How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[pixelsmith]

Don't consume them then. I don't.
Also don't consume volcanic emissions they are not safe either. I would bet a volcano tax would help curb volcanic emissions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

CO2 is the problem. When one reads the science it is inescapable. As Mike is pointing out, however, the narrow view is self-defeating. When one argues that more CO2 will make plants grow, for example, one is not factoring in the other issues that accrue when biomass is enhanced, like the need for more water (for one thing). Without sufficient water, no matter how much CO2, plants will die, deserts will be created.

These posts I make with links are direct rebuttal to much of what is claimed on this thread by the denialist. The text is science that one must read and attempt to understand. I have come to doubt that the science is actually read or actually comprehended.

I have highlighted some sentences for brevity for those who cannot (because of time) read the whole text.

CO2 is plant food [CO2 is good for agriculture.]
LINK: CO2 is plant food

What the Science Says: "The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors - OR, said more simply: More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants."

Climate Myth: "CO2 is plant food: Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)"

TEXT: "In the climate change debate, it appears to be agreed by everyone that excess CO2 will at least have the direct benefit of increasing photosynthesis, and subsequently growth rate and yield, in virtually any plant species: A common remark is that industrial greenhouse owners will raise CO2 levels far higher than normal in order to increase the yield of their crops, so therefore increasing atmospheric levels should show similar benefits. Unfortunately, a review of the literature shows that this belief is a drastic oversimplification of a topic of study that has rapidly evolved in recent years.

"Climate control vs. climate change
"The first and most obvious retort to this argument is that plants require more than just CO2 to live. Owners of industrial greenhouses who purchase excess CO2 also invest considerable effort in keeping their plants at optimum growing conditions, particularly with respect to temperature and moisture. As CO2 continues to change the global climate, both of these variables are subject to change in an unfavorable way for a certain species in a certain region (Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010,Lobell et al. 2011). More and more it is becoming clear that in many cases, the negatives of drought and heat stress may cancel out any benefits of increased CO2 predicted by even the most optimistic study.

"But there is a more subtle point to be made here. The majority of scientific studies on enhanced CO2 to date have been performed in just these types of enclosed greenhouses, or even worse, individual growth chambers. Only recently have researchers begun to pull away from these controlled settings and turn their attention to outdoor experiments. Known as Free-Air CO2 Enrichment or “FACE”, these studies observe natural or agricultural plants in a typical outdoor setting while exposing them to a controlled release of CO2, which is continuously monitored in order to maintain whichever ambient concentration is of interest for the study (see Figure 1). Figure 1 - Example FACE study in Wisconsin, USA with multiple CO2 injection plots; courtesy of David F Karnosky, obtained from Los Alamos National Laboratory.

"FACE studies are therefore superior to greenhouse studies in their ability to predict how natural plants should respond to enhanced CO2 in the real world; unfortunately, the results of these studies are not nearly as promising as those of greenhouse studies, with final yield values averaging around 50% less in the free-air studies compared to greenhouse studies (Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth 2005, Morgan et al. 2005). Reasons for this are numerous, but it is suspected that in a greenhouse, the isolation of individual plants, constrained root growth, restricted pest access, lack of buffer zones, and unrealistic atmospheric interactions all contribute to artificially boost growth and yield under enhanced CO2.

"C3 & C4
"Photosynthesis comes in a few different flavors, two of which are C3 and C4. Together C3and C4 photosynthesis make up almost all of modern agriculture, with wheat and rice being examples of C3 crops while corn and sugarcane are C4. The distinction deals mainly with the specific enzyme that is used to collect CO2 for the process of photosynthesis, with C3directly relying on the enzyme RuBisCO. C4 plants also use RuBisCO, but unlike C3 plants, they first collect CO2 with the enzyme PEP-carboxylase in the mesophyll cell prior to pumping it to RuBisCO (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 - A simplified diagram contrasting C3 vs. C4 plant photosynthesis. From Nature Magazine.

"The relevance of this distinction to excess CO2 is that PEP-carboxylase has no natural affinity for oxygen, whereas RuBisCO does. RuBisCO will just as readily collect oxygen (which is useless) as it will CO2, and so increasing the ratio of CO2/O2 in the atmosphere increases the efficiency of C3 plants; the extra step in the C4 process eliminates this effect, since the mesophyll cell already serves to concentrate pure CO2 near RuBisCO. Therefore excess CO2 shows some benefit to C3 plants, but no significant benefit to C4 plants. Cure and Acock 1986 (a greenhouse study) showed excess CO2 gave a 35% photosynthesisboost to rice and a 32% boost to soybeans (both C3 plants), but only a 4% boost to C4crops. More recently, Leaky et al. 2006 (a FACE study) did not find any statistically significant boost in photosynthesis or yield for corn (a C4 crop) under excess CO2.

"Going a bit deeper, it has recently been found that in some C3 plants—such as cotton and many bean species—a further enzyme known as RuBisCO activase is required to convert RuBisCO into its “active” state, the only state in which it can be used for photosynthesis. The downside of this is that the activase enzyme is much more sensitive to high temperatures compared to RuBisCO itself, and also responds poorly to excess CO2: Heat can destroy the structure of the activase enzyme at temperatures as low as 89.6 F, while excess CO2 reduces the abundance of the cellular energy molecule ATP that is critical for RuBisCO activase to function properly (Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000, Salvucci et al. 2001). This effect may potentially nullify some of the gains expected from excess CO2 in these plants.

"Chemical Responses & Nutrition
"Even within a specific type of photosynthesis—indeed, even within a specific species—the positive responses to enhanced CO2 can vary widely. Nutrient availability in particular can greatly affect a plant’s response to excess CO2, with phosphorous and nitrogen being the most critical (Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010). The ability of plants to maintain sufficient nitrogen under excess CO2 conditions is also reduced for reasons not fully understood (Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008).

"It has also been found that excess CO2 can make certain agricultural plants less nutritious for human and animal consumption. Zhu 2005, a three-year FACE study, concluded that a 10% decrease in the protein content of rice is expected at 550 ppm, with decreases in iron and zinc contents also found. Similarly, Högy et al. 2009, also a FACE study at 550 ppm, found a 7% drop in protein content for wheat, along with decreased amino acid and iron content. Somewhat ironically, this reduction in nutrient content is partially caused by the very increase in growth rates that CO2 encourages in C3 plants, since rapid growth leaves less time for nutrient accumulation.

"Increased CO2 has been shown to lead to lower production of certain chemical defense mechanisms in soybeans, making them more vulnerable to pest attack and diseases (Zavala et al. 2008 and Eastburn et al. 2010). Other studies (e.g. Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999) have shown production of phenolics and tannins to increase under enhanced CO2 in some species, as well as many alkaloids (Ziska et al. 2005), all of which may have potential consequences on the health of primary consumers. The decreased nutritional value in combination with increased tannin and phenolic production has been linked to decreased growth rate and conversion efficiency of some herbivores, as well as an increase in their relative demand and consumption of plants (Stiling and Cornelissen 2007).

"Furthermore, many “cyanogenic” species—plants which naturally produce cyanide, and which include 60% of all known plant species—have been found to increase their cyanide production in an enhanced CO2 world. This may have a benefit to the plants who use cyanide to inhibit overconsumption by pests and animals, but it may in turn reduce their safety as a food supply for both humans and animals (Gleadow et al., 2009a and Gleadow et al. 2009b).

"Interactions with other species
"Competing plant species have also been shown to drastically alter expected benefits from excess CO2: even in the best FACE studies, most research still involves artificial experimental plots consisting of fewer than five plant species, and often only one species is present. It has long been understood that due to increased growth of competitor species, benefits from isolated experiments cannot be scaled up to explain how a plant might respond in a monoculture plot (Navas et al. 1999). The distinction is even greater when comparing the behavior of isolated species to those of mixed plots (Poorter and Navas 2003).

"That some plant species may benefit more fully and/or rapidly from excess CO2 also introduces the possibility that the abundance of certain species in an ecosystem will increase more than that of others, potentially forcing the transformation from one type ofecosystem to another (Poorter and Navas 2003). There is also some evidence suggesting that invasive species and many “weeds” may show relatively higher responses to elevated CO2 (Ziska and George 2004), and become more resistant to conventional herbicides (Ziska et al. 2004, Ziska and Teasdale 2000).

"There is some evidence that interacting bacterial communities, particularly in the roots, will be affected through elevated CO2, leading to mixed results on overall plant health. Mutualistic fungal root communities (known as ‘mycorrhizae') are typically shown to increase under excess CO2, which facilitate nutrient transport to the roots (Treseder 2004), although infections of pathogenic species such as Fusarium (the agent of the disease known as ‘crown rot’) have been shown to become more severe under excess CO2 as well (Melloy et al. 2010).

"Temperature
"It has long been known that stomata (the pores through which plants take in CO2 and exhale oxygen and water) tend to be narrower and stay closed longer under enhanced CO2. This effect is often cited as a benefit in that it increases water efficiency in drought situations.

"But there is another key piece to reduced stomatal conductance, considering that 90% of a plant’s water use is actually for cooling of the leaves and nothing more: heat from the sun is absorbed by the water in the leaf, then carried out as vapor in the form of latent heat. So while it is true that the plant may retain water better under enhanced CO2, doing so may cause it to retain more heat. This can potentially carry a plant to less optimal temperature ranges (Ball et al. 1988 and Idso et al. 1993). An image present in Long et al. 2006 (Figure 3) shows this effect quite clearly; while a 1.4 C increase is probably not enough to cause significant damage in most cases, global warming will only serve to exacerbate the effect. It is also of note that the study above represented a well-watered situation, and so during a drought condition the temperature increase would be even higher.

"Figure 3 - Increase in local temperature under enhanced CO2 due to reducedevapotranspiration. From Long et al. 2006

"On the cold end, it has been found that for seedlings of some species of evergreen trees, excess CO2 can increase the ice formation temperature on the leaves, thereby increasing their sensitivity to frost damage (Roden et al. 1998).

"Ozone
"CO2 is not the only atmospheric gas that is on the rise: concentrations of ground-levelozone (O3) are expected to rise 23% by 2050 due to continuing anthropogenic emissions of precursor gases like methane and nitrous oxides. In addition, Monson et al. 1991 found that natural plant emissions of volatile organic compounds (another group of O3 precursors) increase under excess CO2 in many plant species, thereby introducing the potential that local O3 concentrations around plant communities may rise even higher than the baseline atmospheric level.

"O3 has long been known to be toxic to plants: Morgan et al. 2006 found a 20% reduction of soybean yield in a FACE study of 23% excess O3. Similarly, Ainsworth 2008 showed a 14% decrease in rice yield at 62 ppb O3, and Feng et al. 2008 (a meta-analysis of 53 peer-reviewed studies) found on average a 18% decrease in wheat yield at 43 ppb O3. Ozonealso appears to reduce the structural integrity of plants as well as make them more vulnerable to certain insect pest varieties such as aphids (Warrington 1988).

"With respect to this effect, excess CO2 may actually prove beneficial in that it causes a narrowing of leaf stomata, thereby reducing the quantity of ozone that can enter the more sensitive internal tissues. Needless to say, the combined effect of excess CO2 and excess O3 is complex, and as it has only recently been given attention it is an area that requires much further research.

"Conclusion
"A specific plant’s response to excess CO2 is sensitive to a variety of factors, including but not limited to: age, genetic variations, functional types, time of year, atmospheric composition, competing plants, disease and pest opportunities, moisture content, nutrient availability, temperature, and sunlight availability. The continued increase of CO2 will represent a powerful forcing agent for a wide variety of changes critical to the success of many plants, affecting natural ecosystems and with large implications for global food production. The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail."

 

[mike]

Don't consume them then. I don't.
Also don't consume volcanic emissions they are not safe either. I would bet a volcano tax would help curb volcanic emissions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're deflecting again, we are talking about things we can control, things that are doing damage to the biosphere.

So lets see if i have your logic straight

If i add CO2, and arsenic, and lead and mercury, and radium and sulphur and beryllium and cadmium and a host of VOC's to water, you recognise that the water is unsafe to drink.

But if i do the exact same to the air........ Its OK because one of those ingredients is OK in your view

Again that logic only works on paper, as a philosophical point in an online discussion

In real life it doesnt.

And we dont have to guess, we can see what happens when we look at China. Chinas problems have nothing to do with volcanos.
Everything to do with a too large population, needing increased industrial activity to drive their lifestyle.

Its the same with your deflection re: you all use products you are all hypocrites.

Again you have to argue the micro, and ignore the macro. And again you make my point for me

Yes Humans are the cause as you say, im a cause, you're a cause we are all contributers.

The issue is the larger not the smaller math in the equation

Humans are responsible for emissions

More humans = more emissions
Too many humans = too many emissions

China is a classic case, we know they have too many people, and we can see the result.

Its not rocket science its all there in black and white

If its not safe to add CO2 AND all those other toxins to water as you agree is the case
Then by logical extension its not safe to do the exact same thing to our air.

 

[Tyger]

Skeptical Science writes their science summary reports at the high school level and embed the primary source material (scientific studies) in links throughout the report. The SkS reports are basically summaries of the science reports they link to.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
LINK: What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
What the Science Says: "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2."
Climate Myth: "Ice age predicted in the 70s: "[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)"

TEXT: "Mainstream Media: What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production." "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

"A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture: "When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

"Peer-Reviewed Literature
"However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

"Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

"Scientific Consensus
"In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

"This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:"...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

"In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• American Association for the Advancement of Science

"Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions
"Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971): "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K." Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s:

"Figure 2: Global sulfur dioxide emissions by source (PNNL)

"Similarly, if we now limit CO2 emissions, we can also eventually get global warming under control.

"Summary
"So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2emissions causing global warming.

• The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, published by the American Meteorological Society.
• Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? by William Connelly documents all the scientific literature in the 70's on global cooling.
• Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations by Spencer Weart (part of the History of Global Warming series) documents the development of ice age science.
• Logical Science goes to the trouble of purchasing the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report to see what the NAS had to say about global cooling in the 70's.
• James Hansen responds to the claims that "Hansen predicted an ice age in the 70's", explaining the role of his computer program used in Rasool's paper.
• Check out this New York Times article from 1956 that discusses a forecasted increase in global temperatures as emissions from burning fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO2. Thanks to George Morrison for the heads up.
• Robert Brulle at the Wonk Room looks at a range of New York Times articles on climate science in the late 60's and early 70's.
• The 1979 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment" finds "when it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes." "

 

[Tyger]

Comments following the above article -

Comment: "at 01:07 AM on 29 February, 2008
"The claim by Peterson that there were only 7 papers in the 1970s predicting cooling is just ridiculous. Anyone can check this with a quick look at Google scholar. Here are two examples they have missed, but there are many more.

"Return of the ice age and drought in peninsular Florida?
Joseph M. Moran, Geology 3 (12): 695-696 (1975)
Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age
T. Hughes, Science Vol. 170. no. 3958, pp. 630 - 633 (1970)

"What is strange is why people attempt to re-write recent history in this way, when their claims can so easily be disproven.
Where did all the stories in the papers, TV and magazines come from? Were they all just fabricated? No of course not, they came from scientists who made suggestions (like the above 'possibly to a new ice age') which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the global warming scare."

Response Comment: "at 05:39 AM on 29 March, 2008
"Um, for one thing Moran was writing about _Florida_ cooling, not _global_ cooling. I guess you'll need to relax your search criterion for "global cooling" a whole lot to prove that scientists did predict cooling..."they came from scientists who made suggestions (like the above 'possibly to a new ice age') which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the global warming scare." Yeah, "much of the same thing" in the sense that the "media" is artificially inflating the voice of the global warming "skeptics". "

Response Comment: "at 21:26 PM on 20 April, 2008
PaulM, You bemoan people attempting to ‘re-write recent history’. However, reporting the facts does not amount to ‘rewriting history’! The people actually responsible for the rewriting of history are not AGW fanatics, but people politically or ideologically aligned to industry and typically funded directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel funded denial industry. Peterson et al. 2008 have merely attempted to establish the facts and set the record straight.

"The fact that you may have identified two additional relevant papers and claimed there are ‘many more’, which may or may not support your pet theory, does not invalidate their research. It seems probable that any additional papers fitting the various search criteria will be distributed in much the same way as the papers already listed, unless there is a very good reason why they should not be included."

Response Comment: "at 22:16 PM on 20 April, 2008
"Quietman, You are repeating the deceitful alarmist allegations made repeatedly by skeptics. From Scientists add to heat over global warming by S. Fred Singer, Washington Times, May 5, 1998: “But this exaggerated concern about global warming contrasts sharply with an earlier NAS/NRC report, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action." There, in 1975, the NAS "experts" exhibited the same hysterical fears—-this time, however, asserting a "finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."

"The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as "unusual," following as it did the "Little Ice Age," which had lasted from 1430 to 1850.”

"You will note that the terms ‘exaggerated’, ‘hysterical fears’ and ‘fears’ are used. There are a number of other changes too that render the use of quotes highly questionable.

"1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action

"Strangely, From the foreword (by V E Suomi, Chair of the US Committee for GARP):

"..,we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..,".

"From the introduction
"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced byclimate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know".

"Not much evidence of hysteria! It would seem that the allegations of exaggeration and hysteria were complete fabrications introduced by Singer. The measured and cautious language of the National Academy of Sciences has been entirely born out."


NOTE: You can follow the comment conversation as it proceeds if you go into the link. In this instance there is an excellent illustration of how the comment section is moderated on Skeptical Science. There are no deletions (unless forum rules are breached - particularly rude behavior, attacks on individuals, etc., as well as comments with unsupported claims - one much always link with back-up, even in the comments). In fact, contrary posts stand but it is clear there is rigorous moderation to ensure a smooth conversation. Someone posting like Pixel does on this thread would never last over there - he wouldn't be tolerated. Hence his rather sour and bitter attitude towards that site, I think.

 

[Tyger]

The conversation on the 1970's Cooling/Ice Age article is very relevant. Some interesting exchanges - one of them follows -

Comment: "at 20:08 PM on 26 October, 2011
"cjshaker, no you didn't misread that... but it says "little-ice-age", while you said "ice age". These are not the same thing. The 'little ice age' was a brief comparatively minor cooling period centered around north western Europe.

"Technically, the term 'ice age' refers to any period where portions of the Earth are covered with ice caps... making the past several million years part of an ice age. However, the term 'ice age' is also often used to refer to glaciations (i.e. periods when the ice caps expand significantly)... which the quote you provided suggested could next occur in 20,000 years.

"Thus, reading your prediction of an 'ice age in the near future' as referring to a glaciation would be consistent with common usage of the terms. I have never before seen the term 'ice age' treated as synonymous with the 'little ice age'. One is a term used for two different types of global cycles that play out over hundreds of thousands to millions of years... the other was a localized phenomenon that lasted a couple hundred.

"That said, I wouldn't generally call 300 to 800 years from now the "near future" either. In any case, the topic of this post is global 'ice age' / glaciation. A return to 'little ice age' conditions would be a problem for Europe, but a non-event for most of the planet."


Comment Response: "[DB] CBD, a technical note. We are currently within an inter-glacial phase of an ice age, wherein ice age is defined as a period of time where continental ice sheets are existent upon the globe. That being said, everything you say is still true. Absent CO2 forcing, the globe had already started the long, slow return to glaciated conditions. However, evidence suggests that the next glacial phase has already been skipped."

 

[pixelsmith]

Knowing the disgusting practices of SS altering comments I would not consider reading that comment if it came from SS.
They lost all credibility in doing that and I now see you can't stay away from the Billy Meier climate blog.

 

[Tyger]

Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions
By CORAL DAVENPORT NOV. 25, 2014

LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/u....html?emc=edit_na_20141125&nlid=54852892&_r=0

TEXT: "WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to release on Wednesday a contentious and long-delayed environmental regulation to curb emissions of ozone, a smog-causing pollutant linked to asthma, heart disease and premature death.

"The sweeping regulation, which would aim at smog from power plants and factories across the country, particularly in the Midwest, would be the latest in a series of Environmental Protection Agency controls on air pollution that wafts from smokestacks and tailpipes. Such regulations, released under the authority of the Clean Air Act, have become a hallmark of President Obama’s administration.

"Environmentalists and public health advocates have praised the E.P.A. rules as a powerful environmental legacy. Republicans, manufacturers and the fossil fuel industry have sharply criticized them as an example of costly government overreach.

"The proposed regulation would lower the current threshold for ozone pollution from 75 parts per billion to a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, according to people familiar with the plan. That range is less stringent than the standard of 60 parts per billion sought by environmental groups, but the E.P.A. proposal would also seek public comment on a 60 parts-per-billion plan, keeping open the possibility that the final rule could be stricter.

"[Caption for Picture]
Emissions from a power plant in Kentucky. The sweeping regulation will aim at smog from power plants and factories across the country. CreditLuke Sharrett for The New York Times

"Public health groups have lobbied the government for years to rein in ozone emissions and said the regulation was one of the most important health decisions Mr. Obama could make in his second term. “Ozone is the most pervasive and widespread pollutant in the country,” said Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said, “Ozone is not only killing people, but causing tens of millions of people to get sick every day.” But industry groups say that the regulation would impose unwieldy burdens on the economy, with little public health benefit.

" “Air quality has improved dramatically over the past decades, and air quality will continue to improve under the existing standards,” said Howard Feldman, director of regulatory affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for the oil industry. “The current review of health studies has not identified compelling evidence for more stringent standards, and current standards are protective of public health.”

"The proposed ozone rule comes as the longstanding battle over Mr. Obama’s use of the Clean Air Act to push his environmental agenda is erupting in Congress and the courts. The ozone rules are expected to force the owners of power plants and factories to install expensive technology to clean the pollutants from their smokestacks.

"Next year, the E.P.A. is expected to make final two more historic Clean Air Act rules aimed at cutting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Those rules, which are intended to curb pollutants that contribute to climate change, could lead to the shutdown of hundreds of power plants and freeze construction of future coal plants.

"The Republican-majority Congress, to be led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the incoming majority leader, has vowed to block or overturn the entire group of rules. In a separate development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to take up a challenge led by industry groups against another E.P.A. rule intended to curb emissions of mercury from coal plants.

" “We’re facing a series of regulations, and the cumulative cost of compliance and the burden of permitting is significant,” said Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council, a group which has lobbied aggressively against the rules. “An industry such as ours is poised to make significant investments in growth, but these regulations make that harder.”

"The standard for ozone was last set in 2008 by the Bush administration at a level of 75 parts per billion, above the range of 60 to 70 parts per billion recommended by the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory panel at the time, although never enacted. Environmental and public health groups challenged the Bush standard in court, saying it would endanger human health and had been tainted by political interference. Smog levels have declined sharply over the last 40 years, but each incremental improvement comes at a significant cost to business and government.

"The E.P.A. had planned to release the new ozone rule in August of 2011, but as Republicans and powerful industry groups prepared to go on attack against the plan, Mr. Obama decided to delay its release, fearing that opposition to the regulation would hurt his re-election chances in 2012.

"At the time, Mr. Obama said the regulation would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress. Environmental advocates, who took the delay as a setback, then sued the Obama administration, and earlier this year a federal judge ordered the E.P.A. to release the rule by Dec. 1."

 

[mike]

Knowing the disgusting practices of SS altering comments I would not consider reading that comment if it came from SS.
They lost all credibility in doing that and I now see you can't stay away from the Billy Meier climate blog.

Sorry Pixel but i think the person with credibility issues is you

For the sake of the discussion, i conceeded your point about CO2 being a natural gas, that the percentage of it we emit is tiny compared to the background levels.
And even then, conceeding those points i was able to demonstrate clearly that the manner in which we emit CO2 is not safe, is indeed disastrous for the biosphere.

If you are generating CO2 by burning coal, then you cannot avoid also generating a plethora of toxic HAP's

That you cant generate one without the others

When seen in the big picture, generating CO2 this way is dirty and does far more harm than your suggested good

 

[flipper]

Aye i read it flipper, the site i mean, theres no climate data on the site, they only really talk about organising demo's and march's.
They dont actually discuss climate change, as that to them is forgone conclusion, they are 'activists'.

So why not just call themselve's activists ?, climate change is just one of the drums they beat, but i asked how many believe the claim of catastrophic global warming.

To me the level of belief or alarm ism, about 'extinction levels etc, would indicate whether i was joining a green group, whose hearts are in the right place, or activists.

Lets not forget eventually these activist groups of fanatical greens, like animal rights groups, who again were formed by well meaning people, and then hijacked by activists, will become enemies of the state.

Just like animal rights groups, they will split, some will become benign charities, and some groups will try to impose their will, as have animal rights nut's, like car bombing research scientists, touching laboratories etc, poison whole kennels of fox hunting hounds etc, TERRORISTS.

The 1000s of obama sponsored activists in climate change will melt away, once political ends have been met, and the cash funds stops flowing but the hardcore activist will not.

Help me understand what you are saying. I think what you would have them do is post the scientific data both pro and against dramatic climate change which may not be global warming and then say this is what we believe. However I would like clarification on these matters: Are you saying their focus is wrong? Are you saying that activism is wrong? Are you saying that it is best not to bother because well meaning people will get discouraged and give up, or start bombing cars? Are you saying that any attempt to organize opposition to those who they believe are causing climate change, which they think is happening and is a negative, is a waste of time? Should we be content have debates on the Paracast Forums?

 

[flipper]

The Protest Movement in Peru: Strengthening Sustainable Production and Local Economies, Protecting the Environment
We consider that climate change is the most visible demonstration of the violence and damage generated by the extractive, patriarchal, capitalist model that has assaulted Mother Earth, violating in a systematic way our individual and collective rights, generating social inequalities and enormous discriminations, jeopardizing the future of humanity and aggravating the risks to our health. Therefore, the only viable answer to climate change is to change the core of this system.

In Peru, betraying its promises, the government of Ollanta Humala is deepening its policies of robbing our territories, promoting exploitation of our common goods and natural resources without limits, and deepening the criminalization of the protest and repression. The latest reforms proposed in Minister Castilla’s anti-environmental mega-package dismantle the little environmental regulation and territorial protection that had managed to advance in the country.
The Protest Movement in Peru: Strengthening Sustainable Production and Local Economies, Protecting the Environment | Global Research

 

[pixelsmith]

You're deflecting again, we are talking about things we can control, things that are doing damage to the biosphere.

So lets see if i have your logic straight

If i add CO2, and arsenic, and lead and mercury, and radium and sulphur and beryllium and cadmium and a host of VOC's to water, you recognise that the water is unsafe to drink.

But if i do the exact same to the air........ Its OK because one of those ingredients is OK in your view

Again that logic only works on paper, as a philosophical point in an online discussion

In real life it doesnt.

And we dont have to guess, we can see what happens when we look at China. Chinas problems have nothing to do with volcanos.
Everything to do with a too large population, needing increased industrial activity to drive their lifestyle.

Its the same with your deflection re: you all use products you are all hypocrites.

Again you have to argue the micro, and ignore the macro. And again you make my point for me

Yes Humans are the cause as you say, im a cause, you're a cause we are all contributers.

The issue is the larger not the smaller math in the equation

Humans are responsible for emissions

More humans = more emissions
Too many humans = too many emissions

China is a classic case, we know they have too many people, and we can see the result.

Its not rocket science its all there in black and white

If its not safe to add CO2 AND all those other toxins to water as you agree is the case
Then by logical extension its not safe to do the exact same thing to our air.

.00013% "bad CO2" makes you guys wet your pants.. that's funny.

 

[Tyger]

This has relevance, though at first glance it seems out-of-place. What is relevant is the portion that speaks about the tropical nations, starting at around 4:00 sec. Important points, since a hot, CO2 rich world seems to be viewed by some as a Good Thing.

Why Some Countries Are Poor and Others Rich

NOTE: The optimum temperature for civilization is stated as 16' degrees celsius which is 60' degrees fahrenheit.

 

[mike]

.00013% "bad CO2" makes you guys wet your pants.. that's funny.

You are still not getting it or being deliberately obtuse.

Its what makes that .00013% Bad thats the problem.

Even at such low levels this is what the "bad" component looks like in real life

Again .00013% might seem like a small problem expressed this way in a forum debate, mean while in the real world thats what it looks like.

Yes china is a worse case example, its what happens when the population gets too big and uses unregulated industry to drive its economy and lifestyle

The analysis traced the chemicals which are made airborne from burning coal and found a number of health damages were caused as a result. It estimates that coal burning in China was responsible for reducing the lives of 260,000 people in 2011. It also found that in the same year it led to 320,000 children and 61,000 adults suffering from asthma, 36,000 babies being born with low weight and was responsible for 340,000 hospital visits and 141 million days of sick leave. - See more at: Thousands dying from coal pollution in China - study


"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." Winston Churchill


Do you really want to repeat chinas experience ?

 

[Erno86]

Methane {CH4} is also a dangerous greenhouse gas --- especially if the permafrost and Artic icepack melts.

 

[Tyger]

The focus on what appears to be a small percentage (.00013% - and I'm not sure where he's getting that, either) is misleading and indicates a failure to understand the science. The following text is explained by SkS in this way: "This post is the Advanced version (written by dana1981) of the skeptic argument "It cooled mid-century". If reading this caused your brain to overheat, you can always wind down with the Basic version by Anne-Marie Blackburn or the Intermediate Version by John Cook."

What particularly strikes me about the denialist is that there is no room for science to shift it's stand with added evidence - which is what science does all the time. In a way science is an ever moving target. Nothing ever stays static. New evidence is always coming in - and in the case of Climate Change/Warming the details may alter but the trajectory is pretty laid in. No ambivalence present. Consider the denialist stand that experiments have proven that increased CO2 is good for plant growth. Science moves on. Those experiments - as indicated in one of my prior posts - have been superseded by other experiments that take place outdoors rather than in a controlled hothouse. However, there are still outstanding questions being posed. The new experiments generate new questions and new experiments are then designed. This is the way science moves forward.

How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?
Posted on 16 September 2010 by dana1981
LINK: How much did aerosols contribute to mid-20th century cooling?

TEXT: "There was a very slight cooling in the average global surface temperature from about 1940 to 1975. Although the global temperature only decreased by approximately 0.1°C, this period represents a divergence from the warming periods of 1915 to 1940 and 1975 to Present.

"Figure 1: Global temperature anomaly and distinct linear trends over the 21st century (Open Mind)

"Climate scientists believe that the primary cause of this mid-century cooling was an increase in atmospheric aerosols due to anthropogenic emissions (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels). Aerosols have a complex effect on the climate, because they have both direct and indirect impacts.

"Direct Effect
"The direct effect of aerosols on climate is the mechanism by which aerosols scatter and absorb shortwave and longwave radiation (a.k.a. "global dimming"), thereby altering the radiative balance of the Earth-atmosphere system. The key parameters for determining the direct aerosol radiative forcing are the aerosol optical properties and distribution in theatmosphere (IPCC 2007).

"Indirect Effect
"The indirect effect of aerosols on climate is the mechanism by which they modify the microphysical and, therefore, radiative properties, amount, and lifetime of clouds. A key parameter for determining the indirect effect of aerosols on the global surface temperatureis the effectiveness of an aerosol particle to act as a cloud condensation nucleus - a function of the aerosol size, chemical composition, mixing state, and ambient environment (IPCC 2007).

"Figure 2: Diagram of direct and indirect aerosols' radiative mechanisms (IPCC 2007)

"Radiative Forcing
"We can attempt to quantify the impact of anthropogenic aerosol emissions on the average global temperature by first examining the associated radiative forcing. The radiative forcingis a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system.

"According to the IPCC, the total (direct + indirect) radiative forcing due to anthropogenicaerosols could range anywhere from -0.4 to -2.7 Watts per square meter (W/m2), although the most likely value is -1.2 W/m2.

"Figure 3: Radiative forcing from various sources in 2005 as compared to 1750 (IPCC 2007)

"The aerosol radiative forcing, particularly the indirect cloud albedo effect, is the largestsource of uncertainty among all anthropogenic radiative forcings. However, keeping the range of possible values in mind, we can still estimate the cooling effect caused by these forcings during the mid-20th century. The majority of the increase in atmospheric sulfates occurred during this period:

"Figure 4: Atmospheric sulfate aerosol concentration in parts per billion (ppb) from theGISP2 ice core (black) vs. anthropogenic sulfate emissions (red) since 1800 (Open Mind)

"The general natural baseline is around 30 ppb, with a rise to about 65 ppb in the early 20th century. Then from 1945 to 1970 (the mid-century period in question), atmospheric sulfate concentration increased from 65 to 120 ppb. This tells us that approximately 60% of the total sulfate increase since 1800 occurred during the mid-century cooling period.

"Direct Aerosol Forcing
"The change in reflected solar flux is proportional to the optical thickness of the aerosol layer (Charlson et al. 1991).

"where FR is reflected solar flux, Qo is the solar constant (total solar irradiance), Ti is the atmospheric transmittance, Ac is the fractional coverage of clouds, β is the fraction of upward scattered flux, and δ is the optical thickness.

"Using Qo = 1366 W/m2, Ac = 0.61 for globally averaged cloud cover, Ti = 0.76, and Rs = 0.15 (see Charlson 1991 for references to the sources of these values), FR is approximately 32 times the optical thickness δ. Charlson et al. estimate the optical thickness as the product of the aerosol burden and mass scattering coefficient, and find for cloudless skies, the optical thickness is approximately 2.8x10-2. Thus from the formula above, the reflected solar flux is approximately 0.9 W/m2, which is on the high end of the IPCC range of values for the direct aerosol forcing.

"The indirect sulfate effect on cloud formation is more complex, but we'll proceed under the assumption that the total sulfate radiative forcing is approximately proportional to the atmospheric sulfate aerosol concentration, in order to come up with a ballpark estimate regarding its impact on mid-century cooling. In other words, we'll assume that a 60% increase in atmospheric sulfate concentration corresponds to a 60% increase in radiative forcing. Also note that sulfates are not the only anthropogenic aerosols, but do comprise the majority of the radiative forcing.

"Approximation of sulfate aerosol cooling effect
"With these assumptions in mind, approximately 60% of the -0.4 to -2.7 W/m2 net aerosol forcing occurred during mid-century, or -0.24 to -1.62 W/m2, with a most likely value of -0.72 W/m2. To convert this to a surface temperature change, we need to multiply by the climate sensitivity factor (λ), which is 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2) (IPCC 2007). The relationship betweensurface temperature change (dT) and radiative forcing (dF) is:

dT = λ*dF = (0.54 to 1.2)*(-0.24 to -1.62) = -0.13 to -1.9°C with a most likely value of -0.58°C

"We can also compare this to the temperature change caused by anthropogenic CO2 during the period in question:

dT = λ*dF = (0.54 to 1.2)*5.35*ln(331/308) = 0.21 to 0.46°C with a most likely value of 0.31°C

"In addition to CO2, other anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and solar output during this period caused an additional ~0.15°C of warming. Therefore, using the most likely values calculated above, we would expect to see an approximately 0.1°C cooling of global average surface temperatures from 1940 to 1975. And indeed that is what we observe:

"Figure 5: Average global land and ocean surface temperature (NASA GISS)

"Days cooled, but nights warmed
"Another signature of aerosol cooling offsetting greenhouse gas warming is the continued increase in daily minimum, nighttime temperatures while the maximum, daytime temperatures drop. This is because aerosols cause global dimming by scattering sunlight; an effect which is much more influential during the day when solar radiation is bombarding the Earth's surface. At night, greenhouse gases continue to absorb and re-radiate thermal radiation from the Earth's surface, which causes the nighttime surface temperatures to continue warming despite the cooling daytime temperatures due to the aerosol dimming.

" Wild et al. (2007) investigated these effects and found that from 1958 to 1985, daytime landsurface temperatures cooled at a rate of -0.04°C per decade, but nighttime temperatures warmed at a rate of 0.11°C per decade. From 1982 to 2002, they found that daytime landsurface temperatures warmed at a rate of 0.37°C per decade, while nighttime temperatures warmed by 0.40°C per decade.

"The fact that nighttime temperatures continued to warm while daytime temperatures cooled mid-century is a strong indicator of the combined effects of anthropogenic aerosol andgreenhouse gas emissions, while the increased rate of warming over the past 3 decades reflects the increasing atmospheric concentration and radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

"What happened since 1975?
"Clearly since about 1975, global surface temperatures have trended rapidly upwards (at a rate of nearly 0.2°C per decade). So what caused the mid-century cooling to end?

"The main cause of the sudden shift in global temperature trends was the passage of Clean Air Acts by various countries in response to air pollution and acid rain. The USA, for example, first passed its Clean Air Act in 1970, with amendments in 1977 and 1990. Coincidentally, the US Supreme Court (in Massachusetts v. EPA) and EPA (in anendangerment finding) also recently decided that greenhouse gases qualify as 'air pollutants' in the Clean Air Act and must be regulated accordingly.

"Under the Clean Air Acts, sulfate emissions were regulated, and as a consequence their rapid atmospheric increase was stabilized right around 1975:

"Figure 6: Global anthropogenic sulfur emissions (Pacific Northwest National Labs)

"Meanwhile anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase. Since 1975, the atmospheric CO2 concentration alone has increased from 331 to 392 parts per million by volume, which corresponds to a temperature increase of about 0.7°C, though we've only seen about 0.55°C warming over that period due to the thermal inertia of the oceans and 'warming in the pipeline'.

"Mid-century cooling was primarily anthropogenic
"To sum up, anthropogenic sulfur emissions appear to be the main cause of the mid-century cooling. These emissions decreased the mean global surface temperature by approximately 0.5°C during this period, while anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused a warming of approximately 0.4°C. Therefore, even though greenhouse gasemissions continued to have a warming effect during this period, it was more than offset (hidden) by anthropogenic aerosol emissions, until those emissions were brought under control by government intervention while greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase unabated. In other words, the mid-century cooling is actually an expected result based on our current understanding of climate science, and is successfully hindcasted by climate models (Meehl 2004).

Figure 7: Anthropogenic plus natural vs. just natural radiative forcing temperature change vs. observed global surface temperature increase (Meehl 2004)

"However, the overall impact of sulfate aerosols, particularly due to their indirect effects via cloud formation, remain a significant source of uncertainty. Despite this uncertainty, they remain the likely dominant cause of the slight mid-20th century cooling."

 

[Tyger]

Methane {CH4} is also a dangerous greenhouse gas --- especially if the permafrost and Artic icepack melts.

That was always considered the tipping point. Once the methane starts to be released, we're done for. Reducing carbon emissions will be pissing in the wind, as the saying goes. Methane release has begun, in fact. That is why there are now doomsday scenarios of extinction abroad. We have evidence that the methane has begun to be released. With current scientific thinking this is a state-of-affairs that we cannot correct. Let's hope we figure it out. Let's hope the models are wrong on this one.

 

[mike]

Emissions from electricity generation account for the largest share of U.S. greenhouse gases, 38.9% of U.S. production of carbon dioxide in 2006 (with transportation emissions close behind, at 31%). Although coal power only accounted for 49% of the U.S. electricity production in 2006, it was responsible for 83% of CO2 emissions caused by electricity generation that year, or 1,970 Tg of CO2 emissions. Further 130 Tg of CO2 were released by other industrial coal-burning applications.[24]

So, the lions share of the CO2 emissions are "Dirty CO2" generated hand in glove with all the other nasty HAP's that create the sorts of problems we can see with our own two eyes in China today.

 

[manxman]

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist:


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."



Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, 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....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....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."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: 1990 quote: "More than any other time in history, the 1990s will be a turning point for human civilization."

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: 2011 quote: "Humanity is facing a challenge unlike any we’ve ever had to confront. We are in an unprecedented period of change."

Quote by Robert Stavins, the head of Harvard’s Environmental Economics program: "It’s unlikely that the U.S. is going to take serious action on climate change until there are observable, dramatic events, almost catastrophic in nature, that drive public opinion and drive the political process in that direction."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “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 in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."

Quote by Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."

Quote by Jack Trevors, Editor-in-Chief of Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: "The capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this rule…The current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth."

Quote by Judi Bari, an American environmentalist and labor leader, a feminist, and the principal organizer of Earth First!: "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically,"

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

Quote by UN chief Ban Ki-moon: "Now it is the least developed world who are not responsible for this climate change phenomenon that bore the brunt of climate change consequences so it is morally and politically correct that the developed world who made this climate change be responsible by providing financial support and technological support to these people."

Quote by David Rockefeller, heir to billion dollar fortune: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."

Quote by Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and a leading member of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process...Capitalism is destroying the earth."

Quote by Judi Dench, famous UK actress: "The need for a global structure of control in the form of a world environment court is now more urgent than ever before."

Quote by Club of Rome: "A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."

Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: "A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."

Quote by Club of Rome: "Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."

Quote by Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute: "Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance."

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”

Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports: "Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task."

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar: “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation...Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: “Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”

Quote by Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General: "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed."

Quote by EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem: "[Kyoto protocol] is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake, and that is why it is serious,..."

Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”

Quote by Jacques Chirac, former French President: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument [Kyoto Protocol] of global governance,”..."By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace.”

Quote by Earth Charter, an environmental organization: "Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now."

Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the 'Great Transformation': "Either the Earth System would undergo major phase transitions as a result of unchecked human pressure on nature’s capacities and resources or a “Great Transformation” towards global sustainability would be initiated in due course. Neither transitions nor transformations will be manageable without novel forms of global governance and markets..."

Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth."

Quote by Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain: "Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even one percent of what is needed. This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December [2009]."

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."

Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

Quote by Walden Bello, leftist and founding director of Focus on the Global South: "However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity's response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis."

Quote by UK's Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist: "The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization...Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine."

Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Quote by Club of Rome: "Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."

Quote by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: “We must support government coercion over enforcing international protocols and speed limits on motorways if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die.”

Quote by Paula Snyder, an America promoter of green causes: "Greed is the enemy - the underlying problem is greed, and that leads into most of the problems with the ecological system and the political system...I wish I could make a total redistribution [of wealth]...Things are going to change. They have to."

Quote by Jeffery Sachs, Columbia University, Director of The Earth Institute: "Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments...free-market pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to 'tell us what kind of car to drive'. Yet that is exactly what they intend to do...and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change."

Quote by René Dubos, French scientist, environmentalist, author of the maxim "Think globally, act locally": "Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth."

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community."

Quote by Prabhath P., environmentalist and member of Intuition Network: "The spirit of our planet is stirring! The Consciousness of Goddess Earth is now rising against all odds, in spite of millennia of suppression, repression and oppression inflicted on Her by a hubristic and misguided humanity. The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism with psychic and spiritual dimensions."

Quote by Club of Rome: "The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope."

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: “All life on Earth is our kin. And in an act of generosity, our relatives create the four sacred elements for us.”..."We have become a force of nature...Not long ago, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions were accepted as "natural disasters or "acts of God." But now, we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these events."

Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: "Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with 'divine,' its transcendence into higher forms of life."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature."

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals."

Quote by Global Education Associates, an environmental education group: Their daily Earth pledge - "I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts. Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

Quote by Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported “benefits” of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability."

Quote by Club of Rome: "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."

Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer."

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar: "There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: "The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing."

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

Quote by Club of Rome: "...the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion."

Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: "For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery".

Quote by Prince Philip, royal billionaire, married to Queen Elizabeth II, and large CO2 producer: "I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population."

Quote by Bill Gates, Microsoft billionaire, and large CO2 producer: "The world today has 6.8 billion people...that's headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent."

Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the 'Great Transformation': "When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”

Quote by Jacques Cousteau, mega-celebrity French scientist: "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."

Quote by UN Commission on Global Biodiversity Assessment: "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."

Quote by John Miller, a NOAA climate scientist: "I would be remiss, as a scientist who studied this, if I didn't mention the following two things: The first is that, most importantly, we need to do, as a society, in this country and globally, whatever we can to reduce population"....."Our whole economic system is based on growth, and growth of our population, and this economic madness has to end."

Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: "I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."

Quote by Prince Philip, royal billionaire, married to Queen Elizabeth II, and large CO2 producer: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President: “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: "There are too many people, that's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff."

Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept: "The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil."

Quote by Nina Vsevolod Fedoroff, science advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "Third world nations are producing too many children too fast...it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth..."

Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: "Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population – weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example."

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: "We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."

Quote by Harry Reid, Democrat, U.S. Senate majority leader: "Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's global warming. It's ruining our country. It's ruining our world."

Quote by Osama bin Laden, terrorist leader behind 9/11 plot & attacks: "In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa."

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."

Quote by Amory Lovins, scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute: "Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it."

Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat'l Park Services: "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.

Quote by John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News magazine: "The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.”

Quote by Thomas Lovejoy, scientist, Smithsonian Institution: "The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."

Quote by Pentti Linkola, a Finnish ecological philosopher: “An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth.....discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution." "As for those “most responsible for the present economic growth and competition”, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags: “the sole glimmer of hope,” he declares, “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.”

Quote by Bill Maher, supposedly a comedian, and large CO2 producer: “Failing to warn the citizens of a looming weapon of mass destruction- and that’s what global warming is- in order to protect oil company profits, well, that fits for me the definition of treason.”

Quote by James Hansen, prominent NASA climate scientist: "...chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature; [Hansen] accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."

Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist": "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide."

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

Quote by David Roberts, journalist Grist Magazine: "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards (global warming skeptics) -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."

Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves."

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: ‘Global warming’ will kill most of us, and turn the rest of us into cannibals.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

Quote by Jerry Brown, California liberal Democrat politician: "It's not viable' for poverty stricken developing world to emulate prosperity of U.S."

Quote by Lord Stern elitist UK economist and promoter of UN climate/economic sanctions: “The US will increasingly see the risks of being left behind, and ten years from now they would have to start worrying about being shut out of markets because their production is dirty.”

Quote by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and large CO2 producer: "Large-scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and U.S. democracy than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network."

Quote by Christian Anton Mayer, aka Carl Amery, German environmentalist and writer: "We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: "I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded the Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth seem reasonable."

Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos." (Editor: Yes, he meant the year 2000.)

 

[mike]

Anyone who thinks CO2 in the manner in which we emit it is safe and not a problem, can test it by connecting the exhaust pipe of their car to a hose and running it back into the cabin......

And if you think the CO2 emissions from a diesel engine are safe

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified diesel exhaust as a carcinogen, putting it in the same risk group as arsenic and asbestos.

The World Today - Diesel exhaust fumes carcinogenic: WHO 13/06/2012


Should anyone think that that's a little over the top, consider what we know about diesel pollution: the EPA itself says that there is ''no safe level of exposure to diesel fumes'' and international studies suggest that diesel pollution contains the most carcinogenic substances known to man.


Trucks on Francis Street Yarraville


But dont worry about the CO2 in diesel exhaust folks, its a harmless gas, plants love it, and the amount released is a mouses piss in the ocean.