Of course the alarmists folks will denounce this as they did the last one, and there are bound to be a few unscrupulous types, such M.J. Murphy of Toronto who blogs as Big City Lib, who by his own admission, made false statements to get “weaseled onto the list” (his words). There are others who will do their best to crash the list so they can claim it is a sham, but there is one name on this list worth noting:
Freeman Dyson is one of the world’s most eminent physicists. You can read an essay about his views on climate change, posted here on WUWT a on 11/05/2007.
You can read all about the Oregon Petition Project here at the Financial Post.
I did not sign on to the Oregon list, but rather chose to add my name to the Manhattan Declaration this spring. I also signed the very first petition of this type, back in 1997 called the Leipzig Declaration.
If you want to add your name to the either the Manhattan Declaration or the OISM petition, you can still do so. Here are the links:
Manhattan Declaration via an an interactive PDF of the declaration, which includes a form ready for completing and submitting.
Oregon Petition Project via a mail in PDF form.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM and alarmist bloggers spin this one. I’m sure they’ll do their best to minimize it as being “irrelevant”. I believe at some point though, there will be recognition.
Nature of course will be the final arbiter of truth, such as what we see here in global temperatures from satellite and surface since 2002.
Graph from Joe D’Aleo at ICECAP – click for larger image
UPDATE: 5/21/08
Honor system abuser, BigCityLib, aka Michael J. Murphy of Toronto reports that he in fact did NOT make the list. By his own admission he lied about his background and falsified documents to try to have his name added, but apparently the petition screening process found his deception and denied his application. But he says he’ll keep trying and encourages others to lie and falsify documents such as he has.
On an unrelated note, I orginally had 32,000 in the title because that is how the original email sent to me (third party, not OISM) had it. Upon further inspection I note the number is closer to 31,000 so I’ve edited the title to reflect that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I signed the Oregon Petition. It doesn’t take a specialist in “Climate Science” to see that the ipcc, enc., is not operating scientifically.
So the only “certainty” you would accept is the “certainty” that nothing needs to be done now?!
At this point, I would not be willing to take any steps that harmed the economy in any significant way. If better evidence for AGW makes its appearance that would change things. But all the recent satellite, buoy, and observational evidence has, so far, been pointing in the opposite direction.
so next tell me, that methane has no effect on global temperatures. that methane release from melting permafrost in the arctic areas will not cause problems and will not feed a positive feedback loop to release even more methane locked in the air. tell me that rising ocean temps, will not effect the methane hydrate locked deep in ocean, that is locked in place by a delicate balance of both pressure & temperature.
Methane is 0.4% of overall greenhouse effect, 7.1% if one excludes water vapor. Of the “Big Four” greenhouse gasses, CH4 has the least effect.
Furthermore, methane increase, unlike that of CO2, has stabilized over the last decade and there has been almost no increase. So the evidence completely contradicts fears of a positive feedback CH4 loop.
Methyl hydrate is down “where the sun never shines”. Ocean temperatures are unaffected at those depths regardless of the warm/cool phases of the upper layers.
Besides, the upper oceans are cooling after a long “warm run” from PDO, AMO, NOA, and AA simultaneous warm phases.
So I think your methane fears are hugely exaggerated.
tell me great swaths of forests are not dying because as the areas have milder winters and drier summers, cambium eating beetles face less and less defenses mounted from the the tree’s inability to produce sap is not occurring because of Global Warming or Global Climate change.
I don’t know much about forestation (except that in the US there are around a third more trees than a hundred years ago). I take it you are referring to northern conifers? There is no question that even as the world cools, there are some areas, particularly in the northern hemisphere, that have been warming, and that any change at all has effects on trees and their denizens. But this is not necessarily an unnatural event.
Tell me there is not renewed excitement of the mythical NW Passage becoming open year round, decreasing trans-global shipping distances.
It isn’t. It opened up briefly last year, but has frozen shut since. It is also quite possible that this occurred in the 1930’s, but, as we had no satellites, it went unobserved.
Tell me, China’s 1 a week opening of a new coal fired power plant will do nothing to the Earth’s atmospheric balance.
There is a “brown cloud” over southeastern Asia as China and India develop. It will continue for a couple of decades. At that point, they will have achieved western-style affluence and they will clean up their air, water, etc., same as the west did, and for the same reasons. Don’t expect this to happen until they achieve a level when poverty is less deadly than the rate of pollution.
The main climate effect may be “dirty snow”, which NASA has said has contributed up to 25% to the rise in temperatures since 1980. That is much easier and cheaper to clean up than it is to eliminate CO2.
Regardless, in a couple of decades, China will be far more affluent and will either burn coal clean or even wean itself off coal. The “1-a-week” situation is a mere blip, not a permanent state of affairs.
But unless they do what they are doing, they will never achieve that affluence and will never clean up their environment.
You are thinking linearly. You need to think like a demographer. Linearity simply does not apply here.
Tell me, increased CO2 in the air is not being absorbed by sea water in higher levels, resulting in higher levels of carbonic acid the result of CO2 merging with H2O, that is having a drastic impact on most “hard shelled” oceanic life’s ability to make its protective layer.
Considering the Ocean contains c. 38,000 Bil. Metric Tons Carbon and the Atmosphere contains c. 750 BMTC and that the oceans have only been absorbing only around 2 BMTC per year from industry, it would seem contrary to the evidence to draw such a connection. There has been a very slight decline (hardly measurable) in terms of Ph. It should also be noted that carbonic acid is one of the most mild known acids.
The oceans when corals evolved were much more acidic (less basic?) than today, and have seen greater fluctuations in the past than the present. I don’t think the shellfish are heading for extinction. (At least the price of clams is holding steady.)
Tell me, the increasing influx of more dense fresh water coming off the ice caps, ice sheets & ocean contacting glaciers will not have any impact on the global thermohaline currents.
Of course it will. And does. And always has. That’s what causes the great multidecadal oscillations (the AMO and PDO) that are probably the main immediate drivers of world climate. And yes, every time the currents flip from cold to warm and vice-versa, there is “impact”.
Tell me again, waste barrels of 100,000 year half-life radioactive waste dumped at sea decades ago is safe now b/c “dilution is the solution to the polution”. Tell me again, all the nuclear waste at locations like Hanford, that has already breached the underground containment tanks and has entered the groundwater and into the Columbia River is safe?
I am all in favor of proper disposal (and recycling when possible) of nuclear waste. All in all, the cost of cleaning up properly after nukes (and the waste can often be recycled into new fuel), is minuscule compared with the costs of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Many greens have come to favor nuclear power, for obvious reasons. And, of course, France does a fine job of it.
It is cutting CO2 that I object to, not other (much cheaper and more effective) forms of cleanup.
Yes please tell me you do not have enough “certainty,” oh I mean 100% certainty that these will not cause any effects whatsoever because no less than 1 trillion different scenarios have been played out to prove that there is any concern to be had.
Considering recent climate trends and considering the compelling evidence from the Aqua Satellite that CO2 positive feedback is not occurring, and considering the trend in ocean temperatures, I will repeat and aver that we do not have anywhere near enough certainty to adopt measures that will result inevitably in mass death, shortened life expectancy, and continuing misery for over a third of the world’s population.
Enough evidence may appear at any time. but until it does, I see no justification in taking action that will be 100% sure to result in huge numbers of deaths through a perpetuation of poverty in the developing world.
Once you can answer that there is no concern for any of the above, let alone all of them in unison, then I will not consider you an arrogant man only concerned about yourself and your short remaining years on this planet and putting enough money into your pocket so you can do whatever you want with no concern whatsoever for you actions.
There is always concern. And studies should continue. But it is equally thoughtless to take action without concern for the inevitable results of such action.
You do not care about your children and you children’s children, you are self absorbed and arrogant. I don’t need your acronyms to prove some point you have yet to prove, to know you carry water for some ulterior motive and that motive usually if not always leads back to money, money in your pocket, screw the rest of the world and your children!
You presume a great deal. And you should check out some of them there acronyms.
As for “money in my pocket” I live in a slum and make do on well under a thousand dollars a month. I have no car, no savings, and and my “carbon footprint” is, on the whole, negligible. My computer is the better part of a decade old, and my great luxury is slow-speed internet. (I can’t afford fast food.)
Yet I immensely enjoy life and hope to improve my circumstances. And I certainly am not lamebrain-idiotic-stupid enough to buy the immoral, envious fantasy my lot will in ANY way be improved if the “gap between rich and poor” narrows! (c.f. the Great Depression or any other “bad times” in history.)
When the third and fourth world are as well off as I am, we can talk. But until then, we really don’t have much to say to each other.
enjoy your life, f*** the rest right?!
My field is history. My ulterior motive is that I want the poorer nations of the world to shed the age-old miseries that have afflicted them throughout. I want the developed nations to achieve inconceivable wealth and power and to see that help pull up the rest of the world by its bootstraps.
This, for the first time in all of history, is finally within our grasp. Open your eyes, man!
And I think that if we fail do this, the environment will be far, far worse off than if we succeed.
Speaking of the devastation of great swaths of trees, Europe was one big forest, once. But not after medieval farming was through with it. On the whole, only modern man and modern means will protect that which we ALL want to see protected. And it IS all about future generations, though you fail to credit our side of the ledger on this.
av, JP: Good, good.
One reason why this petition is great. In a snarky way. Is that Arthur Robinson fits two of the AGW denier archetypes. He is both a creationist (who really hate GW) and an anti-socalist crusader in the Robert Jastrow mold. Free market fundamentalists hate, hate, hate the idea of government intervention in anything. The other originator was a former chief medical scientist for Big Tobacco. He sought to reassure us that the whole cancer-smoking link was just unsubstatiated nonsense!
Robinson will also sell you a range of conservative christian home-schooling kits and provided material to survive a wide range of nuclear attack scenarios.
Hans, you seem to have your [snip] AGW propaganda down pat. Congratulations, but, you might want to try some actual science instead. You could start here: Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?.
But, be forewarned: science (as opposed to your AGW psuedoscientific drivel) is addictive.
you were saying something, trying to prove your point based on big numbers and fancy acronyms? this isn’t worth discussing further as your whole argument is based on the earth cooling, how you come to this with your fancy satellite images alone is beside me. the us has the above mentioned more trees in the urban areas, but not overall. if as you concede, as the world cools, some areas of the north, basically all the northern latitudes heat, all that methane trapped in the frozen permafrost that is melting is being released. the methane trapped as methane hydrate is for unknown reasons is being released off the coast of africa on regular occasions, so don’t tell me methane is being “absorbed & locked into place” when it is not the case. as to your ascertations about CO2 absorption capacity of the oceans you are not accurate or correct and the higher concentration are leading to higher carbonic acid levels & thus higher acidity levels which marginalizes the ability of hardshelled aquatic life to utilize calcium correctly to build their shells, same with corals. is article is out today, here in oregon where it is starting to have an effect on economies and the abilities to produce foodstuffs. so now what do you say to that, it is an acceptable loss of economic value?
“brown snow” is acceptible and can be cleaned up 20 years later? sure thing, minus the reality that those particulates are traveling all the way over to Oregon and causing us increased rains during the winter season and floods have been devastating around here lately. but floods never cost any money according to you, right?
get out of your geek mood and open your eyes. i love how you quote your numbers and acronyms with such exactness and certainty in disproving all these things you are claiming are wrong, yet everyone else’s research is garbage and not certain enough. isn’t that a little hypocritical?
although you make it look like an intellectual conversation, its the same stupid discussion as one with a biblethumber that says marriage is an institution as old as the earth itself and as such can be used to deny rights to all people. so keep living your lie behind your numbers, keep fascinating people with your fancy letters, sat picts and exactly mega & mini numbers to make it look like you know what you are talking about. idiots will always lap them up, trying to be in with the cool kids, and right now it is cool to deny their is a problem with the balance between man’s impact on the earth and the earth’s ability to deal with it.
but good luck to you, there are always lemmings that follow blindly, or here more likely rats to follow the piper.
hmmmm_maybe on Art Robinson:
“Educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California at San Diego, UCSD, Dr. Robinson served as a faculty member of UCSD until co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973. Beginning with their initial work together on general anesthesia and the structure of water at Caltech in 1961, Pauling and Robinson carried out published research on a wide variety of topics from nuclear physics to nutrition until 1978. They ceased work together in 1978 because of a disagreement between them on the effects of ascorbic acid on the growth rate of cancer in mice.”
So, it would have been beyond snarky had he been schooled at Iowa and gone on to teach at Columbia, provided he had avoided religious expression?
I am overcome with a felt-need to shower.
I can guarantee like everything else in the world that only time will tell. Strangely that is the one thing the AGW crowd does not want. To take the time to not only make sure that either stance, warming or cooling, is accurate. They want immediate buy-in, now, no questioning, the science is settled. I have known people like this all my life. They are commonly referred to as “used car salesmen”.
Scott puts it very well.
although you make it look like an intellectual conversation,
What other kind of conversation would it be?
its the same stupid discussion as one with a biblethumber that says marriage is an institution as old as the earth itself and as such can be used to deny rights to all people.
Seeing as how I am a liberal atheist, this seems somewhat moot.
My trouble with your neo-religion is that
a.) evidence (so far) indicates it very probably ain’t so, and
b.) the proper practice thereof would appear to require far too much human sacrifice to suit my particular tastes.
YMMV.
and right now it is cool to deny their is a problem with the balance between man’s impact on the earth and the earth’s ability to deal with it.
Would that it were!
But fear not. We’re working on it!
P.S., Yes, I find numbers and fancy acronyms to be most efficacious.
All I know is that if my children were about to board an aeroplane, and the chief engineer of the plane said there was a 90% chance it would crash, I would not let my kids get on it.
How about you?
REPLY: Your analogy does not apply here. Global Climate Models are not airplane pilots, though many think they are “climate pilots”, which is the crux of the failure of the MSM in understanding it and promoting the results, which lead to flawed analogies like yours.
Besides, if the airplane is the earth in your oft-repeated analogy, we are already on board.
What if the engineer said EVERY flight had a 90% chance of crashing based on his computer flight model? And kept on saying it regardless of having been wrong 100% of the time? And even though a huge bunch of engineers disagreed with him, he insisted there was an almost complete consensus.
And what if that flight is the last chopper taking off from the embassy roof in Saigon and the chances of survival aren’t so hot if they stayed behind?
We live in a world where nothing is 100% certain–EXCEPT that for every $billion diverted (or worse, never created), babies starve. That is 100% certain: Look at the failed experiment of ethanol,which has tripled the price of grain in much of the third and fourth world. And added more carbon to the atmosphere. And directly resulted in deforestation.
Even in a climate sense, over four times as many die from cold every year than from heat. And it’s been getting colder for a decade. Tell that to your self-appointed chief engineer.
The analogy is even more invalid than that. Airplanes are human-engineered objects. Earth’s climate is not. Engineers know every piece of that airplane intimately, and even then they can’t predict failure with anything like 100% certainly. The climate is something we know precious little about. Anyone who says they know what will happen even a week from now is seriously deluded.
Ya, the analogy that applies to the “Global Warming Skeptics” would be as follows.
The furniture store with the sign that says “going out of business, everything half off.” The only thing being, the signs have been up for two years and they changed the price tags to 2x the normal cost before they marked them down by half. i regular old shell game, without a bean under any of them.
and yes the airplane analogy works. what is your bank account at now again. Big Oil & Energy must be paying you millions, as their is no value in you propagating lies like this for no reason? Either that or your a lunatic “creationist.”
Please stop the “world is cooling” lies as they are not accurate. Have you explained all the tornadoes this year that are significantly above combined averages for past years? It must be the cool air coming off the cooling gulf coast waters mixing with the hot air you acknowledge may be happening in the northern latitudes? yeah right.
don’t bother justifing your position with all intellectually trumped up language and acronyms as they are easy to see one is trying to lend cretibility to their statements of fact, when in reality it is nothing more than deception of the the truth. Your statements of fact reads just like the fine print of credit cards, and we all know the deception behind them.
[…] 31,000 more deniers in the pay of the evil oil companies. […]
Hans (16:37:45) :
“Have you explained all the tornadoes this year that are significantly above combined averages for past years? It must be the cool air coming off the cooling gulf coast waters mixing with the hot air you acknowledge may be happening in the northern latitudes? yeah right.”
Uh, no. Perhaps less warm Gulf air and colder still northern air combined with air moving in different directions as you climb through the atmosphere. I don’t live in tornado alley, so I’m not as up on things as I could be. La Nina and the cold PDO certainly have an effect. The “Super Outbreak” in 1974 occurred during the last cold PDO so we may have several years of greater than average tornado activity in and area with greater population than 30 years ago.
“don’t bother justifing your position with all intellectually trumped up language and acronyms as they are easy to see one is trying to lend cretibility to their statements of fact”
Sorry.
PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation, flips every 30 years or so, we’ve recently entered a cool phase. Sort of like La Nina, a shorter period of cooling in parts of the Pacific.
justifing – alternate spelling for justifying.
cretibility – whether or not one has a chance of having Web cret.
Actually that’s an excellent analogy for the warmers. We’ve been undergoing catastrophic warming (supposedly) for 30 years, yet nothing has really changed climate-wise since the 30s.
Lol, one year of a few extra tornadoes means we’re all doomed?? What about the super tornadoes of the 70s?
Aren’t you feeling a bit lonely, where are all your friends, Hans?
Not at all, as I feel surrounded by stupid people, engaging in rational ignorance within this discussion here.
Wikipedia says,
Wikipedia say,
Carry on oh stupid people, there is no reason for me to comment further.
REPLY: Thank you for showing your true colors.
Have you explained all the tornadoes this year that are significantly above combined averages for past years?
You didn’t ask. Increased tornado activity is a typical result of La Nina events.
(You should check out the wiki entry on “ad hominem” and its place in rational debate while you’re at it.)
Big Oil & Energy must be paying you millions, as their is no value in you propagating lies like this for no reason?
Any time Big Oil wants a good shill, I’m for hire!
YOO-HOO! (Taking off jacket and waving it about by way of frantic signaling.)
Either that or your a lunatic “creationist.”
In my case, only half correct. (I’m a liberal atheist.)
Hans, your AGW religion is all a lie, and you’ve bought into it so totally that you no longer know the difference. Then you get all upset and call people names when they don’t go along with your religion. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. Do yourself a favor, read some actual science for a change instead of your idiotic pseudoscientific AGW horsehockey.
and your arrogance to believe you, me & 6 billion other people have no effect on this planet is completely absurd.
a balance was reached millions of years ago between carbon dioxide & O2 in the atmosphere (CO2) & the oceans (carbonic acid). Excessive free carbon (CO2, Carbonic Acid) moved into the inert state by being locked up in living matter, that then became locking within the Earth in the form of Oil, NG, Methane Hydrate & Coal. This occurred over millions & billions of years, so that the balance was established naturally between CO2 levels in the atmosphere & oceans.
then humans come around and in all their ingenuity begin releasing all this inert Carbon into the atmosphere, increasing its concentrations, thus throwing off the balance of carbonic acid in the oceans.
Say modestly we have unlocked 40% of the carbon in NG and Oil so far given peak oil has most likely been reached, therefore releasing 40% of millions of years of locked carbon into the atmosphere and oceans not to mention how much Coal we have burnt and hence released this carbon into the atmosphere and oceans.
We are tinkering with a planetary-stasis that was achieved over billions of years, and you try to label me as delusional for understanding this will have an effect on the planet, THAT WE HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE PLANET, and that I should believe the lies you are spewing that releasing 40% at minimum of the planets locked-inert carbon into the atmosphere and oceans will have no effect whatsoever?!
Cherry pick all your science you want, stop having kids and breeding more arrogance and ignorance, stop being so [snip] self centered.
this argument that la nina is to blame and causing the “cooling” and that it is a 30 year up-swelling of the ocean depths is one of but many factors going on now. the same concept is what is being theorized is the cause in the spike of ocean acidity that is turning up on the west coast USA. the same water that is coming up now, was as you are arguing with your 3o year cycle, the same water that was near the surface and absorbed all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere back then.
The problem being, if CO2 levels were down, it would release into the atmosphere to maintain balance again, and the buffering effect of the oceans is far greater than that of the air, so if this is true, that the oceans have been buffering the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere from years of us burning coal, oil, gas, wood, etc., then we are [snipped] b/c even if we cut down the amount of CO2 we spew out now, we have 100 years of our production saved up in the bank (ocean) ready to be withdrawn when we do lower our emissions.
yet you are content to carry on as is, maintain the status quo b/c of your own arrogance and claim some cherry picked info disproves everything?! you are a [snipped] lunatic, if this is what you believe.
I elaborated on my comment above and gave it a whole page “ignorance vs stupidity” on my site in your{s} honor. this discussion is a waste of my time. why not just try to “prove” gravity doesn’t exist while you at it. then at least could look forward to flying on your own. what the [snip] you gain out of your bullshit lies and disingenuous “proofs” is beyond me?
REPLY: From your last post – I thought you didn’t need to “comment further”? The real question then is: if your position is so strong then why do you feel compelled to use the f-word four times in one post and denigrate others? If this is the true face of current liberal thinking (which seems well represented on your website) then it is sad that the hateful and denigrating views toward others you’ve demonstrated is becoming prevalent in the eco movement. The bottom line is that CO2 has not been tracking with temperature for the last 8 years, which brings AGW theory into question. If your complaint is that we should not question that at all then your comments have no place here.
and your arrogance to believe you, me & 6 billion other people have no effect on this planet is completely absurd.
We have a considerable effect on the planet. But probably only a rather mild effect on temperatures.
then humans come around and in all their ingenuity begin releasing all this inert Carbon into the atmosphere, increasing its concentrations, thus throwing off the balance of carbonic acid in the oceans.
The ocean stashes about 38,000 Billion Metric Tons of Carbon. The annual increase of carbon is 2 BMTC.
CO2 increase did not become substantial until mid-century. The IPCC puts in as the 1950s. But I cannot believe it was that late; surely Wold War II with 100 cities partially or near-completely destroyed by incendiaries plus full war productions must have been the kickoff. (I don’t care what the Antarctic ice cores say.)
So call it 60 years. Less than a third of industrial output (c. 6.5 BMTC annually) winds up in the oceans. Take the increasing scale into account and we’ve got around 100 BMTC added to the oceans since 1940. That is a minuscule percentage increase. So your claims of “throwing off the balance” simply would not seem to to add up.
We are tinkering with a planetary-stasis that was achieved over billions of years, and you try to label me as delusional for understanding this will have an effect on the planet, THAT WE HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE PLANET, and that I should believe the lies you are spewing that releasing 40% at minimum of the planets locked-inert carbon into the atmosphere and oceans will have no effect whatsoever?!
Actually, I think is has a mild effect. On the atmosphere, but not the ocean. (The IPCC’s alarming claims of a massive vapor-driven positive feedback, however, are simply not so. Q.E.D.)
First, you misspoke. You mean that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 35% (not 40) from predindustrial times. Not that we have released 40% of the earth’s carbon.
As for billions of years, we did not have much of an atmosphere at all until around a billion years ago and not enough to get the Paleozoic Era online until around 600mya. At that time, the earth’s atmosphere was around 7000 ppmv compared with today’s 385 ppmv. Carbon decreaesed to around today’s levels towards the end of the Paleozoic. But then there was a massive increase and CO2 went back up to c. 3000 ppmv until near the end of the Cretaceous Period. Then it declined fairly steadily back to today’s levels.
The entire time, the temperatures were bouncing up and down between 12ºC and 22ºC. Twice when there was a big temperature drop, it coincided with a big CO2 decrease. And twice a big temperature drop has coincided with a mild (several hundred ppmv) CO2 increase.
So your implication that the planet found it’s stasis and remained thus until human put its pedicured foot forward simply is not the case.
this argument that la nina is to blame and causing the “cooling” and that it is a 30 year up-swelling of the ocean depths is one of but many factors going on now.
To clarify, a la Nina (or el Nino) is a 6-18 month phenomenon. The PDO is a thrity year half cycle which, when running cool, favors La Ninas and while warm favors el Ninos.
The PDO has flipped cool. The other 3 big multidecadal cycles are still running warm. But not for long. For ten years, ALL FOUR were running on warm, CO2 rose by 4% and it still cooled. What does your common sense say will happen when the other tree cycles flip cool?
All this is leaving out the dangerously quiet sun. If THAT goes cold, we’re breezing for a freezing. Let’s all hope that doesn’t happen.
even if we cut down the amount of CO2 we spew out now, we have 100 years of our production saved up in the bank (ocean) ready to be withdrawn when we do lower our emissions.
But CO2 has only a 50-to-100 year persistence. So it won’t just continue to build up without an increasing “fallout” factor.
yet you are content to carry on as is, maintain the status quo b/c of your own arrogance and claim some cherry picked info disproves everything?! you are a [snipped] lunatic, if this is what you believe.
CO2 positive feedback theory has to be correct for runaway warming. But it’s not working out that way.
Furthermore, the current situation will not be permanent. In 30 years an affluent India and China will be doing a vast cleanup all on their own, without anyone forcing them to do so. And we may well either have solved the CO2 issue either directly or indirectly.
Human history his changing faster than ever before. Why do you assume the current situation is linear? It’s not. Your panic and pessimism is uncalled for.
I am not saying you are either stupid or ignorant. But it seems to me you have a few facts critically wrong.
Hans, your AGW religion is all a lie
I don’t consider it to be a lie. I consider it to be e severe error.