Climate Change Gets a New Language… Again

Guest whatever by David Middleton

The New Language of Climate Change

Scientists and meteorologists on the front lines of the climate wars are testing a new strategy to get through to the skeptics and outright deniers.

By BRYAN BENDER January 27, 2019

PHOENIX—Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.

That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,” so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.

[…]

That was a main takeaway at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting this month, where top meteorologists and environmental scientists…

[…]

The hope is to persuade the small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies to mitigate climate change’s worst long-term effects—as well as the people who vote for them—that something needs to be done or their own livelihoods and health will be at stake.

The new language taking root is meant to instill this sense of urgency about what is happening in ways to which everyday citizens can relate—without directly blaming it on human activity…

[…]

“Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,” Bernadette Woods Placky, an Emmy award-winning meteorologist who directs the Climate Matters program at Climate Central, told me.

[…]

“They see it firsthand,” Robert Mark Simpson, a professor of geography at the University of Tennessee at Martin, told me. “There is a sort of acknowledgment that the climate is changing. They just don’t think humans are that impactful. [They think blaming humans is] a conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. economy.”

[…]

I asked Grandy that question. He believes recognition is just Step One and hopes that once doubters see climate change as the dire threat it is, it will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint.

After all, he said, climate change “is happening whether they like it or not. If they ignore it, it is still going to happen.”

Politico

I’m not sure if I excerpted the dumbest or least dumbest bits of this article.  There’s not much dynamic range between the dumbest and least dumbest bits.

I got a big kick out of this… “Scientists *and* meteorologists”… Aren’t meteorologists scientists?  I’m pretty sure they are, except for the meteorologists quoted in this article.

Then there’s this… “avoiding the phrase ‘climate change’”… Weren’t these same people vilifying President Trump and several Republican governors for doing exactly that?  Avoiding the phrase “climate change”???

“Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that”… WTF??? We’ve been telling you that for decades…

 

“[They think blaming humans is] a conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. economy”… Nonsense!  It’s a conspiracy to overthrow all capitalist economies, not just the U.S. …

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, 2015

Do these “scientists and meteorologists” really think that all they need to do is to redefine the language?

 

This one is priceless…

“[I]t will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint.”

— Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist for the CBS affiliate in Columbia, S.C.

Hey Jimbo!  How did you get from Columbia SC to Phoenix AZ?  Did you walk?  Did you ride a bicycle?  Did you drive a 100% electric vehicle, powered by 100% Unicorn farts?

Regarding phasing out fossil fuels…

Phasing out fossil fuels?

Advertisements

146 thoughts on “Climate Change Gets a New Language… Again

      • Not “cognitive” but far more basic. “Catastrophism” in any guise is a psychogenic debility, manifest not merely as an intellectual but a moral and thereby spiritually self-destructive tropism. Whatever their ostensible metier, ie. whatever excuses color doom-sayers’ antinomian ends-over-means, results are ever and everywhere the same.

        Rather than indulge rank speculation, demonize your ‘orrible opponents, we recommend Will James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience” (Gifford lectures, delivered in Edinburgh 1901 – ’02), particularly the early 16th Century Anabaptists of Munster. Hung in iron cages from Munster’s cathedral tower, let the three leaders’ fate be a caution to us all. By the way, half a millennium later the cages are still there.

    • not unlike Global Warming that is a word that is now verboten! But at least they are now willing to inform us that all we have to do is “phase out” burning fossil fuel. That means fossil fuels for me [elites and the bureaucrats who do their bidding] but not for thee – peons.

      Unfortunately 90% of 21st century public school graduates have no idea what that will do to the quality of their life. “Yeah! lets ban fossil fuel! We are saving the Planet. What do you mean we need to chop more wood to get warm. Somebody turn up the thermostat.”

      • My son (in high school) sometimes engages the alarmists when they are planning to stop all usage of fossil fuels.

        He has repeatedly been told, (to paraphrase) “Why should we use polluting fossil fuels when we could just use electricity?”

        You cannot debate people at that level of ignorance and indoctrination.

        • He should lead them to the nearest trash receptacle and tell them “you want to stop using fossil fuels, then start here by tossing out your fossil fuel made smartphone (and anything else made using plastic that they have on them) and other electronic devices.” then tell them to “strip off any cloths made from polyester, nylon or other petroleum derives artificial fibers and toss those as well”

    • I’ll bet you that global cooling, not the global warming, if ever comes around it will be far worse than socialism/quasi-communism I lived in.

  1. “Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,”

    This is what the controversy is all about. Sure, the effect is finite, but the controversy is about how large that effect is. The IPCC claims it’s so large that a climate catastrophe will result, while the skeptics assert an effect less than the lower bound below which the IPCC even considers that no action would be necessary (this was actually the criteria for how the IPCC came up with its lower limit). Since there’s no overlap in the estimates from either side, the controversy will not go away until the laws of physics falsify one position or the other. To be sure, the laws of physics unambiguously falsify the entire range of the IPCC’s ECS, so the solution is to restore the rules of science to climate science and climate alarmism will go the way of an Earth-centric Universe and the skeptics will prevail.

    • Definitely. CAGW comprises four words, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Even if it is AGW, it almost certainly is not catastrophic. And if there is global warming, the evidence that it is anthropogenic is ambiguous at best.

    • Logically, it doesn’t make any difference if warming is due to mankind or natural forces. If it’s going to be destructive, AND IF we can do something about it, SUCH THAT the expected benefits or our actions exceed the expected costs, then why wouldn’t we take action? Under those conditions, what difference does it make if mankind were the proximate cause or if it was 99% natural?

      Conversely, if warming is going to be destructive, if there is nothing we can do about, then again it does not matter if we are the proximate cause or not. For any proposed course of action, if the expected costs exceed the expected benefits, then we should not take action.

      The “A” in CAGW is not relevant.

      • Steve O,
        Whether the A is relevant is crucial to the remedy. If it doesn’t and we waste trillions moving away from fossil fuels, we will have spent money on ineffective mitigation that would have been better spent on preparation.

        • Always assuming that there actually is an warming. All the warming I have seen this century has come from data rewriting by NOAA and the BOM.

          • Hivemind, just ask a Historian. The last Ice Fair on the Thames was in 1825 and a huge number of other recorded instances means that we can categorically say that the Earth has warmed.

          • Might be a poor example there, JohnB.

            Two things that help ice form.
            1 – being really cold
            2 – the water being stationary

            One of the things that helped provide the correct environment for a frozen Thames was that the bridges of that era were multi span and had a significant effect of the speed of the water flow.

            When the bridges were replaced with newer designs with wider spans they helped increase the flow of the river.

            So in short Frost Fairs (or whatever they liked to call them) are probably not the debate ending examples you are looking for.

          • Craig from Oz. Not a lot of frozen rivers down there eh? Fast flowing rivers freeze over every winter in Canuckistan and when it is really cold all forms of water including very fast flowing streams freeze over and often to the very bottom. If bridge supports appreciably slowed the flow of the whole channel of the Thames then the volume of the river would have increased correspondingly and the Thames would have been much wider with stone bridges than it is now. What really happens is that pillars cause a small drop in water elevation downstream and a small increase in river elevation ahead of the pillars which causes an increase in the flow rate between the pillars but short distances from the bridge the river level and flow rate are unaffected. If bridges caused a substantial elevation differential then the water velocity between pillars would increase to the point that even a weak stone river bed between pillars, let alone a silt bed, would be eroded. I guess Australia is so flat and dry that there is not much chance to observe rivers, and even less to observe frozen ones.

        • co2isnotevil:
          “…waste trillions moving away from fossil fuel …”
          I suspect that much of the impetus for all the fooforaw about climate change comes from those who stand to benefit from those trillions. Estimates of the amount necessary to completely ‘decarbonize’ the world (i.e. cover everything in windmills and solar panels) ranges up to the hundred trillion dollar mark. With money like that sloshing around, some people are going to get very, very rich.

          It would be interesting to see if any of the three trillion that has been spent to date has found its way into the pockets of the leading lights in the American Meteorological Society.

        • That is the problem and what SteveO avoids. It is that point they invoke socialism that is the most moral and corrupt political system that exists as a remedy and that political system has failed everytime because it fails basic morality.

          The moral problem in socialism is most micro transactions between two parties involves at least one of the party losing out, they have to use hope as a basis. Compare that to capitialism where in any micro transactions between two parties both parties must benefit from the transaction or it would not happen.

          So it transpires in socialism that the only people that gain something are those who have little to offer by way of micro transactions and that is people who have little to offer society everyone else is losing. In capitialism those who have little to offer by way of micro transactions are disadvantaged but they are the ones with the problems and what needs to be fixed or have support to improve.

      • Truly, if the ‘A’ isn’t valid, then any funds wasted on CO2 reduction are funds that could have been used for mitigation or adaptation.

      • ergo:
        We know that crime is more rampant in specific neighborhoods, so why don’t we just arrest everyone in those neighborhoods just to be safe.

      • Logically, it doesn’t make any difference if warming is due to mankind or natural forces. If it’s going to be destructive

        Sorry steve but it make *all* the difference. If man caused it than man can do something about it (namely, stop doing whatever it was they did). If it’s natural, that means man didn’t cause it and thus can’t do anything to stop it (man does not command nature), the best man can do in that case it to adapt to it when the time comes as needed.

    • While two sides with non-overlapping estimates may be most vocal, there are positions in between, and I think it is plausible that they will shown to be most adequate.

      This would mean that there is likely a warming trend of a bit more than 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. No catastrophe is imminent, and so far, the advantages have probably outweighed the disadvantages (especially if global greening due to CO2 is taken into account), but in the long run, some measures for limiting emissions are probably advisable – no hasty, radical measures for decarbonization that are dictated by panic and fear of catastrophe, but moderate policies that use technical progress.

      • Adrian E.
        Except that the entire range of the IPCC’s ECS can be falsified which precludes any possible overlap that’s also consistent with the known laws of physics. None the less, incremental CO2 does have an effect, but this effect is demonstrably less than the lower limit presumed by the IPCC. In fact, even the COE constrained theoretical upped bound of 2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing corresponds to only about 0.35C per W/m^2 which is already less than the IPCC’s presumed lower limit of about 0.4C per W/m^2.

    • Are there “alternative” (non-fossil fuel) sources of energy that are “suitable for purpose?” Do you know anyone who is opposed to using any “alternative” fuel that is “suitable for purpose.” Does anyone really care if the Koch brothers should be made paupers because the sources of their wealth have been made obsolete and/or anachronistic by advances in technology?

      A quick note to the warmistas: Go to work, develop something workable than bring it to the already existing massive worldwide market. The market awaits your move.

  2. This reminds me of Obama musing that the reason why people didn’t like ObamaCare was because he hadn’t been giving enough speeches on the topic.

  3. I’m tempted to suggest adding “Known Unknowns” to your list of terms as we do not have an exact knowledge of CO2 /climate sensitivity, except that it keeps creeping closer and closer to so small a number that before long it may be possible to suggest it is meaningless compared to other factors.

    Changing words to frighten the children is not going to cut it for the scare-mongers anymore, it has been done to death and coming up with climate cancer (!) will just expose them as idiotic. As it is, most rational people look at the real world and roll their eyes or laugh at global warming. They have simply failed to understand that they can keep screaming hysterically, but more and more people no longer believe doom is arriving, tomorrow or in twelve years time. You blew it with all the lies guys!

    • Moderately (if I may!?):
      ‘coming up with climate cancer will just expose them as idiotic’ – well, maybe.

      But Climatic Coronary [perhaps] might just do it!

      Mods – /Sarc
      Auto

  4. On the left, it is never a case of their message being bad, it is always the fault of the messaging. I am reminded of the phrase, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

  5. “[I]t will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint.”

    Yeah, ’cause all those fossil fuels are burning themselves and it doesn’t matter if it’s “humans or not.”

  6. “…persuade the small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies…”

    These are “top scientists” who think this is what is happening. A small, powerful minority. Feel my power!!!

    I’m supposed to trust that THESE savants have successfully modeled the global climate and deserve our trust to make policy that will cost tens of trillions of dollars, and they can’t even figure out the basics of their opposition.

    We have top men working on it.
    Indiana Jones: “Who??”
    G-man” Top. Men.”

    • Isn’t that supposed to already be underwater? They must be unfortunate migrants with no where else to go. We should bail them out with a good gov. program so they can move to mountainous areas of Alaska and Canada.

    • And my area is getting over run. They just keep building. And now, the Atlanta Braves will be holding spring training here. I guess I gotta go somewhere else.

  7. I’m still curious to know more about the

    “…small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies to mitigate climate change’s worst long-term effects—as well as the people who vote for them—…”

    I will certainly vote for them if somebody tells me who they are and when the election is.
    Fact is, we were hearing this kind of twaddle long before Trump was elected.

    I think the truth these people fail to take on board is that they are asking for policies that are so economically damaging and harmful to human lives that, when push comes to shove, most political leaders still balk at the idea of trying to implement them. These same politicians will say all the right words to try and keep the green crazies on board, and throw them some (very expensive) bones, but they still usually recognize political and economic suicide when they see it.

    • Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there SOME point during Obama’s 8 years that the Democrats controlled all three branches of government… and all the deep state, the media, the schools and pretty much every other major organization short of the NBA?

      So why didn’t they do anything important back then?

      ~¿~

      • THEY DID!
        “In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its science-based finding that the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health and welfare. The “Endangerment Finding” reflects the overwhelming scientific evidence on the causes and impacts of climate change. It was made after a thorough rulemaking process considering thousands of public comments, and was upheld by the federal courts.
        The Endangerment Finding requires the EPA to take action under the Clean Air Act to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and four other heat-trapping air pollutants from vehicles, power plants, and other industries. The EPA’s Endangerment Finding followed the Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA holding that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. This law, the Court held, obligates the EPA to curb pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, including by contributing to climate change.”

        THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM!

      • Yes, they even had a super-majority of 60 in the Senate and so were not hamstrung by filibuster rules. They could have passed anything that they wanted.

      • Clearly you underestimate the power of the NBA in American policy making.

        /snark 😀

        (well either the NBA or Tony Abbott. Australian media KNOW he is to blame for everything)

  8. “The old lies haven’t worked, so we need to invent new, more creative ways of lying”. The Climate Propagandists still think it’s all about “communication”. Hilarious.

  9. “When the body was first created, all the parts wanted to be Boss. The brain said, “I should be Boss because I control all of the body’s responses and functions.”

    The feet said, “We should be Boss since we carry the brain about and get him to where he wants to go.”

    The hands said, “We should be the Boss because we do all the work and earn all the money.”

    Finally, the azzhole spoke up. All the parts laughed at the idea of the azzhole being the Boss. So, the azzhole went on strike, blocked itself up and refused to work.

    Within a short time, the eyes became crossed, the hands clenched, the feet twitched, the heart and lungs began to panic, and the brain fevered. Eventually, they all decided that the azzhole should be the Boss, so the motion was passed. All the other parts did all the work while the Boss just sat and passed out the sh&$!”

    This seems appropriate to the idea of AMS setting public policy

    • I like this.
      Currently my azzhole dictates my lifestyle. It has a mind of its own not to be challenged and I nip around it’s requirements often quite efficiently, but not always.
      Admittedly this is due to previous ops. and current chemo. All I have to do is maintain my sanity – flailing the air, just as I do with the political effluent we are now being subjected to.
      Sometimes I think that so called manipulated democracy is the azzhole of sensible decision making.

    • True.

      This is fun. Predicting the future based on mass psychology of liberal fads and the engineering/economic implications of spending billions and billions on schemes that do not work and taxing the heck out of energy.

      Before there is actual death, there will be push back. There is a race to see which state will reach the end of their electives’ support for the green scams.

      CAGW the idea, is popular as there are no competing crises and planetary temperature increased prior to the plateau.

  10. “Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,”
    =======?
    This is one of the stupidest quotes I’ve read in some time, and that includes some pretty stiff competition.

    How will cutting out fossil fuels have prevented the romans warming or the medieval warming or the little ice age?

    The point is it would have made no difference and no one can be sure that the current warming is the product of human co2.

    Especially since temperatures levelled just as China’s co2 spiked upwards. We may well be shooting ourselves in the foot, only to find well have to go on a 100 mile forced march to save ourselves from being overrun by mother nature.

    • So they are telling us it may or may not be human caused, but their solution tells a different tail:

      “. . . the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint”

      What are we going to do to save our unborn decedents from climate “whatever” if it is not human caused? After all, we care so much for them. We could abort them (that may be telling as to how much we care for our unborn decedents).

  11. I’d like to hear someone telling me about the effects that ‘whatever we call it’ is having locally. Having been in Norfolk over 60 years there aren’t many weather variations I haven’t seen before. The biggest change is all those wind farms off the coast.

  12. The hope is to persuade the small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies to mitigate climate change’s worst long-term effects…

    Pure projection once again. The small minority is the alarmists themselves, but from their ivory tower echo chamber they only hear their own synchronized cries. Poll after poll puts climate change dead last in the minds of the rest of humanity.

    It’s dead Jim.

  13. So this is how clueless they are, not only about the science, but about the past decade of current events. They already abandoned the scientific language and debate, this is just them coming to grips with that reality in their own delusional way.

  14. “After all, he said, climate change “is happening whether they like it or not. If they ignore it, it is still going to happen.””
    Well…yes!

    • I noticed that too. He’s not helping his argument. There should be an addition there that it is good for us and yes, (no matter how many times they try and con us), we are an insignificant part of it. It is an extremely gradual natural event that most life will adapt to and actually thrive off it. The problem for him is, good news doesn’t allow for massive funds to be allocated for fighting it. Actually having to work for a living is a scary concept to many.

      • Look at the ice core records, or historical records. “Gradual” is not a word that can be applied to most climate change.

        The belief that climate only changes slowly is why the alarmists are alarmed. IF climate only changes slowly then a more rapid change demands that an external driver be involved. However if natural change is rapid (as the records show) then even rapid change is normal and not to be concerned about, just dealt with.

        • However if natural change is rapid (as the records show) then even rapid change is normal and not to be concerned about, just dealt with.

          Or used to delude the masses to accept their “solutions”.
          By the time the masses realize those “solution” haven’t changed anything, the masses will have been stripped of their rights and ability to change anything.

    • Yup.

      Precisely the phrase I was going to comment on:

      Once again the alarmists strive to imply that “skeptics” (or now more commonly and spin-doctorally referred to today as “denialists”)

      are ignoring (or denying) the fact that the climate is changing, that they don’t believe it’s happening…

      Such predictable, cynical, propagandistic, manipulative twisting of reality…

      and it works.

  15. So now it is to be caused Ä Cancer of the atmosphere” Very well so be it, although I thought that the vast seas also had something to do with the weather come climate.

    So how do we treat Cancer, why one way is by radiation theraphy. So lets go Nuclear, problem solved.

    MJE

    • Climate change is not a cancer of the Earth, it is what a healthy Earth does all the time, naturally. If climate stopped changing, I would be worried that there really was a problem.

      There is a good reason why we view alarmists as the proselytes of Chicken Little.

  16. “Climate Change,” or “climate change”, or “climate changes,” or “changing climate” are all simply a slick Marketing 101 messaging strategy. Any lucid conversation that starts out to discuss climate change, the conversants must identify and define the terms to be used, this most assuredly includes “climate change”. Otherwise everyone is doing exactly what the Climate Hustlers intend, that is talking past each other to reach an ignorant viewing audience with a marketing message: “Don’t look stupid, buy our product and stay quiet.”

    Every computer program starts out telling by the defining what the variables are to come later, defining the data structures to be used, before they are used, and setting data types such string length, integer, floating point, etc.

    Every engineering problem I ever solved for a class or program started out with a “Given” block to show what was assumed or given constants (or physical parameters like Young’s Modulus of the steel to be used, etc) before the question or problem was attacked on paper. Essential so that another engineer who looks at it (the instructor usually) knows what is assumed, and what is to be found/solved from that.

    Climate Change has so many different definitions, used in so many different contexts, the slicker climate hustlers slip and slide between “climate change” and “changing climate” meanings in mid-conversation or mid-paragraph. Al Gore is famous for this.

    So much of the climate deception in the marketing of Climate Change is based on interchangeable definitions depending on the target audience. Too often, people do not want to appear dumb, so they do not demand the speaker or writer define their terms as everyone else is nodding approvingly at a the bias confirmation they are hearing. Too many ignorant reporters simply write articles filled with the use of the term “climate change” like everyone just assumes what it means to them. I think it likely most reporters do not know there are many differing technical definitions of that term as well as the non-technical context such as simply “climate change” = “climate changes” = “changes in climate”, where the operative word “change” slips back and forth between being a noun or a verb by the climate hustlers.

    Because of this easy marketing deception with the term “climate change,” I doubt the Climate Hustlers will ever abandon it for something that’ll make most people’s eyes roll, like “Climate Cancer” or “Climate Weirding.” There simply is too much utility in keeping the climate change hustle going with the obfuscation of the meaning of the terms.

    • Ugh, I forgot to put in the “end bold” mark-up code between “mid-paragrph” and “Al Gore.”

    • Agreed:

      So much of the climate deception in the marketing of Climate Change is based on interchangeable definitions depending on the target audience.

      However, the other factor that is a partner to this observation is that those arguing a position start with some assumption they believe is unquestionable and from there argue conclusions. Obviously if the starting assumption in an “if then” statement is false, then so is the conclusion (Duh!)

      This article glosses over the biggest false assumption, universally used by alarmists, as well as scientists in related fields who base their papers on this false belief:

      ……..focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is.

      There needs to be a massive push by both ordinary skeptics as well as people of significant influence (e.g. POTUS) to shout NO, IT’S NOT UNUSUAL!!! and back it up with hard data from real scientists like Drs Spencer, Christie and Pielke.

      The theme music for our pushback could be Tom Jones’ pop song “It’s Not Unusual”.

  17. Progressivism is the Cancer – a brain cancer that erodes cognitive higher reasoning functions of the neocortex, while leaving the mouth and writing skills still connected to the Limbic (emotional) system functions. Outwardly, this manifests as mental illness.

  18. I absolutely love all kinds of alternative, non-fossil fuel sources of energy that don’t result in the emission of CO2 when they are being used. Luv em luv em luv em. And I think it is a cryin’ damned shame that the laws of physics are such that none of the alternative sources are sustainable or ‘suitable for purpose” for anyone other than Alice (and maybe other fantasizers).

    • Fission fits the bill now and fusion is the energy source of the future. The big problem with reducing CO2 is the impact on agriculture. Ironically, when we eventually run out of fossil fuels, we will need to burn limestone to keep agriculture from crashing.

  19. I want to add a name to your list:

    Atmospheric Repression

    Oh heck, let’s do some more:

    Atmospheric Rape

    Atmospheric Marginalization

    Atmospheric Racism

    Atmospheric Injustice

    Atmospheric Bullying

    • My favourite comment of Alexander Solzhenitsyn is: “All men are born with different capabilities; those who are free are not equal; those who are equal are not free”.
      Yet socialists would insist that we conform – in thought and deed – except themselves.

  20. Focus on how “unusual” things are, and what’s it’s costing communities.

    Yeah, this will work. It’s like stupidity and cluelessness are chronic diseases that only get worse over time.. It’s honestly quite amusing.

    pokerguy

  21. The warmist solution to the climate “problem” is to put society on a glide path back to pre-industrial poverty. The challenge for the warmists is to invent a language that makes this solution seem really really nice and well worth the cost. That WOULD be challenging.

    • Indeed so!
      The UN-IPCC’s assumption that around 1750 the atmospheric CO2 levels were in equilibrium with the global temperatures, when, according to the UN-IPCC, CO2 mediated climate was optimal. But I ask is that what we should wish to aim for, is it what is truly needed ?

      THIS PLANET IS ALL ABOUT LIFE! …

      This implication from their assumption is back in 1750 the CO2/global temperatures were at optimum, and therefore matched all other life requirements on this planet, and so we should return to it.
      But that was back in the LIA, why should we wish to have plant life struggling along at those levels of CO2? Why should we wish to have all life (the whole biosphere) on this planet restricted to 1750 values?
      This idea is at it’s heart anti-life, for as atmospheric CO2 levels rises ALL life benefits from the consequential increase in plants’ abundance.

      IMO any CO2 atmospheric level from 400 to 1000ppmv is preferable for all of today’s biosphere’s requirements, thankfully with the expansion of coal use globally, assisting the natural CO2 venting, that should be achievable.

  22. Wait, I know – it’s “Climate Chains” (of causation). Man burns more and more fossil fuels, then the climate changes – voila, chain of causation, aka “Climate Chains”. Mankind – Guilty as charged!

  23. People who want to twist the language are conceding that they can’t win the debate using normal words in the normal way.

  24. They can’t take the politics out of it because they can’t take the money out of it; nor can they take the desire of the people for a reasonably good life out of it. Their solutions involve 1) phasing out fossil fuels, supposedly by investing in ‘renewable’ energy sources; this pretty much flies in the face of what’s happened in South Australia, for example, or Spain, or Germany, and 2) the concomittant reduction of the welfare of people (reduce transportation requirements by lumping everyone together in giant megalopolises where everything they need is (supposedly) close at hand — the urban planners’ wet dream, in which no one is allowed to have a single-family dwelling. I don’t think that people will stand for any of this.

  25. “Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.”

    A) “who or what is most responsible”; Forget about science, completely.

    B) “focus instead on what is happening and how unusual”; It’s all about the immediate weather and the emotions one can frighten.

    C) “what it is costing communities”; Especially harp about the costs based upon current valuations.

    1) These alleged meteorologists, climate and environmental scientists definitely want to avoid science.
    2) These same folks are all for propaganda, alarmism and scaring people.

    No climate or meteorology science involved.

  26. “Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.”

    If they took the politics out of “climate change”, there wouldn’t be anything left.

  27. I am really having trouble with this one… If you don’t acknowledge the cause, how will your proposed solution make any sense? In other words, they are saying, “We don’t care whether CO2 caused it or not. The solution is lowering CO2.”

  28. CAGW is a bit like the joke about the drunk under the streetlamp crawling around on his hands and knees. A passerby asks what he’s doing and he says: “I’m looking for my car keys.” The passerby asks where did he lose them and the drunk says he lost them on the other side of the road. The passerby says “Why are you looking here!?”, to which the drunk replies: “The lights better”.

    The analogy with CO2 is that the fundings better.

  29. I am in an argument with a “….small but powerful minority…,” Sigma Xi, which, among others, like AAAS, does not understand their advocacy conflict with science. Who will judge the judges (scientists) when the judges are not judges any more, but are preachers. These guys should go back and read the history of the atomic bomb and subsequent development of research. If it had been done like climate science, among others nowadays, what would we still be doing?

    I’ve been recently reading some fisheries literature, too much simulation and assumptions even in some of the best, must be catching. Maybe this an important reason —-
    .
    “Ecosystem models are time-consuming and expensive to develop, but they cost a fraction of the other components required for their successful development. Model costs are typically two orders of magnitude below those of fieldwork,……and an order of magnitude below the laboratory work that typically informs conceptualization of key processes and formulation and parameterization of model equations.”

  30. That list in the picture doesn’t include the Climate Faithful’s favorite name.

    CLIMATE CRISES

    It’s Al Gore approved and a common buzzword for Leftist Politicians.

    ~¿~

  31. I live in California. Our climate is the single biggest reason that people want to live here. When people stop coming here, then, and only then, will I believe that the climate is changing for the worse.

  32. I’m pretty sure that millions of Americans in the northern US are very happy for any form of energy keeping their asses warm right now during this latest blast out of the arctic. I think the main sentiment up there is, “can I burn it and will it keep me warm, then do it”

  33. Basic propaganda technique, repetition, loses its strength if sheeple gets bored. You need to invents something new.

    “Climate change” is a powerful meme, because you omit indefensible words in CAGW. You assume catastrophe; You assume CO2 as a cause; You assume warming, when you talk.

    People start to realize that 0,5 C change is not significant. It is just noise in observations. Not worth of trillions of dollars of pain.

    Cancer is something very small but dangerous, because it is living and grows. Connecting word “cancer” to something is an example of a image marketing technique: transfer. Fears of chemicals and radiation have been very successful. No one have died, but industries have been destroyed. Expect attack on coal and diesel.

    Propagandists need something emotional and something that can’t be easily proven wrong. You know, just in case, if ..

  34. The Synod of the Church of England is disinvesting on fossil fuels unless companies conform to the Paris Agreement. What on earth does that mean? Reduce production as they don’t produce CO2. The Bishop of Salisbury who leads says that many governments and companies are adopting the IPCC ‘s mad SR1.5 document. It has actually disappeared without trace as it deserved . Why don’t these churchmen do a bit of studying about the subject? It’s very sad but hopefully won’t kill too many thu’ cooking inhalation on twigs and dung.

  35. “Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.

    That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,” so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.”

    This they cannot do! It is impossible to take the politics out of it because it’s whole reason for being is political. What is happening is ‘not much’, it is not discernible from natural variability and it is largely beneficial! Focusing on those things would kill the climate change industry in a heartbeat.

    If we weren’t burning fossil fuels for energy, we would have to start burning them for the sole purpose of restoring more CO2 to the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 is that beneficial!

  36. ‘Atmosphere Cancer’: Now there’s a name to conjour with. Quite a few members of my family have succumbed to ‘bodily’ cancer (to coin a phrase), but the thing is there are so many different forms of it. (I won’t offer details).
    So, when it come to the atmosphere, can any of the alarmists name the top three elements of the atmosphere, let alone the top three that make it up? I bet they come up with CO2 in the top two, let alone the top three – and it’s not even in that!

    • I meant to say, ‘name which of the top three elements of the atmosphere has cancer, let alone……!

  37. I’ve been sticking my head out the window to sample the environment here in Texas for 68 years now, and aside for weather ups and downs, I can’t tell any difference today from what it was doing 68 years ago. Now there are a lot more people and structures today than there were 68 years ago, and some of the newer structures have been built in the path of storms like we’ve always had; whereas 68 years ago, no structures were in the path of said storms. So what is all this talk about climate change? I just don’t get it.
    Yep, just stuck my head out the window again – it’s just like it was 68 years ago…

  38. “Right now, we’re interpreting the noise in the global temperature signal to mean something catastrophic.”
    “If you give us enough money and control, we’ll interpret the noise to mean something less catastrophic.”
    “Deal?”

  39. It is we who need to change to get our message across.

    We need to teach people what the phrase “climate optimum” means, what photosynthesis is, and how focusing on regenerative agriculture gets greens brownie points no matter who is right about temperatures or economics.

    Most of these shrieking alarmists think they are in favor of living organisms, when in fact, Earthly life has no greater enemies. But they can be shifted if we FINALLY have the minimum good sense to focus on where they are RIGHT (enriching soil) and focus on that.

  40. The only reality is the weather. We can observe the weather wherever we are any minute or hour of the day.

    Climate is just average weather over a period of time over a chosen geographic area. We can analyse the data for precipitation, heatwaves, droughts, storms, cold blasts etc and come to some sort of understanding of how the climate behaves in various locations.

    But the climate is just derived data from observing the weather. Quite wet in winter, very dry in summer, breezy in autumn, mild in spring. It’s not actually real, it’s simply a general perception. So how can climate change be real? How can a severe hurricane or drought or flood effectively and significantly change a general perception? Sheeesh!

    It’s about as meaningful as the global average temperature or the global average telephone number or the Keihl Trenberth Global Energy Budget Cartoon.

    Cargo cult science at its worst.

  41. Years ago Al Gore wrote his first new-agey book, when first starting his dire predictions. He used apocalytic Christian and Buddhist writings, making dire warnings. Essentially pretending he was well versed in religion.

    One example was his use of the Mahayana Buddhist “Lotus Sutra, ” quoting from chapter 5, which Theroux and the transcendentalist had published in their publication “The Dial.” Magazine, long ago.

    As a very knowledgable person about the meanings of the “Lotus Sutra,” i was surprised to see a politician, quoting it. But, his meaning and interpretation was totally, manipulative and essentially an heretical interpretation, which completly missed the point of the term, “ESHO FUNI.” (Japanese) Funi, means inseparability and Esho means all living beings and their environment, especially human beings.

    Gore took this to propagandize his “end of the world-unless we extract money from all tax payers- worldwide.

    The truth is the “Esho Funi,” has nothing to with shallow thinking and carbon tax and all the paranoid thinking. In fact in Buddhism there is a parable called, “The sound the hare heard,” (the origin of the ” Chicken Little”) story, which ridicules faithless paranoids who cause people to panic over an impending apocalypse.

    The principle of Esho Funi, means the stability of the environment, involving climate, natural disasters, fertility of soil, adequate, but not too much rain, etc. is a direct reflection of the cumulative, actual, inner life state of human beings.

    “Lifestates,” in Buddhism refer to momentary life moments that contain by mutual possession, a range from Hell, Hunger, Animality, Anger, humaness, Rapture, Learning, Self Realization, Merciful Bodhisattva, and Buddhood. These are possessed by all beings moment by moment and essentially refers to the Supreme Law of Cause and Effect (karma) as taught in the Lotus Sutra, which is the “Wonderful Sutra of the Law of Cause and Effect.”

    The Sutra means that FAITH is the entry to salvation and happiness of all beings, not dwellng in the lower life states.

    So the stability of the environment is dictated by causes made by the body, mouth and mnd and the bad effects people receive, collectively or individually, is entirely faith based, not external manipulation., which causally always fails, amounting to Slander of the Supreme Law, the worst cause of all. Using scripture to manipulate people politically, is a severely negative cause. To use scripture to extract money from people is the cause of slander.

    Paradoxically, there was a top , Lay Buddhist leader, Daisaku Ikeda, in Japan, who , in the late 60’s beyond enamored by the Club Of Rome and Count Coudenhove Kalergi, (including a book written with Kalergi, never published in english, and became involved in the NGO, Globalist movement). Ikeda’s sincere followers, (40 million ) were gradually tricked into his decidedly heretical ideas, turning the Buddhist organization into a political vote getting machine in Japan (Komeito party) and causing the biggest schism, ever in the History of Buddhism.

    Today.

  42. Years ago Al Gore wrote his first new-agey book, when first starting his dire predictions. He used apocalytic Christian and Buddhist writings, making dire warnings. Essentially pretending he was well versed in religion.

    One example was his use of the Mahayana Buddhist “Lotus Sutra, ” quoting from chapter 5, which Theroux and the transcendentalist had published in their publication “The Dial.” Magazine, long ago.

    As a very knowledgable person about the meanings of the “Lotus Sutra,” i was surprised to see a politician, quoting it. But, his meaning and interpretation was totally, manipulative and essentially an heretical interpretation, which completly missed the point of the term, “ESHO FUNI.” (Japanese) Funi, means inseparability and Esho means all living beings and their environment, especially human beings.

    Gore took this to propagandize his “end of the world-unless we extract money from all tax payers- worldwide.

    The truth is the “Esho Funi,” has nothing to with shallow thinking and carbon tax and all the paranoid thinking. In fact in Buddhism there is a parable called, “The sound the hare heard,” (the origin of the ” Chicken Little”) story, which ridicules faithless paranoids who cause people to panic over an impending apocalypse.

    The principle of Esho Funi, means the stability of the environment, involving climate, natural disasters, fertility of soil, adequate, but not too much rain, etc. is a direct reflection of the cumulative, actual, inner life state of human beings.

    “Lifestates,” in Buddhism refer to momentary life moments that contain by mutual possession, a range from Hell, Hunger, Animality, Anger, humaness, Rapture, Learning, Self Realization, Merciful Bodhisattva, and Buddhood. These are possessed by all beings moment by moment and essentially refers to the Supreme Law of Cause and Effect (karma) as taught in the Lotus Sutra, which is the “Wonderful Sutra of the Law of Cause and Effect.”

    The Sutra means that FAITH is the entry to salvation and happiness of all beings, not dwelling in the lower life states.

    So the stability of the environment is dictated by causes made by the body, mouth and mnd and the bad effects people receive, collectively or individually, is entirely faith based, not external manipulation., which causally always fails, amounting to Slander of the Supreme Law, the worst cause of all. Using scripture to manipulate people politically, is a severely negative cause. To use scripture to extract money from people is the cause of slander.

    Paradoxically, there was a top , Lay Buddhist leader, Daisaku Ikeda, in Japan, who , in the late 60’s became enamored by the Club Of Rome and Count Coudenhove Kalergi, (including a book written with Kalergi, never published in english, and became involved in the NGO, Globalist movement). Ikeda’s sincere followers, (40 million at the time ) were gradually tricked into his decidedly heretical ideas, turning the Buddhist organization into a political vote getting machine in Japan (Komeito party) and causing the biggest schism, ever in the History of Buddhism. Instead of being a Buddhist, Ikeda turned out to be a Marxist, Globalist, seeking fame and power. Club of Rome and the Globalists and Gore, saw Ikeda with controls of many billions, a a source of funds. Ikeda saw it as an opportunity, to obtain, more worldwide control.

  43. What do climate scientists call climate change caused by natural causes?

    How can science prove anything if two fldifferent phenomenon have the same name.

    In effect climate science is saying 1=a and 2=a, then saying 97% of climate scientists agree a=1.

  44. Its the destruction of the environment. There’s no need to look for any other cause.

    If you destroy your life support system you life support system starts to fail.

    • It is really simple. I KNOW socialism will kill me, but I am pretty sure I can work around the global warming problem, so I choose global warming.

    • Its the destruction of the environment

      how is additional plant food (CO2 which plants thrive on) destroying the environment? If anything it’s making the environment better (for example the Sahara is becoming greener with more plant life).

  45. “Human caused or not”….

    Makes no difference… because EVEN IF WE BELIEVE THEIR (scientifically unsupportable) NUMBERS….and WE WASTE $50 TRILLION to $80 TRILLION… the temperatures would only be reduced by 0.1 C by the end of the century.

    It isn’t about climate…it is about control by those with illegitimate power and NOT with good intentions.

  46. “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
    __________________________________________________

    Brussels today has other problems than

    Ms Figueres press conferences.

    https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=519SXM6yIpGckgWrkKH4Bw&q=Brussels+law+enforcement++criminal+clans+&oq=Brussels+law+enforcement++criminal+clans+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

  47. “once doubters see climate change as the dire threat it is, it will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in”

    Thank God for the eco wackos who have taken charge of nature such that they are now the operators of the planet. They will decide how the current interglacial should evolve and when if ever the next glaciation should arrive.

    Too bad they weren’t around in the Eemian. They might have prevented the ice sheet collapse and sea level rise horror of that interglacial.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/21/eemian/

  48. This baffle gab reminds me of that amusing claim of a few years ago,as to how difficult it was to discuss solutions to man made climate change with sceptics..
    Because those sceptics were hung up on the science,demanding evidence of manmade warming of all things.
    And how sad it was that the concerned ones solutions were ignored by these sceptics and their pesky demands for scientific evidence.

    I compare the CO2 banishers to a drunk peeing from a roof top,while demanding those below acknowledge that “It be raining”.
    For they have that very same level of arrogance.

  49. “It’s a conspiracy to overthrow all capitalist economies”

    And yet it was pushed into international politics by a supporter of capitalism, Margaret Thatcher.

  50. The arrogance of the CAGW activists has reached a new level. There support teams are now so comfortable, because they have the BBC, CNN, ABC etc, and most of the publications across the globe within their control.
    No article is allowed to be published these days about any subject, that fails to weave in Global Warming caused by human CO2 emissions.
    The confidence level is such we now have politicians employed by the UN, telling the world, “the mission is clear, we must take down capitalism”. We must change the rules of society, we must stop using fossil fuel (i.e. cheap accessible) energy.
    It will not be long before the propagandists such as the BBC and the Guardian persuade all other media outlets to ban any publication or article that challenges AGW or Man Made Climate Change. Both organisations have stated, banning those who disagree with the corporation’s view, is now policy. For the BBC/Guardian the debate will not be allowed to be held, they have decided the science is settled, they have decreed, only those who agree with us will be published or allowed on air.
    The next step is to challenge the right of scientists to speak authoritatively about the subject. The religion of AGW will ultimately imprison those who speak against their core belief.
    Hate crime knows no boundaries, it is already on the statute book here in the UK.
    You have been warned, totalitarianism did not die with the collapse of the USSR.

  51. Margart Thather was having a all out war with the minors union, who want to and nearly succeeded , to destroy the UK economy, necessary before introducing Communsism,

    She wanted to use Nuclear, opposed at that time by the Greens, so tried to frighten people with the danger of CO2.

    It backfirted, although she did win her war against the Union.

    If you want to blame any one person or group for this myth, what about Racial Carson and her book “Silent Spring”, then of course “The Club of Rome”.

    Or even as far back as Saul of Tarsus , later St. Paul, who took the story of a young preacher one Jesus of Gallalee and completely changed his Jesus preachings to what suited Sauls warped ideas.

    The present day myth of the End of the World has many Fathers.

    MJE

  52. Everyone is scared of anything! That’s why the alarmists are so successful. They serve our general anxiety and focus it on our suspected contribution to the suspected global warming. Whether or not there is a real reason for this fear does not matter.

  53. Because since crank alarmist Paul Ehrlich’s viciously misogynistic “Population Bomb” in 1968 deviant Warmist sociopaths have hewn relentlessly to death-eating One World Order totalitarian despotism, the following strictly factual reprise doth bear repeating:

    From Pliocene times throughout our early Pleistocene Era from 2.6 mm years-before-present (YBP), Earth’s plate tectonic dispositions have driven periodic global Ice Ages averaging 102 kiloyears, interspersed with median 12,250-year interglacial epochs such as the Holocene from c. 14,400 YBP (BC 12,400).

    On this basis, given the 1,500 year cometary/meteoritic Younger Dryas “cold shock” from BC 10,950 – 9,450, Earth’s Holocene Interglacial Epoch ended 12,250+3,500-14,400 = AD 1350, coincident with Kamchatka’s strato-volcano Kambalny Eruption precipitating a 500-year Little Ice Age (LIA) through 1850/1890. Ending the 500-year Medieval Warm, historian Barbara Tuchman calls this “catastrophic 14th Century” the era “when God slept”.

    As “amplitude compression” –extremes vary inversely with time-series’ frequency and wavelength– reflects the current 140-year LIA rebound to c. AD 2030 amidst a pending 70-year Grand Solar Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, reducing cyclical fluctuations from 50 years (1940) to forty (1980), thirty (2010), and finally twenty (2030), odds are that any major astro-geophysical event will only aggravate the current 750-year chill-phase (to AD 2100) presaging two miles thick glaciations covering 60% of Earth’s temperate-zone landmasses for nigh 100,000 years.

    For the record, Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer reviewed Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law (pub. December 2017) definitively refutes any possible CO2 connection to climate variations: Where Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature T equates to its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p.

    Accordingly, any individual planet’s global atmospheric surface temperature T (GAST) is proportional to PM/p, converted to an equation per its Gas Constant reciprocal = 1/R. Applying Holmes’ relation to all planets in Earth’s solar system, zero error-margins attest that there is no empirical or mathematical basis for any “forced” carbon-accumulation factor (CO2) affecting Planet Earth.

  54. Hi, all.

    Hopefully I’m not doing too big a “stretch”, going from making fun of a Mr. Gandy (an alarmist in South Carolina) in the above article, over to something else, but I was a bit “triggered” by something that appeared on CTV here in Canada a couple of days ago, so here goes:

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/receding-glaciers-in-canadian-arctic-reveal-landscapes-not-seen-for-40-000-years-1.4273076

    Now, the researchers from the U of Colorado in the above report could use a skeptical refresher, it seems. Instead of blithley claiming that Baffin Island in the Arctic, has less ice than ever during the last 100,000 years (or sometimes they say 40,000 years), why not read some sort of reasoned critique of this dubious conclusion, say:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-last-100-years-may-be-warmest-in-120000-years-in-the-arctic-but-not-so-fast/

    Once thing I notice about the about the referenced 2013 WUWT article is that some of the comments to the article are pretty entertaining as to speculations as to whether, if certain mosses were uncovered during the 100,000 years mentioned (i.e. if the glaciers actually receded during that time), whether or not *moose* would have eaten the moss!

    More seriously, I myself have witnessed the digging up of 10,000 year old tree leaves here in Saskatchewan, Canada (this was in the regular, glacier originated hills that cover most of my home province, at a location where they were digging a watering hole for cattle). The dead leaves in question were about 4 meters down below the surface of the pasture land, so no doubt they were very old.

    In the context of finding old material that may have been dug out, or may have been naturally uncovered at some point, etc., what does my experience say about the conclusions of the U of Colorado people? Surely there is no particular reason why digging up some old moss on Baffin Island would say anything as to whether the moss was under the ice or just underground at any given time!

    Anyway, I just thought I’d pop this recent CTV/University of Colorado TV report reference in to the current discussion here — it’s just one more dubious media thing, I guess?

  55. “Is it humans or is it not? We really need to get beyond that,”

    The problem with getting beyond that is

    “[I]t will be easier for them to get on board with the only solutions believed to be able to rein it in: phasing out fossil fuels and scaling back our carbon footprint.”

    You see that solution only “works” if the answer to “Is it humans or is it not” is “it’s humans (via their emissions of CO2)” if the answer is “It’s not humans” than that solution not only won’t work, it doesn’t even make sense.

    Bottom line is humans can only “fix” the problem if they are the cause of the problem. If the cause of the problem is natural then what human do or don’t do is irrelevant. Man in incapable of telling nature what to do.

    So when they say “We really need to get beyond” the question of man’s culpability what they really mean is “we’re blaming man regardless of what the facts say so shut up and do what we tell you to do!”.

    • You’re right that it has nothing to do with logic. The reason has to do with the dynamics of persuading people to act. Getting people to agree to pay for tax increases, wealth transfers, and wind turbines in order to intervene in the natural global climate cycle would be a very hard sell. Everyone knows intuitively that we can’t affect the natural global climate cycle.

      People are much more open to the idea that we should always seek to reduce our impact on the world, just as we should not pollute the ground with mercury, or leave our trash on beach. Here people are told that our impact is dangerous, so of course they jump on board.

  56. John ENDICOT sums it up perfectly, but of course that is not what the Greens want to hear, and sadly also both the Media and the Politician s.

    MJE

  57. That is the point. First, they must prove beyond any doubt that they are able to predict the climate for the next 100 years. Then, without any doubt, they must prove what the exact causes of climate change are. And finally, they have to prove that these results have positive or negative effects on humanity and / or nature. After that, it must first be clarified which measures are possible at all and are expedient. Only then we can take the appropriate measures.

  58. “I’m not sure if I excerpted the dumbest or least dumbest bits of this article. There’s not much dynamic range between the dumbest and least dumbest bits.”

    Hee Hee. OK, I think Upton Sinclair gets the last word here:
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

    As always, Dave, thanks for spotting all this stuff!
    Did you know that modern Japanese for stuff is “stuffu”?

Comments are closed.