mental convolutions in which some will engage in order to ignore the
evidence that the polar ice caps are melting—and if not from
warming from what?—is as astounding as the convolutions and denial
of basic facts that characterize those who believe the government’s
official 9/11 fairy tale.
all science is rigged, as a few of you say, by the Bilderbergs,
Rockefeller, or the Rothchilds, then where does your science, your
information come from? If there is no reliable scientific information
about climate change, what is the basis for your argument? Why are
only carbon industry spokespersons honest? How come the Rothchilds
didn’t rig them also?
the carbon tax is another way of following the money, but it
obviously leads in the opposite direction of where a few want to take
it. The carbon tax is not a solution offered by climate scientists.
It is the industry solution backed by the industry’s free market
libertarian allies and Wall St, which sees it as another profitable
trading vehicle. The industry sees it as a replacement for regulation
and emphasis on alternative green energy sources.
readers who assured me that the polar ice always melts in summer and
refreezes in winter did not know that more melts than refreezes and
that the polar ice cap is shrinking dramatically.
readers who said that there is no global warming now say that it is
natural and not man-made, that it has happened before, and so on,
which means next to nothing. The biosphere evolved in a way that
supports life. When the delicate balance is altered, life dies out.
With 150 years of deforestation while 1,500 gigatons of CO2 are
dumped into the atmosphere, why is anyone surprised that the
biosphere alters? If warming, whatever the cause, can result in the
sudden release of methane equal to 1,000 gigatons of CO2, why would
this have no effect?
readers assure me that global warming is the result of US
geoengineering for war or against humanity; others say it results
from the particles released in chem trails.
readers are exasperated with global warming denial:
150 days a year minimum for decades now. Being an outdoorsman I
notice the environment as do all of my hunting and fishing friends in
upstate NY and MA. Not one of them denies global warming anymore,
though it took more time for most of them to come around. But if you
spend time outdoors eventually it washes over you – something ain’t
right! In the late ’90s in western NY in November I stood in a
Great Lakes Tributary in neoprene waders and the temperature hit 85
f. This killed the fishing because the snowmelt lowered the water
temperature to the point the fish became lethargic while I broiled
and had to run for the parking lot to change into my jeans and drink
some water. I had already been noticing that winters came later and
lasted for a shorter duration while summers were definitely hotter.
The heatwaves threatened inland fisheries in the Catskills that never
had problems before with heat induced fish kills. I started
researching global warming and it didn’t take too much to convince
me that what I had been experiencing was at the very least a
substantial break from what I had grown up with and heading one
direction – toward warming. There is so much natural evidence for
observant outdoorsmen – the range of former primarily southern
birds like Cardinals and Red-Bellied Woodpeckers that never wintered
here are now established year-round in Northern climes. Range
expansion due to global warming goes for plants and insects as well.
I am so very tired of being told to ignore my lying eyes, to ignore
common laws of physics and common sense, to accept ever more
implausible explanations for obvious causes of events. This is truly
the age of deception sponsored by the forces that constitute US
isn’t it, that everyday experience corresponds with global warming.
readers do not understand that the measured rising temperatures are
not products of a global warming model, but are actual measurements.
The models can be as wrong as you like, and they have underpredicted
the melting of the polar ice caps, but the actual measurements show
warming. Are the Rothchilds paying or ordering all the measuring
stations to report higher temperatures?
is the point of telling me that you disagree with climate scientists?
What does that mean? Are you more knowledgeable than climate
is most amazing is those few who believe carbon industry climate
science, but not other climate scientists. It is certainly the case
that there is peer pressure in every discipline to stay within the
paradigm of the profession. In economics, for example, just ask me or
Michael Hudson about closed neoliberal minds. My Oxford professor’s
theory of chemical absorption was suppressed for 4 decades because it
did not fit within the existing paradigm. There is no doubt that the
climate scientists could be wrong that CO2 emissions are the cause of
global warming. But their explanation is the best that we have and is
the only explanation that we can do anything about. So, should we
just ignore what we do know, or think we know, on the basis of faith
that God or nature will turn it around? The consequence of the
information being correct, yet doing nothing is apocalyptic.
in mind, also, that the same peer pressure that exists in science and
academic disciplines also exists among carbon industry-financed
climate science. How many scientists warning about global warming do
you know who are financed by the Koch brothers?
is also amazing that a few readers are so desperate to convert me to
carbon industry propaganda. I simply reported on a report in a
scientific journal. Why do I need to be shielded from reporting on a