Scientists enlist the big gun to get climate action: Faith

[webfact]

Scientists enlist the big gun to get climate action: Faith
By SETH BORENSTEIN

PARIS (AP) — The cold hard numbers of science haven't spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It's not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.

Physicist John Schellnhuber, founder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said he has been coming to these international talks for 11 years and essentially seen negotiators throw up their hands and say "sorry guys we tried our best." And no one protested. But this time, with the power of Pope Francis' encyclical earlier this year calling global warming a moral issue and an even more energized interfaith community, Schellnhuber feels the world's faithful are watching and will hold world leaders accountable.

"They know they will be measured against the encyclical," Schellnhuber, a member of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said Saturday at a Catholic Church event. Ever the scientist, Schellnhuber said on Saturday he hadn't seen any evidence yet during the first week of negotiations that this will happen, but he has faith it will.

In the first five days of climate negotiations, interfaith activists came, fasted, talked to media, buttonholed leaders and prayed. On Saturday night in a downtown Paris chapel, hundreds of people, many of them prostrated on the ground, sang and prayed for the climate negotiators and mostly for the world.

Faith "is much deeper" than science, said Caroline Bader of the Geneva-based Lutheran World Federation.

And so are their numbers. Bader said interfaith leaders recently handed top United Nations negotiators a petition with 1.8 million signatures begging for meaningful climate action. Such action was also sought by Brother Alois Taize, a Catholic member of the ecumenical monastery, as he was preaching at the song-laden service about how the faithful and the world have to open their eyes to solutions to global warming.

"The environment movement, which has primarily been a secular one, has realized that over the last 30 years or so it's not been that successful in achieving its goals," Joe Ware of Christian Aid wrote in an email from the Paris talks. "Increasingly it has looked to faith groups for help in mobilizing a broader movement of people calling for action on climate change. They are actually natural allies as almost all faiths have a theology of creation care at their heart."

Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a non-Catholic who advised Pope Francis on climate and is on the pontiff's science academy, says he thinks this new alliance will play a major role in what he hopes will be a historic agreement.

But for Ramanathan, now a member of the Holy See's delegation to the climate talks, it's more than science or history. About four years ago he had a moment that he called "a revelation."

He was presenting a paper on glacier melt to the scientists at the pontifical academy. It was academic and laid out the conclusions in cold hard facts. But then the chancellor to the academy, a bishop, added one sentence to the end: "If we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us."

It was quickly agreed to and Ramanathan started to look at climate science not as an academic issue but an issue of justice, because those who are hurt the most by climate change are the world's poorest 3 billion. He started volunteering, working with the poor and examining his own consumption habits, like how much he drives.

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Si is less about ecology than morality and fairness.

"Climate change is a global problem with serious social, environmental, economic, distributional and political dimensions, and poses one of the greatest challenges for humanity," the bishop said Saturday. "The poor populations are the most severely affected even though they are the least responsible."

Pope Francis, called a rock star by young religious climate activists, was not in Paris. But as he spoke to faithful in St. Peter's Square Sunday he appealed to those deciding on climate change measures to show courage by also fighting poverty, saying "the two choices go together."

He asked for prayers so that those making decisions on climate measures receive "the courage to always use as their criterion of choice the greater good of the human family."

Marcia McNutt, a former U.S. Geological Survey director and Science magazine editor who is about to become the head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, can't say enough about the importance of the pope's message.

"You can argue the science until cows come home, but that just appeals to people's intellect," McNutt said. "The pope's argument appeals to someone's heart. Whenever you appeal to someone's heart that's a much more powerful message."

In some ways, the enlisting of the faith movement is a sign of scientists' desperation, but it's also a realization of the need for a moral revolution on climate, said Ramanathan, who actually briefed the pope on climate in a parking lot.

The world will not act enough on climate change, Ramanathan said, "until we teach this in every church, every mosque, every synagogue, every temple."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-07

[canuckamuck]

The Climate crisis has always relied deeply on faith. It is easy to tell because of the emotional defence of the agenda in the absence of evidence. They can't prove something unnatural and/or dangerous is occurring. But they tell us we can't prove it isn't. The climate crisis is a religious crusade.

[Pimay1]

The Climate crisis has always relied deeply on faith. It is easy to tell because of the emotional defence of the agenda in the absence of evidence.

They can't prove something unnatural and/or dangerous is occurring. But they tell us we can't prove it isn't. The climate crisis is a religious crusade.

Not only that it is also a money crusade. They are desperate to invoke anything or anyone to insure billions of dollars go into their abyss.

[UnkleMoooose]

The AGW scam is a religion to those rolling along on the gravy train. Climate change like every other religion is intended to fleece the weak minded, vulnerable and downright stupid out of every penny it can.

[RPCVguy]

There would be no need for "Faith" if people actually knew enough math, chemistry and physics to understand what is in reports. Then too it helps only those profiting from selling the fossil fuels as the "Debate" started by Exxon in the 70's and 80's (now funded more by the Koch Brothers) obscures what was once clearly understood.

Exxon Knew
Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago | InsideClimate News

Here is detailed defense of the numbers - a sample of the misery one scientist was put through for debunking statistically the attack on the science.

[Roger Lee]

Since science won't back them up they resort to tugging on our heart strings through religion and emotion.

[Doc46]

Why do people listen to all the crap of man made global warming,It's an Ice age phenomenon this happen every so many thousandths of years ,Now we are in a interglacial period,,,Meaning that things are getting a bit warmer,,, wait a while and things go colder again!

[RPCVguy]

Since science won't back them up they resort to tugging on our heart strings through religion and emotion.

Science more than backs up the statements that

► Climate is changing

► The net change is warming

► The cause of the change is humanity's release of CO2 by burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels each year

► While much of the damage is in warming the planet, CO2 that is absorbed into the oceans is lowering the pH,

making it harder for both phytoplankton and many ocean algae to thrive - affecting the food chain of the seas

and the amount of photosynthesis to regenerate free O2.

► The rate of warming equates in energy to 4 Hiroshima bombs a second, 24/7

► 0ver 90% of the energy is being absorbed into the oceans, gradually warming them

Ignoring CO2 but accounting for all other factors affecting global temperatures fails to track events - beginning in the mid-1960s

Chemistry and Physics link the CO2 to humans

▶ "It's Us" - YouTube

More:

1) The warming that has happened thus far is increasing the rates of evaporation - drying some areas more quickly

... and providing more moisture to precipitate out in heavier rainfalls when and where it does rain.

2) The amount of warming so far is reducing the area of snow and ice that normally reflects light quickly back into spac,

and this accelerates the warming

3) The amount of warming near the poles is thawing areas once called permafrost - and the formerly frozen remains of plants

are decomposing to more CO2 - or, if not exposed to air, the decomposition is to Methane = a stronger greenhouse gas.

The measurements are consistently confirming the warming underway - or, when the measurements show inconsistencies, these get studied and reveal areas of fine tuning - such as is discussed in the opening 20 some minutes of the video linked to earlier (https://youtu.be/OTsc3jV1Otw)

[arjunadawn]

The Climate crisis has always relied deeply on faith. It is easy to tell because of the emotional defence of the agenda in the absence of evidence.

They can't prove something unnatural and/or dangerous is occurring. But they tell us we can't prove it isn't. The climate crisis is a religious crusade.

Is anyone really surprised that "faith" would be insinuated into the political agenda called "Climate Change." After all, the byline above could hardly be called new, or even coincidence, after the pope's abandonment of "the kingdom of god" for the coins of cesar by clearly and unambiguously arguing for a new political order. In fact, the pope already went further, a harbinger of the byline above. The pope has unequivocally recast the christian faith into requiring its adherents to follow this new secular agenda. Lastly, is it really cryptic what is meant by faith here?

JudeochristianIslamo theology is dualist. In this dualism there is god, and there is man; object, subject, never the two shall meet. Though variously one or more do permit communion through mysticism (Islam has a sketchy record with sufism). This dualism is what fed the Aristotelian Chain of Being regarding the use and disposal of the environment of the natural world. While Aristotelian concepts of the use of Natural resources has more or less been revisited that was never the problem, that was a symptom only generated from the foundation of these shared religions, which proscribe the use of the natural world for man alone. This is abundantly clear.

So, what are we really talking about here? Are scientists enlisting Judaism? Are they enlisting Islam? Who? We already know the Catholic Church is in the bag for the political ideology called Climate Change. Its a message without a substance because Islam hardly permits seeing the earth in a communal love fest, though they do have provisions for good stewardship in their scriptures (however, it is not in evidence in a very long modern time). Jews? Really, would this be a byline if Jews were being employed to wrap their faith around some secular agenda? No. The Jews, even more than Islam, would balk.

This is only news because Christianity is being leveraged into the political activism of the militant redistribution theology couching as "Climate Change." Islam cannot speak with one voice and the OIC would hardly yield to such a western-ish agenda unless gross concessions were made to their existing demands for islamic universal laws. No, this news is about the subterfuge of the catholic pope in motivating a long held militant socialism integral to the Society of Jesus. Enter the new Knights and the crusade for Gaia!

Edited December 7, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Dumbastheycome]

Why do people listen to all the crap of man made global warming,It's an Ice age phenomenon this happen every so many thousandths of years ,Now we are in a interglacial period,,,Meaning that things are getting a bit warmer,,, wait a while and things go colder again!

Is this about climate or wives? I wanna enjoy both but age is a worry !

[Seastallion]

" Ever the scientist, Schellnhuber said on Saturday he hadn't seen any evidence yet during the first week of negotiations that this will happen, but he has faith it will."

The best tongue-in-cheek line I've read in a while.

[Seastallion]

The AGW scam is a religion to those rolling along on the gravy train. Climate change like every other religion is intended to fleece the weak minded, vulnerable and downright stupid out of every penny it can.

Rubbish. It's the other way around.

Climate change denying is funded by big business, desperate to continue raping the planet.

[shirtless]

All this propaganda is about introducing another tax to be levied on consumers , we pay to much and receive to little as it is , Make the polluters pay and restrict them from passing these costs to consumers.

[Roger Lee]

Since science won't back them up they resort to tugging on our heart strings through religion and emotion.

Science more than backs up the statements that

► Climate is changing

► The net change is warming

► The cause of the change is humanity's release of CO2 by burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels each year

► While much of the damage is in warming the planet, CO2 that is absorbed into the oceans is lowering the pH,

making it harder for both phytoplankton and many ocean algae to thrive - affecting the food chain of the seas

and the amount of photosynthesis to regenerate free O2.

► The rate of warming equates in energy to 4 Hiroshima bombs a second, 24/7

► 0ver 90% of the energy is being absorbed into the oceans, gradually warming them

Ignoring CO2 but accounting for all other factors affecting global temperatures fails to track events - beginning in the mid-1960s

Chemistry and Physics link the CO2 to humans

▶ "It's Us" - YouTube

More:

1) The warming that has happened thus far is increasing the rates of evaporation - drying some areas more quickly

... and providing more moisture to precipitate out in heavier rainfalls when and where it does rain.

2) The amount of warming so far is reducing the area of snow and ice that normally reflects light quickly back into spac,

and this accelerates the warming

3) The amount of warming near the poles is thawing areas once called permafrost - and the formerly frozen remains of plants

are decomposing to more CO2 - or, if not exposed to air, the decomposition is to Methane = a stronger greenhouse gas.

The measurements are consistently confirming the warming underway - or, when the measurements show inconsistencies, these get studied and reveal areas of fine tuning - such as is discussed in the opening 20 some minutes of the video linked to earlier (https://youtu.be/OTsc3jV1Otw)

There are two sides to this coin, scientists also disagree.

[Seastallion]

Since science won't back them up they resort to tugging on our heart strings through religion and emotion.

Science more than backs up the statements that

► Climate is changing

► The net change is warming

► The cause of the change is humanity's release of CO2 by burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels each year

► While much of the damage is in warming the planet, CO2 that is absorbed into the oceans is lowering the pH,

making it harder for both phytoplankton and many ocean algae to thrive - affecting the food chain of the seas

and the amount of photosynthesis to regenerate free O2.

► The rate of warming equates in energy to 4 Hiroshima bombs a second, 24/7

► 0ver 90% of the energy is being absorbed into the oceans, gradually warming them

Ignoring CO2 but accounting for all other factors affecting global temperatures fails to track events - beginning in the mid-1960s

Chemistry and Physics link the CO2 to humans

▶ "It's Us" - YouTube

More:

1) The warming that has happened thus far is increasing the rates of evaporation - drying some areas more quickly

... and providing more moisture to precipitate out in heavier rainfalls when and where it does rain.

2) The amount of warming so far is reducing the area of snow and ice that normally reflects light quickly back into spac,

and this accelerates the warming

3) The amount of warming near the poles is thawing areas once called permafrost - and the formerly frozen remains of plants

are decomposing to more CO2 - or, if not exposed to air, the decomposition is to Methane = a stronger greenhouse gas.

The measurements are consistently confirming the warming underway - or, when the measurements show inconsistencies, these get studied and reveal areas of fine tuning - such as is discussed in the opening 20 some minutes of the video linked to earlier (https://youtu.be/OTsc3jV1Otw)

There are two sides to this coin, scientists also disagree.

Yes. So what a rational person does is look at who is paying which scientists.

I think you will find that there are scientists that are paid on both sides, but you will also find that all the non-paid (by interest groups) scientists are on the side advocating to take serious action to counter or slow GW.

[rsokolowski]

AGW also known as climate change is a religion. The observed data does not support, but look at what the model is showing 100 years from now (have faith). As someone that has experience with a complex model with many unknown variables I can express with great confidence that the AGW models will be wrong. The reason I say this is that any model where many of the inputs are either unknown or highly variable will always be wrong. The worlds climate is not as well understood as the scientists that predict the average temperature of the planet 100 years (plus or minus 0.01 degrees) would like you to believe.

[RPCVguy]

All this propaganda is about introducing another tax to be levied on consumers , we pay to much and receive to little as it is , Make the polluters pay and restrict them from passing these costs to consumers.

Yes - AND No. IF it is 100% returned to the citizenry the effect is primarily an incentive for all people to seek ways to avoid adding to CO2 while not growing the budget of the government.

To quell the nay-Sayers as to risks of CO2, I'll quote from Exxon's website

"we believe the risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action by both policymakers and the business community."

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/12/02/exxonmobil-and-the-carbon-tax/

That same page goes on to state:

In our view, a revenue-neutral carbon tax best fulfills those principles.

As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009

"A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement."

How threatening is climate?

"With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html

So, again about the REVENUE NEUTRAL, CARBON TAX AND DIVIDEND ... (from the same Washington Post article)

"To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil. No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon’s website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose."

The 100% Dividend portion, distributed equally per person on a monthly basis, is critical for several reasons.

► Oil is embedded in so many layers of current products that adding a fee at the wellhead will ripple through and raise prices of nearly everything

► people at every level will seek products and transport that minimizes the increases

► CEOs will have their teams looking to invest in alternative energy and more efficient products. Businesses that already use less carbon base supply will see their advantage win market share.

► Meanwhile at the family level, people who consume less carbon based products will get to save money from their share of the dividend, those who use more will pay more than the dividend returns - again this is a market level choice people get to make as to how they will live their life, yet the real cost of the usage of carbon based fuels is no longer subsidized by society as a whole.

(estimated global subsidies are $5.3 TRILLION annually http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm)

Examples of people calling for and explaining such a plan"

► James Hansen articulates it well http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/4/climate_scientist_james_hansen_warns_world

► Bernie Sanders legislation from 2013, but kept 40% for Government to fund research

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-we-need-a-carbon-tax

► Former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson - though he doesn't suggest the dividend !!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/22/3451687/hank-paulson-climate-crash-carbon-tax/

► Tessla Founder Elon Musk - though he suggest tax credits, again shifting the burden most onto those least able to afford it.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/elon-musk-carbon-tax-paris/

AND IF WE CONTINUE ON OUR CURRENT PATH??

5ºC - 7ºC ... Really?

[Xonax]

Overpopulation (the lack of birth control) is the main reason to global warming.

[RickBradford]

People in 100 years' time will look back in amazement at how humanity got its collective undies in such a bunch over temperature rises of a few-tenths of a degree. (0.8 degrees since 1850)

People such as Schnellenhuber, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres and Barack Obama will be seen as leaders of the modern equivalent of the Millerites, who told everyone to prepare for the return of Jesus on October 22, 1844.

Like the Millerites, the Climatites must prepare for their own Great Disappointment, as the climate refuses to obey their apocalyptic predictions.

The only difference is that the Millerites didn't p**s away trillions of dollars of other people's money on their foolish delusion.

[canuckamuck]

People in 100 years' time will look back in amazement at how humanity got its collective undies in such a bunch over temperature rises of a few-tenths of a degree. (0.8 degrees since 1850)

People such as Schnellenhuber, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres and Barack Obama will be seen as leaders of the modern equivalent of the Millerites, who told everyone to prepare for the return of Jesus on October 22, 1844.

Like the Millerites, the Climatites must prepare for their own Great Disappointment, as the climate refuses to obey their apocalyptic predictions.

The only difference is that the Millerites didn't p**s away trillions of dollars of other people's money on their foolish delusion.

"Climatites" haha, Classic

[thaibeachlovers]

because those who are hurt the most by climate change are the world's poorest 3 billion.

And it is those 3 billion that are causing the problem by refusing to curtail their unsustainable breeding. If there were less people in the world there would be less environmental destruction.

Don't ask me to sympathise with their hurt when they are the ones causing it.

[thaibeachlovers]

All this propaganda is about introducing another tax to be levied on consumers , we pay to much and receive to little as it is , Make the polluters pay and restrict them from passing these costs to consumers.

Yes - AND No. IF it is 100% returned to the citizenry the effect is primarily an incentive for all people to seek ways to avoid adding to CO2 while not growing the budget of the government.

To quell the nay-Sayers as to risks of CO2, I'll quote from Exxon's website

"we believe the risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action by both policymakers and the business community."

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/12/02/exxonmobil-and-the-carbon-tax/

That same page goes on to state:

In our view, a revenue-neutral carbon tax best fulfills those principles.

As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009

"A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement."

How threatening is climate?

"With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html

So, again about the REVENUE NEUTRAL, CARBON TAX AND DIVIDEND ... (from the same Washington Post article)

"To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil. No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon’s website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose."

The 100% Dividend portion, distributed equally per person on a monthly basis, is critical for several reasons.

► Oil is embedded in so many layers of current products that adding a fee at the wellhead will ripple through and raise prices of nearly everything

► people at every level will seek products and transport that minimizes the increases

► CEOs will have their teams looking to invest in alternative energy and more efficient products. Businesses that already use less carbon base supply will see their advantage win market share.

► Meanwhile at the family level, people who consume less carbon based products will get to save money from their share of the dividend, those who use more will pay more than the dividend returns - again this is a market level choice people get to make as to how they will live their life, yet the real cost of the usage of carbon based fuels is no longer subsidized by society as a whole.

(estimated global subsidies are $5.3 TRILLION annually http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm)

Examples of people calling for and explaining such a plan"

► James Hansen articulates it well http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/4/climate_scientist_james_hansen_warns_world

► Bernie Sanders legislation from 2013, but kept 40% for Government to fund research

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/why-we-need-a-carbon-tax

► Former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson - though he doesn't suggest the dividend !!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/22/3451687/hank-paulson-climate-crash-carbon-tax/

► Tessla Founder Elon Musk - though he suggest tax credits, again shifting the burden most onto those least able to afford it.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/elon-musk-carbon-tax-paris/

AND IF WE CONTINUE ON OUR CURRENT PATH??

5ºC - 7ºC ... Really?

HowBadCanItBe.jpg

with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose."

I can't think of an absolutely more barking plan. Most people I know would buy a bigger car with the money, including myself.

As for the graph, I saw that ( or an equivalent ) in a National Geographic magazine years ago- nothing new there. Unfortunately, the tundra is already thawing and releasing methane.

[RPCVguy]

Since some readers prefer to provide opinion without looking at the data. Oxfam in England did examine the issues and numbers (i.e. did some analysis.)
"The richest 10% of people produce half of the Earth's carbon emissions, while the poorest half-most threatened by droughts and super storms linked to climate change--contribute a mere 10%"
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon-emissions-while-poorest-35
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Worlds-richest-10-produce-50-of-CO2-Report/articleshow/50020466.cms

These differences in CO2 emissions need to also consider not only a snapshot of today's emission rates, but the cumulative emissions since industrialization began in the mid-18th Century - added CO2 emissions that are the cause of the imbalance to the natural state that had existed through a million years of Ice Ages when CO2 was between 180ppm and 280 ppm instead of now passing 400ppm

YES, population growth IS a problem, but the options exist to avoid the bad styles of consumption of those in the richest nations - and get the richest nations to shift to a better model of consumption.

Since people also derided the Carbon Fee with Dividend option (without listening to it is my guess) here is one more opportunity to hear it and discuss the merits and shortfalls. Start at a number and increase it annually by $10/tonne of CO2 (roughly 0.35 tonnes CO2/barrel of oil) ...

James Hansen COP21 Press Conference Dec 2, 2015

What are the SOCIETAL COSTS of Carbon? Currently we see the health costs of air pollution and water pollution - but as Hansen goes on, the costs of increasing climate damage to crops and buildings due to droughts, floods and storms. A scientific and statistically sound survey of EXPERT ECONOMISTS was done and gave surprising results, even advice as to how to better compile IPCC reports so as to avoid group-think bias and derive better forecasts. http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf

What did these economists, in a blind survey come up with as to the Social Cost of Carbon?

Again and again, the analysis exists to adequately explain the effects of CO2, and to analyze the cost of those effects.
It does not require a theological helping hand, though the moral impetus is abundant to support the weak, the poor and the afflicted.

Simply deriding the problem as a false issue is to demonstrate an inability and unwillingness to examine the science - or an ideological affinity for those serving the oil, coal and gas industries... (i.e. the USA's GOP)

[Roger Lee]

Since some readers prefer to provide opinion without looking at the data. Oxfam in England did examine the issues and numbers (i.e. did some analysis.)

"The richest 10% of people produce half of the Earth's carbon emissions, while the poorest half-most threatened by droughts and super storms linked to climate change--contribute a mere 10%"

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon-emissions-while-poorest-35

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Worlds-richest-10-produce-50-of-CO2-Report/articleshow/50020466.cms

These differences in CO2 emissions need to also consider not only a snapshot of today's emission rates, but the cumulative emissions since industrialization began in the mid-18th Century - added CO2 emissions that are the cause of the imbalance to the natural state that had existed through a million years of Ice Ages when CO2 was between 180ppm and 280 ppm instead of now passing 400ppm

CO2 Emissions 3 Views.jpg

YES, population growth IS a problem, but the options exist to avoid the bad styles of consumption of those in the richest nations - and get the richest nations to shift to a better model of consumption.

Since people also derided the Carbon Fee with Dividend option (without listening to it is my guess) here is one more opportunity to hear it and discuss the merits and shortfalls. Start at a number and increase it annually by $10/tonne of CO2 (roughly 0.35 tonnes CO2/barrel of oil) ...

James Hansen COP21 Press Conference Dec 2, 2015

What are the SOCIETAL COSTS of Carbon? Currently we see the health costs of air pollution and water pollution - but as Hansen goes on, the costs of increasing climate damage to crops and buildings due to droughts, floods and storms. A scientific and statistically sound survey of EXPERT ECONOMISTS was done and gave surprising results, even advice as to how to better compile IPCC reports so as to avoid group-think bias and derive better forecasts. http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf

What did these economists, in a blind survey come up with as to the Social Cost of Carbon?

Social Cost of Carbon.png

Again and again, the analysis exists to adequately explain the effects of CO2, and to analyze the cost of those effects.

It does not require a theological helping hand, though the moral impetus is abundant to support the weak, the poor and the afflicted.

Simply deriding the problem as a false issue is to demonstrate an inability and unwillingness to examine the science - or an ideological affinity for those serving the oil, coal and gas industries... (i.e. the USA's GOP)

Yawn

[thaibeachlovers]

Since some readers prefer to provide opinion without looking at the data. Oxfam in England did examine the issues and numbers (i.e. did some analysis.)

"The richest 10% of people produce half of the Earth's carbon emissions, while the poorest half-most threatened by droughts and super storms linked to climate change--contribute a mere 10%"

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon-emissions-while-poorest-35

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Worlds-richest-10-produce-50-of-CO2-Report/articleshow/50020466.cms

These differences in CO2 emissions need to also consider not only a snapshot of today's emission rates, but the cumulative emissions since industrialization began in the mid-18th Century - added CO2 emissions that are the cause of the imbalance to the natural state that had existed through a million years of Ice Ages when CO2 was between 180ppm and 280 ppm instead of now passing 400ppm

CO2 Emissions 3 Views.jpg

YES, population growth IS a problem, but the options exist to avoid the bad styles of consumption of those in the richest nations - and get the richest nations to shift to a better model of consumption.

Since people also derided the Carbon Fee with Dividend option (without listening to it is my guess) here is one more opportunity to hear it and discuss the merits and shortfalls. Start at a number and increase it annually by $10/tonne of CO2 (roughly 0.35 tonnes CO2/barrel of oil) ...

James Hansen COP21 Press Conference Dec 2, 2015

What are the SOCIETAL COSTS of Carbon? Currently we see the health costs of air pollution and water pollution - but as Hansen goes on, the costs of increasing climate damage to crops and buildings due to droughts, floods and storms. A scientific and statistically sound survey of EXPERT ECONOMISTS was done and gave surprising results, even advice as to how to better compile IPCC reports so as to avoid group-think bias and derive better forecasts. http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf

What did these economists, in a blind survey come up with as to the Social Cost of Carbon?

Social Cost of Carbon.png

Again and again, the analysis exists to adequately explain the effects of CO2, and to analyze the cost of those effects.

It does not require a theological helping hand, though the moral impetus is abundant to support the weak, the poor and the afflicted.

Simply deriding the problem as a false issue is to demonstrate an inability and unwillingness to examine the science - or an ideological affinity for those serving the oil, coal and gas industries... (i.e. the USA's GOP)

When the "poor" start taking responsibility for their excessive breeding and stop, I'll start caring about their welfare.

In the meantime, they continue to breed more people that their own countries can support and sent the excess to western countries so they too can have a car, tv etc etc and contribute to the pollution problems of the west.

You seem to be coming from the viewpoint that people care about the environment, but I see nothing to support that theory. In my own country, people commute many, many miles in solo driven cars to work every day, even when they have the option of living closer to their workplace.

Edited December 11, 2015 by thaibeachlovers