Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...soooo, what you are saying is that the sun is now hotter (since it is older) which would result in a warmer planet...
bwahahaha
So you've never seen or read that..? That stars like the sun are known to gradually increase their energy output (solar luminosity) as they burn down their hydrogen fuel and transition to more helium, versus hydrogen (ratio)..? I might try to source that with a link. I believe it's a widely accepted conclusion among astrophysicists, based on volumes of star observations using spectrographic or spectral data. Reinforced by the computer models of how different kinds of stars transition over their lifetimes.
A significant factor, over a period of almost 500 million years from the late Ordovician (which you brought up), all the way forwards to the present.
Over a period of about the most recent 150 years, since the advent of modern weather and temperature records, and over the period since the rapid expansion of fossil fuels, starting somewhere between 1800 and 1920 (depending on exactly how you decide to "peg" it), as frequently discussed in the context of Anthropogenic Global Warming--INSIGNIFICANT.
bwahahaha..?
Do the math
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-27-2015).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...soooo, what you are saying is that the sun is now hotter (since it is older) which would result in a warmer planet...
bwahahaha
bwahahaha..?
Previously, on the Mickey_Moose channel:
quote
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Here is what the bloggers at Skeptical Science had to say about that:
quote
During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
It's not just the bloggers at Skeptical Science. Here's a paragraph from a column "Welcome to the Ordovician", from 2004, from a website that lists itself (scroll all the way down) as connected with the George W. Bush Institute, "an independent, nonpartisan think tank":
quote
The Ordovoician world was very different from today's. The moon was closer to the earth and would have been seen as slightly larger in size. Owing to the smaller distance between the earth and the moon, tidal forces were enhanced. The day was only about 20 to 21 hours long, and the year lasted just over 400 of those shortened days. The sun's luminosity was about 5 percent less than now, because the sun's fusion reactions run steadily hotter over time. The high greenhouse gas content of the air half a billion years ago -- a remnant from the earth's earlier atmospheric composition and enhanced by vigorous emissions from volcanoes and sea floor ridges -- should have provided warmth in compensation for a dimmer sun.
I have seen that same figure of "5 percent" in some other articles that I found online.
Where does it come from?
From decades of observations and research by astronomers and astrophysicists, who have worked out the life cycle of Main Sequence stars like the sun. It's described in the chapter "The Young and Faint Sun" from The Earth as a Distant Planet, 2010:
quote
Solar energy is provided by thermonuclear reactions, mostly by the conversion of hydrogen (H) into helium (He)... The mass of the resulting He nucleus is smaller than its constituents and 0.7% of the total mass is converted to energy.
The thermonuclear fusion process leads to a gradual increase in the molecular weight 𝜇 in the core. At present, about 50% of its central H content has been already transformed into He. The thermal pressure is given by P ~ pRT/𝜇, where R is the gas constant. Thus, a lower mean molecular weight during the early phases of solar evolution implies a lower temperature (or density) in order to balance the gravitational force. Therefore, the theory of stellar evolution clearly predicts an increase in solar luminosity during its time on the main sequence... As a consequence, the Sun was 30% dimmer 4.0 Ga [4 billion years] ago than at present.
The authors went on to derive an equation for computing Solar Luminosity as a function of Time, relative to the present. Here's what that equation looks like, calculated in data plot format:
The Ordovician on this plot is just about exactly where the "4" is marked on the horizontal axis "Age (billions of years)". At that time, the solar luminosity can be read from the plot, and it is about 95 percent or 5 percent less than it is at the present time (arrow labeled "Now").
So what's the "bwahahaha" all about?
I think that someone is trying to connect the recent increase in planetary temperatures that is at the center of all of these global warming discussions with a conjectured increase in solar luminosity. But that dog doesn't hunt. Too many online sources say that there is no evidence for this from the data that has been recorded by solar astronomers using solar telescopes, and more recently, solar observing satellites.
Going back to that plot of Solar Luminosity vs Time, remark that the distance between successive gridlines on the Time or "Age" axis is one billion years. How much has the solar luminosity increased over the most recent 150 years? That is less than 0.0001 percent of the horizontal distance between the "Now" arrow and the gridline at 4 billion years. The change in the Solar Luminosity curve over that distance is indiscernible. So when I encounter anyone who is trying to advance the idea that the upward trend in planetary temperatures that has been observed, beginning at about the same time as the rapid expansion of fossil fuels (about 1870), is attributable to an increase in solar luminosity, and not to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels, I think the evidence is against them.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-12-2015).]
The recent and still ongoing enlargement of sea ice in the Antarctic is a subject of fresh debate among the scientists, but according to the reports that I have seen, this increase in the amount of sea ice offshore to the Antarctic land mass is going on at the same time as the volume of land ice on the continent of Antarctica continues on a downwards trend. And at the other pole, the volume of Arctic land and sea ice, all continuing on a downwards trend.
Some Australia-based scientists have published their latest findings about rising sea levels in Nature Climate Change. The research combined data from tide gauges around the world with data from earth observing satellites. The Washington Post reports. Here are some excerpts:
The adjusted figures have sea levels rising over the past two decades at a rate of between 2.6 and 2.9 millimeters, or just over a tenth of an inch per year... That rate is consistent with the projections of the IPCC, the U.N.-sponsored scientific body regarded as the internationally accepted authority on global warming.
. . . sea levels are rising at roughly double the average rate observed in the last century [1901-2000], with significant implications for coastal cities around the globe.
The IPCC projects that, at current rates of warming, global sea levels could rise by as much as three feet by the end of the century [2100].
. . . sea levels are rising at roughly double the average rate observed in the last century [1901-2000], with significant implications for coastal cities around the globe.
The IPCC projects that, at current rates of warming, global sea levels could rise by as much as three feet by the end of the century [2100].
I'm starting a boat home manufacturing company so my grandchildren will be well positioned for the future. The unique advantage this company will have is it's buoyancy due to it's environmentally resistant floating platform made completely out of PLASTIC. Any Investors???? However I must disclose the fact that we have no hard plans for meeting payroll or material purchases. Sounds like we'll be a salvage, barter and re-purpose operation. Whoo-Hoo! Tax-Free Ex-Span-Shun Opportunity ... Hoo's With me.
I can't believe this is still a discussion. After the winter's we've had, the admission by IPCC that we've had no global warming in 18 years, the Maldives never sank, there were no increased hurricanes, the polar bears are flourishing, and the oceans are still rising 3.5 millimetres per year, and Al Gore still has all his millions.
What are the "takeaways" here, with respect to global warming?
Here's my take:
Some scientists reported that naturally occurring high altitude ozone layers over the polar regions were being depleted by fluorocarbon refrigerants and spray can propellants.
There was concern that humans were being exposed to more harmful amounts of solar UV radiation that was not being blocked as it was previously by as many high altitude ozone molecules.
Scientific consensus was achieved and international legislation was enacted to reduce the amount of human fluorocarbon emissions.
After many years, NASA analyzes the latest observational data and reports that the naturally occurring ozone layers are recovering.
Does this suggest that a parallel or positive comparison could be drawn by informed readers, starting from human fluorocarbon emissions and depletion of naturally occurring ozone, and arriving at human carbon dioxide emissions and unnaturally upwards trending global temperatures, sea levels and carbonic acidity in the oceans?
How does this compare with the even earlier history of lead additives in gasoline and the concentrations of lead molecules that humans around the planet were previously versus now being exposed to?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-15-2015).]
Here are 22 facts that blow "global warming" theories out of the water.
1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)
2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?
[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)
3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)
4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)
5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)
6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)
7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)
8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)
9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)
10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)
11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)
12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)
13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)
14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion . 29)
15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)
16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)
17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)
18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)
19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)
20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)
21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)
22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.
The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)
Appendix
Jean Poitou and François-Marie Bréon are distinguished members of the climate establishment and redactors of parts of the IPCC fifth assessment report report (AR5).
Jean Poitou is a physicist and climatologist, graduated from Ecole Supérieure de Physique et Chimie (Physics and Chemistry engineering college) and is climatologist at the Laboratory of the climate and environment sciences at IPSL, a joint research lab from CEA, CNRS, and UVSQ (*). He has written a book on the Climate for the teachers of secondary schools
François-Marie Bréon at CEA since 1993, has published 85 articles, is Directeur de recherche at CNRS, and author of the IPCC report 2013; he has been scientific manager of the ICARE group (CNES, CNRS, University of Lille), and of the POLDER and MicroCarb Space missions
"Ontario, Hello..!" Great post here from Arn. It raises questions about the global warming issues that I have not seen put exactly that way at any previous time. So, a lot of "new" in it, for me.
Before I would consider any kind of response--and that is likely coming--I want to respond to the one just before from jmbishop with the YouTube video "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (which runs for more than a full hour, to view the entire segment).
I think that video, which was created in 2007, is a great example of FAIL, from a scientific perspective.
This YouTube video runs for almost nine minutes and offers a point-by-point analysis of the scientific errors in the "Global Warming Swindle" video. The presentation is a little bit "snarky", and I could do without the background music, but if anyone were to fire this up and focus on the points that are being made, and not the style of presentation (it was easy for me to do that), it explains why I think the "Global Warming Swindle" video is a "crock". Find it here, if you like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6rXVq_Y-PU
This video runs for just over seven minutes, but I only recommend the first 4 minutes and 30 seconds. The style is dry, as appropriate for a classroom presentation. No background music. The acoustics are not the best, but if anyone were to fire it up and hang with it, I think they would be able to follow it pretty clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxw3_XBvm94
There is one bone of contention in "Swindle" that is not addressed by either of those two videos. It is about the paleoclimatological evidence from ice core samples. It is about an idea that is put forward in "Swindle", that previous interglacials or prehistoric warming periods were characterized by a significant time lag between warming temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. The warming temperatures came first, by a few hundred years, and it was only after that much time later that upwards trending atmospheric CO2 levels are observed in the ice core samples.
The "Swindle" presents this as evidence that elevated CO2 levels are not a cause of global warming, and as evidence that elevated CO2 levels are only a consequence of any global warming that was already underway and is attributable to some other cause or "driver". The takeaway, as intended by the "Swindle" video, is that "we" should not be looking at human CO2 emissions as the cause or driver of current global warming, and that it must be something else that is behind it.
What many climate researchers "see" in the ice core samples, as they study prehistoric warming episodes, is that something happened that moved the planet or one of its hemispheres onto a warming trend, and after a few hundred years (the time lag), the ocean temperatures had warmed sufficiently to cause the CO2 in the seawater to move into the atmosphere, which is observed as an upwards trending data plot for atmospheric CO2 (versus time) in the ice core samples.
What was the something that started the initial warming phase in these prehistoric episodes? In a number of cases, it is believed to have been specific alignments between the earth's rotational axis and the line of sight to the sun. These are known as Milankovitch cycles. These can be calculated with considerable precision in time, both for the prehistoric past, and for the near term and long term future, using the laws of orbital mechanics. The most basic of these Milankovitch cycles recurs only about every 100,000 years.
So is it reasonable to present that it was something else that produced these prehistoric warnings, and that elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere were only a consequence, and not a cause?
What I think that the "Swindle" video was trying to conceal, or to distract from, is that after an initial prehistoric warming was already underway, it was the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 that became an amplifier and that caused most of the subsequent warming episode, in terms of how far upwards the temperatures were elevated, and for how many years (and this would be hundreds or thousands of years) the interglacial or prehistoric warming episode persisted. Climate researchers have reported their numerical calculations and software models to substantiate this thinking.
How does this "Swindle" approach, which emphasizes the time lag between rising temperatures, and then, only after some hundreds of years later, elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere, play out for us today, versus prehistoric times? Should it force us to look at some other explanation for the current global warming, instead of human CO2 emissions? I see that as a mislead.
Here are some of my favored references on the subject:
Considering that column in Forbes (two forum posts back from this one) "Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”, the author (James Taylor) used data plots that originated with the Arctic Climate Research Unit at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, at the University of Illinois: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu
William L. Chapman (M.S. and B.S.), a Research Scientist associated with this group, has posted a response to James Taylor's column in Forbes:
quote
In the article, "Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”, James Taylor writes "updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.” The author implies that since the most recent two years of polar sea totals are near the long-term average, that global warming is not causing the polar ice caps to recede. Wikipedia defines cherry-picking as: the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position ...
Global sea ice totals vary from one year to the next. When looking for impacts of global warming, climate scientists take a longer-term view. The long-term record of global sea ice (illustrated below) shows a long-term decline of global sea ice of about 5.5%. One is free to argue whether this decline in global sea ice is important, or whether it is a result of human impacts on the climate; however, it is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record. In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening. The rest of Taylor’s article is just whitewash intended to distract readers from these facts. . . .
The red average line on this graph is totally bogus. Even if the graph itself is correct in any way, that straight red line is not in any way an accurate average. If you are looking at the NOAA site you'll see that there was a dip and that it has since been increasing. It is back up to 1985 levels. Moreover, Al Gore got $1million for predicting the Arctice Northwest Passage would be ice free last year. It wasn't. And that is more to the point.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Select this thumbnail image to enlarge it.
China has seven separate cap-and-trade schemes in effect for industrial CO2 emissions, which it has been calling "pilot" programs.
Now China is planning changes for a 2016 rollout of a more ambitious cap-and-trade framework which it hopes will provide the marketplace incentives to drive its national economy towards greater reductions in the amount of CO2 emissions.
I wonder how much of the "climate change" is caused from greenies try'n to change the world.. fact.. clouds cool,, fact, clouds carry moisture i.e. rain
now with less clouds mass it takes longer for them to form and collect moisture so some area's may not get as much rain.. those area might also record higher temps because of lack of any cloud cover..
This would have more effect on the tornado ally , and wonder why no one bothers to study this.. It seem, that even the Ingins from the 1400's recorded smog in the left coast.. odd, if it is industry that was the devil
Climate researchers have not simply overlooked the effects of events like the worldwide reductions of industrial particulate (smoke) and aerosol-forming (sulfur dioxide) emissions that gradually followed Richard Nixon's signing of the U.S. Clean Air Act in 1970. I have seen references to these "greenies" [E.Furgal] related factors and how climate researchers have referenced this as input data, in connection with studies that also focus on CO2 and other human-driven greenhouse gas emissions. So to say that "no one bothers to study this"--that would be at least something of a misconception.
Going back to that new column in National Review [avengador1], I followed a link to the Scripps Oceanography website and a report from last month about the Northern polar ice cap and whether there are realistic tipping point scenarios, under which all of this cryosphere is lost in an "irreversible" way.
During the past several years, scientists using global climate models (GCMs) that are more complex than process models found sea ice loss in response to rising greenhouse gases in their computer simulations is actually reversible when greenhouse levels are reduced.
“Our results show that the basis for a sea ice tipping point doesn’t hold up when these additional processes are considered,” said Wagner. “In other words, no tipping point is likely to devour what’s left of the Arctic summer sea ice. So if global warming does soon melt all the Arctic sea ice, at least we can expect to get it back if we somehow manage to cool the planet back down again.”
So that doesn't exactly translate to "hey, no worries here, after all... human CO2 emissions are actually not a problem."
I only weigh in here once in a while. The posters seem to be firmly entrenched with their opinions and nothing here has ever changed. I favor the 95% of science but science is not infallible so there is still uncertainty on my part. if I were a religious man I would be praying that the deniers are right because doing nothing would be the easiest thing for me to do. Most of my concern is that we take the right measures and those are not entirely clear to me although science does point to fossil fuel as the major contributor. I would wish that both sides here could take off their blinders and make a sincere effort to understand what facts we have without the emotion that has so far been expressed. Right now it almost seems like a religious debate. Kind of pointless. You either believe or you don't and seem to be completely unable to alter your positions no matter what. My negs were acquired before I even knew that I was getting them but I suspect that a lot of them came from this topic. I try to be more inclusive and less judgemental these days and I have changed most of the few negs that I have given to neutral. I'm always trying to become as open minded as I can be. I wish everybody a good day today.
Global climate change has been a controversial issue for years now. Back in the 1970s, “Global Cooling” was a very real and present danger that was a known fact, with respectable news publications such as Time and Newsweek predicting the inevitable global ice age set to wipe humanity off the map.
Fast-forward 40 years and just about everyone will scoff at the ignorance of scientists and doomsday soothsayers of the disco-filled ’70s. How wrong we all were; how could we hold such false confidence in anything that is not a tested and established scientific law?
Lo and behold: the scientists of the 2000s, urged on by progressive politicians such as Al Gore discovered that the world would not end in ice but in fire, and anyone who said otherwise was a foolish idiot that probably still believed in the now scientifically disproven God.
And while people in Texas suffer from flooding, Liberals everywhere eagerly smack their lips and point their fingers shouting, once again, “See! Told ya so!”
However, in a new study by a former top climate scientist for the United Nations, it seems that the Earth might be warming up due to natural causes, with nothing to do with human-made pollution. Western Journalism reports:
“Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author. Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.”
No one should say that global warming is a hoax, just as much as no one should use fear, death, and tragedy to declare that global warming is very real. Humans should respect the one planet they have at this moment, but while Al Gore continues to accumulate thousands of miles in airplane flights, millions of dollars in speaking fees, and thousands of pages of data, we should probably get our barometer of hypocrisy repaired.
It’s important to realize that the world was once flat, and that to put our politicians in charge of our “moral compass” has always been something that we should be wary of. Scientists need to stop scoffing at “deniers” and spend all of their time, effort, and technology to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they have to say is absolutely correct. There have been enough fad fears over the years, and with each cry of “Wolf!” the credibility of those who used to be respected is being seen as nothing more than hot air.
