A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

One nation on earth experienced COOLING in their climate since 1950.......
That nation is Israel.

Israel led the world in large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture,
reforestation projects as well as for towns.

How many political leaders.....
and / or scientists are writing extensively on how this might
offer us a faster working remedy for climate change than a carbon tax?

At least Bjorn Lomborg deserve credit for asking good questions.

The fact that Israel's climate began to cool in the 1950's even though they
only came into existence in 1948 implies that large scale desalination of ocean water.....
to turn desert areas green......
can work within a decade........

A carbon tax could well take a century or more to do much of anything significant toward cooling of the climate.......
billions of lives are at stake.......
how many scientists and political leaders are at least talking about this?

 

I actually liked Mr. Al Gore's film and even put in a submission.... and then a second
co-application for his Virgin Earth Challenge.

I am a red neck from the back woods of Nova Scotia though so I went low cost.....
and relatively low tech.....

My two somewhat humorous submissions for $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge.

 

Dr. James Hansen has stated that the last time that
average global temperatures rose by three degrees
ocean levels rose by about twenty meters in four centuries.

 

Including cow farts?

 

AboveAlpha.... Sir.... I just thought of something potentially important.....
IF.... it is true that two replicas were made of the Stanley Meyer Hydrogen Fuel Dune Buggy.....
and IF... it is true that one of them went to Israel.... and one to China......

.... then imagine a meeting with representatives from China, Russia, several Islamic nations... in which the topic is whether or not they should attempt to take the sale of Oil......
off the Petro-Dollar?

If China...... has Stanley Meyer Technology.....
would they feel they were in place of power over the oil rich nations?????

 

If China had Meyer's "technology" they would probably laugh their collective asses off at our system of allowing investment in such nonsense and then allowing clawing the money back through legal action.

 

Yes....
China certainly seems to have been laughing at us
by seemingly deliberately putting as much CO2 and pretty much all
types of pollution into their atmosphere.....
in hopes of raking in billions off carbon credits......
if we had signed an agreement with them that would have allowed them to
easily improve by serious percentages each year.....
after making zero effort to clean up over the past decade or two.

 

Have you seen "Cowspiracy?"

It is actually quite worth investing over an hour of your time in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowspiracy

 

Lomborg has been totally discredited on more than one occasion. He's been let off the hook for his misrepresentations of science, because of his "lack of expertise".

You should be embarrassed for bringing up his name as evidence of ANYTHING.

Let's remember taht there is nothing about climatology that suggests that every place on earth will get warmer, let alone get warmer at the same rate. The findings are that earth as a whole is warming. From there, there is research on various locations that informs us about local affects.

Take a look at the following link, political and security implications in particular:
http://aytzim.org/resources/educational-materials/45-climate-change

I'd definitely be interested if you know of a solid, scientific site that indicates Israel is cooling due to actions taken by mankind - or, for any other reason.

 

China is backing up their commitment to an improved future wrt their impact on climate.

Today, they are the number 1 designer, producer and exporter of clean power technology.

This idea that they are trying to be bad so they can show a difference is just plain ridiculous. And, suggesting that has to do with some sort of global carbon credit scheme is disingenuous at best, as it is clearly not what is going on.

 

Thank you for the link....
it does look interesting......

The proposed Petra Project would take over two hundred million cubic meters of ocean water from the Mediterranean Sea to the area of the Dead Sea annually.

Seven to 21 hydro-electric generation facilities could be built along the tunnels that take that water down over 1200 feet.

Graphene screens and solar energy desalination methods could boost the agricultural production of the region.

So far the best article on cooling in Israel link it with Global Dimming but I spoke with an expert on the environment who agreed that the huge amount of desert areas that Israel reforested and turned green for agriculture and greenhouses was also a reason for the cooling.

Sigmund Ivarsson's Petra Project for Israel, Jordan and The Palestinians.

 

You may be correct that they may have changed their tune, but if so that is
partly due to the level of discontent by citizens of China for all the
pollution that they are facing each day.

But it was generally agreed that a number of years ago they were making zero effort to change.......... because they knew that with no agreement signed...... the worse they behaved...... the more money they could make off carbon credits when they finally did sign an agreement.

 

I was entertaining myself watching the video feed from the space station. It shows facts. I mean when you see Earth from space, you notice billions of clouds. We do not create clouds. Last week, we got temps up to 90 degrees. Now it is 68 F. The Pacific ocean here is 48.9 F. So that is not why it was hotter last week by 20 degrees is it? We have some strong winds for our area. About 20 mph at times.

Maybe some men ran outside and pumped out a huge amount of Carbon Dioxide.

Now admit it, alarmists, same conditions two weeks and climate changes a lot. Tell me men ran outside with cannisters of carbon dioxide and how you plan to fix it. We here must rank number 1 for worrying about climate.

Look at the vast array of clouds. This should indicate all of earth is cooling.

 

Here is a good link on climate cooling in Israel.......

https://books.google.ca/books?id=vm...ng in climate of Israel tree planting&f=false


And also......

https://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/climate-benefit-from-trees-depends-on-location/

 

I have posted the space station passing over Earth a number of times. We hear the alarmists tell us we need ice to reflect the suns heat. Well, Clouds do the same thing. And we have zillions of clouds. Earth is complex. Not so simple that a bit of carbon dioxide ruins things. We have had much higher levels of carbon dioxide even during ice ages. Alarmists are floored by that.

 

I have said so many times, like a broken record, that those wanting a cooler earth will plant plants. Trees, ground cover, name it. Plant plants.

They attack warming from a number of angles.

Stop demanding I put a battery car into my life.

Plant trees and shrubs.

 

Is that the next ridiculous Denier argument?
Global Warming is a good thing?

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=vm...ng in climate of Israel tree planting&f=false

 

Plants put out oxygen. Too much oxygen will burn up a body's cells. A person could not live but a few minutes even in 50% oxygen, and this does not count that essentially everything would burn off, even ultimately the atmosphere itself. . Thus, by your logic, we all are going to die killed by plants unless you can disprove one of the unassailable facts. You realize that, right?

 

The total mass of Earth's atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons. TONS of ATMOSPHERE.

Well, let's eliminate zeros until one or the other has none, shall we? 550,000 to 6.

6 divided by 550,000 is 0.00001.

0.00001?!! OMG! We're screwed! We might as well all start digging our graves as the end of times is at hand.

Not.

 

What it proves is that dinosaurs had levels of petroleum and coal based industrialization hundreds of times greater than we have given how much warmed the climate as most claim. You would think we would have uncovered at least ONE of their massive coal burning plants or just one of their automobiles, which of course HAD to be HUGE given some of their sizes.

 

It isn't my theory. It's well documented in the policy arena. Matt Taibbi isn't exactly the most conservative guy, nor is he a "denier" and yet his analysis mirrors mine. It's a scam. Sorry this is new or unsettling for you, but its doesn't obviate that it is the truth.

The Science backs everything that I pointed out. To date, there is yet a proof that demonstrates causality. If you believe you can assert one, do so.

 

No, again you continue to postulate conspiracy theories based on prognostications about possible public policy responses.

Science is in agreement that human action is causing warming. That is what science has been saying for a couple decades now.

The thing is, there is ABSOLUTELY NO possible way for politicians to force results from science when the issue is so global and interdisciplinary. No politician (in fact, no scientist) could tell what NASA "should" find when they started examining the upper atmosphere - etc., etc. And, no such message could possibly be enforced across the entire world of climatology, including chemists, physicists, biologists, etc., from all over the world.

The whole idea of a conspiracy so large as would be absolutely required is just plain STUPID.

 

Conspiracy? I doubt Matt would take your criticism kindly. But in any event, it seems the default attack from the faithful. So, perhaps the disconnect is that you don't actually understand what the "science" is observing. There are many hypothesis, so if some compete, and they do, does it really mean that ALL of science agrees? Id suggest you also don't know what the word "all" means. The fact that you seem to believe the gospel that tells you what to think seems to preclude you from many more high level functions. It's like witnessing what happened in the 16th century in Spain. I know, that reference will be totally lost on you, but I had fun.

 

Having all issues of climatology resolved to the point of universal agreement is not a legitimate objective. So, I reject your criticism on that.

As for "all" in general, we need to remember that we're NEVER interested in 100% - which is good, because we do need to do stuff every day.

When talking about climate change, Newt pointed out that we make public policy when the likelihood times the cost goes high. We never wait for 100%. TARP, DoD budget, social services, education, lead-free water, ... in all our public policy, 100% plays no part.

With climate, we have near 100% from science on basics of cause (human activity, atmospheric chemistry) and we have examples of cost that even deniers see as being serious (just denying the cause) - the costs coming in factors such as national security (see DoD), food sufficiency, etc.

If we had this kind of information in the realm of national defense, or economics, or education, etc., we absolutely would be acting.

Because, waiting for 100% is something we KNOW we should NEVER do.