Hate Summer? Just Wait Until Global Warming Really Kicks In
By Thom Hartmann A...
If you think summer is unbearable now, just wait until the end of the century. According to “Risky Business,” a report released on Tuesday by a bipartisan group of scientists and officials that included former Treasury secretary Hank Paulson and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, global warming is going to make it so hot and so humid over the next 80-plus years that going outside in the summer will be pretty much impossible.
In fact, it will be downright deadly. Climatologist Robert Kopp, the lead scientist behind the report, told Reuters that, “As temperatures rise, toward the end of the century, less than an hour of activity outdoors in the shade could cause a moderately fit individual to suffer heat stroke.” In other words, if you try to take a run on a hot day in the year 2085, there’s a good chance that it will kill you.
But if we don’t do something now to stop global warming, heat stroke will be the least of our worries. That’s because according to Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, we only have until 2036 - 22 years - to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius.
After that, global warming will lock in with devastating consequences for every single living thing on this planet. Serious scientific bodies are even debating whether or not industrial civilization can survive such a drastic temperature increase and the type of crazy weather, wildfires, and drought that will come with it.
Other scientists, like James Hansen, have an even gloomier view of how much more warming the planet can take. Hansen now argues that we need to lower the limit of “acceptable” warming by a whole degree to 1 single degree Celsius - a number we’re already eight-tenths of the way to reaching. At this point, there is really only one thing we can do to prevent a total climate catastrophe along the lines of what James Hansen and Michael Mann are predicting: we need to keep carbon in the ground. And the best way to keep carbon in the ground is to put a price on it.
Right now, the fossil fuel industry is the only industry in the world that doesn’t have to pay to clean up its own waste. Instead, it passes on the costs of that waste (carbon pollution) to everyone else in the form of what economists call "negative externalities," which include things like the costs of cleaning up from climate-change driven severe weather events, and the costs of pollution-related health problems.
Because the fossil fuel industry can dump its waste on the rest of the world without ever having to pay a dime, its businesses costs are artificially low. This creates a vicious cycle in which the fossil fuel industry has absolutely zero incentive to change its ways because doing so would cut into its profits margins.
A national tax carbon would flip the script. By actually putting a price on carbon, it would create an incentive for Big Oil, Coal and Gas to keep carbon in the ground. It really is that simple. Even a small carbon tax of around $10 per metric ton of carbon emitted would have big results.
According to a report put out by the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL), a $10 carbon tax would cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 28 percent of 2005 levels. That’s 11 percent more than the cut proposed by the EPA in the Clean Power Plan it announced earlier this month. But that’s not all. The CCL’s report also found that if the money collected from a $10 carbon tax were given back to the American people in the form of a tax credit sort of like Alaska’s Permanent Fund, it would give a jump start to the economy that would, in the long run, lead to more jobs at every income level.
And at the same time, a $10 carbon tax would also save hundreds of thousands of lives over the next few decades by keep toxic carbon pollution out of our atmosphere. By 2036, it would result in around 14,000 fewer premature deaths every year. Remember: all this is from a very small carbon tax of $10 per metric ton. A higher carbon tax would have even better results, and would more accurately reflect the actual costs of carbon pollution.
Whatever the amount, a carbon tax is the single best way to both crack down on the fossil fuel industry freeloaders and save our planet from total climate devastation. As former Bush administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson - yes, that Hank Paulson - put it in a recent editorial for the New York Times, “We can debate the appropriate pricing and policy design and how to use the money generated. But a price on carbon would change the behavior of both individuals and businesses.”
Time is running out. If we don’t stop the fossil fuel industry from pumping toxic greenhouses into the atmosphere, planet Earth - the one planet we can call home - will become unrecognizable by the end of the century, if not mid-century. It’s time to make the fossil fuel industry pay for the destruction it’s doing to our planet and our society. It’s time to keep the carbon in the ground.
It’s time for a national carbon tax.
Comments
#2
DAnneMarc: I certainly agree with all that you have said. It is just like all those people who watch Fox News...some not so bright (actually, many not so bright), and some very intelligent who want to believe all of what Fox News says because it suits their selfish and snobbish selves. The not so bright, well, they get hooked on the stupid little things that tick them off and go along with the bigger picture which ends up screwing them.
There are also some very intelligent people who, like you said, get trapped in "cognitive dissonance". They wouldn't believe any evidence that was put to them for various reasons.
For one, the idea that there are people in high places of power in this country would do such a thing to fellow Americans is just too much for some people to take.
For another, those powers have a very strong reason to use much of their money and power to put pressure on people, even other scientists and other technologists, to throw doubts about other scientists and technologists who have spoken out and written articles that question the official government conspiracy theory. There is a great deal of pressure that they can put against these people if they dare speak out against the prevailing powers. Some of these people's very jobs can be threatened if they don't play ball with the powers that be. So, they will write and publish articles that will feed the cognitive dissonance of people who are predisposed to it.
It's like the Intelligent Creationists who use scientific buzzwords and a lot of specious arguments and logical fallacies that appear to be logical and correct but usually only is convincing for non-scientific thinking people predisposed to non-critical thinking.
Just the way NIST has acted since 9/11...totally avoiding investigating the possibility of the use of explosives...making statements that they later had to recant on because they were so brazenly ridiculous. NIST knew very well what nano-thermite could do and despite the evidence of nano-thermite in the dust samples they completely ignored it. Nano-thermite was very well known to NIST as they had studied it for years prior to 9/11. The various groups of architects and engineers and scientists and many other highly technical people who have risked a great deal by speaking out have made monkeys out of the NIST people. Yet, there are still cognitive dissonant people who chose to believe that the Neocons/Bush regime in power would not do such a thing. Follow the money...follow the results...who stood to gain the most? Who stood to lose the most? And how did that work out for us since 9/11? People would do well to read about all of the history of past actions by the US government that did some really horrible things just to scare it's citizens into going along with what they did.
#3
DAM -- Are you making stuff up? Have you studied any of the explosions of much smaller electrical substations? They destroyed buildings in Westchester here in LA County. Those large capacitors blowing up can almost be confused with a bomb. I thought there were blackouts on 9/11. Do we know what seismometers in the area measured? Were there not some fireballs?
In any case, I was just repeating what one of the 200 signers said. Both he and I agree there should be more investigation.
My real question, is there not somebody with a little bit of money that can run various simulations of the buildings and the forces effecting their destruction?
Quote DAnneMarc: indeed to denounce the testimony of a multitude of scientist, architects, engineers,
I think we can come up with even more scientists etc that deny global warming (fortunately that group is declining).
Quote DAM:first hand accounts of eye witnesses.
A few years back, a large plane (maybe a 747) landed on top of a small aircraft (maybe a beechcraft). There was a lot of fire. An eyewitness called into the radio station I was listening to and said he saw a small missile hit the plane. I remember the radio announcer saying who let that guy on.
#4
Whilst I love the imagery of "pumping toxic greenhouses into the atmosphere" and scratch my head at the suggestion that the fossil fuel industry is "the only industry in the world that doesn't have to pay to clean up it's own waste" (hello, nuclear industry, defence industry, weapons manufacturers, fast food industry, et al!) I must take issue with the highly speculative prognostications above.
Our planet will not be unrecognisable by the end of, or mid century; one hour of activity outside in the shade will not lead to heat stroke unless in the hottest of locations where daytime activities are always so limited; and extreme weather events are not caused by global warming (anyone doubting this does not conform to the alleged consensus - see IPCC report, for instance).
What is the basis for all these claims? Where is the evidence that is not based on models that have been proven to be flawed? Or experts such as Mann who come out with the most ridiculous of comments.
Climate Change is a given. It is a fact and a natural consequence of having an atmosphere. We are also affecting our environment in multiple damaging ways.
We are all welcome to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. Much in the same way that shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre can be more dangerous than an actual fire, such highly speculative, alarmist, nonsensical, jumbo-jumbo is not only misleading, but damaging in ways we cannot yet fully fathom.
That people lap this stuff up, whilst ignoring the real threats to our environment and our wellbeing says much indeed.
#5
You could be more persuasive it you stated some facts.
Why do you say that the nuclear industry, defence industry, weapons manufacturers, fast food industry, et al - do not pay for their waste disposal?
#6
We are not talking about the weekly garbage collection, here.
How much do the big defence companies and weapons manufacturers pay for the cleanup of munitions on the battlefield (the whole world now being a battlefield) - especially when those munitions are sold to foreign powers and used in third party conflicts?
How much do BAE Systems or the like pay for mine clearance, or how much does the US defence department pay for the cleanup of radioactive material in Fallujah, for instance?
There is no finalised long term storage and waste disposal programme in place for the handling of nuclear waste and when one is finally agreed on/dedicated will the nuclear industry or any providers be covering the total cost of decomissioning, decontamination, cleanup, storage, etc?
How much is McDs paying for the de-plastification of the world's oceans and beaches?
Your question should surely be how could the piece claim that the fossil fuel industry is the only industry not to pay to clean up it's own waste.
#7
I thought the defense industries were paying a lot to clean up their damage on US soil.
#8
The fossil fuel industry treats this beautiful planet like a sewer. How long must we put up with this? Seriously. - AIW
#9
You must admit that it's not just the fossil fuel industry that are bad actors in terms of environmental damage.
The bio-fuels debacle, the windmills fiasco, pesticide runoff from big agriculture, the meat industry, the nuclear industry, the arms industry, the fishing industry, plastics, pharma, and many more have all caused severe environmental damage.
Singling out big oil or coal is rather selective.
#10
Quote NPR:Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, or PEDv, has killed more than 7 million piglets in the past year, and the number of cases is on the rise. Many hog producers are worried about how to keep their farms immune from a disease that has no proven cure.PEDv first appeared in the U.S. in April 2013. Since then, the virus has infected more than 4,700 farms in 30 states.
"They don't know where this disease is coming from," says Yezzi. "Even closed operations that aren't getting pigs in from the outside have gotten this, even with the strictest biosecurity situations. So everybody's at risk."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/06/27/325529915/as-pig-virus-sprea...
#11
So tell me Mr. Mills, what behooves you to be so defensive in behalf of the fossil fuel industry? You haven't told me a thing I don't already know. It's just that the fossil fuel industry is among the worst of the worst. Are you going to deny that, Or try to minimize it? - AIW
P.S. You listed plastics. Plastics are made from fossil fuel.
#12
Okay Miss Alice.....
In what way have I defended the fossil fuel industry? I have merely pointed out flaws in the piece above. Oil, coal and gas companies have always been environmentally damaging operations, but they are not the only ones.
In what way am I minimising when I acknowledge "We are also affecting our environment in multiple damaging ways."?
Nice use if the word 'deny' there - it is always an obvious tell when that word creeps in. I always see it's use in such conversations as a Godwin moment.
PS: I know what plastics are made from, but there is a huge and separate group of chem industries that generate plastics at such a huge rate that they are damaging the environment as much as any other material.
#13
Sven -- As AIW says, Thom has written blog paragraphs about most of the things you mentioned. When you say Thom is singling out big oil and big coal then it sounds like a defense of them.
However, I can't remember Thom talking about the bio-fuels debacle and the windmills fiasco. I would like to hear some details.
#14
Mr. Mills, I'm well aware that the fossil fuel industry isn't the only culprit in the rape of our planet. Like I said, they are among the worst of the worst.
You ask how you have defended the fossil fuel industry. By minimizing their role in our demise, sir. Example from post #55, where you said "extreme weather events are not caused by global warming". Excuse me, but whenever someone denies that connection, it makes him (or her) a denier. Considering the general consensus among climate experts worldwide, I am amazed at how many people continue questioning the "basis" for these "claims". Deniers are always claiming, as you've stated, that extreme weather conditions are a "given", that they're "natural" rather than a consequence of human activity. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Yes, I'm aware that throughout the history of Planet Earth there have been shifts & changes in weather patterns that are completely natural. However Thom Hartmann has been a science buff his entire life while Bill McKibben is certified climate scientist. And if they take these "claims" seriously, along with the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide, that's good enough for me. - Aliceinwonderland
P.S. I forgot to mention your references to this so-called biofuels "debacle" and windmills "fiasco". This kind of language is often used by industry shills, with a vested interest in minimizing & denying how human activity causes global warming.
#15
Alice, Thom's piece said:
"Right now, the fossil fuel industry is the only industry in the world that doesn’t have to pay to clean up its own waste."
I called BS on that, because it is simply not true.
I have not defended the fossil fuels industry at all. To claim otherwise is demonstrably untrue. I do not minimise their role 'in our demise' as there is no possibility of our demise - such rhetoric is patently nonsense and is an appeal to emotion and fear-mongering at it's most blatant.
If you think saying extreme weather is not caused by global warming makes you a denier, then you would admit that the IPCC are deniers? The consensus of opinion as stated by the latest IPCC report states a low confidence in man made global warming causing extreme weather events. Again, easily demonstrable.
You ascribe opinions to me that I have not stated, but okay then - given a dramatic, chaotic system such as climate with the vast amounts of energy involved, and the huge complexity, there will always be extremes. If you don't accept this, then you do not understand the concept of extremes. The weather (and climate) is not a static, unchanging system.
You keep mentioning 'the vast majority of scientists worldwide' when not only has the alleged 97% consensus been debunked, but the supposed arbiters of the consensus do not concur that extreme weather is caused by man made global warming.
'Industry shills'? Behave! Do you not realise how lazy and lame that sounds? Do you not realise how childish and desperate the insult of 'denier' is?
You do yourself no good by such poor arguments and obvious slurs.
Whether you 'buy this' or not makes no difference - you are welcome to your opinions, of course, but not your own facts - no matter how often you try the argument from authority approach or naming names.
I do not doubt there are serious threats to the environment, nor do I doubt the changes occurring in the climate. However, I do doubt the nonsense constantly forced down our throats by agenda driven organisations, complacent media, and those prosthletyzing with an almost religious fervour.
#16
@Chuckle8
To say refuting a clearly stated claim such as Thom's:
"Right now, the fossil fuel industry is the only industry in the world that doesn’t have to pay to clean up its own waste."
is a defence of the fossil fuel industry is not correct. By refuting such a claim I merely point out that it is not correct. Thom clearly singled them out as 'the only'. I am no defender of any corporation or industry.
I referenced the biofuels debacle and the windmills fiasco as a nod to the nonsense and poorly thought out knee-jerk reactions to climate change we have had to endure.
Bio-fuels are a great idea in theory, but have proven hugely damaging in practice. Windmills as a baseline power generator are all but useless in that they cannot operate if the wind is too high, are prone to bursting into flames, kill large numbers of bats and birds, are a detrimental affect on the local micro-climate, an eye-sore, and what they do produce is very expensive energy given the strike price and per unit charges..... and are mostly only a boon to their owner/operators and the landowners who host them.
I mentioned them in passing and did not suggest or mean to imply that Thom had mentioned them in his post.
#17
Sven -- How about a fact from you? You should look at charts of CO2 and Methane concentrations in the atmosphere since man arrived on the planet. Have you heard of 3 sigma events? These charts look like 10 sigma concentrations.
McDons pays for their waste disposal via property taxes.
For the defense industries to pay for their waste disposal, would be the government taken for a sucker. They would just add it as cost of doing business, add a percentage and charge the government. Also, the defense industry is a government function.
#18
Mr. Mills, I used your own words to exemplify what I have interpreted to be an effort to minimize and deny human causes of climate change. Not being a scientist myself, I have no interest in getting caught up in a detailed, tedious, ongoing debate with you over global warming and its causes. When it comes to any subject where I lack expertise, I have to rely on experts to interpret the facts for me. I have listened to and read enough climatologists' reports on this issue to be convinced that human-caused climate damage is real. If you are going to insist it is nonsense, and are hellbent on convincing everyone else that it is nonsense, you've come to the wrong forum.
The fossil fuel industry pays people to infiltrate these kinds of forums and lie to the public all the time. These are the industry shills we speak of. There are obvious financial incentives behind climate denial. You can call this assertion "lazy" and "lame" or whatever, but it doesn't change a damn thing. What do those on the opposite side of this debate have to gain, Mr. Mills? There's no corporate money lining their pockets. Therefore I remain highly distrustful of the motives behind any claims to the contrary. Just follow the money. It doesn't take a climate expert to do that.
Sorry to break it to ya Mr. Mills, but you're barking up the wrong tree. - Aliceinwonderland
#19
@Chuckle8
You ask for a fact, yet mention no facts yourself? Just something about standard deviation from the norm via sigma variations? 3 sigma, okay - but 10?!
A fact, then - CO2 concentrations have gone up in the atmosphere in the past couple of hundred years as a direct and indirect result of Man's actions. In fact they have gone up in the last couple of thousand from less that 200ppm to the current 400ppm. Prior to that they declined dramatically. Prior to that they increased dramatically. prior to that..... and so on.
Currently we are seeing levels at over 400ppm which is not unprecedented in geological timescales, but is becoming so in terms of recent millennia.
(I don't think you can make assumptions on CO2 content since man appeared on the planet in terms of man's contributions as the content has risen and fallen and for the majority of that time man lacked the ability to cause effects on a global scale. For most of Man's time on the planet - let's limit it to the last 200, 000 years for modern man - CO2 concentrations have been mostly in decline with rapid spikes).
I would suggest Man has had some impact on CO2 levels for quite some time - from earlier slash and burn and cultivation, to increasingly large scale deforestation, agriculture and livestock raising over the past couple of thousand years. The recent trend has seen an increasing rate of change.
I do not contest any of this, but what is your point?
You want another fact? In the last 20 years of increasing anthropogenic CO2 emmissions global temperatures have not risen. CO2 emmissions are not the sole driver of temperature, something the geological record shows us. Something the scientists tell us. The blame cannot be laid on multi-decadal oceanic oscillations, either.
But how is any of this countering the initial comments I made?
In terms of industries paying to have their waste cleared up after them - I merely pointed out the error in saying that the fossil fuel industry was 'the only one...'.
#20
@Aliceinwonderland
Then I would suggest you mave misinterpreted what I have said.
You have also done nothing to address or counter any point I made.
I have made no attempt to minimise climate change - I have explicitly stated my understanding that the climate is changing. I do not deny anything. I merely state that the climate is not changing as a sole result of human influence and call BS on a number of ridiculous and clearly incorrect statements and contentions.
You may have listened to and read the works of climatologists, but have you read and listened to other scientists - other viewpoints? The growing number of qualified scientists in multiple fields (including meteorology and climatology) who are calling many of the pronouncements of pro CAGW climate scientists in to question? Such as that the predictions have all failed? That the models have all proven to be wrong?
Again, the paid fossil fuel shill is simply lazy amd has no place in open and civil discussion.
What do the opposite side have to gain? There is no corporate money lining the pockets of supporters of CAGW? Your username is strangely appropriate as you are clearly not resident on the same planet as the rest of us if you think so. The funding and financial incentives available for pro AGW research vastly outweighs the funding of sceptics. To claim otherwise is absurd.
Remain highly distrustful of claims to the contrary of your set of beliefs, and trust it's spokesmen by all means - but don't think for a second you are being anything other than selective in your beliefs and dismissive of counter arguments and evidence.
"I've come to the wrong forum"? That's mighty inviting and welcoming of you, but I find I learn far more by reading multiple views on multiple topics in order to advance my understanding. You should try it sometime.
#21
I'm not a scientist. I follow the money! Nothing scientific about that, but it's amazingly reliable. I really don't care if you think references to shilling are "lazy"; that is simply your opinion. And that's all I have to say about it.
Mr. Mills, I'm not begrudging you your right to participate in this forum. I'm just saying that if you think you can convince us that global warming is not human-caused, you're wasting your time. - AIW
#22
Sven -- You did not counter my examples of how the industries that you say do not pay for their waste disposal do.
Since almost everyone on this blog disagrees with you, I think the burden of proof is in your court.
A boat load of money was spent to discredit Mann whose only sin was to plot the hockey stick. I think there is significant evidence that there is more money from the ancient sunlight guys. Of course, each of us just saying it doesn't prove much.
Quote Sven:You want another fact? In the last 20 years of increasing anthropogenic CO2 emmissions global temperatures have not risen.
How can you say that? The aughts were the hottest decade on record. I think 2012 was the hottest year on record. Prof Mullen has shown a chart where the temp, as signal estimated from the "noisy" measuremenst, is continuously increasing. There are blips, years like 1998, where the temp is significantly lower, However, Prof Mullen shows how each of these events correlate to such things as decreasing solar activity.
I think if we can just quit using ancient sunlight are global capture of energy will go away or at least be acceptable (CO2 < 350).
Even if the burden of proof is in your court, here is a picture from my court:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5rI01qK0m0w/U5WReqJGp-I/AAAAAAAANdw/I8eVTxsLofU/s1600/FIG1-2A.JPG
The methane level looks like a 10 sigma (sample standard deviation) event to me.
#23
I'm not trying to convince anyone, Alice. I will let the facts do that for people who are open to them.
People are welcome to their own opinions, but I keep referencing facts in the hope that a little reality will sink in.
Perhaps one of the problems in the conflation of terms. There seems to be a real misunderstanding in warmist and alarmist circles of the difference in Global Warming, AGW, and Climate Change.
The fact that there is currently no warming in terms of average global surface temperatures - dating back 17+ years and acknowledged by the IPCC and climate scientists and organisations of all stripes - should explain this clearly enough.
Let this be an end to this chain, but I would only be wasting my time if those I converse with have closed their minds and refuse to accept evidence or think for themselves.
#24
Sven -- You did not counter my examples of how the industries that you say do not pay for their waste disposal do.
>
I do not need to. My initial point, still to be acknowledged, was that Thom was incorrect to say the the fossil fuel industry is 'the only one'.
>
Since almost everyone on this blog disagrees with you, I think the burden of proof is in your court.
>
Have you conducted a poll or simply gone from the couple of users who have commented? Perhaps we could say 97% of people here disagree me with - not because there is any basis in that figure, but what the hell. (Wouldn't that be joyously appropriate?!)
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but anyone doing so is disagreeing with the facts I reference, and not because I say they are facts but because they are facts. Facts they can check for themselves - and people who disagree with clearly stated and referenced facts are called something very disagreeable by the warmist camp.
>
A boat load of money was spent to discredit Mann whose only sin was to plot the hockey stick. I think there is significant evidence that there is more money from the ancient sunlight guys. Of course, each of us just saying it doesn't prove much.
>
Mann discredited himself with his fraud of a hockey stick. It could be said he was simply incompetent, but that does not make his mistake any less notable. (My lack of competence in the same field has no bearing on his incompetence).
That hockey stick graph was everywhere and did much to influence the debate - see the laughably inaccurate and embarrassingly bad An Inconvenient Truth, for an example of the damage it caused.
Mann also said last year that one month had been the warmest the Earth had ever seen, which was just absurd.
Agreed, though that the money and funding issue is best left. There are clear differences in finding, grants, etc.
>
Sven wrote:
You want another fact? In the last 20 years of increasing anthropogenic CO2 emmissions global temperatures have not risen.
How can you say that? The aughts were the hottest decade on record. I think 2012 was the hottest year on record. Prof Mullen has shown a chart where the temp, as signal estimated from the "noisy" measuremenst, is continuously increasing. There are blips, years like 1998, where the temp is significantly lower, However, Prof Mullen shows how each of these events correlate to such things as decreasing solar activity.
>
I can say this (and should have said *average global surface temperatures* have not risen) because the acknowledged experts in the field state it as so. Experts on both sides of the divide.
The IPCC acknowledges the hiatus or pause in warming in terms of global average surface air temperatures. The NOAA States that the contiguous US states have seen cooling in the last decade. The HADCET data set shows that the UK has seen a cooling trend in Winter & Summer average means in the last 20 years.
And if lower temps in 1998 were caused by lower solar activity, would this not suggest that CO2 levels were not the main driver or controlling influence on temperatures? Especially given ever increasing emissions?
>
I think if we can just quit using ancient sunlight are global capture of energy will go away or at least be acceptable (CO2 < 350).
>
I don't get what you are trying to say here, beyond hoping for a stable climate, but we have been extremely lucky in the last few thousand years and more that the climate has remained so steady - we cannot expect it to last, nor should we. Change is a necessary function in chaotic systems.
Why is CO2 of 400ppm or 450ppm not acceptable? The benefits to vegetation are obvious. Climate forcing of CO2 has been shown to lessen with increased concentrations. We would be far better off replanting and greening our environment to take advantage of the increased CO2, surely? The benefits would outweigh any risks, especially if temps continue in the hiatus or ever so slightly increase.
>
Even if the burden of proof is in your court, here is a picture from my court:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5rI01qK0m0w/U5WReqJGp-I/AAAAAAAANdw/I8eVTxsLof...
The methane level looks like a 10 sigma (sample standard deviation) event to me.
>
The burden of proof is not in my court, be resides in the realm of facts and evidence - facts easily available to anyone who would care to look.
>
#25
“I’m not trying to convince anyone, Alice” says Mr. Mills. “I will let the facts do that for people who are open to them.” Yep! People like Thom Hartmann and Bill McKibbin.
By the way, did you know the British media refuses to give climate deniers any airtime? In Britain they are considered a bunch of hacks. I suppose Mr. Mills would take this to mean they don’t think for themselves and are out of touch with “reality”.
Like I say, Mr. Mills, I’m not a scientist. I follow the money. I also watch for those scientists who look and sound credible, who seem not to have any allegiance to corporate interests. And all such scientists seem unanimously concerned about human-caused climate change. And that’s good enough for me.
Anyway Mr. Mills, I don’t see this discussion going anywhere. Let’s just give it a rest. - AIW
#26
AIW -- I detect that you have dislike for merry-go-rounds.
#27
BINGO, Chuck!
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Never one to shy away from the truth, Thom Hartmann’s collected works are inspiring, wise, and compelling. His work lights the way to a better America."
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
Palindromedary ~ Chuck is a perfect example of selective critical thinking. He has started with a foregone conclusion and works his way backwards selectively cherry picking facts and notions to support the conclusion. The entire suggestion of not having enough time to look at on the scene photos because of the possibility that they were doctored is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
No offense to Chuck but I really don't think he realizes how ridiculous that sounds. He is literally blinding himself to factual evidence so that he can believe a fairy tale.
Another example is his constant citing of the substation under building 7. He cites it but doesn't explain how it has anything to do with the collapse. He suggests that it is the electrical power passing through the station that explains everything. He fails though to cite how that power caused the collapse. Obviously, if that station exploded at full capacity knocking out the supports at the time of the collapse three things would have happened. First, there would have been a deafening blast and a huge visible fireball erupting from under the building. Secondly, a definative shock wave would have been recorded miles away on seismometers. Finally, there would have been a huge blackout over a large section of Manhattan. Obviously none of those things occurred and therefore he is beating is a dead horse.
Also he cites that because this never happened before we don't know that this couldn't have happened the way the official story claims it did. A very flimsy piece of speculation indeed to denounce the testimony of a multitude of scientist, architects, engineers, and the first hand accounts of eye witnesses.
I mention this awesome display of illogic Palindromedary, because unfortunately many people in our country think the same way. Why rock the boat when it's not on fire? The scary thing is that Chuck represents one of the more brighter and gifted examples of this dysfunctionally thinking group. I say, good luck to you my friend trying to enlighten any of them.