Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

NASA faked the moon landing - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Quote :

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science. Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

No surprise to anyone following my posts, and an explanation why Twoofers have found a home in the GOP next to creationists, AGW deniers, and birthers.

GOP 2012! 'Cause we're totally not crazy and shit.

Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds

Quote :

Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP

Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.

The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.

. . .

The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.

By 2030, the researchers estimate, the cost of climate change and air pollution combined will rise to 3.2% of global GDP, with the world's least developed countries forecast to bear the brunt, suffering losses of up to 11% of their GDP.

Sheikh Hasina, prime minister of Bangladesh, said: "A 1C rise in temperature [temperatures have already risen by 0.7C globally since the end of the 19th century] is associated with 10% productivity loss in farming. For us, it means losing about 4m tonnes of food grain, amounting to about $2.5bn. That is about 2% of our GDP. Adding up the damages to property and other losses, we are faced with a total loss of about 3-4% of GDP. Without these losses, we could have easily secured much higher growth."

But major economies will also take a hit, as extremes of weather and the associated damage – droughts, floods and more severe storms – could wipe 2% of the GDP of the US by 2030, while similar effects could cost China $1.2tr by the same date.

GOP 2012! 'Cause we're still not sure it's happenin'!

Another very real-world measure that it's happening:

U.S. Insurance Companies Vulnerable to Extreme Weather, Changing Climate

Quote :

Worsening weather in a warming world poses a growing risk to the financial stability of insurance companies and has broad ramifications for the economy and society, according to a new report.

Stormy Future for U.S. Property and Casualty Insurers: The Growing Costs and Risks of Extreme Weather Events, a new report from Ceres, outlines a proactive approach insurers, regulators and investors can take to address climate change risks. Scientific evidence shows that climate change is contributing to stronger, more frequent heat waves, drought and extreme precipitation events.

"The report makes clear that extreme weather losses are escalating and pose enormous challenges for U.S. insurers that they should pay far more attention to,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a nonprofit group advocating for sustainability leadership from businesses and investors. “A small number of insurers have stepped to the plate in mobilizing a response to this global threat, but far broader engagement and action from the industry is needed.”

“Insurance is the first line of defense against extreme weather losses, but climate change is a game-changer for the models that insurers have long relied on,” said Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who wrote the report foreword and endorsed its key recommendations. “Companies will need to adapt if insurance is to remain available and affordable.”

Underestimating the dangers of peak oil and climate change

Quote :

Many people dismiss the risks associated with oil depletion and climate change--even many who accept the two issues as problems. They judge those risks to be small or at least manageable. Since no one can know the future, we cannot be sure whether they are right or wrong. But even if they are right, should we be so sanguine? As we examine this question, keep in mind that we are talking about probabilities and the level of risk, not absolute knowledge which none of us can have about the future.

. . .

Let's say that you are offered a free trip to your favorite vacation destination. You are told that the plane arrives safely 95 percent of the time. The other 5 percent of the time it crashes. Pretty good odds, right? Of course, not. You would never board such a plane. You would decline the flight and gladly pay your own way on another safer flight, that is, if you still wanted to go.

So, even a 5 percent chance that you will die on a routine plane flight is too big a risk to take. Yet, the world's political leaders and peoples have been given convincing evidence that the chance that unchecked climate change will imperil the very stability of modern civilization is far more likely than 5 percent. True, it's not certain that this will happen, but then every forecast is uncertain. The question is: How do we handle this uncertainty?

Let me provide another illustration. When it comes to home fires, every sensible person knows how to handle the risk: purchase insurance and take steps to reduce the chance of a fire. At yet, fires that warrant the filing of an insurance claim remain exceedingly rare. So, given the low probability of such an event, why do we insure against it? We do so, of course, because even this very low probability event can have catastrophic consequences should it occur.

And, this frames the proper understanding of risk. Risk is not just about probability; the proper measure of risk is probability times severity. Measured this way, small probability events that are expected to have severe impacts become worthy of preparation.

Oil production will certainly start to decline some day. We know this in advance because oil is a finite resource. There are warning signs, an emerging plateau in world production since 2005 and persistently high prices. These are not definitive, but they are worrisome. Given that a rapid, unexpected decline in oil availability has shocked us before, and given that oil continues to be the central commodity of our age--supplying a third of our energy, 80 percent of our transportation fuel, and the basis for innumerable chemicals essential to modern society--given all this, can we not conclude that a persistent decline in oil supplies might be civilization-wrecking if we are not prepared for it?

We know that climate is changing. The record lows in Arctic sea ice are probably the most telling and troubling result. This ongoing warming at the poles affects weather patterns that already have and will continue to threaten crop yields around the world. We are almost completely certain--nothing is absolutely certain in science--that human activity is the main cause of climate change. It is not a leap to conclude that continuing on our current course has a definite, but not precisely calculable risk of undermining the stability of our society.

Whether you believe that severe outcomes are certain, merely probable or very improbable if our behavior does not change, you are forced by a proper evaluation of risk to agree that at least something ought to be done; the possible outcomes include ones that are simply unacceptable.

We never make policy or even personal decisions based on absolute certainty. Instead, we do formal and informal assessments of the risks of any given path based on the information we have at the time. No one--not you, not me, not the pundits, not the oil industry, not the government, not the world's scientists--can have certain knowledge about future oil supplies. The same applies to the future of climate change. We can, nevertheless, describe the severity of possible outcomes. From a policy and preparedness point of view, benign outcomes need not concern us much. In the case of oil supplies and climate change, however, the possible outcomes include some which are truly alarming.

Heartland Calls Wahhmbulance, Anticipates PBS Frontline will Report Truth Tonight

Quote :

Heartland Institute, famous for billboard craziness (see above) and hosting the semi-semi-annual woodstock for wackjobs known as the International Conference on Climate Change (hereafter “Denia-Palooza) – which this year featured the (wildly applauded) racist rantings of “Lord” Christopher Monckton, once mere climate crank, now AIDS curer and full-on Obama birth certificate nut-job – that Heartland – has now released a press release pre-protesting whatever treatment they might get in tonights PBS Frontline production “Climate of Doubt”.

Heartland screed as follows:

Quote :

On Tuesday, October 23, PBS’s “Frontline” program will broadcast a special titled “Climate of Doubt.” It promises to go “inside the organizations” that helped turn the tide of public opinion, and then of elected officials, away from excessive concern over the possible threat of man-made global warming.

The Heartland Institute is likely to be a central figure in this program as we welcomed “Frontline” producer Catherine Upin and her crew to our Seventh International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago in May. Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor also gave a three-hour interview to the film crew in August. Earlier this year, The Economist called Heartland “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”

We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience both with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither. Several Heartland staff will be watching the program and commenting live via Twitter and on our blog, Somewhat Reasonable.

The Frontline crew, rumor has it, have been doing some exhaustive digging into the climate denial movement. My only hope would be that the affair doesn’t boomerang with too much face time for crazy people, and not enough for explanatory science.

Moreover, at that conference, a well known denier told me that his biggest concern about public opinion was that it might be swayed by extreme events. I told him to bet on it. That was a few weeks before we knew that the corn crop was in trouble – and subsequent polling has confirmed his premonition. This summer was a hinge-point in US Public awareness of climate change.

If you think Mitt Romney’s recent threats against Public Broadcasting were about budgets or Big Bird, think again. The reason the right hates PBS is that sometimes it commits the unpardonable sin of journalism.

USDA: Warming Will Devastate Agriculture

Quote :

One of the most absurd of Climate denial myths, and therefore one of the most cherished – is that “CO2 is good for plants” – therefore, global warming will benefit agriculture. The logic is, apparently, that Co2 is an inconsequential trace atmospheric gas that has no effect,… and is critical to all life on the planet.

To follow up on this, you could, of course, poll midwest farmers to find out how all that co2 has been helping with crops during this ongoing drought, do a quick review of grain price trends..



Or, you could, as the USDA has, review 1400 technical publications on the topic.

Yet another skeptic myth busted, this time by direct observation, exactly as was predicted decades ago. So glad we waited.

And in another terrifying move, the EPA has moved from "mitigation" to "adaptation" in recognition of the fact that we're too fucking late:

Unable to stop climate change, EPA prepares for it

Quote :

This statement from the EPA, the first line in its draft “Climate Change Adaptation Plan” [PDF] released today, is basic. But that the EPA is saying it is important.

. . .

Until now, EPA has been able to assume that climate is relatively stable and future climate will mirror past climate. However, with climate changing more rapidly than society has experienced in the past, the past is no longer a good predictor of the future. Climate change is posing new challenges to EPA’s ability to fulfill its mission.

. . .

Over the course of 55 pages, the agency outlines the ways in which its mission — protecting America’s air and water — will be threatened by climate change. For those who’ve been tracking the issue, it’s largely what you’d expect. It’s important to note: This is not a document meant to suggest how the EPA will prevent climate change. It simply says “here’s what will happen as the world warms” and then considers how that will affect its mission.

An appendix outlines and prioritizes the challenges, breaking them into three categories based on likelihood: “Likely,” “Very likely,” and “Certain.” What prediction fits into which category is interesting — and suggests just how conservative the EPA is still being.

Certain effects
Ocean acidification


Very likely
Increasing extreme temperatures
Sea-level rise
Increased water temperatures
Loss of snowpack
Changes in temperature


Likely
Increased tropospheric ozone pollution in certain regions
Increased frequency or intensity of wildfires
Increasing heavy precipitation events
Effects on the stratospheric ozone layer
Effects on response of ecosystems to atmospheric deposition of sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury
Increasing intensity of hurricanes
Decreasing precipitation days and increasing drought intensity
Increasing risk of floods
Melting permafrost in Northern Regions

Why is increased ocean acidification the only “certain” outcome? Because the National Research Council of the National Academies identified it as “[o]ne of the most certain outcomes from increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.”

What all of these likely eventualities mean is massive shifts in how the EPA monitors and addresses air and water pollution. Like that “increased tropospheric ozone pollution.” That means much poorer air quality and visibility, more asthma and more premature deaths. In turn, the EPA needs to accelerate scientific research to indicate how increased ozone and other pollutants “will affect ecosystem growth, species changes, surface water chemistry” and more. Each issue is similarly considered, and suggestions are made for how the EPA can address it.

Why Republicans Should Embrace The Reality Of Climate Change

Quote :

We have reached the point where every rational person who believes in making decisions based on science and available data should, if not fully believe that human beings are warming the planet by releasing greenhouse gases, at least recognize that this is what the data seem to suggest and that it is what the vast majority of scientists who study weather believe is the case.

Recognizing this does not force anyone to oppose pipelines, support a carbon tax, or start composting and wearing hemp shoes. It just opens us up to start aiming our fiery furnace of a political system at actually solving our problems. Go ahead, argue that the economic cost of anti-greenhouse measures doesn’t justify the benefit, especially if the planet is getting too hot. Argue that we should look for technical solutions not only to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions but not to suck the stuff out of the atmosphere – although then you might find yourself standing with Bill Gates and calling for more investment in R&D. If you want to wade into the science, argue that the worst-case scenarios are overstatements.

What I've been saying all along. Acknowledgement of the problem is not an immediate endorsement of any/all proposed solutions. He then goes through a common list of "skeptic" arguments and their obvious rebuttals.

More on the very real economic impacts of AGW:

Costs soar for reinsurers

Quote :

AUSTRALIA has been re-rated on international reinsurance markets after another summer of flooding and extreme weather raised the country's peril profile, said Insurance Council of Australia chief executive Rob Whelan.

As a result of the re-rating, Australian insurers have to pay more for reinsurance, costs they will pass on to customers. ''Those [reinsurance] premiums have increased in some cases by as much 50 per cent,'' Mr Whelan said.

Insurers have sparked anger from many policyholders asked to cop sharp increases in premiums. Data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority indicate premiums for domestic home and contents coverage rose 16.4 per cent in the 12 months to the end of last September and 13.9 per cent for commercial property insurance.
Flood coverage premiums have soared, with increases of 300 per cent or more prompting holders in flood-risk areas to drop the option.

Mr Whelan defended the tougher line on flood insurance. ''Insurers must rate to risk,'' he said. ''If they don't, they have a real difficulty in terms of solvency.''

Insured losses from the former tropical cyclone Oswald now exceed $732 million, with claims totalling 70,000, the bulk of which are in Queensland and the remainder in New South Wales.

While the losses remain a fraction of the $2.5 billion from the 2011 Queensland floods, the tally will rise. It also excludes losses from bushfires, which are also certain to increase as Victorian and West-Australian authorities battle blazes amid dry conditions in what may be Australia's hottest summer in more than a century of records.

Heinrich Eder, managing director of Munich Re for Australasia, said January's disasters show ''the vulnerability of Australia'' to natural perils, ''especially weather-related catastrophes''. Such events had more than tripled in the past three decades ''and this trend is most likely to continue'', he said.

More of the same:

Climate Change a Bigger Cost for American Taxpayers

Quote :

FLOODS
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is staggering under massive losses after Hurricane Sandy, which triggered more than 115,000 new claims in just the first two weeks after the storm. Although NFIP collects about $3.5 billion a year in premiums, the amount of claims the agency has paid out has exceeded the amount of premiums collected in four of the past eight years. Last year's losses in Sandy's wake are expected to approach $8 billion.

“That’s $25 for every American, and that figure doesn’t even include the $50 billion of disaster relief that Congress approved in January for Sandy-impacted states,” Lubber said.

FOOD
Taxpayers subsidize the Federal Crop Insurance program that was created during the 1930s Dust Bowl to protect farmers against crop losses. Federal crop insurance losses, due in part to the devastating, ongoing drought, have tripled in the past three years to $16 billion in payouts for 2012, or $51 for every man, woman and child in America.

“This year will likely be costly too,” Lubber said. “The latest numbers from the U.S. Drought Monitor show more than 64 percent of the country is now experiencing some level of drought.”

FIRES
In 2012, more than nine million acres burned in wildfires — an area larger than the state of Maryland — making it the third-worst fire year in U.S. history. In 2012, the Forest Service overspent its available fire suppression budget by $400 million, as it has almost every year for the last 20 years, transferring millions of dollars away from other land management projects. And climate models show a likely increase in fires in coming years.

“The costs are not only borne by the federal government,” said Lubber. “Wyoming and Montana spent more than $90 million of state money fighting wildfires in 2012.”

STATE TAXPAYER EXPOSURE
Extreme weather, influenced by climate change, creates other taxpayer risks. State governments are increasingly liable for hurricane damages as private insurers pull out, leaving state taxpayers subsidizing insurance loss claims for homes and businesses.

The state insurer in Florida, for example, is carrying the burden of more than one million homeowners’ policies — a financial catastrophe just waiting for state taxpayers the next time a major hurricane hits Florida. State government-loss exposure in hurricane-prone states (such as Florida, Texas and Massachusetts) now exceeds $885 billion, a 16-fold jump from 1990.

“As Americans pay their taxes on April 15, let’s consider what our political leaders — in Washington and our state capitals — are doing to address climate change,” Lubber added. “Let's hope, for our wallets’ sakes, they're tackling the issue head-on.”

And, predictably, no concern demonstrated by any of the Republican budget/deficit hawks.

Via the Financial Post:

Lawrence Solomon: Arctic sea ice back to 1989 levels, now exceeds previous decade

Quote :

Yesterday, April 14th, the Arctic had more sea ice than it had on April 14,1989 – 14.511 million square kilometres vs 14.510 million square kilometres, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center of the United States, an official source.

. . .

We have had good records of the extent of Arctic ice only since 1979, when satellites began tracking it in earnest. Over those three decades and a bit, the ice extent has varied wildly. In the first decade tracked, the 1980s, the ice extent was much greater than today. Over much of the second decade – the 1990s — the ice extent was comparable to today. The third decade saw less ice than today. The only evident trend in the ice, as in the weather, is variability.

Lawrence Solomon is a dirty fucking liar:

Democratic senator uses Okla. tornado for anti-GOP rant over global warming

Quote :

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

Whitehouse went on to condemn the current Republican position on global warming, citing economic, environmental and diplomatic damages.

“You drag America with you to your fate,” he continued. “So, I want this future: I want a Republican Party that has returned to its senses and is strong and a worthy adversary in a strong America that has done right by its people and the world. That’s what I want. I don’t want this future. I don’t want a Republican Party disgraced, that let its extremists run off the cliff, and an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”

Whitehouse is right to do so. We're suffering very real and measurable economic and environmental damage, and the increase in extreme weather has a cost measured in deaths, whether Republicans want to believe it or not.

Heretic wrote:

Whitehouse is right to do so. We're suffering very real and measurable economic and environmental damage, and the increase in extreme weather has a cost measured in deaths, whether Republicans want to believe it or not.

That's no shit. I'd like to see more politicians calling the Republicans out on their crap.



I ran across this outrageous piece on Forbes. Now the deniers are not only claiming that global warming ended 15 years ago, but also that we are now entering a period of global cooling and a new "Little Ice Age." Unfucking believable!


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

It's one of the most intellectually shameless pieces I've seen on the subject, so I figured I'd share.

Written Peter Ferrera, a former White House staffer under Ronald Reagan and former senior fellow of the Heritage Foundation who last month wrote a piece equating climate scientists to Trofim Lysenko.

Forbes should be ashamed they have such a hack on their payroll.

This is fantastic:

Quote :

Call Out the Climate Change Deniers

Climate change is real, it's caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for our health. Some members of Congress disagree with this simple, scientifically proven fact. We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.

We will continue updating the list below as supporters get answers to the basic question of whether their representatives in Congress accept the science on climate change. We hope that this list will shrink as members clarify what they truly believe about climate change.

It's a compiled list of all the AGW deniers currently in Congress. Like I said before, the consequences of global warming are now being measured in bodies in addition to dollars. They need to be held accountable. More importantly, we need to start work on mitigating the damage in order to save lives.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.

Yes, by all means, do all of those things.
Over and over.
Then sit back, crack open a beer, and watch as it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the climate.

Just to clarify, why do you say that? Is it because you think that the deniers will continue their asinine ignorance in spite of opposition? Or is it because you don't believe that the climate change that we're facing is caused by mankind?

happy jack wrote:

Yes, by all means, do all of those things.
Over and over.
Then sit back, crack open a beer, and watch as it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the climate.

So we should not hold our elected representatives accountable for the demonstrably false things they say? I guess that explains how the GOP has been getting a pass from Republican voters for so long.

And let's be clear, we're not talking mitigation of AGW itself, but its damage. That ship has loooong since passed, due in no small part to the corporate influence on the GOP. Now we're left dealing with the very real physical and economic effects of AGW, and I don't think that our elected officials can adequately and effective deal with a situation they don't believe exists. It's the same reasons flat earthers don't work at NASA and why a creationist shouldn't be working in the White House during the next viral outbreak or a biological terror attack.

How effective will a Commander in Chief be if they dismiss all the Pentagon reports declaring AGW the biggest threat to America? How do effectively allocate military resources in preparation for conflicts and destabilization in the areas of the world threatened by the predicted food and water shortages? How will Congress continue to fund life saving early warning systems for the increase in natural disasters if they don't believe it's happening? How many lives will that save? How will they allocate the necessary disaster relief funds at all? How can they implement an effective economic policy that ignores the increase in food and energy prices as a result of AGW? How effective will it be if it ignores the economic cost of AGW on an already strained infrastructure? How will we prepare and manage the expected water shortages? Loss of revenue and food in farming and fishing? Shifting hardiness zones?

This is the very real shit this country is going to have to deal with, is dealing with in a lot of places, despite the statements of the liars in the list above. I can't tell if you're not sure it's happening or if you're just convinced your ivory tower is built tall enough it won't matter.

But I really wish I could sit back, relax, crack open a beer, and at least relish the fact that we're ruining the future for the children of deniers too, but even I'm not that kind of an asshole. I leave that gleefully-awaiting-the-end-of-the-world level of douchebaggery to those Rapture Ready assholes.

From the Trayvon Martin thread...

happy jack wrote:

Let's start over.
I'm not trying to avoid answering your question(s). I'm just having trouble figuring out what your question is. You are flinging around abstract hypotheticals, and I can't quite separate the wheat from the chaff. If you could pose a direct, specific question, I'd be glad to answer it.

I wonder what the problem is in this thread? IMHO, my questions couldn't be any easier to answer. Here they are again...

Scorpion wrote:

Just to clarify, why do you say that? Is it because you think that the deniers will continue their asinine ignorance in spite of opposition? Or is it because you don't believe that the climate change that we're facing is caused by mankind?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.

Yes, by all means, do all of those things.
Over and over.
Then sit back, crack open a beer, and watch as it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the climate.

Just to clarify, why do you say that?  Is it because you think that the deniers will continue their asinine ignorance in spite of opposition?  Or is it because you don't believe that the climate change that we're facing is caused by mankind?

Sorry, I forgot there was a question hanging here.
I just think the earth's gotta do what the earth's gotta do, as it has always done.

Let me get this straight... Mankind has caused this situation.  We also still have the means and opportunity to mitigate some of the damage. And you're saying that the answer is to sit back and watch?

Your post indicated that there is nothing that we can do that will make a difference.  Do you really believe that?  If so, why?  

After all, Man is responsible for the change... it's not as if the climate is changing by itself. We can save a lot of lives if we act.  Why the hell doesn't that matter to you?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Quote :

We can save a lot of lives if we act.  Why the hell doesn't that matter to you?

So act.
If you really feel that you can change the climate, whatever I do or do not think will stop you.
I'm certainly not standing in your way.

Bullshit.  People like you are the reason that we're in this mess.

happy jack wrote:

I just think the earth's gotta do what the earth's gotta do, as it has always done.

In other words, "Enjoy your famine and war, everyone!  Too bad for you." 

But laughably, hypocritically still "pro-life", right?