If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures. Al Gore himself said that, in five years, the polar ice cap would be ice-free.. and he said that 7 years ago. There hasn't been warming for almost 18 years, yet CO2 emissions (especially from China are still increasing.)
The facts are very clear: CO2 increased, temperatures have not. Another fact: the climate changed long before humans were around to drive Escalades.
The AGW movement is nothing more than an anti-capitalist false flag with a professed desire for wealth redistribution. Al Gore, for example loves the environmental movement so much because he became a multi-billionaire as it's Chicken Little. Those who still follow the religion of human-caused global warming are like a bunch of elderly Soviets nostalgic about Stalin's First Five Year Plan.
Ottmar Edenhofer, a UN official with the IPCC said, "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." In that same interview he made the case that "climate change" policy was more of an anti-globalization policy than actual environmental policy.
Greenpeace cofounder Dr. Patrick Moore, who would presumably know more about environmentalism than almost anyone reading this, rejects the climate-anti-capitalism hysteria that has co-opted the "old" environmentalism of reducing pollution, whaling, overfishing, nuclear waste and other, more pure protections of our environment.
Let the downvoting begin! I am always amazed that within such a smart bunch as HN readers, that there is still a large number that ignore critical scientific analysis and instead let political or ideological beliefs cloud their otherwise rational minds. It's almost religiously intense. Rarely do I see a balanced debate on the subject of human-caused climate change. It's like telling Christians that Jesus wasn't resurrected.
How is the drive to reduce pollution anti capitalist? Is there only one type of capitalism?
Is the incentive to make made-up money supposed to be morally superior to everything else? Even when you are raping ecosystems, overfishing etc. because it happens to be a free externality at the moment, and gives an advantage over the company who doesn't?
Or are these just noises made by people who are too busy playing game made up for them and don't want to consider the effect of the rules even a little bit? In a completely unregulated laissez faire market, where money is the only signal, companies are incentivized to produce and sell as much stuff as possible, and exploit any free externality they can as long as it leads to a profit. In a system whose corporations have their ultimate fiduciary obligations to shareholders first, and where fiat currency continually decreases in value, it's also hard to have a sustainable system in terms of resources. But hey don't let that bother you. Live for the short term upticks in stock prices.
Funny enough, the same people who cry about governments printing fiat currency "stealing from our children" (even in times of money supply contraction) are the same people who are in favor of not giving much thought as to what REAL WORLD CONDITIONS those children will inherit.
I down-voted you. You know your facts are wrong - if you really believe them spend 10 seconds on google. You're cherry-picking your information. You throwing out buzzwords and name checks instead of information. You're appealing to scientific principle without demonstrating any understanding of such or respect for scientific consensus. You appeal for balanced debate without actually starting a debate.
Also, please don't compare facts to religious belief - you insult both.
For an exponential increase to show up temperature would need to linearly relate to CO2. However, temperature basically never linearly relates to anything. For the simplest example suppose you use light to heat a sphere in space. Double the light and you don't double the temperature because black body radiation is T^4. Doubling temperature takes 16 times the light.
As to earth, simple models are laughably inaccurate because the equator and the poles have wildly different temperatures and heat is moved between them though the movement of air and ocean currents.
The climate is a very complicated system. Saying that there has to be a consistent exponential increase in temperature is a gross oversimplification. There are all kinds of buffers and feedback systems that govern global temperatures.
There are so many obviously illogical statements in the first few lines of that rant (at which point I stopped reading) that it's hard to imagine you could actually be meaning any of it seriously.
"If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures."
CO2 emissions during the industrial revolution were smaller by several orders of magnitude. We produced on the order of 3-7 million tons per year towards the start. Now, we produce 8000 million tons per year. CO2 levels have risen accordingly in those time. If you imagine plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere as a person drinking water from a cup that refills, imagine the industrial revolution adding an extra teaspoon worth of water to the cup. Now imagine today as shooting a fire hose into the cup.
"Another fact: the climate changed long before humans were around to drive Escalades."
Climate changes according to whatever factors act upon it. Earlier in our planet's history, this force was the slow, natural cycle of CO2 as plants would grow in the early parts of the year and then die and decompose in the fall and winter. In every case, increased CO2 levels resulted in increased temperatures. Now, we're adding more CO2 than anything else ever before.
If you rarely see a debate on the subject of human-caused climate change, it's because there is no validity to the other side. Skepticism is healthy, but there is such a thing as false balance. Just because there's another side doesn't mean it still has any valid arguments left.
That said, if you do have evidence that one or more of these papers is inaccurate, I'd appreciate the info. As you said, let the downvotes begin.
I couldn't have said it better my self. Global Warming is the biggest scientific fraud since Galileo got into trouble with the Catholic church over the idea that the earth is not the center of the Universe.
If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures. Al Gore himself said that, in five years, the polar ice cap would be ice-free.. and he said that 7 years ago. There hasn't been warming for almost 18 years, yet CO2 emissions (especially from China are still increasing.)
The facts are very clear: CO2 increased, temperatures have not. Another fact: the climate changed long before humans were around to drive Escalades.
The AGW movement is nothing more than an anti-capitalist false flag with a professed desire for wealth redistribution. Al Gore, for example loves the environmental movement so much because he became a multi-billionaire as it's Chicken Little. Those who still follow the religion of human-caused global warming are like a bunch of elderly Soviets nostalgic about Stalin's First Five Year Plan.
Ottmar Edenhofer, a UN official with the IPCC said, "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." In that same interview he made the case that "climate change" policy was more of an anti-globalization policy than actual environmental policy.
Greenpeace cofounder Dr. Patrick Moore, who would presumably know more about environmentalism than almost anyone reading this, rejects the climate-anti-capitalism hysteria that has co-opted the "old" environmentalism of reducing pollution, whaling, overfishing, nuclear waste and other, more pure protections of our environment.
Let the downvoting begin! I am always amazed that within such a smart bunch as HN readers, that there is still a large number that ignore critical scientific analysis and instead let political or ideological beliefs cloud their otherwise rational minds. It's almost religiously intense. Rarely do I see a balanced debate on the subject of human-caused climate change. It's like telling Christians that Jesus wasn't resurrected.