Thomas Friedman came to the Planet Forward studios to talk to us about climate change and what he thinks needs to be done to solve it. His controversial take: we need real -- not phoney -- green revolution, and we need a tax on carbon.
What's the only thing that could get carbon legislation this year? A perfect storm.
Follow Frank Sesno on Twitter: www.twitter.com/planet_forward
We need a better over all plan:
We need to define a Green energy alternative energy system,
Then find reasons for a majority of people to agree with it, climate change, pollution of the commons, national security are all good reasons, we should not be alienating any group that would go along with a good plan.
I propose:
Rooftop pv solar,
Wind,
Waste Bio Fuels.
No storage needs, uses the same engines and infrastructure we have now, carbon negative if you want.
Way more than enough energy for first world levels.
See my profile for proof.
Safe, Clean, Forever.
that the panama canal provides for ships to flow OVER the highest point,.. we can have economies
around the globe competing in stepped increments so that no culture has to be high and dry.
Those who disagree can demonstrate the commitment of their belief by actively opposing handicap-
ping in golf or anything else.
Frankly, I haven't paid any attention to him in a long time. His role as an apostle for the Iraq War totally discredited him to any intelligent person.
Check out the English press. They are cutting the current science and its purveyors to pieces.
Let me clarify the story that the US media REPEATEDLY gets backwards.
The Email that talked about using a trick to hide the decline is NOT talking about trying to hide a decline in temperatures, which most of the US media has try to set up as a false and easily disproven premise.
Rather, it refers to a decline in apparent temperatures that have occurred in the data gleaned from tree rings over the last 50 years. That is to say, over the last 50 years, tree rings have become completely unreliable as a measure of temperature as they seem to suggest much cooler temps than have been recorded by thermometers.
So, while using tree rings to estimate temps for many previous hundreds of years, the scientists in question skiped the data of the last 50 years and grafted real thermometer temps on for the last 50 years to hide the decline in tree ring data. That's the trick.
However, since they have absolutely no idea why there has been a divergence over the last 50 years, In fact, that protracted divergence renders any data from tree rings completely unreliable, as much warmer periods could have occurred before and diverged in the tree ring data.