Global Warming (Photo credit: mirjoran)
BERLIN - OCTOBER 24: Participants with 350 headphones attend the silent climate parade on the International day of protest about global warming, October 24, 2009 in Berlin, Germany. The logo 350 calls for a cut in carbon emissions to 350 parts per million (ppm). The protest marks 50 days until world leaders meet in Copenhagen to thrash out a new climate change treaty. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
Pollution (Photo credit: iKrisstoffer)
Water Pollution with Trash Disposal of Waste at the Garbage Beach (Photo credit: epSos.de)
Young Americans Sue Government to Stop Global Warming, Polluter Interests Granted Intervention To Defend
a D.C. District Court judge ruled that the National Association of Manufacturers and other polluter interests can intervene on the government's behalf to argue that they have the right to keep on dumping carbon pollution into the atmosphere.
the preliminary injunction was filed
“to compel federal agencies to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent further increases in U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and to force government action in reducing CO2 emissions consistent with what current scientific analysis deems necessary to halt catastrophic climate change.”
Nifty. So naturally the meme going in the door is that you speak for polluters if you have other ideas...and I do.
Phil M - Thu, 2012-04-05 14:24
"Every time a teenager speaks up in the public square, can we assume somebody else is pulling their strings?"
Except if they are participating in a republican/tea party rally or an anti carbon tax protest. Then they are thinking for themselves.
It's one thing to con the kids, but how did all of the worlds scientific institutes get conned Lara? Strangely not one supports the denier position......worldwide. So Loorz is taking the same position as the majority of our planets institutions and experts on this subject.
Here's the first possible problem. Were the world's scientific authorities asked....or told ?
AnOilMan - Thu, 2012-04-05 09:44
Win or lose, this keeps the issue in the public eye and that's important.
Here's what we knew in '82;
Here's what we know now;
Actually I'm starting to worry about all those optomistic opinions of what will happen with with more rain and sun in Canada. The bulk of Canada has no soil. I grew up on the coast, the farms grow food in soil that is deep thick rich and black. In the praries we have this layer of light brown dried out sandy dirt that barely supports grass which is thinly layered on top of rock hard clay. Adding sun and water won't make this stuff support more plant life. To plant trees in new neighbourhoods we have to dig out 'clay pots' in the ground in which we place some imported soil and a tree
Which won't do squat about something else. Plants use sunlight for energy to grow. Longer path through the atmosphere from changed angle of incidence robs energy to the point where the race to grow works against some species. Conventional agriculture wouldn't work even if the soil was there : and soil is composed in great measure of rotted vegetation. No egg nor chicken.
Response to an old comment not worth noting according to thread metrics
Not that anyone seems impressed with the note that co2 rise follows warming: not vice versa. Plus we have been coming out of a mini ice age.
Europe has been colder than past experience for a couple of winters now - while the heat is thought to have gone northward. That might even be related to reported dissipation of transAtlantic currents carrying heat from the Gulf of Mexico. Shift in patterns of energy flow has good potental to make fools of us all.
Hey. Ask a weatherman. Chaotic systems present surprises with regularity. Anyone looking at past fluctuations should be forgiven for thinking the only constant is change.
chas rasper - Fri, 2012-04-06 08:45
Ah, the voice of reason in the sea of ad hom attacks and recriminations in these comments. It's refreshing to read your common sense response but, unfortunately, it will be quickly voted down by the rabid 'believers' here.
Phil M - Fri, 2012-04-06 13:35
"And if you'd listen to respected senior scientists, opit, you'd realize that denying accelerated climate change from anthropogenic global warming is foolish anti-science ignorance, akin to anti-evolution creationism."
When I first saw Opits comment, I thought sheesh, not another denier newbie. We have all seen it, the arguments that denier newbies come out with. The CO2 lag, the ice age, ask a weatherman, its the sun, grapes in England, Greenland was green etc etc.
Then I saw how long he has been a member at Desmog for...nearly 3 years. Even 3 years ago WUWT had given up on those memes. They are now onto sensitivity.
You would have to of just emerged from cryogenic sleep, or be part of a paid professional denier community to say such things.
Chas is different. That's what parrots do.
opit - Fri, 2012-04-06 14:30
Why would I change noting the basic facts that affect a discussion where everyone is busy citing an alleged concensus provided by international political authority ? I do know the difference between scientific method and 'proving' a forgone conclusion. Since fortunetelling falls outside the provenance of science I prefer the political explanation.
I'm sure you are aware of the Talking Points rebutting any argument made in advance. They are a staple of propaganda. Alleging a dichotomy of possibilities in a complex and changing world attempts to refute ignorance by chanting louder.
The essential difficulties remain the same. One cannot convincing allege we have affected nature's balance when discussing a vector analysis of unmeasured and unknown and non identified variable drivers. Even those conceding that point in favour of solely the polar possibility can then point out that supposed calculations are poisoned by assumptions of multiplier effects and want to improve modeling which is failing in practice.
Where then is the science ? All we are left with is conflation of endlessly discussing pollution in terms of a wild card dispersed by water transformations and wind instead of the problems of known toxins ( and ignored proliferation of chemical wildcards ) or even more powerful greenhouse gases like methane. But noting coal ash for instance, such as resources at Sourcewatch catalogue, is at least an attempt to concentrate on immediately obvious and verifiable harms.
Nor do energy companies then have to then bother defending the choices of despoiling planetary surface and aquifer in favour of a dispute which is essentially a farce of chanting 'everything is settled and we must do something.'
Indeed we should. However we are not bothering to analyse the institutional drivers affecting discussion - such as military interest in energy geopolitics - or likely mass starvation and thirst being stimulated by those institutions ( something the UN should be quite aware of ) while our economic house of cards is failing per past experience and predictions.
It is in this scenario calling for international energy taxation proposed by the beneficiary of a scheme which robs nations of both autonomy and economic resources falls under preplanned global crash and enforcement of a stabilization into serfdom : new colonialism.
But supposedly this is a scientific discussion about an alleged problem overriding all other concerns.
Look before you leap is always good advice : nor is it limited to one hypothesis when we are running out of drinking water and our food supply is being patented resulting in mass farmer suicides.
And resource depletion does not affect merely energy but also minerals. Our industrial technology is driven by profit rather than sustainability. It is a recipe for self destruction regardless of human co2 emissions....which will abate soon enough one way or another.
I could have noted deregulation as planned economic sabotage to match Cheney's environmental deregulation debacles - but that and PNAC plans for world domination seemed far afield. How many know even now of the plans for Iraq's destruction in advance of invasion, as revealed in the lack of information of Bremner's 100 orders, and its central importance to destabilizing the Middle East ?