Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

"The summer after I lost my faith, when I first began dreaming of New York, I got into the habit of driving to Lake Michigan alone, to swim. I couldn’t yet fathom evolution and natural selection, which seemed to require more faith than the religion I’d left behind, so even though I could no longer believe in God, I had no good theory about how the world came to be.

In serious limbo, I went repeatedly to the edge of land and walked into the water. Floating until my skin was pruned, I felt my insignificance in the world next to the scale of the great lake and its long beaches, but at the same time, my actual physical connection to every molecule of it. Without knowing it, I was feeling out a new bridge between my life and the universe.

I had begun to suspect that the story I’d left behind, the religious one, was the more human-centered one, and in its own way, arrogant, assuming as it did that the ways of the universe are like human ways: houses have to have builders, paintings have to have painters, the world must have a maker...........................

...................... But soon I’ll take a train to stand on the edge of the Atlantic, walk into the ocean I fear, and trust it to hold me up. I hope it will be a small kind of prayer for the future, less mystical than pragmatic, to feel in my body what is so hard to fathom: This vast and humbling contingency that’s made the waters rise is also what makes my life matter, because other creatures — human and otherwise — will live in my wake. What threatens us is also our only comfort: It matters what we do. To swim in the ocean now is to swim into the future and know that we have made it."


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/o...n-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

 

A very large body of evidence does not support origins by evolution but it's the mainstream conventional wisdom and people that don't buy it are marginalized. I've gotta think that GW is attaining to such lofty esteem...

 

Yes the denial of both AGW and evolution is rooted in the same ignorance and stupidity.

from the above article
California was burning, Alaska melting and the Northeast soaking. The 2014 National Climate Assessment report explained that what we’ve been thinking of as the future is happening now. Then scientists announced that the West Antarctic ice sheet had begun to split apart, so the rising of ocean waters was pretty much irreversible.

The National Climate Assessment also argued that cutting emissions would still mitigate costs substantially, but Gallup reported that 25 percent of Americans were sure all this had nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Among evangelical Christians, it was 58 percent.

 

just as there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming.
there is no science showing life evolved from non life.
in fact at the moment science does not even have a complete plausible pathway.
That is why some scientists suggest pan spermia.
They just don't know how it could have happened in the time frame it had.

I realize its hard for a leftist drone to get his head around facts... but those are the facts.

Now once we had life on the planet we do have evidence of some evolution.

 

So the science showing man made CO2 is causing warming is indisputable and common sense. I outlined it above. The question now is what we should do about it. A gradually increasing tax on carbon along with policies to favor nuclear power should be a big part of the answer. Perhaps carbon permits that could be auctioned and traded could be part of the regulatory/economic framework that will have to be established worldwide.

We can spend a little now or spend much more later.


American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

 

Use of the phrase 'extreme weather' has exploded on network news broadcasts over the last ten years. Always attempting to bolster the global warming scam.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08...-to-extremes-despite-scientific-disagreement/

At the same time, when people who haven't fallen for the scam bring up cold weather, the scammers scream 'WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, MORON'.

ROFL

 

So if you think it is a scam, what is wrong with the following? Do you have any logic? Don't get distracted by these kinds of irrelevant things.

We know CO2 is a GHG

We know man has increased it's concentrations by 40%.

We can see the result of this added CO2 in reduced outgoing radiation at those wavelengths proving this added CO2 must be heating up the earth.

So now we should also expect to see increasing world temps, which we do


The above is all you need to know to understand the simple common sense science involved. It is not a scam. It's simple science.

 

climate change, pollution ( every 1 in 5 seals in Cali's Golden Gate area has cancer ) and compulsory education for politicians ( weed out the dangerous lunatics ) should be made UN priorities.

 

If it is such simple science, wouldn't it be trivial to explain the observations that are inconsistent with rising CO2 causing the Earth to warm? Yet we don't find any reasonable explanations for these inconsistencies that would leave the original Hansen hypothesis intact.

Contrary to what you believe, I have come to believe that understanding climate change, and correctly predicting it, is incredibly complex, and that the current science no longer supports the Hansen hypothesis. I do not question actual observations of temperature, nor that an average temperature increase of a few degrees might have catastrophic consequences. Nor do I question that CO2 increase appears highly correlated with temperature rise during the brief, recent period. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is unquestionably correct, though it is, in that role, less important than water vapor.

Early investigators, however, did not explore the relationship between time of temperature rise and time of CO2 concentration rise. What we have recently learned is that temperature rise precedes CO2 concentration rise. Apparently, temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent. What I question, therefore, in the face of such strong evidence to the contrary, is that man's CO2 emissions caused the temperature to rise between the start of the industrial revolution and the late 20th Century. Apparently, instead, rising temperature caused atmospheric CO2 to rise during the same period that industrialization was resulting in steadily increasing anthropomorphic CO2 emissions.

Further, recent work has shown rather convincingly that the natural sinking and turnover of CO2 is far more rapid than early investigators had guessed. These, now known to be incorrect, guesses were adopted by the IPCC and used to reach incorrect conclusions. It now appears possible that, had a temperature rise not preceded man's increasing emissions of CO2, rapid natural sinking of CO2 would have prevented most or all of the modern rise in CO2 concentration.

The Hansen hypothesis seemed reasonable at the time he proposed it in 1988, but the latest science has shown it to be incorrect. It's time to reject this incorrect hypothesis and explore alternative hypotheses consistent with recent observations.

 

Pie, careful there. That kind of talk could get you fired.