Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Picking years based upon centuries is letting that medieval guy who got the year of the birth of Jesus wrong set the rules. It is also interesting that anyone would consider US temps to be indicative of the world when it is such a small fraction of the world but that is a different discussion.

As you note the amount of red and blue changes but the impression given by this is that it matters in the least that deviations from a century long average exist. If in fact the zero is the average then the deviations from average are meaningless.

Remember the Romans grew Mediterranean grapes in Britain. While I expect the quality of the wine was commensurate with the food I have not heard of any such vineyards reopening. However I have read the temperatures in Britain declined from 1940 to 1975 and are now back where they were in 1940.

Again I have been following global climate change since it was the coming ice age. The heavy politicization of global melting which, embarrassingly, includes the scientists which is ordinarily an ethical violation.

So what’s your point, Methuselah? It doesn’t make a big difference if you pick a random point and graph a deviation from that point, or graph the temperature. The basic shape of the graph remains the same.

My Methuselah points are that what opinion there is on global melting is that it was once a global ice age. I have made several other Methuselah points such as by the SAME scientists have have taken up melting as a political cause, if was in fact to late to do anything about it in 1999, also in 2000, 2001, and 2002 because by those years it was too late to do anything about it as in "in ten years it will be too late" (insert hysterical exclamation points here)

Another Methuselah point is that those same experts NEVER said greater variability until about five years ago. It was only after measurable warming had obviously stopped that they started using variability instead of warming.

Been there, done that got the T-shirt is a legitimate viewpoint.

My position is IF one cites the same experts on the same subject then one has an absolute right to consider their credibility over time in the manner of their politicized statements I will be happy to read why they were wrong on both 'ten years or too late' and on why warming went to variability and what they have done to change their models and why those changes lead to their new political statements.

I my first post on the subject here I also raised the best of all global climates assumption. Note the graphs below have also changed in how they are described. It used to be considered a disastrous change period. Now it is a change faster than at any known time in history and is disastrous for the rate of change not the amount of change.

Notice in these charts it is again a matter of where one puts the zero however it is not arbitrary it is as old as one can pretend is possible with a straight face. While I am reasonably familiar with advance of technology everyone with a working knowledge of European history should be aware of the spread of Europeans who took that technology with them. While it is not exact those could also be charts of the spread of temperature measuring Europeans.

But if it is the increase in burning fossil fuels one would expect these graphs to be the same as charts of the increased burning of fossil fuels. Even before noting all temperatures must be related to absolute zero and cannot be arbitrary or relative even a cursory examination of the rate of increase of fossil fuels shows this rate of increase is far too low for such fuels to be a significant contributor.

I will give one example of the many problems with older temperature measurements here. A huge contribution to the data would come from the El Nino and La Nina effects. They are unpredictable, vaguely cyclic and govern the temperatures of much of the Pacific and the Americas. These were discovered some forty years ago invalidating all prior measurements of temperature in those regions. I would like to see these same charts with and without the invalidated data.

I will stick my foot into another pothole with that by noting the first time there was an attempt to observe the antarctic ozone layer in winter there was a hole. This lead to the world ban on CFC production. Considering ozone is produced by sunlight and winter means no sunlight and since there was NO evidence there were ever any hole-free winters this all sounds familiar.

Since these charts are now down to only rate of change not amount of change I raise the question of why the 1860 world temperatures are assumed to be the best of all possible world temperatures. The world has been warmer and colder since humans left Africa. It has also been warmer and colder since the end of the last ice age some 17-15,000 years ago. It has been warmer and colder since agriculture became the basis of civilization some 6000 years ago.

Once the political melters had to address the warmer and colder, i.e. those raising the issue ignored the ridicule and forced them to address it, they decided it was rate of change not absolute change just as they changed higher temperatures to greater variability. Why does the rate matter? Because it is faster than local ecologies can adapt.

Is that credible? The method of adaptation in any case cannot be evolution as even the post ice age max of 17,000 years is not long enough for that to be a factor. But if it is then how fast is too fast is still an open question noting of course too fast is undefined.

There is more.

[downbeatplumb]

Remember the Romans grew Mediterranean grapes in Britain. While I expect the quality of the wine was commensurate with the food I have not heard of any such vineyards reopening. However I have read the temperatures in Britain declined from 1940 to 1975 and are now back where they were in 1940.

.

Actually we've had wine grown here since the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_t...ed_Kingdom

England has actually experienced cooler weather because of global warming shifting the jet stream and may become as cold as moscow if the North Atlantic current is turned off by de-salination of hese aaround he Arctic.

Global warming may lead to local cooling.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The point is pappy, that you can pick any point in the last 4 billion years and point to Co2 rises and falls that are higher or lower than today's readings. It's no biggie.

I DO object to the alarmist nature of proponents of "global warming" offering NO solution to our current dilemma.

And as they have no solution they should be ignored and all efforts placed on how to adapt to it.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

In fact, the Nobel prize was awarded to the IPCC. The IPCC then presented Mann (as well as the many other authors of the IPCC report) with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", celebrating the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC (and its authors) and to Al Gore. The number of climate deniers who have received ANY kind of award for their (non-) contributions to climate science = 0.

Peace prizes are nice until one recognizes they are meaningless. It does not help to remind people it has been won by such low lifes as Yassir Ararat, Simon Peres and Henry Kissinger.

---

OUCH! Oh I'm sorry, did I say something that you disagree with???

Or did you simply not understand the message?

Oh yes, your message was very clear. If you can't refute the science, shoot the scientist. Congratulations.

One need not shoot them. Rather one needs to ignore any and all of their statements which are political. I am reminded of the A and H bomb developers who went political. They got nothing right about the politics and we are still here. I am not saying scientists are unqualified to deal in politics, far from it.

I am saying IQ isn't everything. I am saying the scientific statements made by the greatest politicians in the world are almost always ridiculous and laughable to even the knowledgeable amateur scientist AND VICE VERSA.

---

The point is pappy, that you can pick any point in the last 4 billion years and point to Co2 rises and falls that are higher or lower than today's readings. It's no biggie.

In fact, no one can point to any point in the last 4 billion years and "point to Co2 rises and falls that are higher or lower than today's readings" because we don't have the resolution in the data going back that far that would give us confidence to come to such a conclusion.

An observation which applies to melters and non-melters alike. However enough is known to say hugely more or less simply not a detailed knowledge of the changes.

The point often forgotten the issue is not CO2 per se but the temperature. We do know they temperatures were hugely hotter and colder over billions of years. An obvious one to google is "snowball earth" due to the sun putting out much less heat. One can also find the more recent studies indicating that did not happen despite the lower heat output from the sun.

This entire issue hangs on a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature. Much as I have searched for it I have not found the slightest hint that an equation linking the two even exists much less what it is. It is as vain a search as finding a political believer who knows there is a difference between temperature and heat much less knowing what it is.

But even if we could, that's not the point at all. The point is that our GHG emissions are causing tremendous damage to the environment in which WE live today, and will do so for the foreseeable future. The point is that we owe it to our children, their children, all other life forms, and the planet itself to mitigate the damage we've done. After all, it is the only planet we can call our home.

Pardon if my dislike of religion extends to recycled new age Gaia crap. Suddenly some outside force, some supernatural force has imposed an obligation upon us in the here and now without us having a word to say about it. I recognize poetry and metaphor but as with religion I refuse to take it seriously no matter how 'perty' it sounds.

The natural consequence of our existence is to make the Earth 100% anthropocentric exactly as we want it to our best benefit. What we leave to our children is what we got from our parents, being alive. You can't ask for much more than that in fact you can't ask if you aren't alive.

However, our home does make the point in the OUR. There is nothing, no one, anything which is superior to or provides either guidance or direction to what we do to OUR home.

I DO object to the alarmist nature of proponents of "global warming" offering NO solution to our current dilemma.

Actually, scientists have been saying for at least 30 years what needs to be done.

Perhaps you could recite what they have said needs be done but only those which contain solutions to the problems they see. A solutions is a positive action. If I tell you the solution to your auto insurance rate is to stop owning a car that is not a solution.

Thus burn less fossil fuels is not a solution. A solution is how to maintain and grow our energy based society while reducing the burning of fossil fuels. I have pointed out we have only one proven method of doing that, nuclear energy which is equally involved in politics. That is a whole other discussion.

[Tiberius]

Climat Change is not a commie myth.

You're right. It's a liberal myth. A small but important difference.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Hey guys I was just repeating what the news networks were saying. I agree somethings going on, like I said I've noticed a change in the suns effect on my skin over the years and yes I know it's been warmer over the last several years, I use to work outside a lot. I just do not know what's causing the warming and scientist are not in total agreement either. But here it is nearly the first of May and another snowstorm heading across the mid-west. So what's next.

Most scientists do, in fact, have an understanding of the greenhouse effect (a demonstrable natural phenomenon), and agree that you cannot pump 6 billion tons and increasing of GHGs into the world's atmosphere every year and have no effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not exist in isolation from humanity. They are having measurable negative effects. And given the fact that the Carbon cycle takes about 100 years to go full circle, those effects will be around with us for quite some time to come.

Scientists also know that if one builds two greenhouses one with IR reflecting glass and the other without the effect is the same. That means trapped IR is not the cause of the increased temperature of a greenhouse.

According to New Scientist 4 June 2011 pg 6 the human contribution in 2010 for CO2 emissions 30.6 GT up 1.6GT from 2009, G as in giga as in billion tons.

If one prefers "secular" sources this number was repeated in a New York Times article, 12/08/14 31.6 GT human in 2011.

Sure sounds awfuller than the 6GT you mention. But the total atmospheric CO2 750-830 GT making the uncertainty 80GT about +/-5% +/-40GT. One must note the human contribution per year is less than the uncertainty.

If the human contribution were cumulative we can do the following.

As CO2 makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere this means roughly a 0.04% increase in CO2 per year or or 0.0001% increase in total atmospheric CO2.

---

Yes I believe I posted a picture of that letter from the IPCC above for contributing to the award, FYI it's not a joint award - it's an award awarded to the IPCC.

And I don't need to refute any science. In fact I don't even understand why you said that?

In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore. Mann was one of those authors, and received a certificate from the IPCC in recognition of his efforts that contributed to the award, as were all the other authors. End of story.

Of course you don't need to refute any science. Given that it is highly doubtful that you could argue the issue with a 10 year old, I can understand your reluctance.

To assume that a peace prize, Nobel or otherwise, has any bearing upon the science involved is to assume Peres, Arafat and Kissinger and Ho Chi Minh were the supreme advocates of peace. As the peace prize barely addresses peace the suggestion it supports any science at all is ludicrous.

---

Remember the Romans grew Mediterranean grapes in Britain. While I expect the quality of the wine was commensurate with the food I have not heard of any such vineyards reopening. However I have read the temperatures in Britain declined from 1940 to 1975 and are now back where they were in 1940.

.

Actually we've had wine grown here since the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_t...ed_Kingdom

While I generally reject that source for being anonymous, it is good to know it is finally getting back to the climate it had 2000 years ago when the Romans were burning so much fossil fuel.

England has actually experienced cooler weather because of global warming shifting the jet stream and may become as cold as moscow if the North Atlantic current is turned off by de-salination of hese aaround he Arctic.

Global warming may lead to local cooling.

That invented save even lead one crackpot to claim warming could result in an ice age. I am sorry but anyone claiming global warming leads to cooling is going to have to give me the definitions of both warming and cooling they are using.

As to shutting of the GULF not jet stream that is no more than a hypothetical from years ago which has since been rejected one grounds of 1) not that simple and 2) if the Arctic melting stops tomorrow the inertial will continue the flow for a thousand years.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

For the record the Methuselah jibe is legitimate. I have noticed over the years that I have been losing contact with participants in other forums. I am trying here, and only here, to see if pointing out my age helps. If it does not I will drop it and look for something else which might be the reason for loss of connection. I will hope senility is not the reason. I have always posted as obnoxious and arrogant since 1980 BBS days. So that is not the issue.

In any event I am almost to the point of declaring age observant is not helping and am almost on the verge of stopping. If it has bothered you it is soon to end absent evidence to the contrary. It has never by my intention to imply age == superior viewpoint only that it is a different viewpoint.

[orogenicman]

So what’s your point, Methuselah? It doesn’t make a big difference if you pick a random point and graph a deviation from that point, or graph the temperature. The basic shape of the graph remains the same.

My Methuselah points are that what opinion there is on global melting is that it was once a global ice age. I have made several other Methuselah points such as by the SAME scientists have have taken up melting as a political cause, if was in fact to late to do anything about it in 1999, also in 2000, 2001, and 2002 because by those years it was too late to do anything about it as in "in ten years it will be too late" (insert hysterical exclamation points here)

Melting of the Arctic sea ice is not a political cause, it is a scientific fact. Second point - you failed top address poppy's point.

Another Methuselah point is that those same experts NEVER said greater variability until about five years ago. It was only after measurable warming had obviously stopped that they started using variability instead of warming.

This is not true, of course. Variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. If you believe they haven't been, then it is up to you to show on what you are basing your conclusion.

<snip>

My position is IF one cites the same experts on the same subject then one has an absolute right to consider their credibility over time in the manner of their politicized statements

Which experts would they be? And which politicized statements are you referring to?

I will be happy to read why they were wrong on both 'ten years or too late' and on why warming went to variability and what they have done to change their models and why those changes lead to their new political statements.

I've yet to see you show that they were wrong about anything. I've seen you make various claims, but you've presented no scientific refutation to support those claims, nor have you cited scientific references in support of your claims.

I my first post on the subject here I also raised the best of all global climates assumption. Note the graphs below have also changed in how they are described. It used to be considered a disastrous change period. Now it is a change faster than at any known time in history and is disastrous for the rate of change not the amount of change.

Yet another one of your unfounded claims. Climate scientists have said all along that the rate of change is as significant as the level of GHG build up in the atmosphere (and in fact, they go hand in hand), and that both have potentially disastrous consequences..

Notice in these charts it is again a matter of where one puts the zero however it is not arbitrary it is as old as one can pretend is possible with a straight face.

First of all the second graph plots global average temperatures over time, and so has no zero line of deviation to plot. Secondly, even if one choose a different zero line in the first graph, the slope of the plot does not change. In both graphs, warming is apparent.

While I am reasonably familiar with advance of technology everyone with a working knowledge of European history should be aware of the spread of Europeans who took that technology with them. While it is not exact those could also be charts of the spread of temperature measuring Europeans.

WTF?

But if it is the increase in burning fossil fuels one would expect these graphs to be the same as charts of the increased burning of fossil fuels.

Ahem:

Even before noting all temperatures must be related to absolute zero

And that means what, exactly?

and cannot be arbitrary or relative even a cursory examination of the rate of increase of fossil fuels shows this rate of increase is far too low for such fuels to be a significant contributor.

See my graph above.

I will give one example of the many problems with older temperature measurements here. A huge contribution to the data would come from the El Nino and La Nina effects. They are unpredictable, vaguely cyclic and govern the temperatures of much of the Pacific and the Americas. These were discovered some forty years ago invalidating all prior measurements of temperature in those regions. I would like to see these same charts with and without the invalidated data.

As I have already pointed out, climate models do, in fact, compensate for regional variations such as El Nino and La Nina, and many others, such as solar output, and other forcings. Climate scientists have been doing this for far longer than you have.

I will stick my foot into another pothole with that by noting the first time there was an attempt to observe the antarctic ozone layer in winter there was a hole. This lead to the world ban on CFC production. Considering ozone is produced by sunlight and winter means no sunlight and since there was NO evidence there were ever any hole-free winters this all sounds familiar.

That you are apparently trying to equate the ozone hole with arguments for (or against) AGW is laughable. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.

Since these charts are now down to only rate of change not amount of change I raise the question of why the 1860 world temperatures are assumed to be the best of all possible world temperatures.

No one is claiming that 1860 world temperatures are the best of all possible worlds. That date is used because that is the first date when direct global temperature measurements are available. You have to have a starting point, dude.

The world has been warmer and colder since humans left Africa.

No one is claiming otherwise.

It has also been warmer and colder since the end of the last ice age some 17-15,000 years ago.

The ice age ended 11,500 years ago. Marcott has shown that the trend from around 5,000 years ago until about 1860 has been a cooler Earth, and that since 1860, the trend has been abruptly warmer, and in fact, since 1860, the rate and the actual temperatures have been higher and faster than at any time in the last 11,500 years.

It has been warmer and colder since agriculture became the basis of civilization some 6000 years ago.

But never as warm nor warmed as fast as it has in the past 100 years.

Once the political melters had to address the warmer and colder, i.e. those raising the issue ignored the ridicule and forced them to address it, they decided it was rate of change not absolute change just as they changed higher temperatures to greater variability. Why does the rate matter? Because it is faster than local ecologies can adapt.

Again, the only one claiming this is you. Climate scientists have been talking about the rate and the absolute rise in global temperatures all along. Perhaps your selective memory is the problem.

Is that credible? The method of adaptation in any case cannot be evolution as even the post ice age max of 17,000 years is not long enough for that to be a factor. But if it is then how fast is too fast is still an open question noting of course too fast is undefined.

There is more.

Yes it is credible, since biologists are showing measurable changes occurring in ecosystems across the globe.

[popeyespappy]

Mouse, I had some oral surgery today and feel like shit so I’ll keep this short. There are a few points I’d like to address though.

You keep talking about an ice age. Technically our planet has been in an ice age for more 2.5 million years. The Quaternary glaciation has not ended yet. We are currently in an interglacial period that began ten to twelve thousand years ago. This interglacial period marks the beginning of the Holocene epoch. Since we are currently in an ice age anyone that can remember yesterday remembers the ice age so I don’t think that is what you are talking about.

What I think you are talking about are claims that an ice age was predicted in the 70’s. It is true that both Time and Newsweek ran articles in the mid 70’s citing scientists that predicted global cooling. These articles were picked up by the media in general. However, most of the scientific papers published during the period dealing with the issue were not predicting cooling. They were predicting warming due to CO2 gases. Between 1965 and 1979 a total of seven papers predicted cooling. There were 42 that predicted warming. There were also several climate related papers that were neutral on the issue. Neutral was the consensus position for most scientific organizations during the time. They believed the issue needed more study. That position has now changed to warming for most of those organizations.

Source

Claims that there has been no warming in the last ten years are false.



Nine out of ten of the hottest years on record since 1880 occurred in the 21st century. It is true that surface temperature has not increased as much as expected lately, but recent research has told us why. The missing heat is going into the deep ocean. That trend is expected to end in the near future and surface temperatures will once again increase as rapidly as ever.

I would also like to address what appears to be doubt about the general validity of the greenhouse effect, and human contributions to atmospheric CO2. First off the greenhouse effect is just a label. It is well known that the mechanisms that drive global warming and garden greenhouses are not the same. Never the less they are both about energy balance. When energy in is different than energy out the temperature changes. If energy out is greater than energy in things cool down. When energy out is less than energy in things warm up. So called greenhouse components of the atmosphere such as water vapor, methane and CO2 absorb IR and keep it from escaping into space. The more of those components there are in the atmosphere the more energy they absorb allowing less to escape into space. As long they are allowing less energy to escape than we receive the temperature will increase. Period end of that discussion.

Yes, the human generated portion of total annual CO2 emissions are only a fraction of natural ones. Unfortunitly it is enough of a fraction to upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. That causes an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. There have been several studies on just how much of the CO2 we produce stays in the atmosphere over the long term. The results of those studies varies between 40 and 50%. That means we are adding 12 to 15 gigatons of CO2 to the air every year that stays there. It is enough to make a difference.

@ Kichi

As far as solutions go scientists have been telling us the solution for years. Cut back on the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. Methods to do that include using different methods to generate our energy, capturing the carbon before it released, and taxing the shit out of it in order to make it uneconomical. I'm not a big fan of the last one, but the first two are viable if we are willing to tighten the belt a couple of notches and make the capital investments required. No it isn’t going to bring warming to a sudden halt. It would however result in less warming over the long term.

They have also been telling what we need to do to adapt. Besides for developing alternative energy production we need to use energy more efficiently. We need to stop development in low lying costal and other flood prone areas. We need to start moving people out of those areas. More work needs to be done developing drought-resistant plants. Planting and harvesting schedules need to be modified.

[orogenicman]

In fact, the Nobel prize was awarded to the IPCC. The IPCC then presented Mann (as well as the many other authors of the IPCC report) with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", celebrating the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC (and its authors) and to Al Gore. The number of climate deniers who have received ANY kind of award for their (non-) contributions to climate science = 0.

Peace prizes are nice until one recognizes they are meaningless. It does not help to remind people it has been won by such low lifes as Yassir Ararat, Simon Peres and Henry Kissinger.

Whether or not they are meaningless to you is irrelevant. Whether or not they are meaningless in fact is also irrelevant to the point I was making.

---

Oh yes, your message was very clear. If you can't refute the science, shoot the scientist. Congratulations.

One need not shoot them. Rather one needs to ignore any and all of their statements which are political. I am reminded of the A and H bomb developers who went political. They got nothing right about the politics and we are still here. I am not saying scientists are unqualified to deal in politics, far from it.

Climate scientists are in the business of characterizing the global climate based on scientific data. If that data shows an alarming trend, they have a moral obligation to speak out about that trend. To not do so would be unethical. Is it political for an expert of HIV to speak out about the use of contraceptives as a means of combating the spread of AIDs. I don't think it is, and it is likewise not political to point to rising global temperatures and also point to rising manmade CO2 levels as the demonstrable cause. Shooting the messenger, however, does have a political basis, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with people who do that.

I am saying IQ isn't everything. I am saying the scientific statements made by the greatest politicians in the world are almost always ridiculous and laughable to even the knowledgeable amateur scientist AND VICE VERSA.

Interesting that you would use the term "amateur", since most of the world's real scientists are on board with the politicians who recognize that AGW is a real thread.

---

In fact, no one can point to any point in the last 4 billion years and "point to Co2 rises and falls that are higher or lower than today's readings" because we don't have the resolution in the data going back that far that would give us confidence to come to such a conclusion.

An observation which applies to melters and non-melters alike.

That was my point.

However enough is known to say hugely more or less simply not a detailed knowledge of the changes.

We do not have the resolution to say with certainty what the significant fluxations were further back than 400,000 years. Our best data is for the past 11,500 years, and that data shows that at no time except since 1860 have we seen the rate of increase in global temperatures or the amount of increase.

The point often forgotten the issue is not CO2 per se but the temperature. We do know they temperatures were hugely hotter and colder over billions of years. An obvious one to google is "snowball earth" due to the sun putting out much less heat. One can also find the more recent studies indicating that did not happen despite the lower heat output from the sun.

And how many species (how many humans, for that matter) lived on Earth billions of years ago?

This entire issue hangs on a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature. Much as I have searched for it I have not found the slightest hint that an equation linking the two even exists much less what it is. It is as vain a search as finding a political believer who knows there is a difference between temperature and heat much less knowing what it is.

This is akin to saying that because we don't have an equation linking dirty bombs to radiation sickness, that neither exists. And equally meaningless. We do, in fact, see a direct correlation between rising anthropogenic release of CO2 into the atmosphere and increases in global temperatures.

But even if we could, that's not the point at all. The point is that our GHG emissions are causing tremendous damage to the environment in which WE live today, and will do so for the foreseeable future. The point is that we owe it to our children, their children, all other life forms, and the planet itself to mitigate the damage we've done. After all, it is the only planet we can call our home.

Pardon if my dislike of religion extends to recycled new age Gaia crap. Suddenly some outside force, some supernatural force has imposed an obligation upon us in the here and now without us having a word to say about it. I recognize poetry and metaphor but as with religion I refuse to take it seriously no matter how 'perty' it sounds.

As a fellow atheist, I have to tell you that the above comment is not only insulting, but about as wrong as it can be. Gaia crap? Oh please.

The natural consequence of our existence is to make the Earth 100% anthropocentric exactly as we want it to our best benefit. What we leave to our children is what we got from our parents, being alive. You can't ask for much more than that in fact you can't ask if you aren't alive.

And how many people and other species must suffer for your wrong-headed assumption that the Earth exists for your sole benefit?

However, our home does make the point in the OUR. There is nothing, no one, anything which is superior to or provides either guidance or direction to what we do to OUR home.

You are right, of course. There is no magical spaghetti monster to come down from on high to save us from ourselves. That task falls to us. Only we can do that. It is our responsibility, and if we fail, well, that is on us as well.

Actually, scientists have been saying for at least 30 years what needs to be done.

Perhaps you could recite what they have said needs be done but only those which contain solutions to the problems they see. A solutions is a positive action. If I tell you the solution to your auto insurance rate is to stop owning a car that is not a solution.

Thus burn less fossil fuels is not a solution. A solution is how to maintain and grow our energy based society while reducing the burning of fossil fuels. I have pointed out we have only one proven method of doing that, nuclear energy which is equally involved in politics. That is a whole other discussion.

By itself, burning less fossil fuels is not an adequate solution. I agree. And I believe most climate scientists would also agree. But it is an important part of the solution nonetheless. What I find interesting is that you disagree with AGW but agree that fossil fuels are a problem. If it is not because of AGW, then what, in your opinion, is the problem with fossil fuels?

---

Climat Change is not a commie myth.

You're right. It's a liberal myth. A small but important difference.

I suspect that the conservatives who also agree that climate change is a problem might disagree with you.