patrick.net

There are whale carcasses on mountaintops! Arizona was once a lush, verdant greenscape!

Mass extinction as nowhere near as bad as what Yellen et. al are perpetrating.

Politicians who have claimed that Climate Change is a hoax, isn't man-made, or isn't serious, should be recalled from office. They shouldn't have a voice in such a serious matter.

The Pentagon has called Climate Change one of the largest national security threats. You don't let idiots have a voice in matters concerning national security.

HydroCabron says

Mass extinction as nowhere near as bad as what Yellen et. al are perpetrating.

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Exodus From Drying Sahara Gave Rise to Pharaohs, Study Says
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

--------------------
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/

In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.

“In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently,” Dr Donohue said. “Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.

gsr says

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Yes, and new species can evolve in a few dozen years to take advantage of this!

The boundless ignorance of conservatarian deniers is almost amusing.

(Mass extinctions usually require 6-10 million years to recover from.)

HydroCabron says

Yes, and new species can evolve in a few dozen years to take advantage of this!

The boundless ignorance of conservatarian deniers is almost amusing.

(Mass extinctions usually require 6-10 million years to recover from.)

CO2 increase has already greened the planet *before* your predicted mass extinction.

There is no doubt that CO2 is increased in the atmosphere. The question is whether the effect of CO2 is properly understood.

Dan8267 says

Politicians who have claimed that Climate Change is a hoax, isn't man-made, or isn't serious, should be recalled from office. They shouldn't have a voice in such a serious matter.

The Pentagon has called Climate Change one of the largest national security threats. You don't let idiots have a voice in matters concerning national security.

Maybe our children or grandchildren will hold a "Nuremberg Trial" in the future for climate change denying politicians.

gsr says

CO2 increase has already greened the planet *before* your predicted mass extinction.

That ain't the problem.

The problem is that we see no evidence that it has increased this rapidly on any sub-geological time scale in the history of the planet.

Quantity is one thing. Rate of change of that quantity is quite another.

Life rides out gradual changes all the time. Extremely abrupt changes? Not so well.

By the way: this distinction comes up over and over, and yet we are still awash in conservatives who don't grasp it. What's going on?

If you're going to argue, dispute the contention that this is a hockey-stick type of change. No non-brain-dead person thinks it's all about absolute carbon levels: life can handle higher than 400 ppm, no problem; it can't handle a change to 400 ppm over just a few decades. It needs hundreds of thousands of years, at a minimum.

The one way to shut down any global warming is to ask them what practical steps can be taken to avoid disaster.
1)reduce carbon footprint!
Unfortunately developing nations like China already produce more carbon than the US and plan to produce more. Also, global population is increasing, so that won't work unless we start producing carbon free energy like tomorrow.
2)give money to lawyers and politicians!
This is the real result of any "global carbon treaties" or local "green" legislation. That and legislating customers for shoddy corporations who know how to lobby.

Real solutions have been thought of, and dismissed by the usual suspects who simply wish to scare us into giving them more money and power.

Quigley says

Real solutions have been thought of, and dismissed by the usual suspects who simply wish to scare us into giving them more money and power.

That is what frustrates me most about the "debate". The climate has in fact always changed, so if we want to stop that then we will need to engineer a solution that didn't exist before. And yet the Democrats propose nothing other than cap&trade/taxation and transfers to foreign kleptocracies, while Republicans deny that anything is even happening.

Also, I see repeated elisions and substitutions. For example, ocean die-offs result from many forms of pollution: acid rain, agricultural runoff into the gulf of Mexico, radioactive fallout from Fukushima Daichi, etc. Alas, some people want to attribute all of it to global warming. Some who warn against global warming advocate more nuclear power, but that has risks too.

On the other side, Jerry Fallwell in his SUV said "God's in charge" of the climate so we shouldn't worry just pray.

I would like to see at least one honest side in the debate, looking at the full range of pollutants and proposing real solutions.

curious2 says

I would like to see at least one honest side in the debate, looking at the full range of pollutants and proposing real solutions.

There isn't a single solution for everything, but I'd start with

1. A carbon tax that is large enough to pay for carbon sequestering with today's technology. It's a truly free market solution and by definition if an economic activity is not worth paying the carbon tax then that's the free market saying that activity is a misallocation of resources.

2. Similar taxes on all other pollutions we can clean up.

3. A ban on any pollution that we cannot clean up. For example, methylmercury.

The taxes in 1 and 2 should be used and only used for cleaning up the pollution being taxed. And if the private sector thinks it can clean up the pollution cheaper, then it's welcome to try, but the pollution must be cleaned up in the end.

saroya says

Maybe our children or grandchildren will hold a "Nuremberg Trial" in the future for climate change denying politicians.

Or we could just take all their ill-gotten gains away today. That will change their tune real quick.