Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[suffolkowner]

the public argument over AGW is like that with respect to evolution or vaccines. Its a completely different argument than what the scientists are having with themselves. Going over ideas that were refuted in the 1980s when there is a nearly unlimited sources of information that one can link to through the various organizations whether it is the IPCC or NOAA or NASA or the various National Academy of Sciences

for example the Milankovitch cycle is for cooling coming out of the Holocene interglacial at less than -1C per 1000 yrs.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That climate change stuff is soooo last year

Scientists brace ‘for the worst’ as Trump purges climate mentions from websites​

Trump administration pulling references online ‘won’t make crisis’ stop affecting Americans’ lives, say experts


Donald Trump’s administration has started to remove or downgrade mentions of the climate crisis across the US government, with the websites of several major departments pulling down references to anything related to the climate crisis. Climate scientists said they were braced “for the worst”.

A major climate portal on the Department of Defense’s website has been scrapped, as has the main climate change section on the site of the Department of State. A climate change page on the White House’s website no longer exists, nor does climate content provided by the US agriculture department, including information that provides vulnerability assessments for wildfires.

An entire section on “climate and sustainability” hosted by the Department of Transportation has now vanished, with the department’s new leadership also ordering the elimination of any policy positions, directives or funding “which reference or relate in any way to climate change, ‘greenhouse gas’ [sic] emissions, racial equity, gender identity, ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ goals, environmental justice or the Justice40 initiative”.

Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, said the administration is focused on “eliminating excessive regulations that have hindered economic growth, increased costs for American families, and prioritized far-left agendas over practical solutions”.

Scientists brace ‘for the worst’ as Trump purges climate mentions from websites

Trump administration pulling references online ‘won’t make crisis’ stop affecting Americans’ lives, say experts

www.theguardian.com

Trump Issues Executive Order on Climate Change | Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

climate.law.columbia.edu

Good. We've needed to lower the noise on this for a long time. Stop the hysterics for awhile and people can put their hair fires out.

 

[OldSolduer]

Good. We've needed to lower the noise on this for a long time. Stop the hysterics for awhile and people can put their hair fires out.

I think we can all agree the climate is changing. And we probably have something to do with that. But it’s not as bad as the eco zealots make it out to be.

 

[suffolkowner]

new paper on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#abstract

and recent one on Earth System Sensitivity

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705

a look at how good a job Exxon did

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063#:~:text=Ten%20internal%20reports%20and%20one,their%20own%20scientists%20(59)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Good a place as any I guess.

BlackRock exit a major blow to Mark Carney's net-zero finance alliance

The world's largest asset manager has abandoned a leading climate finance coalition, marking the latest and most significant departure from the coalition created by former Bank of Canada governor and potential Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney.

www.westernstandard.news

The world's largest asset manager has abandoned a leading climate finance coalition, marking the latest and most significant departure from the coalition created by former Bank of Canada governor and potential Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney.

BlackRock, which manages approximately $11.5 trillion USD, said it would leave the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) because of "confusion" about its practices and "legal inquiries from various public officials."

The departure follows an exodus of major U.S. banks, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, from the alliance amid growing Republican opposition to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives.

Carney's baby seems to have a bad case of colic and people are starting to see our newly crowned PM's Net Zero strategy may be no more than a ponzi scheme.

Quelle surprise

 

[daftandbarmy]

Good a place as any I guess.

BlackRock exit a major blow to Mark Carney's net-zero finance alliance

The world's largest asset manager has abandoned a leading climate finance coalition, marking the latest and most significant departure from the coalition created by former Bank of Canada governor and potential Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney.

www.westernstandard.news

The world's largest asset manager has abandoned a leading climate finance coalition, marking the latest and most significant departure from the coalition created by former Bank of Canada governor and potential Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney.

BlackRock, which manages approximately $11.5 trillion USD, said it would leave the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) because of "confusion" about its practices and "legal inquiries from various public officials."

The departure follows an exodus of major U.S. banks, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, from the alliance amid growing Republican opposition to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives.

Carney's baby seems to have a bad case of colic and people are starting to see our newly crowned PM's Net Zero strategy may be no more than a ponzi scheme.

Quelle surprise

Then there's 'the scandal' thing...

BlackRock accused of contributing to climate and human rights abuses​

OECD complaint alleges top firm has increased investments in companies implicated in environmental devastation


BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset management company, faces a complaint at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for allegedly contributing to environmental and human rights abuses around the world through its investments in agribusiness.

Friends of the Earth US and the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil accuse BlackRock of increasing investments in companies that have been implicated in the devastation of the Amazon and other major forests despite warnings that this is destabilising the global climate, damaging ecosystems and violating the rights of traditional communities.

The complaint, revealed exclusively to the Guardian, was filed under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which are recommendations from governments to private companies on responsible business conduct. In the absence of legally binding international regulations, these are seen as a reference for corporate accountability.

BlackRock accused of contributing to climate and human rights abuses

OECD complaint alleges top firm has increased investments in companies implicated in environmental devastation

www.theguardian.com

 

[KeLouJoH]

I would like to share the following article with you guys, it's highly relevant to the topic we are discussing. You can see the original here: “Climate Change” and Tipping Points

****

A point of no return is not a tipping point; it’s a Rubicon point. Tipping points are common in nature. Rubicon points are rare. To use the terms interchangeably is to be scientifically imprecise and factually incorrect about tipping points. A tipping point occurs where an established trend abruptly changes direction. A familiar example:

It’s 7:00 AM on a late summer day. The temperature has been a steady 10°C for the last several hours. The sun rises. The temperature breaks away from its constant 10°C trend and starts rising. That’s a tipping point.

The temperature continues to rise, establishing a new trend — upward. By noon, it’s 25°C. At this rate of increase, streams and rivers will start boiling tomorrow afternoon. Lakes and oceans will soon follow. Looks like that sunrise tipping point was a point of no return resulting in a runaway effect. We’re doomed!

The sun passes its zenith. Temperature stops rising and remains constant for the next several hours. Another tipping point passed; a new steady state trend established. Whew! Maybe we’ll be OK.

The sun sets. Temperature begins to drop as fast as it rose in the morning. Another tipping point passed; a new trend established — downward. By midnight, it’s 10°C. At this rate of cooling the entire planet will be frozen solid within a few days. It’s a new ice age! We’re doomed!

Temperature stops dropping, levelling out at 10°C for the next several hours; yet another tipping point passed.

Rinse and repeat.

We’re all familiar with these cycles and frequent tipping points. We know it’s business as usual on a late summer day. Nobody panics about it. Even though the temperature varies over a range of 15 Centigrade degrees, nobody screams about climate change or blames the rapidly rising temperature through the early part of the day on greenhouse gas emissions from humans burning fossil fuels.

Nor do we get alarmed about a “new ice age” when temperatures drop, lakes and rivers freeze, and snow starts falling late in the year. Neither is there a “global warming” panic in the spring when temperatures rise and melt winter’s ice and snow.

Why not?

Perspective and personal experience. I wrote previously about human perspectives of time compared with geological time perspectives relative to the age and life expectancy of planet Earth, time periods over which real climate change happens.

Just as there are daily and annual cycles with numerous temperature tipping points, there are also much longer celestial cycles with numerous temperature tipping points — up and down as in daily and seasonal cycles — that humans do not comprehend through personal experience because we do not live long enough to experience full cycles in a single lifetime. If humans lived for millions of years, we would know that temperatures rising at the end of our current Holocene Interglacial Period are business as usual, like temperature rising on a late summer morning.


***

Let me know what you think.

 

[GR66]

I would like to share the following article with you guys, it's highly relevant to the topic we are discussing. You can see the original here: “Climate Change” and Tipping Points

****

A point of no return is not a tipping point; it’s a Rubicon point. Tipping points are common in nature. Rubicon points are rare. To use the terms interchangeably is to be scientifically imprecise and factually incorrect about tipping points. A tipping point occurs where an established trend abruptly changes direction. A familiar example:

It’s 7:00 AM on a late summer day. The temperature has been a steady 10°C for the last several hours. The sun rises. The temperature breaks away from its constant 10°C trend and starts rising. That’s a tipping point.

The temperature continues to rise, establishing a new trend — upward. By noon, it’s 25°C. At this rate of increase, streams and rivers will start boiling tomorrow afternoon. Lakes and oceans will soon follow. Looks like that sunrise tipping point was a point of no return resulting in a runaway effect. We’re doomed!

The sun passes its zenith. Temperature stops rising and remains constant for the next several hours. Another tipping point passed; a new steady state trend established. Whew! Maybe we’ll be OK.

The sun sets. Temperature begins to drop as fast as it rose in the morning. Another tipping point passed; a new trend established — downward. By midnight, it’s 10°C. At this rate of cooling the entire planet will be frozen solid within a few days. It’s a new ice age! We’re doomed!

Temperature stops dropping, levelling out at 10°C for the next several hours; yet another tipping point passed.

Rinse and repeat.

We’re all familiar with these cycles and frequent tipping points. We know it’s business as usual on a late summer day. Nobody panics about it. Even though the temperature varies over a range of 15 Centigrade degrees, nobody screams about climate change or blames the rapidly rising temperature through the early part of the day on greenhouse gas emissions from humans burning fossil fuels.

Nor do we get alarmed about a “new ice age” when temperatures drop, lakes and rivers freeze, and snow starts falling late in the year. Neither is there a “global warming” panic in the spring when temperatures rise and melt winter’s ice and snow.

Why not?

Perspective and personal experience. I wrote previously about human perspectives of time compared with geological time perspectives relative to the age and life expectancy of planet Earth, time periods over which real climate change happens.

Just as there are daily and annual cycles with numerous temperature tipping points, there are also much longer celestial cycles with numerous temperature tipping points — up and down as in daily and seasonal cycles — that humans do not comprehend through personal experience because we do not live long enough to experience full cycles in a single lifetime. If humans lived for millions of years, we would know that temperatures rising at the end of our current Holocene Interglacial Period are business as usual, like temperature rising on a late summer morning.


***

Let me know what you think.

My personal take on the whole Climate Change issue.

There are definitely a bunch of "Chicken Little" Global Warming alarmists out there declaring that the End is Nigh. There are also a good solid number of politicians that have jumped on the bandwagon and are pushing hard for pretty severe policies to try and put the brake on CO2 emissions.

On the other side there are those that are vehemently opposed to any suggestion that human actions are having any noticeable impact on the Earth's climate and are quite happy to "Drill, Baby, Drill!" or otherwise continue on as business as usual.

Most reasonable and informed people that I speak with are fully aware that there are many natural factors that impact our climate and that these natural variations can result in very large swings in climate conditions...and many of these factors have absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 (or other greenhouse gas) concentrations in the atmosphere. Most also understand that human greenhouse gas emissions are not THE "cause" of Climate Change.

They do however understand that while the Earth's climate may be warming naturally due to a variety of factors, the fact that we are releasing some fairly significant amounts of greenhouse gasses in a relatively short timeframe (compared to baseline natural processes) our activities are acting as somewhat of an accelerant to the process. I think that in a system as infinitely complex as the Earth's climate it's naturally extremely difficult (if not impossible) to quantify the extent of that acceleration but just like dumping Gigatons of plastic into our oceans, emitting Sulphur-Dioxide from our smokestacks or releasing mercury into our water courses I think we can safely predict that there is some level of impact.

The concern is that by increasing the rate of climate change beyond the rate that it would naturally occur (and has naturally occurred in the past) we are putting additional stress on our natural systems which have already been stressed by the wide variety of impacts that humans have already had on the system (deforestation, over fishing, loss of wetlands, urbanization, pesticide impacts, agricultural monoculture, pollution of various sorts, etc., etc., etc.).

The combination of all these factors along with accelerated climate change may result in some natural systems having greater difficulty in adapting to the changes than they would without this "stacking" of factors which may result in unforeseen significant impacts on the natural environment. It may also mean that we have to increase the rate of spending on adaptation efforts as the effects will be felt more quickly than they otherwise would.

The big question then is what balance do you strike between efforts at mitigation (reducing our accelerating impact by emission reductions, etc.) and adaptation efforts. I'd argue that our current government has leaned to far toward mitigation such that the positive impacts on the global system of our efforts has not come even close to the costs incurred by our society in implementing those policies. To me though, that doesn't mean that we ignore the issue or pretend that our activities have absolutely no impact on our environment.

We should definitely continue to get our own house in order but in a way that doesn't unduly harm our productivity, etc. After all, a wealthy society has more money available to spend on green policies.

$0.02

 

[Kirkhill]

Carney/Bloomberg and GFANZ

Carney and Bloomberg (past mayor of New York) both promoted the NetZero movement, the Paris accords, the UN, the GFANZ alliance and the ESG movement.

Together they scooped the world's banking system and created a 100 Trillion US Dollar international cartel. The US House Judiciary committee did not like this.

Mark Carney's GFANZ Targeted in Bombshell Climate Cartel Report by US Judiciary Committee

/PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- A bombshell report titled "Climate Control: Exposing the Decarbonization Collusion in ESG Investing" has exposed massive financial and...

www.prweb.com

Are net-zero alliances illegal cartels?

Who would have thought that antitrust provisions designed to promote fair competition could be weaponized and used against the drive to achieve net zero? It’s a perverse development in so many respects but this is the world the United States has entered and one that’s expected to tighten its...

www.theasset.com

This prompted the American Banks and then the Canadian Banks to run away from GFANZ and get out of the line of fire.

Opinion: Banks quit Carney’s net zero alliance. Giving up net zero ideology should be next

Pappano: Pressures from politics and concerns about collusion lawsuits are causing banks to rethink tactics. Find out more.

financialpost.com

• Canadian banks: TD, CIBC, BMO, Scotiabank, National Bank and RBC
• U.S. banks: Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo
• BlackRock: The asset management arm of GFANZ, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAMI)

Climate alliance loses last big Canadian bank as RBC withdraws

With the move, RBC joins numerous Canadian and U.S. banks that have bailed on the Net Zero Banking Alliance in the past two months

www.theglobeandmail.com

....

Leader. Banker. Competent money manager.

Carney is looking somewhat exposed to me. Ralph Kline encouraged politicians to find a parade and get out in front of it. Carney's parade appears to be going in a different direction.

....

The mood music on Wall Street is the threat of litigation for being seen as anti-Big Fossil. Weeks after Trump’s re-election, the “big three” asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – were sued by a Texas-led coalition ostensibly for using climate strategies to crush coal production in an alleged breach of antitrust law. In a series of publications in 2024, the Republican-led House judiciary committee claimed it had evidence of a “climate cartel” among big financial firms, criticising GFANZ and Climate Action 100+, another voluntary alliance, for encouraging investors to use their position as shareholders to push companies to disclose their emissions and set climate plans – which, according to the committee, amounts to “collusion”. It’s unclear what the conclusions of these reports mean for implicated firms, but the implied – and chilling – threat is one of legal action for breaching antitrust laws.

Major banks are abandoning their climate alliance en masse. So much for ‘woke capital’ | Adrienne Buller

The scope of the Cop26 net zero banking alliance may have been limited, but the exodus of six US banks signifies a seismic political shift, says senior research fellow Adrienne Buller

www.theguardian.com

...

What is the popular mood music like on Net Zero?

80% of Canadians now support sea to sea pipelines for gas AND oil.

Varcoe: 'A moment or a movement' — Canadian support for sea-to-sea pipelines near 80% amid threat of Trump tariffs

Varcoe: From an NDP premier in B.C. to a UCP premier in Alberta, the idea of backing major energy export developments is gathering momentum.

calgaryherald.com

....

In the UK (expansion of Heathrow, approval of North Sea oil and gas licenses,

Politics latest news: Miliband forced to backtrack on net zero pledges

Ed Miliband has backtracked on his climate pledges after dropping his opposition to a third runway at Heathrow.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Sir Keir Starmer suggested on Friday that he would not stand in the way of the development of the Rosebank oil field in the North Sea because a licence had previously been granted for the site. Labour pledged in its general election manifesto that it would not issue new licences to explore new fields.

Mr Miliband said on Friday that he was “not going to comment on individual projects” and “there is a process that we are going through”.

The future of Rosebank, which is backed by Norway’s Equinor, has been in doubt since a court overturned its permit by ruling that the previous government had failed to take into account climate concerns. Equinor has now been told to reapply for its licence.

Downing Street said on Friday afternoon that the Government was seeking a “fair, orderly and prosperous transition” away from North Sea oil and gas to clean energy.

Unite criticises Government’s clean energy transition plan​

Unite the union suggested the Government’s clean energy transition plan lacked “joined up thinking”.

Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, said the UK “must not let go of one rope until we have hold of another” in reference to the shift from fossil fuels to clean power.

She said: “Workers and their communities are crying out for joined up thinking. It is clear the Government’s energy plans do not address major decisions that need to be made now.

“Energy security means that we must not let go of one rope until we have hold of another. But the Government has yet to commit to the Sizewell C nuclear power plant or invest in wind manufacture and has so far failed to ensure that Grangemouth will transition to a sustainable aviation fuel [SAF] refinery.

“Despite lots of positive talk the well-paid, skilled jobs in zero carbon energy production supposed to offset the loss of jobs in the North Sea are yet to materialise. New investments are needed now to help drive growth and create these jobs.”

Asked if the Government would like to see increased domestic fossil fuel production to reduce reliance on foreign imports, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman: “Firstly the oil and gas industry is crucial to the economy and important for jobs and we have been clear that it has a role to play for decades to come.

...
The UK, and Europe, like the US and Canada are all discovering that the technology to achieve NetZero in political timelines (one or two 4 year terms) does not exist. The only solution is to shut down whole countries and put people out of work.

People want jobs. And the only way to create jobs is to support growing economies built on cheap energy.

....

Carney has been promoting the Club of Rome orthodoxy for too many years.

Club of Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[suffolkowner]

My personal take on the whole Climate Change issue.

There are definitely a bunch of "Chicken Little" Global Warming alarmists out there declaring that the End is Nigh. There are also a good solid number of politicians that have jumped on the bandwagon and are pushing hard for pretty severe policies to try and put the brake on CO2 emissions.

And what about the scientific evidence?

Most reasonable and informed people that I speak with are fully aware that there are many natural factors that impact our climate and that these natural variations can result in very large swings in climate conditions...and many of these factors have absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 (or other greenhouse gas) concentrations in the atmosphere. Most also understand that human greenhouse gas emissions are not THE "cause" of Climate Change.

Is it reasonable that people would diagree with the scientific evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of AGW?

They do however understand that while the Earth's climate may be warming naturally due to a variety of factors, the fact that we are releasing some fairly significant amounts of greenhouse gasses in a relatively short timeframe (compared to baseline natural processes) our activities are acting as somewhat of an accelerant to the process. I think that in a system as infinitely complex as the Earth's climate it's naturally extremely difficult (if not impossible) to quantify the extent of that acceleration but just like dumping Gigatons of plastic into our oceans, emitting Sulphur-Dioxide from our smokestacks or releasing mercury into our water courses I think we can safely predict that there is some level of impact.

The Earths climate is naturally cooling not warming

The concern is that by increasing the rate of climate change beyond the rate that it would naturally occur (and has naturally occurred in the past) we are putting additional stress on our natural systems which have already been stressed by the wide variety of impacts that humans have already had on the system (deforestation, over fishing, loss of wetlands, urbanization, pesticide impacts, agricultural monoculture, pollution of various sorts, etc., etc., etc.).

The rate of change in temperature between glacial/interglacial and stadial/interstadial is on the order of 1C/1000 yrs we are closer to 1C/50 yrs right now

The combination of all these factors along with accelerated climate change may result in some natural systems having greater difficulty in adapting to the changes than they would without this "stacking" of factors which may result in unforeseen significant impacts on the natural environment. It may also mean that we have to increase the rate of spending on adaptation efforts as the effects will be felt more quickly than they otherwise would.

The big question then is what balance do you strike between efforts at mitigation (reducing our accelerating impact by emission reductions, etc.) and adaptation efforts. I'd argue that our current government has leaned to far toward mitigation such that the positive impacts on the global system of our efforts has not come even close to the costs incurred by our society in implementing those policies. To me though, that doesn't mean that we ignore the issue or pretend that our activities have absolutely no impact on our environment.

We should definitely continue to get our own house in order but in a way that doesn't unduly harm our productivity, etc. After all, a wealthy society has more money available to spend on green policies.

$0.02

Where do you put the calculus of economic disruption due to AGW?
How do you calculate the economic cost of environmental disruption?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Reason & Result for Climate Change Advocacy = lots of $$$$ made & no man made environmental change.

Except hot air a la Gore, Thuneberg, Carney, Guilbeault et al.

Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Any less it would be a trace gas. It is the fourth most abundant element in the universe.

Carbon is THE basic building block of all life on earth.

Life would be impossible without it.

Lower it past its natural level and you endanger every living thing on the planet, including plants.

 

[Kirkhill]

And what about the scientific evidence?

Is it reasonable that people would diagree with the scientific evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of AGW?


The Earths climate is naturally cooling not warming


The rate of change in temperature between glacial/interglacial and stadial/interstadial is on the order of 1C/1000 yrs we are closer to 1C/50 yrs right now

Where do you put the calculus of economic disruption due to AGW?
How do you calculate the economic cost of environmental disruption?

It is entirely reasonable to question evidence. All evidence. Of any type.

 

[KeLouJoH]

Is it reasonable that people would diagree with the scientific evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of AGW?

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. There is evidence that supports it, however this does not mean it is now a fact.

Where do you put the calculus of economic disruption due to AGW?
How do you calculate the economic cost of environmental disruption?

It shouldn't matter because we might not be the cause of these disruptions and economic losses.

 

[KeLouJoH]

My personal take on the whole Climate Change issue.

There are definitely a bunch of "Chicken Little" Global Warming alarmists out there declaring that the End is Nigh. There are also a good solid number of politicians that have jumped on the bandwagon and are pushing hard for pretty severe policies to try and put the brake on CO2 emissions.

On the other side there are those that are vehemently opposed to any suggestion that human actions are having any noticeable impact on the Earth's climate and are quite happy to "Drill, Baby, Drill!" or otherwise continue on as business as usual.

Most reasonable and informed people that I speak with are fully aware that there are many natural factors that impact our climate and that these natural variations can result in very large swings in climate conditions...and many of these factors have absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 (or other greenhouse gas) concentrations in the atmosphere. Most also understand that human greenhouse gas emissions are not THE "cause" of Climate Change.

They do however understand that while the Earth's climate may be warming naturally due to a variety of factors, the fact that we are releasing some fairly significant amounts of greenhouse gasses in a relatively short timeframe (compared to baseline natural processes) our activities are acting as somewhat of an accelerant to the process. I think that in a system as infinitely complex as the Earth's climate it's naturally extremely difficult (if not impossible) to quantify the extent of that acceleration but just like dumping Gigatons of plastic into our oceans, emitting Sulphur-Dioxide from our smokestacks or releasing mercury into our water courses I think we can safely predict that there is some level of impact.

The concern is that by increasing the rate of climate change beyond the rate that it would naturally occur (and has naturally occurred in the past) we are putting additional stress on our natural systems which have already been stressed by the wide variety of impacts that humans have already had on the system (deforestation, over fishing, loss of wetlands, urbanization, pesticide impacts, agricultural monoculture, pollution of various sorts, etc., etc., etc.).

The combination of all these factors along with accelerated climate change may result in some natural systems having greater difficulty in adapting to the changes than they would without this "stacking" of factors which may result in unforeseen significant impacts on the natural environment. It may also mean that we have to increase the rate of spending on adaptation efforts as the effects will be felt more quickly than they otherwise would.

The big question then is what balance do you strike between efforts at mitigation (reducing our accelerating impact by emission reductions, etc.) and adaptation efforts. I'd argue that our current government has leaned to far toward mitigation such that the positive impacts on the global system of our efforts has not come even close to the costs incurred by our society in implementing those policies. To me though, that doesn't mean that we ignore the issue or pretend that our activities have absolutely no impact on our environment.

We should definitely continue to get our own house in order but in a way that doesn't unduly harm our productivity, etc. After all, a wealthy society has more money available to spend on green policies.

$0.02

Hi GR.

Yes, "accelerant" is a very good word. I believe that our activities probably do exacerbate the change in climate, but we don't know to what extent. The question is, are these laws and green initiatives warranted, given that we don't know how much of an impact our activities have on earth's climate. For all we know, these laws might be excessive. What's more, they probably won't address climate change in a meaningful way if it's indeed true that climate change is non man-made.

What I can't stand about the climate-change warriors is that they are so sure about anthropogenic climate change, which is just a theory, not a fact. They latch onto it out of panic, and then demand governments and industries make drastic changes, changes that might not produce any result, but immediately they have a negative impact on people's lives and certain sectors of the economy.

 

[suffolkowner]

My personal take on the whole Climate Change issue.

There are definitely a bunch of "Chicken Little" Global Warming alarmists out there declaring that the End is Nigh. There are also a good solid number of politicians that have jumped on the bandwagon and are pushing hard for pretty severe policies to try and put the brake on CO2 emissions.

On the other side there are those that are vehemently opposed to any suggestion that human actions are having any noticeable impact on the Earth's climate and are quite happy to "Drill, Baby, Drill!" or otherwise continue on as business as usual.

Most reasonable and informed people that I speak with are fully aware that there are many natural factors that impact our climate and that these natural variations can result in very large swings in climate conditions...and many of these factors have absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 (or other greenhouse gas) concentrations in the atmosphere. Most also understand that human greenhouse gas emissions are not THE "cause" of Climate Change.

They do however understand that while the Earth's climate may be warming naturally due to a variety of factors, the fact that we are releasing some fairly significant amounts of greenhouse gasses in a relatively short timeframe (compared to baseline natural processes) our activities are acting as somewhat of an accelerant to the process. I think that in a system as infinitely complex as the Earth's climate it's naturally extremely difficult (if not impossible) to quantify the extent of that acceleration but just like dumping Gigatons of plastic into our oceans, emitting Sulphur-Dioxide from our smokestacks or releasing mercury into our water courses I think we can safely predict that there is some level of impact.

The concern is that by increasing the rate of climate change beyond the rate that it would naturally occur (and has naturally occurred in the past) we are putting additional stress on our natural systems which have already been stressed by the wide variety of impacts that humans have already had on the system (deforestation, over fishing, loss of wetlands, urbanization, pesticide impacts, agricultural monoculture, pollution of various sorts, etc., etc., etc.).

The combination of all these factors along with accelerated climate change may result in some natural systems having greater difficulty in adapting to the changes than they would without this "stacking" of factors which may result in unforeseen significant impacts on the natural environment. It may also mean that we have to increase the rate of spending on adaptation efforts as the effects will be felt more quickly than they otherwise would.

The big question then is what balance do you strike between efforts at mitigation (reducing our accelerating impact by emission reductions, etc.) and adaptation efforts. I'd argue that our current government has leaned to far toward mitigation such that the positive impacts on the global system of our efforts has not come even close to the costs incurred by our society in implementing those policies. To me though, that doesn't mean that we ignore the issue or pretend that our activities have absolutely no impact on our environment.

We should definitely continue to get our own house in order but in a way that doesn't unduly harm our productivity, etc. After all, a wealthy society has more money available to spend on green policies.

$0.02

Reason & Result for Climate Change Advocacy = lots of $$$$ made & no man made environmental change.

Except hot air a la Gore, Thuneberg, Carney, Guilbeault et al.

Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Any less it would be a trace gas. It is the fourth most abundant element in the universe.

Carbon is THE basic building block of all life on earth.

Life would be impossible without it.

Lower it past its natural level and you endanger every living thing on the planet, including plants.

there is no chance in the geological future of CO2 levels decreasing to any level dangerous to life as we know it

It is entirely reasonable to question evidence. All evidence. Of any type.

is it? what other evidence and theory are we questioning? How are you questioning it? How would you resolve your questioning?

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. There is evidence that supports it, however this does not mean it is now a fact.

It shouldn't matter because we might not be the cause of these disruptions and economic losses.

A theory is a well supported explanation for a natural phenomenon where no other alternative can explain such.

The theory of AGW has been accepted by every Academy of Science in the world

 

[KeLouJoH]

A theory is a well supported explanation for a natural phenomenon where no other alternative can explain such.

The theory of AGW has been accepted by every Academy of Science in the world

I don't care how well supported your theory is. It is still not a fact.

 

[KeLouJoH]

is it? what other evidence and theory are we questioning? How are you questioning it? How would you resolve your questioning?

Why do you so badly want to convince him that climate change is man-made? Why do you care so much?

This makes you a climate change warrior.

 

[suffolkowner]

I don't care how well supported your theory is. It is still not a fact.

theories explain facts. There is no explanation beyond theory in science. Perhaps you are confusing Theory with Hypothesis?

Why do you so badly want to convince him that climate change is man-made? Why do you care so much?

This makes you a climate change warrior.

I am merely repeating the current state of the science. If one thinks it is anything other than that, then you would be wrong.
I am also curious what drives peoples ideas about this issue.
If I am a climate change warrior then I am also a vaccine warrior, an evolution warrior etc..

 

[KeLouJoH]

theories explain facts. There is no explanation beyond theory in science. Perhaps you are confusing Theory with Hypothesis?

If theories explain facts, then this necessarily means they are not facts.

Sounds to me like you are the one who's confusing theory with fact.

I am merely repeating the current state of the science. If one thinks it is anything other than that, then you would be wrong.

Then prove I am wrong.

I am also curious what drives peoples ideas about this issue.
If I am a climate change warrior then I am also a vaccine warrior, an evolution warrior etc..

Warrior is a slightly less bad word for zealot. I hope you enjoy your status.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

there is no chance in the geological future of CO2 levels decreasing to any level dangerous to life as we know it

Perhaps not geological but can you guarantee some Gore & Thunberg doppelganger won't try take us in the opposite direction? What if they decide net zero isn't good enough? The current cash cow can't last forever. They'll need a new crusade to make money off of.