It is an amazing evolution. First they say that no global warming exists, that the issue must be ignored. Then they ridicule concerns about global warming. Then they fight the science with all political and industrial means. Then they say that global warming exists, but it is not human fault. Then they say our civilization does warm the planet, but now the warming is so strong that we can’t do anything against. Guess what they say now?
You know Mr Patrick Michaels, the Professor Climatologist of the Cato Institute, right? Together with Bjorn Lomborg and MIT’s Richard Lindzen, he is one of the most influential climate change skeptics.
Two months ago, the next day after Katrina hit New Orleans, Patrick Michaels said this:
Two highest category hurricanes in two months later, the conservative NRO website has an article discussing feasibility of controlling hurricanes. They asked Michaels for a judgment as well. (Emphasis mine)
No kidding. From “we can’t do anything” to “we can do anything we want” in two blinks. “Anybody who has thought about this” knows, Michaels realized last week. “It’s time to debate“, global warming as well?! Could we really develop that climate technology, or not quite that easily? Or perhaps genuine respect for Mother Nature is the best technology we can have?
P.S. Kudos to Mahatma Gandhi’s quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.“
P.P.S. Crossposted at European Tribune and DailyKos.
Formerly known as Global “warming”, the phenomenon is now known as GLOBAL HEATING.
“Warming” just sounds so nice and comfy… it’s time to turn up the rhetorical “heat” on these dumb-asses.
Thanks, blue neck. I’ve been saying that for several years: it’s global heating, not warming; it’s the climate crisis, not climate change.
On the main point—this is going to be a difficulty we will have to face. Global heating has a long lead time between cause and effect. So we have to think of it in two parts:
Because if we continue as we have, we will very likely wipe ourselves off the planet, and take most of the lifeforms bigger than cockroaches along with us.
However, not affecting global heating in our lifetime doesn’t mean we don’t move quickly to sustainable and renewable, non-greenhouse gas polluting energy. We should do it for reasons of health, environmental destruction associated with fossil fuels, and in anticipation of the economic and therefore geopolitical implications of peak oil—the time when oil begins to be so incredibly expensive because the end of it is nigh.
Nobody knows what technologies will be developed and applied in the future, but I don’t know of any credible scientist who asserts that we know we will soon be able to control the weather. So you are right to point out that this incredible assertion is just as outlandish as the original one, that global heating wasn’t happening.
Tell it to those penguins marching to their extinction.
is to stop digging the hole.
As for your pt #1, I believe that we can and we must start focusing on decontamination and seuestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. We CAN do something. It requires a huge decision and follow-through on the part of the major polluting countries to invest in a ‘war’ against our own way of doing things.
and #2, we must at least stop digging the hole, and fast. If not, I see the WW of the 22nd century being about who controls the antarctic and siberia, as these could be the last places on earth hospitable to life.
Climate CRISIS, indeed. :O
We should learn one basic things in how much can we really control the climate: can we stabilize the CO2 level? The CO2 ammount has to be stabilized sooner or later. It is better sooner – with higher temperatures we only have run-away scenarios: more forest fires, methane instability in oceans. When we have the CO2 level stable, it is much easier to learn what can be doem with the raising temperature.
If we can never stabilize the CO2 level, we are doomed.The Nature would stabilize it for us by means of massive disasters.