carlin:
"Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet...
"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?
"The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
"The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?
"Plastic.”
3
I see the deniers are out in farce. Since you are either too lazy to do your homework or you think the rest of us are just that stupid, allow me to enlighten you on some indefensible facts: not a single scientific body that expresses an opinion denies human contribution to warming; same for >99% of peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject and >97% of scientists. This part of the debate is over - we are now debating what to do. Welcome to the 21st century, deal with it!
10
It must stop presenting purposefully rigged data.
3
Times: don't you ever get tired of being right and also being totally ignored by the half of the nation on the right?
2
As long as these leaders will believe that their children and grandchildren will get along, they won't do anything more than discourses.
1
We should use uranium and thorium to back up wind and solar power. Cars and trucks should run on electricity or natural gas.
2
Lets her real. Proposed goal of joint international climate action means that all of us - CEOs from Wall Street,blue collars, liberals, tea party, Vladimir Putin, Chinese Politburo, people from the slums of Mumbai, Israel, the Taliban, Greece, Germany - must set aside our differences, sacrifice some of our wealth and comfort, not for our sake, and not for our children, but for the sake of the entire planet 100 years from now being 2 C degrees cooler.
Based on your knowledge of human nature and human history - how likely do you think it is?
I say Paris conference has a better chance trying to convince ice not to melt until the temperature hits 5 degrees Celsius.
Based on your knowledge of human nature and human history - how likely do you think it is?
I say Paris conference has a better chance trying to convince ice not to melt until the temperature hits 5 degrees Celsius.
Well, we had a good run. Our future generations will look at us with disgust of course. The human race is like the cockroach. A few will survive and scurry about living off the scraps waiting for the better times to come. To those that fought the good fight, thank you! For those that didn't, they don't care still.
Glad I'll be dead and won't see the War for Resources and Water that will surly take place. Way to go humans. May the next inhabitants learn from us.
Glad I'll be dead and won't see the War for Resources and Water that will surly take place. Way to go humans. May the next inhabitants learn from us.
2
We can each individually lower our carbon footprints... while we collectively work to support and replace harmful technologies. It's not either/or. It's both.
What is a less than a “full-scale catastrophe”?
Ca*tas"tro*phe (?), n. [L. catastropha, Gr. o overturn; down + to turn.]
1. An event producing a subversion of the order or system of things; a final event, usually of a calamitous or disastrous nature; hence, sudden calamity; great misfortune. (http://tinyurl.com/on4jwxv)
False concepts are worse than a leaky life-boat. They lull people into walking to their doom.
The catastrophe is not just a question of temperatures and rising oceans. It involves deforestation, resource depletion, ocean acidification, and species extinction. The mutilation of the world’s ecology that is taking place is so total that life as we know it will be impossible.
Mankind could prevent the catastrophe but should be under no arrogant illusion that it could repair it. What life survives will be desperate and mutilated. It is beyond criminal for anyone in any position of influence or power to speak of non-binding, partial beginnings which slow the “rate of destruction.” The issue is existential.
The insouciance and avarice with which humans destroyed their one and only planet proves without doubt that we are not made in God’s image. If we forge ahead on the path we are on, the angels will say that we were the most heinous and devastating plague the world ever suffered.
Now go ahead and don’t print this. After all, it lacks the measured and detached tone that’s fit for mainstream, establishmentarian comment.
Ca*tas"tro*phe (?), n. [L. catastropha, Gr. o overturn; down + to turn.]
1. An event producing a subversion of the order or system of things; a final event, usually of a calamitous or disastrous nature; hence, sudden calamity; great misfortune. (http://tinyurl.com/on4jwxv)
False concepts are worse than a leaky life-boat. They lull people into walking to their doom.
The catastrophe is not just a question of temperatures and rising oceans. It involves deforestation, resource depletion, ocean acidification, and species extinction. The mutilation of the world’s ecology that is taking place is so total that life as we know it will be impossible.
Mankind could prevent the catastrophe but should be under no arrogant illusion that it could repair it. What life survives will be desperate and mutilated. It is beyond criminal for anyone in any position of influence or power to speak of non-binding, partial beginnings which slow the “rate of destruction.” The issue is existential.
The insouciance and avarice with which humans destroyed their one and only planet proves without doubt that we are not made in God’s image. If we forge ahead on the path we are on, the angels will say that we were the most heinous and devastating plague the world ever suffered.
Now go ahead and don’t print this. After all, it lacks the measured and detached tone that’s fit for mainstream, establishmentarian comment.
A solution to climate change needs to be fair, effective, and fast. You simply do not have time to argue over the cost of water when your house is on fire.
People tend to forget that burning one ton of coal requires 2.7 tons of oxygen. Even though the fossil fuel companies can claim ownership to the coal, they certainly do not own the air we all breathe. Based on this reasoning, it is actually very easy to come up with a plan which would stop global warming, without killing the poor. The plan is fair, simple, and easy to implement. You can find it here: www.giseco.org.
As Winston Churchill put it: “It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required”. I would be delighted to hear from anyone with a better idea.
People tend to forget that burning one ton of coal requires 2.7 tons of oxygen. Even though the fossil fuel companies can claim ownership to the coal, they certainly do not own the air we all breathe. Based on this reasoning, it is actually very easy to come up with a plan which would stop global warming, without killing the poor. The plan is fair, simple, and easy to implement. You can find it here: www.giseco.org.
As Winston Churchill put it: “It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required”. I would be delighted to hear from anyone with a better idea.
1
"What the Paris Climate Meeting Must Do"
And what will they do?
Twenty bucks says: essentially, nothing. Nothing binding, nothing consensual, nothing meaningful.
And what will they do?
Twenty bucks says: essentially, nothing. Nothing binding, nothing consensual, nothing meaningful.
1
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon once said: “The environment has long been a silent casualty of war and armed conflict …”
Three examples instantly come to mind: The two Gulf Wars and the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.
During the two Gulf Wars, Iraq was bombed with hundreds of missiles containing depleted uranium. A number of scientists have linked the marked increase of cancer rates in Iraq and in its neighboring countries after these wars to the shells used in these missiles, maintaining that the radiation from these weapons has poisoned the soil and water of Iraq and its neighbors, rendering the entire environment within these regions carcinogenic.
What the eight-year Iran-Iraq war did to the largest wetland ecosystem in the Middle East, the 5,000-year-old Marsh, the cradle of world civilization, was more devastating, however.
The Marsh, a vital area of the region in terms of biodiversity, formed a crucial station for millions of migratory birds traveling between Siberia and Africa. It provided sustenance for economically important Persian Gulf fish and shrimp, as well as other marine life and freshwater species.
To “prevent the world from tipping over into full-scale catastrophe late in this century,” the Paris Climate Meeting should therefore address the devastating effect of wars and military industrial activities on the environment, including the ongoing, intensive Russian and American air and land bombings in Syria and Iraq.
Three examples instantly come to mind: The two Gulf Wars and the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.
During the two Gulf Wars, Iraq was bombed with hundreds of missiles containing depleted uranium. A number of scientists have linked the marked increase of cancer rates in Iraq and in its neighboring countries after these wars to the shells used in these missiles, maintaining that the radiation from these weapons has poisoned the soil and water of Iraq and its neighbors, rendering the entire environment within these regions carcinogenic.
What the eight-year Iran-Iraq war did to the largest wetland ecosystem in the Middle East, the 5,000-year-old Marsh, the cradle of world civilization, was more devastating, however.
The Marsh, a vital area of the region in terms of biodiversity, formed a crucial station for millions of migratory birds traveling between Siberia and Africa. It provided sustenance for economically important Persian Gulf fish and shrimp, as well as other marine life and freshwater species.
To “prevent the world from tipping over into full-scale catastrophe late in this century,” the Paris Climate Meeting should therefore address the devastating effect of wars and military industrial activities on the environment, including the ongoing, intensive Russian and American air and land bombings in Syria and Iraq.
Just as long as things like huge taxpayer funded payments to tiny island nations and the quadrupling of my power bill are thrown around as the solution to climate change I believe liberal climate activists will be like Sisyphus forever rolling the rock up hill and watching it roll back down.
2
I'm goi ng to be,apparently to suggest that when the politicians again fail to tackle this, that the low cost technical solution, of albedo adjustment by aerosols in the stratosphere will be started by a coalition of low lying countries ,cities and states. This may not work, but to see if it could will cost at most a few billion dollars, quite a bit less than New York City is planning to spend in thE wake of hurricane Sandy.
Global warming is the most serious threat to our planet's life. To stop it, predatory economic practices have to be drastically modified. Is the market economy capable of doing it when it has never brought into its cost-benefit equation environmental costs ? I DO NOT THINK SO.
2
If I oppose democracy, I need look no further than Paris next week to prove my point. Hundreds of mostly democratically elected leaders totally failing to achieve something that 90% of the world (and 99.9% of those who understand science) know to be critically important.
It's like a huge game of Prisoners' Dilemma where all the people we're sending consider "defect" as the default option.
Every single person who is involved - negotiators, politicians, scientists - will come away frustrated at our inability to reach an agreement - but not one of them will accept any of the blame - each will comfort him/herself with phrases like "I did as well as I could in the current political climate" instead of accepting that (as reported in another article in the NY Times) they are totally failing to even consider the type of action that might actually solve the problem in an acceptable fashion.
It is utterly demoralizing. They only consolation is that we have only ourselves to blame - but that is not much consolation to future generations who will rightly blame us.
It's like a huge game of Prisoners' Dilemma where all the people we're sending consider "defect" as the default option.
Every single person who is involved - negotiators, politicians, scientists - will come away frustrated at our inability to reach an agreement - but not one of them will accept any of the blame - each will comfort him/herself with phrases like "I did as well as I could in the current political climate" instead of accepting that (as reported in another article in the NY Times) they are totally failing to even consider the type of action that might actually solve the problem in an acceptable fashion.
It is utterly demoralizing. They only consolation is that we have only ourselves to blame - but that is not much consolation to future generations who will rightly blame us.
1
I just hope that good, old fashioned, striped-pants diplomacy can still work. Such is so greatly called-for in this situation. Another hope which I harbor is that the current American fascination with, and possession of, firearms - over 300 MILLION, YES 300 MILLION, will not enter the picture as ANY KIND of possible solution. But I fear the worst........
"Kyoto failed because it imposed emissions reduction targets only on developed countries, giving developing nations like China, India and Brazil a free pass. That doomed it in the United States Senate."
No, what dooms these various agreements among the world's AGW fanatics is that most of the world, sensibly, understands that AGW is, at best, unproven and, at worst, a deliberate fraud.
Not a single climate model has ever made a long-term accurate prediction.
That, all by itself, suggestions caution in trying to demand economy- and lifestyle-busting proposals to address a "problem" that can't even be proven to exist. Throw in the several attempts to "adjust" (or suppress) data to try to make the problem look real and any agreement arrived at in Paris will be treated as precisely what it is: an attempt to further the fraud.
It's just too convenient that what the AGW crowd wants so neatly aligns with what the Leftist crowd wants. As they say, follow the money.
No, what dooms these various agreements among the world's AGW fanatics is that most of the world, sensibly, understands that AGW is, at best, unproven and, at worst, a deliberate fraud.
Not a single climate model has ever made a long-term accurate prediction.
That, all by itself, suggestions caution in trying to demand economy- and lifestyle-busting proposals to address a "problem" that can't even be proven to exist. Throw in the several attempts to "adjust" (or suppress) data to try to make the problem look real and any agreement arrived at in Paris will be treated as precisely what it is: an attempt to further the fraud.
It's just too convenient that what the AGW crowd wants so neatly aligns with what the Leftist crowd wants. As they say, follow the money.
6
After all is said and done more will be said than done.
14
I could care less, I don't have children. A human die off is inevitable. Party on.
1
The only advantage to getting older is knowing that I won't be here when the worst happens. Notice I wrote, "when," not if.
Yes, it's a selfish point of view, but giving up hope that we might reform ourselves feels positively refreshing.
I'll still recycle, conserve gas, whatever....... but my ignorant neighbor will not. Clean air and fresh water are nothing but "liberal" conspiracies, according to him, and he also happens to own a few guns.
I'm not about to argue.
Yes, it's a selfish point of view, but giving up hope that we might reform ourselves feels positively refreshing.
I'll still recycle, conserve gas, whatever....... but my ignorant neighbor will not. Clean air and fresh water are nothing but "liberal" conspiracies, according to him, and he also happens to own a few guns.
I'm not about to argue.
13
The Paris conference will fail -- as all the others have failed – because the world cannot face the fatal flaw of our basic philosophy of Economics, its irrational insistence on endless “growth.” No mainstream economist or politician would dare explore the idea that an economy could be “healthy” with a stable, but smaller, number of people.
The conferees will talk and talk about plans to reduce CO2 emissions in their individual countries, but no one will venture an opinion as to what the world’s total emissions should be, or how their disjointed efforts could get us to that point.
Those total emissions, which were about 2 billion metric tons in 1900, 6 billion in 1950, and had jumped to 19.8 billion by 1980, are now estimated to have been 40 billion in 2014.
No one will remind them that total emissions – whether a country’s or the planet’s – are the product of 1) average per capita emissions, and 2) population.
And world population, which was 2.56 billion people in 1950, is now 7.32 billion, and according to the UN, will still be rising when it hits 10.85 billion in 2100.
No one will do the calculations which would show that no matter how much the “industrialized” countries reduce per capita emissions, it would be virtually impossible to reduce the planet’s total emissions to a figure that might begin to reverse GW – without a drastic simultaneous reduction in the world’s population.
Estimating a total emissions goal is a must.
The conferees will talk and talk about plans to reduce CO2 emissions in their individual countries, but no one will venture an opinion as to what the world’s total emissions should be, or how their disjointed efforts could get us to that point.
Those total emissions, which were about 2 billion metric tons in 1900, 6 billion in 1950, and had jumped to 19.8 billion by 1980, are now estimated to have been 40 billion in 2014.
No one will remind them that total emissions – whether a country’s or the planet’s – are the product of 1) average per capita emissions, and 2) population.
And world population, which was 2.56 billion people in 1950, is now 7.32 billion, and according to the UN, will still be rising when it hits 10.85 billion in 2100.
No one will do the calculations which would show that no matter how much the “industrialized” countries reduce per capita emissions, it would be virtually impossible to reduce the planet’s total emissions to a figure that might begin to reverse GW – without a drastic simultaneous reduction in the world’s population.
Estimating a total emissions goal is a must.
Beholding so many global experts & bigwigs jetting into the City of Lights made me confident the problem is nearly solved!
Fundamentally, the issue of climate change is entirely based in modern natural science. You're perfectly entitled to reject modern natural science as a whole (because you prefer other religious or philosophical beliefs, new-age or older science systems etc) but it makes very little sense to cherry-pick climate change as the one part of modern science that you don't believe in, because it conflicts with your political views. "I refuse to believe that the IR absorption of CO2 changes with the IR spectrum because I detest Obama".
2
The banner of sustainability has been abandoned by the global states after the start opf the global crisis Paris Happy Sustainability 2015
Any honest person, or Editorial Board, would know and realize that this Paris Conference is total and complete farce. What it must do is make us all realize such. Yes, the climate is changing, it has been for for millions of years, and will do so regardless of man's interventions. When we imagine that we are in control of the planet or life – our own or someone else’s – we have fallen prey to the ancient whisper in the Garden: “You shall be like gods.” As for O, well, the idea that he wants to create a legacy just tells you it is nothing more then hubris, again showing his overbearing pride and excessive presumption of he knows better, hey I'm 'cool'.
We r all proud of Barack Obama as the first African American c-in-c, and I am sure he is proud of himself. Having said that, I find myself scratching my head and wondering what climate change, in the short term, has to do with our immediate problem, which is to combat the threat of transnational terrorism,exemplified by attacks in Paris and Mali, as well as the possible risks to our own country. ISIS seems omnipresent, everywhere at once. If the Caliphate's gunmen and bombers can shut down an entire city for days, Brussels, and instill fear into the residents of Paris centre, which apprehension lingers still, 2 weeks after the initial assault, then should the means to neutralize these "exaltes" not be our first priority, overshadowing all others? It is telling that President Obama, while not deigning to join hands with other world leaders in the march of solidarity after the Charlie Hebdo massacres, has made it a point to attend the climate change get together in Paris, and make it part of his legacy. No se ofenda, but what is going on? ISIS cedes territory in ME , but expands it's reach internationally. First things first, Mr. President: Secure the borders; increase surveillance of "bad hombres.,", at home. At present, we don't know how many undocumented r here, or where they r.Just one example:Hondurans recently interviewed said border controls r a joke, so desultory,casual, they r laughable.This is no time for globe trotting: first things first!
2
Do reasonable people listen to ASTROLOGERS when discussing ASTRONOMY? Nope. Neither should we listen to denialists any longer, nor debate them.
There are three big reasons to side with the astronomers in this case:
1. Humans have pumped 1.3 BILLION years of coal, gas and oil into the atmosphere in just 200 years. If you blow up a balloon for a minute and release the air via pinprick, you get ... BOOM!! ... The time differential is FAR BETTER than what we do with CO2 release.
2. 99%-plus of glaciers have melted, 30-50%. Just like South Pole land ice.
3. 99% of scientists are on our side. There's LESS scientific consensus on gravity, so to speak.
PS
It's not Climate CHANGE we are experiencing, but rather Climate DESTABILIZATION. I admit that is a mouthful, and not a handsome, attractive expression. But it's accurate.
There are three big reasons to side with the astronomers in this case:
1. Humans have pumped 1.3 BILLION years of coal, gas and oil into the atmosphere in just 200 years. If you blow up a balloon for a minute and release the air via pinprick, you get ... BOOM!! ... The time differential is FAR BETTER than what we do with CO2 release.
2. 99%-plus of glaciers have melted, 30-50%. Just like South Pole land ice.
3. 99% of scientists are on our side. There's LESS scientific consensus on gravity, so to speak.
PS
It's not Climate CHANGE we are experiencing, but rather Climate DESTABILIZATION. I admit that is a mouthful, and not a handsome, attractive expression. But it's accurate.
1
ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE . . .
...is more important than the end of nuclear proliferation ... as well as ISIS and the Islamic State.
Seriously.
...is more important than the end of nuclear proliferation ... as well as ISIS and the Islamic State.
Seriously.
1
As is the case when people are faced with any major crisis, a large number of people are looking for a "good old days" solution. If only the population were smaller; if only we used less energy; if only the world were not so interconnected; if people just lived small, modest, locally-sourced lives, then everything would be better.
Of course, if civilization does collapse, then we will revert to exactly that scenario. But I think the misanthropes are far too quick to sell humanity short. Having less of everything, including fewer people, is not a solution: it's a desperation death-spiral.
In any case, people will never voluntarily choose this path. Asceticism has never in human history been the norm in any society. People always use, do, and proliferate.
So what is the alternative? Instead of giving up on human civilization, double down. Instead of trying to minimize our impact on the Earth, try to have the RIGHT impact. Learn to control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by increasing and decreasing it as needed. Learn to use the Sun's energy strategically, rather than just letting it make everything hotter in an uncontrolled manner.
I am convinced this is the best solution to our current problem, and one that will allow for a human civilization that continues to grow wiser and more complex.
Of course, if civilization does collapse, then we will revert to exactly that scenario. But I think the misanthropes are far too quick to sell humanity short. Having less of everything, including fewer people, is not a solution: it's a desperation death-spiral.
In any case, people will never voluntarily choose this path. Asceticism has never in human history been the norm in any society. People always use, do, and proliferate.
So what is the alternative? Instead of giving up on human civilization, double down. Instead of trying to minimize our impact on the Earth, try to have the RIGHT impact. Learn to control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by increasing and decreasing it as needed. Learn to use the Sun's energy strategically, rather than just letting it make everything hotter in an uncontrolled manner.
I am convinced this is the best solution to our current problem, and one that will allow for a human civilization that continues to grow wiser and more complex.
6
If China, Brazil and India do not fully agree to reduce their absolute levels of GHG emissions, the conference will fail to achieve its stated goal. In this event the only possible outcome will be to begin to develop strategies to deal with the effects of global warming.
2
As a 12 year American expat living in Provence,I have observed that my adopted country has the highest fertility rate in Europe. France also has chronic unemployment, jobs eliminated by robots, and little enthusiasm for learning the necessary English to find work in other countries.
All attempts on my part to engage any French citizens in a discussion about birth rates and world over population are quickly rebuffed. French women are taught to follow a traditional narrative for their lives including maintaining physical attractiveness to attract a mate, partnership or marriage, children rearing, and passing on the same values to future generations.
The French live in a cultural bubble that ends at the border. Any trauma or disruption to the bubble, like terrorist attacks, results in a temporary paralysis and then a quick return to the homeostasis of the cultural bubble.
The climate conference held in France, as well as most Paris government efforts, are ignored by the provinces while traditional life goes on. This same inertia around the world is why we are failing future generations on the pending climatic disaster!
All attempts on my part to engage any French citizens in a discussion about birth rates and world over population are quickly rebuffed. French women are taught to follow a traditional narrative for their lives including maintaining physical attractiveness to attract a mate, partnership or marriage, children rearing, and passing on the same values to future generations.
The French live in a cultural bubble that ends at the border. Any trauma or disruption to the bubble, like terrorist attacks, results in a temporary paralysis and then a quick return to the homeostasis of the cultural bubble.
The climate conference held in France, as well as most Paris government efforts, are ignored by the provinces while traditional life goes on. This same inertia around the world is why we are failing future generations on the pending climatic disaster!
2
The only thing this meeting will do is make poor countries richer and the money will go down a rabbit hole. The president will have a feel good moment and we in the United States will lose jobs. Countries will line up to get a part of the pie in this another give away of tax dollars just like Solyndra, the stimulus etc. No accountability and no science behind it.
1
The U.S. Government is corrupt beyond repair but we ask it for bipartisan action against global warming? Expect the worst case scenario for every problem humans face until this is fixed. Greed rules.
1
Budgeting carbon will never have an effect on Climate Change and saying it comes from scientists is a lie. The idea originated from an economist as a tool to control countries in the global economy.
3
The article says that Kyoto failed mainly because the US Senate rejected it. Only to continue that Copenhagen "broke up [...] because of continuing frictions between the industrialized nations and the developing countries." The truth would be, as the Spiegel put it, that "Obama stabbed Europe in the back". This was well documented in a leaked audio file.
2
It is hard to imagine global success in reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere when one of the two political parties that will govern the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot even acknowledge that a climate challenge exists.
>
Show me ONE scientific paper that declares that if Humans were, today, to NOT increase the current (today's) CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, even by one CO2 molecule (i.e., maintain steady state levels of CO2), that it would be enough to solve the problem.
Yet you'd have me believe that we can solve the problem sometime in the distal future by cutting back on CO2 levels, or even then reach steady state.
None of this passes the stink test.
We will continue to increase the CO2 levels for a very long time.
The problem is already baked in the cake.
Show me ONE scientific paper that declares that if Humans were, today, to NOT increase the current (today's) CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, even by one CO2 molecule (i.e., maintain steady state levels of CO2), that it would be enough to solve the problem.
Yet you'd have me believe that we can solve the problem sometime in the distal future by cutting back on CO2 levels, or even then reach steady state.
None of this passes the stink test.
We will continue to increase the CO2 levels for a very long time.
The problem is already baked in the cake.
2
Tell me again why the US is suppose to lead this effort? Especially when Obama has purposely put the US in the backseat of every other world problem, what is more important? Does Obama really think his style of world leadership is effective?
Global warming is real since it will naturally occur with or without us just as nature intended.
Global warming is real since it will naturally occur with or without us just as nature intended.
5
Some people of faith - religious or secular - believe that this world was designed with a self correcting climate as a home for man. However, some of us live in a more malthusian world where our choice as a species is between planned, tolerable reductions of carbon emissions early or forced, painful reductions later. Faith is more convenient, one less thing to worry about. So we're going with the default choice.
If a betting market existed, I'd place a bet in trust for my heirs that little is done until many of the world's poor experience significant pain. By itself this will not be effective because carbon emissions among the poor are low. Perhaps their pain will serve as a convincing canary in the coal mine. But I wouldn't bet on it.
If a betting market existed, I'd place a bet in trust for my heirs that little is done until many of the world's poor experience significant pain. By itself this will not be effective because carbon emissions among the poor are low. Perhaps their pain will serve as a convincing canary in the coal mine. But I wouldn't bet on it.
I am sorry but without irrefutable proof that climate change is solely causes by societies, it represents a boondoggle of mammoth proportion. A way for Government to pass out a bottom-less pit of money. I do think though that as a modern society, we should foster prudent control of emissions, as responsible citizens.
I do not doubt that our climate is changing, but I believe that it is cyclical in nature as it has been for millions of years. The earth is not stagnant, and it is subject to changes in climate. Someone has to convince that we are not in a normal changing cycle, and that we as humans are causing the changes, and that we can avoid them by simply cutting emissions.
I have yet to see that evidence. For climate change when you get a knock on the door and it is the Government telling you "we are here to help" make climate change it is time to give them the 'cold' shoulder!
I do not doubt that our climate is changing, but I believe that it is cyclical in nature as it has been for millions of years. The earth is not stagnant, and it is subject to changes in climate. Someone has to convince that we are not in a normal changing cycle, and that we as humans are causing the changes, and that we can avoid them by simply cutting emissions.
I have yet to see that evidence. For climate change when you get a knock on the door and it is the Government telling you "we are here to help" make climate change it is time to give them the 'cold' shoulder!
5
It remains very difficult to show evidence to people who give you the cold should and slam the door.
Dams and levees are built after floods. Beach homes are built on stilts after hurricanes. Tornado shelters are built after tornadoes. Earthquake modifications to buildings are made after earthquakes. And perhaps the most intricate system of flood control anywhere was built by the Dutch, starting with dikes, after storm surges from the sea.
Here is a complete list of modifications initiated before any disaster struck:
1. About 2500 years ago, someone in India invented the hand held fan, long before global warming was an issue.
You never know when human beings will surprise you. But precedent certainly suggests that carbon emissions will only be reduced after multiple natural disasters. Maybe a committee should be established in Paris to focus on how to react rather than how to act. It's more a concession to human nature than an admission of defeat.
Here is a complete list of modifications initiated before any disaster struck:
1. About 2500 years ago, someone in India invented the hand held fan, long before global warming was an issue.
You never know when human beings will surprise you. But precedent certainly suggests that carbon emissions will only be reduced after multiple natural disasters. Maybe a committee should be established in Paris to focus on how to react rather than how to act. It's more a concession to human nature than an admission of defeat.
2
100,000 years ago sea level was 20 feet higher and the temperature was 9 degrees warmer. 20,000 years ago, at the height of the ice age, sea level was 400 feet lower and the temperature was 12 degrees colder. A change of over 20 degrees in temperature and 420 feet in sea level. Was all the caused by the cooking fires of our primitive ancestors?
8
You may wish to get a map, and take a good look at where pretty much all our cites are.
Oh, and by the way? Also look up the way that the human population crashed right around those times.
Oh, and by the way? Also look up the way that the human population crashed right around those times.
The West owes Africa Climate Change Debt among other debts.
If I maybe allowed to have a wish list, it is that the West comes to this realization and will be willing to do something meaningful about it. More than lip service.
If the affluent world is able to bail out big bankers who fleece the poor, surely it can spend a reasonable fraction to save Africa and in the longer term itself from a victimization that it created for African farmers whose children are forced to cross the Sahara and drown in the Mediterranean and face humiliation and rejection by fortress Europe.
The science is clear. The affluent world is responsible for most of the carbon emissions victimizing Africa. The El Nino effect is the worst it has been in 20 years.
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp276236.pdf
The moral case for compensation and for helping Africa fight climate change through deforestation, implementing green technology and forest plantations or carbon sinks is compelling.
But asking for assistance from folks who see African famine as a means to control population maybe akin to asking the NRA to help with gun control.
I keep hoping otherwise.
If I maybe allowed to have a wish list, it is that the West comes to this realization and will be willing to do something meaningful about it. More than lip service.
If the affluent world is able to bail out big bankers who fleece the poor, surely it can spend a reasonable fraction to save Africa and in the longer term itself from a victimization that it created for African farmers whose children are forced to cross the Sahara and drown in the Mediterranean and face humiliation and rejection by fortress Europe.
The science is clear. The affluent world is responsible for most of the carbon emissions victimizing Africa. The El Nino effect is the worst it has been in 20 years.
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp276236.pdf
The moral case for compensation and for helping Africa fight climate change through deforestation, implementing green technology and forest plantations or carbon sinks is compelling.
But asking for assistance from folks who see African famine as a means to control population maybe akin to asking the NRA to help with gun control.
I keep hoping otherwise.
1
CHINA'S government casts a blind eye when its businesses produce illegal drug precursors and then permits them to be marketed worldwide, thereby flooding the globe with cheap, often toxic, versions of illegal street drugs. When asked about enforcement, the response resembles a shrug of the shoulders. The cost to life is viewed as the price of doing business.
While other countries may not be so blatant nor blasé, their sense of entitlement to continue using fossil fuels unabated carry the same consequences.
The survival of the planet has turned into a game of hot potato. Literally. Potatoes originate in the high reaches of the Andes where it's always cold. Until now. So if the climate gets too hot, there may be no more potatoes, cold, hot or lukewarm (just right?). So will future generations have to subsist on species such as squid and sea vegetables? If croplands are no longer arable, the choices is turn to the sea or starve.
And if the sea is so toxic that it can no longer support any life, perhaps with the exception of thermophilic bacteria that thrive near the ocean's steam vents, where lava is seeps into the ocean floor.
So what's for dinner? Deep sea slime!
Will the nations in Paris fiddle faddle while the planet turns into a cinder?
The time has come to move beyond talk, which only exacerbates the problem by generating more hot air. Transition to sustainable energy must be radical, immediate and sweeping. Together we may live; alone we choke!
While other countries may not be so blatant nor blasé, their sense of entitlement to continue using fossil fuels unabated carry the same consequences.
The survival of the planet has turned into a game of hot potato. Literally. Potatoes originate in the high reaches of the Andes where it's always cold. Until now. So if the climate gets too hot, there may be no more potatoes, cold, hot or lukewarm (just right?). So will future generations have to subsist on species such as squid and sea vegetables? If croplands are no longer arable, the choices is turn to the sea or starve.
And if the sea is so toxic that it can no longer support any life, perhaps with the exception of thermophilic bacteria that thrive near the ocean's steam vents, where lava is seeps into the ocean floor.
So what's for dinner? Deep sea slime!
Will the nations in Paris fiddle faddle while the planet turns into a cinder?
The time has come to move beyond talk, which only exacerbates the problem by generating more hot air. Transition to sustainable energy must be radical, immediate and sweeping. Together we may live; alone we choke!
We can only thank our founders that they cared for the future and lament our present despicable actions. Who could possibly care about a shiny new car when we see the decay of Detroit, the crumbling roads that car is supposed to ride on and the filth that oil use pollutes our world with, at every step in the process. How long will it take before we all realize that same shiny car will shortly end up rusting in a junk pile along with the rest of our civilization?
Talking and strutting about, declaring one's moral superiority with code words like "sustainability," in effect urging an energy famished existence on the aspiring masses of the Third World who do not make it to the First World or China as migrants isn't going to save the planet. Touting marginal players like solar power or wind isn't going to provide a real world substitute for current coal-fired plants, let alone provide for the energy growth necessary to lift billions of people out of poverty. For that, we shall need nuclear power. And so far, the elites who fret the most about global warming (recently re-branded as "climate change", although it is my understanding that on a suitable time-scale, the climate is always changing one way or another) seem to have an aversion to nuclear power that is more emotional than reasoned. So yes, meet, talk, emote and editorialize all you want. But without a solid commitment to nuclear power, things will continue to play out pretty much as they have, and we shall see what results.
1
Climate alarmists unite!
Many of the commenters seem to confuse pollution, environmental issues, species extinction (which is natural, man) with climate change. The only common threads among believers seem to be 1) mommy earth is dying, we must save her; 2) fossil fuel energy is evil; 3) ditto Republicans and finally, you're some kind of primitive uneducated fool if you don't swallow whole the claims of climate "science."
Some truths. Eventually we will run out of fossil fuels and need to replace -- think nuclear or some as yet undiscovered energy source. Second, pollution is bad, every country should clean up their own back yard.
The climate is changing. Always has, always will. Whether the minimal shift in temps is within the normal range, the result of measurement error, or sunspots is hard to determine. So I wouldn't wreck the economy now on the basis of computer models that haven't done a good job at predicting temps.
And the editorialists know that over the last 20 years, temps have flattened, the seas haven't risen, etc. But it's nice that world leaders can hang out after flying their fossil fueled jets to Paris (anyone heard of a solar powered jet?).
Obama has done his best to wreck the coal industry and to keep us addicted to ME oil (think Keystone XL). Just tell him to have a beer, hang out, don't do anything stupid. That's my goal for Paris.
Oh, and climate science isn't science as it produces no falsifiable hypotheses. Believe that!
Many of the commenters seem to confuse pollution, environmental issues, species extinction (which is natural, man) with climate change. The only common threads among believers seem to be 1) mommy earth is dying, we must save her; 2) fossil fuel energy is evil; 3) ditto Republicans and finally, you're some kind of primitive uneducated fool if you don't swallow whole the claims of climate "science."
Some truths. Eventually we will run out of fossil fuels and need to replace -- think nuclear or some as yet undiscovered energy source. Second, pollution is bad, every country should clean up their own back yard.
The climate is changing. Always has, always will. Whether the minimal shift in temps is within the normal range, the result of measurement error, or sunspots is hard to determine. So I wouldn't wreck the economy now on the basis of computer models that haven't done a good job at predicting temps.
And the editorialists know that over the last 20 years, temps have flattened, the seas haven't risen, etc. But it's nice that world leaders can hang out after flying their fossil fueled jets to Paris (anyone heard of a solar powered jet?).
Obama has done his best to wreck the coal industry and to keep us addicted to ME oil (think Keystone XL). Just tell him to have a beer, hang out, don't do anything stupid. That's my goal for Paris.
Oh, and climate science isn't science as it produces no falsifiable hypotheses. Believe that!
4
Simply not true. Emmisions in the U.S. have fallen dramatically in the past 15 years. There has been no measurable increase in global tempatures for some time. For the U.S. And other world powers to impose economic restrictions on developing countries is immoral.
3
While U.S. representatives will shed tears and wail apologies for past sins, our strategy focuses more on contrition through displaying our willingness to self-flagellate than on addressing the low-hanging fruit of global warming/pollution factors.
The article does rightfully mention the fact that deforestation of tropical forests will have to be addressed. Our trees are currently saving our land masses. So we should plant/re-plant trees!
Urban storm water runoff is not only polluting the world's rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, it is heating them up. The U.S. and other first world countries are beginning to address the issue, but many of the largest urban areas of the world have done little or nothing, and have no intent of doing anything.
Urban areas produce almost all of the world's excess heat. Google Urban Heat Islands - look at the pictures. We need to stop blaming suburban soccer moms driving SUV's for global warming, and get busy deconstructing Urban heat sinks and Urban heat islands.
Sadly, I'm afraid the people we've allowed to be in charge of our policy are more interested in punishing perceived political foes than in actually fixing problems.
The article does rightfully mention the fact that deforestation of tropical forests will have to be addressed. Our trees are currently saving our land masses. So we should plant/re-plant trees!
Urban storm water runoff is not only polluting the world's rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, it is heating them up. The U.S. and other first world countries are beginning to address the issue, but many of the largest urban areas of the world have done little or nothing, and have no intent of doing anything.
Urban areas produce almost all of the world's excess heat. Google Urban Heat Islands - look at the pictures. We need to stop blaming suburban soccer moms driving SUV's for global warming, and get busy deconstructing Urban heat sinks and Urban heat islands.
Sadly, I'm afraid the people we've allowed to be in charge of our policy are more interested in punishing perceived political foes than in actually fixing problems.
1
Climate change is real. It has been going on for the last 30 million years, about 1,000 30,000 year cycles of 18.000 years of cooling, with glaciers 2 miles thick covering more than half of the Earth's land surface, and then 12,000 years of warming, which melts those glaciers.
We know the four causes of these cycles. None of them is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the last 4 cycles, over the last 120,000 years, we have charted temperature rise and fall and the CO2 levels. In each of them, as the Earth started to warm, the level of atmospheric CO2 went up. But in every case, the rise in CO2 trailed the rise in temperature by about 1,000 years. CO2 is not a cause; it is an effect.
Within the big cycles are small cycles. The Earth warms or cools somewhat, while on the larger scale it is warming or cooling big time. That is what is happening now. We are almost at the end of a 12,000 year warming cycle. Big time cooling is coming and with it, as always, a devastation of life on Earth. But in the short term, we are warming.
Deal with it. We don't cause it. We can't stop it.
Later, it's going to get cold. Very cold. And much life on Earth is going to die. Too bad. We can't keep it warm any more than we can keep it cool.
We know the four causes of these cycles. None of them is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the last 4 cycles, over the last 120,000 years, we have charted temperature rise and fall and the CO2 levels. In each of them, as the Earth started to warm, the level of atmospheric CO2 went up. But in every case, the rise in CO2 trailed the rise in temperature by about 1,000 years. CO2 is not a cause; it is an effect.
Within the big cycles are small cycles. The Earth warms or cools somewhat, while on the larger scale it is warming or cooling big time. That is what is happening now. We are almost at the end of a 12,000 year warming cycle. Big time cooling is coming and with it, as always, a devastation of life on Earth. But in the short term, we are warming.
Deal with it. We don't cause it. We can't stop it.
Later, it's going to get cold. Very cold. And much life on Earth is going to die. Too bad. We can't keep it warm any more than we can keep it cool.
1
The industrialized nations have mortgaged their future already. It would be up to them to pay the loan back (in terms of massive reduction of CO2 emissions). They however are preoccupied with stagnation and thus unable or unwilling to do so for reasons that are manifold. There is no viable solution - a sort of apocalypse in the next hundred years will be the catalyst to reshape how the planet reorganizes itself; with or without Homo Sapiens remains to be seen. I will not witness it, but sadly my grandkid borne a month ago will; at least the beginning.
1
Since the United States and Great Britain are basically responsible for the pollution caused by the Industrial Revolution, they should be required to pay for the repair to the planet. There needs to be a fund established from which can be drawn monies to be used by the poorer countries in the world to reduce their production of CO2.
What the "climate summit" must NOT do is to allow all of the other major industrial and polluting nations to skate away from any responsibility...or cost...just for Obama to claim a "success" that is paid for solely by the United States, its taxpayers, and its citizens.
All too often Obama has settled for assuaging his ego at the expense of real progress.
Obama must also recognize that the Constitution of the United States requires the concurrence of the Senate by direct vote.
We should not be paying for an unworkable "treaty" at the expense of our government of co-equal branches and the assumption of the legislative process by the Executive.
No matter how Obama might want to phrase it, such action would be nothing less than tyranny.
All too often Obama has settled for assuaging his ego at the expense of real progress.
Obama must also recognize that the Constitution of the United States requires the concurrence of the Senate by direct vote.
We should not be paying for an unworkable "treaty" at the expense of our government of co-equal branches and the assumption of the legislative process by the Executive.
No matter how Obama might want to phrase it, such action would be nothing less than tyranny.
"The test of success for this much-anticipated summit meeting is whether it produces not only stronger commitments but also a shared sense of urgency at all levels to meet them."
Really? Unless there are decisions made to act soon, if not immediately, the conference will be a failure. Commitments and senses of urgency will not suffice.
Really? Unless there are decisions made to act soon, if not immediately, the conference will be a failure. Commitments and senses of urgency will not suffice.
2030 -- the next 15 years will be increasingly disruptive because of the combined effects of climate change, population growth, and more failed states. These conditions will present unprecedented challenges to governments, and will be beyond the capacity of some.
Time to get past the false optimism. Adaptation will require adjustments on a massive scale, with huge costs. As long as we aren't taxing carbon, we're in denial.
Time to get past the false optimism. Adaptation will require adjustments on a massive scale, with huge costs. As long as we aren't taxing carbon, we're in denial.
1
"Eventually, of course, all nations will have to improve on their pledges..." This attitude recalls another that makes me shake my head in weary disbelief every time I come across it (frequently in these pages): That aging populations and the concomitant reduction in workers to support the aged is some sort of "demographic crisis." We KNOW that the human population must peak and then recede. This will entail going through a demographic transition to get to a steady state. Accomplishing this will NOT get easier in the future. It seems that kicking the can down the road is the best we can come up with to address the multiple existential crises facing our sad species.
The Times Board and other climate campaigners obstinately fail to face the fact that diametrically opposite needs and agendas of developed and developing economies make it nearly impossible to achieve some koombaya universal agreement that will minimize or substantially reduce global warming. For the U.S., Europe and a few others, reductions in existing emissions will be painful, difficult and very expensive. For developing economies in Asia, Africa and portions of Latin America, major slowing of the growth of emissions could devastate their hopes of achieving higher standards of living for their huge populations. Facing the real consequences of these ugly truths must be the first path to whatever best future can be achieved.
3
This old fashioned notion that governments can get together and agree on "policies" which will deal with atmospheric pollution lacks credibility and represents 50 year old thinking. Scientific knowledge evolves and different regions must tackle different problems. In some areas it's Methane that is the number one problem, in others its diesel fuels, in others it's burning of the forests. The only way to overcome these problems is to invest into market alternatives which will make activities which cause these pollutants to shift. For methane it may be the advancement of sustainable production of proteins, for diesel pollution, it will be investment into electrical transportation infrastructure, for forest burning it would be a shift away from palm oil and corn subsidies. People will change their behavior only when there is an economic advantage to the change, not simply additional taxation of an activity to which there is no alternative.
2
As you correctly point out, the organizations and efforts to prevent global warming have failed for 23 years. So let's drop back to Eisenstein's definition of insanity to keep these efforts in perspective, they are a total waste of time and resources to solve the problem that they claim they seek to claim.
At best, this is a party for environmental groups and government officials in on one of the best and most expensive cities in the world. Serious solutions to the global warming problem are not allowed to be brought to the table, mainly the geo-engineering solutions, which are laughed at as "crazy". Again, let's drop back to Eisenstein's definition of insanity.
An agreement between 200 countries involving one group of countries, the rich ones, sending hundreds of billion to the poor countries, to solve a problem is naive. The hundreds of billions will end up in the pockets of the dictators, Kershner's, strong men and political "leaders" of the poor countries. These "leaders" aren't in Paris because they care about global warming, they are there for the hand outs.
The Chinese have shown they just lie about anything to make China more competitive, they won't live up to any agreement. All they want to do is to hamper the economies of their competitors. India? You have to be kidding me, they will do what they need to do to compete in the world.
The only people who will benefit from Paris will be the resource sucking climate change industry people.
At best, this is a party for environmental groups and government officials in on one of the best and most expensive cities in the world. Serious solutions to the global warming problem are not allowed to be brought to the table, mainly the geo-engineering solutions, which are laughed at as "crazy". Again, let's drop back to Eisenstein's definition of insanity.
An agreement between 200 countries involving one group of countries, the rich ones, sending hundreds of billion to the poor countries, to solve a problem is naive. The hundreds of billions will end up in the pockets of the dictators, Kershner's, strong men and political "leaders" of the poor countries. These "leaders" aren't in Paris because they care about global warming, they are there for the hand outs.
The Chinese have shown they just lie about anything to make China more competitive, they won't live up to any agreement. All they want to do is to hamper the economies of their competitors. India? You have to be kidding me, they will do what they need to do to compete in the world.
The only people who will benefit from Paris will be the resource sucking climate change industry people.
6
Unless and until climate change is accepted as a reality that either arises from human activity or can be addressed by human intervention then nothing of significance can or will happen in Paris. When and where and how has any international agreement with such a broad focus and diverse interests ever come to fruition? Fossil fuel use along with destruction of tropical rain forests are harbingers of doom and disaster.
3
It's disappointing that, at this stage of the game, success will be considered "fostering collective responsibility, a strong sense among countries large and small, rich and poor, that all must play a part in finding a global solution to a global problem" and producing "not only stronger commitments but also a shared sense of urgency at all levels to meet them."
Not sure how that would be measured, but doesn't it seem we're past the point of having the luxury of time to ramp up our governmental awareness of this looming disaster of all disasters? Frankly, the only thing that will denote real success to me is concrete action, caps and deadlines and much more, enacted and imposed universally. There is no reason to exempt China, India, or Brazil; we enjoyed an industrial age without an understanding of its consequences. They now know the effect of unbridled industrialization, and their challenge is to grow and prosper without doing undue harm to the planet.
That said, I keep wondering whether any good that could come of this could be upended by the provisions of the TPP, if it's enacted. I'm not clear on whether corporate interests can trump those of all humanity, as some have suggested, but if they can, it turns the climate meeting into a farce.
Not sure how that would be measured, but doesn't it seem we're past the point of having the luxury of time to ramp up our governmental awareness of this looming disaster of all disasters? Frankly, the only thing that will denote real success to me is concrete action, caps and deadlines and much more, enacted and imposed universally. There is no reason to exempt China, India, or Brazil; we enjoyed an industrial age without an understanding of its consequences. They now know the effect of unbridled industrialization, and their challenge is to grow and prosper without doing undue harm to the planet.
That said, I keep wondering whether any good that could come of this could be upended by the provisions of the TPP, if it's enacted. I'm not clear on whether corporate interests can trump those of all humanity, as some have suggested, but if they can, it turns the climate meeting into a farce.
14
My understanding is that Congressional Republicans and doubtless the presidential GOP hopefuls will take the opportunity to denounce climate change as a hoax and express their absolute opposition to any action on it. Like the planet, the stupid - it burns.
1
RC argues - misguidedly - that population growth trumps emission reduction as a policy priority. Why is there a tradeoff between these goals? Anjyway, with a slowdown in population growth already evident, the economic benefits of that slowdown had better be seen as an unanticipated stimulus for energy demand and carbon emissions. In short, we don't have the luxury of a neat compartmentilizatioj between climate and demographic analysis. Both need to be part of an integrated perspective.
The progress against global warming is discouraging, but just the fact of the Paris conference is encouraging. While waiting for our leaders to catch up, we can, individually:
Buy local
Eat less meat
Reduce-Recycle-Reuse
Plant a tree/Save a tree
Unplug chargers and computers when not in use
Avoid overnight charging
Install solar panels
Weather seal windows and doors
Buy energy efficient appliances
Web surf for more on energy conservation
Join local groups and become agents for change
Write your elected officials
Register to vote and VOTE
I'm retired, I have enough, and I'd like to just play with the grandson, read for pleasure, cook and sew and make flowers grow. But to be able to look that grandson in the eye, I must do whatever I can, in whatever small way I can, whenever I can, to be part of the change necessary for him and all the children to have a chance at a decent and good future. We really do owe it to them...and to ourselves.
Buy local
Eat less meat
Reduce-Recycle-Reuse
Plant a tree/Save a tree
Unplug chargers and computers when not in use
Avoid overnight charging
Install solar panels
Weather seal windows and doors
Buy energy efficient appliances
Web surf for more on energy conservation
Join local groups and become agents for change
Write your elected officials
Register to vote and VOTE
I'm retired, I have enough, and I'd like to just play with the grandson, read for pleasure, cook and sew and make flowers grow. But to be able to look that grandson in the eye, I must do whatever I can, in whatever small way I can, whenever I can, to be part of the change necessary for him and all the children to have a chance at a decent and good future. We really do owe it to them...and to ourselves.
22
I am looking for the perfect amount of industrial development, jet travel, SUV use, taxation, and curbs on other freedoms that result in an increase in temperatures of between 1.35 and 1.45 degrees.....what a farce this is. I would like to know the premium at Paris 5 star hotels during this meeting of the noblemen to save the planet.
17
I think a lot of the problem is that many countries have the position - "In order to stop global warming in 50 years we have to give up our chance at prosperity now. We are just now lifting ourselves out of poverty and you want us to cut back?"
What the developed countries can do is to quickly develop technology for green power production and transportation, then find a way to make it affordable to the developing world. Carbon based fuels (wood, peat, coal, oil, natural gas) are used because they are the cheapest way to get the power countries need to lift themselves out of poverty. We need to give them an inexpensive, green alternative that doesn't require a PhD to use. They don't have the resources to do the research and development work needed, but we do. It can be our gift to the world.
What the developed countries can do is to quickly develop technology for green power production and transportation, then find a way to make it affordable to the developing world. Carbon based fuels (wood, peat, coal, oil, natural gas) are used because they are the cheapest way to get the power countries need to lift themselves out of poverty. We need to give them an inexpensive, green alternative that doesn't require a PhD to use. They don't have the resources to do the research and development work needed, but we do. It can be our gift to the world.
5
If they cannot even feed themselves, let alone have enough jobs to go around, how do you expect them to pay for the hundreds of millions of solar panels that they will have to install?
And where would you put them in cities...like Calcutta or Mogadishu, or anywhere else in the over-crowded, under-developed third world?
Please be specific in your answer.
And where would you put them in cities...like Calcutta or Mogadishu, or anywhere else in the over-crowded, under-developed third world?
Please be specific in your answer.
Simple solution. Just convince Trump that this is a problem and he will promise to build a dome over the United States, thus solving too problems at once.
The utter recklessness of the "drill baby drill" people, who control the levers of our government would burn up every bit of carbon fuel as fast as possible if they could. Leaving nothing for our posterity but ruin and the apocalypse so widely predicted by these very same people. No rational person should talk about a "right to life" in the hellish cauldron we will be leaving after we are gone. The "me" generation's greed and profligacy isn't sustainable but we don't care. And, just want it all now, with no thought of a future for the cute babies they say that they care so much about. We can only thank our founders that they cared for the future and lament our present despicable actions. Who could possibly care about a shiny new car when we see the decay of Detroit, the crumbling roads that car is supposed to ride on and the filth that oil use pollutes our world with, at every step in the process.
7
Are you willing to shift to nuclear power?
There certainly isn't enough land to switch the world to solar.
And, what do you really think reflecting all of that heat back into the atmosphere is really going to do to global temperatures, bring on another ice age?
There certainly isn't enough land to switch the world to solar.
And, what do you really think reflecting all of that heat back into the atmosphere is really going to do to global temperatures, bring on another ice age?
In addition to the suggestions in this article, the conference should also set strict limits on population growth in non-industrialized nations. Those countries should also pledge to forgo widespread adoption of electricity-sucking appliances, like air conditioning, televisions and washing machines.
2
They should also forgo factories and assembly plants that provide jobs for their citizens and money for food for their tables.
After all, we have to assure President Obama place in history ! !
After all, we have to assure President Obama place in history ! !
My impression from talking to people is that there are a few hot button issues that they really get animated about. These are typically things like who did what at the office, who they are dating, what their dog or their kids did or their last trip to the dentist or almost-fight over a parking spot. Climate change is usually not on the list. People may nod politely and listen and pretend to care. But they don't. The inadequacy of the proposed guidelines compared to what is needed is the consequence of this.
2100 is going to be hot, hot, hot. People living then will have to deal with it.
2100 is going to be hot, hot, hot. People living then will have to deal with it.
9
Fear motivates our taking action. Because of a terrorist attack - abroad, not even in the U.S. - we have federal & state legislators and governors and political candidates all refusing to allow Syrian refugees to settle in America. The fear of being injured or killed by a terrorist is an over reaction. Unreasonable and yet causing serious reactions. On the other hand global warming that will cause more severe weather and flooded coasts just hasn't garnered the fear a terrorist is able to do. A shortage of food in our markets and limitations on our use of water might get our attention! But then it will be too late to stop Mother Nature. Everyone will want to know why nothing was done? Our politicians and the CEOs of many corporations must stop denying or focusing only on the bottom line. They need to - no, must - provide the leadership necessary to limit the warming process.
14
The Koch Brothers and Mitch McConnell, the coal barons' front man, don't think there's a problem. And that's enough for the Republican-dominated Congress. All that matters to them is profits today, profits tomorrow, and profits forever. Until the Earth gives a final groan and is incinerated.
23
If the Earth DOES warm catastrophically within the next 100 years then it will be the first time in history that the side of truth is also the side of blatant propaganda, polemics, smear campaigns, alarmism, and general refusal to engage even in simple conversation with skeptics despite decade long requests by the latter.
You don't have to be a scientist or even particularly intelligent to recognize deception.
Don't believe me? Please keep in mind which side of the debate has literally for the incarceration of those who aren't buying the hypothesis. That should make anyone question what they have been told.
You don't have to be a scientist or even particularly intelligent to recognize deception.
Don't believe me? Please keep in mind which side of the debate has literally for the incarceration of those who aren't buying the hypothesis. That should make anyone question what they have been told.
10
For rational beings that conversation's been had - rational skeptics in the scientific community number in the 1 - 3% range, depending upon your definition of rational. Those numbers say that any remaining conversation's not a "debate" about warming; rather, it's a parsing of just how warm that warming will be.
Other thought: at the heart of all of this lies the still-runaway population that is us. Any planning that doesn't figure on our numbers is no planning at all. Seen from that point of view, warming looks like a process to shrug off some of this blanket of us.
Other thought: at the heart of all of this lies the still-runaway population that is us. Any planning that doesn't figure on our numbers is no planning at all. Seen from that point of view, warming looks like a process to shrug off some of this blanket of us.
sky, your message is a bit cloudy, please don't try to tell us that the skeptics are the ones that deserve the hand-holding and they are the ones that deserve to be coddled and taught over and over again that the scientists are indeed correct, that humans really are contributing to a warming planet and they have the ability to control that contribution. please don't tell us that the skeptics haven't been convinced because there isn't enough evidence, sky, that would be rather ignorant don't you think?
Does science have an ax to grind? If it does, it gets by me. Do the deniers have an ax to grind? Of course! Led by the fossil fuel industry, climate change has been politicized almost perfectly, with PAC funds and campaign contributions flowing to faith-based deniers (James Inhofe) to just plain political opportunists on the right. The propaganda, of necessity, flows from those who have a compelling interest here. Almost a perfect mirror of the tobacco industry's defense of smoking, don't you think?
It seems patently obvious by now that nothing less than am almost immediate worldwide revolution ushering in a new economic system and, to be frank, a new sense of complete brotherhood of man, could do anything realistic to stave off otherwise total doom and catastrophe. We have to start this today.
19
"to stave off otherwise total doom and catastrophe. "
Total Doom? You seem like a bit of an alarmist.
"immediate worldwide revolution ushering in a new economic system"
So you would use "Climate Change" (the settled science that was recently renamed from Global Warming perhaps because the warming it was based on leveled off for more than the last decade) as an excuse to have a world wide revolution to replace the economic system. Revolutions where governments control the means of production have typically been violent and oppressive. Consider the revolution toward communism of Russia, China, and Cuba that occurred in the last century.
Climate change does occur, and some part of that change is due to man, but I do not accept predictions of "total doom". Total Doom is what would occur as a result of a world wide revolution toward totalitarian communism.
Climate Change seems to be used as an excuse for extensive government power growth and economic reform, rather than to objectively focusing on improving the human condition.
John
Total Doom? You seem like a bit of an alarmist.
"immediate worldwide revolution ushering in a new economic system"
So you would use "Climate Change" (the settled science that was recently renamed from Global Warming perhaps because the warming it was based on leveled off for more than the last decade) as an excuse to have a world wide revolution to replace the economic system. Revolutions where governments control the means of production have typically been violent and oppressive. Consider the revolution toward communism of Russia, China, and Cuba that occurred in the last century.
Climate change does occur, and some part of that change is due to man, but I do not accept predictions of "total doom". Total Doom is what would occur as a result of a world wide revolution toward totalitarian communism.
Climate Change seems to be used as an excuse for extensive government power growth and economic reform, rather than to objectively focusing on improving the human condition.
John
As a statistically insignificant person my focus at the micro level is to habituate to less consumption and to risk social stigma in my daily interactions at work, at the grocery store, etc. in the effort.
9
you should be proud and not ashamed, go forth with vigor and certitude, like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.
The problem in my view would be a strong commitment to a mind-frame free from constant, deep-seated, insurmountable contradictory attitudes that have been permeating many meetings and, I feel, will many more in the future. This issue is felt globally: the world over. So, as everybody is trying to put a stop to rising temperatures, so is everybody denying it; as many are devising common-sense apparatuses to battle it, others are exploiting the brouhaha with little or no results. In other words you see enlightened minds coming to the rescue of a very sick planet, but the minute you learn about it, others not so enlightened are destroying what the good ones are attempting to do, contemporaneously: so much is being saved, so much is being sabotaged; if this is the trend, then we are bound to reach the point of no return inexorably.
5
Soak the poor! They will lose their coal mining and oil production jobs and have to pay more for everything while investors and corporations will be "enlisted" without it being specified what that even means. Why must green policy be built on the backs of the poor?
16
In Paris I am hoping a goal of 1.55 and 1.56 degree increase in global temperature is set for the year 2040....I am wondering what the allowable mixture of population, industrial development, SUV usage, cow flatulence will be? This is all absurd, what exactly is the premium at the Ritz-Carlton of Paris during this festival to save the world. What scientist, or political hack would ever stop the $1.5 trillion gravy train that is the climate industry. Eisenhower warned us once.
14
Again, we see the spewing of thousands of tons of pollution into the atmosphere for Obama to fly to Paris and to return in a forlorn attempt to achieve the unachievable and unworkable.
I just returned from a 30 day international cruise. This was the kind of cruise where you have dinner each evening with people you don't know. There was much conversation about terrorism, about politics, about health issues and, of course, travel. But, even with passengers from sixteen different countries, the subject of global warming , in my presence, never was mentioned. Until the general public becomes interested in climate change the likelihood of any progress in this area are slight.
14
I just returned for a 21 day cruise to South Georgia in the Antarctic Ocean,
a very icy place that has lost some ice in the last 200 years.
This was a small cruise, on 78 passengers, but on it there was no political discussion at all, especially on "global warming".
a very icy place that has lost some ice in the last 200 years.
This was a small cruise, on 78 passengers, but on it there was no political discussion at all, especially on "global warming".
Did you bring it up? That would have been 30 dinners with a rotating cast that would have at least mentioned the topic. It is these individual opportunities, small as they might seem, that have the potential to move the conversation.
16 countries you say. A missed opportunity perhaps. Just a thought.
16 countries you say. A missed opportunity perhaps. Just a thought.
The premise that it is possible to negotiate an international agreement, and that it will accurately address the nature of this scientific problem, has lost a great deal of credibility.
The search for alternative fuels, and the resolution of clearly identified local impacts, has gained.
The search for alternative fuels, and the resolution of clearly identified local impacts, has gained.
3
Assuming that other developed nations have a subset of climate change deniers such as we have here, this will be a tough row to hoe indeed. Right now the GOP candidates for POTUS are using terrorism as the foil suggesting that being concerned about the climate is absurd given the threat from ISIS and its ilk. The problem with that track, of course, is that the climate issue does not go on hold while we deal with other difficulties. In my lifetime, there have been a string of wars and international issues. If we put climate on the back burner (pun intended) every time someone sets off a bomb, shoots up a room, or uses a funny-business financial instrument to cause havoc, we will never get to it - to our own peril.
In the past 30 years, most of the population has gone from tossing everything in the landfill to recycling pretty well. We are trainable and can change, but we need leaders, laws, and policies to help us change our habits to help the environment. If we do not move now, it will soon be too late.
In the past 30 years, most of the population has gone from tossing everything in the landfill to recycling pretty well. We are trainable and can change, but we need leaders, laws, and policies to help us change our habits to help the environment. If we do not move now, it will soon be too late.
4
Interesting, isn't it, that there are a growing number of rather elite scientists are beginning to challenge the disturbing trend of fudging data "to compensate" for factors that have little rational behind "the fudge".
The changes have resulted in massive distortions and highly debatable conclusions.
One can make very solid arguments if one is allowed to change the data to reflect the assumptions made prior to the collection of the data "proof".
The changes have resulted in massive distortions and highly debatable conclusions.
One can make very solid arguments if one is allowed to change the data to reflect the assumptions made prior to the collection of the data "proof".
1
Our economy has made it possible to enjoy "tropical fruit" in the wintertime, to sift through dozens of options in personal care products to find the ONE that really suits ME, to have the universe of entertainment at my fingertips, to have access to countless pleasures with hardly an effort, and so on.
Here's my take: such a state of affairs is unnatural. Life is inherently difficult and to create a landscape where it it seems otherwise - even if it's a fiction! - exacts a debt that will have to balane against the credits. In the past century and a half we have used the deposited energy of eons of sunshine to create "the good life" and now nature is going to balance itself.
Here's my take: such a state of affairs is unnatural. Life is inherently difficult and to create a landscape where it it seems otherwise - even if it's a fiction! - exacts a debt that will have to balane against the credits. In the past century and a half we have used the deposited energy of eons of sunshine to create "the good life" and now nature is going to balance itself.
5
Why is there never any mention of individual responsibility? Diminishing climate pollution is not just a national task but an individual task. Whether they wish to or not, people in the developing world are doing a brilliant job - they are responsible for only very low emissions of climate-killing gases. It's people in the West who have to step up, starting for example with my work colleagues, who collectively are very concerned about global warming, but who think nothing of driving to work day after day, all by themselves, hauling along their ton and a half of metal and plastic, even though there is good public transport and an excellent ride-sharing program available. Let's forget about national tasks for a while and talk about individual responsibility.
9
Paris has already been scripted to play out as a tragedy for the world because it is based on at least two false premises. One is that there is any realistic hope at this late date of preventing a global temperature rise over 2ºC. Forget it. Our chances for that are long gone, and all the scenarios that claim to make that still possible are based either on bad math or on overly optimistic hopes for technologies that do not yet exist and at scales that are probably physically unachievable. The other false premise is that serious climate change mitigation can occur without major disruptions in the lifestyles of the people in rich countries.
The greatest obstacle until now to recognizing the seriousness and urgency of the world's climate crisis and doing something effective about it has been the United States, its Neanderthal Congress, its government that is owned and controlled by giant fossil energy companies, and its smug and over-consuming citizens who have calculated that however many island and low-lying coastal nations are lost to the sea, however many killing droughts destroy the agriculture of Africa and Asia, however many millions of climate refugees appear, somehow Americans will still be safe to keep on driving to their supermarkets, flying off to their conferences and vacations, and heating their oversize houses.
Population? Of course it matters, but it is the per capita consumption and carbon emissions of that population that really matter.
The greatest obstacle until now to recognizing the seriousness and urgency of the world's climate crisis and doing something effective about it has been the United States, its Neanderthal Congress, its government that is owned and controlled by giant fossil energy companies, and its smug and over-consuming citizens who have calculated that however many island and low-lying coastal nations are lost to the sea, however many killing droughts destroy the agriculture of Africa and Asia, however many millions of climate refugees appear, somehow Americans will still be safe to keep on driving to their supermarkets, flying off to their conferences and vacations, and heating their oversize houses.
Population? Of course it matters, but it is the per capita consumption and carbon emissions of that population that really matter.
6
This is not a game you can play out by waiting. This is like building a savings account over a lifetime, only instead of us ending up with a miniscule retirement accounts, we are headed for a potential global disaster. The compounded warming of gases already in the atmosphere builds up as we fail to take serious action. The clock is ticking. And yes, we should work on both the overpopulation and over-consumption fronts. The eternal economic growth model was always going to take us to a really bad place in the end. Of course, runaway global warming will eventually take care of both of those issues for us, if we once more opt for business as usual.
1
One of the most concrete things that could be done here is to make a real commitment to using nuclear energy. Responsible analysts published in the Times yesterday that the United States would have met carbon goals long ago had they carried out plans to build more nuclear plants starting in the 1970s. While environmentalists correctly point out that the nuclear accidents we have had so far are potentially dangerous, many more lives have been lost by continuing to burn coal in place of using nuclear power.
3
The US might be the most straitjacketed country of all when it come to taking positive action. The Republican controlled legislative branch is already promising to derail any promises Obama might make in Paris. And for them it is the rationale thing to do, since they consider global warming a hoax. Step one is to convince them otherwise.
I think the Cold War is most similar situation to the potential global warming catastrophes. The US and the Soviet Union somehow came to the conclusion that a stable world required highly sophisticated and diverse weapon systems that could totally annihilate the other side - damage to external populations considered collateral damage. And to prepare for that unfortunate moment, should it come, no resources were spared. And there was no political opposition of any consequence here, of course, in the USSR. Trillions were spent without much of a
gasp. The objective was always clear - capacity for mutual annihilation on a moments notice.
The global warming enemy differs from the Cold War enemies in that it has already started it's attack and has every intention to proceed to the annihilation stage, if not stopped. The Cold War model of expending massive resources in very diverse ways for a singular objective is what it will take to beat global warming. Rich countries will have to expend resources that will benefit poor countries, but they'll remain rich.
First thing, of course, is to convince the Republicans that it is not a hoax.
I think the Cold War is most similar situation to the potential global warming catastrophes. The US and the Soviet Union somehow came to the conclusion that a stable world required highly sophisticated and diverse weapon systems that could totally annihilate the other side - damage to external populations considered collateral damage. And to prepare for that unfortunate moment, should it come, no resources were spared. And there was no political opposition of any consequence here, of course, in the USSR. Trillions were spent without much of a
gasp. The objective was always clear - capacity for mutual annihilation on a moments notice.
The global warming enemy differs from the Cold War enemies in that it has already started it's attack and has every intention to proceed to the annihilation stage, if not stopped. The Cold War model of expending massive resources in very diverse ways for a singular objective is what it will take to beat global warming. Rich countries will have to expend resources that will benefit poor countries, but they'll remain rich.
First thing, of course, is to convince the Republicans that it is not a hoax.
1
Any suggested framework to tackle the problem must be egalitarian, that is, it must be based on per person usage of goods and services that have given rise to the global warming. One can not expect, as sometimes back a Chinese delegate to a related conference succinctly observed, on a plan which will not allow the developing world individual even to ride on a bus while here we, in the developed world profligately waste energy and resources. Per capita amount should be the core of the negotiated agreement on any framework. One has to remain optimistic, for the major developing countries are very eager to move ahead, and each of them has come out with great and ambitious alternate energy schemes, but they will of course need substantial help from the developed world in realizing these schemes.
3
Jimmy Carter understood where the world was headed back in the 1970's. He was mostly focused on reducing our need for fossil fuels, but had we employed half of what he proposed, this country would have led the way in reducing our dependence on those fuels, and led the way to alleviating climate change by coming up with alternative fuels had we put research dollars to work. Alternative fuels are all but forgotten now. I am afraid that even if we do start to seriously reduce the carbon load on the planet, it is too much. too little, too late.
1
Regrettably the editorial does not pick up the main point that has been made in the piece on carbon budgets in your paper. When there is a global carbon budget, the only sensible way to proceed is to apportion this budget among nations in a fair and equitable fashion. What the specifics of such apportioning can be may be negotiated among countries, but such an approach would satisfy both the developing countries' desire for an equitable climate deal as well as the developed nations' desire that all nations must have definite commitments in terms of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions. My colleagues and I at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India have written extensively on this over the last five years, and some of this work may be accessed at http://climate.tiss.edu.
I am fairly sure that if a carbon budget is not the basis for an agreement today, it will become so in the years to come. This is a scientific necessity. I do wish that your paper will throw its considerable weight behind an effort to match climate policy to a simple scientific truth.
I am fairly sure that if a carbon budget is not the basis for an agreement today, it will become so in the years to come. This is a scientific necessity. I do wish that your paper will throw its considerable weight behind an effort to match climate policy to a simple scientific truth.
3
France has already said that whatever comes out of the Paris Conference will not be legally binding. This concession was made as Kerry indicated that anything legally binding would be a treaty and such a treaty would not gain ratification approval in the US Senate.
So why are we wasting time and money to send Obama to this conference. We should just send Kerry and/of the head of the EPA. Nothing and done at Paris is worth the expense of sending Obama to the conference. Too much money is spent already in Obama's world wide travels. With just a year left in his presidency, there is really not point in going to a conference which basically is of little import since whatever comes out of it will have little or no meaning in the US, legislatively speaking.
So why are we wasting time and money to send Obama to this conference. We should just send Kerry and/of the head of the EPA. Nothing and done at Paris is worth the expense of sending Obama to the conference. Too much money is spent already in Obama's world wide travels. With just a year left in his presidency, there is really not point in going to a conference which basically is of little import since whatever comes out of it will have little or no meaning in the US, legislatively speaking.
1
From a NYT article yesterday:
"If any serious push had been made ahead of Paris to divvy up the emissions budget, the negotiators 'would have all run screaming from the room,' said Michael A. Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York. 'So that’s not a real alternative.'
"The carbon budget will probably not get much attention in Paris for simple reasons. Wrestling with a budget would, for instance, throw into stark relief the global inequities at the heart of the climate crisis. And it would underscore just how big the problem really is, how costly the delay in tackling it has been and how inadequate the plans being discussed in Paris are for limiting the risks."
In other words, the carbon budget won't get any attention because it's THE essential requirement. Given that the CFR is run by the oil money and big banks, its dismissal of doing the real work is no surprise. The baby steps that Paris is apparently limited to must eventually evolve to kicking out the conflict-of-interest bearing energy industry and the banks. Since as central components of the deep state they own the governments, that won't happen.
Prepare for toast. Low-lying countries would be advised to prepare full evacuation and refugee plans. We think we have problems with Syrian refugees now; half the world will be refugees by 2100. It will be chaos, maybe the Armageddon so desired by some. How ironic that some of the early oil trusts were built by Christian extremists.
"If any serious push had been made ahead of Paris to divvy up the emissions budget, the negotiators 'would have all run screaming from the room,' said Michael A. Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York. 'So that’s not a real alternative.'
"The carbon budget will probably not get much attention in Paris for simple reasons. Wrestling with a budget would, for instance, throw into stark relief the global inequities at the heart of the climate crisis. And it would underscore just how big the problem really is, how costly the delay in tackling it has been and how inadequate the plans being discussed in Paris are for limiting the risks."
In other words, the carbon budget won't get any attention because it's THE essential requirement. Given that the CFR is run by the oil money and big banks, its dismissal of doing the real work is no surprise. The baby steps that Paris is apparently limited to must eventually evolve to kicking out the conflict-of-interest bearing energy industry and the banks. Since as central components of the deep state they own the governments, that won't happen.
Prepare for toast. Low-lying countries would be advised to prepare full evacuation and refugee plans. We think we have problems with Syrian refugees now; half the world will be refugees by 2100. It will be chaos, maybe the Armageddon so desired by some. How ironic that some of the early oil trusts were built by Christian extremists.
8
Climate change is not a new theme in any specified environment. It has been an important problem for many years, which needs larger attention, care and solution. The global warming, green house effect and melting of the Himalayan and other glaciers, all are related with this issue. Rapid and uneven industrialization and high growth rate of population are the major reasons for the climate change. These lead to change the entire environment in many different ways. The climate change has an ability to change the ecological balance in the world. That’s why it is necessary to observe and study these climate related changes. Otherwise it can harm the balance between the environmental system and ecological cycle. The ecological balance can be disturbed due to the climate change, if there is no permanent solution for it.
Isn't it the height of hubris to suggest that you are immune to the laws of nature?
Just how many ice ages have there been?
How many times have the north and south poles changed places?
Didn't the seas once cover the Great Plains and the Steppes of Central Asia?
Time passes, and the world changes. Time to be thankful that you live in a time when...well...er...you can be alive.
Everything else is well outside of your abilities to control or even influence.
Just how many ice ages have there been?
How many times have the north and south poles changed places?
Didn't the seas once cover the Great Plains and the Steppes of Central Asia?
Time passes, and the world changes. Time to be thankful that you live in a time when...well...er...you can be alive.
Everything else is well outside of your abilities to control or even influence.
Dear US city dwellers, we in Paris have a great way of saving energy in our apartment buildings. It's called "la minuterie". When you enter a building you turn on the light that is linked to a timer. The light is on for two minutes and then automatically is switched off. Perhaps big US cities could install this device. It would save loads of energy. I would also invite Americans to turn off lights in rooms they are not using. This too, can save extra energy and lower your energy bill. Per inhabitant, the United States is the highest producer of dioxide carbon. So any effort to reduce your consumption per inhabitant will have great impact. You can also reduce size portions of meat and turn to bicycles for short driving distances.
7
Life or death questions are now facing human civilization.
The architecture that grew out of the Industrial Revolution on which free and open capital markets today justify their value to society and find their “raison d’etre" is shaking under its own weight. It is about to bring humanity down with it. Planet earth is telling us something.
A methodology that could become a final solution is possible. By factoring negative external cost into every originating carbon based energy related trade both domestically and internationally; over a ten year period carbon would be eliminated as a world-wide energy source. This could be accomplished within the established framework of the world capital market carbon trading system. It is the only way that buyers can be made to recognize the actual external cost of what that they are purchasing and consuming.
This approach is congruent with the functioning of our existing capital market system. By factoring negative external cost into every originating carbon-based energy related trade, the greater built-in cost would become a part of the cost of production up and down the line and add to final price.
Given the fact that carbon in its various forms is today traded on a world-wide basis, this can be accomplished nation by nation through an international body similar the ones that have formed since the end of World War II.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
The architecture that grew out of the Industrial Revolution on which free and open capital markets today justify their value to society and find their “raison d’etre" is shaking under its own weight. It is about to bring humanity down with it. Planet earth is telling us something.
A methodology that could become a final solution is possible. By factoring negative external cost into every originating carbon based energy related trade both domestically and internationally; over a ten year period carbon would be eliminated as a world-wide energy source. This could be accomplished within the established framework of the world capital market carbon trading system. It is the only way that buyers can be made to recognize the actual external cost of what that they are purchasing and consuming.
This approach is congruent with the functioning of our existing capital market system. By factoring negative external cost into every originating carbon-based energy related trade, the greater built-in cost would become a part of the cost of production up and down the line and add to final price.
Given the fact that carbon in its various forms is today traded on a world-wide basis, this can be accomplished nation by nation through an international body similar the ones that have formed since the end of World War II.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
5
Have you relinquished your SUV or cell phone yet? Are you still burning fossil fuel to heat your home?
Are you growing your own fruits and vegetables?
Raise your own chickens, beef. and hogs?
Do a lot of fishing?
Given up books and newspapers? Television? Computers?
When you, do, then come back and give us your lecture.
Are you growing your own fruits and vegetables?
Raise your own chickens, beef. and hogs?
Do a lot of fishing?
Given up books and newspapers? Television? Computers?
When you, do, then come back and give us your lecture.
1
The reason I'm optimistic about the Paris conference's chances of success is that the biggest emitters are now starting to see firsthand the effects of ignoring the consequences of pollution. In China, I suspect what led the government to reverse course and agree to tackle climate change is that leaders in Peking have friends and relatives with children or other loved ones who are suffering from asthma and bronchitis, two diseases that can be caused by or worsened by dirty air.
There are also basic statistics regarding natural resources that are being depleted. If both land and marine life continue to be wiped out, not only due to human over-eating, but also climate change, then worldwide starvation will become a real problem, one that countries like China and India cannot ignore. The U.S. may become the last country to be affected by the destruction of thousands of species that are integral to ecosystems across the globe, but the poorest Americans will suffer too, and the rich will have to cut back steadily.
Venality and fatuousness will continue to drive GOP senators and congressmen in the pocket of Big Oil and the coal industry to harm their country, their children, and their children, but if people of goodwill ensure good voter turnout in 2016 so that the James Inhofes of the world are marginalized, we may have a chance to protect future generations from the possibility of extinction.
There are also basic statistics regarding natural resources that are being depleted. If both land and marine life continue to be wiped out, not only due to human over-eating, but also climate change, then worldwide starvation will become a real problem, one that countries like China and India cannot ignore. The U.S. may become the last country to be affected by the destruction of thousands of species that are integral to ecosystems across the globe, but the poorest Americans will suffer too, and the rich will have to cut back steadily.
Venality and fatuousness will continue to drive GOP senators and congressmen in the pocket of Big Oil and the coal industry to harm their country, their children, and their children, but if people of goodwill ensure good voter turnout in 2016 so that the James Inhofes of the world are marginalized, we may have a chance to protect future generations from the possibility of extinction.
38
On the basis of voluntarily submitted carbon emission limiting targets and recognising the principle of the common but differentiated responsibilities if, the Paris climate summit comes to agree on a legally binding protocol that aims to promote climate change goals through fine balancing the adaptation and mitigation strategies, the summit would have achieved the basic purpose of holding such world conferences on the pressing global problems.
Human fossil fuels use has no material effect on climate. Carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Patrick Moore's recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.
There is no definitive evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.
CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.
Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). For more detail see the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad.
Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.
There is no definitive evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.
CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.
Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). For more detail see the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad.
Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.
11
"What the Paris Climate Meeting Must Do" Embrace birth control and nuclear power.
26
There is this fixation about saving the planet. The planet will adapt to climate warming, to climate disruption and even climate colapse. The planet will do OK. It has survived extreme climate change, meteorites and solar winds. Dynausaurs have been less fortunate. Humankind coud be next. We spend money looking for life on Mars and even more money destroying life on earth. Past conferences have not produce the global commitment required to address climate issues. Lets hope and pray that the Paris conference produces tangible results. The point of no return is not to far away.
6
The most important act of the Paris Climate Summit will of course be planning for the next one. They have been to Kyoto. Rio and now Paris. Where to go next, where to go? Somewhere more third wordlish than Rio (shh, don't tell the Brazilians I said that). Maybe Bali? Tahiti?
5
Las Vegas would be best!
No to a treaty on climate change. It's a hoax... NONE of these global climate change scientists can tell anyone what a "normal" climate is. Is it the climate from 10 years ago? 100 years ago? or 1000 years ago? Climate change is caused by that big yellow ball in the sky called the sun. China created like 500 coal fired plants over the last few years and I do not feel several degrees warmer. Last year we had the coldest temperatures in a long time.
9
Consider.
Below in a graph, are 3 items, the records of the ocean cycle known as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) the AMO (Atlantic MultiDecadal Oscillation) and the complete satellite data set from NASA funded RSS, once you account the natural cycles PDO and AMO - the NASA funded RSS data set merely replicates these since 1979 (as these, not C02 are the primary longer-term climate drivers.
In other words, while there may be a C02 effect, it is so small as to be dwarfed by natural variation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/esrl-amo/plot/rss
A better question then is - What can Paris do? The clear answer, unless it can stop natural cycles of entire oceans, not much.
Here in another graph (hadCRUT4 -The Met Office) one can see the clear lack of material acceleration as to warming, impossible assuming the IPCC position as to C02's ability to add or cause warming when reconciled with climbing C02 emissions since the 1970's (reflected in the graph that data from NOAA):
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0895c136970d-pi
Below in a graph, are 3 items, the records of the ocean cycle known as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) the AMO (Atlantic MultiDecadal Oscillation) and the complete satellite data set from NASA funded RSS, once you account the natural cycles PDO and AMO - the NASA funded RSS data set merely replicates these since 1979 (as these, not C02 are the primary longer-term climate drivers.
In other words, while there may be a C02 effect, it is so small as to be dwarfed by natural variation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/esrl-amo/plot/rss
A better question then is - What can Paris do? The clear answer, unless it can stop natural cycles of entire oceans, not much.
Here in another graph (hadCRUT4 -The Met Office) one can see the clear lack of material acceleration as to warming, impossible assuming the IPCC position as to C02's ability to add or cause warming when reconciled with climbing C02 emissions since the 1970's (reflected in the graph that data from NOAA):
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0895c136970d-pi
9
The French writer Anais Nin once said " Life expands or contracts according to your courage". For our leaders in Paris right now we could say that "Life exists or will not exist according to your courage". It is a time for bravery indeed, sometimes that bravery may be putting your "career" second to the imperitive of saving the human race.
10
I am highly skeptical that the Paris Climate Meeting, called in the French Press COP21 or "the 21st Conference of the parties", will lead anywhere. The expected some 150 to 190 heads of state represent not only extremely different economies and political regimes, but most of them are not scientists who musty rely on others' advice.
They are all focused on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How many of them know that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor? They might as well have followed Psalm 37:3: "Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shall you dwell in the land, and verily you shall be fed".
They are all focused on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How many of them know that the main greenhouse gas is water vapor? They might as well have followed Psalm 37:3: "Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shall you dwell in the land, and verily you shall be fed".
5
Tuvw Xyz,
The reason why heads of state are concerned about carbon dioxide is that they are listening to climate scientists. Those scientists have explained that warming caused by increased water vapor is a feedback to that caused by CO2.
That's because CO2 released by burning fossil fuels causes the atmosphere to retain more heat, increasing the temperature. The increased temperature causes more water to evaporate, and the added water vapor also retains heat. But the extra water vapor rains out within days or weeks, while the added CO2 will be drawn down very slowly, with much of it remaining in the atmosphere for centuries, keeping temperatures high. Without the increased CO2, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would quickly return to previous levels, along with the temperature.
Really, the basic science of anthropogenic climate change is pretty simple. Once you grasp it, it's harder to be fooled by pseudo-skeptical disinformers, who are ultimately working for the people who've made fortunes by privatizing the benefits of fossil energy while socializing the costs of climate change.
The reason why heads of state are concerned about carbon dioxide is that they are listening to climate scientists. Those scientists have explained that warming caused by increased water vapor is a feedback to that caused by CO2.
That's because CO2 released by burning fossil fuels causes the atmosphere to retain more heat, increasing the temperature. The increased temperature causes more water to evaporate, and the added water vapor also retains heat. But the extra water vapor rains out within days or weeks, while the added CO2 will be drawn down very slowly, with much of it remaining in the atmosphere for centuries, keeping temperatures high. Without the increased CO2, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would quickly return to previous levels, along with the temperature.
Really, the basic science of anthropogenic climate change is pretty simple. Once you grasp it, it's harder to be fooled by pseudo-skeptical disinformers, who are ultimately working for the people who've made fortunes by privatizing the benefits of fossil energy while socializing the costs of climate change.
1
Instead of wide-eyed hopefulness and earnest suggestions for what needs to be done, those in touch with reality start from the understanding that there is no sense of urgency in most of the world. Nothing of significance will happen in Paris and oblivious commentators who hope otherwise are part of the problem. The premise here should be that nobody really cares. And the goal should be how to make them care. I'm of the carrot and stick school. Reward those who make progress and penalize those who don't. The time for touchy feely polite commentary is long since past.
1
i'm a climate change believer, of course, but i'm not a docile one. the fact is that the climate change dogma embraces a pseudo-religious spirit with a the-facts-are-already-determined motto labels anyone that dares to blaspheme a piece of science as a Stone Ager, simpleton, or bigot. climate science is indisputable fact, says the scientists, forgetting that not long ago a flat earth was indisputable fact. science is supposed to question things, but any questioners of (recently determined) 'fact' is an apostate. that culture of intolerance, which parallels that which is so ubiquitous at these "free-thinking" (sarcasm) campuses, is at odds with pure, unadulterated liberalism.
once again, i believe in Climate Change, but i don't condone scientists calling other scientists heretics. oh my, the irony is strong!
once again, i believe in Climate Change, but i don't condone scientists calling other scientists heretics. oh my, the irony is strong!
7
Joseph,
Your claim to "believe" in climate change suggests that you can't distinguish between science and religion. You also appear to be judging science by your political ideology. If you got your information about climate change from primary scientific sources rather than mass media or pseudo-skeptical blogs, you'd have a much clear picture of the reality. For one thing, you won't see scientists calling other scientists "heretics" (except ironically, perhaps) in any peer-reviewed scientific venue.
Your claim to "believe" in climate change suggests that you can't distinguish between science and religion. You also appear to be judging science by your political ideology. If you got your information about climate change from primary scientific sources rather than mass media or pseudo-skeptical blogs, you'd have a much clear picture of the reality. For one thing, you won't see scientists calling other scientists "heretics" (except ironically, perhaps) in any peer-reviewed scientific venue.
1
Missing from this editorial about what "must be" done is one simple thing; what will these "must do" policies cost? Given, as acknowledged in this editorial ( a welcome change from the usual ignoring of this very important fact) that there is very little that can be done to limit temperature rise this century, shouldn't the proper question for policy makers be: what other urgent needs can we target instead of climate change, needs that when addressed will have an impact now?
Some needs that come to mind are:
a) improved sanitation for developing nations
b) improved access to safe drinking water
c) improved access to vaccines and medical treatment
d) improved transportation infrastructure in developing nations
All of these projects- and many others- improve the lives of people now at a cost certainly no more, and probably much less, than those thrown about in the name of 'climate change'. Not as sexy, and with little opportunity for the moral preening so evident among climate alarmists, but with a much greater impact at a much lower cost. Priorities, priorities, priorities.
As a final selling point: they can even have conferences in Rio and Paris to discuss progress and rub shoulders with celebrities and politicians if that will help.
Some needs that come to mind are:
a) improved sanitation for developing nations
b) improved access to safe drinking water
c) improved access to vaccines and medical treatment
d) improved transportation infrastructure in developing nations
All of these projects- and many others- improve the lives of people now at a cost certainly no more, and probably much less, than those thrown about in the name of 'climate change'. Not as sexy, and with little opportunity for the moral preening so evident among climate alarmists, but with a much greater impact at a much lower cost. Priorities, priorities, priorities.
As a final selling point: they can even have conferences in Rio and Paris to discuss progress and rub shoulders with celebrities and politicians if that will help.
10
These are priorities that should be tackled along with, not instead of, climate change. We can do both.
1
How can we expect governmental changes when we don't want to I've up anything ourselves? The Chinese and Indians want to be just as rich as we are. They do not yet know that we do not have enough.
Opinions sounds empty unless accompanied by real action. We are heading towards the cliff at 100 mph. Slowing down to 90mph will not change much.
Answers have to be real. www.forafuture.com.
Opinions sounds empty unless accompanied by real action. We are heading towards the cliff at 100 mph. Slowing down to 90mph will not change much.
Answers have to be real. www.forafuture.com.
3
I hate to be discouraging, but it is more than obvious that humanity in the aggregate is not going to do what is necessary until the wolf is literally at the door.
In the United States we have two political parties that pander monied interests, with the Democrats being somewhat less committed by giving lip service to the Liberal/Progressive wing of it's party before they sign off on essentially the same kinds of stuff. Republican and Republican Lite.
Corporate America is not going to clean up it's act unless it is required to and it is cheaper to buy politicians or pay fines than it is to comply with more stringent or properly enforced regulations. Politicians are all too happy to do the bidding of those who contribute to their campaigns.
Until we reform the way we finance elections, we will not be able to get any serious action regarding climate change with teeth and proper enforcement.
In the United States we have two political parties that pander monied interests, with the Democrats being somewhat less committed by giving lip service to the Liberal/Progressive wing of it's party before they sign off on essentially the same kinds of stuff. Republican and Republican Lite.
Corporate America is not going to clean up it's act unless it is required to and it is cheaper to buy politicians or pay fines than it is to comply with more stringent or properly enforced regulations. Politicians are all too happy to do the bidding of those who contribute to their campaigns.
Until we reform the way we finance elections, we will not be able to get any serious action regarding climate change with teeth and proper enforcement.
89
Not really. The Times' own poll showed that by a large margin (65-35%) those queried do not support measures such as carbon taxes to artificially raise fuel and electric rates to discourage use to halt Global Warming. Candidates who promote such a platform are routinely trounced.
5
Amen!
Humans are very special species. They kill each other and destroy the planet. How about World Climate Change Conference in Paris 2015 to curb harmful emissions? Any chance of success?
4
"Eventually, of course, all nations will have to improve on their pledges, especially big emitters like China, India and the United States. "
If the Editorial Board thinks any measure of success from the Paris summit will be an increased sense of urgency, then I believe the climate conference is doomed before it starts. I'm not saying this from a doomsday point of view, but from pragmatism: for starters, half the United States doesn't even believe the world is facing a problem!
And therein lies the problem. The Board's reasonable editorial--reasonable being a recognition that the perfect is the enemy of the good--is, I think, underestimating the moneyed opposition to even the minimal steps needed to slow down--not stop--the ravages of climate change. Even the Board admits scientists say most effects of climate change are no longer reversible, but the Republican majority in Congress all the same simply won't support any meaningful change. Hey, they even laugh at the concept, as that sorry example of a nonscientist, James Inhofe.
The end of this century seems like a long way off, I know. A lot can happen in that time, as new generations of leaders come of age. Perhaps they will be more beholden to data-driven science than what we have now in our crusty, carbon-loving officials on the right.
One can only hope but when the very idea of climate change is continually mocked, I just shake my head and say, "Houston we have a problem."
If the Editorial Board thinks any measure of success from the Paris summit will be an increased sense of urgency, then I believe the climate conference is doomed before it starts. I'm not saying this from a doomsday point of view, but from pragmatism: for starters, half the United States doesn't even believe the world is facing a problem!
And therein lies the problem. The Board's reasonable editorial--reasonable being a recognition that the perfect is the enemy of the good--is, I think, underestimating the moneyed opposition to even the minimal steps needed to slow down--not stop--the ravages of climate change. Even the Board admits scientists say most effects of climate change are no longer reversible, but the Republican majority in Congress all the same simply won't support any meaningful change. Hey, they even laugh at the concept, as that sorry example of a nonscientist, James Inhofe.
The end of this century seems like a long way off, I know. A lot can happen in that time, as new generations of leaders come of age. Perhaps they will be more beholden to data-driven science than what we have now in our crusty, carbon-loving officials on the right.
One can only hope but when the very idea of climate change is continually mocked, I just shake my head and say, "Houston we have a problem."
71
Excellent thoughts, and statements. Thank you
Not to too-cruelly burst the balloon that the editors seek to inflate, but all past efforts on climate issues haven’t amounted to a hill of beans except damaging the global competitiveness of the West without reducing the raucous issuing from environmental Chicken Littles of predictions heralding the imminent end of the world.
What makes the editors think that Paris has any chance of improving on that record? Their “must-do” prescriptions are merely a litany of requirements that similar efforts have failed dismally at securing in the past.
The basic problem with all of those efforts is that none has fashioned a PLAN that reduces atmospheric carbon synchronizing the efforts of ALL nations while mitigating the REALISTIC economic impacts of such a reduction – a mitigation that would require at least one and possibly two generations to effect. Not one of them.
The developing world as well as China and Russia will agree to anything then find excuses to renege, and any successful plan needs to address the economic reasons why this will happen and overcome them – almost certainly with global subsidies, which means a transfer of wealth from West and North to East and South. Not easy to do, but the only way anything of value will be accomplished.
In the meantime, the West doesn’t solve global climatic change problems alone by killing its middle classes to marginally clean up its own atmospheres when the problem is caused by a GLOBAL biosphere that others pollute mightily.
What makes the editors think that Paris has any chance of improving on that record? Their “must-do” prescriptions are merely a litany of requirements that similar efforts have failed dismally at securing in the past.
The basic problem with all of those efforts is that none has fashioned a PLAN that reduces atmospheric carbon synchronizing the efforts of ALL nations while mitigating the REALISTIC economic impacts of such a reduction – a mitigation that would require at least one and possibly two generations to effect. Not one of them.
The developing world as well as China and Russia will agree to anything then find excuses to renege, and any successful plan needs to address the economic reasons why this will happen and overcome them – almost certainly with global subsidies, which means a transfer of wealth from West and North to East and South. Not easy to do, but the only way anything of value will be accomplished.
In the meantime, the West doesn’t solve global climatic change problems alone by killing its middle classes to marginally clean up its own atmospheres when the problem is caused by a GLOBAL biosphere that others pollute mightily.
18
Richard,
The problem with "Climate Change" is it's not the real problem. The real problem is too many people with more each day. That problem won't even be discussed in Paris.
The problem with "Climate Change" is it's not the real problem. The real problem is too many people with more each day. That problem won't even be discussed in Paris.
3
Yeah, sure, nothing's changed in terms of ozone holes, smog, CAFE standards, cleaner water, handling of insecticides, recycling, solar, sanctuaries, or anything else since "Silent Spring."
Man, it's tiresome seeing you lot swear up and down that because we need to do more, we've never done anything.
Man, it's tiresome seeing you lot swear up and down that because we need to do more, we've never done anything.
In the 70s and 80s, there was much alarm about the growing hole in our ozone caused in large part by industrial products such as CFCs. CFCs were outlawed and humanity scored an incredible victory in actually closing the ozone hole. The victory against CFCs etc notwithstanding, in global warming climate change we're now up against something that we are ill-prepared to combat. First off, there is no possibility whatsoever of nations uniting to collectively do their part to stop climate change. Second, even within nation's interested in doing something to reverse climate change, many individuals and corporations are simply unwilling to bear the true cost in the way of revolutionary lifestyle changes needed stop global warming. So, we must accept the fact that global warming climate change is irreversible, largely because (while we know what must be done) we are simply not capable of doing the things needed to stop this. Obama and others, of course, should continue the good fight -- but, for now on, let's not shine people on into thinking we can stop this.
9
According to the planet's most experienced climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, we need a carbon tax/fee. It's the only way to reduce emissions rapidly.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20151127_Isolation.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20151127_Isolation.pdf
28
I am very pessimistic that the tipping point in catastrophic climate change had already occurred. Hansen's point is that carbon tax is a more effective strategy but Hansen does not offer much hope that it is currently adoptable.
Significant changes will not occur until almost all of mankind recognizes the need for global climate engineering and radical experiments can be tried and some found viable. This probably is unlikely before 2050. I do believe that we should try to mitigate CO2 and methane now. Whatever is done to reduce the quantity of these gases will be cost effective in the long run since extremely fast climate changes mean extremely costly more frequent disasters that will require extreme amounts of effort in response, e.g. Hurricane Sandy.
Significant changes will not occur until almost all of mankind recognizes the need for global climate engineering and radical experiments can be tried and some found viable. This probably is unlikely before 2050. I do believe that we should try to mitigate CO2 and methane now. Whatever is done to reduce the quantity of these gases will be cost effective in the long run since extremely fast climate changes mean extremely costly more frequent disasters that will require extreme amounts of effort in response, e.g. Hurricane Sandy.
2
Are climate scientists experts in economic policy?
The alarmist nature of this piece goes so far beyond what even climate change advocates espouse at this point to make it not just irrelevant, but laughable.
The "average" prediction of temperature rise from the various models trying to predict that phenomenon take into account that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have a far weaker impact than previously thought, so continued carbon emissions (and the resulting increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide) are much less a concern than this editorial suggests.
A good Chinese friend found the expression "Too clever by half" to be especially telling. Well, the unabashed advocates of actions to limit or reverse climate change are, themselves, too clever by half. They hew, without exception or willingness to hear those on the other side, to the view that the only reasonable, nay, even sane, course is to reduce and, ultimately, to end, carbon emissions.
In that sense, the climate change movement is a religion. It allows no dissent, it accepts no compromise.
Yet the reasonable among the most ardent supporters of climate change orthodoxy accept that there may actually be, despite the president's pronouncement, things that are more pressing than climate change. Terrorism may be one, but most surely the gargantuan federal debt is another. How can we leave a crushing debt to our children and their progeny in anything like good conscience?
The "average" prediction of temperature rise from the various models trying to predict that phenomenon take into account that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have a far weaker impact than previously thought, so continued carbon emissions (and the resulting increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide) are much less a concern than this editorial suggests.
A good Chinese friend found the expression "Too clever by half" to be especially telling. Well, the unabashed advocates of actions to limit or reverse climate change are, themselves, too clever by half. They hew, without exception or willingness to hear those on the other side, to the view that the only reasonable, nay, even sane, course is to reduce and, ultimately, to end, carbon emissions.
In that sense, the climate change movement is a religion. It allows no dissent, it accepts no compromise.
Yet the reasonable among the most ardent supporters of climate change orthodoxy accept that there may actually be, despite the president's pronouncement, things that are more pressing than climate change. Terrorism may be one, but most surely the gargantuan federal debt is another. How can we leave a crushing debt to our children and their progeny in anything like good conscience?
17
The federal debt is neither gargantuan not crushing -- See "Capital in the twenty-first Century" by Thomas Piketty. The world's citizens are being increasingly stressed by two forces:
1. The information technology revolution which is killing wage-based demand through labor cost reduction. This is also the principal driver of inequality and the rise of consumer credit to unsustainable levels.
2. A growing inability to provide sufficient food, water and living conditions to sustain existing political/economic systems. Climate change due to methane production from grazing animals and CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels are the leading causes.
.
1. The information technology revolution which is killing wage-based demand through labor cost reduction. This is also the principal driver of inequality and the rise of consumer credit to unsustainable levels.
2. A growing inability to provide sufficient food, water and living conditions to sustain existing political/economic systems. Climate change due to methane production from grazing animals and CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels are the leading causes.
.
3
There are many dangers to our survival from climate change that are not fully appreciated. The thawing permafrost from the northern latitudes is starting to release some of the enormous quantities of methane previously sequestered in the frozen ground. Methyl Hydrate deposites along frozen coastal shelves, another enormous source of sequestered methane, are predicted to come out of suspension. Methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse than CO2. Ocean acidification is beginning to destroy the oceans food chain from the bottom up. Melting/disappearing glaciers have implications for food production during dry seasons around the world. These are just a few of the many threats to our future survival. There are some predictions that 50 percent of the species living today will be extinct by the end of this century. In light of this consider how colony collapse disorder affecting just the survival of honey bees is affecting American agriculture (no pollinators = no crops). We need serious large scale changes to mitigate this impending disaster. At least we are trying but from what I see we are losing this race against time.
3
You suggest terrorism is a more pressing problem than global warming, but look at the land from which the greatest amount of terrorism springs: the middle east, where desertification threatens all life. Syrian drought is so extreme that civil war was inevitable. The survivors of the drought fight for the remains of a ruined land or flee it to find a more habitable place. Federal debt is to gross national product at a much lower proportion than a typical homeowner mortgage is to the annual homeowner income. You need to get real.
3
Whenever you see the 3.6F (2C) target warming for 2100 cited, it is important to realize that even if that were reached, global warming will continue for centuries afterwards, that is not the upper limit on where we are headed.
My own view is that humans are unable to make the kind of changes necessary on a voluntary basis, that greed and competition will prevail. We are now at 400ppm of CO2 and in a burn it all scenario we could hit 1,000ppm and be at a very elevated levels for tens of thousands of years. Game Over for large creatures like us.
My own view is that humans are unable to make the kind of changes necessary on a voluntary basis, that greed and competition will prevail. We are now at 400ppm of CO2 and in a burn it all scenario we could hit 1,000ppm and be at a very elevated levels for tens of thousands of years. Game Over for large creatures like us.
41
400 ppm is unusual for the earth. 1000 ppm is closer to the average atmospheric co2 level throughout earth's history.
1
What the Paris Climate Meeting WILL Do: Nothing. The participants will reach an agreement that doesn't commit any country to doing anything, unless there are lots of ways to later opt out.
15
I am so pleased that the Paris conference will proceed as planned, despite the terrorist attacks. Going on with this international meeting sends the right messages: first, that the world stands with France in defiance of the black flag and wish to paralyze the civil world with fear and, secondly, that we must have this summit because we do have a future and the viability of our planet, not the will of ISIS, makes possible.
10
A good first step would be to make carbon polluters pay for their toxic waste disposal.
Your home and business, and mine, have to pay for waste disposal.
As things stand Big Carbon and all the utilities that burn it, use our shared atmosphere and waters as their own FREE toxic waste dump.
And, it's killing us by the millions, and, endangering all life on the planet.
There should be no such thing as a free market in toxic planet killing pollution.
Your home and business, and mine, have to pay for waste disposal.
As things stand Big Carbon and all the utilities that burn it, use our shared atmosphere and waters as their own FREE toxic waste dump.
And, it's killing us by the millions, and, endangering all life on the planet.
There should be no such thing as a free market in toxic planet killing pollution.
43
"A good first step would be to make carbon polluters pay for their toxic waste disposal."
Or those who use it. If it hit ordinary folks, something would be done.
Or those who use it. If it hit ordinary folks, something would be done.
The Paris Climate Meeting will have no significant effect on the climate or any other aspect of the global environment. The root cause of all environmental problems including any effect of humans on the climate is overpopulation, but there is no leadership to address it. As the human population increases from some 7.4 to about 10 billion or more this century, neither incremental increases in per capita energy efficiency nor any financial schemes will do more than delay the inevitable by some trivial amount of time. Powerful religious and political forces in most countries including the US are aligned to promote growth in the population as well as per capita energy consumption, while the relatively easy and obvious solution to our ongoing environmental disaster is ignored.
88
Whenever I read "overpopulation is the problem," I think: "here's another response from the developed world which essentially means, "don't expect me to take any responsibility." A child born in the developing world will consume many times less than a child in the US. So let's realize this problem will take all of us, and reconsider our air-conditioning, our international air travel, our hatred of public transportation and all the rest. "Its overpopulation," is too easy on those of us currently burning carbon like mad.
38
Of course, this is absolutely correct. And like the writer I don't expect to see anything significant come out of the meeting; I hope I'm wrong.
1
Wrong. Population obscurantism is just the Democrat mirror image of Republican climate change denialism. To see this by example consider China of 1970, which had 1 billion people but low total environmental footprint because of very low per capita consumption. Since then the environmental footprint has grown bigger. Now imagine an alternate history where China had only 100 million people in 1970 - so again a low total environmental footprint - and the same growth trajectory had been followed. The total environmental impact would then be 90% smaller than today. So population does matter.
Building a population of 10 billion means laying a foundation for future economic expansion which will have serious consequences, even if it doesn't seem that bad today. Further it is the explicit intention of every government (and most individuals) to get richer which will exacerbate our environmental problems. 7 billion is just too many; 10 billion will be even worse and this should be obvious to anyone who isn't a religious believer or ideologue.
Building a population of 10 billion means laying a foundation for future economic expansion which will have serious consequences, even if it doesn't seem that bad today. Further it is the explicit intention of every government (and most individuals) to get richer which will exacerbate our environmental problems. 7 billion is just too many; 10 billion will be even worse and this should be obvious to anyone who isn't a religious believer or ideologue.
4
Thank you.
We can hope that all humans become aware of the many dangers we face by ignoring the very real consequences of heedlessly consuming our way in the face of a burgeoning sixth extinction.
The selfie-obsessed, two-dimensional instant gratification, and infotainment news we embrace is based on a false notion of the earth as productive of infinite resources to exploit and infinite tolerance of waste in our water, earth, and atmosphere. The idea that there is some grandfatherly (or even grandmotherly) person in the sky who will fix it all for us is to making the creative forces that brought us into being in our own limited image. I request my fellow atheists don't attack religion, which has always been necessary to most people, but rather the impression created by religious manipulation that god is made in our image and certain limited material kinds of success are signs of some magical approval. If we can open our hearts and minds, and think of ourselves as part of one massive human family, we will do well enough.
Some forces are eager to exploit blame, anger, hatred, and fear of otherness as motive forces to choose leaders. They could not be wronger, and they are dangerous.
What works is the golden rule, and caring for each other is caring for ourselves. (sorry, rant over ...)
We can hope that all humans become aware of the many dangers we face by ignoring the very real consequences of heedlessly consuming our way in the face of a burgeoning sixth extinction.
The selfie-obsessed, two-dimensional instant gratification, and infotainment news we embrace is based on a false notion of the earth as productive of infinite resources to exploit and infinite tolerance of waste in our water, earth, and atmosphere. The idea that there is some grandfatherly (or even grandmotherly) person in the sky who will fix it all for us is to making the creative forces that brought us into being in our own limited image. I request my fellow atheists don't attack religion, which has always been necessary to most people, but rather the impression created by religious manipulation that god is made in our image and certain limited material kinds of success are signs of some magical approval. If we can open our hearts and minds, and think of ourselves as part of one massive human family, we will do well enough.
Some forces are eager to exploit blame, anger, hatred, and fear of otherness as motive forces to choose leaders. They could not be wronger, and they are dangerous.
What works is the golden rule, and caring for each other is caring for ourselves. (sorry, rant over ...)
46
Susan,
Sorry you're wrong. The real "Climate Problem" is simple to name and won't even be discussed in Paris!
There are too many people on Earth! There are more each day. There is enough of everything for a reasonable number of people. There is no way to provide enough of anything for 7 Billion plus people.
Any "Climate Discussion" that doesn't deal with the Earth's current overpopulation is a farce or worse it's a dangerous delusion!
The most important subject isn't even on the table!
Sorry you're wrong. The real "Climate Problem" is simple to name and won't even be discussed in Paris!
There are too many people on Earth! There are more each day. There is enough of everything for a reasonable number of people. There is no way to provide enough of anything for 7 Billion plus people.
Any "Climate Discussion" that doesn't deal with the Earth's current overpopulation is a farce or worse it's a dangerous delusion!
The most important subject isn't even on the table!
3