Tom Toles for June 23, 2013

Obama saying we’re getting serious on climate change is code for: We need more money from these suckers….er, taxpayers.

onguard You’d be better posting a picture of yourself

@Reflex-76Hmmm, maybe you’re right. Tornados never existed before massive industrial progress that would’ve SURELY resulted in climate change. Before that the weather was ALWAYS ideal and perfect….oh, wait….http://nation.time.com/2013/05/21/10-deadliest-tornadoes-in-u-s-history/

The hundred-year storms are coming every year now. But climate change is a hoax. Classic right-wing logic. And “The Flintstones” was a documentary.

First: even if you were right (and the sun does contribute to climate change, obviously, as any moron knew already), that does NOT mean we can ignore it. There are already dramatic changes happening that could transform our civilization, ranging from shifts in soil fertility and rainfall to geopolitical dynamics changing due to the melting ice cap.Second: you are wrong. Humans have made tremendous differences to the environment; several of them contribute to global warming, e.g., record-breaking levels of CO2, increased methane from breeding cattle for food, chopping down forests that previously absorbed CO2, etc., etc., etc.I find it odd that you think posting a picture of the sun is, I don’t know, a clever retort of some kind? The whole point of the greenhouse effect is that it captures solar energy and keeps the heat to a higher degree. No one — NO ONE — misses this point. So citing it is somewhat like saying “oh, yeah? Well, two plus two equals four! So there!”We get it. Move on to the second grade.

Now that is an interesting question. The answer is no, for two reasons:1. Mars gets much less sunlight than Earth – a little over one-third (one estimate I saw was 36%), though because less sunlight is scattered, the practical brightness is about half of Earth’s.2. The atmosphere is too thin to retain the heat. (Barometric pressure of 6.8 millibars to 10.8 millibars estimated on Mars contrasted to around 1000 millibars on Earth.) It leaks away.One could argue that the reason that Mars is relatively warm as the Solar System goes (-116 to 32 degrees F) is because the CO2 helps a little heat stay behind!

The atmosphere of Mars is also only about 1% (if that much) of the atmosphere of the Earth, which is also some 50% closer to the sun. And the atmosphere of the Earth is only a fraction of that of Venus, which is far closer to the sun than the Earth is, and through its own form of CO2 (and other gasses) global warming, has a surface temperature in the hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit. So, your point is not only unscientific, it is also totally illogical, and therefore is not worth posting in the first place. Hopefully you were just posting out of the general ignorance of science that most testing is now showing many average Americans to have, and not the kind of malice towards science and scientists that I sometimes see here!!

You ignorance of the state of California (with the ONLY economy that generates over $2 trillion dollars of GDP of all of the states of the union) is only exceeded by your ignorance of both science, and even simple logic!!!!

Believe it or not China may very well end up being a leader. 1 new coal plant per week may be true, as well as most rivers there being far too polluted to swim in, however it is still dumping money into green investments and is right now on track to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 and see reductions by 2050. I find to expect much more to be irrational for an industrializing country. In developed countries however we have accumulated massive amounts of capital, unfortunately due to lack of exponential growth ( we grow at about same amount as China per person, Population # and actual rate accounted for) Investments tend to go into other countries understandably looking to better payout.************************************************This would signal a need for financial reform that deals with a non exponential economy, preferably by long term investments, renewable energy combined with near autonomous factories is a possibility for long yield productivity growth, however it would reduce need for jobs, this itself should be a good thing. However due to the nature of people needing jobs it is not. A possibility would be more holidays, shorter work weeks. so forth. While our labor conditions aren’t draconian and 40 hours isn’t slavery it still would prove to be more practical and beneficial on the whole to utilize lack of need for work as lack of need for work, rather than characterizing it as lack of being economic competitive.

Those vegetables bring up an other issue of anthropogenic changes. Five decades ago, Rachel Carson sounded a warning, just as climatologists and biologists were likewise speaking of climate change, actually. While the negative effects of DDT were reduced in the U.S., in other countries it took longer to go for substitute methods (like, actually mosquito netting) that were more effective, and less harmful.

Today we have the problem of nicotinoids, and other pesticides wiping out our pollinators of many of those vegetables, and fruits, and nuts, resulting once again in “Man” shooting himself in the foot like a blind man with a machine gun.

The contempt for science on the right is rather remarkable. Brigham Young told his folks that gulls eating the locust in the Salt Lake Valley were a sign. As we’re also killing off our bird species at a rapid rate with those same pesticides, and habitat destruction in the move toward “progress” and unregulated population growth and destruction of the land’s productivity to park our cars, the signs of Man’s dominance and “dominion” aren’t promising.

Those should be teabags, not vegetables. Polls show a majority of the general public thinks climate change should be addressed.

You should spout off about observations???? HA! You’re talking about a change that’s happened in just YOUR life time from less that 50 years ago. I’M talking about observations from MUCH longer. We’ve only been recording weather patterns for less than 200 years. You trying to tell me that you’re ignoring all the history before your 50 years of experience? You’re ignoring that through THOUSANDS of years many climate changes have occurred withOUT man’s influence. You’re very short sighted.

amen

No comment. Your post suggests your lack of sensible reasoning.