Cosmos: Global Warming

a reply to: sooth

You can reverse the carbon footprint by planting more trees. The key is to emit less CO2 than the plants are able to consume them, although I don't know what you can do about the ice sheets.

originally posted by: Astrocyte Today, for the first time in recorded history, the northern passage is open. Ships can sail from Russia to Canada through this northern passage.

The Northern Sea route has BEEN open MANY times in history. The only thing recent is the ship building, and navigation technology to allow frequent commercial use.

www.theregister.co.uk...

And then there's the other point of view....

Venus heat not CO2

a reply to: Phage

Dear Phage,

This discussion has been informative and useful to me. It may be simply swatting at a pesky gnat for you, but whether it is or isn't, I appreciate your time.

I've allowed myself to drift a little, let me use your response to return.

Phage, Obama, and talking through your hat.

I don't know what percentage of scientists believe that Global Warming is real, primarily man-made, and dangerous. That would be a difficult number to arrive at

I absolutely agree. But that message is being reported over and over by the White House and the press. I think they're talking through their collective hats when they say that, and I'm pleased you agree.

If, as we were told, our president is the "Science president," who will listen to science and not ideology, I find it hard to understand the force of the argument, "But that's not what the paper said." Assume (as I do) that it is wrong to say that the paper shows that 97% of the scientist agree that global warming is real, primarily man-made, and dangerous. Given that, Where in the world is Cook? Wouldn't he say in some news release, or on his website where he can put anything he wants, "Hey! Wait a minute! You guys are misinterpreting my paper! You're making all these stupid claims and basing it on my paper, but that's not what I said. Don't go making any stupid policy decisions because of your misinterpretation?" I think he would, or at least should, if he's a scientist interested in truth, or a citizen concerned with policy. (Yes, I know he's not American, but America's policy influences the world.)

I don't really pay much attention to what politicians say when it comes to science or much of anything else.

You are wise, as a scientist, to ignore politicians. But you are also a citizen. When the President of the United States (or any other country) says "I am going to tax over $20 billion from the people for Climate research, instead of putting it somewhere else," citizens should glance up and pay attention. That's seven times the aid we give to Israel, and people (at least here on ATS) get excited about that on nearly a weekly basis.

Phage versus Cook

Do me a favor and find fault with Cook's criticisms. Cook provides information about those other models. He provides output from those models and compares it to observations.

Sure, I'd be happy to show you why Cook is being, at best, thoughtless and careless, and probably he's being much worse. (I'm assuming that you linked to Cook's argument.)

Actually, Phage, you told us why most of Cook's objection that you cite are full of the ol' processed meat. You announced that any analysis of predictions over less than 10 or 20 years is worthless. Thanks for that reminder.

When I followed your link to Cook's analysis and criticism of the Easterbrook model, I saw that Cook's graph showing discrepancies covered only 10 years. (There are only ten years in which the prediction and the actual are shown.)

Cook's "analysis" of Akasofu is worse. He gets condemned after just 9 years of overlapping data.

So thanks for destroying at least two of Cook's criticisms for us. Much appreciated.

Charles1952 , Scafetta and Loehle against Cook (Round 1)
Cook's criticism of Scafetta is summed up by:

Loehle and Scafetta's paper is nothing more than a curve fitting exercise with no physical basis using an overly simplistic model.

He's more upset that the model is simple, rather than it's wrong. (By the way, I thought physicists, among others, would throw a "constant" into their formulas now and then. Not because there's any basis for it, but that's the number that works when used. Cook's objection is misplaced.)

In Fig.1 of Cook's analysis, he shows that the Loehle and Scafetta curve fits Moberg's very well. The weather was cooler beginning about 500 a.d. than their model calls for. But does anyone expect them to have predicted the

Climate changes of 535-536 (535-536 AD), sudden cooling and failure of harvests, perhaps caused by volcanic dust

Phage's link shows no consensus on man-made global warming)
Finally (I must be running out off space) one of your links went to something other than a review of literature. I'm grateful for that. It makes much more sense to directly ask a scientist what his opinion is than to try to deduce it from a paper. Even this one has questionable procedures, but it's a step in the right direction. Two questions were presented.

When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Pre-1800s? What period of time does pre-1800s include? and compared to what? The last five years? Thirty? Anyway, the result was that 90% of the scientists said yes.

The second question?

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Significant? How big does a factor have to be before it's significant? Would a third party getting 10% of the National vote be significant? I would think so. So, 82% of the scientists believe man has contributed to at least 10% of Global warming. How? Could a little bit of that 10% be that there are billions of people, and increasing, operating at 98.6 and exhaling? (I know that's funny, but what does their answer mean?

Combining those answers, we see that 74% agree with both of them. What consensus?

Thanks for pointing things out to me, it's the only way I can learn.

With respect,
Charles1952

Nature follows the path of least resistance across a concentration gradient. If the environment has more CO2 then before, plants will consume more C02 causing them contain an excess of carbon, which will be left in the soil after the plants are harvested or shed leaves. So the 'CO2' will 'migrate' back into the soil as Carbon so that the planet maintains homeostasis. If Venus had plant and animal life the analogy drawn here may be more significant.

Hopefully energy technology will advance and take over. Even if the president taxes Americans for exhaling CO2 or whatnot, that won't keep other countries from polluting as long as it is profitable.

a reply to: charles1952

I think they're talking through their collective hats when they say that, and I'm pleased you agree.

Because I cannot put an exact figure on it, it does not mean that I do not think a great majority of earth scientists believe that warming is occurring and that it is caused primarily by human activity.

Where in the world is Cook? Wouldn't he say in some news release, or on his website where he can put anything he wants, "Hey! Wait a minute! You guys are misinterpreting my paper! You're making all these stupid claims and basing it on my paper, but that's not what I said. Don't go making any stupid policy decisions because of your misinterpretation?" I think he would, or at least should, if he's a scientist interested in truth, or a citizen concerned with policy. (Yes, I know he's not American, but America's policy influences the world.)

Did they mention Cook? Do you think Cook's study is the only one on the topic? I don't know why you think Cook should respond. Do you really think that policy decisions are being made solely on Cook's study?

You are wise, as a scientist, to ignore politicians. But you are also a citizen. When the President of the United States (or any other country) says "I am going to tax over $20 billion from the people for Climate research, instead of putting it somewhere else," citizens should glance up and pay attention.

Taxes are not being raised by $20 billion. But I have no problem with it. I think it is a sound investment in the future, better than some.

When I followed your link to Cook's analysis and criticism of the Easterbrook model, I saw that Cook's graph showing discrepancies covered only 10 years. (There are only ten years in which the prediction and the actual are shown.)

And yet, even with the unpredicted "pause", observed temperatures fall within the modeled range, Easterbrook is not even close. Easterbrook's prediction show dramatic changes occurring on a decadal level. He claims that his model is capable of making such predictions. His model has failed to do so.

Cook's "analysis" of Akasofu is worse. He gets condemned after just 9 years of overlapping data.

Both Aksofu and Easterbrook predicted a cooling trend. Do you see a cooling trend?

He's more upset that the model is simple, rather than it's wrong. (By the way, I thought physicists, among others, would throw a "constant" into their formulas now and then. Not because there's any basis for it, but that's the number that works when used. Cook's objection is misplaced.)

No. The problem is that the model is not based on climactic influences. It's based on a supposed astrological cycle. That cycle hasn't changed in a very long time. When Scafferta's model is projected back, it completely diverges from the data.

Significant? How big does a factor have to be before it's significant? Would a third party getting 10% of the National vote be significant? I would think so. So, 82% of the scientists believe man has contributed to at least 10% of Global warming.

You just completely invented that number, somehow conflating a science based opinion with a vote. 82% of the scientists think that human activity is having a significant influence on global warming. That's what the survey found. Rather disingenuous of you to try to distort the stated facts to fit your personal bias.

Could a little bit of that 10% be that there are billions of people, and increasing, operating at 98.6 and exhaling? (I know that's funny, but what does their answer mean?

Your 10% is nonsense and exhaling does not change the CO2 balance in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels does.

Combining those answers, we see that 74% agree with both of them.

What are you talking about? 82% of the respondents believe that human activity is having a significant effect on global warming.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.

Thanks for pointing things out to me, it's the only way I can learn.

You're welcome. But it doesn't seem that you are as much interesting in learning as you are in distorting fact in an attempt to fit your confirmation bias.

a reply to: amazing

and how do we actually know for a fact that the "we did it" version is actually supported by "over 90% of all the scientists, all the scientific organizations, all the universities in the world, all the climatologists and all those that care about this planet and the quality of life for us humans on it, and the smartest people in the world. Like Tyson"?

this issue has become SO politically charged, that it's difficult to separate fact from fiction.....but naw, it must be fox news(they're rubbish, by the way), and the big oil companies....they're making up fibs....so much money has changed hands, so much hyperbole, and propaganda has been circulated...how do we know what's what?

how about we drop the politics, and we deal with facts?

i respect Neil deGrasse Tyson...i think he's very entertaining, easy to listen to(unlike most scientists), and a VERY smart guy.....doesn't mean i hang on the man's every word though. doesn't mean i believe every word he emanates....

Venus is not a reasonable model to predict climatic development here...it is MUCH closer to the sun than we are, does not have a magnetic field like earth, does not rotate like earth, is not tilted like earth, it's composition, both in terms of atmosphere(atmospheric constituents, density, pressure, etc), and the actual "meat" of the planet, are not the same....in short, the two planets are nothing alike....it still absolutely floors me that people can piss and moan about "apples and oranges" arguments on every other topic, but then think that the same kind of "apples and oranges" argument is OK, when used on THIS topic...

very strange, indeed....

I'm all for doing something to stop the rampant polluting of the atmosphere, and the sooner we phase out fossil fuels, the better.

However, I have a hard time pinning all the blame on humans for what is going on, and in particular, carbon dioxide. There are a number of charts that I have found that show no correlation to CO2 and temperature. I'll link a few (the first two from IPCC datasets):

c3headlines.typepad.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...

Wood for Trees.org, Paul Clark:

www.woodfortrees.org...:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.83/normalise

Another:

pbs.twimg.com...:large

I could go on all day with this - and I suppose, so could the other camp. After all, there is often more politics in science than in politics. But, there is one more chart that should be considered here: the 400,000 year ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica showing what has been called the Milankovich Cycle of recurring ice ages, which don't seem to have a direct correlation to CO2 concentrations:

wattsupwiththat.com...

From the article: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???"

This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know."

It may very well be that the SUN is the main driver that causes ice ages, and CO2 doesn't really have much effect in the grand scheme of things (and if anyone has ever heard of Ben Davidson and his "Suspicious Observers" posts on YouTube, he also is a proponent of this theory) . Anyway, very well presented and worth contemplating, IMHO.

a reply to: Varhaard

When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know."

Orbital/obliquity cycles
Volcanic activity
Oceanic circulation patterns
...in addition to reduced solar output. What caused the LIA? Exactly?

See, we can know what reduced solar output can do. Yes, if solar output drops it will get colder and CO2 levels won't matter. So let's assume that's going to happen. Problem solved.

Global warming has been debunked in so far that its junk science and every pseudo scientific claim can be countered by those on the other side. And we can all agree that money is the driving factor in the argument for both sides. So Cosmos gets filed under political BS which is what it was designed to be.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
Global warming has been debunked in so far that its junk science and every pseudo scientific claim can be countered by those on the other side. And we can all agree that money is the driving factor in the argument for both sides. So Cosmos gets filed under political BS which is what it was designed to be.

Wrong. Man Made Global Warming has not been debunked at all. It's still a very valid theory with some really good research going into it. Most of the claims against Man Made Global Warming have been debunked though.

Cosmos is actually a really good scientific program. It's designed to make you think and it really does it's job well. Cosmos is not political BS. Mostly those speaking against Cosmos have an agenda, such as they are afraid of new taxes or they don't believe in evolution.

a reply to: Dutchowl

see, that's where they get you....it's indoctrination....

the planet is getting a bit warmer...and in the 70's they projected it would get cooler....climate change is real, insofar as it being a description of a thing that happens.

the problem is that the fraudsters in the government have started using "climate change" as the euphemism for "man-made global warming". they're actively manipulating the language, so, no matter what you say, you can be painted by your opponent as "anti-science"

though, we do agree that money is the primary driving factor behind the "we did it" theory...


a reply to: amazing

you have yet to answer my reply to you a few posts up...

and you continue to say that it's supported by everyone, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is evil and has an agenda....just because it's real inside your head, doesn't mean it's real out here.....

a reply to: Daedalus


It's not just real inside my head though, I'm basing my statements on the thousands of scientific papers and articles out there by some of the most credible scientists and organizations on the planet.

a couple of points. We debate the actual numbers, but it's a majority of scientists and scientific organizations that agree that man made global warming is real and that we can and should act on it. It's actually way more than a majority as well. Just try google and really do some research. But, saying it's a majority of scientists is a fact.

The other fact is that man made global warming has never been 'debunked'. It's a valid theory with many researchers and scientists working on studies, research and papers even as I type this.

I realize that people are going to try to make money off of this, in the form of taxes and what not, but there are always opportunists. People tried to make money off of 9/11. No matter who you think was behind it, it was a real event. thousands of people really died. Homeland security, the NSA, TSA, people have made billions off of 9/11, that doesn't mean it wasn't real though.

That's the comparison. People will make money off of man made global warming, but that does not mean it's not real.

a reply to: amazing

you're still ignoring my other post...please address it.

at any rate, i think you are falling victim to media programming....it's where someone is bombarded with a lie from so many different sources, that they believe it...it's a classic propaganda tactic; repeat a lie enough, and it becomes truth.

i have yet to see anything compelling that proves beyond any doubt that humans are solely responsible for climatic variations.

i don't need to use google, but perhaps you do.....you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. you can't just say something is so, and expect people to believe it is so..you need to present proof, make a case for your positions and assertions. don't be lazy.

lastly, i think you're looking at this all wrong....you're looking at is as opportunist vultures, looking to make money off something as an afterthought...you need to be able to entertain the possibility that the money, and control, are the PRIMARY motivations....that the entire thing is a lie, to trick us into accepting a reduced quality of life, more laws, more taxes, and less freedom.....you need to be able to entertain this idea, or you're not being intellectually honest..

But Cosmos is on Fox, and we all know fox if full of it. So if fix is full of it and it said global warming is happening....
Does that mean that all the fox hatters are wrong?
Or is cosmos more of Rupert Murdoch's right wing conspiracy

Lol at myself

originally posted by: Astrocyte
That was arguably the most powerful TV program ever broadcast on television since it's invention.

Humm, that's quite a bit of a claim to make. Let's analyze what you are claiming and see if there is any truth to anything you posted here.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
The show begins with a visual of the planet Venus. Were told that the planets outer atmosphere is almost entirely sulfuric oxide - an aerosol - which reflects the suns rays away from the planet. Why then, is Venus 455 degrees celcius - a hellish environment? Because the minute rays of sunlight that do eke by the shield of sulfuric oxide are kept IN by a small concentration of Carbon Dioxide. If you can imagine, an outer gas enveloping the planet keeps energy away from the planet. But the bit of energy that gets through is kept within the lower atmosphere by a gas which enhances the effects of the energy. This is where Venus' boiling hot 455 degree surface temperature comes from.

Wait? say what? Do you even know what is the percentage level of atmospheric CO2 on Venus?... Apparently you don't know. Venus' atmosphere is composed of 96.5% atmospheric CO2. That means that CO2 on Venus exists at the highest level than any other atmospheric gas on Venus, but you want to claim that "CO2 exists in small concentration on Venus"?... Really?... Not to mention that the mass of Venus' atmosphere is 90 times greater than that of the mass on Earth's atmosphere. Also, the pressure on Venus' atmosphere is 90 times greater than that of Earth's.

That statement of yours alone should point out how false your whole argument is, but let's continue.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
In 1775, planetary co2 was measured at 280 ppm. Today, in 2014, it is hovering around 400 ppm. That is an enormous elevation, obviously caused by us and our own profligate use of fossil fuels that power our electrical grid and move our vehicles. The earth has kept these fuels as deposits WITHIN the earth, and out of the atmosphere. Our drilling and extracting these fuels out of the earth and subsequent combustion of them releases co2 back into the atmosphere.

First, the claim that an increase in the levels of atmospheric CO2 of 120ppm is "an enormous elevation", is patently false. The Earth has had higher than 4,000ppmv levels of atmospheric CO2, yet there was no "runaway global warming", despite this we are being told that for some "magical reason" the increase in atmospheric CO2 now is "catastrophic"...

originally posted by: Astrocyte
So were burning fuels that release this gas a byproduct. The atmosphere is getting hotter. So what? We can dial it back by developing technologies like solar, geothermal and wind. True. True. But the issue is far more complicated than this.
...

There have been plenty of "Global Warming periods" in Earth's history in which levels of atmospheric CO2 were much lower than now yet global temperatures were much "higher"... During the Medieval, and Roman Warming periods temperatures were much higher than now and CO2 levels were around 260ppm -280ppm... There were other periods of warming such as the Minoan Warm period in which atmospheric CO2 were lower than now yet temperatures were higher.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
The show goes on to explain that higher atmospheric co2 has ineluctably led to the melting of the frozen waters of the arctic. Today, for the first time in recorded history, the northern passage is open. Ships can sail from Russia to Canada through this northern passage. It's important at this point - if you've allowed a skeptical thought to enter your mind - to remember that co2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

First of all, today we have ships which are much more advanced and much robust than they were during past global warming periods when mankind was exploring the seas. If the Vikings, or the Romans had the "icebreakers" and other advanced ships we have now they would have been able to explore the Artic more than we have. Not to mention that glaciers, like the climate, have increased and decreased in size many times before the present and they have existed at levels which were much more retreated than at the present yet there was no "runaway global warming."

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Thus, it was appropriate that the show returned to the image of Venus at the end. The planet is literally hell. Just think for a second that Venus doesn't have to be as hot as it is. It's the combined influence of aerosols in the outer atmosphere keeping the suns energy out, and carbon dioxide keeping energy in, that makes Venus such a hellhole.

It was not... Venus' atmosphere is completely different than Earth's... Venus atmosphere consists of 96.5% CO2, while on Earth's atmosphere it is at around 0.038% -0.040%... The Earth is not going to become like Venus anytime soon because of mankind activities. The only thing that would cause that sort of change you claim is a "major natural" factor, not associated with mankind...

originally posted by: Astrocyte
If the earth got to hot, and we were forced to put aerosols in the outer atmosphere to cool the planet, how unfortunate it would be if things grew out of control and the earth began to stabilize aerosols in the outer atmosphere without ejecting enough co2 from the lower atmosphere. It seems Venus would be an apposite model of what could result.

This is the usual response from the believers of AGW... To claim mankind's activities is the cause of the ongoing climate change yet they want to mess even more with the environment...

originally posted by: Astrocyte
So, this means, we are up against time. I do not think this show is a coincidence, nor do I think the White Houses official statement a few weeks back was an accident either. People need to face up to the fact that we really are in a dire situation calling for immediate action. This action cannot afford to be delayed. We cannot have our cake and eat it too: we cannot maintain our economic standards if we are to act effectively. We have to accept a carbon tax. We need to make carbon - fossil fuels - too costly to be economically viable. We need to PUSH solar and geothermal and wind, and even nuclear, as replacements.

There lies the real reason behind the false claims that mankind is causing "Climate Change". It's not called "Global Warming" anymore, at least not so much as it used to...

There is a global effort amongst government agencies and groups of powerful rich people who want more control over people, and what we do, how we eat, and even how we think and the false claim that anthropogenic(manmade) CO2 is the cause is a good scapegoat to force people into accepting a world government in which every aspect of people's lives is controlled...

Let's cheer for a One World Government based on lies shall we?...

a reply to: amazing

Wow... seriously... First of all did you know that Hitler put together a group of 100 authors, which were more like 53 authors and not 100, who said Einstein was wrong?... Do you know what Einstein said to this?... “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein)

There is ample evidence that the board of directors of scientific groups are not listening to scientists and instead want to get on the AGW bandwagon to get more funding/more money.

The fact is that the main proponents behind the claims of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) have been caught lying, hiding data, publishing false data, trying to stop scientists who would dare to publish research that refute AGW, and scaremongering people into complying with their false religion that is AGW.

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: Astrocyte
If the ice sheets melt in the Antarctic how many more fossils of plants and animals will they find? I was reading about plant fossils that were 100 million years old and dinosaur bones they found there. Not sure if mankind was burning fossil fuels or coal powered plants back then to make it warm enough for plants to grow in the Antarctic. Sorry but I don't agree that imposing a carbon tax would help lower the temp of the planet. I think it's just a way to get more money from people. If they want to tax something why not tax politicians $20 for every lie they say that way the country would be out of debt and might even have a surplus.

But Antarctic was once closer to the equator. It has been drifting a long time. The British isles were also closer to the equator millions of years ago...

The probability that these climate forcings were seeing - warming ocean temperatures, melting arctic ice and western antarctic ice sheet - being anything other than an increasing Co2 content in the atmosphere is depressingly low. In 1775, Co2 was measured at 280 parts per million. It's been growing higher and higher, reaching exponential expansion in the last 50 years. Were at 400 ppm today. Since 1960, when atmospheric Co2 has been measured in Hawaii (to get a more accurate reading of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere), we have seen it pass 350 ppm and have been watching it go higher and higher. 400 today. It is UNDENIABLE that we are changing the climate by increasing the amount of the chief climate regulating gas in the atmosphere.

So what the # is the skepticism about? YES! Forest fires are connected to climate change. All sorts of atmospheric changes are going to occur as a consequence of meddling with atmospheric Co2. Apparently there are unforeseen consequences to burning black rocks and black ooze from the ground. They look dirty; and they are dirty!

The insanity of the thinking of climate change deniers is mind boggling. If you understand the science, there should be no confusion. There will be frustration with the facts, but no sane person could deny the facts to ease their cognitive dissonance. If you find yourself siding with a skeptical view on climate change, you should ask yourself, "why"? James Hansen, one of the leading scientists on climate change, has given outlined why climate change is so worrisome. The "solar aficionados", as he describes them, have no good reason to attribute the warming were seeing to a change in solar output. The science shows that the sun is not the reason for the changes. Its the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. Now imagine, a few years from now, when the sun reaches the zenith of its solar cycle. Will be people deny global warming then? Mind you, at the suns lowest point - 2007 - we didn't see a stop to ice cap melting. Every decade, the arctics ice covering at the end of summer diminishes. By the time we reach the zenith of the current sun cycle, were sure to see some major melting!

But will it be too late by then? Ignoramuses think that the earth will only function in a negative feedback mode i.e it'll find a way to reduce co2 in the atmosphere, but that is sloppy wishful thinking. Positive feedbacks exist in all chaotic systems. In human minds; in human bodies; and in the physical world as well. Ice, Frozen tundra: these are some of the positive feedback mechanisms nature will unleash when the ice starts melting. Ice reflects 20% of the suns rays. This means as ice melts, there is more and more energy being absorbed by the earth: which means a heating of the oceans. Which means an acceleration of melting ice.

We want to avoid this. This is why climate change is so worrisome. Ice cools the planet. The tundra contains enough decomposed biomatter to double the co2 content in the atmosphere (via methane). There are also methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean which settle there in ICY conditions. But if the ocean warms, the water down there will be brought to the top. This situation could prove absolutely disastrous for not merely human beings, but for most creatures on earth. Human civilization is OVER with if we don't act quickly.

This is what were dealing with. On one hand, there is the economy, and on the other hand, theres ARMAGEDDON. You can claim "this is an only exaggeration" only because you are dumbfounded by the gravity of the claim. This does not make your reaction legitimate. It merely points out that were not used to seeing nature this way; it's hard to believe that we can have such an effect. Most of our lives are lived myopically. Most of us don't care much about science and if were told something based upon science that disturbs our quiet business-as-usual lifestyles were liable to take it with a surprising non-chalance.

Unfortunately, theres too many people who lack the mindfulness to maturely monitor their own thinking. If you think you're justified with your skepticism, theres little I can write to erode your conviction. Perhaps you people will only wake up to how serious this is when everyday life is confronted with the reality of severe climate change. Floods, Droughts, Powerful Hurricances, Tornados, Heat Waves; or maybe the idiots wont wake up until the oceans are literally rising before them. But by then, they will be in their 70s or 80s and so will not care much that they set the planet on a path that will lead to the destruction of their species.

How sad is that? That we would allow ourselves to let such a reality unfold by our stubborn insoucience; greed, selfishness, and a deep lack of affective connection with the earth.