Former NASA Climate Chief Warns That Earth Could Become “Practically Ungovernable”

[Zoomzoom]

Zoomzoom. You are aware of the international efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2? The Paris accord? The increasing numbers of hybrid and electric cars? The increasing use of "green" energy sources?

The "moronic greenies" are doing something about it. What are YOU doing?

... Giant wall of links... [/url]



...

... Climates change naturally..

I DO NOT CARE!!! Just focus on what needs to be done irrespective of global warming. There is so much plastic in the ocean they reckon we are all eating some of it every time we eat fish. Air pollution causes respiratory diseases and lung cancer. We are running out of potable water. These are real, measurable consequences to pollution while the greenies convince the politicians to invest in electric cars - like HELLO do you know how polluting the manufacture of those things is? Not to mention the electricity to recharge them still has to come from somewhere and most times that is still stinky old coal power stations and in CO2 emissions which is a HUGE con game to end all con games. Instead of just putting their hugely polluting factories in the 3rd world, first world countries now just buy carbon tickets from undeveloped nations - so HOW is that solving sweet fanny adams?

Clean the bloody mess up. End of. I honestly do not care if you think it is us, the sun, a natural cycle or little green men causing the problem - we have real dirt in our house and it's time to get the broom out and clean that sh--t up!

 

[crackersa]

It's like this iceberg thing - it has been breaking away since NINETEEN SIXTY SOMETHING! and is a natural part of the calving process of the glaciers that feed the Larsen B ice shelf. But since the whole global warming drama started every time its been in the news 'scientists have been watching it anxiously' - what a load of BS - when the thing did finally separate no-one even noticed for two days - so much for the 'anxious' monitoring.

Of course the break is going to happen faster once a certain tipping point is reached - basic blinking physics - but noooooooooo it accelerated because somehow we caused it.

And guess what never gets in the news, because it just ain't dramatic alarmist BS, the enormous amount of plastic floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. If every country (because EVERY country has contributed to that mess) put in a bit, they could build that floating thing that kid designed and clean it up. Wouldn't even take that much money from each country.

So really I am so beyond sick of the discussions and the debates and the arguing and even more tired of the alarmist and completely BS headlines screaming at me and absolutely nothing being done to clean up real mess that I couldn't care less if it warms anything or not - it needs to be cleaned up.

I really feel like the world is like a bunch of kids - they all made the mess but now it's time to clean up and they are standing around arguing about who did what, and what effect it's going to have instead of just getting on with the job.

no one noticed for 2 days cause they didn't have satellite on it during those 2 days.

 

[Arthur]

I DO NOT CARE!!! Just focus on what needs to be done irrespective of global warming. There is so much plastic in the ocean they reckon we are all eating some of it every time we eat fish. Air pollution causes respiratory diseases and lung cancer. We are running out of potable water. These are real, measurable consequences to pollution while the greenies convince the politicians to invest in electric cars - like HELLO do you know how polluting the manufacture of those things is? Not to mention the electricity to recharge them still has to come from somewhere and most times that is still stinky old coal power stations and in CO2 emissions which is a HUGE con game to end all con games. Instead of just putting their hugely polluting factories in the 3rd world, first world countries now just buy carbon tickets from undeveloped nations - so HOW is that solving sweet fanny adams?

Clean the bloody mess up. End of. I honestly do not care if you think it is us, the sun, a natural cycle or little green men causing the problem - we have real dirt in our house and it's time to get the broom out and clean that sh--t up!

Pollution is an ongoing problem, I agree. Too much of our world is blighted by pollution. We all have responsibility to do our bit and steward our planet with care. I'm with you on that.

 

[scudsucker]

"Seek it for him"? You're dreaming. It's for you, not me.

Would have thought you could do better than that. Oh well. Keep those blinkers on. Keep ignoring science.

 

[Arthur]

Hehe.

You might not realise it, but on this issue much hangs on conjecture, hypothesis and interpretation. If you think we're in possession of all the facts you seriously underestimate both the complexity and difficulty of arriving at a definitive position on AGW.

/ignores kleva report about "ignoring science". So defensive. Makes me wonder whether you can seriously engage the topic.

 

[etienne_marais]

I DO NOT CARE!!! Just focus on what needs to be done irrespective of global warming. There is so much plastic in the ocean they reckon we are all eating some of it every time we eat fish. Air pollution causes respiratory diseases and lung cancer. We are running out of potable water. These are real, measurable consequences to pollution while the greenies convince the politicians to invest in electric cars - like HELLO do you know how polluting the manufacture of those things is? Not to mention the electricity to recharge them still has to come from somewhere and most times that is still stinky old coal power stations and in CO2 emissions which is a HUGE con game to end all con games. Instead of just putting their hugely polluting factories in the 3rd world, first world countries now just buy carbon tickets from undeveloped nations - so HOW is that solving sweet fanny adams?

Clean the bloody mess up. End of. I honestly do not care if you think it is us, the sun, a natural cycle or little green men causing the problem - we have real dirt in our house and it's time to get the broom out and clean that sh--t up!

Meanwhile in Japan: Fukushima’s radioactive water to be released into ocean under new plan

 

[Zoomzoom]

Meanwhile in Japan: Fukushima’s radioactive water to be released into ocean under new plan

Exactly - that and so many other things - nuclear is 'clean' energy - yeah well in my book nuclear is just the ultimate game in deferred consequences - bury the waste and hope like crazy we all died from something else before the containment barrels rot.

Not to mention that decommissioned power plants are dead land for however many years to come. It costs billions to build them, billions more to decommission them and you don't get that many years use of out them - and well - nuclear waste. I entirely fail to see how this is a good solution just because it 'pollutes' less now than coal power stations do. Supposedly.

Every so-called 'green' solution has flaws - wind turbines are noise polluters and decimate birds. Hydro-electric power messes up the natural course of rivers. Batteries for solar are intensely polluting to manufacture and use rare earth metals which are - rare. We have known that we have pumping toxins into the air, ground and water for a long time. We tried to solve the problem with a NIMBY approach - farming out high polluting manufacturing to the 3rd world pretending we were helping their development, now that their own technological needs are growing and the focus is on pollution, the first world is pointing a finger at emerging nations and saying it's all their fault. Meantime no-one but no-one is actually doing anything. There is so much mud slinging and arguing and debating and very very little doing of the global kind that is needed at this point.

If we knuckled down and put in the research, designed approaches to stopping pollution and cleaning up what is already out there the entire question of global warming will become moot. Unless of course the proponents of the 'it is a natural cycle' are right - but then good news - we will finally KNOW.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

And what are you doing?

Here's some proof / evidence that climate change is happening in our entire solar system. (More so on the other planets -where there are no humans- than on earth.)

Physics and chemistry exists sans humans? Who knew.

Venus is an example of what happens when the greenhouse effect goes into overdrive.

The climate denial industry is a good example of Brandolini's Law in action.

 

[Sl8er]

Physics and chemistry exists sans humans? Who knew.

Exactly.

Venus is an example of what happens when the greenhouse effect goes into overdrive.

Exactly, no humans needed.

The climate denial industry is a good example of Brandolini's Law in action.

Agreed. Anyone who denies climate change is an idiot.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Exactly.



Exactly, no humans needed.

It's really sad that you think this is an argument at all, let alone a particularly compelling one. Who do you think is arguing that humans invented new physical processes?

 

[Arthur]

Anyone who denies climate change is an idiot.

Who's denying climate change? It's what climate does.

The debate is not about climate change but what the causes of climate change are.

I am one of a tiny marginal minority (evidently) that remain inconvinced that human beings are the main cause.

But I have never denied that the climate is changing. It has changed many, many, many times in the past, and will no doubt continue to do so.

 

[Xarog]

It's really sad that you think this is an argument at all, let alone a particularly compelling one. Who do you think is arguing that humans invented new physical processes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Everyone knows the climate is changing and has changed in the past. Everyone accepts that in theory humans have an impact on the climate.

What is not clear is whether or not the CO2 concentrations actually have a huge impact on the overall temperature. The ice-core samples show that the CO2 changes happened after temperature changes so assuming that the temperatures are going to rise just because the CO2 rose is premature.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Everyone knows the climate is changing and has changed in the past. Everyone accepts that in theory humans have an impact on the climate.

What is not clear is whether or not the CO2 concentrations actually have a huge impact on the overall temperature.

It is clear.

The ice-core samples show that the CO2 changes happened after temperature changes so assuming that the temperatures are going to rise just because the CO2 rose is premature.

No, that's a myth.

 

[Arthur]

You seriously quoting Catherine Brahic and Michael Le Page in NewScientist? As far as I know they're both self-styled Climate Activists and reporters at the Brit pseudo-paper, she with a bachelors in anthropology and he in biology.

As for NewScientist itself, always a staunchly Labour rag when the occasion presents itself, here's a widely-reported criticism by writer Greg Egan, also quoted in Wikipedia: "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy".

Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne (inter alia) have called for the boycott of NewScientist.

Agenda-laden and unqualified writers in a rag that has little credibility.

--

Having said that, I sympathise. Even journals and authors with the highest credentials can and do get things wrong. And, as the wonderful history of science shows, whenever paradigm-changing discoveries are made, the scientific consensus generally finds itself on the wrong side of the emerging facts. Real scientists quickly adapt and run with the new paradigm, but those with ideological agendas get left behind.

 

[Sl8er]

It's really sad that you think this is an argument at all, let alone a particularly compelling one. Who do you think is arguing that humans invented new physical processes?

Well, how do you explain the major changes going on in our solar system -correlating with the changes on earth?

It's really sad that, even when presented with proof that data tampering has been going on -for years- you still choose not to question anything.

(Not to go off topic, but it kinda reminds me of anc supporters being lied to, still voting anc and then wondering why they're still in the same position as before. Dropping truths and lies will have them eating up the BS like those jocks with the eclairs in Van Wilder. [Does this mean I believe every. single. bogus report doing the rounds? No.
I will, however, have a look at all the evidence being put forward.
Does this mean I'm a "climate change denier"? See my previous response on that.] )

In a "fake" world, built on lies and run by corporations where money holds a higher value than human life, you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be questioning just about anything that "they" want me to believe. (And now there's proof in the form of data tampering.)

"Fool me once" and all that....

 

[Sl8er]

Who's denying climate change? It's what climate does.

The debate is not about climate change but what the causes of climate change are.

I am one of a tiny marginal minority (evidently) that remain inconvinced that human beings are the main cause.

But I have never denied that the climate is changing. It has changed many, many, many times in the past, and will no doubt continue to do so.

I understand and I agree.

My response was to OD.

*Also interesting to note how "Global Warming" was quickly phased out and changed to "Climate Change" when the models no longer fit the narrative.

** As an aside: Like you, just because I question the human factor in climate change (at least in the way everyone would have us believe), this of course, doesn't mean that I'm pro oil companies and continued pollution / poisoning of the planet, and, and, etc. It has to stop. Everything has to stop.

 

[MrGray]

It's all a bit of a moot point when you consider that regardless of whether you accept AGW as valid or not, cutting CO2 emmissions by any level less than what would plunge global civilisation into the dark ages is projected to have a very marginal effect.

 

[Arthur]

I understand and I agree.

My response was to OD.

*Also interesting to note how "Global Warming" was quickly phased out and changed to "Climate Change" when the models no longer fit the narrative.

** As an aside: Like you, just because I question the human factor in climate change (at least in the way everyone would have us believe), this of course, doesn't mean that I'm pro oil companies and continued pollution / poisoning of the planet, and, and, etc. It has to stop. Everything has to stop.

Of course. Apols for not specifying better.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Well, how do you explain the major changes going on in our solar system -correlating with the changes on earth?

I'm genuinely a bit baffled by this line of reasoning. The rest of the solar system... isn't earth. Why would what happens there disprove what happens here? We can observe physical processes and how they occur elsewhere (like the Venus greenhouse effect) and we can observe similar ones here. You can't say 'what happened on Venus is X, therefore what happened on earth isn't Y'. It does not follow.

Fun fact: 2 relatively junior astrophysicists in the US found out that chlorofluorocarbons are what's eating away the ozone layer, and they did it by studying Venus about something entirely unrelated. An anecdote if anyone says non-immediately applicable science is a waste of time.

No one is arguing that humans invented some new physical process. The chemical compounds that we're pumping out at too high a rate occur elsewhere, too, but here they're contributing to the warming we're experiencing. This is based on physical processes we've studied for decades and decades and understand how they play out.

It's really sad that, even when presented with proof that data tampering has been going on -for years- you still choose not to question anything.

You're not questioning the people who are claiming these vast conspiracies, that's the problem.

You must have missed how there have been 9 independent investigations into the supposed data tampering and none have found any evidence of scientific fraud or malpractice. The results were also corroborated in an entirely separate study.

(Not to go off topic, but it kinda reminds me of anc supporters being lied to, still voting anc and then wondering why they're still in the same position as before. Dropping truths and lies will have them eating up the BS like those jocks with the eclairs in Van Wilder. [Does this mean I believe every. single. bogus report doing the rounds? No.
I will, however, have a look at all the evidence being put forward.
Does this mean I'm a "climate change denier"? See my previous response on that.] )[/url]

I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but I do think you've fallen a bit into a false equivalence trap, whereby you think the weight of the evidence produced and studied that indicates mankind's fingerprints on climate change is somehow equivalent to the stuff being bandied about by denialists. That sad PDF that's been posted the last couple of days on here is an excellent example. It's not a study, it hasn't been peer-reviewed, and hasn't been published in any credible journals.

There isn't some grand conspiracy to keep them down, it's because the authors are arguing in bad faith, make a slew of basic errors and misrepresent what climate scientists have found. They're also on the payroll of the below mentioned Heartland Institute, whose one purpose is literally to propagate misinformation about climate change.

In a "fake" world, built on lies and run by corporations where money holds a higher value than human life, you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be questioning just about anything that "they" want me to believe. (And now there's proof in the form of data tampering.)

"Fool me once" and all that....

So why aren't you sceptical of the blogs/YouTube channels/fossil fuel industry funded shills (like the Heartland Institute) that propagate the misinformation you latch onto?

I mean, the "fake world, built on lies and run by corporations where money holds a higher value..." line describes the climate denial industry to a t!

Exhibit A:

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine

Internal Heartland Institute strategy and funding documents obtained by DeSmogBlog expose the heart of the climate denial machine – its current plans, many of its funders, and details that confirm what DeSmogBlog and others have reported for years. The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more.

If you're cautious about being fooled, you should be way more sceptical of these groups, for example. Because they literally exist to fool you, that's the purpose of the industry.

*Also interesting to note how "Global Warming" was quickly phased out and changed to "Climate Change" when the models no longer fit the narrative.

Incorrect. They mean different things, and both have been used for a long time.

 

[Zoomzoom]

For the record I think conspiracy theories are a load of largely amusing garbage, but I have to wonder what the agenda is with global warming / climate change / green house gas or if it is another situation where everyone is using it to forward their own agenda and the cumulative effect looks a lot like a conspiracy.

You have the oil industry clinging onto oil production and while I don't believe the conspiracy theories that they actively prevent alternative energy research, I don't think they invest in it as much as they could/should.

You have the vegan/PETA bunch advocating we all go meatless and trying to convince us that doing so will help the planet. (FYI it won't

a. without animals producing poop there will be no veggies,


b. mono-crops i.e. the kind of intensive farming that currently allows enough to be grown to feed the world are hugely harmful to the environment and artificial fertilizers come from ... OIL!

solution to a+b might be organic farming: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060


c. cattle are hugely beneficial in reversing desertification and reforestation.
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

d. vegetarian diets are seriously nutritionally challenged.
https://chriskresser.com/why-you-should-think-twice-about-vegetarian-and-vegan-diets/ )

You have the first world trying to con everyone with the whole carbon emissions thing - hey if we just make sure the third world stays totally underdeveloped we can trade emissions for continued poverty and carry on with business as usual WOOO! Take THAT Paris Accord!!!

And you have basically everyone just wanting more everything and not really ever wanting to stop and count the cost. So long as I'm alright Jack and the mess ain't in my back yard ...