"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: man-made global warming

“The best things carried to excess are wrong” - Winston Churchill

According to a statement made by Mitt Romney’s campaign press secretary, Andrea Saul back in July of last year.

“Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them … CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.”   (emphasis mine)       SOURCE 

Andrea is correct.  CO2 is indeed a naturally occurring gas that humans emit every time they exhale.  As a walk away statement you simply want to shrug your shoulders though and say, “Okay?”   However,  what Andrea was primarily doing here in the larger context was giving Big Oil and Big Coal a wink, letting them know that Romney would remain in their back pocket.  On a lower level she was assuring those climate-denying conservatives, who were still undecided at the time if Mitt was their man or not, that he too is climate-science challenged.

But what’s even more deceptive about this statement is the suggestion underlying it that CO2 is nothing to be concerned about. It’s natural and it’s been here since Adam and beyond.  This is reflective of the half-truths that climate deniers are good at spitting out and that poorly informed people are good at swallowing, as if it were a whole truth.

If there is no need to worry about CO2 then we clearly don’t need trees, flowers, wild grasses and other flora that take this toxic CO2 and regurgitate it into healthy oxygen necessary for all life on this tiny blue dot.

Remember how all of this was explained to us in grade school?

As long as there are the natural (or “God-given” if you prefer) capabilities to convert this seemingly harmless CO2 into a more life friendly molecule, there is no reason to be concerned.

But let me add something to the knowledge base here for those who may have thought Ms. Saul was a gifted thinker.  When you extract CO2 from beneath the surface where it is an inert substance – which essentially means that it has little or no ability to react with our biosphere – then you offset the natural balance whereby our planet can exchange CO2 at a rate that still allows us to have adequate oxygen to breathe and process life.  Let me make this even simpler for those whose heads are fixing to explode if all of this is beginning to shine a light into your cave.

Put a plastic bag over your head and see how pleasant the CO2 your emitting is compared to the O2 you have now deprived your lungs of.  Uncomfortable isn’t it?  What’s happening ought to be clear because it happens at such a rapid rate.  But this is exactly what is happening to the planet we live on; just at a slower rate that keeps you from noticing it – UNTIL IT’S TOO LATE.   While you were busy buying those material creature comforts that require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy to make, your ability to survive was and continues to be, slowly squeezed off.

When we destroy millions of acres of forest to put up a new mall or housing development we are changing the balance nature has provided us to exchange CO2 for O2.  Remember also that we lose millions of trees from wild fires which will be growing and spreading quicker over the coming years.  Combine this along with all of the CO2 we extract lying out of harms way far below the Earth’s surface as fossil fuels and impose it upon the natural balance that allowed life to develop as we know it, then we dramatically alter the means to provide sufficient food sources, drinking water and healthy air that every living species on this planet requires to sustain itself.

So get one of those life’s Ms. Saul  and all of you that thought she and others who parrot this half-truth knew what they were talking about.  Join the majority of people who believe man-made global warming that impacts climate change is nothing to mock,  like RMoney Romney did at the Republican National Convention just a few short months ago.

I wonder if those people laughing at Romney’s shallowness in this video are laughing now at those people on the East coast that have recently suffered immense property damage and the death of a loved one from one of the worst natural disasters in our history?  A natural disaster that was made worse from higher than natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that has resulted from burning oil, coal and natural gas.  This imbalance  has warmed the planet at unnatural rates and in so doing has rapidly enhanced ice melts in Greenland and the Arctic that elevated sea levels along the East coast and generated warmer ocean waters to make Sandy the ‘Frankenstorm” it became.

Will Romney and those who follow him realize too late that by helping us and our families requires something more than knowing how to invest other people’s capital and making yourself rich?  Jobs will be the least of our children’s worries as they try to deal with water and food shortages and the inundation of climate change refugees.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Science Denial and Andrea Saul -Romney 2012 Campaign Spokesperson


Senator Inhofe displays his response to the question that asks how many facts are in his new book “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future”

 

A hoax is something that is intended to deceive or defraud people.  This implies that plans were made and strategies were laid out by an individual or a select group of people to carry out this hoax.  Financial rewards are often an expected outcome. Hoaxes are “distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment or rumors and urban legends that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes”.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has gained much notoriety by all sides of the global warming issues since referring to this impending threat to the planet as a “hoax”.  He first made his conjecture public on the floor of the U.S. Senate back on July 28th, 2003.   He was quite verbose and for those who share views with Inhofe on who their enemies are, he might even have appeared to know what he was talking about.

But he isn’t even out of the starting gates with his assault on climate change proponents before he exposes himself as nothing more than a conspiracy theorists, or worse – a hoaxer himself .  He appears to be the voice of calm and reason as he informs us that, “Too often emotion, stoked by irresponsible rhetoric, rather than facts based on objective science, shapes the contour of environmental policy.”  But this is all a facade.

Irresponsible rhetoric punctuates the man’s entire speech from his erroneous claim that NASA’s finding back in 1992 dismissed the existence of an ozone hole in our stratosphere to the belief that there is “overwhelming evidence” by those who say global warming poses no grave harm to the planet.  Not only was there an ozone hole back in 1992 but the physical evidence of one today from newer technology has been validated by a new study led by NASA.  And contrary to Inhofe’s views that more people say global warming doesn’t pose a threat or that humans contribute to it, there is now not only an “overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it”, but this consensus is growing by leaps and bounds.

But one of the indicators that marks those people who attempt to blow smoke up the asses of other people is their frequent vilification of others.  I have yet to find any source truly reliable that hasn’t demonized and denigrated their adversaries throughout their public challenges.  Employing this tactic helps set unrealistic expectations as it conceals a failure to present documented data relevant to the narrative.

Recall also that our definition of a hoax points out that they are “distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment”.  There has to be willful intent “to deceive or defraud people”.  Inhofe’s allegations to support a hoax do not stand up to this criteria, even remotely and his frequent use of disparaging remarks toward “alarmist and lunatic environmental extremists” is apparent throughout his Senate speech.

Was Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector back in 2003, sounding “both ridiculous and alarmist” as Inhofe alleged then following Blix’s comments earlier that year that expressed his concern about being “more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict”?  Was it really “sheer lunacy” as Inhofe saw it when Science writer David Appel shared Blix’s concern, stating in an article that “[global warming] would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century, and so in this sense Blix is right to be concerned. Sounds like a weapon of mass destruction to me”?

When it was pointed out to Inhofe in an interview while in Copenhagen back in February 2010 that the Pentagon had identified climate change as one of the biggest threats to our national security, Inhofe put his foot in his mouth and retorted that the Pentagon made no such claim.  He was then informed that the DoD’s Quadrennial Defense Review stated, amongst other things, that:

 “climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. … While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.”   SOURCE 

 

But the kicker for me is where Inhofe has to now shamefully admit that his intent to use only facts based on objective science to form policy lacks any credibility following his comments in an interview with the Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason.  Earlier this year he appeared on that program to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.  He tells Eliason that global warming, a scientific theory, is disputed by a subjective religious view he finds in the Bible’s Genesis 8:22

Inhofe: Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.  Source

Image of BP oil spill from outer space. Can man’s actions change the environment?

 

Now try as they may to both incorporate science into their theological views (i.e., Creationism) while simultaneously denouncing science as Satan’s tool, most people within Christianity would not be inclined to view the Book of Genesis as “objective science”.  It is a part of their faith system that they say they don’t have to account for its veracity through the scientific method.  Faith alone is all that they need to sustain them.

Yet here’s James Inhofe who, when heading the Committee on Environment and Public Works back in 2003, affirmed that the decisions his committee makes, because they “have wide-reaching impacts, influencing the health and security of every American” would have three guiding principles, where using “the most objective science” heads the list.  Suffice it to say that neither of the other two guiding principles employed the use of scripture to help establish policy.

So, Mr. Inhofe.  A true hoax is more like what you’re doing to sell your book and curry favor with the oil and gas companies who faithfully and generously contribute to your political campaigns.   By claiming to battle an alleged hoax you have exposed yourself to the criticism you have set for yourself in your own comments.

By using the Bible in a cheap attempt to validate a scientific proposition, it seems only fair that we should use a verse from scripture to describe you.  I think Micah 2:11 fits neatly here.  “If a liar and deceiver comes and says, ‘I will prophesy for you plenty of wine and beer,’ he would be just the prophet for this people!”   “This people” being those who bankroll and re-elect you.

Are the uninformed and undereducated getting duped by climate deniers?


Could this be the Pacific Ocean view from the eastern side of Nevada in the not so distant future?



Though the denunciations by climate deniers of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming have subsided over the last year, the increase in temperatures continues none-the-less.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.

New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions.   SOURCE  

The evidence is mounting so fast that even a former skeptic has now joined the scientific consensus that attributes the “ever-faster rates” to man’s use of fossil fuels to run their automobiles and heat their homes.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, who was concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data … [established] the Berkeley Earth Project [using] new methods and some new data, [found] the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa. – SOURCE

What is especially ironic about Dr. Mueller’s study is that some of his funding came from the Koch brothers who have been paying any climate scientist who is cash strapped to dispel the overwhelming evidence that points a finger at the burning of fossil fuels for the increase in atmospheric CO2.  The Koch brothers wealth comes from the products they sell related to oil, energy, chemicals and financial products.

Employing no less than 30 lobbyists in Washington, Koch Industries has lobbied to change more than 100 pieces of federal legislation. They included trying to loosen regulations on potentially poisonous substances like dioxins, benzene and asbestos. They have pushed back against restrictions on carbon emissions and funded thinktanks and groups that promote efforts to discredit climate change science.  SOURCE

These lobbying efforts have payed off handsomely as many conservatives in Congress have stymied nearly all legislation that seeks to educate the public on man-made global warming or promote funding and subsidies to generate greater efforts for clean, renewable energy as the supply of finite fossil fuels are consumed .  American peak oil pretty much occurred back in the 1970s yet many in Congress try to ensure the public with the false notion that there are yet untapped sources of oil within our boundaries that will make us oil independent.

One of the most recent efforts to block efforts to better inform the public on dramatic climate change, occurrences that many who study it say are the effects of global warming, is the opposition that recently blocked a request by NOAA “to reshuffle its offices to establish a National Climate Service akin to the agency’s National Weather Service.”

It asked for no new funding to do so.  But in a political climate where talk of the earthly kind of climate can be radioactive, the answer in last week’s budget deal was “no.” Congress barred NOAA from launching what the agency bills as a “one-stop shop” for climate information.

Demand for such data is skyrocketing, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco told Congress earlier this year. Farmers are wondering when to plant. Urban planners want to know whether groundwater will stop flowing under subdivisions. Insurance companies need climate data to help them set rates.  SOURCE


But even if all the deniers in the public and Congress converted and accepted the evidence of climate science, they may have done so too late.  Things are changing so rapidly now that we may have passed the point of no return.  What many climate scientists feel is the acceptable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to slow and eventually reduce the green house effect of 350ppm was passed 20 years ago.

Governments have focused more on projected temperature increases rather than carbon levels. Since the mid-1990s, European governments have set a goal of limiting warming to slightly more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above current levels by the end of this century. The goal was part of a nonbinding agreement reached in Copenhagen in 2009 that was signed by the U.S. and other countries.

Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors Ron Prinn, Henry Jacoby and John Sterman said MIT’s calculations show the world is unlikely to meet that two-degree goal now.

“There’s very, very little chance,” Prinn said. “One has to be pessimistic about making that absolute threshold.” He added: “Maybe we’ve waited too long to do anything serious if two degrees is the danger level.”

Andrew Weaver at the University of Victoria, Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University and Gregg Marland of Appalachian State University agreed with the MIT analysis that holding warming to two degrees now seems unlikely.

“There’s no way to stop it. There’s so much inertia in the system,” Morgan said. “We’ve committed to quite a bit of warming.”

So don’t sell that isolated cabin near the top of Donnelley Peak in Nevada’s Calico Mountains.  Your grand kids could enjoy some sandy beach twilights listening to waves splash up against stone facings where nearby mule deer and antelope once grazed.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Global Warming Has Pushed the Arctic into a New Normal


How far will some go to present a half truth as something more than it is?

Today’s lesson children is about the pros and cons of CO2.  The Oil, Coal and Natural Gas industries are here to prevent the bogey men in the climate science field from frightening you about it.  We have put together this colorful children’s book – and parents  need not be reluctant to enlighten their own misunderstanding of  CO2 – to convince you that there is no need to fear CO2 from our waste product gathering abundantly in the atmosphere.  CO2 is a vital life form and important for our survival


One of the great benefits of CO2 is that it is transformed into oxygen through the photosynthesis process that plants are associated with.  Oxygen is of course essential to all living beings so this transformation process is a good thing about CO2.  

I have taken the liberty here to present to you as I think the authors intended regarding a recent publication that was printed for attendees at the recent meeting of the American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC).   The publication is entitled “The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment” or “How humanity and the rest of the Biosphere will prosper from this amazing trace gas that so many have wrongfully characterized as a dangerous pollutant.”   The authors of the piece are C. D. and S. B. Idso.  S.B Idso, or Sherman to his father, C.D. Idso, is president of his father’s Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an ExxonMobil funded think tank.  More about  this later.

The Idsos are some of those out there that think that all we need to know about CO2 is the brief positive side I presented at the beginning of this article.  There really is another side to the production of CO2 that doesn’t paint as pretty a picture, but it’s more scary stuff and there are those like Sherwood and C.D. who want to shield you from this.  This may seem a good thing because as children we don’t want to be afraid of our world, even if the danger is real and the failure to know about it will only make the threat worse.

A couple of the things you will not find in the Idso’s literature is that all things in excess are harmful and unless there are sufficient plants to convert this CO2 into oxygen it has no real value to life.  Mowing down forests to build another mall or housing developments could have a negative affect on this vital process.

People like the Idsos that fail to present a complete picture which includes the scary side of CO2, are also closely tied to those who make lots and lots of money from producing tons and tons of CO2.  So much in fact that the excess it creates throws the natural balance of CO2 out of whack on our planet and is having serious ill effects on all living creatures.  Who are these people you may ask?  They are of course the very people who provide the dirty, finite energy sources that fuel your SUVS and heat your homes and businesses.

 

These energy sources are referred to as fossil fuels because they are “formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms,” like dinosaurs and old trees.  When this fuel is extracted from its source under the ground and is spent as energy it returns the CO2 NOT to its original inert state but primarily into the atmosphere, mingling with other CO2 molecules that have been there for millennium.  This is where it can be a threat to all of us.

As the CO2 gathers in the atmosphere it adds to that natural contingent of CO2 along with the other green house gases of water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.  These green house gases in the atmosphere provide a barrier for our planet from receiving too much direct radiant heat from the sun while also capturing some of that heat to prevent the planet from totally freezing over.  Read all about it here.  It is this natural balance of chemicals thus that sustain the planet and once this balance is lost, life as we know it is altered significantly, even to the point of ours and the demise of all other life forms.

We were not aware of this reality until scientific methods and tools were able to measure such things as early as the late 19th century.  Scientists who specialize in this field are called “climatologist” and they have discovered that our planet has lost this natural balance a few times over the millions and millions of years that Earth has been around.  I know the Bible says that Earth has only been around for a little over 5000 years but the gentlemen who wrote this also thought the earth was flat.  We now know better thanks to scientists.

But I digress.  What does all of this have to do with scary stories of CO2 and the people who sell and support the use of fossil fuels.  Well, it seems they have become concerned about the prospects that this knowledge will have some adverse affects on their business and thus their ability to make money.  By making the public aware that the use of fossil fuels is adding to the greenhouse effect which is heating up the planet at higher than natural rates, they have become fearful that you may stop buying their products and convert to cleaner, renewable energy sources out of concern for your health and the health of your family.

Science is a tool for all mankind.  It is no different for those who run the fossil fuel industry.  It’s been utilized to make the fuel sources we use in a variety of ways.  So it is difficult for the fossil fuel industries to lash out at science as the bogey man, much like religion has done for centuries since Galileo pointed out the biblical error of the Earth being the center of the universe.

No, instead of making that mistake the fossil fuel industry simply claimed that the scientists that study climate change (remember what we called them – CLIMATOLOGISTS) were wrong in their findings.  But to help them do this they had to have other scientists refute that.  No one stepped forward immediately when originally asked so they told them that they would pay anyone who could find fault with the science of climate change to create the illusion that there was no real threat in using their product.

ZME Science blog puts it more succinctly:

The thing is, you don’t have to convince people that climate change isn’t happening – all you have to do is cast some doubt on that, and people will no longer be certain, and this is a strategy that has been successfully tested by tobacco companies, almost at the same level, and coffee companies, at a much lower level. Basically, you keep the public confused about the idea, and a confused public is much, much better than a public who is against you.    SOURCE

 

Now, man being the self-interested slug that Ayn Rand says we are in her writings like Atlas Shrugged, provided the means to influence a few scientist like the Idsos (who by the way are not climatologists) to suggest that maybe global warming was not a threat or at least that man-made global warming through increased usage of fossil fuels was not a valid scientific concept.  However, there were only a handful of climatologists who were willing to sell their souls to the industry while the consensus of climate scientists refused to break from their discipline that held peer-reviewed documents strongly favored the effects of CO2 from fossil fuels on global warming.

So to counter this the fossil fuel owners convinced other scientists whose specialty was not in the climate science arena  (the Idsos work in the field of geology, or what most of us know as rocks) to get on board with them to refute the consensus and the preponderance of evidence that supports the climate science on man-made global warming.  Along with this endeavor they also started contributing to the coffers of some conservative politicians to go on the offensive with them, like Oklahoma’s Senator James Inhofe and Texas Congressman Joe Barton; those whose states had abundance resources of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

Conservatives are natural enemies of liberals so they employed the straw man argument that all climate scientists and their lay supporters were liberals and were in on some sort of conspiracy with Al Gore to end the use of cheap, dirty fossil fuels so they could jack up energy prices and make a killing in the market.  They never really clearly explained this but most people are easily duped anyway, thinking that if rich people and their politicians are claiming this then it must be true.

 If Lucy is Big Oil then we must be Charlie Brown

But even this didn’t seem to be having the overwhelming affect on the public as they intended so they have tried to take the positive aspects of CO2 that I mentioned at the outset of this article and are now trying to convince that CO2 is our friend, not our enemy.  This is where the Idsos and their literature come in.  The fossil fuel-friendly industries like Koch Industries and Exxon/Mobil were handing this literature out to its political minions in New Orleans last week at the 38th annual meeting of the American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC).  ALEC is where big industries get together with your elected officials and create model legislation for them that helps their corporate interest while being passed off as legislation your elected officials created for the good of their constituents.

Now it is important to note two misconceptions on the front page of the Idsos’ literature.  First, CO2 enhancement is not an argument that has arisen within the climate science studies of man-made global warming.  This is another straw man argument that some in the climate deniers camp have been paid by fossil fuel producers to generate.  CO2, as was mentioned above is necessary to the vitality of all life and when present in proper amounts, does indeed enhance the biosphere.

Secondly, no one on the climate science side has “wrongfully characterized this ‘trace gas’ as a dangerous pollutant.”   This is another facade generated by climate deniers to throw poorly informed people off the track as to the core concern on this issue.  The front page of the Idsos literature is therefore gravely misleading.

So, don’t be deceived.  CO2 is good in proper amounts. But like anything in abundance it can prove harmful.  Merely ask any surviving suicide case (if you can find them) who used a plastic bag or an enclosed garage with the car engine running in their attempt to kill themselves.  And don’t be fooled with the argument that tropical fruit being grown and produced in northern Canada  is a boon for society.  Those who will experience the extreme heats and desertification of this climate change south of Canada will find little to cheer about on Canada’s new crop growing ability.

RESOURCE:

Wikipedia on Fossil Fuels 



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers