Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

[futurecurrents]

Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.

I don't know that I'd go that far. I'm still waiting for someone to connect the dots regarding the increase in temperature in the North Atlantic, the change in the Atlantic Conveyor, and the increase in the rate of melt in the Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets (the last of which is of course caused by global warming). It's beginning, but so far no one has done it.

Actually I agree. Geoengineering could possibly cool the earth and saying CO2 is the lifeblood is a little sloppy since it is actually the fossil fuel not the CO2 per se.

 

[dbphoenix]

Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.




Actually I agree. Geoengineering could possibly cool the earth and saying CO2 is the lifeblood is a little sloppy since it is actually the fossil fuel not the CO2 per se.

The earth would cool itself, due to global warming, which the GW deniers never have understood.

This will be interesting, particularly if we are approaching a tipping point.

 

[futurecurrents]

A recent Yale survey concluded that “Americans’ certainty that the earth is warming has increased over the past three years,” and “those who think global warming is not happening have become substantially less sure of their position.”

Falsification and denial, while still all too extensive, have come to require more defensive psychic energy and political chicanery.


There is a wonderfully evocative term, “stranded assets,” to characterize the oil, coal and gas reserves that are still in the ground. Trillions of dollars in assets could remain “stranded” there. If we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sustaining the human habitat, between 60 percent and 80 percent of those assets must remain in the ground, according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative, an organization that analyzes carbon investment risk. In contrast, renewable energy sources, which only recently have achieved the status of big business, are taking on increasing value, in terms of returns for investors, long-term energy savings and relative harmlessness to surrounding communities.

Pragmatic institutions like insurance companies and the American military have been confronting the consequences of climate change for some time. But now, a number of leading financial authorities are raising questions about the viability of the holdings of giant carbon-based fuel corporations. In a world fueled by oil and coal, it is a truly stunning event when investors are warned that the market may end up devaluing those assets. We are beginning to see a bandwagon effect in which the overall viability of fossil-fuel economics is being questioned.

Can we continue to value, and thereby make use of, the very materials most deeply implicated in what could be the demise of the human habitat? It is a bit like the old Jack Benny joke, in which an armed robber offers a choice, “Your money or your life!” And Benny responds, “I’m thinking it over.” We are beginning to “think over” such choices on a larger scale.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/o...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

 

[dbphoenix]

Huzzah!

 

[jem]

somehow when the moron leftists learn co2 is cooling the earth... they will be just like you and act like that is what they were warning us about.

While the truth is we have been warming you about that for years.

Notice the names of some of my threads.

The earth would cool itself, due to global warming, which the GW deniers never have understood.

This will be interesting, particularly if we are approaching a tipping point.

 

[futurecurrents]

somehow when the moron leftists learn co2 is cooling the earth... they will be just like you and act like that is what they were warning us about.

While the truth is we have been warming you about that for years.

Notice the names of some of my threads.

No jerm. CO2 heats the earth and it leads temps. It's climate science 101. One day you will learn that and your head will explode.

 

[jem]

we count count on the times to blow out leftist b.s. every time.
here is a real poll... basically young non college educated indoctrinated drones are the believers.

seriously click on the link see it yourself.. the more male and the more educated... the more skeptical.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Over the past decade, Americans have clustered into three broad groups on global warming. The largest, currently describing 39% of U.S. adults, are what can be termed "Concerned Believers" -- those who attribute global warming to human actions and are worried about it. This is followed by the "Mixed Middle," at 36%. And one in four Americans -- the "Cool Skeptics" -- are not worried about global warming much or at all.


Concerned Believers are more likely to be women than men, 60% vs. 40%. Cool Skeptics skew even more strongly male -- 34% female vs. 66% male -- while the Mixed Middle is just slightly more female than the overall U.S. adult population.

Global warming groups are also highly differentiated by age and politics. The majority of Concerned Believers are younger than 50, and identify as or lean toward the Democratic Party, whereas the majority of Cool Skeptics are 50 years or older and are more likely to identify as or lean Republican. Similarly, the plurality of believers are self-described liberals, while two-thirds of skeptics call themselves conservative.

A recent Yale survey concluded that “Americans’ certainty that the earth is warming has increased over the past three years,” and “those who think global warming is not happening have become substantially less sure of their position.”

Falsification and denial, while still all too extensive, have come to require more defensive psychic energy and political chicanery.


There is a wonderfully evocative term, “stranded assets,” to characterize the oil, coal and gas reserves that are still in the ground. Trillions of dollars in assets could remain “stranded” there. If we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sustaining the human habitat, between 60 percent and 80 percent of those assets must remain in the ground, according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative, an organization that analyzes carbon investment risk. In contrast, renewable energy sources, which only recently have achieved the status of big business, are taking on increasing value, in terms of returns for investors, long-term energy savings and relative harmlessness to surrounding communities.

Pragmatic institutions like insurance companies and the American military have been confronting the consequences of climate change for some time. But now, a number of leading financial authorities are raising questions about the viability of the holdings of giant carbon-based fuel corporations. In a world fueled by oil and coal, it is a truly stunning event when investors are warned that the market may end up devaluing those assets. We are beginning to see a bandwagon effect in which the overall viability of fossil-fuel economics is being questioned.

Can we continue to value, and thereby make use of, the very materials most deeply implicated in what could be the demise of the human habitat? It is a bit like the old Jack Benny joke, in which an armed robber offers a choice, “Your money or your life!” And Benny responds, “I’m thinking it over.” We are beginning to “think over” such choices on a larger scale.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/o...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

 

[futurecurrents]

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[14] The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[17] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[18]

 

[jem]

day after day we post paper after paper showing that the sun the current and the tides have an impact on warming and cooling and you still post ignorant dated crap.

you are piece of troll work fraudcurrents.

what is scary is that we are not even warming for 17 years and 10 months even though co2 went up by 40%. Note the models were based on land temps not ocean temps

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[14] The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[17] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[18]

 

[futurecurrents]

Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[19] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.

Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to de-legitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral.[20][21][22] Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that various conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s,[8][9][17][23][24][25][26] and some, including the National Center for Science Education, consider climate change denial to be a form ofpseudoscience.[27][28][29][30]

Through a single organisation, between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[31]