Obama dire climate report more certain than ever

a reply to: Astrocyte

Be mindful, also, that if you resist answering this question, then perhaps you're really caught in a state of pronounced cognitive dissonance.

Without wishing to sound demeaning, this is really a ridiculous assertion. Pronounced cognitive dissonance if I resist answering your question without talking about Agenda 21? Really? Isn't it cognitive dissonance, then, to separate the hysterical cries of global warming theorists from the actual statements made by those known to be using Global Warming theories to control the population, including attempts and plans for massive depopulation? Why is it that those who advocate for it are never the first ones to submit themselves to their own sacrifice? The elites use as much co2 as they want, fly their private jets, live in multiple mansions, etc, while demanding the rest of us curtail our needs. That should be a not so subtle hint to us. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Yes, I can play that little game too.
The science is far from settled, and there are scientists who have said that the UNIPCC has used their data in erroneous fashion.

Let me ask you something, why are politicians in the US trying to sack the coal industry but are giving China a pass on burning as much coal as they want, on importing coal from the US?
The TPTB Club of Rome invented Global Warming for global control and depopulation.

Although the report has generated a deluge of coverage in the establishment media, not one of those news stories points out that the Club of Rome admittedly manufactured the “idea” of man-made global warming back in 1990.
On page 75 of their 1990 publication entitled
The First Global Revolution, the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them.

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” states the report, which can be read in full at the end of this article.

The passage appears under a sub headline entitled, “The common enemy of humanity is Man.”


The Club of Rome’s 1972 publication
The Limits To Growth was a Malthusian blueprint on how the human population needed to be reduced in order to prevent an ecological collapse, which in itself was merely a disguised version of the abhorrent eugenicist ideas that were circulating in the early part of the 20th century and eventually died out with Hitler. The
widely discredited population bomb paranoiaof the 70′s and 80′s was gradually replaced by the climate change fearmongering that we see the organization pushing today, which again is merely another regurgitation of the eugenics-obsessed policies of the elite.


Prominent members of the Club of Rome include Al Gore and Maurice Strong, both of whom are intimately involved
with privately-owned carbon trading groups, whose multi-million dollar profits are solely reliant on protecting the credibility of the man-made global warming dogma.

12160.info...:BlogPost:851843



And incidentally, Bill Gates is also a member of the Club of Rome and using Common Core Standards to make himself a bucketload of money off the high stakes testing software platform and push Global Warming theories in the schools.

a reply to: Dianec

You say that we cannot stop its acceleration, and anything we would do would be too late anyway so let Mother Nature do her thing. Sure thing - I'll join the others who think like that and use/burn styrophome, throw my soda cans into the ocean, and waste as much energy as possible because Mother Nature will figure it out and it's all about playing it safe with my wants and needs today rather than worrying about my kids' future.

Not once - not ever ever in my entire life have I opposed pollution control - YOU are confused. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a natural part of the environment and an important plant fertilizer.

I could talk all day about the efforts I have made in the last 25 years in the field of pollution control and environmental protection.

But we are not talking about pollution. We are talking about global warming

Tired of control freaks

The "science is settled on anthropogenic global warming" as breathlessly proclaimed by President Obama...wow! I thought I had learned NO science is EVER settled that is why studies/research goes on and on and on...

The Dr Michael Manns (the hockey schtick "creator" who will NOT release his supporting data during Discovery in any of his myriad of slander suits HE has filed against ANY writer/reporter/fellow scientist who dates question his "stick."

Mann and his ilk, with the profound taxpayer funded largesse of power hungry politicians of both parties have made careers out of giving the "AlGores" of the world all the data they could ever want to "carbon tax" the middle class into welfare ranks. Google or Bing "Chicago Climate Exchange" the CCX and you will find Gore, the Clintons, the Obamas, Axelrod, the Emmuel Brothers, the Daley family, etc...all "in" on the selling /trading of carbon credits ie, "indulgences."

As to the scientists who "feed" the junk science to their political masters, well when you proclaim yourself an expert "hammer" the whole world takes on a nail visage to keep those research dollars coming.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Here's more cognitive dissonance for you.

The goal was established by the Club of Rome whose member, Maurice Strong transmitted and translated it into world government policy through the United Nations.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” — Club of Rome

He was assisted by politicians like Al Gore and Tim Wirth. In 1993 the latter did not hide the naked political objective.


“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

They were aided by national weather agencies and bureaucratic scientists with similar political persuasions appointed to the IPCC.

climatism.wordpress.com...

He co-authored the ‘Earth Charter’ with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1992. It was Gorbachev who stated in 1996 that the “threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”
climatism.wordpress.com...

Strong was groomed by Rockefeller and believes that mankind must be disciplined enough to accept "this kind of control"....meaning the control of the One World Global Government. Agenda 21 of course uses the nicer term "global governance". It just sounds so much more like a nice nanny.

a reply to: amazing

I literally do NOT care what scientists say or consider. Developing theories and hypothesis is their job. They have developed a theory a global warming (I refuse to call it climate change - that is simply madison avenue hype). But to believe for one instant that this theory has been proven because scientists have reached a concensus is beyond ridiculous.

Science is not concensus. Consensus is the anti of what science is. To this day, gravity remains a theory because it have not been proven or disproven. No one declares that the "debate" is over,if they are scientist. They debate and test hypothesis over and over. Until each and every aspect of the theory has been tested.

But, according to you, since scientists have reached a "concensus", the theory of global warming is resolved and is no longer a theory. However, this concensus was reached and announced prior to the past 17 years "pause" is global warming and the "scientists" are unable to integrate this fact into their hypothese (unable to explain why it is happening".

So tell me again about this "proven" hypothesis of anthropogenically sourced global warming?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: amazing

Strangely, well for me, that episode made me feel at peace with it all. I don't know that I'll ever not be angry at the ignorance and apathy but, it's reached a point where if we don't do something significant to fix it, right now... then it's over, I will die before the worst of it, my son will have to live out his elder years in it. But Earth will go on, some life will survive and later flourish. I hope that Earth sees the rise of an intelligent species again and they do better than we did.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

To this day, gravity remains a theory because it have not been proven or disproven. No one declares that the "debate" is over,if they are scientist.

It remains a theory because we still are discovering the mechanics at work. Do you really think scientists are still discussing if gravity is a thing? The law of gravity describes what it does the theory tries to describe how it does it.

Wow just wow.

When first it was danger of a new ice age when I was young then it was global warming, when that didn't fly the name was changed to climate change and now its to be called climate disruption.

When Pinatubo erupted and dumped the equivalent of hundreds of years worth of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere it pretty well convinced me man made side is nearly pointless to change things in the US.

I am not against real pollution control dealing with micro climates near and around big cities but CO2 taxes and such are just give more chance of tyranny being in control.


2013 Breaks Record for Volcanic Eruptions

As of mid-December, the number of volcanic eruption for the year was at 83, according to calculations by Alvin Conway, author of The Extinction Protocol. Considering that the average is between 50 and 60 per year, this represents a significant increase. This number does not even include undersea volcanoes like the one that produced the new Japanese island.

Having 23 to 33 eruptions more than usual represents a potentially significant increase in the amount of ash and gases entering into Earth’s atmosphere. Some analysts believe the increase could lower global temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius or more, which could be enough to alter agricultural yields in key regions.

Volcanic Gases and their Effects

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

Emission rates of SO2 from an active volcano range from 10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere.

Emphasis added,

Te rrifying Flat Global Temperatures

Remember that really scary “hockey stick” graph IPCC used to show that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations would send global temperatures soaring? And recall all the ballyhoo about CO2 levels reaching a 400 ppm record high? Yet last February even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years. And that was after the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017.

Atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, Richard Lindzen, posted an article in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons characterizing global warming as an alarmist religion. Furthermore, he accuses alarmist orthodoxy of adjusting both data and theory to accommodate politically-correct positions that are costly to society.

a reply to: Phoenix

The claim that when Pinatubo erupted and dumped the equivalent of hundreds of years worth of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere is blatantly false and was pushed by Ian Plimer it was easy to find the truth about.

Volcanic CO2
Posted on June 19, 2011 | 128 Comments
From time to time we hear the claim that volcanoes inject more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity. Its typical form is exemplified by a comment at RealClimate which was (quite appropriately) consigned to the “Borehole.”


When the volcano, Mt Pinatubo, erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth.

This claim is almost as ubiquitous as it is ridiculous, and seems to be championed by Australian geologist Ian Plimer, author of the execrable book “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science.” Science seems to be missing from all of Plimer’s musings on global warming.


There’s an article in EOS by Terrance Gerlach, and a press release about it, which attempts to lay some of these myths to rest. Gerlach notes that this is a common misunderstanding, not just among the general public but among geoscientists who don’t work in this field:


The most frequent question that I have gotten (and still get), in my 30 some years as a volcanic gas geochemist from the general public and from geoscientists working in fields outside of volcanology, is ‘Do volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than human activities?’

Gerlach doesn’t just echo the question, he answers it:


Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.

Gerlach surveys the literature and reports the scientific findings:


Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998]; the preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate estimates — published in 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and mid-oceanic ridge estimates — are consistent with the global estimates.

Considering that human activity released some 30 Gt CO2 into the atmosphere last year, human emissions are likely 100 (or more) times as large as volcanic emissions. Those who make claims about the Mt. Pinatubo explosion emitting more CO2 than all of human activity for all time, should be made aware that the estimated CO2 emissions from Mt. Pinatubo are 0.05 Gt CO2, about the amount released by human activity in half a day, not our entire history. In fact, in less than 3 days we outstrip the volcanic emissions for an entire year:


On average, humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions.

Annual CO2 emissions from human activity are greater even than what results from supereruptions, volcanic events which spew forth more than 450 cubic kilometers of magma:


Supereruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago. Interestingly, these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year.

Supereruptions are a significant contributor to adding CO2 to the atmosphere on geologic time scales. Yet they pale by comparison to human emissions. Yes, you read that right — while supereruptions only happen every 100,000 to 200,000 years or so, we’re presently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate of one or more supereruptions every year.

Those who continue to claim that volcanic activity puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity (including Ian Plimer) have been corrected — many times — by those who actually do the research. Yet the claim, like a zombie, refuses to die. Those who cling to it do so, not just out of ignorance, but out of willful ignorance. tamino.wordpress.com...

Climate Myth...
Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
"Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective.

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day." (Ian Plimer)

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.



Volcanoes can--and do--influence the global climate over time periods of a few years but this is achieved through the injection of sulfate aerosols into the high reaches of the atmosphere during the very large volcanic eruptions that occur sporadically each century. But that's another story... www.skepticalscience.com...

Sadly it has come to the point where debating those who do not recognize the reality of climate change is not really a viable option. There is no debate at this point. Those who deny the fact of climate change may as well argue against the sky being blue, grass being green, etc. It says a lot about the individual when they claim that human action has no adverse affect on this planet.

There is a level of maturity that one needs to be at in order to have a discussion about this subject. Too many people, including people in positions of power and influence, are not at this level, yet their opinions are accepted as equal and in the media are given a lot of recognition.

It is time to move past the process of debate and adjust the discussion to coming up with concrete solutions on alleviating the consequences of climate change. There is absolutely no doubt that it will require sacrifices on all of our parts. I know that this point does not sit well with most people and is probably the biggest hurdle to get over, but this is the reality of the situation that humans have created. There is absolutely no question that future generations will not enjoy the so-called luxuries that our generation and past generations have. This isn't to say that life will be worse off. On the contrary, I believe that living a more mindful, less reward seeking, and a less ego driven existence will do wonders for us, both as individuals and communities.

originally posted by: kimar
Sadly it has come to the point where debating those who do not recognize the reality of climate change is not really a viable option. There is no debate at this point.

Y'know, it's funny. You could say the same thing about psychic functioning. Parapsychology. The evidence is so overwhelming, once you really look, that there's no point debating pseudo- skeptics who have been indoctrinated by the dominant paradigm which asserts that such things are impossible.

Not to go off topic, but the reality of psychic abilities, in particular mind over matter, could be a potential solution to climate change. If we allow our narrow mindedness to blind us to that, perhaps we deserve to go extinct.

a reply to: kimar

Kimar

The only answer I have for you is a very loud, deafening loud NO NO NO NO NO and just to be clear NO!

This is my money and my future too!

If global warming is happening (and it hasn't for the last 17 years), then it is happening and the earth won't turn on a dime (or a quadrillion dimes).

The fact is that the majority of the earths population knows that global warming is a scam! And people like you have stolen far too much money, power and control as is.

Each and every "solution" has resulted in increased damage to the earth. Forests cleared to plant crop for biofuels. Pollution caused by the cultivation of previous forest land. Mines in China to obtain earth metals to turbines. land covered by turbines and solar panels. Using global warming as an excuse to seize and control land. Starvation of populations because land is being used to grow fuel.

This isn't just your planet and you don't have the deciding vote.

You will be stopped!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

BTW - if you want anyone to believe in global warming - quit changing the name of the theory after the fact and get Micheal Mann (and others) to release the data their theory is supposedly resting on

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I am being logical. The fact that it is worded as "climate change" doesn't mean the planet WILL BE warming. Consider, for example, that we have been in the process of an ice age for the 50 thousand years. This is in line with the earths shifts between glacial and interglacial periods since the start of the pleistocene. However, the earth will be WARMING because, despite the solar cycles which are influencing earths exposure to light, we have INFUSED the atmosphere with unnaturally high levels of Co2 - and it is this, my friend, that I am astonished that you fail to keep in mind.

In your head, the situation has been made "white" - "oh, it's just solar cycles", ignoring the very dangerous tampering with the atmospheres chemical composition that we've engaged in for over 2 hundred years, with increasing scales of use up until the present.

You're a smart guy Horus. This is why I'm asking you to stop and reflect at the reason you're not considering the impact of this very unnatural human influence on the earths atmosphere - and how this will create different conditions. The earth will need to do something about this unnatural co2 concentration: it was at 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution. Today it is over 400ppm. That is a ridiculous change. The earths atmosphere - in order to sustain the ecosystem that it has fostered over the last 500,000 years - it must have a specific carbon dioxide concentration. We have induced a change in the system: it keeps rising year after year. Its expected to crack 450ppm in 2050, and 500ppm in 2100.

The creatures of this world are dependent upon the chemical composition of the atmosphere - the air it breathes - and the water which it swims in. The air effects the water. With higher co2 concentration comes higher oceanic acidity. Lower pH means the death of calcifying organisms like coral - and since coral form the basis of the life systems which exist around it - those beautiful tropical fish - the entire ecosystem will be wiped out with the lowering of ocean pH.

It's impossible to know every detail that will happen. We are not God. What we do have, however, is an ability to forecast possible futures and weigh the pros and cons of our current actions. In my mind, things would be far worse - not only for our civilization - and the rights we care for - and our species as well, if we fail to put this issue at the forefront of our thinking.

If I were like you, I would ignore the evidence and harp over a United Nations agenda against the planet. Why - you ask - do I not give credence to this idea, you might ask? Because logically, the consequences of being wrong about this claim are far greater and far worse than being right. Whereas, say your worry about a UN agenda were true - a claim which lacks substance considering the obvious human influence in climate change, indicating that the existence of a real problem is fueling this response, as opposed to people "engineering" a problem - the consequence would not be as dire as that of climate change. If we #ed the environment - and doing something now can help mitigate it, then we can avoid long term damage. Conversely, if the UN is conspiring against us, its consequence will be far less lasting as dysregulating the earths ecosystem.

So, as I hope you can see, my position is logical. I hope you can really focus yourself and ask yourself questions, and not blindly follow your impulses because of ego - that need to preserve your self esteem, and since interests become embedded with self, and unless were mindful of this process, we might become mindless zombies of the things we've come to support.

As for volcanic verses burning Co2. Think, for a second, about how much co2 is actually released into the atmosphere with volcanic eruptions. Firstly, volcanic eruptions are intermittent, whereas human burning of fossil fuels is constant, and has been constant, for over 200 years. Additionally, the earths movements - volcanic eruptions - tend to be balanced with the environment. Also, human burning of co2 would also ADD to the releases of co2 from Volcanic eruptions - so atleast, I imagine, this would be evidence against the continued use of fossil fuels.

Lastly, we've burned far more co2 over the last 200 years than the earths volcanos.

originally posted by: kimar
Sadly it has come to the point where debating those who do not recognize the reality of climate change is not really a viable option. There is no debate at this point. Those who deny the fact of climate change may as well argue against the sky being blue, grass being green, etc. It says a lot about the individual when they claim that human action has no adverse affect on this planet.

Implying what you are - speaks volumes about any willingness to actually debate the issue as its seemingly true that its a form of religion with you folks.

No one on the other side of this issue believes human action has no effects.

I'd like someone on your side to address natural causes such as changes in solar activity or earth bound cyclic reactions. I still tend to believe human caused effects while noticeable in urban areas are on the whole just a smaller part of a very large cycle.

Sure I'm all for controlling urban issues, I agree a less materialistic society would be better and I think that's a laudable goal to be achieved through education and awareness.

I do not agree that carbon credits or taxes are in any way a solution to what I see nor one that will absolve your religion of climate change.

For a whole lot of reasons I see our economic entanglement with China for instance to be a larger driver of pollution among other problems than most anything else. That's where I agree with de-consumerizing society.

If you want to make an impact try making taxes/fees on all manner of things intended to be thrown away rather than repaired, Get rid of ethanol subsidies that promote inefficient and economically backwards programs to improve mileage up to 10% or do as Brazil and offer the choice at the pump using cane derived ethanol. Rescind patent rights held on efficient batteries as a National Security issue so electric autos would actually work for average commuters (refer GM's car EV-1)

There is a lot to be done without handing utter control over to government or quasi-governmental control which seems the kneejerk reaction to the most radically fervent followers of climate change religion. These credit schemes have already shown through abuse just how useless they are just refer AL Gore, his aircraft and tree buying.

When practical solutions are presented that don't involve major government control then I'll lend an ear if only because I know it'll be good for everyone without stepping all over everyone's choices and rights.

Our goals are not that different in regards environment, its how its proposed to be achieved that I have issue with. Yours is heavy handed government edict, mine by gradual change in society.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Why is it that those who advocate for it are never the first ones to submit themselves to their own sacrifice?

What are you talking about here?

Does this sound like a rational statement? Who is going to "sacrifice" themselves? And who - in their right mind - thinks the earth has an infinite human population capacity?

Lowering the earths human population should be long term goal. You talk as if the "elites" are preparing for a world war to kill off people. There are so many things wrong with this assumption, but the biggest and most obvious one is attributing omnipotence to these "elites" as if everything that occurs in local and geopolitical contexts were engineered, as if stubborn, emotional, pathological, human beings, could agree and coordinate things at levels far beyond their competence to control.

Lowering earths population is a goal for a FUTURE time period, not now, and for it to be made possible, it'll obvious have to do with making people CONSCIOUS of the FACT that we humans are one among MANY species which call this planet home. It is therefore incumbent upon us to be mindful of the future by paying attention to what we do in the present.

I'm not sure what the planets "limit" population should be. I imagine future societies will debate an ideal population. It may be 2 billion, or a little less, or a little more. But I would essentially agree that we have inefficiently planned our societies and we could do a lot to help promote the growth of will ecosystems.

The elites use as much co2 as they want

Oh, man, I hear myself of 3 or 4 years ago in those words. There are no generic "elites". There are people with power, and they come to this position by various and disparate contexts and means. Once there, they either a) responsibly use power, or b) irresponsibly use power.

You essentially throw a blanket over anyone with influence and power and stereotype them as evil, as conspiring, or, perhaps "reptilian".

That's not logical thinking, sorry to tell you. You need to get your heart right, Horus.

Let me ask you something, why are politicians in the US trying to sack the coal industry but are giving China a pass on burning as much coal as they want, on importing coal from the US?

Because geopolitics is complicated. Coal is an ESTABLISHED industry, meaning it's well known how useful it is and it is cheap and plentiful in China, which makes the Chinese have to balance two interests: one interest in China, as well know, is to gain international prominence. They want to be the new "america" - and so a part of the Chinese - because people don't mindlessly agree with one another - wants to pursue WHATEVER means in pursuit of that goal, which means, burning cheap and plentiful and dirty coal. Another contingent within China understands, that, despite the cheapness of coal, it is dirty, and so China really has no choice but to invest heavily into third industrial revolution technologies i.e. photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, biowaste, etc. Life is complicated. This is why the Chinese are expressing contradiction. They want both a) to become prominent on the international stage and b) transition to a cleaner energy economy. People all the time try to have their cake and eat it to.

I'm of course not sanctioning this course of action by the Chinese. Although, understandably, the'yre peeved that the current climate debacle was created by the west - who enjoy a first world economy and high living standards for the majority of their citizens, China has to think in terms of our common humanity: the planet, the ecosystem, and the perpetuation of our species is whats at stake if they don't make changes fast. Li Keqiang, to his credit, is interested in it. But he has to compete with financial interests and hardcore nationalists in his country to make that happen.

Even China is coming around. The environment was one issue both China and Conservatives agreed on at one time.

China declares war on pollution

Last week, the government passed sweeping amendments to its environmental protection laws — the first changes in 25 years — imposing tougher penalties for polluters and making it easier for whistleblowers and advocates to report polluting companies. When it goes into effect next January, the law will establish "environmental protection as the country's basic policy."
The amendments passed this month mark the latest in a series of recent moves to curb pollution in China, where environmental concerns have become a hot political issue. Late last year, the government announced its first national plan to combat climate change, and it has already committed $280 billion to cleaning its air. In March, Premier Li Keqiang saidChina will "declare war" on pollution, describing the country's smog problems as "nature's red-light warning against inefficient and blind development."

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Dianec

You say that we cannot stop its acceleration, and anything we would do would be too late anyway so let Mother Nature do her thing. Sure thing - I'll join the others who think like that and use/burn styrophome, throw my soda cans into the ocean, and waste as much energy as possible because Mother Nature will figure it out and it's all about playing it safe with my wants and needs today rather than worrying about my kids' future.

Not once - not ever ever in my entire life have I opposed pollution control - YOU are confused. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a natural part of the environment and an important plant fertilizer.

I could talk all day about the efforts I have made in the last 25 years in the field of pollution control and environmental protection.

But we are not talking about pollution. We are talking about global warming

Tired of control freaks

Fair enough. I did not deal with the precise cause.

I guess I am a part of that whole ozone time period when the sun became even more damaging and we were given warnings (which were warranted). When I see what the air looks like in India or China I can't reconcile in my mind how that could not cause harm.

The United States is evidently among one of the top 10 polluters (for carbons). If I drive from coast to coast I'm not seeing this. I know that just because it isn't visible doesn't mean it isn't there, but I don't get how we can make a bit of difference if these other Countries aren't on board. I feel we can take some steps but what I'm hearing may happen makes no sense to me.

Catalytic converters might make sense for vehicles. Government funded devices for coal plants - if they want that change they need to pay for it rather than putting people out of business. Too late for that one but one less Air Force one flight and they've taken care of that expense. If the people don't demand it they won't give it.

It's a sad reminder of how primitive we still are when it comes to problem solving - thinking we can buy our way out of this issue by putting financial stress on those who use the same things the elite uses. They truly believe this will help and cannot see past it. I sometimes feel like I was meant to be born for the year 2300. Is this the best they can do?

I don't see any harm in reducing emissions. Over time and in a way that is not so dramatic that it fails. I agree with you, it will not change anything right now. It might for way down the road - but it is future oriented. The damage is done.

a reply to: Astrocyte

What are you talking about here?

I was principally talking about depopulation, but flying jets around and then telling the rest of us we shouldn't be driving SUV's because they emit too much co2....don't you see the hypocrisy here? Perhaps if they were following the rules they are pushing on us, perhaps it would be believable.
Like someone else said, co2 is not pollution, and plants use it.
Smart Meters are another way of controlling us, but tell me where Al Gore gets off living in big mansion homes and flying around to sell his theory while the rest of us have to use Smart Meters to control our electricity output? Evidently even he doesn't believe his lies.

If I were like you, I would ignore the evidence and harp over a United Nations agenda against the planet.

Oh right, what you really mean is you are going to ignore the evidence I have shown complete with quotes, documentable I might add, that the UN and members of the Club of Rome have colluded to foist this monstrous thing on us for the purpose of World Domination, but you are trying to tell me I must believe the crazy hype presented by the likes of Al Gore(a member of Club of Rome too), or the ideas of James Lovelock that we must worship Gaia, an earth goddess. That is sooooo scientific. Oh, you meant I should not ignore the slanted hockey stick graph which has already been debunked? What other proof do you have that you believe I am ignoring? We could go into the specifics of every argument, but aren't there already threads from days gone by? Hasn't this stuff been debated ad nauseum here already? How about those emails which showed how far AGW's went to perpetuate the hoax?

Before you accuse me of ignoring things, look in the mirror already.

There are no sides here. You are either brainwashed by lunatics in the pocket of big oil and Fox News and talk radio or you can see the science. Like the poster said above...Gravity is merely a theory and we can't really prove it, evolution is but a theory but we pretty much know they are true unless you are a backwoods Christian young earth creationist who believes the earth is only 6000 years old.

I'm going with Neal Degrass Tyson and "EVERY OTHER CREDIBLE SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD!" and believing in Man Made Global Warming just Like I believe in Gravity and Evolution.

Sorry peeps, it's happening and it sucks but we have to get our heads out of the sand and deal with it.

I keep seeing people bring up Global Cooling years ago. I already posted and debunked that. Global Cooling never eally caught on with science....it was more of a pop culture thing and only proposed by a few scientists. Global warming on the other hand had hundreds of thousands of proponents in main stream science. It's a real thing!

I also see people talking about recent global cooling trends. I'm not seeing that when I research on google. In fact NASA says...that CO2 concentrations are their highest in 650,000 years. NASa also says that temps have been rising
climate.nasa.gov...

Are you telling me that NASA is lying to me and that Neil Tyson doesn't know anything about science. and that every other scientist in the world is in on some kind of conspiracy? I'm not buying that BS.

I agree it is time to take matters into our own hands and bypass these retarded climate deniers that don't care if our world dies. (At least the world that a human would value) I'm not going to let it. I have children.