UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[coma]

rapidly-warming planet triggered by human emissions.

What is the UN suggesting ? A cull ?

[Mosha]

Mankind proved not to be intelligent enough to manage the planet in a way that the ecosystem keeps functioning .

The price we will have to pay for this is simply the extinction of mankind , and a lot of other , innocent species .

Time is a healer , nature will recover in a few million years , but for the human race , that really proved to be greedy , ignorant and arrogant , and most of all simply stupid , the game will be over soon .

I understand the young generation : party till you drop , there is no tomorrow ...

May be a few of mankind will adapt to the climatic changes , ( the one's with a lot of money ) , but life will never be the same it was .

By the way ,

This photo is from the Cannes film Festival 2016 , that ends today .

I can only say that I share the opinion of Jim Jarmusch and Iggy Pop .

Intelligent enough to see what's coming. But too stupid to stop it. I think that sums us up. Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[RickBradford]

Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That has to be my favorite comment of the evening. The man uses a miracle of modern technology, a miniaturised hand-held computer which effortlessly communicates all over the world, and then calls humanity stupid.

There are clearly different levels of stupid.

[Mosha]

Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That has to be my favorite comment of the evening. The man uses a miracle of modern technology, a miniaturised hand-held computer which effortlessly communicates all over the world, and then calls humanity stupid.

There are clearly different levels of stupid.

At least dinosaurs had an excuse. As a species we are ignoring what is staring us in the face.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[CMDaisy]

The poles are shifting, climate will change drastically from now on. It's not man made. It's magnetic pull from Nemesis, our twin sun which has just entered our solar system along with its moons and brown dwarfs. Time to clear the coastlines.

[arjunadawn]

Keep telling you, its Planet X

http://news.discovery.com/space/could-planet-x-cause-comet-catastrophes-on-earth-160330.htm

This is entirely or at least partially correct. Most human could not describe but a few planetary features that contribute to climate. Perhaps the earth spins, and takes a year to go around the sun, no more. nearly 100% know nothing about horizon, galactic equator, ecliptic, precession, orbit through galactic center, etc. all of these factors seem to be inconvenient for those espousing the radical ideology of climate change. The earth spins like a top on a table. Climate change ideologues suggest that's all the content needed. That's the model. Wrong. There's many other tops and forces at work on the table. It's a lie to rule these out of formula. It's not just bad science. It's deceit.

Keep it simple, keep it stupid- "Ball. Space. Gruff. Sigh. Hot. Bad!" but no real truth. Never context.

Also the inconvenient issue of the data seeming to suggest that there most certainly a cyclic, measurable force in the solar system that is not explained by the current model and clearly suggests a dwarf star or planetary body on perturbed orbit, something huge- fact. These are the things that repeatedly cause ice age or not. Only when factored in can a valid model exist. One might insist humans are raising the temp. Ok. Offer this in accordance with the acutal factors that create climate. Otherwise, it's BS!

The earth can roast tomorrow and Climate Change, the ideology, is still a fraud! There's a reason why Climate Change has a naturally born opponent on the Right- because it's an entirely contrived Frankenstein of the Left. It's self evident.

Edited May 22, 2016 by arjunadawn

[willyumiii]

No, no, no...

Trump told me global warming is all a big lie started by the Chinese only to reduce corporate profits in America!

Trump would never lie just to get votes..would he?

I hope thos tree hugging liberals are the first to drowned because the ice caps are not melting! ( sic )

[sirineou]

Keep telling you, its Planet X

http://news.discovery.com/space/could-planet-x-cause-comet-catastrophes-on-earth-160330.htm

This is entirely or at least partially correct. Most human could not describe but a few planetary features that contribute to climate. Perhaps the earth spins, and takes a year to go around the sun, no more. nearly 100% know nothing about horizon, galactic equator, ecliptic, precession, orbit through galactic center, etc. all of these factors seem to be inconvenient for those espousing the radical ideology of climate change. The earth spins like a top on a table. Climate change ideologues suggest that's all the content needed. That's the model. Wrong. There's many other tops and forces at work on the table. It's a lie to rule these out of formula. It's not just bad science. It's deceit.

Keep it simple, keep it stupid- "Ball. Space. Gruff. Sigh. Hot. Bad!" but no real truth. Never context.

Also the inconvenient issue of the data seeming to suggest that there most certainly a cyclic, measurable force in the solar system that is not explained by the current model and clearly suggests a dwarf star or planetary body on perturbed orbit, something huge- fact. These are the things that repeatedly cause ice age or not. Only when factored in can a valid model exist. One might insist humans are raising the temp. Ok. Offer this in accordance with the acutal factors that create climate. Otherwise, it's BS!

The earth can roast tomorrow and Climate Change, the ideology, is still a fraud! There's a reason why Climate Change has a naturally born opponent on the Right- because it's an entirely contrived Frankenstein of the Left. It's self evident.

Celestrial objects affecting Earths climate?

A controversial proposal to be sure, , I am sure that there are some people that would propose that the Sun might have something to do with the Earths Climate, but I will withhold opinion until all the data is in.

I have noticed one thing though, when wearing back clothing in the sun it seems to affect my personal climate , do you think it is mostly my fault for wearing black or The suns fault? and would you propose I do nothing? or do you think I should wear lighter clothing?

[willyumiii]

I support burning off the remain jungles and fossil fuel left on earth.

Let the Earth reset itself like it did a few hundred millions ago.

You are correct.

Humans will never kill the planet.

Earth will adapt and cary on long after it has become unsuitable for species like humans.

It will be a happier, healthy planet once the greedy self serving humans are extinct.

Unfortunately, humans will take countless species off into extinction with them.

[willyumiii]

Even if true, carbon credit taxes and globalist government will do nothing to alleviate the "climate change problem".

Why all the anger at "climate deniers".

Whether I accept or deny all the real or bogus reports by paid off "scientists" about mankind's contribution to climate change, I can clearly see the offered solutions as a means of further enslavement of humanity's masses under globalist elite rule.

Carbon Tax Credits are no solution to the problem.

They are just one more way to make money off the self inflected problem that is caused by a lust for money.

And the beat goes on.....

[JetsetBkk]

They see the results in flooding of coastal cities, massive arctic ice melt and the largest coral die-off in recorded history.

I see typical UN BS.

yes.... typical UN BS..... We've only came out of the Little Ice Age circa 1850. (L.I.A. from approx. 1300 - 1850 with a few breaks here and there. It was a horrible time for crops and harvests, lots of famine) What did they expect to happen following the end of the L.I.A. ? For it to get colder ? ?

Not to mention the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Minoan Warm Period were warmer than today. And civilization, historically, has always done better during warmer times.

Excellent video!!

[arjunadawn]

Keep telling you, its Planet X

http://news.discovery.com/space/could-planet-x-cause-comet-catastrophes-on-earth-160330.htm

This is entirely or at least partially correct. Most human could not describe but a few planetary features that contribute to climate. Perhaps the earth spins, and takes a year to go around the sun, no more. nearly 100% know nothing about horizon, galactic equator, ecliptic, precession, orbit through galactic center, etc. all of these factors seem to be inconvenient for those espousing the radical ideology of climate change. The earth spins like a top on a table. Climate change ideologues suggest that's all the content needed. That's the model. Wrong. There's many other tops and forces at work on the table. It's a lie to rule these out of formula. It's not just bad science. It's deceit.

Keep it simple, keep it stupid- "Ball. Space. Gruff. Sigh. Hot. Bad!" but no real truth. Never context.

Also the inconvenient issue of the data seeming to suggest that there most certainly a cyclic, measurable force in the solar system that is not explained by the current model and clearly suggests a dwarf star or planetary body on perturbed orbit, something huge- fact. These are the things that repeatedly cause ice age or not. Only when factored in can a valid model exist. One might insist humans are raising the temp. Ok. Offer this in accordance with the acutal factors that create climate. Otherwise, it's BS!

The earth can roast tomorrow and Climate Change, the ideology, is still a fraud! There's a reason why Climate Change has a naturally born opponent on the Right- because it's an entirely contrived Frankenstein of the Left. It's self evident.

Celestrial objects affecting Earths climate?

A controversial proposal to be sure, , I am sure that there are some people that would propose that the Sun might have something to do with the Earths Climate, but I will withhold opinion until all the data is in.

I have noticed one thing though, when wearing back clothing in the sun it seems to affect my personal climate , do you think it is mostly my fault for wearing black or The suns fault? and would you propose I do nothing? or do you think I should wear lighter clothing?

Actually celestial objects not affecting local climate is novel, and IMO controversial. Even local solar inter course is responsible for the vast body of macro changes we see. Toward this end its proven the solar interplay with oceans is a significant manipulator of atmospheric gas level. The thing is, it's also an accordion phenomena, sometimes take centuries to note the 1 solar action on 2 oceans and 3 later observations. This is just a single local celestial interaction. Clouds would be the next example. These are only local.

Man's surely crapping the bed but it's arrogance and deceit to state he supersedes other actors in play. Tip: you wanna save the earth from one of its cyclic, numerous ocean inundations, fine.

But if you wanna really make difference in the future fund the mapping of near earth objects relative to our ecliptic along the galactic equator orbit (local arm)- in other words, constantly do it. Even if we count every single rock in space today it may change tomorrow because our solar orbit moves our earth ecliptic through 250 mil year orbit of its own. This is threat. Climate Change is a stalking horse!

If anyone thinks the frenzy of social decay, politics, and the sky is falling climate change are coincidental, then they are exactly the audience intended.

[sirineou]

Keep telling you, its Planet X

http://news.discovery.com/space/could-planet-x-cause-comet-catastrophes-on-earth-160330.htm

This is entirely or at least partially correct. Most human could not describe but a few planetary features that contribute to climate. Perhaps the earth spins, and takes a year to go around the sun, no more. nearly 100% know nothing about horizon, galactic equator, ecliptic, precession, orbit through galactic center, etc. all of these factors seem to be inconvenient for those espousing the radical ideology of climate change. The earth spins like a top on a table. Climate change ideologues suggest that's all the content needed. That's the model. Wrong. There's many other tops and forces at work on the table. It's a lie to rule these out of formula. It's not just bad science. It's deceit.

Keep it simple, keep it stupid- "Ball. Space. Gruff. Sigh. Hot. Bad!" but no real truth. Never context.

Also the inconvenient issue of the data seeming to suggest that there most certainly a cyclic, measurable force in the solar system that is not explained by the current model and clearly suggests a dwarf star or planetary body on perturbed orbit, something huge- fact. These are the things that repeatedly cause ice age or not. Only when factored in can a valid model exist. One might insist humans are raising the temp. Ok. Offer this in accordance with the acutal factors that create climate. Otherwise, it's BS!

The earth can roast tomorrow and Climate Change, the ideology, is still a fraud! There's a reason why Climate Change has a naturally born opponent on the Right- because it's an entirely contrived Frankenstein of the Left. It's self evident.

Celestrial objects affecting Earths climate?

A controversial proposal to be sure, , I am sure that there are some people that would propose that the Sun might have something to do with the Earths Climate, but I will withhold opinion until all the data is in.

I have noticed one thing though, when wearing back clothing in the sun it seems to affect my personal climate , do you think it is mostly my fault for wearing black or The suns fault? and would you propose I do nothing? or do you think I should wear lighter clothing?

Actually celestial objects not affecting local climate is novel, and IMO controversial. Even local solar inter course is responsible for the vast body of macro changes we see. Toward this end its proven the solar interplay with oceans is a significant manipulator of atmospheric gas level. The thing is, it's also an accordion phenomena, sometimes take centuries to note the 1 solar action on 2 oceans and 3 later observations. This is just a single local celestial interaction. Clouds would be the next example. These are only local.

Man's surely crapping the bed but it's arrogance and deceit to state he supersedes other actors in play. Tip: you wanna save the earth from one of its cyclic, numerous ocean inundations, fine.

But if you wanna really make difference in the future fund the mapping of near earth objects relative to our ecliptic along the galactic equator orbit (local arm)- in other words, constantly do it. Even if we count every single rock in space today it may change tomorrow because our solar orbit moves our earth ecliptic through 250 mil year orbit of its own. This is threat. Climate Change is a stalking horse!

If anyone thinks the frenzy of social decay, politics, and the sky is falling climate change are coincidental, then they are exactly the audience intended.

I am sure there are many factors that affect the climate on earth , humans being one,

we don't have control over most of it, but I like to think that we have some control over our behavior. Unless of course you don't think our behavior is affecting the environment and by extension the climate, in which case changing our behavior would be an exercise in futility.

I, and many others think we are , but all the scientists could be wrong and corporate america could be right.

So If you are wrong end of humanity, game over. not a quick end, lingering misery.

if we are wrong, different game, slightly higher costs but a cleaner environment and less wars to protect the oil fields and delivery routes. I wonder if the savings from the wars might not even offset the higher sort term cost of transformation to renewable energy systems.

[arjunadawn]

I am sure there are many factors that affect the climate on earth , humans being one,

we don't have control over most of it, but I like to think that we have some control over our behavior. Unless of course you don't think our behavior is affecting the environment and by extension the climate, in which case changing our behavior would be an exercise in futility.

I, and many others think we are , but all the scientists could be wrong and corporate america could be right.

So If you are wrong end of humanity, game over. not a quick end, lingering misery.

if we are wrong, different game, slightly higher costs but a cleaner environment and less wars to protect the oil fields and delivery routes. I wonder if the savings from the wars might not even offset the higher sort term cost of transformation to renewable energy systems.

Hello sirineou

Man may affect climate indirectly and certainly can directly with some of His rarely used weapons. I do not equate pollution with climate change, but clearly that too has a tipping point. Man is a Poor Steward of Earth/Nations but building the infrastructure of earth stewardship with the failed remnants of the Poor Stewards of Humans/Nations is absurd. Same formula, same agents: create crisis, provide solution, shake, repeat.

If Pascal's Wager could really be offered, and binding on all, I might change my mind, but it would still need to proceed along very different political lines. In practice theory Pascal's Wager is the offer to the masses, but not in practice.

Pascal Wager was a lazy man's musing; it was an agnostic's rationale with god- If I live my life as if god (climate change) did not exist when I die, if he exists, I lose all. If I live my life (climate change) as if god exists, when I die, if he does not exist, I have lost nothing; if he lives, I gain eternity.

It is a rationale for the mind; effectively self deceit. No, it is not the mark of considered faculties. (Proof? Pascal's deficiency was Simony. He was reasoning with God and rationalizing he could buy eternity through calculation, not necessarily faith or works). Blaise Pascal was wrong. His failure equally applies to rationalizing on behalf of the Ideology of Climate Change.

Looking at the stewardship of those today, and their denigrating and self loathing of western civilization, making relative the most base cultures and subordinating enlightened reason to selective religious dogma, emotions, and every manner of barbarism this to me is the "end of humanity, game over... not a quick end, lingering misery."

Of course [they] cannot be trusted with global stewardship. [its] a political stalking horse, plain and simple. [it] is the single greatest tool using the single oldest pretext, to concentrate fear and power under false pretenses.

PS: If a person thinks "corporate America" is somehow put out by all of this, they are missing the forest for the trees.

Edited May 22, 2016 by arjunadawn

[fasteddie]

Even if true, carbon credit taxes and globalist government will do nothing to alleviate the "climate change problem".

Why all the anger at "climate deniers".

Whether I accept or deny all the real or bogus reports by paid off "scientists" about mankind's contribution to climate change, I can clearly see the offered solutions as a means of further enslavement of humanity's masses under globalist elite rule.

Agenda 21 comes to mind.

[F430murci]

Even if true, carbon credit taxes and globalist government will do nothing to alleviate the "climate change problem".

Why all the anger at "climate deniers".

Whether I accept or deny all the real or bogus reports by paid off "scientists" about mankind's contribution to climate change, I can clearly see the offered solutions as a means of further enslavement of humanity's masses under globalist elite rule.

I am very close with a group of scientists that are very respected in this area. I have traveled and surfed with them around the world for over a decade now. They are not paid off and could give two cents about public interests groups or money. They are more concerned with the environment and burn off of coral reefs around the world.

The have been monitoring and publishing works since I have known them, Their models are adjusted for El Niño and La Niña and are widely used.

I am suspect of those studies tied to and funded by the energy sector and do think we have a problem.

[sirineou]

I am sure there are many factors that affect the climate on earth , humans being one,

we don't have control over most of it, but I like to think that we have some control over our behavior. Unless of course you don't think our behavior is affecting the environment and by extension the climate, in which case changing our behavior would be an exercise in futility.

I, and many others think we are , but all the scientists could be wrong and corporate america could be right.

So If you are wrong end of humanity, game over. not a quick end, lingering misery.

if we are wrong, different game, slightly higher costs but a cleaner environment and less wars to protect the oil fields and delivery routes. I wonder if the savings from the wars might not even offset the higher sort term cost of transformation to renewable energy systems.

Hello sirineou

Man may affect climate indirectly and certainly can directly with some of His rarely used weapons. I do not equate pollution with climate change, but clearly that too has a tipping point. Man is a Poor Steward of Earth/Nations but building the infrastructure of earth stewardship with the failed remnants of the Poor Stewards of Humans/Nations is absurd. Same formula, same agents: create crisis, provide solution, shake, repeat.

If Pascal's Wager could really be offered, and binding on all, I might change my mind, but it would still need to proceed along very different political lines. In practice theory Pascal's Wager is the offer to the masses, but not in practice.

Pascal Wager was a lazy man's musing; it was an agnostic's rationale with god- If I live my life as if god (climate change) did not exist when I die, if he exists, I lose all. If I live my life (climate change) as if god exists, when I die, if he does not exist, I have lost nothing; if he lives, I gain eternity.

It is a rationale for the mind; effectively self deceit. No, it is not the mark of considered faculties. (Proof? Pascal's deficiency was Simony. He was reasoning with God and rationalizing he could buy eternity through calculation, not necessarily faith or works). Blaise Pascal was wrong. His failure equally applies to rationalizing on behalf of the Ideology of Climate Change.

Looking at the stewardship of those today, and their denigrating and self loathing of western civilization, making relative the most base cultures and subordinating enlightened reason to selective religious dogma, emotions, and every manner of barbarism this to me is the "end of humanity, game over... not a quick end, lingering misery."

Of course [they] cannot be trusted with global stewardship. [its] a political stalking horse, plain and simple. [it] is the single greatest tool using the single oldest pretext, to concentrate fear and power under false pretenses.

PS: If a person thinks "corporate America" is somehow put out by all of this, they are missing the forest for the trees.

Interesting analogy but Pascal's is faulty logic, as you said a "lazy man's mussing" and not apropos to the climate issue,

Faulty because it come to a faulty conclusion, that if he have lived his life as if God existed and in the end it turn out that God did not exist , he would have lost nothing. I submit to you that he would have lost everything.

He would have lived under a false assumption and entered in to numerous compromises.

In short he would have lived a compromised life, for no reason at all.

Not apropos to climate change because The only life Pascal would have compromised would have being his, where his climate changing behavior does not only change is climate but my climate also.So his delusion will not only compromise his life but has the capacity to compromise everyone's life.

My wager is different , as Pascal had only one life to wager, we only have one planet to wager. but if Pascal failed it really would make little difference in the course of humanity, but if we fail in this the results can be catastrophic.

So as with any wager, one has to consider the reward to risk ratio.

At least that's how I see it.

If we do nothing , what is the return?

low cost energy, profits for some. Perhaps you can add some other substantial rewards I have not thought of.

what is the risk? could be the end of Humanity, certainly a compromised life for my Daughter.

Is this a bet I am willing to make? I can see if the reward was great, perhaps Utopia for every one, but to bet Humanity for a few Shekels.

So now let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say we do something, where something was not warranted .

We implement all climate change averting proposals, but we were wrong and climate changes any way because it was not of our own doing but the result of XYZ beyond our control.

What is the risk? Some economic disruption Maybe?

What is the reward. Less pollution, decentralization of the energy industry, and the oligarchy that control it. etc

Is there anyone out there who does not want less pollution? In a planet awash in energy, so much so, that our existence is threatened by the amount of energy flowing around on a daily bases,

A thin magnetosphere protects as from the suns radiation, the heat of the sun can kill as in the desert, waves threaten to drown us, wind can kill as, geothermal.

So much energy, we are drowning in it, and we need to go to far away places, enslave people, fight wars, to release sequestrated carbon? Is it because it is necessary, or is it because the seven sisters control the process and remove their pound of flesh .

If there is a future, History will not look kindly at this era, and we will be the A-holes who lived in it.

We might be the A-holes who bet on the future of humanity for a few Shekels and lost.

I don't know about you but I am not willing to take that bet

Or is my whole premise wrong?

[arjunadawn]

I am sure there are many factors that affect the climate on earth , humans being one,

we don't have control over most of it, but I like to think that we have some control over our behavior. Unless of course you don't think our behavior is affecting the environment and by extension the climate, in which case changing our behavior would be an exercise in futility.

I, and many others think we are , but all the scientists could be wrong and corporate america could be right.

So If you are wrong end of humanity, game over. not a quick end, lingering misery.

if we are wrong, different game, slightly higher costs but a cleaner environment and less wars to protect the oil fields and delivery routes. I wonder if the savings from the wars might not even offset the higher sort term cost of transformation to renewable energy systems.

Hello sirineou

Man may affect climate indirectly and certainly can directly with some of His rarely used weapons. I do not equate pollution with climate change, but clearly that too has a tipping point. Man is a Poor Steward of Earth/Nations but building the infrastructure of earth stewardship with the failed remnants of the Poor Stewards of Humans/Nations is absurd. Same formula, same agents: create crisis, provide solution, shake, repeat.

If Pascal's Wager could really be offered, and binding on all, I might change my mind, but it would still need to proceed along very different political lines. In practice theory Pascal's Wager is the offer to the masses, but not in practice.

Pascal Wager was a lazy man's musing; it was an agnostic's rationale with god- If I live my life as if god (climate change) did not exist when I die, if he exists, I lose all. If I live my life (climate change) as if god exists, when I die, if he does not exist, I have lost nothing; if he lives, I gain eternity.

It is a rationale for the mind; effectively self deceit. No, it is not the mark of considered faculties. (Proof? Pascal's deficiency was Simony. He was reasoning with God and rationalizing he could buy eternity through calculation, not necessarily faith or works). Blaise Pascal was wrong. His failure equally applies to rationalizing on behalf of the Ideology of Climate Change.

Looking at the stewardship of those today, and their denigrating and self loathing of western civilization, making relative the most base cultures and subordinating enlightened reason to selective religious dogma, emotions, and every manner of barbarism this to me is the "end of humanity, game over... not a quick end, lingering misery."

Of course [they] cannot be trusted with global stewardship. [its] a political stalking horse, plain and simple. [it] is the single greatest tool using the single oldest pretext, to concentrate fear and power under false pretenses.

PS: If a person thinks "corporate America" is somehow put out by all of this, they are missing the forest for the trees.

Interesting analogy but Pascal's is faulty logic, as you said a "lazy man's mussing" and not apropos to the climate issue,

Faulty because it come to a faulty conclusion, that if he have lived his life as if God existed and in the end it turn out that God did not exist , he would have lost nothing. I submit to you that he would have lost everything.

He would have lived under a false assumption and entered in to numerous compromises.

In short he would have lived a compromised life, for no reason at all.

Not apropos to climate change because The only life Pascal would have compromised would have being his, where his climate changing behavior does not only change is climate but my climate also.So his delusion will not only compromise his life but has the capacity to compromise everyone's life.

My wager is different , as Pascal had only one life to wager, we only have one planet to wager. but if Pascal failed it really would make little difference in the course of humanity, but if we fail in this the results can be catastrophic.

So as with any wager, one has to consider the reward to risk ratio.

At least that's how I see it.

If we do nothing , what is the return?

low cost energy, profits for some. Perhaps you can add some other substantial rewards I have not thought of.

what is the risk? could be the end of Humanity, certainly a compromised life for my Daughter.

Is this a bet I am willing to make? I can see if the reward was great, perhaps Utopia for every one, but to bet Humanity for a few Shekels.

So now let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say we do something, where something was not warranted .

We implement all climate change averting proposals, but we were wrong and climate changes any way because it was not of our own doing but the result of XYZ beyond our control.

What is the risk? Some economic disruption Maybe?

What is the reward. Less pollution, decentralization of the energy industry, and the oligarchy that control it. etc

Is there anyone out there who does not want less pollution? In a planet awash in energy, so much so, that our existence is threatened by the amount of energy flowing around on a daily bases,

A thin magnetosphere protects as from the suns radiation, the heat of the sun can kill as in the desert, waves threaten to drown us, wind can kill as, geothermal.

So much energy, we are drowning in it, and we need to go to far away places, enslave people, fight wars, to release sequestrated carbon? Is it because it is necessary, or is it because the seven sisters control the process and remove their pound of flesh .

If there is a future, History will not look kindly at this era, and we will be the A-holes who lived in it.

We might be the A-holes who bet on the future of humanity for a few Shekels and lost.

I don't know about you but I am not willing to take that bet

Or is my whole premise wrong?

Is your whole premise wrong? It doesn't matter to me. I love your mind. Agree, disagree, its a pleasure. Thank you.

And yes, your wager is so enticing that were my kids and grand kids sitting around the table listening to you, then looking at me for my response, I would have difficulty rejecting it.

I have a deeply held conviction in two things regarding this issue:

My coincidental understanding of paleoclimatology secondary to anthropology studies informs me that climate change is contrived as we have passed these places many, many times and

My current affairs perspective on the mechanisms of socialism and insurgency and their stalking horses, demonstrates a literal connect the dots of radicals and agenda motivating Climate Change.

Anything that is built upon so much noise and lies and errors and fear and fear and distortions and fear and skewing and selection and propaganda and fear and... is bound to be full of s...

[sirineou]

I am sure there are many factors that affect the climate on earth , humans being one,

we don't have control over most of it, but I like to think that we have some control over our behavior. Unless of course you don't think our behavior is affecting the environment and by extension the climate, in which case changing our behavior would be an exercise in futility.

I, and many others think we are , but all the scientists could be wrong and corporate america could be right.

So If you are wrong end of humanity, game over. not a quick end, lingering misery.

if we are wrong, different game, slightly higher costs but a cleaner environment and less wars to protect the oil fields and delivery routes. I wonder if the savings from the wars might not even offset the higher sort term cost of transformation to renewable energy systems.

Hello sirineou

Man may affect climate indirectly and certainly can directly with some of His rarely used weapons. I do not equate pollution with climate change, but clearly that too has a tipping point. Man is a Poor Steward of Earth/Nations but building the infrastructure of earth stewardship with the failed remnants of the Poor Stewards of Humans/Nations is absurd. Same formula, same agents: create crisis, provide solution, shake, repeat.

If Pascal's Wager could really be offered, and binding on all, I might change my mind, but it would still need to proceed along very different political lines. In practice theory Pascal's Wager is the offer to the masses, but not in practice.

Pascal Wager was a lazy man's musing; it was an agnostic's rationale with god- If I live my life as if god (climate change) did not exist when I die, if he exists, I lose all. If I live my life (climate change) as if god exists, when I die, if he does not exist, I have lost nothing; if he lives, I gain eternity.

It is a rationale for the mind; effectively self deceit. No, it is not the mark of considered faculties. (Proof? Pascal's deficiency was Simony. He was reasoning with God and rationalizing he could buy eternity through calculation, not necessarily faith or works). Blaise Pascal was wrong. His failure equally applies to rationalizing on behalf of the Ideology of Climate Change.

Looking at the stewardship of those today, and their denigrating and self loathing of western civilization, making relative the most base cultures and subordinating enlightened reason to selective religious dogma, emotions, and every manner of barbarism this to me is the "end of humanity, game over... not a quick end, lingering misery."

Of course [they] cannot be trusted with global stewardship. [its] a political stalking horse, plain and simple. [it] is the single greatest tool using the single oldest pretext, to concentrate fear and power under false pretenses.

PS: If a person thinks "corporate America" is somehow put out by all of this, they are missing the forest for the trees.

Interesting analogy but Pascal's is faulty logic, as you said a "lazy man's mussing" and not apropos to the climate issue,

Faulty because it come to a faulty conclusion, that if he have lived his life as if God existed and in the end it turn out that God did not exist , he would have lost nothing. I submit to you that he would have lost everything.

He would have lived under a false assumption and entered in to numerous compromises.

In short he would have lived a compromised life, for no reason at all.

Not apropos to climate change because The only life Pascal would have compromised would have being his, where his climate changing behavior does not only change is climate but my climate also.So his delusion will not only compromise his life but has the capacity to compromise everyone's life.

My wager is different , as Pascal had only one life to wager, we only have one planet to wager. but if Pascal failed it really would make little difference in the course of humanity, but if we fail in this the results can be catastrophic.

So as with any wager, one has to consider the reward to risk ratio.

At least that's how I see it.

If we do nothing , what is the return?

low cost energy, profits for some. Perhaps you can add some other substantial rewards I have not thought of.

what is the risk? could be the end of Humanity, certainly a compromised life for my Daughter.

Is this a bet I am willing to make? I can see if the reward was great, perhaps Utopia for every one, but to bet Humanity for a few Shekels.

So now let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say we do something, where something was not warranted .

We implement all climate change averting proposals, but we were wrong and climate changes any way because it was not of our own doing but the result of XYZ beyond our control.

What is the risk? Some economic disruption Maybe?

What is the reward. Less pollution, decentralization of the energy industry, and the oligarchy that control it. etc

Is there anyone out there who does not want less pollution? In a planet awash in energy, so much so, that our existence is threatened by the amount of energy flowing around on a daily bases,

A thin magnetosphere protects as from the suns radiation, the heat of the sun can kill as in the desert, waves threaten to drown us, wind can kill as, geothermal.

So much energy, we are drowning in it, and we need to go to far away places, enslave people, fight wars, to release sequestrated carbon? Is it because it is necessary, or is it because the seven sisters control the process and remove their pound of flesh .

If there is a future, History will not look kindly at this era, and we will be the A-holes who lived in it.

We might be the A-holes who bet on the future of humanity for a few Shekels and lost.

I don't know about you but I am not willing to take that bet

Or is my whole premise wrong?

Is your whole premise wrong? It doesn't matter to me. I love your mind. Agree, disagree, its a pleasure. Thank you.

And yes, your wager is so enticing that were my kids and grand kids sitting around the table listening to you, then looking at me for my response, I would have difficulty rejecting it.

I have a deeply held conviction in two things regarding this issue:

My coincidental understanding of paleoclimatology secondary to anthropology studies informs me that climate change is contrived as we have passed these places many, many times and

My current affairs perspective on the mechanisms of socialism and insurgency and their stalking horses, demonstrates a literal connect the dots of radicals and agenda motivating Climate Change.

Anything that is built upon so much noise and lies and errors and fear and fear and distortions and fear and skewing and selection and propaganda and fear and... is bound to be full of s...

Thank you for your kind words, I also find a lot of what you post , if nothing else, at the very least interesting, and thought provoking .

This is a serious issue and as such requires serious thinking.And no serious thinking can can ever be done with out entertaining the possibility that your premise could be wrong. So often we build a whole convincing argument only to find out later that it was all based on a faulty assumption.

[bassman]

No, no, no...

Trump told me global warming is all a big lie started by the Chinese only to reduce corporate profits in America!

Trump would never lie just to get votes..would he?

I hope thos tree hugging liberals are the first to drowned because the ice caps are not melting! ( sic )

Liberals like yourself are blind to globalization and the effects it has had on the rich getting richer, the poor staying poor and the disappearance of a middle class. Big business pays their lacky (a person's bitch) politicians to sell this crap. Why do you think the Clinton's get a $250,000 fee or more each speech? Bought and paid for, and for the Euro countries and their leaders they are even more owned.

When India's government (with 1.3 billion people) will not even discuss peak co2 until they electrify the country and China (with 1.35 billion people) will not hit peak co2 until 2040, I ask you just what is the point of the "agreement" as it only applies to about a 1/4 of the worlds population. Additionally the western nations owe the developing nations $100 billion as part of the agreement. Remembering of course that the developing nations are currently exempt from most of the deal.

No, have to totally disagree with you Trump is right, your wrong. That $100 billion from the developed countries will be used to build out dirty infrastructure giving big corporations a cheap welcome mat to relocate from our job hungry nations.

[sirineou]

Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That has to be my favorite comment of the evening. The man uses a miracle of modern technology, a miniaturised hand-held computer which effortlessly communicates all over the world, and then calls humanity stupid.

There are clearly different levels of stupid.

You are confusing sophistication with intelligence. Our technology might be sophisticated but it is certainly not intelligently used. Society is not judged by the tools it has but by how it used them,

Stupid is as stupid does.

[RickBradford]

Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That has to be my favorite comment of the evening. The man uses a miracle of modern technology, a miniaturised hand-held computer which effortlessly communicates all over the world, and then calls humanity stupid.

There are clearly different levels of stupid.

You are confusing sophistication with intelligence. Our technology might be sophisticated but it is certainly not intelligently used. Society is not judged by the tools it has but by how it used them,

Stupid is as stupid does.

You don't think any intelligence went into building smart phones? Or the networks that run them? Medicines? How about MRI machines and defibrillators? Do we use them unintelligently as well?

The response to your "noble savage" fantasy is this. If you have no technology, then you cannot use it well or badly. If, for example, you live in a yurt with only a candle for light and heat, then your only "intelligence" involves not burning the place down. If you have advanced technology, atomic power, say, then you have the opportunity to use it well or badly.

Society is judged both by the tools it has, and by how it uses them.

That's the trade-off. Development of any kind contains good and bad elements.

For someone to rail about the stupidity of Homo Sapiens, when he is holding a device whose miraculous capabilities would have astounded Einstein, is absurd.

[ResandePohm]

....wonder where this charade will end....

...all scientific data refutes 'global warming'.....and yet.......

...all scientific data refutes 'global warming' ?

You either live on a different planet or you are reading to many fairy tales

[thaibeachlovers]

Really?

Did you miss the flooding, the arctic ice melt and the largest coral bleaching in recorded history then?

Or are you saying, even though scientists have been predicting those things for years, that they didn't happen or are in some way irrelevant?

I didn't miss them, but I'm saying that while they can't definitely be attributed to human activity, there is sod all going to happen to change anything while all that happens is yet more "çonferences".

I'm still waiting to hear of ANYTHING that will make a difference.

[steve654]

Quick, raise the carbon tax and implement negative interest rates to suppress global warming.

[sirineou]

Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That has to be my favorite comment of the evening. The man uses a miracle of modern technology, a miniaturised hand-held computer which effortlessly communicates all over the world, and then calls humanity stupid.

There are clearly different levels of stupid.

You are confusing sophistication with intelligence. Our technology might be sophisticated but it is certainly not intelligently used. Society is not judged by the tools it has but by how it used them,

Stupid is as stupid does.

You don't think any intelligence went into building smart phones? Or the networks that run them? Medicines? How about MRI machines and defibrillators? Do we use them unintelligently as well?

The response to your "noble savage" fantasy is this. If you have no technology, then you cannot use it well or badly. If, for example, you live in a yurt with only a candle for light and heat, then your only "intelligence" involves not burning the place down. If you have advanced technology, atomic power, say, then you have the opportunity to use it well or badly.

Society is judged both by the tools it has, and by how it uses them.

That's the trade-off. Development of any kind contains good and bad elements.

For someone to rail about the stupidity of Homo Sapiens, when he is holding a device whose miraculous capabilities would have astounded Einstein, is absurd.

A Monkey invents a fire cracker and while marveling at the ingenuity of his invention blows him self up

Smart Monkey.

[thaibeachlovers]

Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That has to be my favorite comment of the evening. The man uses a miracle of modern technology, a miniaturised hand-held computer which effortlessly communicates all over the world, and then calls humanity stupid.

There are clearly different levels of stupid.

You are confusing sophistication with intelligence. Our technology might be sophisticated but it is certainly not intelligently used. Society is not judged by the tools it has but by how it used them,

Stupid is as stupid does.

You don't think any intelligence went into building smart phones? Or the networks that run them? Medicines? How about MRI machines and defibrillators? Do we use them unintelligently as well?

The response to your "noble savage" fantasy is this. If you have no technology, then you cannot use it well or badly. If, for example, you live in a yurt with only a candle for light and heat, then your only "intelligence" involves not burning the place down. If you have advanced technology, atomic power, say, then you have the opportunity to use it well or badly.

Society is judged both by the tools it has, and by how it uses them.

That's the trade-off. Development of any kind contains good and bad elements.

For someone to rail about the stupidity of Homo Sapiens, when he is holding a device whose miraculous capabilities would have astounded Einstein, is absurd.

And back to the OP. Smart phones ( though used by many stupid people ) do not in themselves contribute to climate change in any way- it's not like a huge factory is burning tons of coal to to produce them, like a steel mill. Please don't mention that the electricity used to make them is made with a pollution byproduct, as modern coal fired plants can now be virtually pollution free.

I'm still waiting for a suggestion, any suggestion, as to how GW can be reversed. Not just halted ( though there is nothing that would even do that at present ), but reversed.

[fasteddie]

You are confusing sophistication with intelligence. Our technology might be sophisticated but it is certainly not intelligently used. Society is not judged by the tools it has but by how it used them,

Stupid is as stupid does.

You don't think any intelligence went into building smart phones? Or the networks that run them? Medicines? How about MRI machines and defibrillators? Do we use them unintelligently as well?

The response to your "noble savage" fantasy is this. If you have no technology, then you cannot use it well or badly. If, for example, you live in a yurt with only a candle for light and heat, then your only "intelligence" involves not burning the place down. If you have advanced technology, atomic power, say, then you have the opportunity to use it well or badly.

Society is judged both by the tools it has, and by how it uses them.

That's the trade-off. Development of any kind contains good and bad elements.

For someone to rail about the stupidity of Homo Sapiens, when he is holding a device whose miraculous capabilities would have astounded Einstein, is absurd.

And back to the OP. Smart phones ( though used by many stupid people ) do not in themselves contribute to climate change in any way- it's not like a huge factory is burning tons of coal to to produce them, like a steel mill. Please don't mention that the electricity used to make them is made with a pollution byproduct, as modern coal fired plants can now be virtually pollution free.

I'm still waiting for a suggestion, any suggestion, as to how GW can be reversed. Not just halted ( though there is nothing that would even do that at present ), but reversed.

"The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous."

http://news.heartland.org/.../why-i-am-climate-change...

[neverdie]

I support burning off the remain jungles and fossil fuel left on earth.

Let the Earth reset itself like it did a few hundred millions ago.

You are correct.

Humans will never kill the planet.

Earth will adapt and cary on long after it has become unsuitable for species like humans.

It will be a happier, healthy planet once the greedy self serving humans are extinct.

Unfortunately, humans will take countless species off into extinction with them.

None of it matters, the earth is doomed. In 5-6 million years the sun will become a Red Giant and eat virtually every planet in the solar system, so what's the point of hanging around for that?

We are doomed. Bring it on.

Once it's over, there's nothing but that doesn't matter because there will be nobody around to realise there's nothing. Everything ceases, finished, kaput, zilch, zero, nada.

Stop think !

Edited May 23, 2016 by neverdie

[neverdie]

Homo Sapiens? Someone was taking the piss calling us that.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

That has to be my favorite comment of the evening. The man uses a miracle of modern technology, a miniaturised hand-held computer which effortlessly communicates all over the world, and then calls humanity stupid.

There are clearly different levels of stupid.

You are confusing sophistication with intelligence. Our technology might be sophisticated but it is certainly not intelligently used. Society is not judged by the tools it has but by how it used them,
Stupid is as stupid does.

You don't think any intelligence went into building smart phones? Or the networks that run them? Medicines? How about MRI machines and defibrillators? Do we use them unintelligently as well?

The response to your "noble savage" fantasy is this. If you have no technology, then you cannot use it well or badly. If, for example, you live in a yurt with only a candle for light and heat, then your only "intelligence" involves not burning the place down. If you have advanced technology, atomic power, say, then you have the opportunity to use it well or badly.

Society is judged both by the tools it has, and by how it uses them.

That's the trade-off. Development of any kind contains good and bad elements.

For someone to rail about the stupidity of Homo Sapiens, when he is holding a device whose miraculous capabilities would have astounded Einstein, is absurd.

And back to the OP. Smart phones ( though used by many stupid people ) do not in themselves contribute to climate change in any way- it's not like a huge factory is burning tons of coal to to produce them, like a steel mill. Please don't mention that the electricity used to make them is made with a pollution byproduct, as modern coal fired plants can now be virtually pollution free.

I'm still waiting for a suggestion, any suggestion, as to how GW can be reversed. Not just halted ( though there is nothing that would even do that at present ), but reversed.

Michael J Fox had a Delorian that could sort this out, call Michael.