I don't think the article manages a single sentence that doesn't contain a lie.
The first lie is in the title, ''carbon pollution''
It's what would happen if we had reason to believe the AGW supporters knew what they were talking about. About a third of a century ago, they demanded poverty ensuring reductions in fossil fuel use, or there'd soon be catastrophic climate change. The reductions weren't made. The result was a climate not very shockingly different to anyone.
No body of ideas can retain credibility after running around shouting: "The coastlines are flooding!" etc. when this much later there are no boat tours of the coastal skyscrapers. We're in a period between ice ages. Is a moderate warming trend of unknown length so surprising?
Kano was perfectly correct in pointing out the article's absurdity in claiming we're in a period of rapid climate change. It isn't by the standards of AGW theory past. If you showed the data to a 1950s climate scientist he'd be more awed and curious about your data collection methods. But the article gets worse.
Let's assume, for the moment, AGW thinking etc. is generally accurate. The article treats the man released carbon dioxide as permanent. Setting aside uncertainties of natural uptake (carbon dioxide is a plant fertilizer, the geological chemical absorption of carbon dioxide occurs more rapidly at warmer temperatures) this is absurd.
Most of the regulars know my position on Iron fertilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
(Short version: iron is not very soluble in ocean water and is commonly a deficient nutrient there. Adding iron causes microscopic plants to multiply. The plants absorb carbon and a significant number sink, sequestering the carbon on the ocean floor. Nor is this just theory. Every part has been observed as natural processes or as experimental results. The overall method has been observed both ways.)
Let's assume, for the moment, Iron fertilization does not exist as an option. Over the time span the article projects, there are any number of different methods for either sequestering the carbon or reducing the sunlight that might well be be developed. True, they might not, though this becomes less plausible as one becomes more familiar. The article lacks the proper qualifiers, and this makes substantive difference in an article attempting to prove the desirable course of action.
No one actually advocates stopping emitting carbon dioxide right now, because we don't have energy sources ready to replace all of our fossil fuels. Even if someone came up with a way to make cold fusion work today, it would still take it many years to replace fossil fuels, especially is people yield to the temptation to use it to replace hydro and fission power.
But, if we could stop emitting carbon dioxide today, there would still be an energy imbalance. Earth would continue to warm until it reaches a new equilibrium.
Kano
Only the 3% of climate scientists who have been paid off by the oil industry are. Honest ones aren't.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
You like to talk about people being tired of hearing about the ten warmest years.But, unlike your 18 year claim, it is the truth.
James Hansen
Michael Mann
Phil Jones
Andrew Dessler
Andrew Weaver
Actually, I've been hearing claims, which I think are premature, that 2014 will be the hottest year in history.
I don't believe it myself, but that is what I've been hearing.
One thing they will eventually realize is that higher CO2 levels does enhance all of life and not just the atmosphere. They always concentrate on temperature and extreme weather as their "catastrophic consequence", yet places like the Great Barrier Reef (close to Australia) have always grown and thrived with extreme weather. The outside of the Reef is where all of the "violent" weather is and is where the coral grows the best. The inside is almost "lifeless" simply because there isn't much turbulence or extreme movement.
Sometimes I wonder if that's the kind of "blaze" (bla-zeh) World environmentalists expect people to live by.
Business Insider is a "liberal" mouthpiece.
It's impossible to predict specific events - there is too much variability in the weather system. But as a trend, yes. For instance, current levels of warming have melted arctic sea ice, changing the albedo of the ocean so that it absorbs more sunlight and becomes yet warmer.
millions of people would die and or be killed in the ensuing fight to survive because without the use of fossil fuels production and distribution would fall dramatically. There'd be fighting around the world with countries andpeoplep who refuse to stop using fossil fuels.
Yep.
Keep in mind, it's a conservative, business oriented publication.
And it says we're going to warm another degree or so because of the CO2 already added to the atmosphere.
I lost it with the opening statement, "the climate is changing rapidly" where do they get that B.S. from, if it is changing rapidly why are climate scientists talking about a pause/hiatus.
The rest was also a load of crap.
Edit.
Climate Realist.
Name just one respected scientist who disagrees with the pause/hiatus (at this time) and I will stop answering global warming questions.
looks reasonable
http://www.businessinsider.com/earth-if-we-stopped-carbon-emissions-2014-12
