Top scientist resigns – admits Global Warming is a scam

[Dartz]

People in colder climates perhaps . People who can make money from the hysteria surrounding it.

That's like saying iodine vendors want more nuclear plants because they'll make a killing when they fail.

 It is not bad news in and of itself, but it has been whipped up into bad news.

Tell it to the micronesians. Islands have already disappeared

Er. That island was 36 years old. It was a pile of silt dumped by a river. Islands are not permanent things. Everything in this world changes. I've seen beaches disappear overnight because of storms... reappear and so on. As it is, the history of human migration has been defined by climate change... people move where the weather goes. We can expect to stand bolt still while the world changes around us.

Also, why should we do anything to stop it. The idea that Earth could turn into Venus is moronic at best. It'll get warmer, it'll get cooler... it's done so while we're here

Let's see... Because it is the first time in our history that warming is being at the very least compounded by human action? And that unlike solar activity or other causes an increase in greenhouse gases is going to take a long time to disminish? And because it runs the risk of of becoming a natural-fueled vicious circle? And because Earth doesn't need to become anywhere near Venus for the effects to be catastrophic (whether ecologically or economically)?

And yet historically, a warmer world has shown much higher biodiversity. Higher sea levels displace low lying dwellers, but from a planetary perspective, they are not *bad* as such. Earth can get much hotter, and still be quite... I don't want to say stable. Never mind that on the long term, we are in an interglacial period, and climbing out of about a millenium or so's mini ice-age. You know the Thames used to freeze over? That stopped well before human intervention really got into the swing of things. The industrial revolution had only been going for a century or so.

So it is also possible that there is a natural warming trend?

And how many currently accepted 'facts' started out as being proposed by a vocal minority?

Climate change itself, to begin with. The difference is that nobody paid them to scream against a well supported consensus, but they gathered over decades the evidence that build the consensus. It's not because someone is a "maverick" running against the herd that they are right or even honest.

My point is, that just because the herd is going in one direction, does not make it correct either. Might be a herd of lemmings running off a cliff, casting themselves bodily out into space.

this marketing is encouraging a consumerist 'throwaway' culture that is doing the real harm.

I have seen a lot of pseudo-green products that are quite preposterous, but they tend to pose against said 'throwaway' culture. Then again I'm not in the USA so maybe things have devolved faster there.

Or perhaps I'm just seeing corporate demons behind every advert. I have a
tendency to assume that the vast majority of what I encounter day to
day is just feeding the marketer's encouragement to consume and purchase
crap I don't really need.

That actually very wise and I agree. But remember that even if Nike is trying to sell you Air Soles, gravity is not a lie.

But that they might do anything to mitigate the effects of gravity *is* a lie.

I never said humanity couldn't possibly cause the effect.... in fact, I doubt as a collective we'd ever be able to stop or truly mitigate it's effects. Not when so much of our infrastructure, so much of our way of life generates Co2, or any number of other pollutants. Never mind that, within the next century or so, we're going to stop burning fossil fuels whether we like it or not, so we'll have to ween ourselves off it eventually.

Indeed, they are two crises that go hand in hand and it looks like they are going to hit us at the same time. And that makes it worse, because preparing for either will already take more resources than we are willing to spare (and the more we wait, the more it will take and the less will be available)

This is the rub.
We (as humanity) can live in a warmer world. We're just that awesome. Provided we have energy.
We cannot live without energy. No energy == no agrochemicals, no irrigation, no communication, no immunisation. Millions starve. Millions die in wars.

This is why expending energy and resources to combat global warming seems so wrong to me. It feels like wasted energy, when our energy today may well be best spent finding alternate forms of energy, rather than finding ways to make current sources cleaner. This has the pleasant side effect of most alternate energies, and improved energy efficiency, also assisting with the whole global warming thing. If you believe it. But, technologies that solely mitigate climate change, may well just cost more energy, for what I see as dubious benefit.

As an example, cars are often run at a noticeable inefficiency to meet Co2 emissions standards. EU tests are skewed so that fuel consumption is calculated based solely on the gas coming out the ass, and not what was actually in the tank during the test. So they are super clean and efficient under a test cycle, but crap on the roads. Whereas, if you tune your car to run efficiently, regardless of what's coming out the tailpipe over the government prescribed test cycle, you might well find that your fuel consumption drops, and that emissions may well drop in real world conditions.

Efficiency is king.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?