electronic
naif
The Status Quo
is NOT
Acceptable.
This is a Crisis
The greenhouse effect is not in dispute .
Our governments have delayed action to "maintain the economy" for short term profit.
Legal structural inequality accrues most profit to an elite, who through lobbies and donations, control governance.
Legislation favors industry over public health and the environment.
The Science
Anthropogenic climate change is occurring. It will be a significant factor in human history for the 21st century and affect all life in unknown ways. The science of the greenhouse effects are clear.
In the 1820's Joseph Fourier hypothesized the greenhouse effect and described how water vapour and other gases form a dome in the atmosphere that receives and conserves heat. In 1895 Svente Arrhenius published calculations titled "Variation of Temperature Caused by a Given Variation of Carbonic Acid" concluding that a drop in the level of CO2 would result in a lowering of temperature while a doubling of CO2 would lead to an average temperature increase of 4 to 5 degrees celsius.
Charles Keeling began accurate and detailed measurement of CO2 beginning in 1958 at 315 ppm. By 1997 it stood at 365 ppm. Analysis of ice cores yield a concentration of 280 ppm in the late nineteenth century. It reached 410 parts per million in April 2018
We understand that we have a build up of green house gases in our atmosphere. We now know that with the warming of the arctic we have the potential for a large release of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas in the short term.
Rowland and Molina brought the effects of chlorofluorocarbons in the stratosphere to the world's attention in 1975. We as a species do have the ability to alter our environment, to change the processes that affect us daily on a global scale.
We are embarked on an unprecedented process without regard for the consequences.
Two simple charts that define the issue
The increase in Carbon Dioxide Concentration The rise in global temperature
Climate change Deniers focus on the models, on short term effects. Fred Singer spoke in the 90's saying the decade was to short a sample and since the arctic wasn’t warming, global warming was a hoax. Watt’s up, and Heartland institute point to a flat graph since 98 and say this means global warming is a hoax. Charles Lindzen accepts the greenhouse effect but has his theory that upper atmosphere clouds will offset the effect. Koch funded initiatives to fight acknowledgment of warming at a State level. Exxon knew about it from the early 80’s and in 1990, it's board decided to begin a campaign to present the science as uncertain.
This is the same obfuscation of science that was practiced by the tobacco industry. Organizations circulate talking points questioning the need for action.
Simply this is not acceptable.
There are many excellent sites develing into climate science, both clear and detailed.
I would recommend this site that I’ve always found interesting. He is self described “not a climate scientist, but a professional and active scientist who teaches and carries out research at a university in the UK.” His site is much broader than its initial refutation of Wattsup and for me a good example of what science and scientific thought is.