Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why the Left Can't Solve Global Warming

Greens are more interested on assigning blame than looking for fixes.

Environmentalists have been waxing apocalyptic about global warming for several decades now. But what do they have to show for it? America's president justGlobal WarmingTonyWebster via Foter.com pulled out of the Paris climate accord, leaving a rudderless and bereft global movement. And even if he hadn't, the nation has little appetite for meaningful political action on climate change. Why have environmentalists failed so utterly to push their cause forward after all this time?

Because they've gone about it all wrong. Instead of treating global warming like a problem that needs to be addressed regardless of what caused it, the green left has been more obsessed with establishing humanity's culpability and embracing ever more extreme and painful mitigation steps, as if they were more concerned with punishing the perpetrators than solving the problem.

Global warming guru Al Gore in 1992 called for the elimination of the internal combustion engine from the planet in 25 years. But the accursed engine is nowhere close to going away given that auto sales (and not hybrids and electrics) are projected to grow for decades to come. Many environmentalists want to eradicate fossil fuels. This will never happen—or at least won't happen for a long, long time—especially in emerging economies that need cheap fuel to spur development and deliver decent living standards.

Undeterred, liberals are now saying that we should save the planet by having fewer kids, each of whom creates 58 tons of carbon dioxide each year (more for American parents). This is a ludicrous suggestion that will further drive a wedge between middle-class Americans who live for their families and yuppie, green Americans who live for the enviroment.

But the further problem with all these remedies is that they suffer from what's called the collective action problem. Take, for example, forgoing children: If some people forgo but others don't, the former will suffer a deep personal loss and the planet will be no better off. Hence everyone waits for someone else to go first and the "solution" doesn't even get off the ground.

If environmentalists want to succeed, they'll have to begin by transforming their own attitudes, focusing less on asking people to sacrifice to save the planet, and focusing much more on smart technological solutions that solve our climate problem without asking so much from us.

Morally shaming people into voluntary action doesn't work. And the more attached people are to the things that they are being shamed into giving up, the less effective this strategy.

Environmentalists' other strategy to overcome the collective action problem is government coercion to force polluters to cease and desist. But governments, especially democratic ones, don't have carte blanche to inflict endless pain on their citizens without being booted out. That's why Europe's cap-and-trade scheme—under which each industry got a free carbon quota beyond which it had to buy offsets from less polluting companies with permits to spare—has shown pathetic results. Countries simply gamed the program to give their industries a reprieve. A global carbon tax, though in theory a less messy solution, has even less chance of ever being embraced for all kinds of reasons, including that poor countries will expect rich countries to impose a higher tax because they caused the problem in the first place, while rich countries will expect poor countries to shoulder more of the burden as they are currently the bigger polluters. (Given that many global warming warriors fancy themselves to be progressives fighting for the underdog, they should bear in mind that in this battle, might will prevail over right and poor countries will have to face the brunt.)

If the environmental movement is serious about addressing climate change, it will have to forget about the fact that humans caused (and are causing) the warming and think of our problem like a meteor strike—a catastrophic event that humanity did not cause but from which it has to be saved. In other words, enviros will have to look for technological fixes that don't depend on the environmental equivalent of Mao's cultural revolution to get people to embrace carbon-free lifestyles.

Here are some:

  • Construction of a shield to partially block the sun's radiation. Computer models suggest that blocking 8 percent of the sun's Earth-bound radiation would effectively counteract the warming effect of all the carbon dioxide pollution.
  • Sequestration or storing excess carbon dioxide in the deep underground or oceans. The storage capacity of oceans could be enhanced by scattering iron powder in them and providing nutrients for carbon-dioxide-absorbing phytoplankton that thrive in the water's upper layers.
  • Carbon sinks or growing forests for the express purpose of absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

None of these ideas would be easy to implement, of course. We would still have to figure out who foots how much of the bill for building the shields and sinks. But that would be a much easier task than coaxing or coercing people to give up their cars and children. Plus, these technological fixes would be much more affordable in that they don't depend on thwarting economies by putting them on an energy diet. A richer world will be able to expend far more resources on climate protection.

To be fair, it's not like environmentalists don't ever suggest such technological solutions or innovations. They do—but such fixes is not inherent to their thinking which is far more fixated on controlling behavior.

That must change. If they want to do something radical, they should radically shift their paradigm. That will mean stopping the blame game that is causing them to make ever more bizarre requests of their fellow humans.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    We need bigger and better Al-Gore-ythms (algorithms) to find bigger and better Globabble Warmererering scapegoats, and make them take the blame!!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    I can NOT take the blame... Sorry!

    Why, you ask? Because at every potluck and free-food offering, I do WAY more than my fair share, to serve as a "human carbon sink", and sequester as much carbon onto and into my body, as possible, thereby reducing Globabble Warmererering!!! As a public service! Yer welcome!!!

  • hseneker||

    Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, decisions and policy need to be based on hard fact.

    There are some crucial, verifiable facts - with citations - about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand at

    hseneker.blogspot.com

    The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

  • Entelechy||

    Let's start by replacing Al with Ivanka on the cover of Vanity Fair

    goo.gl/wVW9Zr

  • timbo||

    One thing they are doing wrong is trying to solve global warming.

    The planet is a big, complicated, powerful ecosystem and humans are not capable of influencing the weather. Yet.

    What would it take for the dipshit Marxists to at least consider the possibility that it is a scam? That was rhetorical.

    It is gospel to imbeciles just like socialism is. They should all start by going and f*cking themselves.

  • Rhywun||

    What would it take for the dipshit Marxists to at least consider the possibility that it is a scam?

    The invention of some other catastrophe that would also allow them to control the lives of everyone?

  • timbo||

    I think those are already being done:

    CTE for football
    gluten even though bread has been the staple of life for centuries and now it is somehow poison.
    never ending wars
    free internet
    fat whores in modeling
    tranny sympathy

  • damikesc||

    gluten even though bread has been the staple of life for centuries and now it is somehow poison.

    But it allows stores to troll idiots. I always love seeing my local stores labeling its meats as gluten free.

  • timbo||

    I saw gluten free toothpaste once. I wish I could come up with a scam like that to fleece the moron horde.

    If they are clamoring to give their money away, why not take it?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    As we speak, someone is working on gluten-free gluten.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    You ever see the ad campaign for carbon-free sugar ?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    My current fave is the advertising of food products with "real ingredients". Boy, howdy! The line forms to the right!

  • Ron||

    I like my food with imaginary ingrediants

  • Jimothy||

    Hmm, I would have guessed to the left.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    To be fair, about 1 out of every 50 of those idiots DO actually have a biological issue with gluten.

    Probably about the same percentage as people who claim to have fibromyalgia compared to who actually has it.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    One born every minute, and two to take him.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I have an issue with gluten. It's an intestinal allergy. Since I went gluten free I spend a lot less time in the bathroom. But make all the fun you want. Hipsters gotta hipster.

  • Robbzilla||

    Yeah... tell my wife that Gluten is a scam... Better yet, tell her doctor. Because guess what? It isn't. She has a thyroid condition that's being partially controlled with a Gluten Free diet.

    Now go tell her uncle the same thing. He gets even a little gluten and he's bent over in intense pain for a day or so because he has Celiac's.

    Oh, and if you want to go look at the bread from even 40 years ago, you might discover that you're speaking from absolute ignorance. The wheat we're using today is a hybridized form that came into being very recently. That bread you're lauding has a shit-ton more gluten (And gliadin, the part of gluten that probably screws people over) than the bread from 40) + years ago. It's processed differently, it's risen in minutes with a designed yeast instead of over hours with traditional processes, it's bleached, it's stripped of most of its nutrients (Because hybrid dwarf red wheat is mostly empty calories).

    And we've been sold on the stupid food pyramid based on a bad study in the 40's through the 60's that a few "nutritionists" (Thanks Ancel Keys!) got rich and powerful off of. So no, the bread that was a "staple" for centuries pretty much doesn't exist.

  • Agammamon||

    Actually, humans are capable of influencing the climate - and even the weather - and have been for a long time now.

    There's still no evidence that our activities are leading to a crisis though. Just a slight increase in average global temperatures which will benefit many, many places while imposing slight costs on some others. And the Left is nothing but accepting of actions 'for the Greater Good' when it comes to things like 'wealth redistribution' and 'minimum wage' so they should be fine with Canada getting noticeably more productive in agriculture while Bangladesh gets slightly more sweltering.

  • timbo||

    how are humans influencing the climate? I say this with the oft debunked .01 degree C increase stuff which time and again has been disproven or soundly scrutinized as much as it has been claimed to be true.

    What are humans doing that is making the climate noticeably different that cannot be attributed to weather?
    My favorite load of sh*t is the sea level rise. I have lived on the coast my whole life. between south florida, GA, and SC, I have seen absolutely no rise in sea level, no indication that the yard is getting closer to the sea, no indication that the dock is lower in the water, no barrier islands disappearing, nothing at all that is not natural progression and in fact no evidential change in the levels of water, no higher barnacle lines on dock piles, no erosion that would be consistent with higher water levels.
    I call utter bullshit.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Land use change. Note that nowhere did he claim that the influence was on net bad or even all that significant.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You think land use has no impact on climate and weather? You asked what humans are doing to impact climate and I just told you.

    Enjoy your tantrum. Perhaps you could give my 3yr old lessons.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I thought you were off tantruming. Did mommy give you a cookie?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I see we've progressed to the "why?" game.

  • Ragoftag||

    Your kind? Or was that a rhetorical question?

  • Robbzilla||

    So if you remove trees en masse from one area, and then add them en masse to another, that won't change the exchange of CO2/Oxygen in a region, thus changing weather patterns?

    Where DID you get your meteorology degree?

  • timbo||

    I was not arguing. Just asking a question. How does land use change increase global temperatures?

    For example, how does clear cutting jungles for palm oil plantations increase the temp? They are replacing with CO2 absorbing plants, employing otherwise destitute populations, providing profitable enterprise and employing thousands throughout the supply chain.

    I know that is a tangent but somehow I cannot believe that this is all not rooted more in the destruction of profitable enterprise rather than some charitable stewardship.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Albedo. Transpiration. Runoff retention. Gosh, i just don't know how land use change could impact climate/weather...

  • timbo||

    What is runoff retention vs. it getting hotter outside?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Climate isn't just temperature. In many ways humidity and the water cycle are more important. Regardless, changing the water cycle also tends to impact temps. Again I'm not making any general claims about whether that is harmful or beneficial or all that significant, but it is at least detectable.

  • And you believe that why?||

    Take a look at the Aral Sea region.

    It took 40 years for USSR irrigation projects to almost completely drain the fourth largest lake in the world. The venture was indeed profitable, for a few, in the short term. Indeed, in 1988, Uzbekistan was the world's leading cotton producing nation. What was lost were virtually all of the other local industries. In this case, cotton, melon, rice, and cereal grain, 'plantations' provide far fewer profitable enterprises than existed before.

    As to whether or not this drastic regional change has raised or lowered the global temperature, that I do not know. Fewer cloudy nights will mean that more heat can be radiated into space, counterbalancing the hotter days. I should hope that a clear case of a communist government bungling the regional climate so badly should be enough to prove that it is possible for humans to have the claimed impact.

  • Agammamon||

    The .1C stuff *isn't debunked. What is (or at least has no observational evidence whatsoever to back it up) is that there are strong positive feedback loops lurking in the near future that will turn that small increase into a yuge one.

    That the planet is currently warming and that a measurable part of that warming is established fact.

    That there is a *crisis* - or that there is one looming - is far, far, from established. Let alone what (if anything) should be done about it, either now or in the future.

    One example of changing the weather/climate - the expansion of the Sahara is attributed to rainfall changes caused mainly by overgrazing for example. Keep in mind that that's not the reason for the *existence* of the Sahara, only the reason why its increased so dramatically in size over the last several centuries.

  • Neobiognosis||

    The GHG's human activity emits into the atmosphere is associated with a measurable increase in insolation. You appear unaware of this science. That insolation is about 2.7 Wm-2. So far so good, that doesn't sound particularly large. But the Watt is a unit measures per second. In terms of energy, 2.7 Wm-2 is the energy increase per second on each square meter of our planet. Extrapolate that energy across the entire surface of our planet, and it is the energy equivalent of incrementing the incoming energy from the sun with an additional 9 Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs per second into the atmosphere. That extra energy per second is melting arctic ice, warming the oceans, accelerating the addition of methane, a more potent GHG, into the atmosphere. Yet others in Florida have experienced sea level rise. Pacific islanders have experienced sea level rise. The eastern sea board has experienced sea level rise. You certainly don't understand the science.

  • Roger Knights||

    "Yet others in Florida have experienced sea level rise. Pacific islanders have experienced sea level rise. The eastern sea board has experienced sea level rise."

    The first and third SLRs are due to ground level susidence and/or ground water extraction, mostly. The second isn't happening to any great extent, apart from ground water extraction. Also, sand isn't being replenished in some locations due to locals' huntng of the parrotfish and other manmade effects like polution that indirectly weaken reefs and lead to increased storm damage.

  • Neobiognosis||

    Subsidence and ground water extraction would cause variation in water depth. Such depth changes one would expect to be variable over time and between locations. Current sea level rise around Florida has been consistent, in the everglades where ground water extraction is minimal and at Key West. This is consistent with rising sea levels.

    www nps.gov /ever/learn/nature/ cceffectsslrinpark.htm

    Also there is evidence of significant loss of land in the Pacific.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/ article/sea-level-rise- swallows-5-whole- pacific-islands/

    You do not say where your evidence supporting your claims come from, so I could not check out the veracity of your claims.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    * know-it-all

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Actually, you're wrong. Stupid.

  • Agammamon||

    I guess PB is really upset about that post I made the other day asking why he sticks around.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    If Vikings were farming in Greenland 1000 years ago, and there are no farms there now, why would any thinking person think the global climate is warmer now than then?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Did you miss the memo?
    True science deals in 50-year increments.

  • Bob K||

    Well global supply chain may answer that. I don't know but I would venture those farms weren't the best for producing crops and now that they don't need to farm they spend their time doing something more productive per man-hour.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Google search says they are trying to farm again now that the ice is retreating, but it's pretty hard because it's not warm enough (paraphrased summary).

  • Finrod||

    The warmists dragged the Medieval Warm Period back into a side alley and beat the crap out of it; they told it that it better be quiet or something worse will happen to it next time.

  • Neobiognosis||

    Humans have increased CO2 by slightly less than 50% since the start of the industrial revolution. We certainly influence climate.

    Contrails act as a block to the sun over north America. It is certain they cool the weather in north america!

    You are simply wrong in your emotional assertion that we are not capable!

    A scam that involves changes in the natural world is not a scam.

    What would it take to make you realise you are a misguided bigot?

  • Neobiognosis||

    You do realise this article is written assuming Global Warming is real and is happening.

  • Roger Knights||

    All things being equal, increasing GHGs will warm the planet about 1 degree C more by 2100, which isn't cause for alarm. The issue isn't critical unless the Consensus is correct about there being positive feedbacks that would dramatically increase that amount of warming. That's iffy. It's not a matter of simple physics, as some would have it.

  • Neobiognosis||

    You make huge suppositions. There is no evidence that the warming is self limiting. The energy stored within the oceans and atmosphere continues to grow. That being the case, so will the temperature, that is inevitable. You are making suppositions for which there is no evidence.

  • Jima||

    Think for a minute if warming might effect evaporation water. Now imagine that heat - via evaporation, creates clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back to space, creating a feedback loop that lowers temps as energy reflects into space.This theory supports a self limiting system.
    I'm not claiming to be an expert, but climate change isn't some simple math problem you solve and BAM! you've got the answer. Saying the science is settled, or assuming it is, is spectacularly simple minded. Actual science invites challenge to mainstream theory, it doesn't vilify it. That's what religions do. One person can disprove an established theory, if others can duplicate the work, the theory goes away or gets revised. One person, not some mob wailing about consensus.
    We make assumptions based upon what we know, but if what we think we know turns out to be bullshit, then our plans are bullshit too. The global temp data sets everyone uses as the basis for their theories have a margin of error greater than the supposed global temperature increase.
    What should the global temperature be? That's a useful question if you think we should start trying to control the global climate. Then ask, how much deviation from that point should we allow? By this point you might wonder, "How the hell will we gain that level of control?: Answer: we won't. We're kidding ourselves if we think we've got our hand on the climate control dial. We are plankton trying to steer an aircraft carrier...

  • MoreFreedom||

    Yes - and that is one of the problems with Dalmia's article. The other major problem is she (and environmentalists) ignore the option of adapting to a warmer climate. There will always be winners a losers based on the weather and climate which has always been changing. It's not government's job to protect some from nature at a cost to others; it's government's job to protect us from other people who'd harm us. People can buy insurance to protect themselves if they so choose.

    I first disagree with her and Al Gore that humans are making a perceptible or damaging change to the overall climate, or that CO2 effects the temperature (search for "Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels" and see the chart showing no historical correlation between CO2 and temperature).

    Secondly, recent models of the Sun predict we'll soon be in another decades long mini Ice Age. Search on "dual dynamo sun ice age" and see the predictions. I've more faith in this model of the Sun that all the hysterical climate computer models that have been proven wrong and on which all the hysteria is based. Thus, IMHO anything to reduce the earth's temperature is counterproductive at this time, assuming we can even do it.

  • renewableguy||

    Is it reasonable to deny global warming. Why are libertarians so adverse to overwhelming science?

  • Robbzilla||

    It's at least reasonable to question the methodology of GW science-guys. They're dealing with too many forces, and their computer models still aren't up to snuff to actually predict much of anything. Add to that the idea that libertarians don't trust the Al Gore crew's intentions, and the absolute fact that a similar scam was run during the last 40 years by nutrition science-guys and is only now becoming clear how badly they lied. (The food Pyramid is a lie worse than the cake)

    So yeah, libertarians don't automatically believe everything we're told. We've caught too many of the same players in far too many lies for that.

  • prolefeed||

    "literally everything" would be killing themselves, reducing their carbon footprint to zero.

    A close second would be moving to North Korea, which is inadvertently doing it's damndest to reduce the carbon footprint of the prisoners in the countrywide open air prison.

    Either of which would certainly solve the problem of some people trying to implement a full on socialism, using as an excuse minor changes at the margins in weather.

  • Longtobefree||

    What is the carbon footprint of a decomposing body?

  • renewableguy||

    Its fitting in the natural carbon cycle.

  • renewableguy||

    So you are a follower? I drive an electric car and buy 100% wind energyy through my utility.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    "... and buy 100% wind energyy through my utility."
    oh bullshit, you are just subsidizing their coal generated spot market purchases.

  • ||

    It's almost like Reason is shilling spamming for Shikha and The Week.

    Time to decide if I see an article with 'Reason Staff' in the by line and try to infer if it's Shikha that wrote it or just skip all the 'Reason Staff' articles altogether.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    Or, you can quickly peruse the summary on the blog's homepage:

    But not for this movement, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia.
  • ||

    Or, you can quickly peruse the summary on the blog's homepage:

    Does it work both/every time they re-run articles or just this time?

    For a blog titled "Hit 'n Run"... *drinks*

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I live in NYC and we have been under water since 2012.

    I can't take them seriously when they make stupid doomsday predictions. They are like the Y2K, and Mayan calendar chicken little types. They destroy their own credibility.

  • Longtobefree||

    You missed a decade. It was under water in 2000.

    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    "This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2017). "Widespread" agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.
    I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

  • Robbzilla||

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....e-1.463318

    This might be the cite you're looking for.

  • renewableguy||

    If the ice on earth is melting faster than it is being replenished, its a clear sign we are on a warming earth. The last 3 years have been record setting years. This is not a fast acting problem, it is a slow acting problem that takes some detective work to understand the wrinkles in global warming.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    bullshit =/= ice cream, but go ahead and lap it up, if you must.

  • Paul E||

    Or we could use nuclear and hydro power which contribute 0 to "greenhouse gasses" instead of pie in the sky efforts to make giant planet covering shields. But common sense is not the lefts strong suit... nor does it appear to be Reason's anymore.

  • timbo||

    Common sense would be to stop spending billions of dollars trying to stop the weather.

  • prolefeed||

    Building nuclear and hydro plants requires the use of a lot of fossil fuels. Maybe over the lifetime of the plants they have lower average carbon footprints than the alternatives ...

  • Greg F||

    Let me know when they actually take into account the carbon footprints from secondary sources due to the "alternative" energy's intermittent nature.

  • renewableguy||

    alternative energy takes less backup than regular power plants. The failure rate of mulitple small power plants such as wind allows the rest of the field to keep on working. The failure of a gigawatt power plant, requires another gigawatt power source to be ready and spinning nearby. It is quite expensive to back up single large power plants.

  • Greg F||

    alternative energy takes less backup than regular power plants.

    Not in the real world. Renewable requires 90% backup due to its intermittent output. Traditional generation is very reliable. If you are not a troll you might want to understand how the grid actually works.

    Transmission Planning

    Get back to us when you have some understanding of how things actually work.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I love the ones that claim climate change is all human caused. I like asking them about the ice age, how we caused it, and how we caused the warming thereafter.

    The planet can crap out on it's own without our help. Yes, we should take is seriously.

  • geo1113||

    Along those lines, I ask if they know how the Great Lakes were formed.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I think Paul Bunyan's ox was digging for acorns, or something.

  • geo1113||

  • Agammamon||

    1. You can't solve a crisis that doesn't exist.

    2. You can't solve that crisis unless you can step back and separate the actions that with gain you personally from the actions that will solve a crisis.

    3. You will never solve a crisis as long as your social status and personal power are dependent upon its existence.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yes.

    Yes.

    Yes.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    RIGHT !

    This sort of scientifically ignorant article just perpetuates the idiocy .

    Al Gore and his Witch Dr James Hansen will live in history as being central figures in arguably the greatest and most destructive -- and appallingly ignorant scientific fraud ever .

    The AlGoreWarmists have taken the Big Lie theory to the extreme demonizing the very source of carbon to carbon based life and claiming it will make the world warmer , not the few degrees colder which would in deed plunge us again into the catastrophic ice ages the world has experienced .

    And they've done this with NO quantitative physical equation nor experimental demonstration of their purported "trapping" of heat by some spectral phenomenon causing the bottoms of atmospheres to be hotter than their tops .

    Want some of the most classic testable non-optional physical computations , see http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics .

    AGW IS AN ANTI-SCIENCE FRAUD .

    Stop giving it any credence .

  • Agammamon||

    Hey Reason - I don't need your 'give us your email address' advert to constantly keep popping out of the side of the page. Once is annoying enough, but three times in five minutes?

  • DOOMco||

    They have my email. They send me stuff all the time.
    The pop up still exists.

  • Robbzilla||

    Really? I've never seen it. Perhaps your ad blocking skills are sub-par.

  • ||

    Construction of a shield to partially block the sun's radiation.

    One of the theories proposed for reducing global warming involves deflecting heat away from the Earth's surface with solar shields or satellites with movable reflectors. Computer models suggest that blocking eight percent of the sun's Earth-bound radiation would effectively counteract the warming effect of our CO2 pollution.

    Even their fictional solutions are anti-science fiction! This is like suggesting we build a Dyson Sphere because it'd be cool to have a star in a bubble. Like a big ship in a bottle.

    So, entirely omitting even the idea that this hypothetical shield could, conceivably, pull down solar energy at a profit (*especially* relatively)... stupid or evil? I'm going with evil.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Reading garbage like this just reinforces my opinion of the value of lib arts degrees. Sequestration is a joke along the lines of perpetual motion machines. Iron fertilization is the step before speculation. And the notion of some giant shield is pulp sci-fi. Even enhanced aerosols are speculative.

  • CE||

    My favorite was the seven nuclear plants in Antarctica to pump the rising oceans back to the center of the continent for re-freezing. Instead of, you know, building sea walls a foot higher in the next 100 years.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Why come they don't use solar energy in Antarctica to power those pumps. The sun shines all day in summer and solar is a totally viable green tech

  • Ron||

    instead of building sea walls why not move the towns like all societies have done since the sea level has been rising over 200' since the last ice age.

  • Agammamon||

    *Profit*? Who's going to do this for paying customers?

    It will be a multinational organization, cost 100 times more than a private entity would, and you'll pay for it or you'll be taken out back shot in front of your family and neighbors as an example to the others.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course assigning blame is more important than solving the problem. That's how politics works.

  • timbo||

    The only thing that amazes me anymore is that people are stupid enough to fall for the same crap over and over again. Politicians are the scum of the earth yet the sheep line up to cheer for the next guy every time. Why?

    The only thing that should garner any support is the guy who says he is going to shrink government and get out of the way of the economy. Then, if elected, just spend 4 years calling out the other scum for their lies. That would be refreshing and useful to future discourse. The rest is just scum bag trumpeting.

  • sarcasmic||

    Politicians are the scum of the earth yet the sheep line up to cheer for the next guy every time. Why?

    Your politician is scum. Mine arent. I wouldn't have voted for themif I thought they were scum. It's the other four hundred and thirty some odd who are scum. But not mine.

  • Rhywun||

    (why I don't vote)

  • sarcasmic||

    I vote mainly for entertainment. I can predict the outcome of an election with 75% accuracy by taking the inverse of my ballot. So it's kinda funny. I'm supposed to submit to this government that represents me, except that by the ballot results it doesn't. Not by a long shot. But by voting I agree to abide by the results, like when I signed that social contract in blood before I was born. Or something.

  • timbo||

    A glutton for punishment.

  • timbo||

    I would never admit that I was wrong so therefore best to double down and become an apologist no matter how ridiculous.

    Is that how it works?

  • sarcasmic||

    Know how the police consider The Public to be everyone except you? This is how they get away with whatever they want. Because they are serving The Public. As in everyone else.

    Same idea, only flipped. My representative represents me. The election proves it. They aren't scum. They're one of the few good seeds in the congressional bag. It's all the other scummy politicians who screw it up for everyone else!

    Government is a faith-based institution. People must have faith in it for it to function.

    I am not one of the faithful, but I am in the minority in that respect.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    +90% reelection rate for a Congress with ~9% approval rating

  • Inigo Montoya||

    A space shield, eh? That sounds both expensive and huge challenge to our engineering technology. So if we're going to go that route, why not really push for fusion? Developing fusion power to the point where it would be commercially viable on the necessary scale would also be expensive and huge technological challenge, but probably far less than a giant shield in space. And then there's the potential unintended consequences of a shield. What if it throws things off too much in the wrong direction? Do you then blow up the thing you just spent decades and trillions building?

    Another far more practical solution, one which most environmentalists won't consider even for a second, is modern fission power plants (such as molten salt). But nooooo, all nukes are evil to them, which is another reason why I simply cannot take these people seriously.

    Out of the suggestions Shikha offered, I like forests. Trees are nice. By all means plant more trees in more places. But let's not have something stupid like a Federal Arbor Administration, okay? Those bozos would pay 100 times the going price for inferior, diseased trees that promptly died and they'd plant them in the wrong soil and temperature zones, to boot. Guaranteed. Then they'd claim they can't do it correctly unless their budget keeps growing. No thank you. Let's let people plant their own trees.

  • ||

    That sounds both expensive and huge challenge to our engineering technology. So if we're going to go that route, why not really push for fusion?

    Man, it's not even entirely clear that they understand that throwing up a shield at 8% means surface solar is going to get at least 8% less productive, effectively paying to waste shield materials in order to make surface solar less efficient.

    This sounds like something off straight out of a modern riff on the old Star Trek 'science by analogy' trope. Like two Ph.D.s literally scribbled something out on the back of a napkin while explaining it to each other one of them says they have an algorithm and, after the cut scene, everybody's staring at the monitor that's showing them a picture of the Sun, Earth, and a shield-y object.

  • Agammamon||

    To be honest - that sounds more like 'NCIS' than 'Star Trek'. Abby and . . . the dorky one will type fast on the keyboard (at the same time) and Gibbs will show up with a really big cup of soda or something.

    Star Trek - 'just reverse the polarity of the astronomicon and route the excess warp flux through the main shielf deflector array'.

  • Roger Knights||

    "Another far more practical solution, one which most environmentalists won't consider even for a second, is modern fission power plants (such as molten salt). But nooooo, all nukes are evil to them, which is another reason why I simply cannot take these people seriously."

    To give the devil his due, Mann & Hansen have endorsed going nuclear.

  • Roger Knights||

    Enviros are very emotionally opposed to "tech fixes." They don't want a patched-up world, they want a reformed world, a purer world, a utopian world. In addition, their puritainism favors hair-shirt solutions and their leftism favors "afflicting the comfortable" and outraging the bourgeoise.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "If the environmental movement is serious about addressing climate change, it will have to forget about the fact that humans caused (and are causing) the warming and think of our problem like a meteor strike—a catastrophic event that humanity did not cause but from which it has to be saved. In other words, enviros will have to look for technological fixes that don't depend on the environmental equivalent of Mao's cultural revolution to get people to embrace carbon-free lifestyles."

    I almost never know what the fuck Shikha is talking about.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "What the left is doing wrong in fighting global warming"

    1. Fighting global warming.

    EOF

  • ||

    "Why the Left Can't Solve Global Warming"

    Because they don't have science on their side and they are trying to blatantly control people regardless.

    Its really that simple. When the climate faithers constantly proclaim calamity, and it never happens, people start to ignore them. When they constantly say "its the hottest year on record", and yet the record shows the Earth hasn't warmed in 20 years, and each summer is getting cooler, people start to ignore them.

  • timbo||

    I'm starting to enjoy the desperation though. CA had more snowfall than ever this year and a few fires break out-GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

    Very mild summer with pretty tolerable temps on the east coast-flood in Kansas city?-GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

    States that are in drought are the lowest number in a long time-GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

    An entrepreneur comes up with an idea that makes him a profit, allows him to employ people, and invest capital for the growth of the economy - GLBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
    And that is what this is all about. Marxism under the auspices of benevolence because class warfare works on asshole morons.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "CA had more snowfall than ever this year"

    Thus proving the climate is changing.
    /greentard

  • CE||

    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita times 10 every year? Oh wait, that didn't happen.

  • Brandybuck||

    Well, they COULD have science on their side. And science seems rather clear that global climate change is happening and humans probably have something to do with it. But they Leftists aren't interested in science, they are interested in blaming people for something. So they've latched onto the label as a useful bludgeon, but still go about their non-scientific bashing of carbon free nuclear power and non-scientific bashing of efficient agriculture.

  • ||

    It's not so much the blaming it's about not being able to give up and admit that they were wrong.

  • NoVaNick||

    ^Yep!^ While I do believe that there is some merit to the case that humans are impacting the climate, the proposed solutions are all about progressive aesthetics-nothing more, nothing less. They want to punish Bubba who drives an F350 and voted for Trump while they read the New Yorker in the comfort of their Brooklyn coffee shop or East Side penthouse.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Well, they COULD have science on their side. And science seems rather clear that global climate change is happening and humans probably have something to do with it."

    Science involves truth telling, so, NO, they cannot have science on their side.

  • mtrueman||

    " they are interested in blaming people for something"

    What's wrong with blaming people? You say that humans have something to do with it, what's wrong with pointing this out?

  • Brandybuck||

    I should clarify, I should have said "Leftists are interested in blaming capitalism for something". Nevermind that they worst environmental disasters in in history happened under Marxist regimes. Never mind that the more capitalistic and market oriented a nation is, the better its environment. Never mind that every Trabant ever made is a portable superfund site. It may have been capitalism that gave us smoke belching factories, but it is also capitalism that got rid of them.

  • mtrueman||

    "Never mind that the more capitalistic and market oriented a nation is, the better its environment. "

    Because they've moved off belching factories off shore? That seems like borrowing Peter to pay Paul. The Earth is one big eco-system and our nations, much as we love and treasure them, don't mean squat to mother nature.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: mprevaricateman,

    ---You say that humans have something to do with it, what's wrong with pointing this out? ---

    It's a meaningless assertion, like saying "society is to blame!" The fact that human activity warms the planet is an interesting thing to know but, unless you can prove it is a problem (and no scientist worth his or her salt has proven this, which is why predictions are mostly coming from alarmists), then the fact that human activity warms the planet will remain just an interesting fact.

    What Marxians do, instead, is treat this interesting fact as a foreboding warning to mend our ways, not unlike the dire warnings from preachers to repent for our sins or suffer eternal condemnation. Marxians treat GW with unabashed religiosity because it is convenient for them to do so, as the proposed "solutions" invariably entail the type of command-and-control societal structure that they learned to love during WWI and onwards.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's a meaningless assertion, like saying "society is to blame!" The fact that human activity warms the planet is an interesting thing to know but, unless you can prove it is a problem "

    What constitutes proof? Would you be convinced by wide-spread crop failures and the deaths of millions? Be careful of what you wish for.

    "What Marxians do, instead..."

    I don't think you know a thing about Marxians, Marx or even Engels. So spare me the lectures.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: mprevaricatingman,

    What constitutes proof?


    What constitutes proof for about every other supposedly scientific claim. For instance, the shift away from the anti-knock substance trimethyl lead came because of clear medical evidence that lead poisoning was affecting people who were breathing in the fumes from burned leaded gasoline. The shift away from Chlorofluorocarbons was based on uncontroversial evidence presented by a chemist, using actual SCIENCE instead of "predictions".

    What "proof" is there coming from the warmists is merely the assertion that a warmer planet is... bad.

    I don't think you know a thing about Marxians, Marx or even Engels.


    Oh, you want to challenge me, M?

    Go ahead. I know about Marx mooching off Engels. I know about Marx's not feeding his children. I know about his idiotic love for economic autarky. I know he got his economic premises from classical economists who were downright wrong about the nature of value. I know that Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk kicked his ass. I know Engels was a ridiculous dandy and a mama's boy. Do you want to challenge my knowledge, M?

    GO AHEAD.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Should be "Tetraethyllead"

  • mtrueman||

    "What "proof" is there coming from the warmists is merely the assertion that a warmer planet is... bad."

    What proof would convince you? Would crop failures and famine do the trick? Are you convinced that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas or do you require proof of that too?

    "Do you want to challenge my knowledge, M?"

    No, spare me the lectures is all I ask.

  • Greg F||

    What proof would convince you? Would crop failures and famine do the trick?

    Cus the only thing that causes that is global warming like the great Irish famine ... oh wait ... there wasn't any global warming back then!

  • mtrueman||

    "Cus the only thing that causes that is global warming like the great Irish famine .."

    The Irish famine was caused by a potato blight. Global warming is caused by solar flares.

  • Greg F||

    You really are dense.

  • ||

    If the left really wanted to stop global warming, they would immediately reverse positions on nuclear power and begin advocating for the construction of hundreds of nuclear plants to replace all coal power everywhere.

    The fact that they haven't done this already indicates that they are more focused on feelings than on rational solutions. They don't want to admit they were wrong about nuclear energy, they don't want to admit they were wrong about GMOs, and to a certain extent, their attraction of the environmental movement is because they don't want to admit they were wrong about capitalism. They want to use global warming as a way of pointing the finger and saying "SEE! Capitalism is BAD!!! " It's really not about stopping global warming but about the left collectively having a big pout and a sulk because they were fucking wrong about a bunch of stuff and are too arrogant to admit it.

  • NoVaNick||

    . They want to use global warming as a way of pointing the finger and saying "SEE! Capitalism is BAD!!! "

    Some of their more naïve followers might think this, but there is huge money to be made off global warming through government favors (see SOLYNDRA for example). And when you have hedge fund managers like Tom Steyer backing politicians who will go along with it-global warming is a 100% (crony) capitalist phenomenon.

  • mtrueman||

    "If the left really wanted to stop global warming, they would immediately reverse positions on nuclear power and begin advocating for the construction of hundreds of nuclear plants to replace all coal power everywhere."

    It'll take more than hundreds. Tens of thousands is probably closer. I'd say opposition to nuclear power is due to fear of its waste products, the handling of which is still an unsettled issue.

  • ||

    The fear of climate change ought to vastly outweigh the fear of nuclear waste products, according to the environmental movement's own rhetoric.
    If global warming is a global catastrophe in the making, then some marginal increases in cancer rates that might happen IF there is a nuclear accident and the waste products get out is nothing by comparison.
    They're willing to let millions of people die of malaria rather than pollute the environment with DDT, so a few extra cancer cases a year shouldn't faze them.

  • mtrueman||

    "The fear of climate change ought to vastly outweigh the fear of nuclear waste products, according to the environmental movement's own rhetoric."

    The fact remains that CO2 is fairly benign. If your goal is to convince leftists that poisonous strontium and cesium isotopes are less toxic than CO2, you've got your work cut out for you.

    "They're willing to let millions of people die of malaria rather than pollute the environment with DDT, so a few extra cancer cases a year shouldn't faze them."

    Who are you talking about? DDT is made in large quantities all over the world, especially in countries in which malaria is a problem. You've been misled by anyone claiming otherwise.

  • ||

    OK, then global warming ISN'T a big deal. Stop the presses.

    I'm not making this stuff up. Radioactive isotopes may be poisonous to individuals in large doses if you happen to come into close contact with them. But we''re not talking about spewing billions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere all over the world. Even a massive nuclear accident would have localized effects, resulting in modest exposure to people in the immediate vicinity, and the emergency crews responding to the accident/ How do I know this ? Because it actually happened! We had three simultaneous nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, and not one person died, not one member of the emergency crew has gotten cancer as a result. Radiation was released into the air and ocean, and the result was .... a big nothing. People all over the world are not dying of cancer from Fukushima. The net effect was a few advisories not to eat the fish from the area for a couple of months.

    Now if you believe the environmentalists, by their own rhetoric, if we don't do something about CO2 in the atmosphere, we're likely to experience catestrophic ocean rises which will displace millions of people, crop failures all over the world, nev ermind the predictions of a cataclysmic tsunami as the antartic ice-shelf breaks off and sinks into the ocean.

    So what should I care about more?
    A) I mgiht not be able to eat the fish from near a nuclear accident for a couple of months, or
    B) THE END OF THE WORLD!

  • mtrueman||

    " Radioactive isotopes may be poisonous to individuals in large doses if you happen to come into close contact with them."

    Some isotopes, by products of the fission process, can be poisonous to humans in small doses. CO2 on the other hand is only poisonous to humans in very large doses. This illustrates the point I was making. I hope it's clear.

    "Radiation was released into the air and ocean, and the result was .... a big nothing. "

    There's no 'was' about it. It's all still being released into the surrounding environment, and there's no end in sight. The accident cost hundreds of billions of yen to the Japanese economy. Don't see why you're so inclined to minimize the incident.

    "So what should I care about more?"

    What DO you care about more? I don't think there's any one clear answer to your question.

  • Roger Knights||

    "There's no 'was' about it. It's all still being released into the surrounding environment, and there's no end in sight."

    But there's no need to build future reactors in the multiply unsafe manner that Fukushima, so future accidents would not continually release world-affecting wastes as it has.

  • Longtobefree||

    We do have a real world case study in the effects of nuclear explosions. In fact, two of them. In both cases, people died. In both cases, people survived. Just like every other thing in the world. In fact, there was one poor unfortunate soul who was within two miles of both bombs. and survived both.

    Yamaguchi, a resident of Nagasaki, was in Hiroshima on business for his employer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries when the city was bombed at 8:15 am, on August 6, 1945. He returned to Nagasaki the following day, and despite his wounds, he returned to work on August 9, the day of the second atomic bombing. That morning he was telling his supervisor how one bomb had destroyed the city, to which his supervisor told him that he was crazy, and at that moment the Nagasaki bomb detonated. In 1957, he was recognized as a hibakusha (explosion-affected person) of the Nagasaki bombing, but it was not until March 24, 2009, that the government of Japan officially recognized his presence in Hiroshima three days earlier. He died of stomach cancer on January 4, 2010, at the age of 93.
    Yamaguchi became a vocal proponent of nuclear disarmament.

  • Roger Knights||

    DDT is made in large quantities all over the world, especially in countries in which malaria is a problem. You've been misled by anyone claiming otherwise.


    DDT is not readily available in Africa, and its use is discouraged by the usual suspects, according to an article posted yesterday, "Enemies of Humanity," by a Kenyan, here:
    https://goo.gl/oUMCr1

  • colorblindkid||

    Socialist and communist countries have no better environmental track record than capitalist countries. It is industrialization that causes CO2 emissions, and that is not in any way the fault of capitalism. This line of thinking always confused me.

  • mtrueman||

    "Socialist and communist countries ..."

    Are identical in their pursuit of industrialization. The only difference is how they divy up the pie, and that is an issue of social science, irrelevant to nature, science, climate etc.

  • ||

    That's not the only difference. The difference is what sorts of behaviors are incentivized by how the system is organized. Communist countries tended to pollute more than capitalist ones because they lack properties rights or liability law, and since the government runs everything they can arbitrarily decide to pollute anything they want and not obligated to compensate anyone for the effects. It's not just a tragedy of the commons - it's a function of the centralization of power and lack of individual rights.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Be aware that mtrueman is about to ask you why Cuba is such a pristine place, and then completely ignore any counterexamples involving North Korea, China, or the vast expanses of horrifying ecological destruction within the former USSR.

  • mtrueman||

    "Communist countries tended to pollute more than capitalist ones because they lack properties rights or liability law,"

    I think it was their desire to pursue policies of break-neck industrialization, squeezing what took the Capitalists to achieve over a much longer period, into a few decades. I'm not so sure that any particular system ultimately pollutes less than another. And if one does, it's really nothing to boast about.

  • Roger Knights||

    I'm not so sure that any particular system ultimately pollutes less than another.


    Then you're ignorant, probably wilfully.


    And if one does, it's really nothing to boast about.


    If communism hadf a better track record, you'd likely boast about it plenty.

  • mtrueman||

    Fine, communism has a worse record. You convinced me with your science.

  • ||

    Why can't the left solve it?

    Simple and it should be plain to see at this point.

    It ain't about climate change.

    It's about uprooting capitalism and control.

    And shysters like Gore see the con/shell game for what it is and profit off it.

    Honestly, how can you take seriously a group of people who make doomsday predictions that have never happened, who call for constant changes in our habits and even population control?

    They're an unholy combination of environmental zealotry and eugenics by other means mixed in with a dose of scientific illiteracy.

  • mtrueman||

    "It ain't about climate change.

    It's about uprooting capitalism and control."

    Science is science. It works the same not matter how good or bad our intentions are. CO2 will continue to hold its heat trapping qualities.

  • ||

    That's not the point. The point is why their solutions are full of shit.

  • mtrueman||

    "The point is why their solutions are full of shit."

    I don't see a future where non-carbon based energy is used has to be so unbelievably horrific, or unholy. I have faith that some of us will be able to adapt and thrive. I wouldn't be here today unless my ancestors didn't do the same.

  • Rebel Scum||

    What the Left Is Doing Wrong in Fighting Global Warming

    Ignoring the scientific method while using the issue as a pretext to spread marxism?

  • mtrueman||

    Here's an idea to get the left on board: nuclear power! It's already going down big in leftist paradises like China and North Korea. It centralizes control of electricity, making social control all that easier.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: mprevaricateman,

    China and North Korea also control all of people's health care services. Should people outside of thise places consider "alternative" medicine instead? Or what exact is your point? The fact that certain states act like criminal enterprises does not lend validity to the notion that what they control is inherently evil, case in point: nuclear fission-based electricity.

  • mtrueman||

    "Or what exact is your point? "

    Unlike windmills and solar panels, nuclear power lends itself to centralization and giganticism, both are big selling points for leftists.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: mprevaricateman,

    "Unlike"???

    Just who do you think is pushing for the giant pinwheels and the tortoise-killing panels?

    Besides, governments don't really need excuses to control commodities except their guns, so your contention is naive at best.

  • mtrueman||

    "Just who do you think is pushing for the giant pinwheels and the tortoise-killing panels?"

    People interested in alternate energy. There's nothing leftist about generating power from wind or water or sunlight.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: mprevaricateman,

    People interested in alternate energy.


    I wasn't wrong when I responded to "mprevaricateman".

    Those who are pushing for the pinwheels and solar panels are governments, not simply people interested in alternative power sources. Those interested in alternative power sources buy their own alternative power sources.

  • mtrueman||

    "Those interested in alternative power sources buy their own alternative power sources."

    They buy sunlight and wind? I'm not sure I'm following you. Sunlight and wind are available for free. Anyone can exploit them. Not just governments.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: mprevaricateman,

    The buy their own little pinwheels and their 400W solar panel kits.

    ─ I'm not sure I'm following you. ─

    No, I figured you wouldn't.

  • mtrueman||

    "The buy their own little pinwheels and their 400W solar panel kits."

    You honestly don't have to buy anything to exploit sunlight and wind. I hang up my clothing to dry after doing my laundry. I am exploiting these energy sources without having any contact with government or subjugating myself to government control.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: mprevaricateman,

    We're all talking about converting kinetic energy to electric energy, not about air drying or sun drying clothes.

    You're purposefully changing the subject for some reason.

  • mtrueman||

    "You're purposefully changing the subject for some reason."

    No, I'm only responding to your claim about 'alternative energy sources,' which I take you to mean wind and sunlight. It's unmetred and lends itself to decentralized solutions.

  • Greg F||

    Sunlight and wind are available for free.

    Converting it into something useful is not. Oil, natural gas, and coal are also free. Still have to pay someone to turn it into something useful. Bottom line is the only thing you actually pay for is other peoples time.

  • mtrueman||

    "Oil, natural gas, and coal are also free. "

    They are not free. I've always had to buy gas, coal or oil. And I've never had to pay for the wind and sunlight that dries my laundry.

  • Greg F||

    They are not free.

    They are free. You have to pay for peoples time to convert them into something useful to you. For gas you're paying people to extract, refine, and deliver it to you. Mother earth doesn't get a cut.

    And I've never had to pay for the wind and sunlight that dries my laundry.

    No shit Sherlock. If you want to have wind and solar converted into electricity you have to pay for people to convert it into electricity.

  • mtrueman||

    "You have to pay for peoples time to convert them into something useful to you"

    You should flesh out and develop this idea more fully. Call it the Labour Theory of Value.

    "If you want to have wind and solar converted into electricity you have to pay for people to convert it into electricity."

    I don't need to convert wind or solar energy to electricity in order to exploit these sources. I'm not obliged to pay for the wind or sunlight that I exploit, or convert it to electricity.

  • Greg F||

    Nice non response there mtruman.

  • mtrueman||

    I'm simply pointing out that I don't have to pay anyone for the wind and solar energy I exploit. Presumably, if gas came wafting over my garden and I could somehow exploit it, I wouldn't have to pay for it either.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yes, nuclear reactors are the only types of power plants that centralize the generation of electricity. You sure called that one.

  • mtrueman||

    "Yes, nuclear reactors are the only types of power plants that centralize the generation of electricity."

    No, there are other types that centralize. Coal, gas etc are much the same. Anything that uses a grid for distribution. Wind and sunlight can be exploited without this massive centralizing infrastructure.

  • Roger Knights||

    "Wind and sunlight can be exploited without this massive centralizing infrastructure."

    But not economically (all costs considered) on a large enough scale to make a difference, because large-scale use destabilizes the grid.

  • mtrueman||

    What's wrong with destabilizing the grid?

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Why the Left Can't Solve Global Warming


    The Left, nor anybody else.

    When I asked the lefties exacy what is the problem with global warming, all they were able to do is point out to anecdotal evidence or to a specific situation in a very specific time, which is not evidence of anything, like pointing out to a murder and claiming that society is disintegrating.

  • Grumpy Old Timer||

    "as if they were more concerned with punishing the perpetrators than solving the problem."
    Bingo!!! You have put your finger on the real agenda.
    The left and right hate each other and spend most of their time trying to one up/punsh the other.
    Global warming is just one more straw man to punish the other side.
    Just like abortion and a host of other fake issues.
    There's the skunk in the room. Have at it boys/girls/whatevers.
    Happy Friday.
    Grumpy

  • CE||

    What the left is doing wrong in fighting global warming?

    1. Saying the sky is falling when it isn't.
    2. Tilting at windmills.
    3. Assuming people can change the weather.
    4. Extrapolating from noise.
    5. Assuming their proposed cure isn't worse than the supposed disease.
    6. Ignoring larger climate cycles in pre-history.
    7. Ignoring the costs of the proposed cure.
    8. Ignoring the likely ineffectiveness of the proposed cure.
    9. Falsifying data.
    10. Ignoring past predictions of doom that never materialized.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    and focusing much more on smart technological solutions that solve our climate problem without asking so much from us.


    Shikha, the Marxians don't want Capitalism - PERIOD.

    They're blaming people not because they're well-intentioned but foolish but because they want the kind of command-and-control societal structure that existed during the world wars, and GW is their chance to build such a structure and impose it by force or why do you think they talk of Climate Change with such quasi-religious zeal, as if they're fighting a noble crusade?

    If we humans switched our power production to renewables, you can bet your sweet patootie that the Marxians will then claim we are still a) too many on this planet, b) too greedy, c) eating too much, d) too materialistic, etc. It's not that they want to save the planet.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just read ehrlich on coming up with a "clean" abundant energy source, or greenpeace on fusion.

  • ndmcclur||

    Very well said. The enviros would do well to listen, but I strongly doubt they will. That's because for many of them, their agenda is more about dominance and control, precluding a search for a truly practical approach.

    One small suggestion would be to steer clear of recommending geo-engineering solutions, at least without a strong caveat regarding the possibilities of unforeseen and unintended negative consequences. Dr. Judith Curry has a whole section for the subject that delves into the many complexities and dangers of such approaches: https://judithcurry.com/category/geoengineering/ It would be better to simply suggest that we all support efforts like that of Microsoft founder Bill Gates' "Breakthrough Energy Ventures".

  • mtrueman||

    "their agenda is more about dominance and control,"

    The 'solutions' bruited about here are all about dominance and control. The blocking of sunlight for example, who is going to accomplish this other than a government or group of governments. It's not a market solution.

  • Roger Knights||

    But small experiemnts in geo-engineering, like the successful iron-fertilization of the Gulf of Alaska a few years back, can be undertaken with little downside risk. And/or they can be terminated instantly with few lingering effects.

  • mtrueman||

    Who is going to put this iron into the ocean and who is going to pay for it? I don't see a market solution here. It's the kind of solution, like nuclear power, that appeals to the communist.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    This is a fact that it took me a while to appreciate: progressives genuinely think they can shape human nature through public policy, up until the point that we all reach their vision of perfect morality. In that way, it's a lot like a religion

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Progressivism evolved directly out of the Social Gospel. If it looks like a religion, that's because it used to be an explicitly religious movement.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Fun fact: Progressivism's fellow surviving offshoot of late-19th-century Protestant millennarianism is the Religious Right. That progressives and Falwellites alike aim to make mankind worthy of heaven on earth is not a coincidence.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Less-fun fact: the millennarians haven't built heaven yet and most of them lost their faith, but they won almost the entirety of American political discourse. The remaining uncorrupted bit belongs to the few remaining Enlightenment liberals, who call themselves "libertarians" now and spend most of their time cussing at strangers on the Internet.

  • mtrueman||

    "This is a fact that it took me a while to appreciate: progressives genuinely think they can shape human nature through public policy"

    You mean communists, don't you? This is an idea that Marxists have had. They also have a fascinating notion of History being a material force. I don't see how this relates to religions which focus on the immaterial and typically claim that human nature is immutable.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    You see this in how they approach abuses by the police:
    "If we train police officers better and give them more rules to follow, they won't kill people or steal stuff"

    They don't see the inherent flaw in the system, only the flawed people behind it. Replace them and the issue goes away in their minds

    As far as their religiosity, it's partly that this is an approach to deal with "cosmic justice" rather than traditional justice

    I'm basing both of these on Sowell so I'll just refer you to some of his books

  • mtrueman||

    "it's partly that this is an approach to deal with "cosmic justice" rather than traditional justice"

    I've never heard a communist talking about 'cosmic justice.' Social or class justice, sure.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Again, Thomas Sowell can explain these better than I ever could. Both of those are still typically referring to cosmic justice. I would also like to specify that of course those who are openly Marxist think these things. They're open about it. They are also few in number. I'm still talking about progressives

    http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html

  • mtrueman||

    "I'm still talking about progressives"

    What's a progressive? You mean something other than a Marxist, Socialist or Leftist? I'm not clear about who it is you have in mind. I'm not really familiar with the term progressive.

    I don't think Sowell's 'cosmic justice' adds anything to the discussion. Communists aren't about improving the universe, or even the planet. Their concern is human society. Hence the term social justice.

    "Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. "

    That's from your link, in case you didn't recognize it. Marxists don't believe in God, typically, and history is material and not subject to accidents. They seem to differ fundamentally from Sowell who bandies the term 'God' about without shame. In any case, I think my point stands. It's conservatives like Sowell who warn against the folly of trying to change human nature. Marxists are ready and willing to dive right in and take the challenge.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    The modern left is what I'm referring to with progressives. It's just to differentiate them from the old, stuffy center-left of the 90s and early 2000s. Many of them have shed the term "liberal"

    You're taking the "God" and "cosmic" parts far too literally and it's kind of ridiculous so I'm gonna check out of this one

  • mtrueman||

    If it's only a metaphor then why bother? What purpose is served by insisting that modern leftists are not interested in social justice but 'cosmic justice?' Are you trying to convince us that Marxism is a religion, and an evil one at that?

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    You're conflating human nature with human spirit, which religioous leaders and philosophists believe is immutable.

    The fact that Marx premised his theory of history in a struggle for material possession only serves to show that he succumbed to the Fixed Pie fallacy which he merely and conveniently sweeped under the rug in the later tomes of Das Kapital because it was obviously wrong. It doesn't mean that Marxians after him are consistent with their beliefs.

  • mtrueman||

    "You're conflating human nature"

    Conservatives and other anti-communists have long scoffed at communists' hubristic efforts to change human nature. You'll see it in these pages when some people argue that there are two sexes and only two sexes, and anyone telling you any different is a huckster or 'mentally ill'. Not the best example because human sexuality isn't really something that comes into Marxism, but perhaps it illustrates my point. It tends to be conservatives who argue for the immutability of human nature and not communists.

  • Red Twilight||

    That is because reason.com is filled with Republicans (for Drumpf) that pretend to be libertarians.

  • blondrealist||

    I recall reading an article many years ago in Reason (I think) that delved deeply in to the question of re-forestation of the rain forest as a key strategy to combat global warming. I have since wondered several times why we don't see this discussed more frequently.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I also remember reading an academic paper (funded by Exxon!) about the efficacy of putting large quantities of certain trees near factories to essentially remove CO2 right near the source. I may be messing up some of the broad details of that paper since it was outside of my field and it's been a few years, but I remember the conclusion being that the impact wasn't as great as they had hoped. Reforestation is probably a good thing for a variety of reasons but it's also not likely to be a miracle

  • Curt Pehrson||

    The left has a hard time coming up with actual solutions, but the right has a hard time admitting climate change is even real. The combination of the two makes addressing the issue absolutely maddening. One side has no idea how to fix the reality, and the other side doesn't believe in reality.

    Maybe conservatives, who often claim to fly under the flag of reason and pragmatism, can offer some leadership? Step one to solving the problem is acknowledging the problem.

    And yes, I know that many if not most of Reason's authors and readers don't deny climate change's existence, or humans' ability to influence it. But unfortunately, reasoned libertarian conservatism is not the flavor of conservatism that dominates US politics on the right.

    I'm not dismissing the core concept of this article. But I'd also like to see a perspective as to why American conservatives also fail to provide leadership -- or even acknowledgement -- on the topic of climate change.

  • Greg F||

    The left has a hard time coming up with actual solutions, but the right has a hard time admitting climate change is even real.

    The output from computer models is not reality.

  • Red Twilight||

    Actually, it is reality. Computer models are how most simulations are done. The Pentagon for example relies on this reality.

    But that is not why you morons should accept the reality of global warming. Plenty of empirical data are available.

  • Roger Knights||

    "but the right has a hard time admitting climate change is even real."

    Strawman. The climate skeptics acknowledge climate change; what they don't acknowledge is catastrophic climate change, which is what the models project, based on an iffy positive feedback postulation (and other iffy reasoning, such as about climate sensitivity).

  • Longtobefree||

    When the left acts like they believe what they say, I will look again at the actual results compared to their models.

    If carbon dioxide is the real culprit, why do liberals exhale?
    If cars are evil, why do liberals drive them?
    Why do 'environmentalists' fly a gazillion miles to conferences when the telephone has been invented?
    When we eliminate the carbon dioxide, how will plants grow?
    Who is John Galt?

  • Ken in NH||

    You start with invalid assumptions; namely that they want solutions. You come close to realizing this though: "but such thinking is not inherent to their think which is far more fixated on controlling behavior."

  • Ron||

    thats right lets shield the sun If we could build something that big we wouldn't need fossil fuels and lets remember everything we put in space comes back to earth. And of course if ever implemented there is no chance that some nation(s) won't use it to shield certain other countries form sun light thus ruining their crops

  • mtrueman||

    "You start with invalid assumptions.."

    It's arguments that are valid or invalid. Assumptions are either correct or incorrect. Stick with what you know.

  • Ken in NH||

  • Cloudbuster||

    Why the Left Can't Solve Global Warming

    Because it's not actually a catastrophe?

  • Tionico||

    Your article is a colossal failure because you begin with two "givens" that are anything but: first, you assume, unproven, that "global warming" is an issue. Numbers prove that this is not so.. less than one half degree Centigrade increase in the past hundred years, based on RAW data (not "data" massaged by "corrective algorithms".. or is that Al Gore ithms?)
    Second, that "global warming" is caused by man's action. Not so. What caused the "Midaeval Warming Period" anyway, was it all the cave fires the locals kept burning? Is THAT why Greenland was named GREENland, because it was so brown and barren, or buried under a couple huundred feet of ice?
    Third, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Reality is, CO2 levels today are signficantly below (about 14%) what they were a hundred fifty years ago.

    Any idea what happens to plant growth when CO2 levels increase another fifteen percent? No, didn't think so. What is the single largest "storage" bank for CO2? Its the oceans... which are self-regulating, and are a reactive trailing indicator. Warmer temps, they release more. Cooler they store it. Just like the liquied in that bottle of soda you opened earlier today.

  • DrZ||

    Whoops, sorry this article lacks all credibility not mentioning modern, modular, safe nuclear fission generators.

    A few of these means lots of environmentally destructive windmills and field solar panels are not needed.

    If environmentalist are really concerned about human CO2 production, then nuclear is the answer, but they instead use destructive technology.

    Also, all-electric cars start to make more sense if they are being charged with nuclear generated electricity instead of natural gas or coal.

    Me thinks there is something other than really wanting a solution to the CO2 "problem".

  • mtrueman||

    "Me thinks there is something other than really wanting a solution to the CO2 "problem"."

    You a Libertarian? How much are you willing to spend? How much are you willing to subsidize an industry that has never enjoyed an unsubsidized day in its history? How much autonomy are you willing to cede to strangers far off at the power station.

  • Red Twilight||

    A gig advising the science committee in the House

  • Hank Phillips||

    Canadian Candu reactors run the looter presses up north.

  • Ted Duke||

    The author of this opinion, Shikha Dalmia, apparently believes Obama was King or Emperor of the United States. Obama illegally signed the so-called accord/agreement that had neither been presented by nor voted on by Congress. That illegal action was legally overturned, rescinded by another president.

  • renewableguy||

    Global warming guru Al Gore in 1992 called for the elimination of the internal combustion engine from the planet in 25 years. But the accursed engine is nowhere close to going away given that auto sales (and not hybrids and electrics) are projected to grow for decades to come. Many environmentalists want to eradicate fossil fuels. This will never happen — or at least won't happen for a long, long time—especially in emerging economies that need cheap fuel to spur development and deliver decent living standards.

    https://goo.gl/c15mnU

    Al Gore was just early. Its starting to grab hold of not selling polluting fossil fuel autos.

  • renewableguy||

    f the environmental movement is serious about addressing climate change, it will have to forget about the fact that humans caused (and are causing) the warming and think of our problem like a meteor strike—a catastrophic event that humanity did not cause but from which it has to be saved. In other words, enviros will have to look for technological fixes that don't depend on the environmental equivalent of Mao's cultural revolution to get people to embrace carbon-free lifestyles.

    Citizens climate lobby is working to get republican (conservative) cooperation to move forward on climate action. What the author hasn't focused on is the fossil fuel lobby influence on the Republican Party. John McCain presented a presidential platform of 50% reduction by 2050. There needs to be a conversation what to do about climate change. Denial of climate change promoted by fossil fuel propaganda is not helping matters. If there can be REASONABLE people coming to the table to talk, this can move forward.

  • renewableguy||

    To be fair, it's not like environmentalists don't ever suggest such technological solutions or innovations. They do—but such thinking is not inherent to their think which is far more fixated on controlling behavior.

    CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR? There are all kind of changes that can be implemented. If every change suggested is resisted based on fossil fuel lobbies, then there is a serious problem happening here.

  • Roger Knights||

    Here's a quote by Stephen J Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics, from "Tools of Titans: The Tactics, Routines, and Habits of Billionaires, Icons, and World-Class Performers" by Timothy Ferriss,


    "If you want to solve a problem—any problem that you care enough about to want to solve—you almost certainly come to it with a whole lot of ideas about it. Ideas about why it's an important problem, what is it that bothers you exactly, who the villains are in the problem, etc.

    "So if you're an environmentalist, and you believe that one of the biggest tragedies of the last 100 years is people despoiling the environment, the minute you hear about an issue that kind of abuts the environment, whether it's honeybee collapse or something having to do with air quality, your immediate moral position is, 'Well, I know exactly what the cause of that is. It's caused by people being stupid and careless and greedy' and so on.

    "Now that may be true, but it also may not be true. Our point is, if you try to approach every problem with your moral compass, first and foremost, you're going to make a lot of mistakes. You're going to exclude a lot of possible good solutions. You're going to assume you know a lot of things, when in fact you don't, and you're not going to be a good partner in reaching a solution with other people who don't happen to see the world the way you do.""
  • swampwiz||

    Uh, it is policy of the environmentalists to develop market-based incentives to incentivize folks to pollute less carbon. Even Newt Gingrich was a fan of this until his puppetmsters scolded him. And of course, the "liberals" elected a certain POTUS who had done a wonderful job of guiding through policies that have set the world on a great course to actually tackle the problem; yes there were some missteps like Solyndra, but solar is on track to be cheaper than petroleum some time in the 2020s. Even Trump can't really undo Obama's actions until the day after Election Day 2020, and the stakeholders know that the Disaster-in-Chief will be a very temporary White House occupant.

    Author Fail.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, those of us in Florida list worrying about NK way down the list, after most hurricanes, and the weird definitions in the 'legalization' of medicinal marijuana.

  • Red Twilight||

    Even for reason, this is a particularly ghastly article short on analysis and long on bluster

  • jerryg1018||

    The Greenies have had 47 years to develop technological solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It is a minuscule portion of the Earth's atmosphere.
    Of the three solutions proposed in the article: Construct a Sun shield, collect and store "excess" CO2 underground or in the oceans, only forestation makes any sense since green plants absorb CO2 and give off the oxygen humans, animals and insects need to breathe.
    47 years has been enough time for scientists to develop solutions that don't involve throwing billions of dollars at a problem that doesn't exist. 47 years ago a diagnosis of cancer was a death notice. Today science has improved the survival rates in many forms of cancer up to 90%.

  • Ned Netterville||

    Global warming/climate change isn't about the environment. It's about taxes--without limit and without end.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Temperatures have been dropping since Green spoiler votes cost the Dems Al Gore's presidency. In 1892 the People's Party won 9% and after the Dems squeaked to victory they changed their platform, adding a communist income tax and ran William Jennings Bryan for the next dozen years. Since the Y2k election climate data fraud has retroactively changed temperature measurements to give the impression of warming, but Tony Heller is reporting real climate science just as Petr Beckmann did back when he was on the Reason board. The whole thing is a fake, and a reaction to Green party spoiler votes in 2000. But the overreaction just cost them the 2016 election and Dems are determined not to admit that. Fanatical Bryanism against energy is not helping the Dems.

  • ||

    Why can't the Left "solve" "global warming?"

    Because it's not a problem.

    First, it's never even been reliably shown that humans cause "global warming," that it's not, to the extent it exists at all--it certainly hasn't for more than two decades--just another phase in a cycle that's been going on for millions or billions of years. No model based on any proposed "global warming" mechanism has ever produced an accurate prediction; no model has ever retroactively predicted the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age based on data from prior to those events--and that the models don't work means that climate "scientists" really have no clue how climate works and thus can't possibly make predictions about it.

    Second, on any average day, average temperatures in inhabited regions of this planet range from about -30°F to 130°F, a span of 160°F. And the warmists get all freaked out out by a 3°F change? Doesn't pass the smell test. And temperatures during the MWP and the LIA exceeded that 3°F variation and the human race got along just fine.

    "Global warming" has nothing to do with the temperature of the planet and everything to do with largely Leftist, anti-West, politics.

  • mpercy||

    It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

    (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.

    Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history."

    Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO): "We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

    Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

  • mpercy||

    Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

    Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' — and readers' — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

    Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have been saying for decades that the biggest step that could be taken to alleviate assirted environmental 'catastrophes' would be to collect the governing bodies of The Sierra Club and Greenpeace and drop them into a deep hole and pave it over.

  • Liberal Soup N'Crackers||

    I had to register just to comment on this one article.
    After wading through all the assumptions, that man is the cause of global warming and that the alarmists are by default correct, I had to actually read the nutbutter solutions the author tended to 'fix the problem'.

    A Global Warming Shield? Aside from the stark reality that there is no such thing, suppose for a moment that there was. What do you do when climate change starts taking us in the opposite direction? Numb nuts like this would have us turned into a frozen chunk of ice but for the laughter.

    Iron Powder Sprinkles in the ocean? Gesus H! That is almost as funny as a global warming shield. Do you have those sprinkles in chocolate?

    Plant Some Trees? *hickup*

  • Liberal Soup N'Crackers||

    of course, we could just being played

  • NorEastern||

    It should be obvious to everyone that global warming is real. We have 140 years of reliable climate data and 2014 was the hottest year until 2015 was the hottest year until 2016 was the hottest year. Probability states that the chance of that happening is 1/(140*139*138) or about 1 in 2.6 million without global warming. Factor in the fact that, even without an El Nino 2017 is on track to become the second hottest year on record and the odds that global warming is not real is coming close to the odds of winning the Powerball Lotto.

  • Liberal Soup N'Crackers||

    What is also obvious is that you haven't actually examined the data used to make such drastic claims. Temperature records from several decades ago were revised downwards and recent data has been revised upwards to produce a misleading and I dare say fraudulent conclusion.
    Is global warming real? Of course it is. The earth has been warming with regularity, except for a few intermittent periods, since the end of the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago. It has not been warming faster or slower on average. We are a warming planet not in any significant danger from any climate threat.
    Is it hotter in the summer of 2017 than it was in the summer of 1965 or 1975? Not at all. It's basically the same. A change in degree does nothing.
    As for your probability stats, they are utterly groundless when it is revealed that the data has been manipulated inappropriately.Educate yourself a bit more on the matter.

  • ||

    Climategate; 'nuff said.

  • Bob Nix||

    Obviously Shikah has missed the entire point of the Climate Change movement. What would be the point of pursuing goals to impact the environment if they're not going to allow you to seize control of people's lives?

    "Environmentalists' other strategy is government coercion to force polluters to cease and desist."

    Shikah has mixed up cause and effect. Shikah posits that the Greens and their Leftist allies want to use government coercion to force their Climate Change agenda, when in fact it is (as always with the Left) the other way around. What they are actually attempting is to use their Climate Change agenda to push for more government coercion.

    That's why, as Shikah correctly points out, no mainstream Green will ever propose strategies for saving the environment that call for smaller government, more personal freedom, less government coercion, etc. "Green" is the means, not the end. The end is control.

  • jimw||

    Carbon - CO2 - is not pollution. Making lithium batteries causes pollution. CO2 is plant food.

    CO2 is not the major GHG - that would be water vapor, 60-90% of the greenhouse effect, depending on your politics.
    We are in an Ice Age, have been for the last 2.5 million years. In the past million years, we have had 8 glaciations and 8 interglacials, including this one. The previous, the Eemian, 120,000 years ago, had a global average temp 2C higher than today's 15C, with a CO2 of 280 ppm vs our 405 ppm.

    The earth has spent half of the past 500 million years within a degree or so of 22C (72F). CO2 has ranged from 180 ppm (plant starvation) to 8,000 ppm - and there was no runaway tipping point. The Ordovician Ice Age took place with atmospheric CO2 at 4,500 ppm, give or take a few, and lasted only a couple of million years. It ended as abruptly as it began, zipping back to the previous 22C without a preceding CO2 change, during the period of the cool young sun. Indeed, there has never been a reversal of temperature trend in the history of the earth preceded by a CO2 change. CO2 has always followed temp change.

    We emerged from the last glaciation 20,000 years ago without a preceding CO2 change, the the several reversals along the way have also been unheralded by CO2 change, including the Younger Dryas, and the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm periods.

    CO2 warms us and cools us and feeds us. It's all good.

  • White Hispanic||

    well said...Global Warming is not caused by an increase in CO2....But CO2 levels often rise when the Earth Warms, as demonstrated by the ice core samples.

  • Longtobefree||

    Why can't the Left "solve" "global warming?"

    Because global warming is just a fact, not a problem. They should try to 'solve' sunrise.

  • jimw||

    Yes. Climate change is not a problem, it's a given. CO2 mitigation is not a solution, it's a problem.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Well put.

  • ||

    Wake up and smell the coffee. The Left has no interest in solving global warming; their only interest is in using global warming as an excuse to transfer wealth from rich to poor countries. A number of global climate wizards, including at the UN, have admitted as much. Talking about "solving" global warming is a waste of time; that's not the agenda.

  • Buck Steele||

    'zactly. This isn't for concern for the environment. It's just a money/power grab opportunity to them.

  • White Hispanic||

    so true...which is why they have distorted the facts to hide the decline.

  • Buck Steele||

    Doesn't the left first need to tell us how, exactly, do they know that the current temperature of the earth is the best possible temperature, and for whom/what?

  • White Hispanic||

    There has not been warming for 20 years. The hottest decade in America was from 1931-1941 when CO2 levels were much lower. Global warming may well go down as the biggest Hoax of all time. Costing Humans Billions and doing nothing beneficial. The leftists just use Global warming as justification for more government power and higher taxes.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Even cheaper is to look at NOAA data and see that temperatures have been cooling since the 50s. An electrical engineer at realclimatescience, Tony Heller, digs up failed environazi predictions published in recent centuries. He also graphs temperatures and shows how 0.06% of ex-scientists at places like blighted NASA and national socialist Europe manufacture rigged data with secret adjustments to change past temperatures posted earlier by their own organizations--before the infection worsened. This mass hysteria shows the importance of the Green spoiler votes that shattered Al Gore's bid for a hand in the till. Too bad the data shatters their theory.

  • Sugarsail||

    You can only solve something that is a problem. Global warming is not a problem

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online