Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[canuckamuck]

Is it so hard to record the data from a set of weather stations around the globe and make a simple average of temperatures?

Surely you could have a very low tech app that would do it instantly and daily if you would like.

[boomerangutang]

If some organization has a more accurate tally of scientific data than GISS (or whomever/whatever), let them publish their findings, and see how well they hold up to scientific scrutiny. The graphic & data I posted earlier, wasn't from GISS, it was from US's NOAA, which has measuring posts nearly worldwide, including the oceans and several in Antarctica.

[chuckd]

Seems like "chicken little" should have stayed in the coop.

[RickBradford]

If some organization has a more accurate tally of scientific data than GISS (or whomever/whatever), let them publish their findings, and see how well they hold up to scientific scrutiny. The graphic & data I posted earlier, wasn't from GISS, it was from US's NOAA, which has measuring posts nearly worldwide, including the oceans and several in Antarctica.

Well, they do, of course, but you have to go to the source to find them, because you won't find any mention of their work in the media.

Why? Because the satellite temperature records, easily the most fudge-proof and reliable measurements we have, suggest that 2014 was nowhere near being the hottest year on record.

There are two main sources: University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Remote Sensing Systems. Combining the RSS and UAH temperature figures sees 2014 coming in at about 7th hottest.

"Our satellite estimates of global temperature, which have much more complete geographic coverage than thermometers, reveal that 2014 won’t be even close to a record warm year". - Dr Roy Spencer (publisher of the UAH figures)

These sensing systems, by the way, fly on NOAA satellites.

This kind of information, though, is anathema to the legacy media, as it doesn't fit the required narrative of bad hydrocarbons, evil capitalism and heinous economic development. The only story that will fly in the media must involve providing urgent phony “solutions” to the imaginary “climate crisis”.

[chuckd]

How do you spell "hypocrazy" again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1,700 PRIVATE JETS FLY TO DAVOS TO DISCUSS GLOBAL WARMING

by PETER SCHWEIZER 20 Jan 2015

A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't do as I do..do as I say do..

[RickBradford]

^^

Don't forget -- the end justifies the Greens.

[Scott]

How do you spell "hypocrazy" again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1,700 PRIVATE JETS FLY TO DAVOS TO DISCUSS GLOBAL WARMING

by PETER SCHWEIZER 20 Jan 2015

A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't do as I do..do as I say do..

Yes, but the rich can afford those hybid jets.....they do have those, don't they?

[thaibeachlovers]

Earth had its warmest year on record in 2014, said NOAA and NASA at a joint press conference today. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, global surface temperatures in 2014 were 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).

. . .

The new temperature record in 2014 was not a cheap recordit was set without an official El Niño event.

. . .

The fact that separate analyses by three major research groups rated 2014 as the warmest year on record should put to rest the bogus idea often espoused by climate change deniers that "global warming stopped in 1998." Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet to the record levels observed in 2014. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2896

If "global warming" is caused by humans, why are the scientists and politicians not calling for population control? Reducing the population would do more to reduce pollution and save areas under threat than any number of windmills. BUT, they don't. I wonder why?????? Could it be because either they know it's not caused by humans, or they know it can't be reversed anyway. All the meetings and talk won't change anything unless the population is reduced.

[boomerangutang]

Earth had its warmest year on record in 2014, said NOAA and NASA at a joint press conference today. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, global surface temperatures in 2014 were 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).

. . .

The new temperature record in 2014 was not a cheap recordit was set without an official El Niño event.

. . .

The fact that separate analyses by three major research groups rated 2014 as the warmest year on record should put to rest the bogus idea often espoused by climate change deniers that "global warming stopped in 1998." Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet to the record levels observed in 2014. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2896

If "global warming" is caused by humans, why are the scientists and politicians not calling for population control? Reducing the population would do more to reduce pollution and save areas under threat than any number of windmills. BUT, they don't. I wonder why?????? Could it be because either they know it's not caused by humans, or they know it can't be reversed anyway. All the meetings and talk won't change anything unless the population is reduced.

I think you know the answer to that question. Proposing population control, in any meaningful way, is political Ebola. Men and women have biological clocks ticking. They want children, even if they might have some spasms of lucid thought which tells them having children will contribute to global pollution and other problems. Close-in gratification trumps global concerns in any real sense (regardless of haughty rhetoric in favor of health of the planet). Like all species, people have an innate yearning to spread their spoor. People from developed countries are using their brains a bit and having less children. All others are just following basic instincts - and we know what men follow (the tips of their dipsticks).

[thaibeachlovers]

Earth had its warmest year on record in 2014, said NOAA and NASA at a joint press conference today. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, global surface temperatures in 2014 were 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).

. . .

The new temperature record in 2014 was not a cheap recordit was set without an official El Niño event.

. . .

The fact that separate analyses by three major research groups rated 2014 as the warmest year on record should put to rest the bogus idea often espoused by climate change deniers that "global warming stopped in 1998." Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet to the record levels observed in 2014. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2896

If "global warming" is caused by humans, why are the scientists and politicians not calling for population control? Reducing the population would do more to reduce pollution and save areas under threat than any number of windmills. BUT, they don't. I wonder why?????? Could it be because either they know it's not caused by humans, or they know it can't be reversed anyway. All the meetings and talk won't change anything unless the population is reduced.

I think you know the answer to that question. Proposing population control, in any meaningful way, is political Ebola. Men and women have biological clocks ticking. They want children, even if they might have some spasms of lucid thought which tells them having children will contribute to global pollution and other problems. Close-in gratification trumps global concerns in any real sense (regardless of haughty rhetoric in favor of health of the planet). Like all species, people have an innate yearning to spread their spoor. People from developed countries are using their brains a bit and having less children. All others are just following basic instincts - and we know what men follow (the tips of their dipsticks).

Yes, I was being rhetorical. However, till they admit that overpopulation is the cause of excessive pollution, and ergo, they must believe it is the cause of global warming, nothing they can do will have any effect at all on the situation.

Therefore, till they start talking about population control, and more importantly, doing something about it, I scorn them and their hypocrisy. Has any government in the world actually DONE ANYTHING to reduce any of the causes of carbon use. Germany and Japan have actually increased carbon use by reducing/ eliminating use of nuclear power stations and the US won't build any new ones.

[boomerangutang]

I think you know the answer to that question. Proposing population control, in any meaningful way, is political Ebola. Men and women have biological clocks ticking. They want children, even if they might have some spasms of lucid thought which tells them having children will contribute to global pollution and other problems. Close-in gratification trumps global concerns in any real sense (regardless of haughty rhetoric in favor of health of the planet). Like all species, people have an innate yearning to spread their spoor. People from developed countries are using their brains a bit and having less children. All others are just following basic instincts - and we know what men follow (the tips of their dipsticks).

Yes, I was being rhetorical. However, till they admit that overpopulation is the cause of excessive pollution, and ergo, they must believe it is the cause of global warming, nothing they can do will have any effect at all on the situation.

Therefore, till they start talking about population control, and more importantly, doing something about it, I scorn them and their hypocrisy. Has any government in the world actually DONE ANYTHING to reduce any of the causes of carbon use. Germany and Japan have actually increased carbon use by reducing/ eliminating use of nuclear power stations and the US won't build any new ones.

Fersure, a lot needs to be done re; lessening human population #'s. China has its one child policy, with mixed results. India doesn't appear to be doing much. Both countries favor boys, but for different reasons. Nigeria isn't doing anything, though it's the biggest population bomb in Africa (2nd is Egypt), unless you count Boko Haram's killings. Probably #1 to lessening population explosions is enabling girls to get education. So, in that sense, developed countries like USA, European, Japan, and doing comparatively well in that regard. Some of the most miserable places in the world, like Palestine (was recently 9 children per woman, maybe less now) keep popping babies out like there's no tomorrow (which, for many, is sadly true).

[boomerangutang]

I thought Germany was doing rather well in reducing carbon. It's close to the top (along with Denmark) - for switching to alternative energy. We don't agree about nuclear, as I see N as too problematic. Future headlines: will shout about one or more Chinese N facilities failing. Japan will suffer when that happens, as they're downwind. Korea and US will also feel effects.

[thaibeachlovers]

I thought Germany was doing rather well in reducing carbon. It's close to the top (along with Denmark) - for switching to alternative energy. We don't agree about nuclear, as I see N as too problematic. Future headlines: will shout about one or more Chinese N facilities failing. Japan will suffer when that happens, as they're downwind. Korea and US will also feel effects.

All known nuclear disasters have been caused through human stupidity, and can be prevented if the desire is there. The US has had nuclear powered submarines and ships since after the second world war, and has had no reactor disasters. Thresher and Scorpion were lost, but not because of the power plants.

[canuckamuck]

All we need to do is cure stupidity.

[thaibeachlovers]

All we need to do is cure stupidity.

If we could do that, there would be no debate about man made GW as there wouldn't be as many people in the first place. Uncontrolled reproduction on a planet that is unable to accommodate the results is the most stupid thing humans have ever done, and will be the death of everyone, eventually.

[RickBradford]

All we need to do is cure stupidity.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." (attributed to Einstein)

[canman]

Global warming believers are like a hysterical ‘cult’: MIT scientist compares 'climate alarmists' to religious fanatics

• Commenrs were made by professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html

I'm guessing he's not one of the 97 percenters!

[chuckd]

Global warming believers are like a hysterical ‘cult’: MIT scientist compares 'climate alarmists' to religious fanatics

• Commenrs were made by professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html

I'm guessing he's not one of the 97 percenters!

The Daily Mail is blocked in Thailand. I think the article is also here and is available in LOS.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/climate-change-richard-lindzen-cult-global-warming-1484852

[Seastallion]

All we need to do is cure stupidity.

If we could do that, there would be no debate about man made GW as there wouldn't be as many people in the first place. Uncontrolled reproduction on a planet that is unable to accommodate the results is the most stupid thing humans have ever done, and will be the death of everyone, eventually.

Yep. Bring on eugenics. At least that way the deaths would be limited and not indiscriminate, and may in fact save the rest of humanity.

[RickBradford]

Global warming believers are like a hysterical ‘cult’: MIT scientist compares 'climate alarmists' to religious fanatics

• Commenrs were made by professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html

I'm guessing he's not one of the 97 percenters!

Very few scientists were.

The 'consensus' on climate change was created by a sample of just 77 'climatologists', 75 of whom (97%) believed that humans were mainly responsible for global warming.

It must be the first 'overwhelming global consensus' where you could fit all the participants into a bus.

Edited January 26, 2015 by RickBradford

[snarky66]

This is the way it goes. When 16 years worth of data goes against you rational people would say oops I made a mistake. The Chicken Little global warming hoaxers are irrational. We were wrong. But good little leftists merely double down on the phony data and alarmist rhetoric. Attention hoaxers. Take whatever action you feel is necessary. But leave the rest of us out of it. Tax yourselves into oblivion. Ride a bicycle. Swear off airline travel forever. Stop eating meat. Disconnect from the grid. Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Edited January 26, 2015 by snarky66

[boomerangutang]

This is the way it goes. When 16 years worth of data goes against you rational people would say oops I made a mistake. The Chicken Little global warming hoaxers are irrational. We were wrong. But good little leftists merely double down on the phony data and alarmist rhetoric. Attention hoaxers. Take whatever action you feel is necessary. But leave the rest of us out of it. Tax yourselves into oblivion. Ride a bicycle. Swear off airline travel forever. Stop eating meat. Disconnect from the grid. Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

In the middle there, you wrote "We were wrong." ...speaking of yourself and the denialists? A rare spasm of modesty mixed with reality?

Actually, you are right about admitting you're wrong. GW is happening. There's reams of scientific data to back it up. If you're fixated on denying it, go ahead. Suit yourself. For me, I'm going to look to what's real. Things like receding glaciers, warmer average temps, first-hand accounts from people - particularly those who reside/work near the Arctic.

Edited January 26, 2015 by boomerangutang

[snarky66]

So you will disconnect from the grid right? You will swear off meat and air travel? Thank you in advance.

Get that bicycle tuned up.

Edited January 26, 2015 by snarky66

[thaibeachlovers]

This is the way it goes. When 16 years worth of data goes against you rational people would say oops I made a mistake. The Chicken Little global warming hoaxers are irrational. We were wrong. But good little leftists merely double down on the phony data and alarmist rhetoric. Attention hoaxers. Take whatever action you feel is necessary. But leave the rest of us out of it. Tax yourselves into oblivion. Ride a bicycle. Swear off airline travel forever. Stop eating meat. Disconnect from the grid. Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

In the middle there, you wrote "We were wrong." ...speaking of yourself and the denialists? A rare spasm of modesty mixed with reality?

Actually, you are right about admitting you're wrong. GW is happening. There's reams of scientific data to back it up. If you're fixated on denying it, go ahead. Suit yourself. For me, I'm going to look to what's real. Things like receding glaciers, warmer average temps, first-hand accounts from people - particularly those who reside/work near the Arctic.

PLEASE, tell me ONE thing that is ACTUALLY being done to reverse the effect of this "global warming" that you believe in. Are they cutting down on private cars- NO, increasing public transport in western countries and making it relevant and affordable- NO, halting mass air tourism- NO, not using planes to attend meetings to discuss GW- NO.

In short, for all the hot air produced in all those meetings, they have actually achieved no practical results, NONE, ZERO.

[boomerangutang]

This is the way it goes. When 16 years worth of data goes against you rational people would say oops I made a mistake. The Chicken Little global warming hoaxers are irrational. We were wrong. But good little leftists merely double down on the phony data and alarmist rhetoric. Attention hoaxers. Take whatever action you feel is necessary. But leave the rest of us out of it. Tax yourselves into oblivion. Ride a bicycle. Swear off airline travel forever. Stop eating meat. Disconnect from the grid. Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

In the middle there, you wrote "We were wrong." ...speaking of yourself and the denialists? A rare spasm of modesty mixed with reality? Actually, you are right about admitting you're wrong. GW is happening. There's reams of scientific data to back it up. If you're fixated on denying it, go ahead. Suit yourself. For me, I'm going to look to what's real. Things like receding glaciers, warmer average temps, first-hand accounts from people - particularly those who reside/work near the Arctic.

PLEASE, tell me ONE thing that is ACTUALLY being done to reverse the effect of this "global warming" that you believe in. Are they cutting down on private cars- NO, increasing public transport in western countries and making it relevant and affordable- NO, halting mass air tourism- NO, not using planes to attend meetings to discuss GW- NO.

In short, for all the hot air produced in all those meetings, they have actually achieved no practical results, NONE, ZERO.

There are hundreds of things. here's a starting point: Look at what Denmark is doing toward transitioning to alternative/renewable energy. Granted, they're a well-run and relatively rich country (my birthplace, also), but if many other countries, like Thailand, had sensible energy policies along the lines of Denmark's, things would be brighter, literally and figuratively.

Are there still ridiculous and hypocritical things going on worldwide (like taking private jets to environmental meetings)? Sure. The depths of human ignorance are getting ever-deeper. If it were up to me, the entire Middle East would be cleared of people, to enable nature to re-establish itself. Where to put them? Paris and London, ha ha.

So you will disconnect from the grid right? You will swear off meat and air travel? Thank you in advance.

Get that bicycle tuned up.

I know you're trying to be crafty with those questions, but the answer is yes - to some degree - on all those points. I am one person, so obviously what I do is near insignificant, but if significant portions of humans do things to improve the environment, then it can have a positive effect. Will it be a cure-all? No. If there are 1/10th less jet flights, then that's approx. 1/10th less jet fuel used (today's headlines says Thai Airways is cutting routes), ....you get the picture. Similarly for paper use, car use, heating homes with fossil fuels, leaving unnecessary lights on at night, wasteful A.C. use, ad infinitum. One person doing something helpful (like lowering refridge temp by 3 degrees, or inflating car tires to proper amount) - the effects may not be felt. However, 3 billion people doing same, the effects might be felt. Life is not all black or all white, Snarky. Things can happen by degrees.

[thaibeachlovers]

In the middle there, you wrote "We were wrong." ...speaking of yourself and the denialists? A rare spasm of modesty mixed with reality? Actually, you are right about admitting you're wrong. GW is happening. There's reams of scientific data to back it up. If you're fixated on denying it, go ahead. Suit yourself. For me, I'm going to look to what's real. Things like receding glaciers, warmer average temps, first-hand accounts from people - particularly those who reside/work near the Arctic.

PLEASE, tell me ONE thing that is ACTUALLY being done to reverse the effect of this "global warming" that you believe in. Are they cutting down on private cars- NO, increasing public transport in western countries and making it relevant and affordable- NO, halting mass air tourism- NO, not using planes to attend meetings to discuss GW- NO.

In short, for all the hot air produced in all those meetings, they have actually achieved no practical results, NONE, ZERO.

There are hundreds of things. here's a starting point: Look at what Denmark is doing toward transitioning to alternative/renewable energy. Granted, they're a well-run and relatively rich country (my birthplace, also), but if many other countries, like Thailand, had sensible energy policies along the lines of Denmark's, things would be brighter, literally and figuratively.

Are there still ridiculous and hypocritical things going on worldwide (like taking private jets to environmental meetings)? Sure. The depths of human ignorance are getting ever-deeper. If it were up to me, the entire Middle East would be cleared of people, to enable nature to re-establish itself. Where to put them? Paris and London, ha ha.

So you will disconnect from the grid right? You will swear off meat and air travel? Thank you in advance.

Get that bicycle tuned up.

I know you're trying to be crafty with those questions, but the answer is yes - to some degree - on all those points. I am one person, so obviously what I do is near insignificant, but if significant portions of humans do things to improve the environment, then it can have a positive effect. Will it be a cure-all? No. If there are 1/10th less jet flights, then that's approx. 1/10th less jet fuel used (today's headlines says Thai Airways is cutting routes), ....you get the picture. Similarly for paper use, car use, heating homes with fossil fuels, leaving unnecessary lights on at night, wasteful A.C. use, ad infinitum. One person doing something helpful (like lowering refridge temp by 3 degrees, or inflating car tires to proper amount) - the effects may not be felt. However, 3 billion people doing same, the effects might be felt. Life is not all black or all white, Snarky. Things can happen by degrees.

OK, so a well off country with a minute population is doing something positive, good on them, but it will have ZERO effect on the planet. They could all live in a cave and eat moss and it wouldn't change anything.

Now tell me how India, the US, the EU and China are cutting emissions by enough to make a difference. If they don't do something realistic and effective, nothing any other country does will make any difference at all.

How many more cars are on the roads every week in Thailand, never mind China?

Show me which countries are reducing their populations by a significant amount, as that's the ONLY thing that will make a realistic difference.

Even New Zealand, which has a tiny population and professes to be "doing something" has more cars than ever, and would like nothing more than to have millions of tourists fly in every year. It just doesn't add up.

[RickBradford]

first-hand accounts from people - particularly those who reside/work near the Arctic.

So, what is happening in the Arctic.

Question 1: According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, as of the end of December 2014, the extent of Arctic sea ice coverage, when compared to the year-end averages from 1981 through 2010, was:

A) About 90% below normal

B ) About 75% below normal

C) About 50% below normal

D) About 25% below normal

E) Less than 5% below normal

F) About 33% above normal?

The answer is E), less than 5% down on the 30-year average. If you asked the same question about the Antarctic, the answer would be F), at a record high.

So, why all the wailing from the Alarmists about 'tipping points' and 'ice-free Arctic'? To understand that, you have to answer Question 2.

Q2: Anybody who questions that the polar ice caps are in the process of a catastrophic melt-off most likely:

A) Is a mentally retarded orangutan who is not a real climate scientist, so should sit down and shut up

B ) Works for Fox News

C) Is directly or indirectly on the payroll of the Koch Brothers

D) Is a racist, homophobic, creationist, evangelical, birther, gun-toting, inbred, flat-Earth Republican bigot who is actively waging war not just on the environment, but on women, people of color, and poor people as well.

E) Is committing a thought crime, and should be prosecuted as a danger to society.

F) All of the above

The answer is that all of the answers are equally correct, depending on which tribe of the mass hysteria club you belong to.

Edited January 27, 2015 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

There was a time, 75 years ago, when Europe was being over-run by Nazis. They were commandeering all they came across. Across the Channel, was an island called England. They could have made a deal, like Norway or stayed away, like Sweden or Switzerland. Some intelligent and titled people in England were saying things like:

"The Nazis have better tanks, better fighting tactics (blitzkreig), have better aircraft, control the seas with their wolf-packs. Let's just make a deal, and maybe they'll leave us be."

Along came a man, out of retirement, who mobilized the entire country, and they wound up putting up a better fight than few would have thought possible, before the man came along.

This is how that relates to the topic: I'm no Churchill, but the people who keep saying there's nothing anyone can do about GW, are like the people in England who would have said, in 1940; 'the Nazis are too powerful, there's nothing we can do to stop them.' I'm not saying GW will stop happening. I am saying its acceleration can be slowed by concerted efforts. Will some actions by do-gooders be moot or even wasteful (of effort or money)? Surely, but overall, good things can get done. Best of all, in my view, is most actions suggested to slow GW are actions which also lessen pollution from fossil fuels.

Another perspective is children. What parent or teacher wants to hammer home cynicism? If you had small children in school, would you want their teacher to say, "the world is getting more polluted week by week. There's nothing anyone can do about it. So get ready to live in a world of bad air and dirty water." or "....there are some things individuals can do to lessen pollution. If just one person does those things, it's no big deal. But if multitudes of people do positive action to lessen pollution, like using less fossil fuels, then positive changes become more evident."

I realize people on this blog aren't schoolkids. They're mostly middle aged farang men like myself. Even so, that doesn't mean we have to be hyper-cynical. Cynicism is an easy pit to devolve to. It's like jumping off a sinking ship with a flotation device, but holding on to it with one hand, rather than harnessing it up. It won't work properly, so that person will probably drown, while gnashing teeth, thrashing around, and blaming the flotation device manufacturer for making a faulty product.

Edited January 27, 2015 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

^^^

You seem to have considerable optimism that the people making decisions on our behalf (politicians and bureaucrats at all levels) can be trusted to make the right decisions.

I don't share that optimism. Even those decision-makers who really want to see "a better world" are making poor decisions wherever you look.

For example, you write:

Another perspective is children. What parent or teacher wants to hammer home cynicism? If you had small children in school, would you want their teacher to say, "the world is getting more polluted week by week. There's nothing anyone can do about it. So get ready to live in a world of bad air and dirty water."

Well, that is exactly what is being taught to a great many children, so much so that psychiatrists are seeing the negative effects.

Children inundated with 'constant doomsday talk about climate change' warn psychiatrists

(NaturalNews) Child psychiatrists and other mental health experts say they are seeing an increase in anxiety among today's youth over the constant doom-and-gloom atmosphere they are presented regarding so-called global warming/climate change.

What is most disturbing to them, experts say, is so much talk among the scientific community that nothing more than daily life activities are what is causing the planet to be irreparably damaged.

So the do-gooders, keen to instil a sense of environmental awareness in children, are instead filling them with anxiety and guilt.

Bigger examples are everywhere. Western Europe's disastrous energy policy; massive waste and fraud in climate-themed boondoggles; pushing the price of staple foods out of the reach of the world's poor; huge over-regulation and expansion of bureaucratic fiefdoms; prevention of Third World development by denying funds for power plants and many more. There are no Winston Churchills in the climate bureaucracy...

It's great to be optimistic, but only as long as you are realistic as well. Climate isn't the big danger that we face; bad climate policy is.

[thaibeachlovers]

There was a time, 75 years ago, when Europe was being over-run by Nazis. They were commandeering all they came across. Across the Channel, was an island called England. They could have made a deal, like Norway or stayed away, like Sweden or Switzerland. Some intelligent and titled people in England were saying things like:

"The Nazis have better tanks, better fighting tactics (blitzkreig), have better aircraft, control the seas with their wolf-packs. Let's just make a deal, and maybe they'll leave us be."

Along came a man, out of retirement, who mobilized the entire country, and they wound up putting up a better fight than few would have thought possible, before the man came along.

This is how that relates to the topic: I'm no Churchill, but the people who keep saying there's nothing anyone can do about GW, are like the people in England who would have said, in 1940; 'the Nazis are too powerful, there's nothing we can do to stop them.' I'm not saying GW will stop happening. I am saying its acceleration can be slowed by concerted efforts. Will some actions by do-gooders be moot or even wasteful (of effort or money)? Surely, but overall, good things can get done. Best of all, in my view, is most actions suggested to slow GW are actions which also lessen pollution from fossil fuels.

Another perspective is children. What parent or teacher wants to hammer home cynicism? If you had small children in school, would you want their teacher to say, "the world is getting more polluted week by week. There's nothing anyone can do about it. So get ready to live in a world of bad air and dirty water." or "....there are some things individuals can do to lessen pollution. If just one person does those things, it's no big deal. But if multitudes of people do positive action to lessen pollution, like using less fossil fuels, then positive changes become more evident."

I realize people on this blog aren't schoolkids. They're mostly middle aged farang men like myself. Even so, that doesn't mean we have to be hyper-cynical. Cynicism is an easy pit to devolve to. It's like jumping off a sinking ship with a flotation device, but holding on to it with one hand, rather than harnessing it up. It won't work properly, so that person will probably drown, while gnashing teeth, thrashing around, and blaming the flotation device manufacturer for making a faulty product.

I don't think I'm being cynical about the weather, just realistic. I'm cynical about the efforts of the politicians and their lackey scientists to capitalise on weather without doing anything to change it.