CFN – Climate change is a major topic for discussion, and with the recent revelations of the Heartland Institute’s conspiracy to fake the science involved (Fakegate, or Denialgate), for their own economic benefit and that of their clients, people are naturally confused about the whole issue.
Very briefly, climate change (or global warming) is caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas (GHG), other important ones are methane, or natural gas (CH4), water vapour, ozone (O3), various nitrous oxides, and CFCs (chlorinated fluorocarbons) – however, CO2 is the major and controlling factor.
Unless the world starts to control, and eventually eliminate, carbon dioxide production from fossil fuels (i.e. stop burning coal, oil and natural gas), the atmospheric CO2 content will continue to increase, further warming the earth’s climate. If this is not done, then we risk a global climate and ecological catastrophe, which will make life virtually unbearable for future generations.
Climate Change Mitigation
By eliminating fossil fuel consumption in time, the world can avoid disastrous climate change. The problem facing society, governments and industry, however, is that it will cost money (a lot of money) to do so. Estimates of the cost vary – the Stern Report, commissioned by the UK government, at first estimated the cost would be 1% of the Gross World Product (GWP), or, in other words, 1% of the GDPs of all the world’s countries. Later, this estimate was raised to 2%, primarily because world governments are lagging behind, so it is becoming more costly to fix the problem.
According to Statistics Canada, the Canadian GDP is about $1.3 trillion dollars (in 2002 dollars). The Fraser Institute, a right wing libertarian “think tank”, estimates that for Canada, the cost will be about $60bn, which is about 3%. Due to the political biases of the Fraser Institute, this figure might be inflated – on the other hand, given that virtually any cost estimate is always on the low side, they might very well be right. The Heartland Institute estimates a figure of 1.7% of GWP, assuming a GWP of $65tn, and therefore a spending of $1.1tn per year.
Funding Climate Change Denial is Cheaper than Taking Responsible Action
The greenhouse properties of CO2 have been known since 1896. There is absolutely no valid scientific argument that can deny this fact without changing all the laws of chemistry and physics. “Scientists” who try to convince people otherwise are paid to do so. Take for example Fred Singer, who receives a $5000 monthly retainer from the Heartland Institute to promote fake science.
Fixing climate change is going to be expensive, no matter whose figures are correct, and quite understandably, no one wants to spend this kind of money. If there is a shift from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy (e.g. hydro, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal) which produce negligible CO2, or nuclear (which is not, strictly speaking, renewable, but does have a negligible carbon footprint compared to any fossil fuel), then the big losers are going to be the fossil fuel industries. They need to worry on three fronts – being made to pay for their share of the problem caused by the greenhouse gasses their products emit, a declining market share as people and industry shift to renewables, and a declining availability of their natural resource (e.g. Peak Oil).
This is a critical problem for the fossil fuel industry, and other industries which depend directly on fossil fuels, such as automobile manufacturing, fertilisers and petro-chemicals, and utility providers. They are faced with two options – they can adapt, and start developing alternative energy solutions, or they can fight the very idea of climate change and global warming, hoping the problem will go away.
Unfortunately, it is cheaper and easier to spend millions of dollars to fund a climate science denial industry than to spend potentially billions of dollars to adapt their business practices towards the new global reality.
Record Breaking Year for Big Oil
To put this into context, the Big Five oil companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell) made a record $137bn profit during 2011, up 75% from 2010, as shown in Figure 1.
Note: the percentage profit increase is higher than it should really be, because BP actually suffered a $4bn loss in 2010, due to the Gulf Oil Spill.
Profits are OK. There’s nothing wrong with a company making a profit, because without profits they would be out of business. If all the oil and other energy companies suddenly went out of business and could no longer deliver their product or service, the results for humanity would be catastrophic. If the oil companies would actually invest a significant portion of their profit in researching and developing renewable, carbon free energy sources, then these profits would be reasonable. However, it costs far less to fund the climate science denial industry.
More Profits for Less Work
Another striking feature of the 2011 vs. 2010 figures for the Big Five is an almost across the board decline in actual oil production, as shown in Figure 2. Much of the increase in profit is due to the continually rising world price for oil, but given the decline in actual production, the profit margin per barrel has increased substantially, as shown in Figure 3. One of the reasons that the profits are increasing is that, despite propaganda that would have one believe otherwise, the actual number of jobs in the US Oil and Gas sector has declined. According to the (US) House Natural Resources Committee, dated September 2011: “Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP combined to reduce their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that time. Just in 2010 alone, the big 5 oil companies reduced their global workforce by a combined 4,400 employees, while making a combined $73 billion in profits.”
Oil Companies Produce Oil and Doubt
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.”
There is no way that even the fossil fuel industry can change the fact that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing global warming and climate change. It just can’t be done without changing all the laws of chemistry and physics. Instead, in order to continue their business model, rather than invest anything substantial in renewable technologies, taking a lesson from the tobacco industry, they invest in sowing doubt in climate science itself.
Some of the climate science denial industry’s self-proclaimed “experts” include so-called scientists who learned their trade denying the health effects of cigarettes. These include Fred Singer, who gets a $5000/month retainer from Heartland, and Frederick Seitz. Seitz is unique – according to Singer, Seitz was still active chairman of one of the denial industry’s key mouthpieces, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), for over two years after his death in 2008. Perhaps he rose from the dead for a while, but as there is no record of him ever walking on water, perhaps one should be skeptical, not only about him and Singer, but about the whole climate science denial industry in general.
Protecting the Profits
With their current business model and profits, it should come as no surprise that the oil industry spend huge amounts lobbying in Congress and the Senate, contributing to (mostly) Republican election campaigns, pretending there is no such thing as global warming, and therefore no need to change their business practices.
- Political campaign contributions to (mostly) Republicans: $1.6m
- Lobbying the US Federal Government: $67.5m
- Preventing effect action on climate change and global warming: Priceless
Can you point me in the right direction as you mentioned not being able to change the laws of physics and chemistry? We know plants & trees need carbon to grow and people even exhale some. As carbon dioxide increases, is another element in the air we breathe reduced, altered or flows to a different level of the atmosphere? Oxygen percentage changes?
Climate change was our Iraq War and the Bush families laughed watching us act like neocons when we condemned our own children to the greenhouse gas ovens just to make sure they stayed environmentally aware.
As liberals we need to return to spreading love for the planet, not fear.
The CO2 exaggeration and fear mongering from us could keep us out of power for a decade or more.
Mount Etna erupted last month wiping out all Italy’s “credits” of CO2. The UN would now order Italians to buy “credits” from Saudi Arabia…lol
Rick
The oil companies have always publically displayed their research regarding environmental practices. You have made that clear here in your letter
Why is Big Oil science not refuted by the environmentalists? Can you or any environmental agency please provide the empirical evidence that refutes what industry claims? Can these environmental fear Mongers do as I asked in our previous discussion “In science reported results must be of such a nature that they can be independently replicated. Not until they are repeated under similar conditions by different and skeptical investigators will they be finally accepted into the ranks of scientific knowledge”
Show us where the environmentalists have carried out these tests?
By proof I am not referring to yours or fear mongers, who by the way are funded by big oil, creating new studies to disprove scenarios, , but evidence showing the hypothesis by Big oil is in correct or false
You are an ecologist, then being a person of science as well, I am in engineering, you know that data without replication is merely speculation, hypothesis or data without confirmation. The confirmation of results and conclusions from one study obtained independently in another—is considered the scientific gold standard. Climatologists have not once ever provided that evidence and shut the doors when they are questioned.
That sounds a little more like denial then people showing evidence of inaccurate information.
With knowing that I have to ask, if these climate alarmists are so confident that there data is correct, why would they not be ecstatic that the public can now see the fruits of their labors? The evidence is available and irrefutable…or was it?
I think we can assume for whom Hailey Brown is working.
Pete.
I think we can assume you have no answer therefore you create suspicion of my credibility, confuse the issue. You must be a lawyer
….However I can assure you I do not work in petro-chemical
No Hailey, I was thinking either the PMO or the Reformatories.
What do Conbots get paid per post these days?
@ Hailey Brown
You say you are an engineer. Really? Please forgive me if I have my doubts.
Real engineers understand that they are bound by the laws of physics, chemistry (where applicable), mathematics, dynamics and statics, soil mechanics, etc. They know that if they try to ignore these laws, or change them to suit their own particular ideology, their product won’t work. It’s quite simple, certainly not rocket science.
Carbon Dioxide causes atmospheric warming. It holds in some of the sun’s heat, which would otherwise bounce right back into space. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. It’s been proved by legitimate scientists countless times. No one has ever disproved it. The more CO2, the more heat held back. Hence the word “greenhouse gas.” The data, the math, and the conclusions are public record.
The only people who can’t get this straight are people who are:
1. Cranks and crackpots, and/or
2. Self delusional, and/or
3. Are trying to protect a vested interest (e.g. their ExxonMobile shares) and/or
4. Lack in cognitive ability, and/or
5. Brainwashed
“In science reported results must be of such a nature that they can be independently replicated. Not until they are repeated under similar conditions by different and skeptical investigators will they be finally accepted into the ranks of scientific knowledge”
Exactly. Even McIntyre and McKitrick have (no doubt accidentally, and to their embarrassment), replicated some of the key findings, dispite cherry picking the data to try to fit their own preconceptions.
Other people have tried to ignore proven science. One was an engineer who, I believe, designed a bridge at Quebec City. It gave rise to the Canadian engineers’ Iron Ring. Maybe you know what I am talking about.
Many geneticists (among others) went to labour camps in Siberia because Marxist/Leninist dialectic could not overcome genetics and inheritance, and the unfortunate scientists could not breed a frost resistant tomato.
Luckily for the Russians and us, German nuclear scientists were discouraged from using any Jewish research or findings in their attempt to build the bomb. It didn’t matter that Einstein et al were right, the Nazi government couldn’t accept that what they discovered was in fact correct and not an “International Zionist Conspiracy” trying to subject the “Aryian Race.”
Some aeronautical engineer once “proved” that bumblebees can’t fly. Unfortunately no other expert was able to replicate these findings (at least, not by using generally accepted math and engineering rules). Fortunately for the bumblebees, our unknown engineer did not have access to the massive media structure the climate science denial industry has, so the bumblebees were unable to be persuaded that they can’t fly.
So don’t ask me (or anyone else) to prove that CO2 causes atmospheric warming, because that’s already been done many times already, legitimately. You say that CO2 from fossil fuels does not cause global warming? You prove it! Or at least, given that you personally have none to the required expertise, point us all to a legitimate proof.
@Pete Dick
Quote: What do Conbots get paid per post these days?
Good one, Pete. It must be quite good, because I don’t think some of these folks should depend on their day jobs. Meme Mine, (see above) has been professional comment fodder for some years now.
My comment @ Hailey Brown just got peer-reviewed. It turns out that that the Iron Ring’s connection to Quebec City is something of an urban myth. From Wikipedia:
Iron Rings are given to graduating engineers who choose to obligate themselves to the highest professionalism and humility of their profession. It is a symbol that reflects the moral, ethical and professional commitment made by the engineer who wears the ring.
In other words, an engineer is obligated to follow the accepted practices of the profession, and of the underlying science itself. If scientists have demonstrated the particular properties of a substance, and the research has passed peer review and can be replicated, then the engineer ignores this at his (or her) own risk.
If an engineer ignores the known properties of the steel in a bridge, for example, and the bridge collapses, then that engineer would be morally (and hopefully civilly and criminally) responsible.
Carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels, is producing the main component of global warming. Ignore this property at one’s own risk. Unfortunately, however, everyone, especially future generations, will have to suffer the consequences of denying this basic property of CO2. Chances are, however, those with power and influence who ignore, or deny, the properties of CO2 will probably never be held accountable.
Is your system down or is there a limit to post sizes?
The system is up. I don’t know of any limit to post sizes, but perhaps your message timed out before it could be loaded Hailey…
says there is a duplicate comment but does not show as waiting moderation
Not on my end.
I will try submitting in two different posts
Rick
I found out what your problem is. You accept the information as you see fit.
My ring, which I do not wear, is an ethical commitment to safety and best practices in my career. It is not an excuse to blindly follow the opinions and beliefs of others. It is what gives me the right and obligation, by profession, to question the best practices of those I work with in my discipline. The ring also is to remind us what happens when we do not follow these practices, see The Quebec Bridge.
Now I ask what gives you the right to question my credibility. You like Pete seem to lack the ability to stay on topic and discredit the individual rather than the data.
In 1963 Mitchell showed how global cooling has been occurring since the 1940’s. In the 1940’s began the decline of the industrial revolution thus eliminating huge amounts of uncontrolled emissions. In 1974 Time Magazine presented an article “Another Ice Age” where it was stated that the atmosphere has been growing cooler for the past three decades.
“In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
In 1975 Newsweek wrote a similar article called “The cooling Planet”, in both article the opposite of what is being said now about global warming was stated about the next Ice Age.
Even WMO made the same claims, claiming the temperature drops in the 40’s were significant enough to prepare for an Ice Age.
The entertaining component about this, it is the exact same environmentalists.
Take for instance Tim Flannery who claims the earth’s oceans will raise drowning beach front property, yet he owns two homes worth well over a million dollars on the Hawkesbury, Deerubbun in Australia. Both homes purchased after he made his claims of waters rising?
As you can see Rick I have provided facts on this topic and not solely challenged your credibility. Please show a little professional integrity and stick to the topic at hand.
Perhaps you can clarify with evidence how the environmentalists have med the distinction, in their claims, which defines the CO2 emissions are because of the human race and not naturally occurring.
Way to go Hailey Brown.
Attack the message NOT the messenger.
In the mean time keep on posting.
Love the read, very interesting.
@ Hailey Brown
Here is a FACT: CO2, emitted by burning fossil fuels, is causing global warming. Period. Full Stop.
Please explain why you don’t believe this FACT. Please give us one or two links to a relevant article from a relevant government or educational institution that proves that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels does not cause global warming.
And just to be fair, here are some links that indicate that CO2 does cause global warming, and acknowledging some of the potential effects of climate change. These links links, two scientific and one from the engineering world, represent the views of the world’s leading legitimate scientists and engineers. They are not articles from Newsweek
1. This is an update assessment of all the science, published Sept. 2010 by the Royal Society:
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
And from the American Association for the Advancement of Science :
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
And here’s a link for all the professional engineers out there, from the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Although it does not go into the actual science of climate change, it does discuss the problems to be faced trying to mitigate it, and the problems that will arise if climate change continues unabated.
http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Document-Library/Policy-Position-Statement—Climate-Change
“ICE strongly believes that the role of the engineer in combating climate change must be promoted strongly. The scientific evidence that climate change is a reality is overwhelming and our understanding of the potentially catastrophic nature of its effects is increasingly clear.”
Finally, a question. Who is impugning whom?
Thank You Rick!!
I will peruse them over the weekend.
I do hope they show more then CO2 contributes to global warming, This is something we already know, I do look forward to the proof that the largest contributor is Mankind.
Maybe you can help me a little here, I have been trying to post the link from The Cooling World article written Newsweek, April 28, 1975. However it seems I *l* have no clue how to do that.
Any assistance would be appreciated.
Thank You again
Impugning would be me calling you a liar, when have I ever done that?? I merely stated that climate change as presented is inaccurate. Yes the planet warms, but the evidence too is inaccurate.
I believe I mentioned before that both sides are at fault here, however if we follow the fear mongers we WILL be taken down another path which will only suit industry and politicians and the environment will be no better off. Take a look at the history, every time the economy slips somebody comes up with a new idea for economic change. Is this what climate change is all about?
Point for consideration, alternative energy using solar panels takes up valuable acreages. Recently they have begun clear cutting land to find new acreages to plant crops. Yes they are related and ss the trade off worth it??
We now eliminate carbon reducing foliage because we want to install alternative energy resources? These solar panels are made of recycled plastics. A process which produces the very environmental pollutants environmentalists are fighting about. We also now have more crops to compost which too produces emissions.
Can you see the irony?
To climate-change skeptics: Where’s your proof that human activity is NOT causing climate change?
Devil’s Advocate, what do they need to prove? They have made no claims.
Climate-change deniers make no claims? Denying that human activity is responsible is not a claim? That’s a good one.
Shaky logic and a transparent cop out. How convincing is the claim that human activity is not responsible, if you can’t prove that it’s not responsible?
Actually, we don’t deny that the climate is changing. We deny the man is causing the change. Since the climate of the earth has always been changing, it is up to the proponents of this hysteria to prove that man is the cause of what we see happening.
So far, all that has been presented are computer models that continue to be wrong in their predictions, just like the models used to predict the weather. They can’t predict the weather more then a day out and even then they are often wrong.
Then when there is evidence that those who claim they want to save the planet, lie, steal, deny others the right to publish desenting opinions, but then have a bigger carbon footprint than some African countries, one has to wonder.
The onus is on those who say they believe in AGW to prove it.
in this everchanging world where we are expected to believe all that is spoken without question. there are few who will. weather is a constant. when the wind blows from the east expect a cool storm, when the wind blows from the west expect a warm storm. be your own weather predictor. i predict a long hot summer depending on how much sun we get, possibly humid depending on how many days it rains. watch the moon and sun as we revolve around eachother. these are the tools we need to tell us what will happen in the following times. most of us wonder why last week was so warm. sunspot 1429? think about it. it erupted approximately 36 hours before the weather changed here on earth. how could we have effected that? the last solar flare erupted away from earth but 1429 is still active and we will see it’s outcome soon. be prepared for some strange weather patterns this year. so keep your eyes in the sky!
when you think about it. what ever happened to the news story about the oil leak in the oceon? did we clean it up??? why were so many dead whales washed up on the beach??? how did so many dolfins beach themselves with horrendous burns on then??? what caused the birds to fall out of the sky??? what would cause a sunami that wiped out half an island??? what is causeing normally inactive volcanoes to erupt??? why are we experiencing so many tornadoes??? why is there so much cultural unrest??? how did an island of plastic form in the oceon that is as big as texas??? and why did it gather in one area? static electricity? why is the cost of liveing going up but the number of jobs are going down? i submit that it is political ! i believe ther is a conspiricy by the governments of the world to reduce our numbers so as to alleviate the burden of the controllers to a working number for submission
Thanx AJ,
Devil’s advocates defence is not a claim.
Aj: “We deny the man (sic) is causing the change.”
Where is the proof that supports your denial? It’s not enough to say the climate of the earth has always been changing, when the changes we are witnessing are so striking and evident and occurring in an era of accelerated global industrialization. Nor is it helpful to describe bona fide climatologists as “proponents of hysteria”.
Devil’s advocate, Really I think a little logic goes a long way in a discussion. Something you lack this time around.
However I will entertain your question
Carlton University’s Paleoclimatologist Tim Paterson told the House of Commons committee in 2005
There is no meaningful correlation between carbon dioxide levels and the earth’s temperature.. Point in fact, approximately 450 million years ago while the planet was in the grips of the coldest temperatures over the past 12 million years, carbon levels were ten times higher than they are now.
Evidence is available but I think you should look for it.
Take into consideration as well, the planet has been here 4.5 billion years and people for the most part 100.000 plus or minus let’s say 40%. Of our time here we have only been engaged in heavy industry for about 200 years. I think it’s a bit pretentious to claim we are killing the planet as she has shown over the past 4 billion years she adapts. She has faced earth quakes, Volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drifts, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, magnetic pole reversal (something even David Suziki is now claiming may have environmental impacts). Now we have a few industrious scientists working on computer models trying to tell us “CO2 is killing the planet??
Now I have given you leads with enough information to see the light. I suggest you educate yourself before you post again.
@Devil’s Advocate
Before you go doing too much research into Tim Patterson, go here first:
http://www.desmogblog.com/r-timothy-patterson
You will see he is just a climate science denial industry paid spokesman, and a Heartland “expert.”
@ Richard Komorowski
Thanks for the edifying link.
@Hailey Brown
It’s Carleton University and David Suzuki. What was that about educating yourself?
Rick
I thought we understood that a blog does not make a good resource…You are ruining your credibility
Rick
Who funds all the enviromental groups you claim to have the correct answers? They must have some fair revenue to be able to lobby so efficiently
If all you can provide is scepticism about who they may be working for, well that goes a long way in explaining a case of paranoia.
What kind of transportation do all these groups use? How efficient is thier homes see Tim Flannery .
Have you ever noticed all the materials David Suzuki proposes we use to make our homes energy efficient? They are based on the Petrochemical industry!
I mean really people show a little more then scepticism and conspiracy theories.
I have admitted both sides are at fault and provided irrefutable evidence tot he fact, and yet people such and the Devil provides nothing but attacks on credibility With that approach it is no wonder why industry can play both sides of a coin and we are simple enough to believe it.
Hailey you’re sounding an awful lot like Smee….
Sorry,
Is that a concern? I appologise if what I say is understoood to be inaccurate, but I do beleive what Iam saying is clearly visible when you read the posts.
Rick I have not read all the info you provided yet, You may be happy to hear that I am currently arguing industry standards and the need to incoporate them as they are written, not as someone understands them to mean.
I am so frustrated the thought of returning to petro chemical is quite prevalent.
@ Admin
“Hailey you’re sounding an awful lot like Smee….”
Interesting. I also had someone asking me if this Hailey Brown wasn’t really Smee (or maybe his mommy). In fact, I have been starting to wonder the same for several reasons.
1. Smee knows everything (remember when the Americans entered World War II on Sept 11, 1944) and gets quite upset whenever someone points out the facts.
2. Smee is generally illiterate, and has trouble putting his thoughts together in a coherent form. As for his spelling and punctuation…
3. Smee has never been known to let the facts get in the way of his imagination.
4. I’ve completely lost count of the comments I’ve received about my articles (both pro and con). However, out of all those people, the only one who has ever referred to me as “Rick” is Smee, and now HB.
5. In a reply (March 22) to a comment by Pete Dick, HB says: “….However I can assure you I do not work in petro-chemical”
However, HB’s last comment says: “I am so frustrated the thought of returning to petro chemical is quite prevalent.”
This is also consistent with Smee’s apparent inability to keep up with his thoughts.
6. Although Smee has been known to post some coherent comments when copying and pasting, HB’s last comment is completely in Smee’s style. There are at least five spelling errors/punctuation/typos, and the very last sentence is totally Smee’s style.
7. Smee has dropped hints that he works in the petro-chemical industry. Personally I believe this is true, although I do not know which gas station he works at.
All this leads me to believe that either HB is Smee, or closely related to Smee. As I have long ago abandoned answering Smee’s comments as being a total waste of time and energy, I don’t think I’m going to bother answering HB any longer.
However, not being closed minded, and being open to peer review, if anyone can convince us that I am wrong in my assessment, I will be happy to acknowledge it.
If the entire current population of our planet were each allocated 4 square feet we would collectively occupy most of Rhode Island ( only 200 square miles to spare ) to make this more Canadian friendly we would occupy half of P.E.I. Our actual presence on the earth is not that significant in the grand scheme of things but our use or misuse of technologies can be. While a case can be made for an imbalance in the chemical makeup of our atmosphere the true question is really this simple… Can the extent of change due to the burning of fossil fuels impact the planet to the extent required to bring about catastrophic change prior to these energy sources being depleted or before we simply move on to other energy means ? Throwing money around and creating a carbon credit economic environment is the answer to assisting the wealthy in continuing their quest but not the answer in furthering mans needs of survival. This is my opinion, draw you own conclusions but please think and do not jump onto the politically correct bandwagon!
Hailey Brown the direction (warming or cooling) or more correctly the cycle that we are in is primarily determined by the source of the funding for the “professional opinions”. Since agendas and corruption enter into the equation for obvious reasons (money/power) it would serve one best to read from those scientists that do not have a vested interest which compromises their results (tarnishes the scientific model). Keep an open mind, remembering even if there is some non junk science that would support a massive contribution opposing a naturally occurring cycle when it comes to fossil fuels we are talking of a rather limited situation in the time line of the Earth. We have much larger concerns facing the world today! Establishing a new money market (trading carbon credits world wide) will only serve to increase wealth at the top ! Dispute this, someone !