Slashdot Mirror
Formerly Classified Global Warming Spy Photos Released
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration has released more than a thousand intelligence images of Arctic ice, following a declassification request by the National Academy of Sciences. The images feature a 1m resolution, and scientists who have had to base climate models on 15m- or 30m-resolution photos are rejoicing. The photos, kept classified by the Bush administration, show the impact of global warming in the Arctic and the retreat of glaciers in Washington and Alaska."
At least we're winning the battle against something!
"Glaciers are not permanent structures. So what?"
Neither are humans, particularly when they have no fresh water.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Neither are planets.
Since the summary and article do not mention it, 1m resolution = One Meter Per Pixel.
I had to research that to figure out why a one megapixel resolution was some how magically better than thirty megapixels.
Why was a spy satellite taking snaps of the ice classified? The ice launching an incursion into US territory? Are they afraid the terrible secret of ice will be revealed?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
How long as it been accelerating?
Oh, right, only since the Industrial Revolution.
Glaciers have retreated before, many times, and the Earth survives.
The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists) is that it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour, and that much of the ecology won't be able to adapt quickly enough.
Us humans doubtless will be able to adapt, but in the short term the impact in terms of our economies and human suffering, will be considerable.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I thought I was going to see a significant movement in the ice sheets, on the order of 10's or 100's of miles. From what I saw, the rate of decline was statistically meaningless, measured in mere feet. My guess is the previous administration was more concerned with releasing something that would show or capabilities of our spy satellites and not trying to conceal this.
Just so you don't go through the whole evening in suspense, it's in TFA - there are numerous puddles of sizes in meters that are important to the reflectivity of the ice. The older pics didn't resolve the puddles well - the newer ones do. Just better data.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
How long have been watching this debate repeat itself over and over and over again in the precise and exact same and identical manner?
Oh, right, only since we have Slashdot.
Also there's a lot of surface heating related to loss of ice. The change isn't slight either. The classic test is of coarse laying out black and white cards on a sunny day to see their temperature. The black is drastically hotter than the white. Ground and water are quite dark compared to ice so the increase is disproportionate to the ice loss. Loosing surface area of ice during the summer could equal or exceed warming from CO2 over the next century and it's often ignored in temperature projections. I would assume there was more than military secrecy behind suppressing the images. The goal of the oil lobbyist for some time has been to suppress data until it's too late to keep oil usage high and they've had a lot of influence for the last 8 years. Not that that influence has ended it's just no longer absolute.
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour"
that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science.
Perhaps if you stopped attacking straw men, you might realize that there is ample science to back up this point.
Earth's survival was never in jeopardy. It's Human survival we worry about.
The pictures aren't OF ice, ice just happens to be in them. The pictures are OF boats/subs/etc. The idea is that they're old enough that no one cares that we knew where that cruiser was 10 years ago.
The great irony of the glacier retreat being the harbinger of doom for humanity is that on most continents the glacial retreat is uncovering substantial quantities of archaeological evidence. I wonder what the people whose archaeological evidence we are finding thought about the glaciers when they encroached on their lives thousands of years ago. It is an interesting juxtaposition.
Man -- I was about to mod you up till you hit on the racist BS. Overbreeding is rampant everywhere.
The fact is, the single most polluting thing a person can do is have kids. I'm intentionally child free so in the balance of things, I could drive a hummer, alone, with extra lead weights in the back, 100 miles per day. I could leave my lights on 24/7, run AC to frigid temps in the summer, blast the heat in the winter, keep a propane flare burning ten feet tall day and night in the back yard, and still not come close to the devastation caused by parenthood.
I don't actually live my life that way, because I'm a bit frugal. What mystifies me is why words such as "conservation" and "conservative" have such differing application when both imply frugality to me -- frugality in how we use environmental resources, and frugality in how we use financial resources. I want to see the birth of the frugal party. Pun intended.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour" that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science. global warming advocates can't remove the emotion from their arguments, which makes me suspicous.
The great thing about science is that the OP doesn't need to be convincing. Anyone can look at the data and reach a conclusion.
In case you don't want to become an expert in the field, however, and are willing to accept an overwhelming majority of existing experts, you would find that "97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." (from the OP's link).
Perhaps if you didn't accept that poll, you might find that "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.". And so on.
Personally I don't get it. Why is it so hard to accept? Reliance on academic authories has its pitfalls of course, but a certain point you need the humility to accept that there is no debate over this particular point among experts.
It reminds me of the "debate" over whether or not 0.999... = 1. Non-mathematicians will swear up and down that it can't be. They'll pull out everything they've got, but at the end of the day, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it so. Read with a careful eye, but c'mon, the cause of the current change in global mean temperatures is no longer a debate.
Glaciers are like batteries. With a battery, you can store up power when you are near an outlet, so you can continue to operate your device later when you aren't near an outlet. This allows continuous operation irrespective of your proximity to a receptacle.
Glaciers store up water in the form of ice during the winter. Then, in summer when precipitation is less frequent, they melt and release that water. This allows continuous access to water irrespective of the immediate level of precipitation.
Yes, we could build more reservoirs, but talk about expense. Plus they suffer silting issues and large areas have to be destroyed to build them. And if the rains stop falling anyway, then what? Build more?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
And there you have it folks- a classical false argument by claiming that the other party said something they did not.
No one's saying the industrial revolution was a sin. Sin doesn't come into anything; this isn't religion.
The industrial revolution was the beginning of an upward swing in our carbon emissions. The emissions have had a warming effect. We can subsequently choose what we'd like to do about this, especially in light of technology available now which wasn't available at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Earth doesn't particularly care if it gets warmer. We (and a number of other species) probably do. If we don't like the consequences of warming, we have the option to decide that they're bad enough for us to take action to change them.
But that's a little too logical, apparently, so you go on perverting arguments so that you can claim to "win" without actually standing on any remotely logical basis.
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
I don't know if you intended the strawman or not, but allow me to debunk it anyway.
Yes, humans have lived in warmer climates with less glaciers, and colder climates with more glaciers.
There were also a hell of a lot less of them.
The danger of global warming/climate change has never been a threat to the overall existence of humanity (aside from ranting hyperbolic morons). It is however a threat to the maintenance of modern civilization if it causes enough damage to agricultural yields (whether or not it will do this is debatable, and very very complicated).
Generally speaking, there's supposed to be at least a few of them which aren't melting away to nothing."
In who's reality? I live in the arctic, the glaciers are all receding with each passing year.
Anyone that says global warming isn't happening is ill informed. All you have to do is visit places like Alaska and see for yourself.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
You are aware, aren't you, that the start of the Industrial Revolution roughly coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age? Things started to get warmer long before industry turned from water power to steam.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
See, this is why I try not to get into the specifics. Climate change is a complex, interdependant subject and you can cherry-pick any result you like, but that doesn't mean you understand what's actually happening.
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
How can we explain this logic to a billion zombied eyed smiling customers waiting in line to buy a Nano? I fear that we will be saying "Ta Ta" to the glaciers that feed the many rivers that feed the Ganges.
You're told secret data has been wrestled from the grasp of the corporates and you're given a link. The page presents a pair of images right at the top, unavoidable; seen before anything is even read. Two images; one of vast quantities of ice, the second utterly free of ice. Global Warming has been implicated before you've read word number one.
If you look carefully you might notice one end of a landing strip just inland in both photos. These photos cover very small areas; only a few miles. The caption reads:
Sea ice forms along the coast in the winter, and generally melts or breaks away by mid July. Observations of sea ice position reveal considerable year-to-year variability. Changes in the timing of coastal sea ice breakup and in the location of offshore sea ice have significant local impacts: ecological, biological, and human. This image series portrays changes in the timing of coastal sea ice breakup, and gives information on smaller scale properties of ice. This information recorded over long periods, is required to understand and model the dynamics of sea ice and how changes or trends develop and influence other systems.
In other words these photos are 'evidence' of nothing. Minor, small scale year-to-year variation in ice flow patterns. The use of these photos in this manner is equivalent to claiming that because there was snow on my walk on January 10, 2008, but none on January 10, 2009, my environment has been ruined by Global Warming.
Yet there it is, fed to the reader at the very start of the story; no disclaimer provided. The pair of photos will now be repeated ad nauseam for years on end around the planet. Biden will have a blown up poster of these photos in his town hall kit by Wednesday. Fresh new memes the huckster elite will use goad "The West" into self inflicted poverty; "See? The planet is in peril! Man must be stopped!"
Here is a recent and well researched report on the $79 billion that has been spent by the US government (only) on climate research over the last 20 years. 19 pages and 52 citations. I dare you to read it. Global Warming advocates are not the underdogs. They rule vast quantities of public money.
In almost all other matters you can take it as a given that around Slashdot you will find if not cynics then certainly skeptics. On the other hand if it has a Bush taint, a little anti-business flavor and it's wrapped up in a Global Warming ribbon you people suck it up like hicks at a Benny Hinn sermon.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
although I'm no expert on the matter
That's exactly the issue. I'm not either - but I give a lot more weight to the people who are.
Facts are indeed facts, and I would bet a lot of money that you haven't looked at nearly as many of them as a climatologist. What is it about being partially-informed that makes people so willing to declare fully-informed people flat-out wrong?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I can't think of a single reason that this information should have been classified. Pictures of ice!
Yes - water we looking for?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
It's absurd to be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on this garbage.
But you have to base them on something, and the policy-makers are right to base them on the overwhelming consensus of climatologists. What else do they have to go by? Even if those 97% somehow turned out to be wrong, isn't it better at this stage to mould the policies so that our impact on the climate is as small as possible, just in case?
This is a great example of sensationalized cherry-picked anecdotal evidence...which in reality means nothing. The picture showing ice was taken during an abnormal year. The ice melts away every year, usually in July. It took longer to melt in 2006 thanks in part to their being more than normal amounts of "multi-year" ice shoved down from the arctic that year.
Article (from AP): http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/372343/arctic_ocean_ice_crashes_on_alaska_shores/
Video (from NASA): http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~71195~176482:Ice-Surge-in-Barrow,-Alaska
9/11 called, they want their planes in the air. You're not seriously discounting that humans impact temperature are you? I live in Phoenix and even the weatherman goes on tv and comfortably states the blatantly obvious that all this concrete pavement does indeed increase temperatures. This is why the city is so much warmer than the rest of the desert. Man kind has an serious impact on it's environment no matter how much you wish to believe that we don't.
You need to understand that the Earth doesn't care if we live or die, it will go on spawning more life as it always has. The Earth heats up on its own and cools down on its own. The difference is that humans are now messing with the Earth to a large enough extend that it will probably swing more wildly from one extreme to the other as far as temperatures go. We're on our way up, we can either act to slow it down, or ride the wave and let millions die when storms get stronger and stronger and droughts force more and more to starve to death. Humans will survive, our way of life however will be greatly impacted.
No one can state when the massive changes will occur so there's no need to panic and destroy economies but we need to act to preserve our way of life.
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they're incompetent. I do think they're jumping to conclusions, and I do think it is just opinion repeated enough to become "fact". And I'm sure a lot of them have the same feeling, but don't want to mess up their careers by speaking against the current zeitgeist. A few _have_ tried. Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.
There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.
There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.
I've said this before: It doesn't matter. The proposed remedies (reduce emissions) are all good regardless. But the knee jerking hysterics-mongers are going about it all wrong. We're not solving a damn thing by politicians yapping about us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it. And the majority of "solutions" are of that sort, and only for political gain by playing on the armageddon fears of the population. Only now it's the elected officials spouting it, as opposed to the church or just the loon on the street corner.
So... the vast majority (if not all) climatologists are actually lying about their conclusions because they want to get certain candidates elected, thus helping to perpetuate a political climate which is favourable to them being given grants to pursue further studies in the field that they've been lying about.
Or, they're just telling the truth. Which one was the simplest explanation again?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons.
"The Greenland was once actually green." .. Global Warming.
Really? In your life time? You must be really, really old! As far as my history books go, Greenland has been a frozen semi-continent, well, except for now that the ice pack on it is also melting due to rising arctic temperatures,
Okay, I'll be fair about your statement. Once upon a time there were dinosaurs roaming the lands, and probably around that time when Iceland was located near the equator, it was green and lush. Sure, your point has a small bit of value. But completely irrelevant in the context of this thread.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
there are so many external benefits to going green beyond global warming it's not even funny.
Living in a valley it's always disturbing to see a nice haze of brown over the town i live in during the dusky hours.
Air quality, cars that run on obscenely small amounts of fuel, etc. It's absurd to dig in and drag ass on something so important.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Weather is not climate.
Trying to predict the weather is a LOT more difficult than predicting climate. Predicting the weather compared to climate is like predicting the output of a Random Number Generator over the next 14 iterations compared to the output of a RNG over the next 1000 or more.
Over 14 iterations the RNG (assuming 0-1 range), the average is likely to vary significantly from 0.5 and predicting which side of 0.5 it will fall is impossible, but over 1000 iterations, it will be very close to 0.5.
liberals
And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is. Especially not facts. What other scientific ideas are you willing to ascribe to politics? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Thermodynamics (that's even worse than climate change: it says we're really screwed). Evolution? ...logical that we're still warming up from it.
You don't think the climate scientists might have noticed that too? Perhaps if you actually took a look at the work that they do rather than simply spouting off you might rrealise that.
I'm aware that liberals with mod points will probably mod me troll for daring to disagree with them
You're not being daring. You're being an idiot.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.
Scientists spend their lives poking holes in other people's theories, for their own personal academic gain. Pull your head out of your ass and read the comments section of a journal. Of course, they are more along the lines of poking holes in the specific theory of T. Cobbley et. al., because few scientists are arrogent enough to believe they can single handedly poke holes in every single theory out there in one go.
And yes, anyone who says "aaaaa it's all wrong!!1!one" is going to be ignored since they bring nothing new to the debate.
There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.
Are you talking about science or the popular press. If the former, then [citation needed]. For some reason many non scientists seem to confuse the two.
There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.
OK, this is a clear indication that you're a fool and have never bothered to verse yourself in even the basics of the field. Climate is not weather. Read that sentance. Think about it. Can I predict the weather this time next year in London? NO. Can I predict things about the climate (eg it won't be snowing)? Yes I can. That is the difference.
And here you are, blindly dismissing the work of thousands of people and caliming that they, not you are suffering from arrogance. I am frankly suprised that your ego is not so inflated that it has caused you to float off in to the sky.
electric
It will work in reducing emissions provided there is a switch to renewables (USA, Austrailia can manage) and/or nuclear (more densely populated countries). Otherwise, not so much. But see, you are at it again. Vastly over-simplifying EVERY SINGLE POINT.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's not really what I'd call a "debate". Only one side is reading and countering the other side's claims with rational arguments; the other side is simply parroting long-discredited talking points ad nauseam.
The funny thing? Both sides will agree with the above statement, but will disagree on its interpretation.
When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science.
A fair point, but I've seen more cases of pressure to suppress pro-climate-change evidence, rather than the other way around. It's ironic that TFA is also about the release of relevant data that was withheld apparently for political reasons.
you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause
Just because a scientist doesn't fully understand something doesn't mean he/she can't draw useful conclusions. We don't know why gravity works the way it does, but we can predict its effects pretty well. In this case, the climatologists seem quite convinced, despite what they don't know. Are you more knowledgeable about the data and its uncertainties than they are?
...us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it.
Oh, true enough. But it does largely centralise that pollution, which makes it a lot more manageable (through carbon capture, or alternative energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar etc).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Speaks volumes about how much "climate scientists" believe in their own evidence : Not. At. All. Clearly they believe repression is necessary to sustain the global warming theory (never mind anthropogenic global warming).
It also proves that the grandparent posts were correct in asserting that anyone, no matter how reputable, finding anti-global-warming evidence is attacked. I mean, this guy is right up there with Fermi, Hawking, Feynman and other legends.
"If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons."
Idealy that is correct but you* cannot have expertise (let alone time) to investigate every issue personally at some point (usually in the land of the lobbyists) a critic turns from a skeptic into a cherry-picking conspiracy nut. This is where "consensus" comes in ("consensus" = "The republic of science"), at some point you have to trust other investigators. So you pick investigators with a good track record to be your surrogates, the most credible are public institutions such as the Royal Academy or NAS or a million other well known acronymns.
If every one of those surrogates agrees on a particular point then it's part of a body of tentative "scientific facts" that are the evidence behind such phrases as "science says light and radio waves are the same thing at different frequencies" or "scientists say a comet or asteroid is the likely cause of the new spot on Jupiter".
A scientific education ( when done properly ) helps you to negotiate this mountain of information more easily and gives you a basic framework to the body of knowledge called science. However self education can also do the job, James Randi is one of my favorite skeptics and his only qualifications are in magic.
I'm not a climatologists but I have followed the topic for nearly three decades. I joined "Al Gore's religion" around 1997 (specifically because of the 1997 IPCC reports). Apparently this makes me harder to convince than NAS who in the late 50's warned the US government that AGW was occuring and have not changed their minds since. My logic goes like this...
Science says:
- The globe is warming.
- Most of the warming is due to CO2 emmissions
- Ignoring the problem is not a rational option.
1. Since 1997 I have not seen any convincing contra-evidence to the consesus. Some of it has made me do a lot of research, most of it has simply been old talking points perpetuated by the Heartland Institute and their affiliates.
2. I cannot name one credible scientific institution that disputes any part of the consesnsus.
3. Dyson is the only credible scientist I can name who still disputes part of the consensus. When he publishes his ideas everyone can check them out.
4. The most interesting critisisms come from members of our own "religion". Especially at my cult leader's web site (realclimate.org), they slay a few psuedo-skeptics for breakfast and then spend the day argueing over real questions such as the "missing methane" that was predicted by climate models.
5. Computer model ensembles for defined senarios give accurate but conservative forecasts. ( I have some expertise in FEA computer simulations and the mathematical training to understand the algorithims )
6. I live in SE Australia that according to geologic evidence and recent experience is highly sensitive to a warming climate (natural or otherwise).
7. The fucking North Pole is melting.
*Disclaimer: not "you" personally.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The company I work for has some work in Uzbekistan. Reading up on the CIA page, it says that while there is no official censorship of the media, there is widespread self-censorship. Anyone who does not censor themselves is usually fired or "taken care of." So while there may be no official cabal of Global Warming alarmists, it does not mean there there are no dire consequences for taking a stance against it.
There are many reasons to migrate from fossil fuels, the most compelling being that they're going to run out very soon. The changing climate is also a worry (which we wouldn't want to encourage to change faster than it already is), but it's not the only reason, and the money spent on migrating to alternative energy sources certainly wouldn't be wasted.
Well, the question is, does the increased fuel efficiency actually pay for itself? The thing is, the more efficient you are, the more complex you are. The more complex you are, the more you cost. This relationship between efficiency and cost is exponential due to increased complexity efficiency demands. I put together a simple JavaScript model of this at http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/savetheearth.aspx . Basically, by jiggering the predicted cost of fuel (using gasoline as a baseline), versus, the exponent of increased energy efficiency costs, you can arrive at a number of scenarios where reducing greenhouse gasses actually doesn't pay for itself. If it pays anyone, it also pays the Chinese and the Europeans..
In any case, most models show that even a rather dramatic altering of CO2 emissions will not alter the course of climate change for a minimum of 200 years. Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt. The CO2 is already in the air.
This is my sig.
Of course global warming is a political issue. Any issue which calls for governments to do something is a political issue. Claiming that global warming is not a political issue is about as disingenuous as claiming that intelligent design is not about religion.
Name one global warming activist whom does not think that the solution to the problem is to enact strict world wide government control on first world economies. Name on global warming activist that thinks that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to encourage China, India, and other developing nations to adopt freedom and capitalism, so that their economies can progress as quickly as possible into the green tech era.
The word is Skeptic, not Denialist. Denialist is clearly an emotionally loaded word designed to evoke thoughts of Holocaust deniers.
So the flat-worlders are round-world skeptics, huh? When the evidence is overwhelming, that's when a skeptic becomes a denier (or just a nut).
Do you think that the rising temperatures in Greenland and Alaska and the shrinking north pole ice cover are lies? Come on, that's about as retarded and paranoid as the flat earthers. Just look at the pictures, man. They won't ALL be lying to you.
As for money to made with carbon credits, up until now it hasn't exactly worked very well, has it?
As a practicing scientist, I share your sentiments of confusion about the negative reactions in ths string. I have occasionally come across trained scientists who know better, but it never ceases to amaze me at how unproductive conversations like this one can become.
Western science is built on the concept of adopting the best-known explanation of a phenomena until something better comes along.
If you have somehow come across a better explanation for climate change by googling and reading wikipedia, then out with it. Otherwise, I will stick with the explanations proposed by a large group of trained people collectively spending their lives working on the problem.
They might be wrong. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single case where the scientific community is not wrong to some measureable degree. Stupid Newton somehow thought that F=ma was a useful description of bodies in motion, that doesn't work at high energy or near the speed of light, it's just a crappy approximation for large, slow objects. What an idiot.