Global Cooling: A Far More Dangerous Fate
A poll conducted on November 5 by Rasmussen Reports found that an all-time high of 68% of “likely U.S. voters” say that global warming is “a serious problem”; 38% of them thought it was “very serious.”
Considering the benefits of warming and the fact that even the UK Met office shows that there has been no global warming in the past 16 years, this demonstrates the degree to which the population has been propagandized into believing the opposite of reality. We are the first generation in history to believe that climatic warming is a bad thing.
In a warmer world, less energy is needed for heating and transportation, resulting in less air, land, and water pollution. Snow and ice that seriously hamper movement and increase the costs of land and water shipping are reduced. Roads, bridges, and other infrastructure maintenance costs drop, as there would be less freeze/thaw and ice damage. Clothing expenses obviously reduce in a warmer world, and construction costs plummet as less insulation is required in all buildings.
The benefits of warming are especially prominent in agriculture. Longer frost-free periods will extend growing seasons as well as the extent of agriculture in middle- and high-latitude regions. More and greater varieties of food are then possible in areas that are currently agriculturally marginal.
Contrary to the assertions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a warmer world is a wetter world with less, not more, droughts. This is because evaporation increases with warming, putting more moisture into the atmosphere.
This week, we’ll be hearing in The Dirty Weather Report from Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project that global warming will lead to more extreme weather. This is wrong. In the exceptionally unlikely event that the world warms significantly due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker mid-latitude cyclones in a warmer world — less extremes in weather, not more. Rising global temperatures would produce a tranquilizing effect on weather, something we would all welcome.
Far more people die due to excessive cold than due to excessive warmth. Cold weather is obviously much harder on our bodies than is warm weather. That is why people retire to Florida or Arizona, and not Alaska.
History demonstrates that warming has been good, and cooling bad, for civilization. That is why geologists named past warm periods “optimums” and cold times “dark ages.”
Carbon dioxide is not such a bad thing the percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere
is 0.0391 percent , the whole global warming lie was based on a excess of Co2
caused by industrialization so they could levy taxes and control society.
Think about the carbon taxes Obama and the U.N has coming for a cooling
earth.
Re Ron spins: The carbon tax for a cooling climate will be child sacrifices.
We already have that, Abortion.
The irish Famine, like nearly all famines, was caused by a discriminatory economic system where farmers were prohibited from freely trading and getting recompense for their crops and their works. Because farmers there could not keep the monetary fruits of their labor, because the landlord-tenant relationship was so rapacious, farmers could only farm potatoes on their tiny plots, and the monoculture was vulnerable to the potato blight. And the politicians in England refused to do anything to help. I don’t see how cooling climates can be blamed for that.
When farmers cannot freely be paid for their crops, and when they cannot improve their land and get the benefit of it, disaster happens. People die, and people become less free. Whether this is deliberate, as in the Soviet Union, or is out of clumsiness, as in Ireland and India, doesn’t matter too much to the dying. Frankly, I blame Joseph (Genesis 47:20–31).
Joseph hey? I seem to recall it was the kings dream, Joseph merely interpreted.
” I don’t see how cooling climates can be blamed for that.”
What made conditions hospitable for the blight?
Yes, the farmers had a monoculture going due to other conditions than the climate, but it was the colder climate that enabled the potato blight to run rampant causing the monoculture crops to fail.
It’s similar to why the Black Death was so deadly and contagious. Colder climates caused crop failures and widespread hunger weakening the population making it easier for the plague to infect and kill.
The blight wasn’t caused by economics. The destruction attendant on the blight was made far worse than it need have been, by the political oppression; but the oppression did not cause the cold weather and the blight. That cold weather made conditions in the US pretty hard, too, as witness the notorious year without a summer. But during the medieval climate optimum, grain was grown on the coasts of Greenland, and grapes were first grown in England for wine-making.
The primary cause of the “year without a summer” (1816) was the massive eruption of Mt. Tambora the previous year. The ongoing LIA just exacerbated the effects.
The whole global warming thing was never actually about saving the Earth: it was about frightening the sheeple into bowing to a global dictatorship that would use environmental austerity as a vehicle to redistribute wealth around the world, leaving the vast majority poor, starving, in the dark, and totally dependent on government controlled by the very few. If billions of people died, so what? as long as they had all the power and lived off the fat of the land. You can see this already if one looks at the debauchery of the Obama government: the lavish parties, expensive paintings of themselves, flying around the world drunk to get drunker in foreign lands, etc.
Of course, by now, many of them seem to have believed their own lies and really think the Earth is in danger and only they are wise enough to save it. That will mean killing industry, killing billions of people, and making slaves of the few allowed to remain alive to keep the few thousands of elite living in luxury.
That’s quite a paranoid view. You might consider seeking psychiatric help.
Keith, having read all of your comments under this article there is no more doubt: you are the one definitely in need of help, not Thane 36425
The ‘warming’ alarm started during the natural warming cycle in the 80′s/90′s as the preferred method to get the world population to agree to give up their freedom, and live with less, much less, to ‘save’ the planet.
The sheeple are too dumbed down to question the propaganda. The Agenda will continue in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and the poor saps will swallow it as the snow continues to fall in mid summer.
Oh, and by the way, Islamic oil-producing countries promote the eco-freak agenda, because it protects them from competition from domestic energy sources.
So you’ve got your commie enemies who want to collapse the US economy so that they can consolidate their power, allied with your eco-freak enemies who want to put a stop to development so as to starve out the poor, allied with your Muslim enemies who want your money to promote the global jihad.
That’s called the red/green/green axis.
Hola, I am from and living in Bolivia that, having studied engineering in the USA and worked for 13 years there, since 1986 I have been studying global climate change from a systems sciences and cybernetic perspectives. Thank you so much for the article as overall it is very refreshing. That said, it is still a political statement more than a scientific one -and we need science and philosophy back instead of ideology and politics, as otherwise we fall among the Gore group that with Hansen and co. have created the biggest geophysical lie: that there is a simple atmospheric carbon dioxide (ATMCO2) driven global warming only which leads, they add, to climate extremes, and that whoever does not suscribe to this is simply a “climate denier” according to so politically and climate correct arrogant them.
In the last 2 million years the earth has been a cooler planet (before that this planet was say so hot, pretty much unbearably hot for human life as we know it). In the 1950s climatologists discovered that then pretty much sudddenly and about 2 million years ago the planet cooled off, and started the glacial ages, 23 of them since then each ice age, with a cool period of aproximately 80 thousand to 120 thousand years of cool period, followed by an interglacial warm period lasting between 8 thoussand to 12 thounsand years. Currently we are at the end of the last interglacial warm period. Up to even the 1990s it was believed that ATMCO2 was the driving force of those cycles but since the revolutionary work of Henrik Svensmark of the late 1990s that has become quite unclear. More and more it seems that ATMCO2 is not the main driver of climate change on earth; factors such as galactic cosmic rays reaching the earth (amount of which is inversely determined by sun´s magnetic activity, are directly proportional to cloud foramtion),as well as ground surface albedo and even soil dust in the atmosphere (from so much desertification occurring worldwide): are factors that oveshadow the climate change induced only by greenhouse gases such as ATMCO2.
So to the “conservatives”: there are both climate change and climate extremes.
To the Goreans: even though there are climate change and extremes, they are -not- only (if at all)driven by ATMCO2 only nor there is simple global warming from this.
On a related note and now I will be very political, “climate change deniers” and “climate change admitters” must start to understand that: ATMCO2 -must- be reduced from the atmosphere in much larger amounts than proposed by the Río, Kyoto or Copenhaguen Protocols or treaties, not because reducing that would stalibilize global climate but because ATMCO2, in contact with ocean waters produce carbonic acid, and even though it is not causing acidification of those waters (as too many environmental alarmists falsily claim, because the Ph of those waters is still above 8 thus not on the acidic but alkaline side), the de-alkalinizatrion that such carbonic acid is producing in oceans waters, decreases coral reef formation that are crucial for marine life (even though they occupy a small area they are home for at least 25% of all marine life). So “conservatives” and “progressives” friends: we must reduce the use of hydrocarbon energy, of fossil fuels, just for the latter and do so in great amounts. And this can be accomplished without making Al Gore´s daddy and co., richer by just thinking in nuclear energy, or even just thinking in solar or just wind: there are impressively functional new energies such as those discovered long ago by Tesla that creeps like J. P. Morgan would not finance because electricity produced by Tesla technology could not be metered as it is literally free. But of course neither Obama nor Romney would talk about exploring those technologies because both are still hostage of huge oil and nuclear interests, but what is new when from the Bush family to the Saudis, from Chávez to Ahmadinejad, all are part of the mega oil business that having shares in oil mega-corporations cannot let go 7 trillion of profits per year go -and besides this, let´s face: it oil interests produce very profitable wars and terror, but that is beyond the scope of climate change, gracias, y muchos saludos.
There is no evidence that corals are harmed by the increased amount of calcium dissolved in the ocean — which is the effect of the “de-alkanization” you’re wetting your pants over.
And seriously, “Tesla free energy”? You’re not an engineer if you believe in that BS.
ATMCO2 in contact with water in this case ocean water forms hydrogen ions. The more hydrogen ions the less carbonate ions available for marine species (like not just most corals but also, mollusks, echinoderms, foraminifera, and calcareous algae),to construct their skeletons with limestone (calcium carbonate, CaCO3), which means calcification.
In terms of Tesla: hard to find a more extraordinary genious engineer than him. I am not sure if you are an engineer but I recommend you to study Faraday´s 1831 experiment. On that Tesla built upon, and on the work of Tesla did so, not just inventors like Trombly and Kahn, and De Palma, but also the U.S.´s DoD, the three having the patents for those generators. It is simply tragicomic when most scientists from the best universities of the world deny the revolutionary work of Tesla as being BS as you put it -and while that happens military complexes such as DoD secretly keep on developing those cutting edge technologies for only military instead of civilian applications. That said, thank nevertheless for caring to comment, even though unnecesarilly ridiculing me -no problem with that because by doing so you do fit perfectly in the first stage of the history of new ideas, that as Schopenhauer had it: “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
But wish you would comment on the main point I made: finally the big lie of simple ATMCO2 warming only is being questioned. And that is a huge relief, not that there is not global climate change (in contrast to those that for oil profits and theh like won´t even consider this) but it does not mean a simple warming caused by just ATMCO2. And for this we must thank the works of heroes like Svensmark (study, if you have not yet his: “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change” was published in 2007), as well as those contributions, mine included, of incorporating in the equation the role ground surface albedo too. The main problem of the warming only people (as well as those that do not even accept that there is climate change or cliamte extremes) is that for whatever reasons or interests, they have not subject their hypothesis (or belief) to what in systems sciences is known as the “quasi-comprehensiveness test of hypothesis” which is something that continuously must be done as the human mind and human systems are so insignificant when attempting to grasp the complexity and richness of nature´s movement.
Gracias.
So, by your reckoning, there is no life in the oceans today because CO2 levels have been much higher in the distant past, therefore killing everything? That is the logical conclusion of your argument.
One point regarding your argument of ocean acidification killing coral still puzzles me. Historical records developed from a variety of sources show that atmospheric CO2 has existed in far higher concentrations than at present. If what you say is true, does that mean that coral reefs died off during these periods of time? Some of these periods lasted for hundreds of thousands of years. If you could answer that one to my satisfaction, you might have a better chance of convincing me of your premise.
Thank you for your appreciated well reasoned challenge, Keaton. I am afraid that ignorant I may not answer this to your satisfaction but here is my best attempt for now. You are so right: In time immemorial there was so much carbon, not just fixed in flora and fauna but also in the earth´s atmosphere and during millions of years (e.g., when the time of dinosaurs) reaching as high as 3800 ppmv in the Eocene epoch, or close to 10 times the current amount! That was previous to the ice era (which started about 65 million years ago); over time so much of it has has gone under the earth´s surface -my colleague and pioneer of systems ecology Dr. Howard Odum, used to say that the reason why humans emerged on earth was perhaps to bring back the carbon stored in the ground to the surface:). So when you talk about higher concentration of ATMCO2 than now, you are therefore talking of pretty much of a pre-ice era period; in that period, coral (that has been on this planet for perhaps over a billion years or so), had several moments when it almost went extinct but not for more carbon dissolved in the oceans forming carbonic acids but other reasons (e.g., when the Pacific high nutrient rich waters mixed with the Atlantic,the low tolerant to high nutrient waters corals almost got extinct). And previous to ice era (thus previous to say about 65 million years ago that according to paleogeology it started), we definitely had a warmer climate thus an earth with also warmer ocean waters; in those really -warm- times, the ocean temperature was also much higher. As you may know, the higher the water temperature the -less– gas, in this case CO2, can dissolve in it (like for instance as long as a soda is not frozen, but cold or cooler it has more gas in it); thus, in those times of warmer planet thus warmer oceans times less marine life had to occurr -at some point ocean water was so hot that it may have been too hot for lots of marine life to exist anyway, regardless how much CO2 could dissolve in them (even though as pointed out in warmer liquids less gas can dissolve). Now please allow me to get closer to our times. Once ice era starts, the earth, thus the oceans, become much colder: more carbon those waters can allow in its solution -and yet in those periods the carbon in the atmosphere was -less- than 300ppmv (thus like 95ppmv less than actually which is about 115 ppmv higher than pre-industrial revolution). And in the current ice epoch that we are now, which started around 2.4 millions years ago, and in which about 23 glacial cycles have happened (as explained in my original comment), it is pretty much a fact at least in the last 400 thousand years that the carbon in the atmosphere would not reach past 350ppmv before it would go from interglacial to glacial -but this assumes that ATMCO2 is driving global climate change and that is being questioned. So, minimally in the last 400 thousand years ATMCO2 did -not- go to the level it is now. And in the level that is now,regardless whether or not it drives climate change (in my original comment above I explained my reasons why I do not think of it as being the main driver of global climate change), already in those amounts it is harmful for the environment.
And with the latter inmind, now my question to you: should we risked pumping more and more CO2 to the atmosphere thus keep on polluting the air, not just creating acid rain that sure doesn´t kill coral reef but harms us and the surface plants that are already weak anyway, because of lack of trace minerals in the soil, that after like 10 thousand years of leaching and the like are pretty much tired poor soils that by not having high amount of death protoplasms of microorganisms that feed from those minerals, the roots of plants that intake those protoplasms have their stomata not dense enough so they lose tons of moisture to evapotranspiration thus are more susceptible to destruction of fires? And as pretty much I explained above in the comment I made to Rob Crawford, still makes sense at least to me (and it may make some sense to you): The more hydrogen ions in ocean waters (from carbonic acid resulting from ATMCO2 mixed with the ocean), the more they combine with any carbonate ions forming bicarbonate, thus removing substantial amounts of carbonate ions from solution. And the less carbonate ions in solution the less carbonate ions available for marine species (like not just most corals but also, mollusks, echinoderms, foraminifera, and calcareous algae), to construct their skeletons with limestone (calcium carbonate, CaCO3), which means calcification.
Gracias.
I suspect that your ideas on Tesla “free” energy are similar to Obama’s, i.e. wind and solar are also “free”, except the environmentalists call it “renewable” – pure fantasy; and, you forgot to add that somehow billions of new jobs will be created, to make the idea more palatable to the stupid. Energy is never free, and as an engineer you should know that. I especially got a chuckle from your argument that everyone is wrong and “ATMCO2″ is only bad because of ocean coral destruction, implying that we get on with cap and trade and other ways to punish carbon-based energy to save the coral. Your diatribe against the oil and nuclear companies seems as if you would find living in Venezuela more to your liking. The energy business is very profitable as is. To think that oil company executives meet in smokey rooms to plot wars, terror and additional ways to “exploit” governments and consumers to sell more is typical of 1950s communistic imagination and fantasy.
I am speechless, by your acute profoundity and vision, Jarmo. You know it all, indeed, why should I be surprised. Gracias.
hey man you broke my sarcasm meter. you owe me a replacement.
Carlos you had me agreeing for quite a while. Then you blame the oil companies and Bush; prove to me humans are powerful enough to change the coarse of the earth which varies around the sun in a a 100,000 year cycle. The tilt of the earth’s axil that varies as much as 20 degrees from true over many thousands of years, as well as the other variables you mentioned. I am not a denier; and I sympathize with your dezire and others like you who want to control the uncontrollable.
One of the more interesting posts recently on Anthony Watts’ fantastic blog was an article showing that the heating effect of carbon in the atmosphere is not linear, but grows only with the log of carbon levels. An enormous difference, and never mentioned in scare-mongering news reports.
Carlos, you would learn more and be wiser if, instead of coming here to tell us the “truth,” you were to start questioning what you are taught to be the truth. Only through doubt can you find real knowledge beyond politics and bias. Remember what you were taught about the scientific method, for goodness’ sake — question everything, every result, every conclusion. And when so-called scientists start saying that the discussion is over and they have proven something true — well, that’s when you know they have suddenly tipped over the line into politics and greed.
Ok, how about you show us your method and evidence?
The ocean is far more thoroughly “calcium-buffered” than that; atmospheric CO2 is merely a side-effect of surface warming which drives it out of solution. Warming precedes CO2 rise, and not the reverse, after all!
More detailed studies of calcium cycles show that added carbonic acid merely speeds up cycling; shellfish etc. then have more calcium available, and build shells more quickly and easily — but the dead organisms’ shells re-dissolve more quickly, too (which is a good thing for the shellfish and coral; otherwise they just help build up seafloor limestone and chalk layers).
Corals bleach and repopulate with another species of algae suited to the conditions quite frequently when temps rise or fall. Just business as usual. Coral evolved during a multi-hundred million year episode of very high CO2, in the 000s of ppm. They like it fine.
Dr Ball is a credible scientist. He examined and charted 300 years of raw climate data from The Hudsons Bay Company archives. He proved from the data. That temperatures rise and fall in a range. Dr Ball predicted correctly, that the fish would leave the Grand Banks, because the water was cooling. He is an honest man!
Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris’s post confirms the obvious. That is not to diminish their work, it demonstrates the mass ignorance and lack of critical thinking of the masses.
In my Chemistry labs they make a point all the time: “no grant money if you don’t adhere to the official truth.”
If you study all the civilizations of the world, nearly all of them fell in cool periods. That’s so remarkable. These fools don’t have hope to damage the climate, but they do have hope in ruining the economy and looting some more.
You get points for stubbornness at least. First there wasn’t any global warming, then it wasn’t caused by our activities, and now it’s going to be good for us.
If it had no other effects at all, global warming would be a huge pain in the neck because of sea level rise alone. We saw some of that during Sandy, but there are less dramatic but even more expensive long-term consequences. I work for the power companies. They don’t give a damn about the politics or ideology of this issue, but they recognize that rising water is going to cost them a lot because of all the facilities they have in vulnerable areas.
Incidentally, the power companies are also all planning to reduce their carbon emissions. That’s not because they’re dominated by environmentalists. A long time ago they made the judgment that global warming is a real problem and that the politicians would have to deal with it eventually. (My bet: when global warming produces some really catastrophic consequences, PJ Media or its successors will find a way to blame the liberals for not having warned us.)
” First there wasn’t any global warming, then it wasn’t caused by our activities, and now it’s going to be good for us. ”
If you look carefully, that’s never what has been said, at least not by anyone that remotely what he/she’s talking about. It’s also not what the author said. The point has always been that it may be warming but: 1) that warming (or cooling) is only minimally caused by greenhouse gasses at all; 2) the major greenhouse gas is H2O vapor, with CO2 (from all sources) contributing a very small percentage; and 3) anthropo-generated CO2 is only a small portion of even that percentage. There’s also the documented fact that historical CO2 levels seem to lag temperature, not lead it. In short, any observable climate changes are almost all due to natural factors (particularly the Sun) and not any effort of ours.
You should also notice that the author never said that it was actually warming, just that it would not be necessarily bad if it did. So, yes, all three of your cited points are correct: it’s not warming (hasn’t been since 1990); it’s not our fault if it is (or if it’s cooling); and we certainly hope that it is warming, because the alternative is the start of the next glaciation – which we’re overdue for.
Yep, and tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer either.
You guys are trapped in an endless circle. Because you only trust people who tell you what you want to hear and have a story explaining the nefarious purposes of the people who don’t tell you what you want to hear, you can’t escape. Things look different if you live in the scientific world. The science of global warming was fought out in the journals over a couple of decades. It just wasn’t the case that only one side was represented. What happened was what normally happens. After a long and very contentious debate, it stopped being interesting or valuable to doubt what was obviously the case and almost all the doubters were convinced, not silenced. I know. I read the journals. Too bad you are forbidden by your political religion to participate in that wider world.
One ironic footnote to this: one of the first scientists to propose the concept of anthropogenic global warming was the Swede Svante Arrhenius over a hundred years ago. Arrhenius, who lived in a very cold country, welcomed the prospect. So Doctor Ball is just going back to the sources.
If you thought Sandy was bad, you should seriously study the 1950s. They had 6 East Coast hurricane strikes all in about the same area as Sandy, and they were all in the Cat 3 range or so. And, they all happened in roughly a 2 year period. Was Global Warming a major problem even that far back?
Precedents! No fair citing precedents!
“Incidentally, the power companies are also all planning to reduce their carbon emissions. That’s not because they’re dominated by environmentalists.”
The power companies could care less about global warming or sea level rise. All costs are passed on to consumers. They are just modernizing their equipment at consumer’s expense. By law they have to make a profit.
The alarmists always fail to mention that there has been no warming during the past 16 years or take into account past hurricane activity. In 1900 there were over 2000 casualties in Galveston TX as a result of a hurricane. Where is the relationship from global warming?
Such statements are typically made by people who have never seen a sea level chart: hurricanes and tsunamis bring in sea surges 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater than annual sea level rise (2-3mm). The easiest of all fallacies to debunk is the claim of accelerating sea level rise, and nothing is more absurd than blaming Sandy on global sea level. GW paranoia thrives only in the minds of the most ignorant. –AGF
As the saying goes, tell it to the Marines.
People who’ve never seen a sea level chart? Hell, I’ve worked on research projects about sea level changes.
It is indeed the case that storm surges are much larger than year-by-year or even decade-by-decade sea level changes. Thing is, though the worst disasters happen during storms, the underlying sea level changes make the effects of the storms progressively worse. The utilities understand how this works, hence their concern.
You don’t catch on very quick. Once again, sea level rise is insignificant in coast control–one inch per decade. Nobody can deny this, and nobody with the tiniest shred of intelligence can claim it is a concern. Tell it to the Marines? Why don’t you tell it to the Dutch? You don’t worry about predictable rise of less than a foot per century. You worry about unpredictable 50 and 100 year floods. New York got flooded because of planners of competence comparable to yours–same with Japan–short memories and no comprehension of science. –AGF
I too work for power companies and the current executives are political animals with no skin in the game. Look how many are lawyers when formerly utility executives were engineering types. The new execs most certainly “care” about environmental issues as they see the loony rich left as their peer group. Utility execs used to be small players in the corporate world, but now fancy themselves to be part of the big boy club and want to kowtow to the elite currently in power.
This is a overall problem with our system where managers have taken over for capitalists.
Sandy? If anything, a result of global cooling; that big blob of Arctic air that fed it from the west, and helped draw it onshore in the first place, is what created the problem. Less than but similar to the REAL superstorms in the ’50s. And 1890s, etc. Precedents, doncha know?
What sea level rise? It’s been barely measureable, at 1.5 – 2 mm/yr, for a century or two. Unchanged today. Easy to cope with, if you don’t stupidly build on sandbars that historically wash away and relocate with every major storm. Bangladesh is GAINING land area btw. (It’s a delta. Silt and mangroves, etc. The only danger is upstream dams that keep the silt for themselves!) And the Maldives and other coral islands grow and shrink with the sea — unless humans kill off and interfere with the parrot fish that make sand out of coral and keep the process going.
All alarmism is mass-murderous BS anyway. Adaptation is what inevitably happens; the mitigation schemes do nothing but divert resources to useless (counter-productive, in reality) decarbonization fantasies and scams. To the Troo Believers like you, of course, the consequent mass de-population is a feature, not a bug.
The current claim that ‘extreme weather’ is the result of AGW is quite interesting in that it shows that the alarmists don’t even believe their own models. The models clearly predict that the majority of warming will occur in the polar regions; that’s why the arctic ice cover is of such great interest. However, extreme weather such as hurricanes, is caused by the movement of heat from the tropics to the poles. If the heat difference were reduced (per the models) then hurricane intensity would be reduced, contrary to the alarmist’s claims.
hah….. thank you for pointing out the entirely obvious. This is why I want to crush some people’s heads in with a concrete block……’>……
The conceit of the alarmists is staggering. The planet earth has been around for what – 4 billion years, man for 100,000 (maybe 200,000 if we’re gracious with our definition of human) and the industrial revolution for a mere 200 years – yet they insist with all the core of their being that humans are not only responsible but that we can somehow fix it!
Anyone who thinks mankind has anything to do with global climate in any way is an assh*le! Humans will become extinct, going the way of the Dodo, and for the same reason – we’re freakin’ stupid!
It’s true that the Earth is old, but it hasn’t been a garden of eden the whole time. There have been mass extinctions before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
The permian-triassic extinction event saw 95% of life on Earth perish. It took nearly 10 million years to recover.
We could be due for another one. However, this time there is a species that at least has a few members that understand what is actually going on. May even be possible to avert it with a large enough effort. But the nay-sayers would have us all just die. Well, seeya later, we’ll miss you.
What’s really amazing is people who failed high-school science (or never even took it), think they got all the answers and can make the best decisions. But historically, those who deal with reality the best are the ones that survive.
Once again you reveal yourself as a shyster and scare-monger. Those mass extinctions had huge NATURAL sources, amongst which CO2 doesn’t have the slightest claim to fame. Or correlation, even!
So everything you say is a non sequitur.
AlGae (Algore) makes it so easy. All we gotta do is trust him. He’ll do all the hard work of figuring out the science, putting together a power point and selling all the carbon credits you’ll ever need.
AlGae, a very rich man, the Pied Piper of climate change.
My reading about the lia revealed that all crops. Above ground were ruined. This led to dependence on root stocks. If those root stocks were poisoned then famine occurred.
By all accounts, Mars should be a Garden of Eden due to it’s CO2 laden atmosphere.
By what accounts? Mars has only 1% of the atmosphere of Earth.
Also have to disagree with the subtitle.
“Humans thrive during warm spells. We die in the cold.”
That made be true to an extent, but to survive in warmer climates also doesn’t require bigger brains, and therefore doesn’t drive the selection (evolution) of bigger brains. Note that no other simian lives in cold climates. Warm climates have abundant food all year round, and therefore don’t require as much ingenuity or planning to survive. you just have to forage around. When early humans migrated to more cold and extreme climates only the ones that could plan for periods of no food (winter), or make most creative use of what was available, and develop preservation techniques, survived. It’s also due to starting to eat meat. Of course, being better at making weapons and warfare to secure living area was also a factor. Therefore these extreme weather conditions actually drove the evolution of humans to where it is today.
If Nature has its way again, the smarter ones that recognize the changes in their environment and plan for it will be the ones that survive.
Meaning yourself, I suppose? Yuk-yuk. Such “punctuated” leaps occur only when the breeding population is reduced to a nubbin. Which you plan to be among, undoubtedly. Waalll, get ready fer a fight. Those who you and Strong and Ehrlich and friends plan to cull have other (better) ideas. Like maximizing universal cheap energy availability. Which means using the most concentrated and economical and intense sources, not the most diffuse and uneconomic.
My email sig is:
Help keep the planet Green! Maximize your CO2 and CH4 output!
Global Warming=More Life; Global Cooling=More Death.
Drives Warmists and Troo Believers up the wall.
LOL 
You can bet on global warming and take warmists’ money! Just go to Intrade and check it out. Warmists are actually betting that the planet will get warmer!
http://intrade.com