No senor: I learn it from a book!

How seriously should we take global warming? By most accounts, very seriously indeed, especially as there seems to be a critical tipping point at which the whole process takes on a greater velocity. Quite when that tipping point is reached won't be clear until after the event - but that doesn't mean it's not coming, like the giddy moment at the top of a roller coaster....

From memory, here are two items that worry me about the way global warming is set to escalate:-

i) sheets of (white) ice are great reflectors of heat, but the more they reduce, the more they are replaced by areas of (dark) land and sea. As we all know from secondary school, dark colours are good absorbers of heat, so the warmer the planet gets, the more solar heat it will absorb.

ii) the permafrost, that permanently frozen subsoil across Canada and Russia, is beginning to thaw. Unfortunately for us, there are unknown quantities of methane gas locked in the subsoil. In Canada they are studying the methane which is now bubbling up in marshes and swampland which, within living memory, were frozen solid all year round. The double bad luck is that methane has a powerful greenhouse-gas effect, so the warmer the planet gets, the more solar heat it will trap.

I don't like to be swept away by dramatic rhetoric, but if the end of the world is really nigh, well, our language is justified in matching the circumstances. With that thought in mind, I'd like to invite comments on this startling opinion from Noam Chomsky:-

It is indeed startling. And insane.

^ Yes, it sounds extreme, but he's backing up the claim with a pretty good argument.

The idea that we have to pin hopes for environmental improvement on Chinese initiative shows just how desperate the situation has become. :(

You guys be lying about your stances here.

Worst in human history. I'm crying.

^ No lies from me, Goofle. Sometimes I'm mistaken, but I post with sincerity.

^ It was supposed to come off as more of a joking question, I don't think you're being wilfully disingenuous.

I don't know of any republicans who deny global warming or climate change (I'm sure they exist). They have other issues relating to the subject, and are skeptical over the human element of it. But it's pretty wild to claim they simply DO NOT ACCEPT IT and as a result will implement policies that will directly result in a massive catastrophe.

Seems a bit over the top, especially when you're saying they are the worst regime in human history.

Laughing on logs.

There are certainly those who outright deny it, kinda been their schtick for a decade. But like elph said, denying the anthropogenic element of it is just as unscientific.

Those who deny human impact (like I said, Im sure they exist) are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are the worst people in history.

Consider my post to have said "dangerous" instead, then.