Thongchai Thailand

Archive for September 2021

A QUORA QUESTION:

MY ANSWER: PART-1:

MY ANSWER: PART-2

LINKS TO RELATED POSTS

THE BAMBI PRINCIPLE: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/15/the-bambi-principle/

DIVINE ENVIRONMENTALISM: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/15/divine-environmentalism/

PLANETARY ENVIRONMENTALISM: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/09/25/planetary-environmentalism/

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PLANETARY ENVIRONMENTALISM

Here we argue that the concept of the Anthropocene and of human caused planetary catastrophe by way of things like the industrial economy running on fossil fuels are inconsistent with the relative insignificance of humans on a planetary scale. Consider for example, that even as humans are worried about things like carbon pollution and the population bomb in terms of the planet being overwhelmed by the sheer number of humans on earth, humans, like all life on earth, are carbon life forms created from the carbon that came from the mantle of the planet but a rather insignificant portion of it. In terms of total weight, humans constitute 0.05212% of the total mass of life on earth. Yet we imagine that our numbers are so huge that the planet will be overwhelmed by our population bomb. All the life on earth taken together is 0.000002875065% of the crust of the planet by weight. The crust of the planet we see in the pictures from space and where we live and where we have things like land, ocean, atmosphere, climate, and carbon life forms, is 0.3203% of the planet by weight. The other 99.6797% of the planet, the mantle and core, is a place where we have never been and will never be and on which we have no impact whatsoever. In terms of the much feared element carbon that is said to cause planetary devastation by way of climate change and ocean acidification, a mass balance shows that the crust of the planet where we live contains 0.201% of the planet’s carbon with the other 99.8% of the carbon inventory of the planet  being in the mantle and core. 

What if Adam and Eve didn't sin? - Quora

OUR BIBLICAL DOMINION OVER NATURE

(11) THE CONCLUSION WE DRAW FROM THIS MASS BALANCE ANALYSIS IS THAT:  

  1. The crust of the planet where we live is an insignificant portion of the planet.
  2. Life on earth is an insignificant portion of the crust of the planet. 
  3. Humans are an insignificant portion of life on earth. 

Although it is true that humans must take care of their environment, we propose that the environment should have a more rational definition because the mass balance above does not show that humans are a significant force on a planetary scale or that they are in a position to either save it or to destroy it even with the much feared power of their fossil fueled industrial economy. And that implies that it is not possible that there is such a thing as an Anthropocene in which humans are the dominant geological force of the planet. Like ants and bees, humans are social creatures that live in communities of humans so that when they look around all they see are humans. This is the likely source of our human oriented view of the world. Paul Ehrlich’s overpopulation theory is derived from his first visit to India which he described as “people people people people people!” It is this biased view of the planet that makes it possible for us to extrapolate Calcutta to the planet and come up with the fearful image described by Jeff Gibbs as “Have you every wondered what would happen if a single species took over an entire planet?”

  1. THE UNABOMBER’S MOVEMENT AGAINST THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY: [LINK]  
Ted Kaczynski - Wikipedia
humanhands
humanhands2
humanhands3
humanhands4

A QUORA QUESTION ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND ASTEROIDS

QUESTION

ANSWER

LINK TO THE “MODERN HUMANS AND CLIMATE CHANGE” POST

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/27/modern-humans-climate-change/

Image result for HUMAN SOCIETY IN THE NEOLITHIC REVOLUTION

Climate change to spur rising losses in Asia: Swiss Re

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF AN ONLINE ARTICLE ON THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. LINK TO SOURCE: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/impact-climate-change-global-gdp/

The Davos Manifesto: Towards a better kind of capitalism | World Economic  Forum

PART-1: WHAT THE SOURCE ARTICLE SAYS (IN JUNE 2021)

The largest impact of climate change is that it could wipe off up to 18% of GDP off the worldwide economy by 2050 if global temperatures rise by 3.2°C, the Swiss Re Institute warns. Forecast based on temperature increases staying on the current trajectory and the Paris Agreement and net-zero emissions targets not being met. This figure could rise to 18% of GDP by mid-century if temperatures increase by 3.2°C in the most severe scenario. Climate change is a systemic risk that must be addressed now, warns Swiss Re. The global economy could lose 10% of its total economic value by 2050 due to climate change, according to new research. The report The economics of climate change: no action not an option, published by the Swiss Re InASIANstitute, said the forecast about the impact of climate change was based on temperature increases staying on the current trajectory and Paris Agreement and net-zero emission targets not being met. Economists support ‘immediate and drastic action’ against climate change. Climate change will be sudden and cataclysmic. We need to act fast with climate action that could slow global warming. However, the the 10% loss forecast contins uncertainty such that the actual loss could could be as high as 18% if no action is taken and temperatures continue to rise. Climate science has warmed that without climate action, the temperature rise since pre industrial could be as high as 3.2C. The Swiss Re Institute’s Climate Economics Index stress tests how global warming will affect 48 countries – representing 90% of the world economy – and ranks their climate resilience. Global temperature rises will negatively impact GDP in all regions by mid-century. The Swiss Institute’s economics of climate change lays out the expected impact on global GDP by 2050 under four different scenarios compared to a world without climate change. These are: 4% if Paris Agreement targets are met (a well-below 2°C increase), 11% if further mitigating actions are taken (2°C increase), 14% if some mitigating actions are taken (2.6°C increase), 18% if no mitigating actions are taken (3.2°C increase). The impact of climate change has been forecast to be the hardest hit for Asian economies, with a 5.5% hit to GDP in the best-case scenario, and 26.5% hit in a severe scenario. However, there were significant regional variations in the data. Advanced Asian economies are predicted to see GDP losses of 3.3% in case of a below-2°C rise and 15.4% in a severe scenario, while ASEAN countries are forecast to see drops of 4.2% and 37.4% respectively. China is at risk of losing nearly 24% of its GDP in a severe scenario compared to forecast losses of 10% for the US, Canada and the UK and 11% for Europe. The Middle East & Africa, meanwhile, would see a drop of 4.7% if temperature rises stay below 2°C and 27.6°C in the severe case scenario, the report added. Many Asian economies most vulnerable to physical risks. Data showed that economies in South and South-east Asia were the most susceptible to the physical risks associated with global warming. Countries most negatively impacted – including Malaysia, Thailand, India, the Philippines and Indonesia – were often the ones with the least resources to mitigate and adapt to the effects of global warming. However, such nations also have the most to gain from global efforts to reduce temperature rises. Many advanced economies in the northern hemisphere were comparatively less vulnerable, being less exposed to adverse weather patterns linked to global warming and also better resourced to cope with the impact of climate change. The US, Canada, Switzerland and Germany were among countries deemed least likely to be significantly impacted. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2021 identified climate action failure as the most impactful and second-most likely long term risk facing the world in a year when populations continued to struggle mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report warned that billions across the world were at a heightened risk of missing out on future economic opportunities and the benefits of a resilient global community. The WEF emphasizes “Mitigating the impact of climate change”. This is echoed in the Swiss Re Institute report. “Climate risk affects every society, every company and every individual,” says Thierry Léger, group chief underwriting officer and chairman of the Swiss Re Institute. “By 2050, the world population will grow to almost 10 billion people, especially in regions most impacted by climate change. So we must act now to mitigate the risks and to reach net-zero targets. The Institute’s research concludes that the impact of climate change can be lessened if more decisive action is taken to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. This will require cooperation between the public and private sectors to speed up the transition to net zero, it says.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

ITEM#1: ECONOMISTS SUPPORT IMMEDIATE AND DRASTIC ACTION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE. “.

RESPONSE#1: THIS STATEMENT IS AN ADMISSION THAT THE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED HERE BY THESE SAME ECONOMISTS ARE NOT THE PRODUCT OF UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE RESEARCH BUT THAT THE ECONOMISTS HAVE MADE THEIR ECONOMICS ASSESSMENTS AS PART OF A CLIMATE ACTIVISM AGENDA. THESE ASSESSMENTS ARE THEREFORE BIASED BY THE CLIMATE ACTIVISM OF THE ECONOMISTS.

ITEM#2: CLIMATE CHANGE COULD WIPE OFF UP TO 18% OF GDP OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY BY 2050.

RESPONSE#2: THE NEED FOR THE WORDS “COULD” AND “IF” IN THE SAME SENTENCE IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT DERIVE FROM DATA OR INFORMATION BUT FROM SUPPOSITONS. CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS OF THIS NATURE MAY CONTAIN USEFUL INFORMATION IN THE STUDY OF THE RELEVANT DATA BUT THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT FORECASTS AND THEY CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS SUCH.

ITEM#3: CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SYSTEMIC RISK THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW.

RESPONSE#3: THE PHRASE “SYSTEMIC RISK” IS A TERM IN ECONOMICS THAT REFERS TO THE THE RISK OF COLLAPSE OF A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, AN INDUSTRY, OR AN ENTIRE ECONOMY BECAUSE OF HOW IT IS STRUCTURED AND HOW IT WORKS. THE USUAL EXAMPLE OF SYSTEMIC RISK IS THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/21/brianwesbury/ THE USE OF THIS ECONOMICS JARGON IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE ECONOMY IMPLIES THAT THE RISK WE FACE IS NOT BECAUSE AN ANOMALY OR A FLAW OR WHAT WE DID, BUT THAT THE RISK DERIVES FROM THE NATURE OF THE BEAST – IN THIS CASE THE NATURE OF HOW THE ECONOMY OR THE CLIMATE WORKS. THE CONTRADICTION HERE IS THAT SYSTEMIC RISK DOES NOT IMPLY THAT HERE IS A KNOWN CAUSE AND EFFECT PPHENOMENON, THAT WE DID SOMETHING WRONG THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. INSTEAD, BY THE INHERENT NATURE OF HOW CLIMATE IS EXPECTED TO BEHAVE. YET, THE CLIMATE SCIENCE POSITION IS THAT WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE IS NOT SYSTEMIC RISK BUT THE HUMAN INTERVENTION IN THE SYSTEM IN TERMS OF THE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY. THIS ISSUE IS DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/19/vegandiet/ .

ITEM#4: UNCERTAINTY: IT IS STATED THAT THE 10% ECONOMIC LOSS FORECAST CONTAINS UNCERTAINTY SUCH THAT IT COULD BE AS HIGH AS 18% AND THE EXPECTEDE TEMPERATURE RISE OF 2C COULD BE AS HIGH AS 3.2C. THEREFORE THE RISK WE FACE WITHOUT CLIMATE ACTION IS MUCH HIGHER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.

RESPONSE#4: THAT EXPECTED VALUE (MEAN) OF THE ECONOMIC LOSS IS 10% OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WITH RANGE THAT REACHES TO 18% ON THE HIGH SIDE IMPLIES THAT THE MIDPOINT OF THE UNCERTAINTY RANGE IS 10% WITH AN UNCERTAINTY RANGE OF 2% TO 18%. THE IMPLICATION OF THIS LARGE UNCERTAINTY, THOUGH INTERPRETED AS “OH LOOK HOW HIGH IT COULD BE” IS A BIASED VIEW. THE UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF UNCERTAINTY IS THAT WE DON’T REALLY KNOW AND THE BIGGER THE UNCERTAINTY THE LESS WE KNOW. THEREFORE THE UNBIASED VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY IS NOT OH LOOK HOW IT COULD BE BUT RATHER OH LOOK HOW MUCH WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS SYSTEM. THE GREATER THE UNCERTAINTY THE HIGHER IT COULD BE AND IN THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION IT COULD BE AS HIGH AS INFINITY BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY INFORMATION. THIS ODD INTERPRETATION OF UNCERTAINTY IS ALSO FOUND IN CLIMATE SCIENCE AS EXPLAINED IN A RELATED POST ON THIS SITE:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/22/climate-science-uncertainty/

ITEM#5: SIMILARLY, IN REGIONAL ECONOMIC FORECASTS WE FIND LARGE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE FORECASTS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE WILL CAUSE ECONOMIC DECLINES OF 5.5% TO 26.5%, OR 4.7% TO 27.6%, 3.3%T 15.4%, AND 4.2% TO 37.4%. IN ALL OF THESE CASES THE LARGE UNCERTAINIES ARE INTERPRETED AS “OH LOOK HOW HIGH IT COULD BE”.

RESPONSE#5: THIS INTERPRETATION, ALSO FOUND IN CLIMATE SCIENCE AS STATED ABOVE, IS A FLAWED UNDERSTANDING OF UNCERTAINTY. LARGE UNDERTAINTIES DO NOT MEAN “OH LOOK HOW IT COULD BE”. IT MEANS WE DON’T KNOW. THE LESS WE KNOW THE HGHER IT COULD BE AND IN PERFECT IGNORANCE IT COULD BE AS HIGH AS INFINITY BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY INFORMATION.

The Davos Manifesto: Towards a better kind of capitalism | World Economic  Forum

CONCLUSION: THE SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH PAPER COMPILED BY LEADING ECONOMISTS TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR CLIMATE ACTION IN THE UPCOMING GLASGOW COP26 IS AN ADMIRABLE EFFORT AND SURELY WELL INTENTIONED BUT IT IS UNDONE BY TWO FLAWS IN THE LOGIC. THE FIRST IS THE BIAS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN TERMS THE THE HIGH SIDE OF THE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL. THE SECOND IS THE NOTION THAT UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE OF PARTIES (COP) MEETINGS CAN BE EXPECTED TO FORMULATE AND IMPLEMENT CLIMATE ACTION PLANS WITH READILY AVAILABLE HISTORY OF SUCH MEETINGS WITH NO EVIDENCE FOR SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF COPS.

DETAILS IN RELATED POSTS LINKED BELOW:

MORE ABOUT THE UNITED NATIONS#1:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/18/the-eco-crisis-ambition-of-the-un/

Donald Trump Paris Agreement Withdraw Would Challenge World | Time

RELATED POST#1: COP26: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/21/cop26-glasgow-2021/

RELATED POST#2: THE PARIS AGREEMENT: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/05/the-paris-agreement/

Climate change could wipe off up to 18% of GDP off the worldwide economy by 2050 if global temperatures rise by 3.2°C.

COP26: Boris Johnson to travel to UN and White House to push for climate  action ahead of crunch summit | Climate News | Sky News

PART-1: WHAT THE THE BBC REPORT SAYS ABOUT HIS SPEECH TO THE UN

Boris Johnson: Humanity is reaching a turning point on climate change. Boris Johnson: It’s time for humanity to grow up. A climate summit of world leaders in 40 days’ time will be the “turning point for humanity”, PM Boris Johnson has said in a speech to the United Nations. He warned that global temperature rises were already inevitable, but called on his fellow leaders to commit to major changes to curb further warming. Four areas needed tackling – “coal, cars, cash and trees”, he said. Countries must take responsibility for “the destruction we are inflicting, not just upon our planet but ourselves”. “It’s time for humanity to grow up,” he added ahead of the UK hosting the COP26 summit in Glasgow. The prime minister also said it was time to listen to the warnings of scientists. “Look at Covid if you want an example of gloomy scientists being proved right. What do world leaders need to agree to stop climate change? World on course to heat up to dangerous levels. Setting the tone for November’s meeting, he said countries must make “substantial changes” by the end of the decade if the world is to stave off further temperature rises. “I passionately believe that we can do it by making commitments in four areas – coal, cars, cash and trees,” he said. Mr Johnson praised China’s President Xi Jinping for his recent pledge to stop building new coal-fire energy plants abroad. But he called on the country – which produces 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions – to go further and end its domestic use of coal, saying the UK was proof that it could be done. The UK used coal to generate 25% of its electricity five years ago – but that is now down to 2%. Mr Johnson said it would be “gone altogether” by 2024. The prime minister also said he did not see a conflict between the green movement and capitalism, saying that: “The whole experience of the Covid pandemic is that the way to fix the problem is through science and innovation, the break-throughs and the investment that are made possible by capitalism and by free markets.” “We have the tools for a green industrial revolution but time is desperately short,” he added. Elsewhere, the prime minister made a series of calls for action to his fellow leaders, including: to allow only zero-emission vehicles to be on sale across the world by 2040 for every country to cut carbon emissions by 68% by 2030, compared to levels in 1990 to pledge collectively to achieve carbon neutrality – or net zero – by the middle of the century to end the use of coal power in the developing world by 2040 and in the developed world by 2030 to halt and reverse the loss of trees and biodiversity by 2030. Amid the serious warnings, Mr Johnson also attempted to strike a humorous note at points, including saying Kermit the Frog had been wrong when he sang It’s Not Easy Bein’ Green. ‘We missed our cue’ The prime minister reiterated that the world must curb the rise in global average temperatures to 1.5C – the stricter of the two targets set by the UN in the 2015 Paris agreement. However, the world is already 1C hotter compared with pre-industrial levels. “If we keep on the current track then the temperatures will go up by 2.7 degrees or more by the end of the century,” Mr Johnson said. “And never mind what that will do to the ice floes… we will see desertification, drought, crop failure, and mass movements of humanity on a scale not seen before, not because of some unforeseen natural event or disaster but because of us, because of what we are doing now. “And our grandchildren will know that we are the culprits and… that we were warned and they will know that it was this generation that came centre stage to speak and act on behalf of posterity and that we missed our cue and they will ask themselves what kind of people we were to be so selfish and so short sighted.” line Analysis box by Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst Boris Johnson is fashioning himself as a leader on climate change. He has set a benchmark by phasing out sales of most new conventional vehicles by 2030. The international alliance he’s formed to get rid of coal power is gathering support – though not yet enough. And by setting aggressive targets to cut carbon emissions overall (78% by 2035) he is encouraging others to follow. Yet, in his own backyard, the prime minister is stumbling. He previously pledged “never to be lagging on lagging”. But his plan for insulating homes is badly delayed – along with other vital initiatives on issues including aviation, farming and financing the low carbon evolution. Recent research showed his government had imposed less than a quarter of the policies needed to clean up the economy. And some policies – like not opposing a coal mine in Cumbria,cutting taxes on flying and building HS2 – will send emissions up when they are supposed to be going down. At COP26, leaders from 196 countries will be asked to agree action to limit climate change and its effects, like rising sea levels and extreme weather. A recent report from UN scientists warned that global temperatures have risen faster since 1970 than at any point in the past 2,000 years.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

IN RELATED POSTS LINKED BELOW WE DETAIL THE HISTORY OF THE COPS AND NOTE THEIR SEQUENTIAL 100% FAILURES RECORD FROM COP-1 TO COP25. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE MORE GRAND THE SETTING, THE MARKETING, AND THE SPEECHES, THE GRANDER THE FAILURE. WHAT WE SEE SO FAR IN THE GRANDNESS AND GRANDEUR OF THE ASSUMPTIONS, THE SETTINGS, AND THE SPEECHES FOR THE 26TH COP IS THAT IT IS RIPE FOR THE GRANDEST DEMISE OF ALL. AND THEN WE WILL JUST SHAKE IT OFF AND START MAKING PLANS FOR A GRAND COP27.…. JUST AS WE HAD DONE IN COPENHAGEN AND ELSEWHERE SO MANY TIMES BEFORE.

COP 15 and COP/MOP 5 - 7-18 December 2009 - Copenhagen - Denmark

THE PARIS AGREEMENT

Posted by: chaamjamal on: June 5, 2021

Paris, the most beautiful city in the world.
Donald Trump Paris Agreement Withdraw Would Challenge World | Time

The only AGREEMENT in the Paris Agreement is that the participating countries AGREED TO SUBMIT INDCs. That is all that the participating countries agreed to do. And in fact all the countries that had agreed to submit INDCs did in fact submit INDCs.

The key to understanding the Paris agreement is to understand what an INDC is and what it isn’t

(1)First of all, the way we understand what the word agreement means is that there is one document – one statement, that all the participants signed and agreed to abide by but there is no such document in the Paris Agreement.

(2): This oddity of what is called an agreement is a creation of the failure of the COPs (United Nations Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC) and that failure is best understood in the context of the history of the UN’s ambition to be a kind of global Environmental Protection Agency by way of the UNEP (united nations environment program).

(3): The UNEP began life with a bang when the UN put together a Global Agreement called the Montreal Protocol where all the nations signed the same document agreeing to change refrigerants. This agreement is credited with having solved the ozone depletion crisis. This apparent success of the newly formed UNEP led to the assumption that the UN could likewise put together a “Montreal Protocol for climate change” (MPFC) with a global agreement to reduce global fossil fuel emissions.

(4): To get such an agreement signed by all nations, the UN put together a global agreement signed by almost all nations called the UNFCCC where the signatories agreed that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution. The nations that signed this agreement are called Parties to the UNFCCC. The next and final step in resolving the climate crisis was to call a “Conference of Parties” or COP, for the parties to sign a binding emission reduction agreement. Sadly, the COP ended without a signed “Montreal Protocol for the Climate (MPFC).

(5): This failure was a significant event. Flustered and confused in the abject failure of the COP, the UN bureaucrats decided to call for another COP to be called COP2 and line up some more impressive speakers about the dangers of climate change and make some modifications to the emission reduction agreement to get the parties to sign the modified MPFC. But COP2 also failed.

(6): The UN bureaucrats were unable to comprehend the enormous difference between changing refrigerants and overhauling the world’s energy infrastructure. and ventured into a program of tweeking the contract and bringing in more impressive speakers and more scary assessments of what will happen to us and the world and maybe the planet if we don’t do the MPFC. The short version of this story is that after COP3, COP4, COP5, COP6, COP7, COP8, COP9, COP10, COP11, COP12, COP13, COP14, and the very dramatic COP15 in Copenhagen that was described by climate scientists, climate activists, and the UN bureaucrats as a DO OR DIE meeting. It died.

(7)But the climate movement and the UN could not accept this devastating failure and the UN bureaucrats decided that what they needed was a change in strategy. It was the devastating failure in Copenhagen that convinced the UN bureaucrats that more and more speakers with greater and greater fear of climate change will not work and will not deliver the MPFCIt was in Copenhagen that the subtle shift in strategy had to be made to keep toning down the demands in the MPFC until the all the Parties would sign the climate agreement.

Copenhagen - Wikipedia

(8): And so the climate agreement dream was not over yet and on we went to COP16, COP17, COP18, COP19, COP20, COP21, COP22, COP23, and COP24. But still no MPFC and still without an agreement.

(9): A dramatic shift in strategy came in COP25 in ParisThe new desperate strategy was this: If they won’t sign the contract we wrote let them write the contract that they will signAnd so it was that in COP25 in Paris, France that this new strategy was implemented where each nation could independently and in isolation write the agreement that it was willing to sign and then sign it. The collection of these “INDC”s that don’t agree is then assumed to be an AGREEMENT of some kind so the UN can say that they did their job and delivered the MPFC..

(10): The contradictions in this claim have gone unchallenged and so it is to this day that we still accept a collection of INDCs that don’t agree and that are not binding as some kind of global climate action contract that can be claimed to be the delivery of the promised MPFC.

Cirque du Soleil clowns in Paris, Nov 28 2012 - ABC News (Australian  Broadcasting Corporation)

(11): The reality is that the Paris Agreement is not an Agreement to agree but an agreement to disagree and that therefore there is no MPFC and no global agreement to cut global emissions and that this is why we are in an illogical climate action plan of the climate heroism of nation states without a MPFC to reduce global emissions.

NUMNUT UN BUREAUCRAT USES COVID TO SELL CLIMATE | Thongchai Thailand

(12): The new strategy of climate heroism of nation states is something to which the UN fully agrees as the UN Secretary General has framed his new climate action program as some kind of cheerleader making speeches for “AMBITION” of nation states to cut emissions. This is now the confused state of affairs in the expectation that the UN would deliver the MPFCThat didn’t happen. We do not have an MPFC.

That's All Folks HD - YouTube

(13): THE PARIS AGREEMENT:

RELATED POST ON COPS: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/21/cop26-glasgow-2021/

#5: HERE WE PRESENT THIS COMICAL HISTORY OF COPS FROM THE RELATED POST LINKED ABOVE.

UNFCCC: For a global climate action agreement signed by all nations, the UN put together a global agreement signed by almost all nations called the UNFCCC where the signatories agreed that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution. The nations that signed this agreement are called Parties to the UNFCCC. or just “parties” for short. The next and final step in resolving the climate crisis and to get the Montreal Proocol for the Climate signed by all Parties was to call a “Conference of Parties” or COP for the parties to sign a binding emission reduction agreement. That the COP would produce the global climate action agreement was a given since the UN had produced the Montreal Protocol and since the Parties had signed the UNFCCC.

#6: But SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE, the CONFERENCE OF PARTIES that the UN was sure would yield a global climate action agreement just like the Montreal Protocol and the UNFCCC, ended without a signed “Montreal Protocol for the Climate (MPFC). NOW WHAT????

Customer Reviews: Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C.: The Complete Series [24 Discs] [DVD]  - Best Buy

#7IT WAS THIS UNANTICIPATED FAILURE OF THE UN THAT BEGAN THE LONG AND COMICAL SEQUENCE OF COP AFTER COP NUMBERED FROM 1 TO 25 AND NOW EXTENDED TO 26. AFTER THE SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE FAILURE OF WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FIRST AND ONLY COP, THE UN BUREAUCRATS DECIDED THAT ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS TO HOLD THE COP AGAIN WITH SOME CHANGES TO THE CLIMATE ACTION CONTRACT, TO OFFER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR COUNTRIES AND CHARGE THE RICH COUNTRIES FOR THAT ASSISTANCE, AS WELL AS TO SCHEDULE SPEECHES BY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITH GREATER FEAR APPEAL AGAINST FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.

#8: COP2 2006SO THE COP WAS HELD AGAIN IN 2006, THIS TIME IN GENEVA SWITZERLAND, WITH CHANGES THE UN BUREAUCRATS WERE SURE WOULD YIELD A GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION AGREEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE UN, THE REPEAT COP, NOW KNOWN AS COP2, ADOPTED 18 DECISIONS ABOUT EXEMPTIONS, FINANCE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND SOMETHING CALLED “EFFECTIVE EVALUATION” BUT SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, THE SECOND ATTEMPT AT THE COP YIELDED NO CLIMATE ACTION AGREEMENT. THE REPEAT COP, NOW KNOWN AS COP2, HAD FAILED JUST AS THE ORIGINAL COP HAD.

Customer Reviews: Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C.: The Complete Series [24 Discs] [DVD]  - Best Buy

#9: SO THE UN HAD TO MAKE YET ONE MORE ATTEMPT TO GET THE PARTIES TO SIGN A GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION PROGRAM. THIS NEXT MEETING WAS HELD IN KYOTO JAPAN IN 1997 AND IT IS KNOWN AS COP3. THERE THE UN IN CONCERT WITH ITS IPCC CLIMATE CHANGE SPECIALISTS HAD DEMANDED A 60% REDUCTION IN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS BY 2012 BUT SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, IN THE END ALL THEY COULD GET THE PARTIES TO SIGN WAS A REDUCTION OF 5.2%.

Customer Reviews: Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C.: The Complete Series [24 Discs] [DVD]  - Best Buy

 #10: THE SHORT OF THE STORY IS THAT The UN bureaucrats were unable to comprehend the enormous difference between changing refrigerants in the Montreal Proocol and overhauling the world’s energy infrastructure, and the idea that the Montreal Protocol could be repeated in the climate issue encouraged the UN bureaucrats to continue the process of tweeking the contract, of bringing in more impressive speakers and more scary assessments of what will happen if we don’t do the MPFC. The short version of this story is that after COP3, COP4, COP5, COP6, COP7, COP8, COP9, COP10, COP11, COP12, COP13, COP14, and the very dramatic COP15 in Copenhagen that was described by climate scientists, climate activists, and the UN bureaucrats as a DO OR DIE meeting. It died. But the climate movement and the UN could not accept this devastating failure and the UN bureaucrats decided that what they needed was a change in strategy. It was the devastating failure in Copenhagen that convinced the UN bureaucrats that more and more speakers with greater and greater fear of climate change will not work and will not deliver the MPFC. It was in Copenhagen that the subtle shift in strategy was made. The new strategy was to keep toning down the demands in the MPFC until all the Parties would sign the climate agreement.

#11: THE NEW DESPERATION STRATEGY OF THE UN BUREAUCRATS WAS THEN, THAT IF THEY WON’T SIGN THE CONTRACT WE WROTE, WE MUST WRITE THE CONTRACT THEY WILL SIGN AND IN COP25 IN PARIS, THIS DESPERATE STRATEGY BECAME TRANSFORMED INTO THE TWILIGHT ZONE. THE DESPERATION OF THE UN TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THEIR HAND THEY COULD CALL AN AGREEMENT TOOK THEM TO THE TWILIGHT ZONE STRATEGY OF “IF THEY WON’T SIGN THE CONTRACT WE WROTE AND IF THEY CAN’T AGREE ON A SINGLE CONTRACT LET THEM EACH WRITE THE CONTRACT THEY WILL SIGN SEPARATELY. THESE SEPARATE AND INCONSISTENT CONTRACTS WRITTEN SEPARATELY BY EACH PARTICIPATING COUNTRY WERE THEN COLLECTED INTO THE SAME BOX AND THAT BOX WAS THEN CALLED THE PARIS AGREEMENT, THE FIRST AGREEMENT THAT THE UN WAS ABLE TO GET FROM THE PARTIES SINCE COP1 AND THIS BOX SOON BECAME FAMOUS AS THE SO CALLED “PARIS AGREEMENT” WITH THE UN VINDICATED AND EVEN CONGRATULATED FOR HAVING FINALLY DELIVERED THE GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION PROGRAM, THE SO CALLED MONTREAL PROTOCOL FOR THE CLIMATE.

The Twilight Zone Illustrations - Design Force

#12: The new desperate strategy was this: If they won’t sign the contract we wrote let them write the contract that they will sign. And so it was that in COP25 in Paris, France that this new strategy was implemented where each nation could independently and in isolation write the agreement that it was willing to sign and then sign it. The collection of these “INDC”s that don’t agree is then assumed to be an AGREEMENT of some kind so the UN can say that they did their job and delivered the MPFC. The contradictions in this claim have gone unchallenged and so it is to this day that we still accept a collection of INDCs that don’t agree and that are not binding as some kind of global climate action contract that can be claimed to be the delivery of the promised MPFC. The reality is that the Paris Agreement is not an Agreement to agree but an agreement to disagree and that therefore there is no MPFC and no global agreement to cut global emissions and that this is why we are in an illogical climate action plan of the climate heroism of nation states without a MPFC to reduce global emissions.

#13: The new strategy of the UN Secretary General of a role as cheerleader for climate heroism of nation states is now the confused state of affairs in the expectation that the UN would deliver the MPFC. That didn’t happen. We do not have an MPFC. THE ONLY FUNCTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS THAT IT ALLOWS THE UN TO PUNCH OUT WITH A FACE SAVING CLAIM OF HAVING DELIVERED THE EXPECTED MPFC SUCCESS. AND YET, THAT WE NEED A COP26 IN GLASGOW IN 2021 IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO MPFC. AFTER BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MORE THAN 25 YEARS OF THE PROMISE OF DELIVERING THE MPFC, ALL THE UN CAN DO IS TO SCHEDULE YET ANOTHER COP.

NUMNUT UN BUREAUCRAT USES COVID TO SELL CLIMATE | Thongchai Thailand
That's All Folks HD - YouTube

RELATED POST ON THE PARIS AGREEMENT LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/05/the-paris-agreement/

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CLAIM BY NASA CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT THE CURRENT WARMING CYCLE OF THE HOLOCENE MUST BE HUMAN CAUSED BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY OF GLACIATION CYCLES.

LINK TO SOURCE: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

PART-1: WHAT THE SOURCE ARTICLE SAYS

In the last few months, a number of questions have come in asking if NASA has attributed Earth’s recent warming to changes in how Earth moves through space around the Sun: a series of orbital motions known as Milankovitch cycles. What cycles, you ask? Milankovitch cycles include the shape of Earth’s orbit (its eccentricity), the angle that Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital plane (its obliquity), and the direction that Earth’s spin axis is pointed (its precession). These cycles affect the amount of sunlight and therefore, energy, that Earth absorbs from the Sun. They provide a strong framework for understanding long-term changes in Earth’s climate, including the beginning and end of Ice Ages throughout Earth’s history. (You can learn more about Milankovitch cycles and the roles they play in Earth’s climate here). But Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for the current period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century. Scientists are confident Earth’s recent warming is primarily due to human activities — specifically, the direct input of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

So how do we know Milankovitch cycles aren’t to blame?

First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat. Second, Milankovitch cycles are just one factor that may contribute to climate change, both past and present. Even for Ice Age cycles, changes in the extent of ice sheets and atmospheric carbon dioxide have played important roles in driving the degree of temperature fluctuations over the last several million years. The extent of ice sheets, for example, affects how much of the Sun’s incoming energy is reflected back to space, and in turn, Earth’s temperature. Then there’s carbon dioxide. During past glacial cycles, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere fluctuated from about 180 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm as part of Milankovitch cycle-driven changes to Earth’s climate. These fluctuations provided an important feedback to the total change in Earth’s climate that took place during those cycles. Today, however, it’s the direct input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that’s responsible for changing Earth’s atmospheric composition over the last century, rather than climate feedbacks from the ocean or land caused by Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased 47 percent, from about 280 ppm to 412 ppm. In just the past 20 years alone, carbon dioxide is up 11 percent. Scientists know with a high degree of certainty this carbon dioxide is primarily due to human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels leaves a distinct “fingerprint” that instruments can measure. Over this same time period, Earth’s global average temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), and is currently increasing at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) every decade. At that rate, Earth is expected to warm another half a degree Celsius (almost a degree Fahrenheit) as soon as 2030 and very likely by 2040. This relatively rapid warming of our climate due to human activities is happening in addition to the very slow changes to climate caused by Milankovitch cycles. Climate models indicate any forcing of Earth’s climate due to Milankovitch cycles is overwhelmed when human activities cause the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere to exceed about 350 ppm. Scientists know of no natural changes to the equilibrium between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy radiated back to space that can account for such a rapid period of global warming. The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval. If Earth’s current warming was due to the Sun, scientists say we should expect temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the next layer of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, to warm. Instead, observations from balloons and satellites show Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere have warmed but the stratosphere has cooled. Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago. There’s nothing cool about that.

The Worm is Back! | NASA

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

THE FIRST ISSUE HERE IS TIME SCALE. THE MILANKOVITCH CYCLE WAS PROPOSED TO EXPLAIN GLACIATION CYCLES AT TIME SCALES OF 100,000 TO 200,000 YEARS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TEST THAT THEORY AGAINST WARMING AND COOLING CYCLES OF AN INTERGLACIAL PERIOD AT CENTENNIAL AND MILLENNIAL TIME SCALES.

THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE HOLOCENE INTERGLACIAL TEMPERATURE CYCLES EXPLAINED IN A RELATED POST: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/17/the-oddity-of-an-interglacial-warming-cycle/

WHAT WE FIND IN THAT RELATED POST IS THAT THE CURRENT WARMING CYCLE IS NOT A UNIQUE OCCURRENCE OF THE THIS INTERGLACIAL BUT THAT IT IS PART OF A 9,000 YEAR SEQUENCE OF ALTERNATING WARMING AND COOLING CYCLES AT 100 TO 1000 YEAR TIME SCALES. TO USE THE FAILURE OF THE MILANKOVITCH CYCLE TO EXPLAIN THE CURRENT WARMING AS PROOF OF HUMAN CAUSE IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE MILANKOVITCH CYCLE EXPLAINS THE OTHER WARMING AND COOLING CYCLES OF THE HOLOCENE AS FOR EXAMPLE THE HOLOCENE CLIMATE OPTIMUM, THE MINOAN WARM PERIOD, THE ROMAN WARM PERIOD, THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD AND THE INTERVENING COOLING PERIODS AS IN THE DEVASTAING 8.2K COOLING. WHAT WE FIND IN THE DATA FOR BOTH THE HOLOCENE AND THE PREVIOUS INTERGLACIAL THE EEMIAN, IS THAT INTERGLACIALS ARE NOT AT A STEADY TEMPERATURE BUT VIOLENT CYCLES OF WARMING AND COOLING AT TIME SCALES OF 100 TO 1000 YEARS. THE UNIQUENESS OF THE CURRENT WARMING CYCLE OF THE HOLOCENE CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN TERMS OF THE FAILURE OF THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY TO EXPLAIN IT ONLY IF THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY CAN BE SHOWN TO EXPLAIN THE EIGHT OTHER TEMPERATURE CYCLES OF THE HOLOCENE.

Customer Reviews: Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C.: The Complete Series [24 Discs] [DVD]  - Best Buy

THE 2021 TROPICAL CYCLONE SEASON WILL END IN NOVEMBER BUT HERE AS OF THE END OF SEPTEMBER, THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF SPECULATION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS MADE THIS SEASON EXCEPTIONALLY SEVERE.

ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA: LINK: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclones_in_2021 , 114 TROPICAL CYCLONES HAD FORMED IN ALL SIX TROPICAL CYCLONE BASINS OF THE WORLD AND 67 OF THEM WERE STRONG ENOUGH TO BE NAMED. THE STRONGEST WAS TYPHOON SURIGAE IN THE WEST PACIFIC CYCLONE BASIN WITH WIND SPEEDS OF 220 KM/HR AND THE DEADLIEST WAS CYCLONE SEROJA IN THE SOUTH INDIAN CYCLONE BASIN. THE COSTLIEST WAS HURRICANE IDA IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC CYCLONE BASIN. THE TROPICAL CYCLONE SEASON SO FAR IS SUMMARIZED IN THE WIKIPEDIA IMAGE REPRODUCED BELOW.

DETAILS OF THESE TROPICAL CYCLONES MAY BE FOUND ON WIKIPEDIA.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF SPECULATION ABOUT THE ROLE OF GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CREATION OF THE EXTENT, INTENSITY, AND DESTRUCTIVENESS OF THE 2021 TROPICAL CYCLONE SEASON. HOWEVER, AS EXPLAINED IN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT ATTRIBUTION LISTED BELOW, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ATTRIBUTE ONE SEASON AT A TIME TO CLIMATE CHANGE. SUCH ATTRIBUTION CAN BE MADE ONLY WITH LONG TERM TRENDS OF 40 YEARS OF MORE OF THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED CYCLONE ENERGY OF ALL TROPICAL CYCLONES IN ALL SIX CYCLONE BASINS.

TOM KNUTSON, LEAD AUTHOR OF THIS PAPER

SUCH A STUDY IS PRESENTED IN A RELATED POST FOR A HISTORICAL TIME SPAN. NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT TREND IS FOUND IN TOTAL CYCLONE ENERGY OF ALL TROPICAL CYCLONES IN ALL CYCLONE BASINS. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/11/28/trends-in-tropical-cyclone-activity/

THE RELEVANT IMAGES FROM THAT STUDY ARE REPRODUCED BELOW.

sstacegif

THE BOTTOM LINE:

NO EVIDENCE IS FOUND FOR A RISING TREND IN TOTAL ACCUMULATED CYCLONE ENERGY FOR ALL TROPICAL CYCLONES IN ALL SIX CYCLONE BASINS.

 

FROM QUORA

“It’s a fact, we can’t be more sure; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”, Professor Ed Hawkins told the BBC. What do you think? We’ve known CO2 trapped infrared light and increase air temperatures since experiments in the 1850s. The first calculation of what this might mean was published by Arrhenius in the 1890s. Neato factoid I just heard: he’s one of Greta Thunberg’s ancestors. I’m really not sure how I missed that before. By the late 1970s there was no doubt that warming was occurring. When we sent satellites up with sensors which could detect atmosphere temperatures across large areas and correlated the findings with them, it was clear that global warming was indeed occurring. There was very little scientific doubt in the 1980s when the UN established the IPCC, produced the first report and the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. There was far more than enough evidence 40 years ago to know that climate change was real, serious and caused by us. The only doubts were how serious, how soon and what we would do about it. And the last 40 years has been an abject lesson in the power of propaganda, funded by the fossil fuel industry which is the primary source of greenhouse gases globally. Of course, within the past couple of years we’ve achieved the gold standard of evidence, 99.9999% confidence that the temperature changes we’ve been seeing are caused by us. So when a person acquainted with the evidence says in 2021 that “It’s a fact, we can’t be more sure; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”, I agree with them. The amount of uncertainty remaining, 0.0001%, is so insignificant that it’s not worth talking about. Unless you are a climate change denying idiot or fossil fuel industry PR flak or lobbyist. The former is biased, ignorant and likely stupid. The latter is venal, biased and possibly ignorant and stupid. Keeping Quora’s signal to noise ratio higher. The new IPCC report has the deniers on Quora all riled up, raising them from their drunken day sleep, keyboard patterns on their cheeks, week-old food on their shirts , their fists shaking at clouds. As a request from your non-sponsor, make Quora bit better for yourself and others when you see a denier in action. Go to their profiles. Report or downvote as much of their content as you can stomach. Report them for whichever of the many Quora policies they have violated, from harassment to insincere questions to inappropriate credentials. This will not only improve your feed as you’ll see less of their content, but improve the feeds for everyone else using Quora as well. Pass it forward.

RESPONSE: SINCE THE AUTHOR OF THE EMAIL CITED THE ED HAWKINS PAPER I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A FEW COMMENTS RELATIVE TO THAT PAPER. HERE IS THE ABSTRACT OF THE PAPER WITH LINK TO THE FULL TEXT.

Anderson, Thomas R., Ed Hawkins, and Philip D. Jones. “CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today’s Earth System Models.” Endeavour 40.3 (2016): 178-187. Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7 °C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, based on the ensemble-mean results of state-of-the-art Earth System Models (ESMs). Just how reliable are these projections, given the complexity of the climate system? The early history of climate research provides insight into the understanding and science needed to answer this question. We examine the mathematical quantifications of planetary energy budget developed by Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927) and Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964) and construct an empirical approximation of the latter, which we show to be successful at retrospectively predicting global warming over the course of the twentieth century. This approximation is then used to calculate warming in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases during the twenty-first century, projecting a temperature increase at the lower bound of results generated by an ensemble of ESMs (as presented in the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This result can be interpreted as follows. The climate system is conceptually complex but has at its heart the physical laws of radiative transfer. This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar’s calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming. The ESMs include not only the physical core but also climate feedbacks that introduce uncertainty into the projections in terms of magnitude, but not sign: positive (amplification of warming). As such, the projections of end-of-century global warming by ESMs are fundamentally trustworthy: quantitatively robust baseline warming based on the well-understood physics of radiative transfer, with extra warming due to climate feedbacks. These projections thus provide a compelling case that global climate will continue to undergo significant warming in response to ongoing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. FULL TEXT https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300308

AND HERE ARE SOME OF MY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PAPER.

#1: QUOTE: “The early history of climate research provides insight into the understanding and science needed to answer this question. We examine the mathematical quantifications of planetary energy budget developed by Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927) and Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964) and construct an empirical approximation of the latter, which we show to be successful at retrospectively predicting global warming over the course of the twentieth century

RESPONSE:

ARRHENIUS WAS USING THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF CO2 AND H20 OVER TIME SCALES OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS TO EXPLAIN GLACIATION CYCLES. HIS THEORY OF GLACIATION CYCLES HAS SINCE BEEN DISCREDITED AND DISCARDED IN FAVOR OF THE MILANKOVITCH THEORY. IN ANY CASE, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORK OF ARRHENIUS IN TERMS OF INTERGLACIAL WARMING AND COOLING CYCLES AT MILLENNIAL AND CENTENNIAL TIME SCALES IS NOT POSSIBLE.

AS FOR GUY CALLENDAR, HE HAD DETERMINED, USING A CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF ecs=2, THAT THE WARMING FROM 1900 TO 1936 WAS CAUSED BY RISING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 FROM THE BURNING OF COAL IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION BY WAY OF THE HEAT TRAPPING EFFECT OF CO2 DESCRIBED BY TYNDAL. HOWEVER, THIS WORK OF CALLENDAR IS DISCREDITED BY THE SO CALLED ETCW ISSUE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/09/the-etcw-issue-in-climate-science/

BRIEFLY, THE ETCW ISSUE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE IS THAT WARMING FROM THE TURN OF THE CENTURY TO 1950 CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW) SUCH THAT IT IS SOME KIND OF ANOMALY FOR WHICH CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS NO EXPLANATION. THUS, THE ETCW PRETTY MUCH WIPES POOR OLD CALLENDAR OFF THE MAP.

MORE ON THE CALLENDAR PAPER: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/29/peer-review-comments-on-callendar-1938/

AS FOR WARMING “SINCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL” BY WAY OF THE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY, THE ETCW ANOMALY PRETTY MUCH WIPES OUT THE ORIGINAL IPCC AND CLIMATE SCIENCE POSITION THAT THE REFERENCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL YEAR WAS 1760.

IT HAS SINCE BEEN MOVEUP UP TO 1850 AND LATER TO 1950. CURRENTLY, NASA AND CLIMATE SCIENCE IN GENERAL HOLDS THAT THE REFERENCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL YEAR WHEN THE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION STARTED THE GLOBAL WARMING WAS THE YEAR 1950 WHEN THE 1940S COOLING HAD BOTTOMED OUT AND WARMING TREND HAD BEGUN.

THESE DETAILS SHOW THAT THE CLIMATE SCIENCE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT AS BLACK AND WHITE AS PEOPLE THINK IT IS.

YET ANOTHER COMPLICATION IN THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING THAT IS NOT GENERALLY KNOWN IS THE EXTREME UNCERTAINTY IN THE ECS CLIMATE SENSITIVITY – THE AMOUNT OF WARMING EXPECTED FROM A DOUBLING OF CARBON DIOXIDE. THE STANDARD IPCC POSITION IS THAT ECS=3 WITH AN UNCERTAINTY DESCRIBED AS 3 +/- 1.5, IN OTHER WORDS CLIMATE SENSITIVITY IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1.5 AND 4.5, A HUGE RANGE THAT CREATES WILDLY DIFFERENT FORECASTS OF HOW BAD IT WILL GET EXCEPT THAT THE UNCERTAINTY ISSUE IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN THAT AS EXPLAINED IN THIS RELATED POST: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/10/the-climate-sensitivity-issue/ THE BOTTOM LINE IN THE ECS UNCERTAINTY ISSUE IS THAT “YES WE KNOW THAT CO2 CAUSES WARMING BUT WE DON’T REALLY KNOW HOW MUCH EXACTLY.

THESE VEXING HEADACHES WITH THE CLIMATE SENSITIVITY ISSUE DROVE CLIMATE SCIENCE TO ABANDON THE ECS ALTOGETHER WITH A NEW THEORY CALLED “TRANSIENT CLIMATE RESPONSE TO CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS” OR TCRE. IT SAYS THAT THE AMOUNT OF WARMING IS PROPORTIONAL TO CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS. HOWEVER, AS IT TURNED OUT, THE TCRE DID NOT SAVE CLIMATE SCIENCE FROM THE ECS UNCERTAINTY ISSUE. IT ENTICED CLIMATE SCIENCE INTO DEEPER AND MORE HORRIFIC STATISTICAL ERRORS THAN WHAT IT NORMALLY COMMITS, AS EXPLAINED IN RELATED POSTS ON STATISTICAL ERRORS IN CLIMATE SCIENCE LINKED BELOW.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/05/18/climate-science-vs-statistics/

QUESTION:

Environmental concerns and economic growth cannot co-exist. Do you agree?

ANSWER:

I disagree because economic growth and environmentalism not only co-exist, they are causally related. It is only after a society gets rich from economic growth that they can afford to play these eco waco games as masters and caretakers of nature.

The poor are just trying to survive as part of nature and not as the caretakers of nature.

Bottom line: Economic growth and eco wacko activsm must co-exist because economic growth is needed to develop the eco wacko value system and lifestyle.

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTALISM THAT BEGINS WITH A LECTURE ON ENVIRONMENTALISM BY GREENPEACE.

LINK TO GREENPEACE: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/11658/a-brief-history-of-environmentalism/

PART-1: WHAT THE GREENPEACE ARTICLE SAYS

Awareness of our delicate relationship with our habitat likely arose among early hunter-gatherers when they saw how fire and hunting tools impacted their environment. Anthropologists have found evidence of human-induced animal and plant extinctions from 50,000 BCE, when only about 200,000 Homo sapiens roamed the Earth. We can only speculate about how these early humans reacted, but migrating to new habitats appears to be a common response. Ecological awareness first appears in the human record at least 5,000 years ago. Vedic sages praised the wild forests in their hymns, Taoists urged that human life should reflect nature’s patterns and the Buddha taught compassion for all sentient beings. In the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, we see apprehension about forest destruction and drying marshes. When Gilgamesh cuts down sacred trees, the deities curse Sumer with drought, and Ishtar (mother of the Earth goddess) sends the Bull of Heaven to punish Gilgamesh. In ancient Greek mythology, when the hunter Orion vows to kill all the animals, Gaia objects and creates a great scorpion to kill Orion. When the scorpion fails, Artemis, goddess of the forests and mistress of animals, shoots Orion with an arrow. In North America, Pawnee Eagle Chief, Letakots-Lesa, told anthropologist Natalie Curtis that “Tirawa, the one Above, did not speak directly to humans… he showed himself through the beasts, and from them and from the stars, the sun, and the moon should humans learn.” Some of the earliest human stories contain lessons about the sacredness of wilderness, the importance of restraining our power, and our obligation to care for the natural world. Early environmental response. Five thousand years ago, the Indus civilisation of Mohenjo Darro (an ancient city in modern-day Pakistan), were already recognising the effects of pollution on human health and practiced waste management and sanitation. In Greece, as deforestation led to soil erosion, the philosopher Plato lamented, “All the richer and softer parts have fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land remains.” Communities in China, India, and Peru understood the impact of soil erosion and prevented it by creating terraces, crop rotation, and nutrient recycling. The Greek physicians Hippocrates and Galen began to observe environmental health problems such as acid contamination in copper miners. Hippocrates’ book, De aëre, aquis et locis (Air, Waters, and Places), is the earliest surviving European work on human ecology. Advancing agriculture boosted human populations but also caused soil erosion and attracted insect infestations that led to severe famines between 200 and 1200 CE. In 1306, the English king Edward I limited coal burning in London due to smog. In the 17th century, the naturalist and gardener John Evelyn wrote that London resembled “the suburbs of Hell.” These events inspired the first ‘renewable’ energy boom in Europe, as governments started to subsidise water and wind power. In the 16th century, the Dutch artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder painted scenes of raw sewage and other pollution emptying into rivers, and Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius wrote The Free Sea, claiming that pollution and war violate natural law. Environmental rights Perhaps the first real environmental activists were the Bishnoi Hindus of Khejarli, who were slaughtered by the Maharaja of Jodhpur in 1720 for attempting to protect the forest that he felled to build himself a palace. The 18th century witnessed the dawn of modern environmental rights. After a yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin petitioned to manage waste and to remove tanneries for clean air as a public “right” (albeit, on land stolen from Indigenous nations). Later, American artist George Catlin proposed that Indigenous land be protected as a “natural right”. At the same time in Britain, Jeremy Benthu, wrote An Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation which argued for animal rights. Thomas Malthus wrote his famous essay warning that human overpopulation would lead to ecological destruction. Knowledge of global warming began 200 years ago, when Jean Baptiste Fourier calculated that the Earth’s atmosphere trapped heat like a greenhouse. Then, in 1835, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote Nature, encouraging us to appreciate the natural world for its own sake and proposing a limit on human expansion into the wilderness. American Botanist William Bartram and ornithologist James Audubon dedicated themselves to the conservation of wildlife. Henry David Thoreau wrote his seminal ecological treatise, Walden, which has since inspired generations of environmentalists. Hiking Tour through the Spessart Mountains © Andreas Varnhorn / Greenpeace Hikers on a tour in the Spessart Mountains. Trees with first leaves, deadwood with moss. © Andreas Varnhorn / Greenpeace A few decades later, George Perkins Marsh wrote Man and Nature, denouncing humanity’s indiscriminate “warfare” upon wilderness, warning of climate change, and insisting that “The world cannot afford to wait” – a plea we still hear today. At the end of the 19th century, in Jena, Germany, zoologist Ernst Haeckel wrote Generelle Morphologie der Organismen in which he discussed the relationships among species and coined the word ‘ökologie’ (from the Greek oikos, meaning home), the science we now know as ecology.

In the early 20th century, the chemist Alice Hamilton led a campaign against lead poisoning from leaded gasoline, accusing General Motors of willful murder. The corporation attacked Hamilton, and it took governments 50 years to ban leaded gasoline. Meanwhile, industrial smog choked major world cities. In 1952, 4,000 people died in London’s infamous killer fog, and four years later the British Parliament passed the first Clean Air Act. Ecology grew into a full-fledged, global movement with the development of nuclear weapons. Albert Einstein, who felt morally troubled by his contribution to the nuclear bomb, drafted an anti-nuclear manifesto in 1955 with British philosopher Bertrand Russell, signed by ten Nobel Prize winners. The letter inspired the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, in the UK – a model for modern, non-violent civil disobedience. In 1958, the Quaker Committee for Non-Violent Action launched two boats – the Golden Rule and Phoenix – into US nuclear test sites, a direct inspiration for Greenpeace a decade later. Rachel Carson brought the environmental movement into focus with the 1962 publication of Silent Spring, describing the impact of chemical pesticides on biodiversity. “For the first time in the history of the world,” she wrote, “every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals.” Shortly before her death she expressed the emerging ecological ethic in a magazine essay: “It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the Earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know the sense of wonder and humility.” The ecology symbol designed by comic artist Ron Cobb The ecology symbol designed by comic artist Ron Cobb Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss cited Silent Spring as a key influence for his concept of ‘Deep Ecology’ – ecological awareness that goes beyond the logic of biological systems to a deep, personal experience of the self as an integrated part of nature. In The Subversive Science, Paul Shepard described ecology as a “primordial axiom,” revealed in ancient cultures, which should guide all human social constructions. Ecology was “subversive” to Shepard because it supplanted human exceptionalism with interdependence. In India, villagers in Gopeshwar, Uttarakhand, inspired by Gandhi and the 18th century Bishnoi Hindus, defended the forest against commercial logging by encircling and embracing trees. Their movement spread across northern India, known as Chipko (“to embrace”) – the original tree-huggers. In 1968, the American writer Cliff Humphrey founded Ecology Action. One media stunt involved Humphrey gathering 60 people in Berkeley, California, to smash his 1958 Dodge Rambler into the street, declaring, “these things pollute the earth.” Prophetically, Humphrey told Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter, “This thing has just begun.” A year later, inspired by the writings of Carson, Shepard, and Naess, and by the actions of Chipko and Ecology Action, a group of Canadian and American activists set out to merge peace with ecology, and Greenpeace was born. Co-founder Ben Metcalfe commissioned 12 billboard signs around Vancouver that read: It’s hard to imagine now, but in 1969, most people did have to look it up. Ecology was still not a household word, although it soon would be. Crew of the Greenpeace – Voyage Documentation (Vancouver to Amchitka: 1971) © Greenpeace / Robert Keziere The aim of the trip was to halt nuclear tests in Amchitka Island by sailing into the restricted area. Crew on-board the ship, are the pioneers of the green movement who formed the original group that became Greenpeace. © Greenpeace / Robert Keziere In 1977, after two anti-nuclear bomb campaigns and confrontations with Soviet whalers and Norwegian sealers, Greenpeace purchased a retired trawler in London and renamed it the Rainbow Warrior, after a indigenous legend from Canada. The Cree story (recounted in Warriors of the Rainbow, by William Willoya and Vinson Brown) tells of a time when the land, rivers, and air are poisoned, and a group of people from all nations of the world band together to save the Earth. Nearly a half-century after the foundation of Greenpeace, the global ecology movement has reached every corner of the world, with thousands of groups springing up to defend the environment. Meanwhile, the challenges facing us grow ever more daunting. The next half-century will test whether or not humanity can respond to the challenge.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

  1. CLAIM: Anthropologists have found evidence of human-induced animal and plant extinctions from 50,000 BCE, when only about 200,000 Homo sapiens roamed the Earth. RESPONSE: There are of course large uncertainties in data of this nature but the standard theory of the first human caused extinction is the Dodo bird 400 years ago.
  2. CLAIM: Fire and hunting tools impacted the environment. RESPONSE: Fire was used to make hunting tools by paleolithic humans in their caves. The environmental impact cannot be compared with natural wildfires. If fire caused extinctions or environmental impact, paleolithic humans cannot be compared with nature in that context.
  3. CLAIM: Ancient Indian Vedas and Buddhism provide evidence of early environmentalism. RESPONSE: These religious details of ancient Indians concerned about their re-incarnation status cannot be described as environmentalism any more than the practice of the Jains of not killing any living thing. Religion is not environmentalism and that assessment also applies to the Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem of a religion. Environmentalism may be a religion but religious scripture of traditional religions cannot be described as environmentalism
  4. CLAIM: In ancient Greek mythology, when the hunter Orion vows to kill all the animals, Gaia objects and creates a great scorpion to kill Orion. When the scorpion fails, Artemis, goddess of the forests and mistress of animals, shoots Orion with an arrow. In North America, Pawnee Eagle Chief, Letakots-Lesa, told anthropologist Natalie Curtis that “Tirawa, the one Above, did not speak directly to humans… he showed himself through the beasts, and from them and from the stars, the sun, and the moon should humans learn.” Some of the earliest human stories contain lessons about the sacredness of wilderness, the importance of restraining our power, and our obligation to care for the natural world. RESPONSE: As in the case of religion, so in this case, ancient mythology cannot be understood as eco wacko values and action. There is no recorded eco wacko actions of these ancients who happened to have a mythology that can be interpreted by modern eco wackos as an eco wacko value system.
  5. CLAIM: In North America, Pawnee Eagle Chief, Letakots-Lesa, told anthropologist Natalie Curtis that “Tirawa, the one Above, did not speak directly to humans… he showed himself through the beasts, and from them and from the stars, the sun, and the moon should humans learn.” Some of the earliest human stories contain lessons about the sacredness of wilderness, the importance of restraining our power, and our obligation to care for the natural world. RESPONSE: As in religion, that modern eco wacko activists can interpret the mythology of the ancients in terms of their eco wacko value system reveals only that the primitive societies can be interpreted in terms of eco wacko by eco wacko activists but not that these people had envronmental ideals and priorities that had given them an eco wacko lifestyle and an eco wacko relationship with nature.
  6. MORE OF THESE: Five thousand years ago, the Indus civilisation of Mohenjo Darro (an ancient city in modern-day Pakistan), were already recognising the effects of pollution on human health and practiced waste management and sanitation. In Greece, as deforestation led to soil erosion, the philosopher Plato lamented, “All the richer and softer parts have fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land remains.” Communities in China, India, and Peru understood the impact of soil erosion and prevented it by creating terraces, crop rotation, and nutrient recycling. The Greek physicians Hippocrates and Galen began to observe environmental health problems such as acid contamination in copper miners. Hippocrates’ book, De aëre, aquis et locis (Air, Waters, and Places), is the earliest surviving European work on human ecology. Advancing agriculture boosted human populations but also caused soil erosion and attracted insect infestations that led to severe famines between 200 and 1200 CE. In 1306
  7. COAL BURNING IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: That during the Industrial revolution an English King ordered reductions in coal burning for the sake of air quality for the humans does make sense but it is not an eco wacko action in which humans are in charge of taking care of nature.
A Brief History of Environmentalism - Greenpeace International

SUMMARY OF ANCIENT ECO WACKOISM: That ancients had primitive lifestyles and belief systems about how the world works and about their role in it tells us nothing other than the primitive state of primitive people and it certainly does not imply that modern humans today must imitate these primitive people.

The primitive beliefs and practices of the ancients have no relevance to the eco wacko activism issue of our time where the human ego has decided that humans are not just another species of mammals and not a part of nature but that they are a God-like life form external to nature with the God-like duty of taking care of nature.

This assumption by the humans that first appeared in the West where there is a Biblical tradition, surely derives from Genesis in the Bible that explicitly assigns humans the job as the masters and operaters of nature by way of the “DOMINION” given to the humans by God himself.

As explained in a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/15/the-bambi-principle/ , The combination of Genesis and the Bambi image of what nature looks like, what it is, and how it relates to humans, has completely corrupted our true place in nature and made us into god-like managers and caretakers of nature. This Bambi image of nature and our Genesis role of Dominion over nature has corrupted our view of the world, of nature, of life on earth, and of our role in it so much so that what we find is that even the Pope is on Youtube spouting eco wacko nonsense as seen in this related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/15/divine-environmentalism/

Download "Laudato Si" | Pope Francis' Encyclical on Environment and Climate  Change

Some examples of the Pope’s eco wacko vision of nature with my response in red.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

HOWEVER, THE SECOND HALF OF THE GREENPEACE TEXT ABOVE THAT APPEARS IN A DIFFERENT COLOR DOES DESCRIBE THE REAL ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE SIXTIES IN THE USA WHEN A HIPPIE MOVEMNT AGAINST SMOG AND AIR POLLUTION TURNED INTO A MOVEMENT AGAINST FOSSIL FUELS AND AGAINST THE DISREGARD FOR THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRY IN THE POST WAR ECONOMIC BOOM ON AIR AND WATER QUALITY AND ON THE HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE CITIZENS. THIS MOVEMENT IS ONE IN WHICH THIS BLOGGER PARTICIPATED AND IT IS DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST ON THIS SITE:

LINK https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/30/the-humans-must-save-the-planet/ WHERE WE FIND:

The rapid industrial and economic growth in the post-war era progressed mostly without adequate safeguards against environmental degradation. This situation became sensationalized through a series of high profile events that captured public attention. The wanton use of pesticides such as DDT was blamed for killing butterflies and birds (Carson, 1962). The explosive growth in automobile ownership shrouded large cities like Los Angeles and New York in smog (Gardner, 2014) (Haagen-Smit, 1952) (Hanst, 1967). The widespread dumping of industrial waste into lakes and rivers was highlighted by events such as the fire in the Cuyahoga River (Marris, 2011) (Goldberg, 1979). The hippie counter-culture movement of the 1960s rejected many conventional values and in particular, the assumed primacy of technological advancement and industrial growth. It opposed the unrestricted use of pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, food additives, fertilizers, and other synthetic chemicals. It fought against the release of industrial waste into the atmosphere and into waterways, the harvesting of old growth forests for the wood and paper industries, and the inadequacy of public transit that if expanded could limit the number of automobiles in big cities and the air pollution they cause (Rome, 2003) (Zelko, 2013).(3): This environmental movement was the driving force behind the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA which was given the laws, the ways, the means, and the power to act quickly and decisively to clean up the air and water(Ruckelshaus, 1984). In Canada, a Ministry of Environment was created with the same mandate. The EPA cleaned up the air and the water in the USA with strictly enforced new laws and procedures that limited the concentration of harmful chemicals in all industrial effluents and also required all new enterprises to obtain the approval of the EPA of their environmental impact before they could proceed. The remarkable success of the EPA made it a model for environmental law and environmental protection in countries around the world (Ruckelshaus, 1984) (Andreen, 2004) (Dolin, 2008). This development was the esssence of environmentalism in its true sense but the enthusiasm that it created and the power of activism that it revealed led to its corruption by what is called the Bambi Principle described in a related post.

THE EXTENSION OF ENVIRONMENTALISM TO THE BAMBI PRINCIPLE

Environmentalism in its conceptual sense is the idea that humans should take care of the environment (surroundings) for their own good such that human life, health, and security are enhanced. This idea is contained in the hippie wisdom that if you shit in bed you will sleep in shit. At some point, the enthusiasm of environmentalism became separated from this fundamental reality and the conceptual underpinnings of environmentalism were arbitrarily extended in a spirit of emotional enthusiasm into what we can call the “The Bambi Principle” discussed in a related post linked above in which the concept of environmentalism became corrupted first by separating humans from nature and second with a role for humans as caretakers of nature.

It meant that humans must take care not only of their environment (surroundings) but of nature itself such that humans now saw themselves as caretakers of nature. This is the corruption of environmentalism that has rendered it into a Biblical expression of Genesis. It is thus that the environmentalism that started out fighting pollution to enhance human welfare became corrupted by Genesis and Bambi into changing their self image from being part of nature to being the lords and caretakers of nature.

HERE WE ARGUE THAT GENESIS SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD ONLY AS RELIGION AND NOT AS ENVIRONMENTALISM. HUMANS ARE PART OF NATURE AND NOT THE MANAGERS AND CARETAKERS OF NATURE.

GENESIS AND BAMBI HAVE CORRUPTED ENVIRONMENTALISM.

hippie5

THE CONFUSION AND FRUSTRATION OF STUDENTS BEING TAUGHT THIS NONSENSE AT HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE ARE EASY TO SEE IN THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THEY ASK ONLINE AT THE QUORA SITE WHERE MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE REFLECTIONS OF THEIR DIFFICULTY WITH ASSIGNMENTS: LINK: Quorahttps://www.quora.com

HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES

  1. WHY ARE ENZYMES IMPORTANT TO THE ENVIRONMENT?
  2. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE?
  3. WHAT ARE SOME OBJECTS ON OUR EVERYDAY LIFE THAT ARE A CATASTROPHE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?
  4. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS YOU CAN DO TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT?
  5. ROCKS ARE ALL AROUND US. IT IS USED FOR BUILDING MATERIALS, CARS, ROADS, AND APPLIANCES. HOW CAN YOU PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN UTILIZING THESE RESOURCES?
  6. HOW DOES OVERPOPULATION OF HUMANS THREATEN THE ENVIRONMENT?
  7. HOW DOES GLOBALIZATION THREATEN THE ENVIRONMENT?
  8. HOW DOES ESS CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING EARTH SUSTAINABLE?
  9. HOW HAS MAN CONQUERED THE ENVIRONMENT INSTEAD OF ADAPTING TO IT?
  10. HOW CAN YOU BE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY?
  11. WHY IS ECO INNOVATION THE NEED OF TODAY? HOW CAN WE ADOPT IT?
  12. WHY DO WE NEED TO PROTECT THE AMAZON RAINFOREST TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT?
  13. WHY ARE WINNIE THE POOH AND FRIENDS LIKE THE ORGANISMS IN THE ECO SYSTEM?
  14. WHY IS WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SO IMPORTANT?
  15. DO YOU THINK THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WILL BE SO CONTENTIOUS THAT IT WILL CREATE STRAINED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NATIONS AND LEAD TO WAR AGAINST NON COMPLIANT NATIONS?
  16. HOW MUCH POPULATION CAN THE EARTH SUSTAIN AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE TOO MANY?
  17. WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY TO UNDERSTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?
  18. WHAT IS THE ISSUE OF ECO ENVIRONMENTAL WATER DEMAND IN THE RIVER? WHAT ARE THE METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE ECO ENVIRONMENTAL WATER DEMAND IN THE RIVER? WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?
  19. WHAT IS YOUR PRINCIPLE TOWARDS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?
  20. WHAT INDUSTRIES SHOULD HUMANITY COMPLETELY ELIMINATE TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT?
  21. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO DEAL WITH THE HARMFUL EFFECT OF HUMAN ENGAGEMENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENT?
Quotes about Environmentalist (99 quotes)
Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse: Bailey, Ronald:  9780312109714: Amazon.com: Books



  • David: thank you very much for that information.......something I was unaware of....very interesting.....
  • Ruben Leon: 1st you write your opinion and then you search for other opinions to support your opinion and call your opinion science. I'm as sure that the orbit
  • Ruben Leon: People who believe CO2 is causing climate change are either ignorant of basic science or they don't believe in gravity. CO2 is 10% heavier than Cal