The entire world is waiting for a worldwide agreement to emerge from the Copenhagen summit on global warming in December. Such an agreement would include regulations that change the way we do business for the next two decades.
There's just one problem. Are we absolutely sure that our enthusiasm for this battle will remain constant for 20 years, making everyone happy to bear the enormous costs involved?
The true tragedy would arise if the world spent trillions of dollars - condemning 7 billion people to live less-affluent and less-fulfilling lives - and at the end of it we discovered that the global-warming alarmism that caused the spending had been temporary.
I am naturally skeptical, so it was not surprising that for many years I was skeptical about global warming. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Report in 2007 came close to convincing me that it was real.
Nevertheless, that report's maximum warming under its most pessimistic scenario was for an increase of 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Several other scenarios produced lower temperature increases; there were even questions about possible contrary effects. The IPCC's “worst-case” warming would produce a sea level rise of 43 centimeters (17 inches), according to the report.
If global policymakers were entirely rational, the IPCC's Fourth Report would have brought us - at most - a modest carbon tax. Such a tax could be increased if at some future date new evidence made the top end of the temperature projections seem likely. I hate hot weather as much as the next man, but 6.0 degrees Fahrenheit as a top estimate is just not that scary a number. It would be worth doing something to mitigate this, yes, but it would not be worth turning the whole global economy upside down and imposing huge new costs by bureaucratic fiat.
As for a sea level rise of 17 inches, it's not worth doing anything at all about that at this stage. Only a few pathological areas of the world - such as the Maldives and parts of Bangladesh - would be affected at all by such a small rise. And constructing higher levees, or even handing out sandbags, could neutralize its effect.
Much more disturbing than the IPCC Fourth Report was its effect on chattering classes in the media and politics. Instead of admitting that moderate remedies would work fine, and planning towards them, they proposed a hugely bureaucratic regime of controls that would impose costs of $1 trillion annually on the United States, alone. Just one measure, the tightening of the CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) automobile fuel economy standards in 2016, imposes costs of hundreds of billions on the automobile industry, without any study of whether those costs could be justified.
The lesson of CAFÉ standards in the 1970s and 1980s, which through a loophole diverted the U.S. automotive industry from producing the world's finest cars to the immensely ugly and fuel-guzzling SUVs, should have warned us against them.
Those standards were largely responsible for the decline in the U.S. automobile industry that has now resulted in the bankruptcy of General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GRM) and Chrysler Group LLC. However, they had remarkably little effect on U.S. gasoline consumption. They also caused thousands of deaths of people fool enough to buy small (and inevitably less safe) cars, rather than switching to SUVs.
A simple increase in the gasoline tax, or - if you want to be fancy - a carbon tax, would have far more effect on fuel consumption than new CAFÉ standards. And the higher gas tax would do far less damage. Yes, it would cost us money, but provided we forced our congressional representatives to remit other taxes rather than increasing wasteful spending, no harm would be done.
The attempt of the global warming alarmists to shut down debate has increased my skepticism. For one thing, it has focused my attention on just how many of them make a very nice living out of alarmism. As for the politicians, for many of them the primary goal is to control the economy, and extract rents by doing so.
Global warming alarmism is just a means to this unpleasant end. Politicians' motives are rarely pure, but in this case they are particularly Chicago-esque, and the cost to the rest of us of their success would be enormous and permanent.
Since 2007, another factor has increased my skepticism. It has been revealed that instead of continuing to increase, global temperatures have declined since 1998. The current forecast is for no further increase until 2020 or so. Again the activists and politicians have refused to admit that this new evidence weakens the case for early drastic action.
I am now beginning to be convinced we may be moving in the wrong direction. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is normally an enthusiast for global warming alarmism (it increases their research funds somewhat). However, NASA reported Sept. 3 that the sun is in the deepest sunspot minimum for nearly a century, far beyond normal cyclical norms.
Should this persist, it would presumably have the same effect as the Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity and global temperature in 1645-1715. During the Maunder Minimum, northern hemisphere temperatures fell between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius, compared with surrounding periods. In 1682 London, they roasted oxen on the frozen River Thames, which sounds fun, but certainly hasn't been possible since.
The Maunder Minimum occurred during a period of several hundred years known as the Little Ice Age, when temperatures appear to have averaged as much as 5 degrees Celsius colder than now. It's still not clear what caused this. And it's also not clear whether or not this could happen again.
Conversely, even 1998's record summer was probably cooler than the late tenth century, when the Viking explorer Eric the Red found wild vines growing in Labrador.
I'm skeptical in this direction, too, although personally I would prefer a modest Little Ice Age to global warming - it would greatly improve the Washington summers. However, it does appear that natural effects, which we will have to put up with, could be at least as important as human-caused global warming for the next century or so.
It also appears that they may cancel each other out. I'm quite sure that I don't want governments spending trillions of dollars, making everybody significantly poorer, to fight - very inefficiently - against something that may not even exist, or may not happen until 2200 rather than 2100. The 22nd century can look after itself, in my view.
In the 1970s, the world worried about global cooling. Who knows, by 2050 - or even 2020 - global-warming alarmism may also prove to have been a temporary enthusiasm. Like the 1950s hula-hoops, which were a lot more fun!
Editor's Note: If you're hitching your fortunes - or, more specifically, your fortune - to an investment guru, you want one who always stays ahead of the curve. Throughout the global financial crisis, longtime market guru Martin Hutchinson has managed to do just that. Not only did he warn investors about the dangers of the credit default swap half a year before those deadly derivatives ignited the worldwide financial firestorm, he almost perfectly predicted when and where the U.S. stock market would bottom out (a feat that won him substantial public recognition).
Experts are taking notice.
Hutchinson is now making those insights available to individual investors. His trading service, The Permanent Wealth Investor, assembles high-yielding dividend stocks, profit plays on gold, and specially designated "Alpha-Bulldog" stocks into high-income/high-return portfolios for savvy investors.
Though Hutchinson's strategy is tailor-made for periods of market uncertainty, its . But the real beauty of this approach is that it can work in any kind of market - bull, bear or neutral.
To find out more about the Alpha-Bulldog strategy - or Hutchinson's new service, The Permanent Wealth Investor - please just click here.]
News and Related Story Links:
- NASA.gov:
Are Sunspots Disappearing? - Wikipedia:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. - SunnySuffolk.edu:
The Little Ice Age in Europe. - Wikipedia:
Corporate Average Fuel Economy. - Who2.com:
Eric the Red. - Wikipedia:
Political History of Chicago. - VisitMaldives:
The Maldives. - Wikipedia:
Maunder Minimum. - BBC History:
Vikings
Here Are 10 “One-Click” Ways to Earn 10% or Better on Your Money Every Quarter
Appreciation is great, but it’s possible to get even more out of the shares you own. A lot more: you can easily beat inflation and collect regular income to spare. There are no complicated trades to put on, no high-level options clearances necessary. In fact, you can do this with a couple of mouse clicks – passive income redefined. Click here for the report…
Thank you so much for standing up and being counted on this important issue. Most of my investigation into this issue came up with similar results of 'alarmism' and 'lining one's pockets at the expense of everyone'.
My conclusion largely came about after reading a 2007 report from Space and Science Research center. At that time, they felt they could predict with 90% accuracy how temperatures were going to fluctuate depending on sunspot activity. They call it relational cycle theory.
As we find our way through this, perhaps then, the world can start working on the real problem…pollution.
A few quotes from the article and comments I've noticed that hit the nail on the head:
(1) The attempt of the global warming alarmists to shut down debate has increased my skepticism. For one thing, it has focused my attention on just how many of them make a very nice living out of alarmism. As for the politicians, for many of them the primary goal is to control the economy, and extract rents by doing so.
Exactly. Global Warming Alarmism is simply a way for some unsavory characters to rape, pillage, and plunder the population, all based on a lie.
(2) However, NASA reported Sept. 3 that the sun is in the deepest sunspot minimum for nearly a century, far beyond normal cyclical norms.
That is the REAL cause of global warming and cooling right there – the sun. A more active sun generates a stronger magnetic field, manifesting itself in more sunspots. The stronger solar magnetic field repels more of the cosmic rays entering the solar system. More cosmic rays repelled leaves fewer to reach Earth (and the other planets) and ionize molecules that form clouds in Earth's atmosphere. Fewer clouds formed allows more of the sun's energy to reach the surface and warm the planet. A less active sun does the reverse. The minimal number of sunspots signals further cooling ahead.
(3) My energy ethics teacher had a poster in her class that read “The earth has a cancer and that cancer is man”.
That illustrates very well how hatred of humanity is the real main driver behind most "environmental" movements. Sure, they attract followers who have a sincere interest in protecting the environment from unnecessary and destructive exploitation, but look at the leaders. They are described very well by those who support rolling back the gains in individual liberty from the American Revolution and in standards of living from the Industrial Revolution, and dragging humanity back into the old medieval feudal system where a few elites live well literally off the labor of the rest of the population, who are condemned to a subsistence living, and governments support favored corporations or institutions with tax money. Clearly such a position is a loser if openly admitted, so such people resort to deception and fraud. There was another article, but I forget where, that pointed out how greenie groups even objected to wind, hydroelectric, and even geothermal power, clean energy sources that they supposedly support. The underlying thing the projects had in common – they started gaining the capability to power significant shares of industry.
(4) "…but in the end growth in a world of fixed size and resources…"
That's a false premise, and one that should not be relied upon. A great example to illustrate why resources are not fixed is oil. Oil became a resource once man figured out a use for it. Before a use was found for oil, it was merely a smelly and sticky nuisance. As the economy develops further and further, uses are found for more and more things that were not viewed as useful before, thereby EXPANDING the world's resources. Technology also advances, allowing more resources to be recoverable, thereby expanding the resource pool again.
Since almost all of the surface temperature recording stations are incorrectly located in some of the hottest locations possible (such as near A/C units, on roofs of buildings, on asphalt pavement, etc.), this problem would have to be corrected before there could be accurate temperature readings.
Also, didn't I read that Al Gore's company just received a large amount of funding from the government? This could be an incentive for him to promote the global warming theory especially since he couldn't make a name for himself by having invented the internet.
H Nansel comment:
When are we going to realize God is still in contol of all things in earth and heaven? Cyclic events have been taking place in
all time, and will continue to do so until the end of time, which
seems to be approaching fast. Whether we/you are a believer in God's power, and biblical teaching, we as humans have little control over happenings here on earth. Naturally we should do those things that harm our environment as little as possible, but to upset the whole ecconomy because of some alarmists would seem to be rediculous, and attempts to act like gods is not our place as humans. Lets get back to the basics and take God at His word "I am with you always and will never forsake you as long as you abide in Me". This, of course is the whole problem.
Craig Laub – your information regarding temperature rise is from two computer climate models, the same models that have never produced one single accurate prediction in 25 years. You are quoting the most unreliable source available, the same people who "peer-reviewed" Mann's hockey stick and found nothing wrong. I pity your ignorance on the subject.
Martin, I am shocked at your ignorance concerning the environment. You should know that a rapid 6 degree increase in temperature would endanger all animal and plant life on the planet. The costs of making human life possible under such a scenario would be immeasurable. And you talk about like we would only have to endure 90 degree days instead of 84.
You may not be aware that one of the greatest scientific transformations of all time is taking place in the field of production of electricity. Basically, it is now possible to produce more electricity from an advanced turbine generation system than is consumed in the process of electricity generation. I am the owner of the companies involved in this revolution. Many other countries, especially the US, Russia, and China, are aware of these developments and sometimes appear to desire to be investors. However, I am having major problems with companies and countries having vested interests in maintaining the polluting status quo.
I have two billionaire American investors sitting on the fence because of intensive lobbying efforts by the energy industry, which is deternined to stop technological progress. The stakes are very high for the US and the world. Since I won't be stopped, cheap energy may soon be in the hands of just a few countries. This was not my intent. My intent was to license the technology world-wide.
Incidentally, the engineering estimates for the production costs per KWH are only .0125 cents. This makes my system the lowest cost producer for electricity. There is currently only a test system. A production quality system needs to be built with additional funds from private investors or international bodies. The system is initially for the production of electricity, but may be eventually adapted to power vehicles, trains, and ships. It is also a zero emission system, 100% clean, and non-polluting. The electricity is self-generating and mileage for vehicles would be virtually unlimited.
As far as the issue of job creation is concerned, at the very worst there would be no negative impact in numbers. The new jobs would most likely involve higher level and paying skills.
The concept for the system and the initial design work were from my father, Floryan A. Lohutko, who just happened to create the silicon wafer chip at Xerox and the pulse engine for secret US aircraft.
This new technology is very real and has taken 29 years to develop. Can you see the need for an international Manhattan Project type of program? It would mean energy independence, zero pollution, and reasonable electricity on a world-wide basis. It would literally usher in a new age of economic growth because almost everyone on earth could have dependable electricity.
Of course, if a few countries get first or exclusive use of the new technology, which is their primary interest, their economies will thrive on low cost, clean energy, and the rest of the world will be either held hostage or stuck in the fossil fuels age.
I sincerely believe that the US will remain in the fossil fuels age because the US has really chosen business as usual. They should have had enough sense to lock in the revolutionary electric technology, but they just couldn't do it.
Conrad A. Lohutko, Ph.D.
President of Agile Logistics Technology, LLC,
International Hydropower, Inc., and
Sterling Enterprises, Inc.
Why not compare and contrast your credentials in the sciences v. the 2,500 scientists who make the case for global warming? It is not a subject for trivialization by those who can command an audience just because they have an outlet.
It's hard to know where to start with all the out-of-date information in this opinion piece.
Here are some snippets from an article published by AP on September 24th (apnews.myway.com/article/20090924/D9ATUU500.html), with my comments in []:
WASHINGTON (AP) – Earth's temperature is likely to jump nearly 6 degrees between now and the end of the century even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed, according to a United Nations update.
"We are headed toward very serious changes in our planet," said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N.'s environment program, which issued the update on Thursday.
Even if the developed world cuts its emissions by 80 percent and the developing world cuts theirs in half by 2050, as some experts propose, the world is still facing a 3-degree (1.7 degree Celsius) increase by the end of the century, said Robert Corell, a prominent U.S. climate scientist who helped oversee the update.
The U.N.'s environment program unveiled the update on peer-reviewed climate change science to tell diplomats how hot the planet is getting. The last big report from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [which you refer to] came out more than two years ago and is based on science that is at least three to four years old, Steiner said.
Global warming is speeding up, especially in the Arctic, and that means that some top-level science projections from 2007 are already out of date and overly optimistic. Corell, who headed an assessment of warming in the Arctic, said global warming "is accelerating in ways that we are not anticipating."
Because Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are melting far faster than thought, it looks like the seas will rise twice as fast as projected just three years ago, Corell said. He said seas should rise about a foot every 20 to 25 years.
Other problems that have worsened since the 2007 report include the oceans getting more acidic – a threat to some sea creatures…
[including the nearly 30% reduction in tropical coral reefs worldwide since 1980, due mainly to global warming. At the current rate of emission growth, tropical corals and the ecosystem of fish which depend on them could be gone by the middle to end of this century. Over 100 million people depend on coral reefs for their livelihood. Coral reefs are also nurseries for many deep-ocean fish which could disappear without them. See oceana.org/climate/solutions/oceana/acidtest]
…and projections for regular long-term droughts in the U.S. Southwest.
"As sobering as this report is, it is not the worst case scenario," said U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey, co-author of the bill that passed the U.S. House. "That would be if the world does nothing and allows heat-trapping pollution to continue to spew unchecked into the atmosphere."
—-
The permafrost in the Arctic is also melting, releasing methane gas, which is at least 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. Many scientists believe that a smillar release of methane gas from methane hydrates was a major cause of the "Great Dying" 250 million years ago, the greatest extinction event ever, with up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event.
Very good article. There is overwhelming evidence that climate change evolves with the wobble of the sun over several years and has little to do with man-made greenhouse gases. Keep in mind that without greenhouse gases, (in particular – water vapor, clouds and carbon dioxide) mankind and plant life would not exist. Plants and trees process carbon dioxide and produce oxygen by photosynthesis. Humans and animals breath in oxygen and exhale 40,000 ppm carbon dioxide. It is funny that the air in earth's atmosphere consists essentially of 73% nitrogen, 26% oxygen and 1% greenhouse gas. The composition make-up of the 1% greenhouse gas fluctuates continuously but is primarily 80-90% water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide only represents 380 ppm (0.038%) of the greenhouse gas consituents. The fact that carbon dioxide content seems to increase with higher global temperature has more to do with Henry's Law of Solubility which states that gases are less soluable in water at higher temperature. Hence, the higher the atmospheric temperature due to solar, the higher the carbon dioxide content. Keep in mind also, scientific consensus is only a theory to be proven by experimentation and not scientific fact. There is no wonder why the Al Gore, administration, progressive democrats and EPA are continuously running from debate. It is obvious that the intent of cap and tax is government control and has nothing to do with saving the earth. If the government was really concerned about creating jobs and energy security, they would incentivize domestic corporations to increase exploration and refining capabilities of oil and gas, coal, nuclear, etc. all while embracing supplemental, alternative energy such as solar, wind, water, thermal, etc.
If you read Heaven and Earth-the Missing Science by Ian Plimer (see Amazon.com) you will find you may not want even a small ice age. Cooler temperatures are more destructive to human values than warmer temps.
But the real story is that after reading Ian's book, you will understand that Global Warming is nothing more than a SCAM, pure and simple. It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated in human history.
Greg Czora
Thanks for you effort to bring some balance to the global warming discussion. There may be significant effects from our life style on climatic change. It has to be recognized, however, that such change has been–and is–historical and will continue to be such.
On an historical note, it was Leif Ericsson, Eric the Red's son, that found the grapes.
Martin, I am shocked at your ignorance concerning the environment. There is no such thing as global warming. There is such thing as over population. The problems we are encountering come from a rapid depletion of natural resources due to the exponential growth of human population. It is unsustainable. We make fixes periodically and temporarily by moving manufacturing to third world countries so that we can pat ourselves on the back about pollution as we continue to purchase the same consumer goods, just those made somewhere else at their environmental risk. My energy ethics teacher had a poster in her class that read "The earth has a cancer and that cancer is man". Yet economists insist that growth is the key to success. It is a detrimental hope that growth can bail out an anemic economy but in the end growth in a world of fixed size and resources is a recipe for disaster. Hula hoops will become popular again because they are fun. Global cooling and warming will be popular because people are ignorant.
Dear Sir,
3.6 degrees Celsius increase is a lot for a place where I live when the temperature is usually 32 – 34 degrees Celsius during the day. For some parts of India, it means many people would die of heat.
There are about 75 organizations in the U.S. fighting the concept of global warming. If you follow the money trail, every single blessed one of them takes funding from Exxon-Mobil.
If you use numbers for investment calculations rather than bankrupt conservative sloganeering, the facts of global warming are indisputable. To deny them is a religious act, not the hard-headed rationality right-wingers take such unearned pride in.
What an arogance! What a pile of imbecility!
To believe 6 billions of human idiots have more power to heat or cool this planet than Sun !
Global Warming?!!!! Wait to see what will gonn'a happen this winter! And in the mean time buy some pullovers!
One question:
How is it that anyone can actually believe Al Gore (remember his taking credit for the internet just a few years ago)'s assertions re: global warming??? And to the writer pushing the 2,500 "scientists" pushing global warming, check out THEIR credentials before lambasting someone else!!
Do none of the global warmers realize that CO2 is HEAVIER than air? Therefore, it is more likely that an overabundance of it would be ground-laying instead of rising into the high atmosphere where it MIGHT be capable of doing harm.
If this is not damning enough, check the statistics re: temperature. The first thing that you will note (if you disregard your prejudices on the matter) is that global warming STOPPED in 1998!!! The general temperature has been declining ever since.
This is a POLITICAL issue, tied to –at best — really BAD science. There is a group of 30,000 actual scientists who are suing Al Gore and his band of bought-and-paid-fors regarding the damages of ANY government placing more roadblocks on their citizens based on the myth of global warming and the disasters coming as a result.
As a guy I remember hearing on radio years ago said, "Wake up, America!"
I am a thermo and fluids engineer who is retired. I went to Univ. of Mich. engineering and got my degree in Mech. Engin.
We would receive, during school, news letters that would give us general data about almost anything science or physics related. One of the pieces of information was the average temp. of the earth as it would be calculated periodically. Back in the 60's when I was going to school, the earth's temperature average hovered around 62 deg. It does not take much science to realize that if the earth's average temp. is above freezing, there would have to be global warming. Do you remember learning that the mountains, lakes, oceans and rivers were all created by ice, and the subsiquent retreating? What made them melt?-Global warming. Have you ever looked at a proportional cross cut of the earth? Mankind is so minor they do not even show up. The nature of things is global warming during this cycle of millions of years. There will be another cycle after this is over, but mankind will have absolutely no control over the sequence of events. The solar system is expanding, the earth is moving from the sun, the sun is using its fuel, new stars and plants are being born and discovered continuously. Mankind will have to learn and adjust. But thinking we are "got like" is a sad commentary on how little we actually use our brain. In short, there is nothing we can do about global warming. We can keep the air clean, but we can't control the natural direction of things.
I am skeptical as well and have never waviered from this stance. Sure the world has warmed…..and cooled…this is entirely normal. There are 11 year solar cycles, 30 year POD and AOM cycles, and even 100,000 year tilt of the axis of the earth cycles. Cycles with cycles and which one is most important or what is the interaction. If you examine the "models" for global warming they do not include trade winds, currents, clouds, cosmic rays, solar cycles. Global warming is tied to CO2. Please this is totally beyond lame. Here is link to one of the best skeptical blog on the net.
http://www.healthiertalk.com/autoimmune-disease-how-stop-your-body-attacking-itself-0930
debby
Just 2 years ago, farms that had been buried under glaciers since the 1700's were discovered, but the temperature has not yet risen toa point of making ity possible to farm them. clearly, the temperature was significantly higher than at present in Scandinavia at that time.
Since the late 60's, we have lived under ever mor stringent rules governing refrigerants in an effort to stop breaking down the ozone layer, despite more than 40 years of study indicating that it has not changed in size at all. The requirements have already been prescribed for another 10 years although they have been shown to have no benefit. Global warming is just another in this series of efforts to gain control by scare tactics,
Not only is carbon dioxide heavier than air, but it stimulates plant growht, which has been demonstrated to lower global temperatures. The proposed restrictions will be counter productive, and horrifically expensive.
Quotign Trey Gilmore :
"Why not compare and contrast your credentials in the sciences v. the 2,500 scientists who make the case for global warming? "
31,478 American Scientist (myself included) have signed a petition that says there is no scientific justification for any action to avoid global warming.
9,029 of those hold PhDs including the signature featured on the welcome page(link below) – Edward Teller.
I am quite proud to share this cause with Dr. Teller, even if posthumously on his part.
Geophys55
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Moderator,
I notice some typos, now.
Would you please replace my post with this corrected version? -Many Thanks – G55
Quoting Trey Gilmore :
“Why not compare and contrast your credentials in the sciences v. the 2,500 scientists who make the case for global warming? ”
31,478 American Scientists (myself included) have signed a petition that says there is no scientific justification for any action to avoid global warming.
9,029 of those hold PhDs including the signature featured on the welcome page(link below) – Edward Teller.
I am quite proud to share this cause with Dr. Teller, even if posthumously on his part.
Geophys55
You wrote:
The attempt of the global warming alarmists to shut down debate has increased my skepticism. For one thing, it has focused my attention on just how many of them make a very nice living out of alarmism.
***
So your focus is on "How to make a living on global warming."
And then you make your living telling everyone else how it's done.
And then you say use sandbags on the Maldives. Brilliant.
To certain posters who clearly live in some alternate universe I submit the following:
1) Quoting AP stories and UN hacks regarding climate, as if these people have any clue or credibility about what they are talking about is laughable, and exposes the poster as as having highly questionable intellect. Unfortunately, far too many simply parrot what they've heard or read and are unable to analyze or think for themselves. This includes the simple observations in ones own life. I won't comment on Al Gore, he isn't worthy.
2) Martin's skepticism was presented in a very polite way, obviously wanting to make a point without angering or alienating … I applaud that and admire it … if only our elected officials could do the same. The skepticism is extremely well-founded. Unfortunately, I don't have Martins skill set in this area.
3) Those of you still drinking the koolaid for the 'man-made global warming' myth are the same people who screamed that we would for sure nuke ourselves (not), that we could NEVER feed or sustain 7 billion people on the planet (yet we are) that the Oceans would be dead not now, but 1 or 2 decades ago (but they're not), that we would all die from a new ice age (wrong), now we will die from a slow roasting (also wrong) … it NEVER ends with you folks and you know who you are. I should have been dead about 10 times over by now. You are emotionally dysfunctional and intellectually dishonest, and selfish and narcississtic … you really do believe everyone else should just go away or not even be born so you can live in some mythical utopia.
4) I cannot recall anybody, ever, being against a cleaner planet, better tech, better methods … a lot has been done in the last 40 years across a vast expanse of industries. Truly the World is in a much better position today to deal with these issues than in the 1800's or even up through the mid-20th century … lets tell the truth, debate, and SOLVE things through sensible changes and improvements not choose to go down the path of insanity and inaninity just so we can fool ourselves into 'feeling better.' By the way, lots of countries need sewage treatment plants far worse than a phony CO2 reduction … think people, really, just this once …
Martin, your skepticism is well placed.
Those who think a science degree is needed to understand straight forward logic are fuel for puppet-masters who scam the world.
It would be more fruitful to pursue those who critique the GW alarmists. There are thousands more scientists who are opposed to GW pseudo science than who are conned by it. Many have signed published accords.
Okay – let's try basic logic – no need for science degrees.
The Last Ice Age peaked around 18,000 years ago.
Then it started to melt and by 10,000 years ago we had what is generally considered to be the end of the Last Ice Age.
What caused that to happen?
Answer – global warming!!!
Where was man?
Huddled in caves and tropical areas and probably numbered fewer people worldwide than now populates Western Europe (300 million).
Did they cause global warming? Hardly.
GW is a long cycle repeating phenomenon. A version of it occurs every 1,500 years and is unstoppable. (Google that = book title).
Yes, we had global warming. It was seized on as an opportuntiy by globalists to manipulate nations and global policies for UN control.
Check those who have participated in the process and became critics – some American, some Russian.
Digging deeper you will find that warming precedes CO2 build-up by hundreds of years – going back millennia in earth's record.
Vostock ice cores and others. Check it out.
CO2 does not cause global warming. That is flat out fraud. It is NOT science by any stretch.
There is no evidence in statements like those posted by C. Laub.
There is no correlation between rising CO2 and global temperature.
There is no observed evidence of the speeding up of Artic warming.
There are no observations that Greenland is melting faster.
There are no observations that show the Antartic Western sheet is doning something it has not done in the past.
How can so many wrong statements be in one post?
You all are thralls to the dollar at the expense of the planet and it's occupants.
You are looking for an altimeter instead of a parachute.
Splat.
Ther are about 4000 scientists who agree global warming is a serious problem. The other side of the coin is there are 30,000 scientists who disagree with the global warming claims and are never allowed to voice their claims.
Global warming is just fear mongering so that those that hate America can "Take America down a peg or two". They think America is too powerful and damaging its prosperity is the key to destroying America!
For the ones who don"t believe in global warming I just have a question. What's making glaciers and snow on mountain tops melt? What provokes death of animals who live in cold weather?