2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?
The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.
Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.
How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.
Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.
Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.
Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.
Where is the climate headed?
The 2007 United Nations-sponsored IPCC report predicted that global temperatures between 2007 and 2030 should rise by an average of 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. The observed warming over the past 30 years is 15 - 30% below that (but within the range of uncertainty given by the 2007 IPCC climate models.) Most of the increase in global temperatures during the past 30 years occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2000s have seen relatively flat temperatures, despite increasing CO2 emissions by humans. The lower-than-expected warming may be partially due to a sharp decrease in stratospheric water vapor that began after 2000. The missing heat may also be going into the deep ocean waters below about 1,000 feet (300 meters), as part of a decades-long cycle that will bring extra heat to the surface years from now. Regardless, the laws of physics demand that the huge amount of heat-trapping gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere must be significantly altering the weather and climate, even if we are seeing a lower than predicted warming. As wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood said in a recent post,Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well-known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."
Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927. I appeared on PBS News Hour on December 28 (video here) to argue that watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids--an analogy used in the past by climate scientists Tony Broccoli and Jerry Meehl. We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, and heavier flooding rains. Natural weather patterns could have caused some of the extreme events we witnessed during 2010 - 2011, and these years likely would have been naturally extreme years even without climate change. But it strains the bounds of credulity that all of the extreme weather events--some of them 1-in-1000-year type events--could have occurred without a significant change to the base climate state. Mother Nature is now able to hit the ball out of the park more often, and with much more power, thanks to the extra energy global warming has put into the atmosphere.
Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted by the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY ONE (11U)
3:00 PM WST January 30 2012
=================================
At 2:00 PM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category One (980 hPa) located at 19.9S 110.1E or 475 km west northwest of Exmouth and 660 km north northwest of Carnarvon has 10 minute sustained winds of 45 knots with gusts of 65 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving west southwest at 5 knots.
Dvorak Intensity: T3.0/3.0/W0.5/24 HRS
Gale Force Winds
--------------------
90 NM from the center
Forecast and Intensity
======================
12 HRS: 20.7S 109.3E - 45 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 21.9S 108.1E - 40 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 25.4S 106.6E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
72 HRS: 26.9S 107.9E - 25 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
Additional Information
=======================
The system has been located by a combination of microwave imagery and VIS. Shear remains low. DT remains at 3.0 based on wrap averaging 0.7, PAT agrees, so FT and CI is held at 3.0.
TC Iggy is maintaining a westerly movement. General consensus is for a southwesterly track over the next 48 hours. By Wednesday the system will be moving over much cooler sea surface temperatures and may be experiencing stronger wind shear, causing Iggy to weaken below cyclone intensity.
It is possible the remnants of Iggy may move back towards the west coast later in the week but it is unlikely that Iggy would still be a cyclone at this time.
The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 13:30 PM UTC..
Tropical Disturbance Advisory #3
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 07F
18:00 PM FST January 30 2012
======================================
At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression 07F (1000 hPa) located at 15.9S 167.8E has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots. THe depression is reported as moving east at 10 knots. Position poor based on multisatellite infrared/visible imagery with animation and peripheral surface observations.
Organization has not improved much in the past 12 hours. Convection remains to the east of the low level circulation center. System lies to the east of an upper trough and under the influence of a strong northwesterly wind flow region aloft. Depression lies in a region of moderate to high vertical shear. sea surface temperature is around 29-30C. System is being steered to the southeast by deep layer mean northwesterly into a region of decreasing shear.
Global models are gradually intensifying the system and moving it southeastwards.
Potential for this system to develop into a tropical cyclone in the next 24 to 48 hours is moderate to high.
Tropical Disturbance Advisory #1
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 09F
18:00 PM FST January 30 2012
======================================
At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression 09F (999 hPa) located at 17.4S 170.6E has 10 minute sustained winds of 25-30 knots. The depression is reported as slow moving. Position poor based on multisatellite infrared/visible imagery with animation and peripheral surface observations.
Convection remains persistent for the last 12 hours. Overall organization has not improved for the past 12 hours. Depression lies to the east of an upper trough and under the influence of a strong northwesterly wind flow aloft. System lies in an area of moderate shear. Sea surface temperature is around 29-30C
Global models are gradually intensifying the system and moving it southeastwards.
Potential for this system to develop into a tropical cyclone in the next 24 to 48 hours is moderate to high.
Sir, your the one attacking, discrediting, and name calling, I'm only bringing to light the methods you and others used against me in the arguments, rather than have a civil discourse!
Why not? one ask!
Because there isn't a political advantage to the argument that Alaska is frozen solid!
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY TWO (11U)
9:00 PM WST January 30 2012
=================================
At 8:00 PM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category Two (974 hPa) located at 20.4S 110.2E or 440 km west northwest of Exmouth and 610 km northwest of Carnarvon has 10 minute sustained winds of 55 knots with gusts of 75 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving southwest at 3 knots.
Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/D0.5/12 HRS
Storm Force Winds
==================
60 NM from the center
Gale Force Winds
--------------------
110 NM from the center
Forecast and Intensity
======================
12 HRS: 21.4S 109.2E - 55 knots (CAT 2)
24 HRS: 23.0S 108.1E - 55 knots (CAT 2)
48 HRS: 26.5S 107.4E - 45 knots (CAT 1)
72 HRS: 27.2S 109.5E - 25 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
Additional Information
=======================
The system has been located by a combination of microwave imagery, visible and infrared. Shear remains low, and there is evidence that strengthening upper level outflow has led to a slight intensification over the past 12 hours. Additionally TC Iggy is now moving into less disturbed waters, and convection has become symmetric about a large diameter eye.
DT is at 3.5 with a curved band wrap of 0.8. SATCON has a 61 kn one minute intensity - in part based on a microwave estimate of 65 kn one minute winds at 06z. As such the intensity is placed at 55 knots 10 minute mean.
Almost all models have come into line on forecast track over the next 48 to 72 hours, and the consensus has been followed here. Some models indicate further intensification, however this forecast holds the intensity at 55 knots, and then begins a weakening trend [due to low SSTs] prior to the system falling below TC intensity and taking a more easterly track.
The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 19:30 PM UTC..
All you need to know about nuclear war. A 12 minute presentation at the recent AGU meeting by Alan Robock of Rutgers.
Link
4 word summary. There are no winners.
Snowing a few extra feet in a location that usually gets several feet of snow anyway does NOT make up for an entire continent being way below average snowfall.
Today's Departure from Normal Lows
30 degrees above normal lows?
Really?
How's the sun supposedly causing that during 12 hours of darkness?
AO has a really big influence on Polish weather. Just look at the Jan 2012 tempeature chart for Wroclaw and you'll see
Yes Alaska is feeling winters fierce grip, but look at the data for this past year vs. the norm of years before. There is about a 6:1 ratio on the earths surface area that was above normal, while if you just look at total Continental land mass, that ratio is closer to 50:1 in above normal temperatures. So what point are you trying to make from that? That it's bad data? Show me how this is incorrect. It is what it is...
Actually the polar bears are currently on your can of Coca-Cola to raise awareness & money. From a corporate advantage it makes great political sense..
Link
Yes, Alaska is below normal but see all the areas in the Arctic that are above normal.
This is one day's measurements. They do not represent "climate" just as one area's weather doesn't.
Climate change better represented by the northward adjustment of the plant hardiness zones as has just occurred in the US.
Whoooooosh!!!! Nothin' but net!!!
Your temperatures has fallen.. That river just partially frozen?
Let me refresh your memory!
I did, however, engage in "discrediting". But that's only because highlighting the lack of credibility in those promoted as credible is how the truth is discovered; it happens everyday in a courtroom near you. (And note that no one "discredited" you, but rather the article to which you linked.)
Thanks Press~ The only reason I didn't link the pic back to where the join us button would take you to donate is, it is a broken link...
i dont even bother with neapolitan. he never said a good thing to me, just negative. so he go poof months ago xD
The year of no winter continues across much of the United States. Our next three days here in Central Illinois is calling for lower to mid 50's for highs. I think average is around 34 for this time of the year, I bet our average this year has been somewhere between 40-45 with little deviation. We have not had many nights below 20 either. Just ridiculous. Looks as if the pattern could change late in the week as the models are having a difficult time of just how it will unfold. I am keeping my fingers crossed for our first potential Midwest snow storm.
SINCE DECEMBER BEAUMONT HAS RECEIVED 9.67 INCHES OF RAIN... LAKE
CHARLES 13.24 INCHES... LAFAYETTE... 8.59 INCHES WITH ALEXANDRIA
REPORTING...11.44 INCHES. VERY WELCOME NEWS FOR A REGION THAT HAS
BEEN IN A DROUGHT OVER TWO YEARS.
Place Alerts Temp. Humidity Pressure Conditions Wind Updated
Aasiaat 9 °F 67% 29.77 in Partly Cloudy NNE at 22 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Angisoq 28 °F 58% 29.27 in Snow NW at 14 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Aputiteeq 22 °F 96% 29.77 in Snow East at 11 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Cape Harald Moltke -25 °F 59% n/a Cloudy NE at 3 mph Estimated Save
Cape Tobin 7 °F 92% 29.89 in Light Snow Fog Variable at 2 mph 1:50 PM EGT Save
Carey Island 0 °F 67% 30.09 in Cloudy SSE at 12 mph 8:00 AM AST Save
Daneborg 1 °F 48% 29.84 in Partly Cloudy South at 4 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Danmarkshavn -2 °F 56% n/a Snow NW at 17 mph Estimated Save
Hall Land -27 °F 69% 30.11 in Partly Cloudy Calm 8:00 AM MST Save
Henrik Kroeyer Holme -4 °F 67% 29.99 in Cloudy NNE at 22 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Ikermiit 25 °F 72% 29.62 in Snow NW at 20 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Ikermiuarsuk 25 °F 27% 29.54 in Cloudy NNW at 28 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Illoqqortoormiut 7 °F 92% 29.89 in Light Snow Fog Variable at 2 mph 1:50 PM EGT Save
Ilulissat -2 °F 60% 29.74 in Clear NE at 10 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Kangerlussuaq -19 °F 56% 29.72 in Clear NE at 9 mph 12:00 PM WGT Save
Kangilinnguit 23 °F 63% n/a Cloudy NNE at 3 mph Estimated Save
Kap Morris Jesup -27 °F 60% n/a Cloudy WSW at 11 mph Estimated Save
Kitsissorsuit -3 °F 68% 30.03 in Cloudy NNE at 7 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Kitsissut 9 °F 57% 29.59 in Clear East at 5 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Kulusuk 27 °F 80% 29.68 in Mostly Cloudy ESE at 23 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Maniitsoq 25 °F 40% 29.36 in Scattered Clouds NW at 6 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Mittarfik Nuuk 18 °F 49% 29.33 in Scattered Clouds Variable at 2 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Narsarsuaq 34 °F 35% 29.24 in Low Drifting Snow ENE at 32 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Navy Operated -24 °F 99% n/a Cloudy South at 17 mph Estimated Save
Nerlerit Inaat 7 °F 92% 29.89 in Light Snow Fog Variable at 2 mph 1:50 PM EGT Save
Nunarsuit 27 °F 72% 29.32 in Cloudy East at 12 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Nuuk 18 °F 49% 29.33 in Scattered Clouds Variable at 2 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Nuussuaataa 0 °F 66% 29.86 in Clear South at 5 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Paamiut 21 °F 24% 29.30 in Mostly Cloudy NE at 4 mph 12:00 PM WGT Save
Pituffik -17 °F 73% 30.09 in Clear East at 10 mph 10:55 AM AST Save
Prins Christian Sund 26 °F 86% 29.19 in Heavy Snow NNE at 51 mph 12:00 PM WGT Save
Qaanaaq -29 °F 83% n/a Clear ESE at 9 mph Estimated Save
Qaarsut 0 °F 66% 29.86 in Clear South at 5 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Qaqortoq 34 °F 35% 29.24 in Low Drifting Snow ENE at 32 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Sioralik 25 °F 40% 29.36 in Scattered Clouds NW at 6 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Sisimiut 9 °F 57% 29.59 in Clear East at 5 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Sisimiut Mittarfia 9 °F 57% 29.59 in Clear East at 5 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Station Nord -17 °F 94% n/a Cloudy North at 9 mph Estimated Save
Station Nord -16 °F 56% 30.11 in Cloudy NW at 6 mph 12:00 PM WGT Save
Summit -23 °F 75% n/a Cloudy South at 17 mph Estimated Save
Tasiilaq 27 °F 80% 29.68 in Mostly Cloudy ESE at 23 mph 11:50 AM WGT Save
Ukiivik 21 °F 48% 29.35 in Cloudy ESE at 8 mph 9:00 AM WGT Save
Upernavik -6 °F 92%
Greenland has diverse temperatures. Ice freezes at 32F
Are you really using 3 La Nina years to disprove global warming?
Please try again.
Some anti-gw people use anything to prove that it aint real. i dont think its real...but i dont think it isnt either lol.
I dont have a side here.
Does it matter? The chart doesn't lie...goes to show the globe warms and cools in response to the oceans. Lower temp anomalies, are lower temp anomalies.
The truth is the truth, its above the din of Human Minds.
Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising
While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.
Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009.
Also notice the tropical low that is forming in Eastern Gulf Of Carpenteria.
(click images for loops)
SH092012 - Tropical Cyclone (<64 kt) IGGY
SH912012 - INVEST
Damage bill for Fiji floods passes $17m
Bad weather hampers Costa recovery
In disaster's path
The chart cherry-picks the peak of the most recent warm cycle and compares it to the trough of a natural cold cycle over an absurdly short time period, and uses the 30 year average as a metric when the 30 year average is now heavily weighted by the 15 warmest years on record.
How is that honest to point to one or two down anomalies, which are themselves far above the up anomalies from earlier in the century, but present the data as though it's an actual cooling trend?
I find it strange though that the 6-10 and 8-14 day forecast which is about the same time this potential storm will be tracking through the country, shows widespread below average precipitation. Whats up with that?
6-10 day
8-14 day
Still...cooler than 09.
Link
"The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position."
"Why is the public presented results of the scientific method and the talk-show method as if they deserved equal respect? A few decades ago that did not happen."
"The fossil fuel kingpins who profit from the public’s fossil fuel addiction, some of them multi-billionaires, are loosely knit, but with a well-understood common objective of maintaining the public’s addiction. These kingpins have the resources to be well aware of the scientific knowledge concerning the consequences of continued exploitation of fossil fuels. However, they choose not only to ignore those facts, but to support activities intended to keep the public ill- informed. These kingpins are guilty of high crimes against humanity and nature. It is little consolation that the world will eventually convict them in the court of public opinion or even, unlikely as it is, that they may be forced to stand trial in the future before an international court of justice."
END QUOTES
THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG WHO GET PAID BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TO DISCREDIT SCIENTIFIC FACT. THEY WILL EVENTUALLY BE SUED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. NOT ONLY WILL THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CLIMATE DISASTER THEY CAUSE, BUT THEY WILL ALSO LOOSE ALL THEIR MONEY AND FREEDOM.
Actually, you're wrong.
According to Kevin Trudeau, and I'm paraphrasing, "There is no law on the books forbidding false advertisement, just so long as it isn't true."
Essentially, you can make any claim you want about a product and it is not illegal, just as long as the claim is not true. That is literally the case in the drug industry.
What I'm getting at is that technically the oil companies have not committed a crime at all.
The constitution forbids the passage of an "Ex post facto" law, which means you cannot punish someone for an act which was not technically illegal before the law was passed, even if it was obviously immoral, and even if everyone knows it "should have been illegal."
ACTUALLY,
Crimes against humanity are a world court issue and laws of the good ol usa don't apply.
Everyone knows that regardless of how the girl died, at least one person in that family was involved in wrongdoing. Even if it was an accident, it was wrong for them to have thrown her body away like trash.
But they didn't PROVE murder. At best they proved mistreatment of a corpse, failure to report a death, and several counts of purgery.
Unfortunately, failure to report a death and mistreatment of a corpse were not a crimes in the state of Florida. So now, even though they are passing the law to make this a crime, they cannot go back and file new charges against Casey Anthony, or for that matter, anyone else who had any involvement in the case.
They could, however, open a case against another suspect if evidence became available to prove someone else was involved in the death or coverup, BUT they could never charge anyone with breaking the new "failure to report a death" law, due to the Ex Post Facto rule.
It will be no trouble to find out if you are employed by the oil industry.
It's not a crime to produce CO2, else they'd have to execute everyone.
You can't legislate away global warming by international law. Want to know why?
Because nobody would obey it anyway, and then if anyone tries to enforce it, they'll start World War 3.
Do you really tink anyone is going to cut their carbon production by 50% in advanced nations just to offset the improvements in world living standards in developing nations and 3rd world nations, and global population continues increasing above 10% per decade?
Not likely unless a complete revolution in energy occurs, AND Americans and Europeans get rid of the "NIMBY" attitude as it regards wind and solar systems.
You haven't seen anything yet, really.
The CO2 and methane curves lag about 16 to 20 years behind the population curve, because a person's individual contribution to pollution doesn't REALLY start to kick in until they start driving regularly, and get their first "real" job.
Viewing: 751 - 801
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index