The CO2 link to ocean acidification and 19 'mass extinctions' with CO2 levels we're now heading toward

Here is a good link fairly unbiased on where and who are in the 97%-3% scientific groups.

The 97% consensus on global warming

Here is the basic question asked.

“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

From what I can gather from those scientists that may be labeled “deniers” they have all answered the above question with YES. The few No answers I believe surrounded the word significant in the question. Again why not ask the real question everyone is talking about and make the question more scientific being as it is being asked of scientists.

They stop short of saying the future science is 100% settled or that the information being fed to the non scientist public and the resulting steps needed to be taken to resolve the real or imagined problems of climate change are set in stone. I will mention the transference of this information including the 97% is not being delivered to the masses thru scientists but rather non-scientists and highly biased media types on both sides.

For that reason the 97% number is a bludgeon in the way it is used. It should really be 100% as all scientists seem to agree human activity is a factor and temperatures have shown signs of change. Nothing really new in the history of the world in fact but maybe the manmade component could be postponing the onslaught of the next ice age a little or greening the world a bit. The public non-scientific narrative is what is being bludgeoned not the science.

As to the Merchants of Doubt book and film I found it interesting that of all the people he could pick from to write the forward to the latest release he chose Al Gore rather than picking any one of the foremost climate scientists he could have had write it. The book parallels tobacco industry antics with climate change issues. I find it a bit ironic Gore raised and backed into congress around growing up in a big tobacco farming family before seeing the light when tide changed surrounding tobacco. But that’s another issue.

No one doubts the reality of manmade climate change. What is at issue is the cure being worse than the problem. I’m in favor of reducing fossil fuels. I’m in favor of EV tech. I’m even in favor of bringing the rest of the world up to a better standard of living and moving the third world into the first world. I happen to believe this can all be done the same way we have done everything in this country over the last couple hundred years.

The first step is to define the problem. The problem as defined Erik Conway (Merchants of Doubt) are that it is now too late likely and the end is around the next corner.

I guess all we need is that elusive master plan, big plan, you are looking for…

The master plan would be great, but a plan is impossible until we understand the scope of the problem

1 Like

Smile, seems pretty clear it is world-wide in scope, to me.

A good place to start in further refining the scope might be the IPCC Synthesis Report - Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability:

Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability | Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (

and their Special Report on Climate Change and Land (link to summary below):

Summary for Policymakers — Special Report on Climate Change and Land (

Now they have javelins coming over.

When trying to state a problem it shouldn’t take 18 chapters and 7 cross chapters written by several hundred technical scientists containing likely over a million words, that they know no one is going to read or comprehend.

IMO the old adage (If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.) at least for me applies to how the IPCC reports out.

That aside I have read thru a good deal of it as I’m sure the folks reporting alarming facts they feel they have found in the text have also done.

I will give it to people like Al Gore 20 years ago he at least tried to boil it down for his movie into a form of science that could be shown to the masses in a way that could be understood and cause a reaction. Even if he was wrong about a lot of it.

Do we expect the average Joe who is working day after day to make ends meet, with a family to take care of buying a new stove or furnace or car, will set down and read a million word report to make his best for the planet decision?

No if they pick an EV it is based on emotion and conjecture of the group they are involved in groupthink with. The information they believe is a media or political driven scenario.

I’m in no way saying the IPCC core reporting isn’t factual. Just that the information extracted and retold by politicians and media and perhaps even the non-scientists administrating the organization are cherry picked and molded to suit a narrative.

Here is a better example of stating the problem from NASA although they heavily rely on the IPCC report. NASA spells out their vision of the problem quite well in just a few pages in a way anyone can understand.

If NASA is to believed it sounds to me we have crossed the tipping point and if we are smart as a nation or even a world we should be spending our resources on adapting and protecting ourselves rather than going all in on reversing a problem to late to reverse. Especially given even if we reduced our CO2 to zero today the countries we do not have control over will drive us over the cliff anyway, and they show no signs of changing.

It will be no small task to move NYC a hundred miles inland so we better get started on that let alone all the other areas that will need to be located. Strange no one is talking about doing that stuff. 25-50 years is not a lot of time.

1 Like

26% of the Netherlands is below sea level. Technology has already been developed and continues to be improved that would prevent the need to move NYC. Perhaps some of it would have to be abandoned, but moving it wouldn’t be necessary. This is the problem that I have with the “alarmists” it seems they only focus on stopping global warming and not recognize that there are technological adaptations that we can implement to deal with some of the “dangers” that global warming presents. Instead, I only hear about the austerity measures that will harm the poor and prevent developing countries like Bangladesh to gain access to the technologies that would help them deal with rising sea levels.


Seems like you should contact John Podesta, who is taking over as the Climate Diplomat. or perhaps contact and get involved with the IPCC or others working on this world-wide issue. I am sure your clear headed thinking will help things get sorted out.

NASA is saying 1 to 6 feet by the year 2100. I’m sure if the 1’ number is most likely NYC already has a safety factor built in that should cover that. Florida at 6 foot would be mostly underwater and a 12 foot sea wall around Fla would be quite a problem. 50 years ago I was down at Hilton Head Island and the growth of the island was beginning. I remember talking to an old timer and him telling of the hundred-year storm that will cover the island that no one wanted to talk about. Now that storm would result in astronomical costs. 150 years ago it would just flood and go back to what it was and no one would care.

Makes me wonder why anyone would buy a home in Martha’s Vineyard for 12M or an 8M beach house in Hawaii with expecting a 6 foot rise in sea levels within the near future. Especially if you owned several other nice multi million dollars homes inland.


I’d have to research it, but off the top of my head I’m pretty sure the Netherlands already has areas below 6ft. I’m also pretty sure parts of New Orleans are that low. New Orleans is probably a bigger concern than NYC. But, my bigger point was I think we should be spending more time on technological adaptations that would place less stress on our and the global economy.

Hmmm, it does make you wonder. Do they know something we’re not being told? Or are they rich enough to not care?

1 Like

image00155 by Steve Zihn, on Flickr

1 Like

LOL. I have to ask what was the tide level at the time each photo was taken? I bet you don’t know because that data isn’t included. This is a coastal environment sea level changes with the tide. I doubt you have much of a tidal influence on the waters of Montana. Well they are 5’ and more at lady liberty. So a high tide in 1900 is still higher than a low tide in 2023. Do you see why those photos lack important context?

Here is what the actual data shows for the change in high tides at that spot just in case you would like to know…
“The human impact, of course, comes from the fact that sea level at a typical high tide in 2020 is 1.3 feet higher than in 1900,”

I grew up at the coast in FL which is why I am well aware of tidal changes. I paddle several times a year here in SC. I have watched the changes along a natural stretch of that coast and have seen first hand significant changes just in the last decade.

You might want to check out what the people who live on many of the Pacific islands have to say about it rather than some misleading photos posted on Flicker and Facebook.

I had decided to leave this topic, but felt that something so blatantly misleading might need a response.


At last some good news about manmade climate change. Well at least some positive news. It seems the science has changed somewhat recently and also world cultures are changing more rapidly than we thought. Start watching around 10:00 for the stuff on climate change and most of the new information starts around 15:00. GZERO WORLD with Ian Bremmer | Facing the Truth with Al Gore | Season 2024 | PBS
New facts:
Once we reach net zero the temperatures will rapidly stop going up within 3 years.

Once we hit net zero half the manmade CO2 will fall out of the atmosphere in 25 years.

The tech to reach net zero is here and it is cheaper than fossil fuels to produce. So there is no reason not to embrace it as capitalism follows cost more for less is always a driver.

China and India are now fully on board and making rapid changes moving away from fossil fuels. 93% of all new energy in India is solar and wind last year. 20% of all new cars world wide are EVs and 50% of motorcycles are EV.

Acording to the scientist doing the speaking there are a few road blocks still like getting the wealthier nations to pay for the underdeveloped ones to move to these new energy sources. Things like democracy like to get in the way of that.

When watching this video don’t let your BS meter get in the way of the facts as this is really great news on the scientific front.

Excellent point. However that photo was issued as a rebuff to those sounding the doom alarm 4 years ago and went all over the internet challenging a set of photos to the contrary. As of now there have been none shown to us, by anyone (you included) of a notable or measurable difference at the Statue of Liberty for tidal averages since 1900.
So you point is 100% valid but also 100% without a context to show otherwise.
So giving a “1/2 argument” is giving no argument.

You could not be more correct in assuming Montana gets no tidal influence (neither does Wyoming)
But because of that fact those of us that live in the Rocky Mountains have to get our information from those that live on the sea shores. As a former military man, I have lived near the oceans for several years and I also have many friends that do now, not just in the USA but also in Ireland, Germany, Italy, New Zealand and South Africa.
Not one of them tells me (and yes I have asked) that the tides are higher now then they were 20 to 65 years ago.

When I KNOW that the “news” networks are paid to support certain agendas (again from personal experience working for the US Government) and that they have been wrong on some issues like this one, for 60+ years and been wrong 100% of the time, it’s not unreasonable to believe those I do know, Those that live on or within 10 miles of oceans all over the earth rather then believe those that lie for a living and are batting a 0 so far.

1 Like

That’s not a rebuff. It is a deliberately incomplete picture intended to mislead people who base their “knowledge” on isolated images or excerpts.

It is out of context, ignoring the much bigger picture of environmental elements.

1 Like

Sorry, but it was hard to get past the BS, and even some of the good news facts weren’t as good news as he attempted to paint it. Just one word really changes the good news about India, “new”. It is good that India is increasing their use of solar and wind, but considering that their consumption is increasing and that the vast majority of their electrical production is still from fossil fuels, is this use of solar and wind really making much impact? It maybe, but I don’t think Al is being completely honest about it. Not to mention, is it actually possible to replace the 70% fossil fuels with the 7% solar and wind? (those numbers are guesses, they maybe slightly higher or lower, but I think the proportions are pretty close to reality)
I don’t think it is just democracy getting in the way. Economics are getting in the way, there is a cost to implementing this technology, many of which would have economic impacts that would prevent “wealthier nations to pay for the underdeveloped ones.” This is my biggest gripe. I get all the arguments that say we “can’t afford” to NOT respond to climate change, but there has to be a balance because if we bankrupt ourselves we “can’t afford” anything.


I agree and sometimes my tongue in cheek replies are not taken as such on big forums.

It is so easy to talk and so hard to do sometimes. That has been my point all along to these issues. Al Gore is in the position having put out this stuff for 30 years or more now he has to keep remaking his brand as people keep track of things and hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

It has been my experience that when you are totally honest with people they will try and get behind a workable solution to just about any problem. It doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong when you start tripping peoples BS meters they are going to start pushing back.

When a hardworking guy trying to feed and shelter his family here finds out his tax dollars are going to be going halfway around the world to help the people there move away from fossil fuels when he is still stuck paying 4 bucks for a gallon for gas and paying a fossil fuel bill to heat his house he doesn’t see it as global equity or saving the planet.

Talk is cheap and when you watch an interview like that tries to rip you down then give you faith only to show you the stumbling blocks in the way are because of our own greedy lifestyles and government that isn’t doing enough.

I really don’t think John Podesta is going to have the answers to the problem or my questions any more than Al Gore has. Al Gore was worth about 2M when he left the VP job for Clinton. He is now worth about 300M. Climate change hasn’t been that bad for him.


Think so? OK, show us 2 pics of the Statue at high and low tide today – and prove your point! Show us proof ---------- instead of falling back on emotions.

1 Like

I don’t think the tide difference would be discernable at the distance the photos are taken at, without much better equipment than a mark 1 eyeball :wink:

You said the tide difference is about 5 feet. The total height from ground level to the tip of the torch is 305 feet and 1 inch, so 5 feet is tiny.

Source: The Statue of Liberty, New York City and Geometry, Shapes, Size, Position, Measurement. Elearning. (


It’s easy to see the people standing around the sea wall and the average is probably something around 5-1/2 feet for the people (averaging from men and women both)

So I’d disagree. I think a 5 foot difference would be very easy to see. I’d guess the Hight of the wall over water level in that photo to be 9 to 10 feet. And from the green line I’d have to guess that photo was taken when the tide was out to one extent or another. In the 1920 photo you can see the same tide line although the tide is a bit higher in that photo. But the mean average high or low tides don’t look to be 5 feet different to me.

Is that any kind of proof Nope! Not for either side of the debate.
But that is my point in it’s entirety. NO proof! LOTS of doom-speech and talk of ‘mass extinction’ even in the OPs heading, but in my near 70 years of life on the earth I see NO proof their stories are correct.

I do NOT say the earth will never get hotter. In fact, I believe it will. A LOT hotter. But it will have zero, nothin, zip NADA to do with human activity or CO2 .

It’s in the Book of the Revelation, the last book of the Bible and when it happens it’s going to be the result of God’s actions, but tax monies and cooperation and belief in socialist agendas is NOT going to cool it down. (I will likely have just the opposite effect in my opinion, for the exact reasons given in the Bible)
But most socialist will tell me I am not entitled to believe what I believe. I am only “allowed” to believe what they believe. And they will tell each other I am “dangerous” for not believe what they believe.
Well…I don’t

1 Like