That is exactly why I believe that it a control issue, not an environmental one. Polluting the Earth from another country is fine as long as it is not here.
Ken, this is good analysis. If you expand a little more on the irrationality of the far left ideology I believe you'd have an article that several sites would be glad to publish.
My understanding (given the reports shared earlier) is CO2 is not the direct cause of warming but an indirect cause, which means it operates as a reinforcing factor or part of chains of positive feedback loops. For example, a bit of CO2 in the atmosphere will only trap a bit of heat, but the latter will be enough to melt a bit of ice, which exposes a bit more of the darker soil underneath. That albedo effect will reflect a bit less of sunrays, making the ground a bit more warm. That, in turn, will cause a bit more ice to melt, which exposes a bit more of the darker soil, and so on. And all because CO2 went up a bit more than what's normal. Of course, the cycle stops when the sun is a greater distance from that part of the earth during certain times of the year, and then take place again during summer, but this time with a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere than last time. Scientists have only been studying this closely since 2000, and are now seeing over 50 positive feedback loops involving sea ice, forests, and so on. This explains why even to this day they are trying to figure out what is a highly complex set of phenomena. If this were only some gigantic lab experiment involving another planet, then most can logically rest easy, but unfortunately that's not case. And to make matters worse, the same climate change issue is connected to pollution on many levels, which humanity wants to minimize as well. Given that, the only scientific conclusion we can make is that with increasing complexity comes high levels of bifurcation, which in a global economy dependent on predictability is not a good idea. In any event, feel free to consider the sources I provided. One comes from the top scientific group of the U.S., which even deniers and skeptics consider the "gold standard" of scientific review. The second is from an organization funded by skeptics tasked to come up with an independent review of the issue, and ended up confirming what the NAS said. According to the sources I provided, increased carbon emissions has a forcing factor which leads to multiple positive feedback loops. That means increased precipitation during certain times of the year, which in turn lead to anomalous weather conditions: increased snow when it's cold, less rain when it's warm, lots of rain suddenly falling during shortened times of the year and leading to floods, extended heat waves leading to droughts, and so on. There are even other factors that have only been studied recently, like increased warming absorbed by oceans, which is a negative feedback but leads to undesirable effects, like algae bloom. Apparently, the earth is like a living engine driven by consistency, with the sun also moving away or closer to the earth in the same manner. Hence, the seasons plus ice ages every few hundred thousand years. And as ice cores have shown, CO2 ppm has always tracked surface temperature anomaly, and usually doesn't exceed 300. Now, it's over 400. The scientific and logical concensus is that that should lead to the phenomena we are seeing right now. The group to consider is NAS, which looks at thousands of reports across dozens of scientific groups worldwide. For those who want an independent review of that, consider Berkeley Earth, which was funded by skeptics. Their reports are linked in my earlier post. Finally, I think it is normal for the mainstream to be skeptical, as most people want business as usual. But do take note that the Department of Defense and the U.S. military, the German military, Lloyds of London, HSBC, and many other military, intelligence, and business organizations have been issuing reports to their personnel and clients, advising them for a long-term future of problems caused by a combination of climate change and a resource crunch. I provided a sample of the former, but I can offer more if I have them time to post them. For the latter, I have a very long list in light of peak oil: https://sites.google.com/view/peakoilreports/home Maybe others can chime in on that in another thread.
The point is that it's the top scientific group in the U.S. If there is one better than that, please let me know. Skeptics, including the Kochs, funded Berkeley Earth. Take a look at the report I shared earlier and let me know what you think of that.
This explains why even to this day they are trying to figure out what is a highly complex set of phenomena. It is complex, with simpler prediction models having dozens of variables and the more complex models having hundreds, many of which can't be known or measured. One needs to pull back and see the likely results of trying to solve excess CO2 emission by ending or severely limiting the burning of fossil fuels. Simply put, lots of people would die. It's inescapable. No matter how green you get you still need food. heat in the winter and some way to get from one place to another and a very limited supply of those things will be available. Our dependence on fossil fuels isn't a positive thing in the long run but we are too enmeshed in it to reduce it quickly. I acknowledge that CO2 from fossil fuels might be a factor in global warming but science fails to tell us whether that source is small or large.
I needed a good laugh, this morning. Thanks, y'all! To the OP: So, my vegetarianism/veganism, for most of my life, has kept my brain cells from functioning at their optimum? Gee, who knows what intellectual peaks I might have summited in college? Darn! As a straight "A" student, knowing that I possibly missed learning even more will haunt me, now, for the rest of my life...... not! LOL!
Water vapor is the biggest of the "greenhouse gasses", and so far they haven't advocated covering the oceans and lakes with polyethylene to reduce the amount of water in the air and make it drier to reduce the "greenhouse effect". As the planet warms, the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will increase accelerating the warming. Actually ALL atmospheric gasses contribute to the warming, although I don't think the amount of O2 and N2 are changing much. If we completely eliminated the atmosphere, it would cool the planet, though, and reduce the population, which seems to be two goals of the "Environmentalists".
If their findings contradicted the political agenda known as global warming, they would no longer be the top scientific group in the United States. Without this funding, they will not continue to be the top scientific group in the country. They are beholden to the government for their existence, so their science will go wherever it's told to go. I'll follow the money on this one. They must have said something to anger the global warmists because their website is down.
You can see the difference when retired (not dependent on government grants and funding) are interviewed on the subject.
We frequently hear the argument that "credible" scientists believe such and such. What's missing from that argument is that anyone who doesn't believe as they are told is no longer considered to be a credible scientist, and even their Wikipedia pages will be stripped.
The only thing that the NAS (and Berkeley Earth, which was funded by skeptics) can do is assume scientifically that increased complexity means more bifurcation, and with that unexpected consequences. But because the global economy is tied up heavily with fossil fuel use (most goods and services are heavily dependent on it) then not only will more oil be needed but more energy and resources will be needed because of a growing global middle class. Meanwhile, both oil and minerals are affected by diminishing returns. Thus, we face the effects of three predicaments in the long run: multiple positive feedback loops as part of climate change, limits to growth, and ecological disaster. During that run we will see black swans like pandemics, wars, and financial crashes. Global warming is not a political agenda but a scientific phenomenon that has taken place many times in the past. That's why we have ice core data showing the natural cycles of warming and ice ages across hundreds of thousands of years. The catch is that throughout all of that time, surface temperature anomaly has been tracking CO2 ppm, and the latter never exceeded 300. It's now above 400. Given that, top scientists worldwide are wondering if there is a connection between that and over 50 positive feedback loops that have been taking place the last two decades. About being funded by the government, that's normal. Even Berkeley Earth, which was funded by climate change skeptics, is funded by billionaires. Are you imagining scientific investigation that has no funding? FInally, both have the same conclusions. We need scientific studies, not interviews and opinions. If the studies are flawed and questionable, then conduct independent ones. That's what climate skeptics did by supporting Berkeley Earth, which was funded by the Kochs. The problem is that the latter ended up confirming AGW. A credible scientist is one with credentials, skills, and lots of studies, not simply someone who doesn't believe as they are told. The top scientists have concluded on this issue. A top organization funded by skeptics, Berkeley Earth, has come up with the same conclusions. The Department of Defense, HSBC, Lloyd's of London, and others have conducted their own assessment and have come up with similar, as seen in their reports to their personnel and clients. What can deniers do next? Keep looking until they find scientists who will support their views? They already tried that with Berkeley Earth. Look what happened.
Do a search on "global warming agenda" and you'll find that a whole lot of people disagree with that. By the way, I don't think anyone disagrees that global warming occurs, and has always occurred. That is what the planet does. The agenda involves all of the economic and political schemes that have attached themselves to this natural phenomenon.
CO2 concentrations have been above 400ppm before. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/climate-milestone-earths-co2-level-passes-400-ppm On May 9, 2013, an instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there had exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history. The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world. The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. However, the May 2013 reading represented something different. This time, 400 ppm was a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future. Notice the last two sentences. They represent (to me at least) a political or ideological interpretation of the data. Again, excess CO2 production is not always a positive thing but it must be remembered that CO2 is not a toxin but an essential ingredient to life on earth.
FWIW, I also searched for "climate denial machine" and got results, too. The point is that we are looking at CO2 ppm increasing by over 400. What are the possible effects given the point that global warming does take place and CO2 ppm has never exceed 300 the last 600,000 years? I already shared with you what the NAS said. What about skeptics? They funded an independent study on the same matter, Berkeley Earth, and that came up with the same points. So, what's next for skeptics? About political and economic agendas, isn't it the case that the global economy is controlled by a few for-profit corporations? https://www.newscientist.com/articl...d-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/ Aren't governments dependent on them for tax revenues and even investments? Isn't their goal maximization of profit given their corporate by-laws, and isn't profit maximized through increasing production and sales of all goods and services? And doesn't that increasing economic activity require increasing use of energy and material resources, from which we have more pollution and increased CO2 ppm? So, why is the claim that the NAS cannot be relied upon because it is funded by government even sensible when even government itself is funded by the rich that wants more economic activity? Yes, three million years ago. Now, jump to the end of the article. Is that what industrial civilization should expect?