RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Kelly writes: "This is a historic time, and perhaps the historic time, a perfect storm of challenges to the survival of our species which it does not now seem we can conceivably weather without all hands on deck."

Los Angeles skyline visible through smog. (photo: Getty)
Los Angeles skyline visible through smog. (photo: Getty)

Pushing for the Dismantling of Anti-Climate, Pro-War Economies

By Kathy Kelly, teleSUR

22 July 15


James Hansen wants profits to be tied to lower carbon emissions.

ast weekend, about 100 U.S. Veterans for Peace gathered in Red Wing, Minnesota, for a statewide annual meeting. In my experience, Veterans for Peace chapters hold “no-nonsense” events. Whether coming together for local, statewide, regional or national work, the Veterans project a strong sense of purpose. They want to dismantle war economies and work to end all wars. The Minnesotans, many of them old friends, convened in the spacious loft of a rural barn. After organizers extended friendly welcomes, participants settled in to tackle this year’s theme: “The War on Our Climate.” 

They invited Dr. James Hansen, an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, to speak via Skype about minimizing the impacts of climate change. Sometimes called the “father of global warming”, Dr. Hansen has sounded alarms for several decades  with accurate predictions about the effects of fossil fuel emissions. He now campaigns for an economically efficient phase out of fossil fuel emissions by imposing carbon fees on emission sources with dividends equitably returned to the public. 

Dr. Hansen envisions, at long last, the creation of serious market incentives for entrepreneurs to develop energy and products that are low-carbon and no-carbon,  “Those who achieve the greatest reductions in carbon use would reap the greatest profit. Projections show that such an approach could reduce U.S. carbon emissions by more than half within 20 years — and create 3 million new jobs in the process.”

Steadily calling on adults to care about young people and future generations, Dr. Hansen chides proponents of what he terms “the fruitless cap-and-trade-with-offsets approach.”  This method fails to make fossil fuels pay their costs to society, “thus allowing fossil fuel addiction to continue and encouraging ‘drill, baby, drill’ policies to extract every fossil fuel that can be found.” 

Making fossil fuels “pay their full costs” would mean imposing fees to cover costs that polluters impose on communities through burning of coal, oil and gas. .  When local populations are sickened and killed by air pollution, and starved by droughts or battered or drowned by climate-change-driven storms, costs accrue for governments that businesses should repay. 

What are the true costs to society of fossil fuels? According to a recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) study, fossil fuel companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, US $10 million per minute, every minute, each and every day. 

The Guardian reports that the US$5.3 trillion subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. 

Dr. Hansen began his presentation by noting that, historically, energy figured importantly in avoiding slave labor.  He believes some energy from nuclear power is now necessary for countries such as China and India to lift masses of their populations out of poverty. 

Many critics strenuously object to Dr. Hansen’s call for reliance on nuclear power, citing dangers of radiation, accidents, and problems with storage of nuclear waste, particularly when the radioactive waste is stored in communities where people have little control or influence over elites that decide where to ship the nuclear waste. 

Other critics argue that “nuclear power is simply too risky, and more practically speaking, too costly to be considered a significant part of the post-carbon energy portfolio.” 

Journalist and activist George Monbiot, author of a book-length climate change proposal, Heat, notes that nuclear power tends to endanger “haves” and “have-nots” equally. Coal power’s deadliest immediate effects, with historic casualties clearly outpacing those of nuclear, are linked to mining and industrial areas populated by people more likely to be economically disadvantaged or impoverished. 

Climate-driven societal collapse may be all the more deadly and final with grid-dependent nuclear plants ready to melt down in lockstep with our economies. But it's crucial to remember that our direst weapons – many of them also nuclear – are stockpiled precisely to help elites manage the sort of political unrest into which poverty and desperation drive societies. Climate change, if we cannot slow it, does not merely promise poverty and despair on an unprecedented scale, but also war - on a scale, and with weapons, that may be far worse than dangers resulting from our energy choices. Earth's military crisis, its climate crisis, and the paralyzing economic inequalities that burden impoverished people are linked. 

Dr. Hansen thinks that the Chinese government and Chinese scientists might marshal the resources to develop alternatives to fossil fuels, including nuclear powered energy. He notes that China faces the dire possibility of losing coastal cities to global warming and accelerated disintegration of ice sheets. 

The greatest barriers to solution of fossil fuel addiction in most nations are the influence of the fossil fuel industry on politicians and the media and the short-term view of politicians. Thus it is possible that leadership moving the world to sustainable energy policies may arise in China , where the leaders are rich in technical and scientific training and rule a nation that has a history of taking the long view. Although China’s CO emissions have skyrocketed above those of other nations, China has reasons to move off the fossil fuel track as rapidly as practical. China has several hundred million people living within a 25-meter elevation of sea level, and the country stands to suffer grievously from intensification of droughts, floods, and storms that will accompany continued global warming. China also recognizes the merits of avoiding a fossil fuel addiction comparable to that of the United States. Thus China has already become the global leader in development of energy efficiency, renewable energies, and nuclear power. 

What’s missing from this picture? The Veterans for Peace earnestly believe in ending all wars. Deepening nonviolent resistance to war could radically amend the impact of world militaries, especially the colossal U.S. military, on global climate. In order to protect access to and global control of fossil fuels, the U.S. military burns rivers of oil, wasting the hopes of future generations in the name of more securely killing and maiming the people of regions the U.S. has chosen or may one day prefer to plunge into brutal, destabilizing wars of choice, ending in chaos. 

Corruption of the global environment and compulsively frantic destruction of irreplaceable resources is an equally sure, if more delayed, manner of imposing chaos and death on a mass scale. The misdirection of economic resources, of preciously needed human productive energy, is yet another. Researchers at Oil Change International find that “3 trillion of the dollars spent on war against Iraq would cover all global investments in renewable power generation needed between now and 2030 to reverse global warming.”

John Lawrence writes that “the United States contributes more than 30% of global warming gases to the atmosphere, generated by 5% of the world’s population. At the same time funding for education, energy, environment, social services, housing and new job creation, taken together, is less than the military budget.” I believe that “low carbon” and “no carbon” energy and energy efficiency should be paid for by abolishing war. Lawrence is right to insist that the U.S. should view problems and conflicts created by climate change as “opportunities to work together with other nations to mitigate and adapt to its effects.” But the madness of conquest must end before any such coordinated work will be possible. 

Sadly, tragically, many U.S. veterans fully understand the cost of war. I asked a U.S. Veteran for Peace living in Mankato, MN, about the well being of local Iraq War Veterans. He told me that in April, U.S. veteran student leaders at Minnesota State's Mankato Campus, spent 22 days gathering daily, rain or shine, to perform 22 push-ups in recognition of the 22 combat veterans a day – nearly one an hour – currently committing suicide in the U.S. They invited the Mankato-area community to come to campus and do pushups along with them. 

This is a historic time, and perhaps the historic time, a perfect storm of challenges to the survival of our species which it does not now seem we can conceivably weather without all hands on deck. Whoever arrives to work beside us, and however quickly they arrive, we have heavy burdens to share with many others already lifting as much as they can, some taking theirs up by choice, some burdened beyond endurance by greedy masters. The Veterans for Peace work to save the ship rather than wait for it to sink. 

Many of us have not endured the horrors that drive 22 veterans a day, and countless poor in world regions that the U.S. empire has touched, to the final act of despair. I would like to think we can bring hope and comfort to those around us, bearing burdens together, sharing resources, and learning to join courageous others in the work at hand. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+21 # Dust 2015-07-22 14:05
While I still have deep reservations on the issue of nuclear power, tying profits to sustainability and a green and healthy earth is absolutely, 100% the route to take.

War is not a valid economic policy. Neither is destruction.
+15 # Billy Bob 2015-07-22 14:40
I think all polluters should pay for their own pollution. That would put coal, oil, and natural gas out of business.

Regarding nuclear power, if we must use it, I say, fine. First, let's make the nuclear power companies pay a deposit for the total amount necessary to recover the environmental and economic devastation, not to mention the potentially millions of lives slaughtered, if anything goes wrong. This would need to cover devastation reaching thousands of years into the future, at a reasonable price (accounting for a few hundred years-worth of inflation).

If a nuclear power company wants to pay a few quadrillion, or quintillion dollars necessary, upfront, for every single plant, then I say, they have the proper amount of confidence to be trusted.

Otherwise, I'd say nuclear is another obsolete energy source.
+5 # Dust 2015-07-22 14:52
Good point.
+5 # Billy Bob 2015-07-22 17:28
Thanks. I always appreciate your posts, and your expertise on these matters.
+17 # universlman 2015-07-22 17:57
Quoting Billy Bob:
If a nuclear power company wants to pay a few quadrillion, or quintillion dollars necessary, upfront, for every single plant, then I say, they have the proper amount of confidence to be trusted.

They do not now even pay their own insurance. We federal taxpayers cover the risk whether we are hooked up to the plant or not.

As for the article, I believe the author is spreading the belief that we NEED nuclear power to save us. He is selling it as a kind of economic methadone injection to see us over the "transition to renewables," and out of our addicted phase.

I would like to see his math on this. There are many alternatives when it comes to energy besides nuclear.
+17 # Billy Bob 2015-07-22 19:05
I think we're already ready to switch to 100% solar and wind, and have been for decades. This isn't really a matter of needing new inventions, but one of investing in the necessary infrastructure. If we can spend, literally untold, trillions, on military spending, to "secure" oil, then we could easily afford a tiny fraction of that updating our own power grid, to make already obsolete filthy fuel sources, completely unnecessary.

I forgot about the fact that they don't pay their own insurance. I'd heard that before. That point needs to be driven home, because, in reality, how can an insurance company ever, even pretend to cover the cost of funeral expenses, pain and suffering, and economic loss, for the literally millions of dead people a nuclear power plant could leave behind in just one city alone? How could an insurance policy "ensure" that it will cover ALL of the costs that will be incurred over the next 40,000 years, due to a nuclear "accident", that should never have been allowed to become even a remote possibility in the first place?
-16 # brycenuc 2015-07-22 23:07
A nuclear power plant accident is not like a nuclear bomb. There have been 3 in the world. Three Mile Island neither killed nor harmed anyone. Chernobyl killed 56 plant workers by high radiation. Radiation levels near the plant exposed people to radiation, but no one but plant people died. The late Michael Crichton wrote of the vast exaggeration of the physical harm that was done. (google Crichton + Chernobyl). Fukushima neither harmed nor killed anyone by the nuclear accident the Tsunami caused, but tens of thousands died from the direct effects of the Tsunami. Some ill and disabled people at Fukushima were killed by the evacuation which was totally unnecessary because the radiation level was well below the level of any harm.

The government backed insurance for nuclear plants has never cost the taxpayers a dime. It is designed pay those who have been harmed by nuclear power and such harm has never occurred in the United States. The Chernobyl type reactor could never have been licensed in the U. S.

There has never been a consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature. CO2 cause of global warming is, indeed, a hoax. But the harm that comes from curtailing our energy sources will be severe.
Germany's experiment with that has been a total failure so far.
+3 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-23 06:12
Welcome to FAUX World, where very spittle-dripped exaggeration of misinformation is relentlessly repeated until the brain dead accept the drumbeat as harmony - because they have someone to blame for what they cannot fathom.

"The government backed insurance for nuclear plants has never cost the taxpayers a dime." ... A perfect example of how "big government" is supposed to be stealing 'tax dollars' from your pockets to take care of "harm has never occurred in the United States". See "Some believe ..." is not "equivalent" and neutralizing data.

Bryce, I wish you well and hope your "beliefs" did not color the effectiveness of your 'skills' as an engineer. I hope you and yours enjoy good health.
+6 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 07:40
Nuclear Power is great... until it isn't.

I think I would just cover the landscape with solar panels and wind turbines compared to the idea of digging out millions of tons of rock, running it through centrifuges to produce 1.5 pounds of fuel which will then be radioactive for 10,000 years.

Or we can harness wind and sun..... Hmmm not really a tough call.
+5 # Billy Bob 2015-07-23 10:02
You're right.

However, wind and sun are plentiful. It's hard to create a cartel with such readily available resources. One of the "positives" of all filthy fuels, is in the very fact that they are such a pain in the ass to create and deal with. This prevents YOU from doing it yourself, and cutting in on their ability to monopolize 100% of the potential profit.
+4 # Dust 2015-07-23 12:02
Absolutely true!!
+3 # Dust 2015-07-23 11:32
Well, you are the nuclear engineer, not me.

BUT - your repeated insistence that "there has never been a consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature" is something I simply cannot understand, and it indicates either a deep-seated narcissism, deliberate fraud, or else outright insanity.

I have posted a number of papers from peer-reviewed, scientific journals that show directly the connection between CO2 and atmospheric temperature via radiative forcing.

Now - a real scientist would acknowledge them and say "Why, yes- these papers show the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperature via yadah yadah and this effect has been replicated and observe in other literature such as blah blah blah. It is the current authors' contention, however, that these works are inaccurate BECAUSE x,y,z." THEN what you do is you carefully cite each work, show their equations, show your own, and show where they diverge and why. THAT might get you (or Calvin Wolff) taken seriously by someone other than a-priori axe-grinders.

What you DON'T do is pretend the works don't exist and making sweeping statements based on ignoring them. You DON'T write a "paper" that is little more than a number of those sweeping statements stapled together with no references to the vast body of works in the field, and you do NOT conflate intensity of belief with scientific evidence. (You also don't use Spencer's fraud graphic purporting to show the IPCC projections of temperature)
+2 # Ma Tsu 2015-07-23 17:45
Nuclear power generated by nuclear fission is a bad idea and should be forsworn. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, holds great promise, presuming the advent of a Second Industrial Revolution, the nanotechnology revolution. Expecting to achieve nuclear fission using First Industrial Revolution technologies is like expecting to get a Swiss watch out of a cement mixer. Our National Optimists Party distinguishes itself by being the only political entity to support a wholesale mobilization of the nation's resources to launch the Second Industrial Revolution, the Prosperity Revolution. Prosperity for all, that is.
+11 # jimallyn 2015-07-23 00:35
Regarding nuclear: we need to repeal the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry and puts the taxpayers on the hook for nuclear disasters. We should also refuse to loan the industry money to build new plants, or to guarantee loans. Let them go to the banks for loans like everybody else does. Also, let's force them to find a safe way to dispose of the waste they generate before they can build any more nuclear plants. If we stop subsidizing the nuclear industry and make them stand on their own two feet, it will be the end of the nuclear age, to which I say, good riddance.
+8 # Billy Bob 2015-07-23 00:52
Exactly. If they truly are "capitalists", they shouldn't be bitching about being forced to compete on a level playing field.
+2 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 07:41
It was a good experiment...

It failed.

Lets move on.
+1 # RLF 2015-07-23 05:22
What is so important about preserving our species? Basically we suck!
+2 # Billy Bob 2015-07-23 06:23
Do you hate your kids and grandkids, and wish them dead?
+1 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 07:45
The "Illuminati"-es qe idea of overpopulation has really sunk into people. (Georgia Guidestones - 1979)

If you leave the cities, walk outside you will notice lots of free space. We have been told overpopulation is killing the planet, humans are evil and we are terrible on the news.

I encourage you to look at your own family and friends, look around your own neighborhood, look out in the woods and really ask "Are you overcrowded or over populated?"

They have done a mind job on us making us think less of each other. I think that is worse as it makes our species feel completely defeated like the gentleman named RLF.
+1 # Billy Bob 2015-07-23 10:05
Well said.

I also think it's a way to shift responsibility away from the people responsible for most of our problems. Along the lines of the point you made, it makes us just sort of give up and say, well, I don't want to kill my children, so I guess we're stuck - rather than actually doing something to solve the REAL problem - which is a completely irresponsible misuse of human and the Earth's resources.
+2 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 11:12
To you sir, Well said... I agree wholeheartedly.
-5 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 07:35
I think that the anti-war is one thing, but since the "consensus" of "man made global warming" is literally only 0.3% (Ben Davidson - Suspicious Observers) I think I will wait until we clue in that this is a political money making scheme on both sides that has very little to do with actual science and more to do with money and politics.

Pollution is bad, I agree wholeheartedly, we need some major cleanup, but this global warming fearmongering still has yet to explain a 17 year "halt" in global temperatures.

Perhaps those who study the sun can tell us about it's weakening energy output. The sun's activity is lowest it has been in 400 years.

Those of you preaching doomsday should really pay more attention to the science of it, and not the politicians who have a vested interest in either pleasing Al Gore's business's on one side and the Koch Brothers business's on the other side. They are both lying to us.
+3 # Billy Bob 2015-07-23 10:08
Why did you have to go and do that?

I SO agreed with all your other posts, then you had to go and spew filthy sludge industry propaganda that (I'm sorry, but it's true) 97% of all scientists have already proven to be nothing but a lie.
-6 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 11:56
It is not true. I am sorry.

Here is another from Ben:

I again, recommend you really study the science of it. Look at the papers and see the conclusions reached. Do not listen to the politicians.

I won't push Mr Gores business of trading CO2 and I won't push the Koch Brothers 'keep on polluting' mantras... They are both lies...

This is a page of citations on the issue. I am not against cleaning up pollution, I am against fearmongering to scare money out of people. (Billions and trillions, much like a tax on the whole world.)

The biggest issue I have is that the temperatures of all planets have risen, all planets have had storm increases and all planets have had winds increase.

Our pollution is not reaching Saturn or Neptune. Prima facia evidence is very clear.

I am disgusted by those preaching against Climate Change via the Oil Industry as well. So please read what I said and not what your knee-jerk reaction to it is.

Regarding my citation of 0.3% consensus and the 97% myth:

"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950."
+6 # Dust 2015-07-23 12:26
1. The first person to write equations showing that CO2 can effect climate was Svante Arrhenius (building on the work of Fourier) in 1896. No Al Gore back then.

2.a. You need to cite some sources for your assertions about other planets; b. Even if true, do things only have one cause? You might lose money from your bank account via theft, or because you bought something.

3. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950." - IFF this statement means what you think it means, it would require that: A. EVERY climate paper of the 11,944 examined by Cook (he clearly didn't read them) was SPECIFICALLY written to address the cause of current warming AND every single one except 41 clearly stated "HUman beings do not affect climate".

As opposed to the truth - the vast majority of the papers had nothing to do with the CAUSE of climate change but specific assessments, modeling, effects, and processes. The question of origin was long ago settled.

I do agree, however - read science, not political garbage (which removes Anthony Watts immediately)

SCience following:
-5 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 13:29
I want to add that my use of "Al Gore" and "the Koch Brothers" was merely for concision. As they 'define' both sides whom I feel are both wrong.
+3 # Dust 2015-07-23 12:27
Puckrin, E., Evans, W.F.J., Li, J., and H. Lavoie. 2004. Comparison of clear-sky surface radiative fluxes simulated with radiative transfew models. Can. J. Remote Sensing. Vol 30 (6)

Myhre, G.,Highwood, E. J., Shine, K.P., and F. Stordal. 1998. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 25 (14)

Hansen, J., Nazarenko, L.,Ruedy, R., Sato, M. and others. 2005. Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science Vol 308 (5727)

Meehl, G.A., Washington, W.M., Caspar, M.A., Arblaster, J.M., Wigley, T.M.L., and C. Tebaldi. 2004. Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth century climate. Journal of Climate Vol 17 (19)

Huber, M., and R. Knutti. 2011. Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance. Nature Geoscience; Online Dec. 4, 2011 doi:10.1038/NGEO1327

MacDougall A, and P. Friedlingstein. 2015. The Origin and Limits of the Near Proportionality between Climate Warming and Cumulative CO2 Emissions. Journal Of Climate. Vol 28 (10)
+2 # Dust 2015-07-23 12:31
Lu J, Zhao B. 2015. The Role of Oceanic Feedback in the Climate Response to Doubling CO2. Journal Of Climate. Vol 25 (21)

Becker T, Stevens B. 2014. Climate and climate sensitivity to changing CO2 on an idealized land planet. Journal Of Advances In Modeling Earth Systems. Vol 6 (4)

Harries, J.E., Brindley, H.E., Sagoo, P.J., and R.J. Bantges. 2001. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature. Vol 410
-4 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 13:15
I provided you a page of citations as link.

1. I'm not debating the ice core links between CO2 and temperature, except they follow temperature change and not precede it. (The crux of the debate)


Found with a simple google search...

3. The links I provided prior specifically discuss this issue. As does Ben's first video, which I linked. You should listen to Ben, I have spoken to him personally and his evidence with regards to the sun, and climate change are separate and compelling.

3 b.? The assumption being built into the system is literally, by your definition, "systemic bias". It has been politically hi-jacked and are certainly suspect given the 'built in bias'. Consensus science literally means political science.

Now, as for truth...

I however, happen to follow the fact the sun is the source of this issue and if you paid any attention to Ben's video, you may have learned something regarding how the sun affects climate. Don's video gives you some specific mechanisms for this heating and how the power is transferred.

I am most concerned/comme nting on the alarm-ism and and the fact the temperature does not conform to predictions. I mean, we all remember in the 1970's, how we were going to be in the middle of an ice age soon. Walter Kronkite wouldn't lie :P
+5 # Dust 2015-07-23 13:49
Solar variations have been shown to be insufficient to drive observed warming, and CO2 following initial warming trends (historically) means that Milankovich cycles have been the initial driver for temperature change; CO2 release has been a feedback amplifier following that initial driver.

Rind, D.H., Lean, J.L., Jonas, J. 2014. The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations. Journal of Climate Vol. 27(3)

Bodas-Salcedo A, Williams K, Yokohata T, et al. 2014. Origins of the Solar Radiation Biases over the Southern Ocean in CFMIP2 Models. Journal Of Climate Vol. 27(3)

Solanki, S., Krivova, N., Haigh, J.D. 2013. Solar Irradiance Variability and Climate. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics Vol. 51(1)

Scafetta, N. 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Jurnal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestri al Physics Vol. 80

Dima, M. and Lohman, G. 2009. Conceptual model for millenial climate variability: a possible combined solar-thermohal ine circulation origin for the ~1,500 year cycle. Climate Dynamics Vol. 32(2/3)

Krivova, N., S.K. Solanki, 2004: Solar Variability and Global Warming: A Statistical Comparison Since 1850. Advances in Space Research, Vol. 34(2)

Lean, J., D. Rind, 1998: Climate Forcing by Changing Solar Radiation. Journal of Climate Vol. 11(12)
-4 # Krackonis 2015-07-23 13:54
I gave you a plus one for not reading/listeni ng to anything I said.

It is clear you have the rejected the dissonance of the fact the other planets are warming and are providing reactionary responses to something which is clearly false.

Solar Irradiance has nothing to do with this either, the sun is not just hitting us with direct radiation.

Obviously you are religiously/dog matically attached to this and not considering other points of view. Thank you for your time.
+5 # Dust 2015-07-23 14:10
"Not considering" is not the same as "I've heard these arguments over and over and have shown over and over why they are wrong".

I am citing the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subjects you have brought up. If you have some peer-reviewed science on the subject, I'd love to read it. So please - provide me a citations of Ben's published scientific research and I'll read it.

He doesn't have any, does he? Why do you think that is?

Now, why claim that "the sun is the source is the issue" and then turn around and say solar irradiance has nothing to do with it? The external input is required to drive any secondary irradiation from the greenhouse effect, or albedo functions.
+3 # Billy Bob 2015-07-23 15:04

You have no idea who you're arguing with here. You are so out of your depth, that maybe you should listen to Dust and maybe read the sources he cited.

You're really the one who's quoting politicians (not to mention filthy sludge industry propagandists).

Dust has science on his side, and the fact that 97% of all scientists agree with him DOES matter.

In fact, when you subtract the "scientists" working for the propagandists, that pretty much makes the other 3% disappear too.
+1 # Billy Bob 2015-07-23 17:28
I'm sorry.

That came off rude, and I honestly don't think I should have been. I'm sorry.

I can tell you're not a troll. We can all disagree on things.

Still, Dust is definitely an expert. You seem to have a pretty open mind. I really think you should check out what he has to say.
+1 # tanis 2015-07-23 08:06
Fukushima, climate change, fracking, dying animals and sushi. Look to the west coast in this country for future reference. Nuclear? Who has cancer around 3 mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima should tell something to someone who doesn't have a degree in some scientific field. How about population?
+7 # Vardoz 2015-07-23 09:12
Mankind is being taken towards extinction by a small handful of those who own the fossil fuel industries. They are willing to destroy all life on Earth to enrich themselves. This is how extreme this ravenous, insane, lust for profits at all costs to everything has gone. Our fates are in the hands of these people who are perpetrating crimes against humanity and life one Earth. We are already in the midst of a mass extinction and we are next and it's happening faster then we ever imagined, This is what anti climate people are engaging in crimes against humanity.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.