Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study suggests that most greens believe that by virtue of their support for environmental issues they earn the right to ignore their personal responsibilities.
ON CLIMATE CHANGE, A DISCONNECT BETWEEN ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR
A new study finds climate change skeptics are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways than those who are highly concerned about the issue.
TOM JACOBSAN
…
Participants in a year-long study who doubted the scientific consensus on the issue “opposed policy solutions,” but at the same time, they “were most likely to report engaging in individual-level, pro-environmental behaviors,” writes a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Michael Hall.
Conversely, those who expressed the greatest belief in, and concern about, the warming environment “were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions.”
…
Hall and his colleagues can only speculate about the reasons for their results. But regarding the concerned but inactive, the psychological phenomenon known as moral licensing is a likely culprit.
Previous research has found doing something altruistic—even buying organic foods—gives us license to engage in selfish activity. We’ve “earned” points in our own mind. So if you’ve pledged some money to Greenpeace, you feel entitled to enjoying the convenience of a plastic bag.
Regarding climate change skeptics, remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts. So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis.
…
Read more: https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable
The abstract of the study;
Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study
Michael P.Hall, Neil A.Lewis Jr., Phoebe C. Ellsworth
We conducted a one-year longitudinal study in which 600 American adults regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures. Using latent class analyses, we uncovered three clusters of Americans with distinct climate belief trajectories: (1) the “Skeptical,” who believed least in climate change; (2) the “Cautiously Worried,” who had moderate beliefs in climate change; and (3) the “Highly Concerned,” who had the strongest beliefs and concern about climate change. Cluster membership predicted different outcomes: the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488
Academics competing to see who can log the most air miles, Jetset hypocrites calling for “deniers” to be banned from public office, large climate conferences full of frequent fliers; the brazen climate hypocrisy of leading greens is nothing new to regular readers of WUWT.
But this study goes a step further – it is not just the leaders who are complete hypocrites. The leaders of the green movement are not duping followers with their hypocrisy, they are an expression of the top to bottom hypocrisy of their entire movement. The most vocal climate supporters are actually the people who care least about the planet – all those noisy expressions of concern are camouflage to conceal the fact they are deeply selfish people who can’t be bothered to make a personal effort to improve the world they claim to love.
I pick up trash outside my house – because I like having a nice house, I like living on a nice street. I don’t think it is someone elses job to make my little corner of the world a better place. If I thought CO2 was a problem I would make a personal effort to reduce my carbon footprint.
Perhaps that sense of personal ownership, of responsibility for one’s actions, is what is missing from the green movement – a point made by the authors of the study.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its a bit like putting money in the bank. Sort of like a ledger. I have done x amount of good deeds, so I can draw on that when I don’t feel like being virtuous. We humans do it all the time! We trade on our good deeds, for our indulgences! You all know it well. ” I have eaten very well all week, so now I can splurge on some takeaway/chocolate/alcohol etc.”
In the case of these so called environmentalists, in their minds, they have done something which is for the ‘greater good of the planet’, that is a huge deposit in the ‘moral’ bank! So, if they do something not so virtuous along the way, well, that is just drawing on their deposit, sort of like the cost of earning a living.
Certainly doesn’t make it right though.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and two rights won’t forgive a wrong.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do.
Kind of like thinking that since I support toilets and inside plumbing I have the right to crap on the sidewalk eh?
or defecate on school grounds:
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/weird/NJ-Superintendent-Accused-of-Pooping-on-High-School-Track-481659861.html
Me thinks the name Suzuki comes immediately to mind. Closely followed by DiCaprio
Not the best image for the story. The mess was left after a well attended pot smoking session. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/04/21/420-marijuana-smokeout-trash-golden-gate-park-hippie-hill/
Was that the one where they mistakenly called in an exterminator because one of the worker reported “there were roaches everywhere”?
=)
I recently came across this review by the late Scott Nixon, a real scholar on coastal marine ecology. I never met him, but have read and studied a lot of his work and knew a number of older marsh ecologists. In one of his last works, he called the crisis over eutrophication, actually only a problem when hypertrophication occurred, a case of the ‘”demonization” of nitrogen.
Nixon, S. W. 1979 . Between coastal marshes and coastal waters–a review of twenty years of speculation and research on the role of salt marshes in estuarine productivity and water chemistry. pp. 437-511, in, P. Hamilton and K. B. McDonald (Eds.) Estuaries and wetland processes with emphasis on modeling. Plenum, NY.
At the end—
“In a number of these discussions, a common sentiment was expressed that it was the responsibility for the ecological community to help in the “battle” to preserve the marshes. The early efforts in this direction helped to gain time while environmental awareness developed among the public and the regulatory agencies. The momentum of the developers was so great that an atmosphere of certainty and consensus was necessary for the ecologist to be heard. The essence of the argument is that, “Yes perhaps we overstated the case a bit but it was important to help save the marshes. Now that is done, or at least well along, and we can go back and work on getting our science right.”” Almost four decades ago, sound familiar?
The next paragraph explains why he did not agree. Basically credibility, the loss of the integrity of communication of the scientific literature, youth and uncertainty of the science. This agrees with my experience, and may have been as big a problem as the developers.
Greens see environmental issues as a tool to get people to accept socialist government.
Wise up. Greens don’t care about the environment. They talk about it because YOU do. They use your beliefs against you.
indeed, under their green exterior they’re really red inside. true watermelons
I don’t believe that studies relying on self-reported behavior are reliable. It is a fact that Al Gore’s or Leonardo DiCaprio’s slogan is Do as I say, not as I do, but a chance of finding 600 individuals of that caliber is rather small.
“Regarding climate change skeptics, remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts. So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis.”
While I applaud Psychologist Michael Hall admitting that green activists aren’t actually concerned about the litter they leave behind, I do not think he understands “climate change skeptics” at all.
No skeptics I know of deny that the climate changes. We just don’t think CO2 emitted by humans is ruining the climate (or the weather).
No skeptic I know off is merely “asserting disbelief”, we really do not believe greens are telling the truth.
No skeptics I know of are motivated to not pollute by “pride”. We want clean water and air (and park lawns) for their own sake.
While I agree that skeptic view the actions of governments to limit climate change are coercive, I do not understand how Hall doesn’t view them that way.
SR
Last para. should be …”skeptics view the actions of governments to limit climate change as”…
SR
His findings are scandalous enough. If he actually asserted your assertion, he might be burned for witchcraft.
Patrick, you lost me. What did I assert he asserted? I used quotes to report his assertions.
All my assertions only pertained to myself and skeptics like myself.
SR
I’m triggered. Where’s my subsidised safe-space.
I have seen something similar in avowed pacifists who are remarkably aggressive in arguments. They think their pacifism gives them a license.
Like a bully who passive-aggressively goads his mark into lashing out at him, so that the tormentee is the one who gets in trouble.
This isn’t something new. It was going on back in the 1970s, when Earth Day started. They always left messes behind for “others” to clean up. The messes were usually burnable trash, or plastics that could be recycled into playground stuff, but the mess was inexcusable because there were ALWAYS trash bins available. Did the ecohippies use those trash bins? No. The rest of us did, and got into fights with the ecohippies about how THEY should follow their own advice.
Well, it’s as George Carlin said: they don’t really care about the planet. Not in the abstract, they don’t. They only care about having their own habitat. A “clean” place. They’re worried that some day, they might be personally inconvenienced.
I think it’s about cotton pickin’ time they were dreadfully inconvenienced, don’t you?
NIMBY : WUY
Not In My Back Yard : We’ll Use Yours
Just look at the difference between such events as rallies held by Tea Party activists and conservative organizations (many of whom I believe are also AGW skeptics) and Greens. The aftermath of the TP/cons rallies shows nary a piece of trash anywhere while the rally aftermath of the Greens/Progressives/etc are trash strewn and filthy. I guess it shows who is really interested in keeping the planet clean…and it ain’t those screaming the loudest about it.
At last, the science behind mediaeval indulgences*
*
I ride a bicycle most everywhere, use the light rail, and staycation regularly. My brother sneers at my “denial of science” when he isn’t flying his three kids and wife to the Bahamas or boating and water skiing or driving 9 miles to work in a giant suv. I love he fertilizers the planet so well and my choices are ascetic rather than to save the planet. But he make me puke in my mouth when I have to be around him.
“I ride a bicycle most everywhere, use the light rail, and staycation regularly.”
You and me both, brother. I haven’t owned a car for many many years. I delight at the thought of the god-knows-how-many thousands of miles I’ve put on my bike, out in the fresh air, getting exercise, saving money, and NOT rotting in traffic. Best decision I ever made.
Keep on pedaling!!!
I’d ride a bicycle, but it’s 10 miles to anywhere. Then another 5 or more to somewhere.
I’d ride a bicycle, if I could actually do more than 500 yards without having to take pills
I get you – for me, it’s a mile to get to the road to take me anywhere.
When you see a complete mess left behind by the virtue signalling ‘environMentalists’, you can be sure of one hard reality: The really don’t give a shit about the environment.
Perhaps it is as simple as they are just filthy pigs.
Filthy pigs. Huh
You know, I really want to understand where others are coming from, and why they think as they do. I figure it’s all part of being able to cooperate as a nation rather than simply fight for the sake of fighting. Then I come across comments like this, and I think, What has happened to us? Can we ever be a united nation? Will hatred keep getting worse? What could come of it but violence?
I don’t consider myself an environmentalist, but I suppose you would. I wish you didn’t feel about people like me as you do. Speaking for myself, it’s not mutual.
Kristi, don’t seize on the one name-calling troll to conclude that civility is dead.
Kristi,
For 50 years I have witnessed environMental protests leave huge messes in their wake. In some cases, messes that I personally helped cleaned up. Filthy pigs, huh? You damn right! And an unfair insult to the pigs, at that! Did you see the putrid sty of human waste, debris, burning piles of rubbish, and even abandoned animals the Dakota Pipeline ‘protestors’ left behind? And their stated raison d’etre for protesting was the local river water might, maybe, could be, someday contaminated by a pipeline ‘oil spill’….. Do you see any irrational behavior in that? Does it stir even a faint hint of cognitive dissonance in you? Did you applaud the Dakota Pipeline protesters ‘stand against fossil fuels’?
As for your concern about ‘potential’ violence, Oh Kristi, we are waaaayyy past that! I have a 55 year old friend who had to take his wife to the emergency room at 11pm two weeks ago. As they were returning home at 1:30am, the rear window of their old Suburban was shattered by bullets striking it. Some of the peaceful local democrat gang bangers didn’t like their Trump bumper sticker, it seems. Imagine that: You are shot at because you simply have a President Trump bumper sticker on your vehicle, as you are bringing your wife back from the emergency room….. Do you see any violent irrational behavior there? Any? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
“What happened to us?” you ask? Bloody hell, open your eyes! We are way past the pizza and jug wine let’s-talk-this-out/group hug(!) session in the dorm rooms you seem to exude!
You want to understand? I want to understand why people cannot simply clean up. I have been around a long time and throughout those long years have come across so many people who just don’t care. They are lazy, filthy people. The kind that don’t wash their hands after going to the bathroom, the kind that won’t lift a finger to clean something, the kind that leave all their trash and residue for others to deal with. It is not a political ideology, it is not an environmental ideology or any other ideology. It is simply that they are just filthy people. And I apologize to the pigs.
Ms. Silber, try to figure it out. This is a comment I made at JoNova, which earned me the labels of “bully” and “boring” from one Craig Thomas, after I related an actual incident:
A young lady and I were engaged in mostly pleasant conversation, then (for reasons I do not recall) she made some comment that boiled down to, ‘ … and we’re destroying the planet … ‘ (the “we” being human personages of various ilks).
My thought process was this: if you truly believe that, then you won’t engage in any activity that contributes to said ‘destruction’. At this point, I started asking questions:
“Do you have a cell phone? Where did it come from?” [sidebar: I do not now, nor have I ever had a cell phone; I do not have a tablet-thingy, laptop, or anything like that; my home has a landline, and that is mostly used by solicitors to get me to donate money to their ‘worthy cause’.] Blank stare.
“Where does your food come from?” She looks at me blankly. Silently.
“How did you get here, today?” Silence.
“Why is this building [comfortable] right now? {We were in the middle of winter, and the building was warm} “Did you notice that there’s lights inside here, providing illumination? Where did those lights come from?”
More deer-in-the-headlights from the young lady.
“Have you ever needed medical care for something? Where did that equipment come from? How did you get to the medical facility? Were you prescribed some medication? Where did that come from?”
At this point, she is attempting to make a hasty exit. The discomfort in her expression, body language, demeanor … all pointed to her understanding that she’s the chief hypocrite in this; yes, these brain-washed snowflakes cannot withstand being confronted with it. Cognitive dissonance; even if they are aware of it, they’re certain that something does not apply to them.
As she departed, silently, I continued to ask about various modern conveniences, which most Westerners take for granted. Just a few days later, we passed each other, at which time she refused to even make eye contact with me.
And my questions are unanswered.
To finish an already overly-long (and boring … … and let’s not forget bullying … … ) narrative, our community has numerous recycling depots around town, so each week, I DRIVE (in my gas-guzzler) our plastics, cardboard, glass, … etc to a depot, where, a couple of times each week, the bins are emptied, and presumably taken to a processing facility (it’s really funny, but there is more energy used in transporting the ‘recycled’ items; then ‘reprocessing’ them; transporting the ‘recycled’ elements to locations they can be used … … … but HEY!! “WE’RE “saving” the WORLD, doncha know?””) than is ever saved by doing so. A lot of the ‘recycleables’ could be used to generate inexpensive electricity; I remember as a youngster (1950’s) seeing our local waste disposal trucks going to an incinerator, which, by the way, had an electrical substation right next to it. I asked my father, an electrical engineer, what was going on, and he responded that the trash was being used to create electricity.
Then the EPA came along and all but banished that practice.
My community is largely (US nomenclature) conservative, and almost every time I go to a depot, I notice the bins are usually full-to-overflowing with recycleables. I recycle because I think it just might be the right thing to do, understanding that the amount of energy expended to recycle is “destroying” the planet (in someone’s mind). I do not do it because I’ve been ORDERED to do by our local Kommisarr, or anyone else.
Hope that helps, and my regards,
The Mostest Deplorable-est Vlad the Impaler-est, a crashing-est bore-est, and and even bigger-est bully-est (according to C.T. at JoNova)
Kristi Silber May 4, 2018 at 9:02 pm
What could come of it but violence?
———
It already has, and that violence has come from the Progressives who seek to silence free speech, particularly on college campuses. Cooperation requires tolerance and compromise.
Fascinating how the troll defines “working together” as everyone doing what Kristi tells them to do.
Speaking of hatred, declaring that those who disagree with you are evil and or funded by big oil is not exactly good neighborly. Perhaps Kristi is one of those who believes that her alleged good intentions gives her license to behave however she wants.
At least pigs have an excuse to roll around in the mud. They’re almost hairless and have few sweat glands, so it helps keep their skin moist and protect from sunburn.
YAAAAAWN!!!!
Buy carbon credits and *Buy* your way to salvation.
Leave the cleaning up to the peasants.
~signed your Pal, Al.
This is the problem of collectivism: when something (anything, really) is everyone’s responsibility, it’s no one’s responsibility. So people expect “the government” to take care of things that are really their own responsibility to take care of.
The left leaning groups tend to trash the place. Conservatives not so much.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/03/are-litterbugs-tea-partiers-or-progressives/
Conservative protesters oftentimes leave the area cleaner than they found it.
These are a lot of the people who are running the country now…
https://www.google.com/search?q=Aftermath+of+woodstock&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih4fvs0-3aAhXizVQKHRQcD5QQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=631
Hard to tell without being able to read the whole study, but I’m skeptical of the conclusions people are drawing from this. It’s a self-report study, which are known to be problematic. If the underlying hypothesis is that those worried about climate change should be greenies, they might not be so careful about reporting their habits, believing themselves obviously green. What appears to be a very big weakness of the study is the possibility that those who aren’t normally green may change their habits as a result of the research. One of the behaviors was public transportation, and that could be an economic choice; another was use of “green” products, which could be a health choice. Skeptics weren’t more likely to recycle, but they did shop with reusable plastic bags.
And this shows that warmists are hypocrites? What about the car they drive, if they have one? The temperatures at which they heat/cool the house? Have high-efficiency appliances? Do they volutarily get some/all their electricity from renewables? (All this is related to income, but that needs to be accounted for in any study like this)
Sounds to me like it’s an undergrad honors thesis.
Then there’s this, from the article:
“Regarding climate change skeptics, remember that conservatism prizes individual action over collective efforts. So while they may assert disbelief in order to stave off coercive (in their view) actions by the government, many could take pride in doing what they can do on a personal basis.
The results suggest that “changing skeptical Americans’ minds need not be a top priority for climate policymakers,” at least if their goal is inspiring individual action. Perhaps the more urgent task is to focus on people who already grasp the problem, and get them to align their actions with their concern.
This should ring all kinds of skepticism alarm bells. Why should inspiring individual action have anything to do with policymaking? Why should individual actions absolve people from working as a collective, not in socialist sense but in simply recognizing that we are a nation, a very large community, and sometimes it’s in our best interest to work together? The ability of humans to cooperate on complex tasks is one thing that enabled us to colonize every accessible area of the planet. While I believe that in theory letting the market respond to demand for renewables would be ideal, the market does not always behave ideally, particularly when in comes to prevention of future problems. The market has no ethic, no morality. I didn’t hear anyone bemoaning market manipulations in the form of TARIFFS, which will hurt the solar industry (what a scummy move that was!). …Oh, gee, I’m getting off-track again.
So what do you think, are skeptics just asserting disbelief for political reasons, as the article suggests?
Individual action is very important, However, let’s be honest and realistic: most people on both sides are going to be slow to change individual habits that much, and it is CHANGE that is needed to lower emissions – current rituals aren’t enough. People can replace appliances an cars with high-efficiency items as the old wear out, but that’s a slow process. Individuals can’t decide to regulate the carbon emissions in their local coal-fired power plant. Many don’t have the option to purchase electricity from renewable sources. Although individuals can undoubtedly make a difference, organized change as a nation will be necessary to keep reducing emissions.
Ah. A classic Eric Worrall:
“The most vocal climate supporters are actually the people who care least about the planet – all those noisy expressions of concern are camouflage to conceal the fact they are deeply selfish people who can’t be bothered to make a personal effort to improve the world they claim to love.”
You, on the other hand, are deeply generous toward others and the environment, I suppose? Because you bother to pick up your front yard – well, there’s heart for you!
I deeply resent the ignorant, arrogant hateful messages Eric sends. It is this kind of insipid rhetoric that is tearing our country apart. He is using his position on WUWT to spread these vile, divisive ideas – and readers eat it up.
Do you people not see the impact on your credibility? Why should anyone respect your scientific ideas or believe you are viewing the situation impartially when you are so caught up in animosity, partisanship and accusations? And you accuse the scientific community of having an agenda??? Talk about hypocrisy!
“The most vocal climate supporters are actually the people who care least about the planet – all those noisy expressions of concern are camouflage to conceal the fact they are deeply selfish people who can’t be bothered to make a personal effort to improve the world they claim to love.”
Kristi, that sums up EXACTLY my experience with vocal climate supporters in the small beach town where I live. (I know almost everyone.) Most are liberal, most have completely bought the whole climate change hysteria and constantly goes off about it, yet not one that I know understands a single thing about the subject. And ALL drive their cars around town, rather than walk or ride their bicycles — and this is a perfect place to get around town on foot or on a bike. Every time they go off on climate change, I ask why they drive their SUV’s to go one mile to the cafe or post office. No one has an answer. Because there is no good answer … other than the fact they they are total hypocrites.
Do as I say, not as I spew.
“So what do you think, are skeptics just asserting disbelief for political reasons, as the article suggests?”
Kristi, why didn’t you read through the comments before commenting yourself? I already presented my answer to this question. It would have made more sense for you to post your opinion as a reply to my post:
Stevan Reddish May 4, 2018 at 4:22 pm
SR
Kristi, the point of the post you and I are commenting on is that green activists demonstrations usually leave a lot of litter, leading to the conclusion that activist feel that it is OK for them to litter. Since actions talk louder than words, their actions tell us they are just pretending to care about pollution.
When you say we should have a conversation about this subject and then ignore those who have answered your very query, even responding directly to you, your actions tell us that you are only pretending to want a discussion.
SR
@Kristi:
“Talk about hypocrisy!”.
With all due respect Kristi, I think you should be careful about where and at whom you toss around accusations of hypocrisy here at WUWT. Did you bother to read Katphiche’s comment above (May 4, 2018 at 2:16 pm) about the amount of garbage left behind by the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters two winters ago in North Dakota?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/massive-cleanup-underway-after-dakota-access-prote/
From what I have read, the total cleanup cost has been quoted to be as much as $1 million. Eric lives in Australia, so he may not be aware of this incident. But I think it is an example of the type of thing he is talking about in his post.
At least when a pipeline leaks, the company responsible for it actually takes responsibility for cleaning it up. If the DAPL protesters cared about their hypocrisy resulting from the garbage they left behind and wanted to make amends for it, they would have raised the $1 million for the cost of the cleanup. That would have been the smart thing to do. However, so far as I know, they did not do that.
Whatever amount of hypocrisy you perceive Eric to be responsible for, I suggest to you that the hypocrisy displayed by the DAPL protesters has it beat by a long shot. I also do not believe that this is something that should be just swept under the rug and ignored as though it never really happened. Many in the media appear to have done exactly that.
I don’t know what kind of a person Eric is; I have not met him. But if he believes that hypocrisy by the environmental movement at this level (at the DAPL protest site) needs to be publicized and made widely known, I agree with him. His character should not have anything to do with it. Attacking his character does not make the hypocrisy go away.
Kristi Silber May 4, 2018 at 8:51 pm
Kristi, I understand your rant, but consider it from the point of view of some of us who are older. We’re amused by this study, poorly done or not. Why? Because it just confirms what we’ve known for decades through personal observation and through other similar studies, many of them well done.
Conservatives give a larger percentage of their income to the philanthropic choices they support than do socialists. Not new. Socialists support their philanthropic choices through the poll booth, electing those who they believe will spend tax dollars on those choices. Also not new.
Its the way it has always been. That the micro debate called climate change reflects the bigger picture is no revelation. Conservatives spend their money, and socialists attempt to spend other people’s money. Forgive the sarcasm, but I’m tired of being lectured to by people who live off of my tax dollars and won’t spend any of their own on the causes they want me to fund. They are hypocrites, and they deserve the scorn you see in this thread.
“However, let’s be honest and realistic: most people on both sides are going to be slow to change individual habits that much, and it is CHANGE that is needed to lower emissions ”
of the plantfood known as CO2? no, sorry, emissions don’t *need* to be lowered. if anything the plants would love to have even more than they are currently getting.
I instantly recognized that photo as Sharon Meadow in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco.
Imagine a slice of heaven over-run with drug addicts, liberal loons, and filthy, begging, know-it-all slackers.
It’s a refreshing change to read that Hall and his colleagues “can only speculate about the reasons for their results”. Usually there is no doubt expressed at all when academics discuss things related to this most settled of sciences.
Of course, after a moments thought, I realised that this is probably because the results were the complete opposite of what global-warmers would expect. They only discover a love of measured uncertainty when it suits their short term purposes.
Very characteristic for the mentally ill Left.
Another example is ANTIFA acting exactly like what they claim to be against.
Haven’t you got anything better to write abiut Eric than trashy (excuse the pun) articles like this one? How about reporting on the fact that atmospheric gases reached 410 ppm in April 2018 and this is trending upwards? Perhaps you should explore the underlying issues of why this is happening?
http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/05/04/greenhouse-gas-reaches-alarming-new-record-cnn/
atmospheric gases reached 410 ppm
You mean CO₂ ? Accelerated increase? Alarmingly good.
Most excellent achievement by Ma Earth. Green green green!
CO2 levels have been over 7000ppm in the last 100 million years.
410ppm is nothing to worry about.
Prove it.
Ivan,
All estimates of past CO2 concentration show levels at least an order of magnitude higher early in our current Phanerozoic Eon than now.
MarkW meant to say 500 million years, not 100, when CO2 was a mere six times higher than now.
http://worldview3.50webs.com/6temp.chart.n.co2.jpg
Is argument from invincible ignorance the only page in Mr. Kinsman’s playbook? And he’s not even good at it.
pretty much. and the proof is in all his posts.
Can anyone give me an example of a “collective effort”? I can’t think of one, myself, and am interested in what it might be.