World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change, Jerry Brown says at Vatican

Why is Brown in Vatican City could he not deliver his message over the telephone? Teleconference technology has come a long way, there really is no reason to be this wasteful any more. Shame on you Mr Brown you ought to lead by example.

And frankly why does he need the help of the Vatican on this one? Sure I can see why they can be helpful. But Brown is the leader of the region of the world that boasts the biggest congregation of consermerisum. With both silicon valley and Hollywood he has the power to reach many more people who need to hear his message than the Vatican ever could. He gets both of those power house in his State to adopt his away of thinking he will get what he wants.

Man... I hate my governor.

Brainwashing is done by a lot of people, organizations, corporations, governments, and is part of our society. What's new.

Most people do not even know they have been brainwashed, and some brainwashing is needed to make society work.

"I am Governor Jerry Brown, my aura smiles but never frowns..."

Dead Kennedys did a song called California Uber Alles back in the day. I always assumed Jerry Brown was a fictional character, but boy was I wrong. Am I really the only person here that shudders when I hear the name Jerry Brown?

"Don't you worry it's only a shower, for your clothes here's a pretty flower..."

Disclosure: I do not trust Jerry Brown.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

But that we are doing insane things to the environment do not prove that letting out CO2 is an extreme problem.

Going after CO2 and not stopping heating of oceans thru fission and release of Chemicals in oceans is insane since Water Vapor cause the most greenhouse effect. Only going after CO2 seems like it is a calculated move by some very greedy people.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

But that we are doing insane things to the environment do not prove that letting out CO2 is a problem.

Just read that again and tell me you wont find the non sequitur yourself.
The reduction of a plethora of issues on CO2 alone illustrates only how the markets dictate the way it's being dealt with. Or how it isn't being dealt with accordingly, to be more precise.

For me to take the scientist and politicians serious they need to come with facts.

...it said to a reply filled with clues to straight facts and data. Yes, ytube snippets from the field for lazy folks like you and me. Whatever.

Only going after CO2 seems like it is a calculated move by some very greedy people.

Colour me not surprised. It's the same "democratic" elite exploiting any crisis whatsoever again! This could tell you, that the crisis is real and funny carbon tax schemes wont help to solve a thing.
In essence, one could argue that a gigantic conspiracy is already at work to reduce the global population for good. It's called "The Markets" and "they" thoroughly fcked us already.

But nope. Instead, you're supposed to concentrate on the "bad guy" willing to brainwash people. Go and figure?

a reply to: Justoneman

As a Environmental Scientist

Hello friend! Air quality? Wish you were here. I'd have trouble for you to get into and a lot of it.

I'm not a climatologist. I've spent my career guarding 400 square miles of wetlands and I can honestly say that my water is cleaner now than it was when I got here and that's all I can do, and I'll keep doing it until a contributor gains sufficient political stroke to get rid of me for good. However, the wonderful thing about our field is that it encompasses so many different fields that you get a good understanding of the entire planet as an series of self-regulating feedback loops. When you know a little bit about hydrology, meteorology, geology, and biology you get a pretty good overview of "the big picture."

Climate change is real. I do not deny that humans are responsible at least partially for increasing temperatures. What has not been adequately explained is that many times in our planet's history the CO2/Methane and temperatures have been demonstrably higher without any humans around at all. What also has not been adequately explained is why are specific countries being penalized and forced to shoulder the majority of the burden when the countries responsible for the vast amount of emissions being given a pass to do whatever they want for the next two decades?

Why are politicians and rich people telling me my car doesn't get high enough gas mileage when they take an entire jumbo jet and accompanying crew the next state over to give rallies telling me *I* am not doing enough? GTFO of here with that tripe. Seems to be a lot of the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality. My mother pulled that same with me and the only thing it made me do was ignore her more.

a reply to: netwarrior

I agree with you.

People who work for a living are already being screwed by the banking Ponzi Schemers that are destroying the value of fiat money thru inflation and housing bubbles and both sides of the political spectrum of politicians are in on it.

Souls can join the higher parts of the power pyramid if they are enough of an hypocrite and can handle lying for mammon. Some souls are selling themselves very cheaply now days. Insane fools. .



Even the scientific method have been deeply corrupted by greed. When Scientist went from Wise objective beings to a Clergy shouting heresy to the faith.

"For the third year in a row, the earth in 2016 hit record heat --- Threat to society and nature is rising --- Scale of shift startles scientists --- It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row.

The heat extremes were especially pervasive in the Arctic, with temperatures in the fall running 20 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit above normal across large stretches of the Arctic Ocean. Sea ice in that region has been precipitous decline for years, and Arctic communities are already wrestling with enormous problems, such as rapid coastal erosion, caused by the changing climate.

In fact, the global warming rate over time has been reasonably close to predictions that scientists first offered decades ago. Those same scientists have long warned that humanity is courting disaster by failing to bring fossil-fuel emissions under control.

For example, many experts on sea level believe that a rise of 15 or 20 feet has already become inevitable, though they cannot say how fast it will happen. A rise that large would drown most of the world's coastal cities without heroic efforts to fortify them."

quote: By Justin Gillis - New York Times - INTERNATIONAL - Thursday, January 19, 2017

"About 40 years ago, the earth's surface temperatures began to break out of their recent historical range and just kept climbing.

Not coincidentally, the number of storms with extreme rainfall began to increase about the same time.

The main reason these storms seem to be more frequent is global warming.

Irma and Harvey weren't caused by climate change, but they almost certainly would not have been so powerful if the air and the seas fueling them hadn't been so warm.

And the rise of extreme rainstorms isn't limited to hurricanes. 'Heavy precipitation events in most parts of the United States have increased,' says the latest draft of the National Climate Assessment, written by the scientists who are careful not to overclaim. 'There is strong evidence, it continues, 'that increased water vapor resulting form higher temperatures is the primary cause.'

Welcome to the era of extreme rain. We can continue to pretend it's all a coincidence and watch the consequences mount. Or we can start to do something about it --- by using less of the dirty energy that's changing the climate and by preparing for a future that's guaranteed to be hotter and rainier."

quote: David Leonhardt - "Irma, and the Rise of Extreme Rain -- NYT's OP-ED - Tuesday, September 12, 2017

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Brainwashed, eh? So, he's basically admitting it's all BS, since no one needs to be brainwashed to believe in facts.

At the Vatican.....not surprised.

originally posted by: netwarrior
a reply to: Justoneman

As a Environmental Scientist

Hello friend!

Air quality? Wish you were here. I'd have trouble for you to get into and a lot of it.

I'm not a climatologist. I've spent my career guarding 400 square miles of wetlands and I can honestly say that my water is cleaner now than it was when I got here and that's all I can do, and I'll keep doing it until a contributor gains sufficient political stroke to get rid of me for good. However, the wonderful thing about our field is that it encompasses so many different fields that you get a good understanding of the entire planet as an series of self-regulating feedback loops. When you know a little bit about hydrology, meteorology, geology, and biology you get a pretty good overview of "the big picture."

Climate change is real. I do not deny that humans are responsible at least partially for increasing temperatures. What has not been adequately explained is that many times in our planet's history the CO2/Methane and temperatures have been demonstrably higher without any humans around at all. What also has not been adequately explained is why are specific countries being penalized and forced to shoulder the majority of the burden when the countries responsible for the vast amount of emissions being given a pass to do whatever they want for the next two decades?

Why are politicians and rich people telling me my car doesn't get high enough gas mileage when they take an entire jumbo jet and accompanying crew the next state over to give rallies telling me *I* am not doing enough? GTFO of here with that tripe. Seems to be a lot of the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality. My mother pulled that same

with me and the only thing it made me do was ignore her more.

Oh I agree with you. And YES climate change is real. It will always change because we don't live in a sealed box. Equilibrium will never be met on Earth. Until we are swallowed by the Sun altogether.
ETA

Physical Chemistry describes what happens in a closed Environment exactly and Earth is not one. It is true it operates a bit like a closed system but the edge of the atmosphere is allowing exchange of molecules and the meteors that we pass through fields from time to time are leaving matter also.

a reply to: LittleByLittle


You said it right!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

For those of us that are not as intelligent with you please explain:

1: AGW - what does the acronym stand for....

and

2: What you mean here: "after all the Earth is not playing nice with the AGW believers and their claims,"

Thanx

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The science is not perfect. But every year the science gets better and better:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Wow really? are you that far behind in the argument that you don't know that claim has been debunked?... The "97.1% consensus" was in reality 97.1% of 32.6% (plus 1% of those rejecting the claims and those uncertain)... That's how the AGW proponents got to the "97% consensus"... That number was cooked by Cook...

Here, an abstract of a paper from Cook and his Cookers Cooking the data:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Link
Do you get it now?... 32.6% endorsed AGW, of that 32.6% ( plus the 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming making them in total 33.6% the amount of those expressing a position) 97.1% endorsed the position that humans are the cause of global warming...

That's a lot of cooking data isn't?... But hey, his name is John Cook...

BTW, they used 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011. There are far more abstracts from papers covering this topic, and thousands of such papers reject these claims. Even among these abstracts used by Cook and his "Cookers" 66.4% of the abstracts had no position on AGW

edit on 8-11-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt and link.

edit on 8-11-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

www.nationalreview.com...

capitalresearch.org...

www.climatedollars.org...

You seem detached from reality. $166 billion, and you think those scientists are going to conclude that there is no real need to study this???

a reply to: dfnj2015

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

For those of us that are not as intelligent with you please explain:

1: AGW - what does the acronym stand for....

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

It means "global warming" is being produced by human made activities; the gasses pumped into the atmosphere are changing natural global weather patterns.



Clean air?? Tell that to the residence of Dehli. Ind ian medics declare ‘health emergency’ in Delhi as smog blankets city.

Oh, it is just an inversion layer. Well, it happens all over the globe. But best to hide behind an acronym and tag anybody who actually cares about the environment as "left" or whatever TLA you can make up to feed your sense of superiority.

Man, I'm going to lmao when people start scrounging around for CO2 scrubbers to feed machines that make useful things humans want and need like electricity and fuel precursors.

What do I mean? I mean energy has already been used to create what, for now, is considered a "waste product" that is belched into the air by the tons per year. That "waste" can be used to perform other useful functions. It is free right now. But one day, there is going to be a mad scramble for it because it is "free" but can "make you money".

Why tie it to a political agenda? What do you get out of it?

Yeah, dirty air in India, doesn't hurt me. Dirty air in China, doesn't affect me. But as we head into the 27th named storm of the season, as El Nino and La Nina last longer, as forests burn in California, hide behind your TLAs and call everybody else names.

Me, I will be thinking about not adding to the mess. And how to clean up those plastic islands in the ocean. And how to invest money in people using supercritical CO2 turbines to make electricity. And into groups who scrub CO2 from the air for their own use. Politics be d@mned.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wow!
That's so disingenuous... here I am talking about bad peer review processes that have already been proven earlier when it comes to climate change, and here you are talking about misconstruing numbers in their favor.

It's like........ they have an agenda or something.

originally posted by: netwarrior

Climate change is real. I do not deny that humans are responsible at least partially for increasing temperatures. What has not been adequately explained is that many times in our planet's history the CO2/Methane and temperatures have been demonstrably higher without any humans around at all.

Clearly we didn't have direct measurements 100 million years ago, but there are significant theories.

What it shows is that high CO2 means high temperatures for well understood physical reasons. After that, plants grew very big, did not decay, and in addition algae in oceans over time deposited their carbon in places not interacting with the biosphere. Those are known as 'fossil fuels' today but have been inert climatically and ecologically for a very long time until humans took them out.

So, the answer is, 'when the carbon which is currently being released from burning fossil fuels was originally in the atmosphere, it was very hot.'. In addition, the Sun was not as hot then as it is now, so we'd get to an even hotter state.

And back then the plants that died did not fully decay because fungi and bacteria had not evolved certain processes to digest parts of the plants. Today, they do have that, so we cannot repeat the process which took carbon out of the atmosphere and sequestered it biologically.

In sum, unless we stop using fossil fuels really really soon, we're #ed.

What also has not been adequately explained is why are specific countries being penalized and forced to shoulder the majority of the burden when the countries responsible for the vast amount of emissions being given a pass to do whatever they want for the next two decades?

The countries responsible for the vast amount of emissions in atmosphere are leadingly USA and former USSR. China and India are growing but their total contribution is less. China has suddenly made a major commitment to much greener energy & lower pollution.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's totally wrong. I've been at lectures with the original author in person.

Climatology and earth scientist study all sorts of things, the abstract may not have a particular position on it, or the consequences are clear to informed professional readers and don't need to be discussed explicitly.

What fraction of the abstracts of papers in Physical Review take an explicit position on the reality of conservation of momentum? Uh, maybe 0.0001%? What fraction of practicing scientists who publish in Physical Review think conservation of momentum is a true fact of physics? 100%.