An Alarmist's Argument - and a Rebuttal
This is an article published in CNN today. It is pure and utter bullshit (remember, I am a denier). It is tired, worn and inflammatory. It simply is not true. However, it does have value in that the authour has pretty much listed the complete spectrum of arguments and terror tactics being used by the alarmist movement today in efforts to get people to fall into line with their manifesto. The best part - they wail that it's not working.
So, here it is, and along with it counteracting arguments.
"Shouting into the apocalypse: The decade in climate change"
(CNN) - What's that worn-out phrase? Shouting into the wind? (peeing into the ocean?) Well, after a decade of rising pollution, failed politics and worsening disasters, it seems the many, many of us who care about the climate crisis increasingly are shouting into the hurricane, if not the apocalypse.
On the cusp of 2020, the state of the planet is far more dire than in 2010. Preserving a safe and healthy ecological system is no longer a realistic possibility. Now, we're looking at less bad options, ceding the fact that the virtual end of coral reefs (no, they are healthy see Climate 2017), the drowning of some island nations (nope, Tuvalu is not drowning), the worsening of already-devastating storms (nope, not worse than historical records show)and the displacement of millions (not yet) -- they seem close to inevitable. The climate crisis is already costly, deadly and deeply unjust, putting the most vulnerable people in the world, often who've done the least to cause this, at terrible risk (except for overpopulating their countries beyond their ability to support themselves). The worst part? We've known about this for a very long time. The climate emergency may seem like the issue of the moment, a new thing, a 2020 Democrats thing or a Greta Thunberg thing, but check out this 1958 educational film that mentions "tourists in glass-bottomed boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami (not yet, not due to seal levels, if anything some are sinking due to poor preparation of unstable ground);" or coverage of the first Earth Day in 1970, 50 years ago this coming April, when millions hit the streets; or NASA scientist James Hansen's 1988 testimony before the US Senate stating the era of global warming had begun (ah yes, discredited James Hansen of the famous "hockey stick" manipulation of data). It bears repeating that scientists (who, exactly)have looked at the evidence, and more than 97% of them agree that humans are warming the planet (absolutely, completely not true. Manipulated polling among sympathetic, biased proponents or non credentialed people), primarily by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas (and yet they have given no scientific proof that C02 is causing anything to happen at all). The warnings from scientists (who, exactly) are only getting more dire as we peel decades off the calendar."The point of no return is no longer over the horizon," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said earlier this month. "It is in sight and is hurtling towards us." (right, the UN, home of IPCC and the most corrupt organization ever created).
There's a bright spot in all of this, and I will get to that.
But first I think we must take a clear-eyed, cold assessment of 2020. (should you be using the word "cold"?)
Emissions are still going up
There are two numbers you need to understand to put this moment in perspective.
The first is 1.5. The Paris Agreement (oh, yes they all flew in on their private jets and partied for days) -- the international treaty on climate change, which admittedly is in trouble, but also is the best thing we've got -- sets the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 or, at most, below 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Emissions have to crash for temperatures to stop rising there. Already, humans have warmed Earth about 1 degree Celsius (well, not really, maybe .75 C over a couple of hundred years but the IPCC data is corrupted). The second is zero. The world needs to get to zero net emissions of greenhouse gases -- meaning no net pollution from burning fossil fuels and the like -- as soon as possible, but by 2050 at the latest, and we need to be about halfway there in 10 years. Emissions should be falling, fast, if the world wants to have an inkling of a chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees (look at their charts, they've created a multiplier in converting irradiance to rise in temperature 2 to 3 X factor).
What's actually happening? Yep, emissions continue to rise.
Worldwide fossil fuel emissions are expected to be up 0.6% in 2019 over 2018, according to projections from the Global Carbon Project (who?). In the past decade, humans have put more than 350 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and other industrial processes, according to calculations provided by the World Resources Institute. (who?). A more striking way to think about this is to look even further back in time. More than half of all industrial greenhouse gas pollution since the Industrial Revolution has been created in the past 30-some years (and satellite data shows the Earth is getting greener). And, again, we've known about the crisis (what crisis?), along with its causes and solutions(oh no, definitely not identified C02 as the culprit or stop burning as the solution), for longer than that.
"We basically dillied and dallied and squandered the last 40 years, and you can't just keep kicking the can down the road," Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (who?), and a senior research scientist (in what), told me. "To hold to 1.5 degrees (Celsius), which frankly is not going to happen (it will be far less than that because they fudged the number), would require at best reducing global emissions 7.5% every year, starting next year, at a time when emissions are actually going up!"
"The longer we wait the more impossible it becomes. (thank God, because it's about to get colder)"
Meanwhile, scientists (who, exactly) are becoming even more concerned about tipping points (ah, yes the new terminology and threat to our existence) in the climate system that could lead to rapid rise in sea levels, (hasn't been happening up to now and is unlikely to do so in the future) the deterioration of the Amazon (overstated is the effect of humans, it's not climate that's the problem, actually getting greener with C02 rise). and so on. One particularly frightening commentary last month in the journal Nature, by several notable climate scientists (no really this time you should tell us who, exactly), says the odds we can avoid tipping points in the climate system "could already have shrunk towards zero."(huh? - "could have"? - shrunk towards zero? - what?) In non-science-speak: We're there now. (If that was science speak, god help us if we have to use non science speak).
"The world is in a far more perilous place at the end of 2019 compared to 2010 as climate impacts are being seen and felt all over the world (and population continues to grow and inflate our urban islands) ," Bill Hare, director of Climate Analytics, a research group (research what, exactly), said in an email (to who, their mother?). "We have used up nearly half the carbon budget we had remaining in 2010. Fossil fuel emissions are 10% higher, and still increasing. Sea level rise is accelerating (no, it definitely is not), and global temperature is increasing at 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade (actually, it is flat and is turning downwards as the next Grand Minimum approaches)."
We see our fingerprints on the storms
It's not as if no one cares.
This was the decade when some people finally started to see the climate crisis as personal. Climate attribution science, which looks for human fingerprints on extreme weather events (so that Lawyers can use the made up data to support class action lawsuits against oil companies), made its way into the popular imagination. We're starting to realize there are no truly "natural" disasters anymore (oh bullshit, they've been happening like forever, it's just population that's now in the way of the weather). We've warmed the climate (and again, no proof we've done it, but lots of proof climate follows natural Sun cycles), and we're already making storms riskier (because we've overpopulated and built cities on sand spits or in tornado alley, or on river banks etc. etc. ). I spent a good chunk of this decade in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria and in other locations where the climate crisis is obviously present tense (could you explain please). Alaska, Honduras, Florida, Oklahoma, Madagascar, the Marshall Islands, Costa Rica . In these places, especially in the aftermath of a flood, fire or drought (where perhaps we shouldn't have built on a known floodplain, or in the middle of a forest or drained the aquifers of water in the good times), the climate threat feels urgent, even deadly. Shockingly so. ( put 50 million people in a state the size of a postage stamp, build towns in front of well known Santa Anna winds, light a match and then blame climate for the fire).
The news media is picking that up, using terms such as "climate emergency" and "climate crisis" instead of the blander "climate change." (anything to scare the shit out of the children even more than before). Increasingly, lots of people (how many, really) are making these critical connections, which should motivate the political, social and economic revolution necessary to fix things.
Yes, the Paris Agreement happened in 2015.
But the end of the fossil fuel era is not yet in sight. (thank God, because it's going to get colder).
There's evidence that only certain chunks (that's a good scientific term, isn't it - chunks) of society are getting the message.
Only 52% of American adults say they are "very" or "extremely" sure global warming is happening, according to a report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (who? who?), which is based on a 1,303 person survey conducted in November 2019. Yale's been asking that question for a while now. Go back a decade, to 2009, and the rate is about the same: 51%. (You'd think after all the scare mongering the number would be higher wouldn't you?)
In other words: Despite the increased sense of urgency, public opinion is flat.
On the political left, however, people view the issue quite differently than they did a decade ago, according to Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale program. Liberal Democrats view global warming as their No. 3 voting issue, with environmental protection as No. 2, he said. Compare that to conservative Republicans, who rank global warming dead last on a 29-issue list. (It's a dilemma, the right policy but pushed by a guy we all can't stand)
There's hope, though
OK, so about that hope.
The bright spot -- and it truly is a bright one -- is that young people are waking up. They are shouting, loudly (remember Hitler youth movement and their behaviour after indoctrination into false values and goals?) and with purpose. Witness Greta Thunberg, the dynamic teenager (autistic, aspergers, non scientific, illiterate, school dropout with manipulative parents and eco terrorist money) who started a one-girl protest outside the Swedish Parliament last year, demanding that adults take seriously this emergency, which threatens young people and future generations disproportionately.
"Greta, in the space of basically 14 months, goes from being a lonely teenage girl sitting with a little sign outside the Parliament building, all by herself, to on one day having 4 million people marching in the streets with her all around the world," Leiserowitz said. "That's remarkable!" (gosh, who paid for all of that attention getting theatrics?)
We should continue shouting Greta's "Yes, and" message into the next decade.
Yes, this truly is a horrible mess. (thank you for your part in contributing to it)
And yes, we must fix it. ( I hope I live long enough to see you people start blaming C02 for cooling the Planet instead of for heating it, because 2030 approaches and it's going to get cold as the Sun enters its Grand Minimum).
Correction: An original version of the piece misquoted the number of climate change marchers.
More? - Look at the false claims made over the years. This image taken from Martin Armstrong website: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-next-solar-cycle-begins-2020-may-be-a-panic-decline-in-solar-activity/