Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[RPCVguy]

Consensus on the problem of CO2 emissions was building through the 70's, presidential and congressional interest and understanding was mounting - and then a PR (propaganda) campaign began that has led to the empowerment of nonsense such as pours from Congresswoman Blackburn. Who funded this campaign and why? I again return to news released on the unfolding scandal centering on Exxon.

"This eight-month InsideClimate News investigation details Exxon's early research into global warming, based on hundreds of pages of internal documents and interviews with former employees and scientists. ... By 1981, Exxon scientists were no longer questioning whether the buildup of CO2 would cause the world to heat up. Through their own studies and their participation in government-sponsored conferences, company researchers had concluded that rising CO2 levels could create catastrophic impacts within the first half of the 21st century if the burning of oil, gas and coal wasn't contained." (I have already posted a link to an earlier article in the series on Exxon.)

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models

This is an example of why, IMO, Exxon Executives should face racketeering charges and upon conviction both jail time and estate confiscations. The most profiatable corporation the world ever saw did it on the basis of scamming the public as to the safety of the continued use of their product - similar to, indeed modeled after the process of disinformation used by the tobacco industry used to stay in business longer than was warranted from known science.

Earlier I wrote:

"Among those still saying the Earth is not warming from human burning of fossil fuels, there are people

• who lack the mental capacity to grasp the science - yet speak to be heard.

• who are those like Exxon executives who have hired people to explore the truth, don't like the answer, and have hired others to propagate a message of deception.

• who might be able to understand the science but are befuddled by the PR propagated by the rich who are complicit with Exxon in lying to people so as to continue their accumulation of wealth

Where US Republican Marsha Blackburn fits among the above 3 categories isn't known."

A final note on a recent comment as to someone remebering severe weather. Temperatures experienced in negative teens ºF are variations known as WEATHER, which is but a snapshot pixel of data midst the overall global picture that is trending warmer = CLIMATE. Why the Global climate is trending warming is inexplicable by all the known factors - until the insulation of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 is calculated into the equations.

Yes, there remain weather abnormalities - eddies in the process of heating. Pressure differentials that affect the shape of the jet stream, cause winds from ice covered polar regions to blown frigid air down over usually more moderate lattitudes, even as the average for the planet continues to rise. ... and it is just weather. Whole regions can be affected repeatedly, and in apparant opposition to the global whole... [Example 1: warm air influx over Alaska and Siberia leads to polar vortexes over the eastern USA - empowering the nonsense in Congress. Example 2 (a possibility): Enough ice melts off Greenland to shift the Gulf Stream and remove that warmth rom reaching Europe - causing some seriously old regional problems. It stems from the same disruption of the primary patterns of solar energy absorption over radiance that until the industrial age was in a cycle of change that allowed time for life to evolve to it.

Humans are breaking the balances of nature. Greed by a few has hindered our society from facing the problem and dealing with it.

[up2u2]

Really good posts RPCV based on an understanding of the actual peer reviewed science of GW / CC.

The Milankovitch Cycles of Glaciations and Inter-glacials in the past have very little influence on GW caused by increased greenhouse CO₂ gases. I am surprised it is possible to detect them in the data.

The 3 minute video 'It's Us' was excellent. So simple to understand and process.

The thing that annoys me the most about people like Marsha Blackburn is being the second in charge on the House Energy Committee she is able to speak with absolute Climate Science genius like Mears, Trenberth, Dessler, Mann, Muller, Rahmstorf etc etc etc etc but who does she actually request? Climate commentators funded by the Fossil Fuel industry Lindzen, Spencer, Curry et al. When it comes to 17,500 peer reviewed Papers confirming AGW she sides with the ONE singular Paper that rejects AGW and states 'The jury is out on AGW'.

It is difficult to accept that Politicians can be so corrupted by ideology and corporate lobbyists.

The never ending Climate Zombie Myths that never die, East Anglia Climategate, climate has always changed, The Medieval Warming Period, The Maunder Minimum, The predicted Ice Age in the 70's, Glaciers / Sea Ice is increasing, It's sunspot activity, Climate Change is a religion, Earth hasn't warmed in 12, 13, 17 years, there is no solution. man cannot control the weather. It just goes on and on and on and of course complete and utter nonsense when you look at the actual peer reviewed science on GW / CC.

One thing with people who reject GW / CC they stay a million miles away and demonstrate they have never read ANY peer reviewed science on GW / CC. All you really need to do is read the Abstract of the Paper and it is set out pretty simply and easily understood.

Here is a peer reviewed published Paper outlining the 70's Global Cooling Myth: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

It simply is not that hard to understand that there was no substantial scientific consensus on Global Cooling in the 70's. It is a myth but it just gets repeated over and over and over again.

To quote a phrase "you weren't there man, how could you know" I remember -17 in the morning, snow feet deep lasting for weeks, homes in remote areas being cut off for weeks. Oh but of course I lived in the North of England so obviously for you metropolitan elite that doesn't count. It's not a myth my friend when all your pipes are frozen, the water in your kitchen sink is a block of ice, believe me. During that mythical period I worked for a water company and for several winters our sewage works froze up totally so we had to dispose of raw sewage directly into local rivers, with the consequential fish kill. Myths are for the cosy and warm, facts are for those who got frostbite.

As RCPV has commented this is WEATHER in a specific region NOT CLIMATE. Two totally different species. If you want to see what the Earth as a WHOLE was doing during this short period of isolated regional cooling it was busy heating up.

So overwhelming consensus of an Ice Age predictions during the 70's is simply a myth but Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn will repeat it over and over and over again. Why? because the Fossil Fuel industry and Right Wing lobbyists feed her the myths and contribute to her re election campaigns and her state is dependent on Fossil Fuels. The science is the exact opposite of her view on the issue.

[Somtamme]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

[eliotness]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

So you believe only those who agree with you should be given air time ? Living in Thailand, I seem to recall recently someone else saying much the same thing and you know what most posters thought of his idea !

[eliotness]

Really good posts RPCV based on an understanding of the actual peer reviewed science of GW / CC.

The Milankovitch Cycles of Glaciations and Inter-glacials in the past have very little influence on GW caused by increased greenhouse CO₂ gases. I am surprised it is possible to detect them in the data.

The 3 minute video 'It's Us' was excellent. So simple to understand and process.

The thing that annoys me the most about people like Marsha Blackburn is being the second in charge on the House Energy Committee she is able to speak with absolute Climate Science genius like Mears, Trenberth, Dessler, Mann, Muller, Rahmstorf etc etc etc etc but who does she actually request? Climate commentators funded by the Fossil Fuel industry Lindzen, Spencer, Curry et al. When it comes to 17,500 peer reviewed Papers confirming AGW she sides with the ONE singular Paper that rejects AGW and states 'The jury is out on AGW'.

It is difficult to accept that Politicians can be so corrupted by ideology and corporate lobbyists.

The never ending Climate Zombie Myths that never die, East Anglia Climategate, climate has always changed, The Medieval Warming Period, The Maunder Minimum, The predicted Ice Age in the 70's, Glaciers / Sea Ice is increasing, It's sunspot activity, Climate Change is a religion, Earth hasn't warmed in 12, 13, 17 years, there is no solution. man cannot control the weather. It just goes on and on and on and of course complete and utter nonsense when you look at the actual peer reviewed science on GW / CC.

One thing with people who reject GW / CC they stay a million miles away and demonstrate they have never read ANY peer reviewed science on GW / CC. All you really need to do is read the Abstract of the Paper and it is set out pretty simply and easily understood.

Here is a peer reviewed published Paper outlining the 70's Global Cooling Myth: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

It simply is not that hard to understand that there was no substantial scientific consensus on Global Cooling in the 70's. It is a myth but it just gets repeated over and over and over again.

To quote a phrase "you weren't there man, how could you know" I remember -17 in the morning, snow feet deep lasting for weeks, homes in remote areas being cut off for weeks. Oh but of course I lived in the North of England so obviously for you metropolitan elite that doesn't count. It's not a myth my friend when all your pipes are frozen, the water in your kitchen sink is a block of ice, believe me. During that mythical period I worked for a water company and for several winters our sewage works froze up totally so we had to dispose of raw sewage directly into local rivers, with the consequential fish kill. Myths are for the cosy and warm, facts are for those who got frostbite.

As RCPV has commented this is WEATHER in a specific region NOT CLIMATE. Two totally different species. If you want to see what the Earth as a WHOLE was doing during this short period of isolated regional cooling it was busy heating up.

A_A_GISSTemp.jpg

A_A_SlowDown.jpg

So overwhelming consensus of an Ice Age predictions during the 70's is simply a myth but Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn will repeat it over and over and over again. Why? because the Fossil Fuel industry and Right Wing lobbyists feed her the myths and contribute to her re election campaigns and her state is dependent on Fossil Fuels. The science is the exact opposite of her view on the issue.

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

[eliotness]

Powell 2015 is not an 'opinion poll'

The point in the post is she has the 'jury out' on AGW with research showing a 99.9+% scientific consensus yet she only received 70% of the vote when being Elected to Congress. Why did she accept the position when the 'consensus' was so far below 100%.

OK, sorry I misunderstood what Powell 2015 was about. However my reasoning still stands. Scientists write papers when they receive funding to do so. Scientists are human beings, they need an income to survive, so they are unlikely to go against the political motivation of their sponsors. Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess".

No problem on the 'Powell' misunderstanding eliot.

So all the peer reviewed science on AGW / CC is just fabricated throughout the world by scientists being paid by politically motivated sponsors to come up with those results. An interesting theory.

Just a thought, if Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn doesn't agree with the Science on GW / CC why doesn't she move to de-fund it if it is not achieving the outcomes she wants?

I think you have confused Climate Scientists with Meteorologists.

Please check the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of "Meteorology", I think it's you who are confused.

[Somtamme]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

So you believe only those who agree with you should be given air time ? Living in Thailand, I seem to recall recently someone else saying much the same thing and you know what most posters thought of his idea !

Ellot, the problem is some politicians at Paris may not be focussing on the long term issues, to help format sound energy strategies. When you have people like this saying such ridiculous comments, which are so different to consensus of scientific opinion (re: CC and evolution) it is a bit worrying when these are the individuals helping to decide a way forward. We need people at Paris with the foresight of Brunel, and not entrenched in views so distinct to main stream.

[Somtamme]

Same applies to Thailand, how to tackle future emissions to be sustainable in the longer term, can we invest now to save in the future?

[Pinot]

Climate change isn't happening in Wingnuttia, only in the real world.

[up2u2]

. Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess".

I think you have confused Climate Scientists with Meteorologists.

Please check the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of "Meteorology", I think it's you who are confused.

eliot really? A qualified Meteorologist deals in the forecasting of short to medium term specific WEATHER conditions. A Climate Scientist deals with average weather for an extensive regional zone averaged out over substantial periods of time. If you want the weather forecast for a city or small regional area for tomorrow or a 'guestimate' for next week you will be guided by a Meteorologist. Two very different disciplines.

Goodness me eliot.

[up2u2]

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

Exactly, the small segment of the scientific community who predicted a possible Ice Age in the 70's has absolutely NO relevance to the discussion on modern day GW / CC. Absolutely zero so why even mention of it?

[eliotness]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

So you believe only those who agree with you should be given air time ? Living in Thailand, I seem to recall recently someone else saying much the same thing and you know what most posters thought of his idea !

Ellot, the problem is some politicians at Paris may not be focussing on the long term issues, to help format sound energy strategies. When you have people like this saying such ridiculous comments, which are so different to consensus of scientific opinion (re: CC and evolution) it is a bit worrying when these are the individuals helping to decide a way forward. We need people at Paris with the foresight of Brunel, and not entrenched in views so distinct to main stream.

I actually totally agree with you. Politicians, from democracies, world wide are purely focused on the next election. 5 year plans are the norm. In South Africa some of the Afrikaner churches actually preach that the black man is descended from apes, but the whites were created by God. I just don't trust the opinion of anyone with such views, however I will never ban them from saying what they believe, just have a chuckle to myself.

[phycokiller]

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

Exactly, the small segment of the scientific community who predicted a possible Ice Age in the 70's has absolutely NO relevance to the discussion on modern day GW / CC. Absolutely zero so why even mention of it?

it is of interest, and I think its accepted that normally we would be heading slowly towards the next ice age, it had been cooling for several thousands of years until the human intervention of the last century, I dont see how this contradicts AGW

[eliotness]

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

Exactly, the small segment of the scientific community who predicted a possible Ice Age in the 70's has absolutely NO relevance to the discussion on modern day GW / CC. Absolutely zero so why even mention of it?

You sir are so far to the right, or maybe extreme left that it's scary. I did a degree in Environmental Chemistry in the early 70s. At that time there was only a handful of universities in the UK doing such degrees. Climate scientists in the 70s were as rare as hens teeth. The only organisation that was really concerned with the climate was the MOD (or in the early 20th century it was called the War Ministry or something). Their reasons were military operations, but they kept a detailed record of climate around areas of the British Empire that were comprehensive. Now for you to totally dismiss such peoples findings and predictions is both unfair to some well qualified (at their time) and sincere individuals. But if climate change is an ongoing thing, why do you want to dismiss totally the elders of that science ? By all means say that knowledge of the factors affecting climate change have advanced in recent years, but to say previous predictions have no relevance is so so extreme, definitely not scientific but rather quasi religious and fundamentalist at that.

Anyone who says that the climate isn't changing is at best a fool, but there are plenty of those about. The subject of the debate should be what emissions are mankind causing that has an effect on the environment, climate being just one aspect. Did Bhopal affect the global climate ? Did 2 nuclear bombs affect the climate ? Did Lead in petrol affect the climate ? Have massive oil spills affected the climate ? Go round the mine dumps in Johannesburg with a Geiger Counter (I expect either you or your wife has gold rings or chains) and see the scale of radioactive pollution, but not affecting global temperatures. Just imagine the amount of methane given off by an ever increasing earth population that defecate. I suspect you are focused on a very narrow topic, you need to go out and "smell the coffee".

[up2u2]

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

Exactly, the small segment of the scientific community who predicted a possible Ice Age in the 70's has absolutely NO relevance to the discussion on modern day GW / CC. Absolutely zero so why even mention of it?

it is of interest, and I think its accepted that normally we would be heading slowly towards the next ice age, it had been cooling for several thousands of years until the human intervention of the last century, I dont see how this contradicts AGW

The Earth has been WARMING not cooling since the last Glaciation some 10K years ago. Earth is currently in an Inter Glacial the next Milankovitch Cycle that would generally take Earth into the next Glaciation is 13K years time. These cycles are VERY weak and effect seasonal shifts more than Global Temperatures they certainly do not have the forcing to overcome elevated greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. So the predicted 70's Ice Age is of no interest to people who understand the science on GW / CC. You also have to be very cautious using the Antarctic Vostok and Greenland Ice core data as these are 'proxy indicators' and have to be merged with many other factors to extrapolate the data to interpret Global temperature / CO₂ anomalies.

[canuckamuck]

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

Exactly, the small segment of the scientific community who predicted a possible Ice Age in the 70's has absolutely NO relevance to the discussion on modern day GW / CC. Absolutely zero so why even mention of it?

it is of interest, and I think its accepted that normally we would be heading slowly towards the next ice age, it had been cooling for several thousands of years until the human intervention of the last century, I dont see how this contradicts AGW

Well 1000 years isn't enough, why not look at 10,000 years. It seems perhaps things are finally warming up.

[up2u2]

Too slow canuck already debunked mate

[canuckamuck]

Too slow canuck already debunked mate

Please elaborate

[up2u2]

You sir are so far to the right, or maybe extreme left that it's scary. I did a degree in Environmental Chemistry in the early 70s. At that time there was only a handful of universities in the UK doing such degrees. Climate scientists in the 70s were as rare as hens teeth. The only organisation that was really concerned with the climate was the MOD (or in the early 20th century it was called the War Ministry or something). Their reasons were military operations, but they kept a detailed record of climate around areas of the British Empire that were comprehensive. Now for you to totally dismiss such peoples findings and predictions is both unfair to some well qualified (at their time) and sincere individuals. But if climate change is an ongoing thing, why do you want to dismiss totally the elders of that science ? By all means say that knowledge of the factors affecting climate change have advanced in recent years, but to say previous predictions have no relevance is so so extreme, definitely not scientific but rather quasi religious and fundamentalist at that.

Anyone who says that the climate isn't changing is at best a fool, but there are plenty of those about. The subject of the debate should be what emissions are mankind causing that has an effect on the environment, climate being just one aspect. Did Bhopal affect the global climate ? Did 2 nuclear bombs affect the climate ? Did Lead in petrol affect the climate ? Have massive oil spills affected the climate ? Go round the mine dumps in Johannesburg with a Geiger Counter (I expect either you or your wife has gold rings or chains) and see the scale of radioactive pollution, but not affecting global temperatures. Just imagine the amount of methane given off by an ever increasing earth population that defecate. I suspect you are focused on a very narrow topic, you need to go out and "smell the coffee".

Totally irrelevant. Bhopal, Nuclear Bombs, Lead in petrol, oils spills, radioactivity or coffee are not greenhouse gases so no none would have any significant effect on GW / CC.

Why 'imagine' the effect of Methane, which is a greenhouse gas, when you can actually look at the science:

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm happy to ignore the Pope on CC. I ignore him on everything else already.

Edited October 2, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

Edited October 2, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[eliotness]

Dear up2u2

You so missed my point as you are totally focused on GW and CO2. Those events I mentioned killed hundreds of thousands of people and millions of other creatures. They did not effect the earth's climate, but chemicals can kill without climate change. As for the coffee, 555 you so missed the point.

[RickBradford]

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air.

Government lackeys? What about those vital stakeholders, such as those that turned up to participate at COP20 in Lima last year, including the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, World Association of Girl Guides, the Maryknoll Sisters of Dominic, Women in Europe for a Common Future and the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation.

Surely you're not heartless enough to want to stop nuns flying round the world saving the planet? They have to have some fun.

[MZurf]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

What an inane post. Nobody is suggesting we all move back into caves but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to do something about it.

[eliotness]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

What an inane post. Nobody is suggesting we all move back into caves but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to do something about it.

So, pray tell, what are you yourself actually doing to reduce your carbon footprint ?

[up2u2]

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held in Paris France Nov. 30th - Dec. 11th is probably one of the most crucial Global Government meeting in respect of addressing GW / CC since the Kyoto Protocol 18 years ago. Nations are expected to enter their respective, legally binding CO₂ emissions reduction schemes and targets. To suggest that these crucial meetings between Governments and Nations around the World can be 'skyped' in, is amusing. The Carbon 'footprint' of this meeting would have absolutely ZERO effect on Global CO₂ emissions. The various commitments of Nations Governments will dictate the extent of GW / CC over the next 15 years. The higher the CO₂ emissions targets the higher the amount of GW and the higher degree of CC and the higher the potential of extreme weather events, reduction in Polar caps, higher sea levels and greater Ocean acidification. So these effects can certainly be managed if based on the scientific research. Far from meaningless.

One thing I am absolutely certain of is the 'Merchants of Doubt' like Congresswoman Blackburn will be ramping up the GW / CC misinformation in an attempt to protect Fossil Fuel polluters from being effected.

"....BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence......."

As someone who accepts the scientific evidence of GW / CC I would hope the silence is absolutely deafening on this absurd suggestion.

[MZurf]

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

What an inane post. Nobody is suggesting we all move back into caves but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to do something about it.

So, pray tell, what are you yourself actually doing to reduce your carbon footprint ?

Avoid using plastic bags, bottles, driving an economical car to name a few. But that's just a drop in a vast ocean and things have to be done on an international level. And for this to happen there has to be international recognition of the fact that what humans do affects the environment.

Unfortunately there are pig headed, anti-science individuals (especially in the US) who refuse to acknowledge this fact.

[Somtamme]

Dear up2u2

You so missed my point as you are totally focused on GW and CO2. Those events I mentioned killed hundreds of thousands of people and millions of other creatures. They did not effect the earth's climate, but chemicals can kill without climate change. As for the coffee, 555 you so missed the point.

Agreed in part, I do like the way Up2u2 stays focused on GW, but the please Up2u2, sometimes take a more holistic approach. Because of the residence time of CO2 I agree we face CC long into the future, but in tackling many of the pollution sources, you can tackle health impacts and inequalities, much sooner. It's the win-win scenarios between CC and air quality which are so important.

One of the risks with climate models, is they do not take into account methane emissions from some scenarios like tundra warming and methane emitted from sediments. Yes, agreed total concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, but the impact given its warming potential should not be ignored.

[up2u2]

Dear up2u2

You so missed my point as you are totally focused on GW and CO2. Those events I mentioned killed hundreds of thousands of people and millions of other creatures. They did not effect the earth's climate, but chemicals can kill without climate change. As for the coffee, 555 you so missed the point.

Agreed in part, I do like the way Up2u2 stays focused on GW, but the please Up2u2, sometimes take a more holistic approach. Because of the residence time of CO2 I agree we face CC long into the future, but in tackling many of the pollution sources, you can tackle health impacts and inequalities, much sooner. It's the win-win scenarios between CC and air quality which are so important.

One of the risks with climate models, is they do not take into account methane emissions from some scenarios like tundra warming and methane emitted from sediments. Yes, agreed total concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, but the impact given its warming potential should not be ignored.

The premise that Mankind is only capable of dealing with one issue at a time always escapes me. If the argument is we are faced with many more important issues so GW / CC can be relegated as unimportant is not an argument I would except. Corporate pollution and negligence is a VERY important issue and regulation and oversight is crucial and the Corporate environmental vandals should be held to account.

I understood perfectly eliot's attempt at conflating totally unrelated issues to subvert action on GW / CC.

My use of 'coffee' in respect of GW / CC was a moment of levity. I understood his demeaning comment 'wake up and smell the coffee' perfectly.

[eliotness]

Dear up2u2

I think because you are so focused you are missing my reasoning. Environmental degradation and environmental pollution (the 2 are not necessarily related) have many aspects, some with very lethal consequences to mankind. No one with any knowledge of history can deny the earth's climate changes over time. Mankind's emissions, I could say pollution, but whilst it's easy to quantify industrial emissions, it's rather more difficult to quantify emissions from daily life, contribute to that given by nature. The debate is over what degree mankind's emissions are contributing to any climate change being experienced currently and into the foreseeable future.

If one accepts that mankind's emissions do contribute significantly to factors effecting climate change (ok I'm a maybe on that one but not in denial), then the question is what can everyone on the planet do about it. Very easy if you live in a rich 1st world country, but if you live on the bread-line in a 3rd world country then the choices are few and far between. Any action proposed by politicians in the 1st world is questionable to say the least. Big corporations have very powerful lobbying groups in all 1st world nations. A lot of politicians are employed directly by big corporations. There are limited things we all can do off our own backs, like as you say, use less plastic bags and more fuel efficient cars, but compared to the e.g. the cement factory down the road, that is just a tiny drop in the ocean. What is needed is major changes in our lifestyle and that can only be enforced by governments. Not exactly a vote winner me thinks !

So pray tell what is your solution to an unsustainable lifestyle and an unsustainable birth rate ?