Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[siti]

You miss the point if you do not understand that human CO2 emissions for the period of the "undeniable warming" were not excessive, and the warming trend now is about the same as during that period when human CO2 emissions are considerable. Get it?

Yes - the argument is that some of the earlier warming trend is accounted for by increased volcanic activity (agree that makes sense), increased solar activity (that also makes sense) and long term ocean current oscillations (these three factors being mentioned on pages 2, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16) but there is little if any evidence that the first two of these factors are significant in the more recent (continuing) warming trend (since the 1970s according to the report itself) and I am inclined to believe (but I certainly need to read up on the data on this) that oscillations in ocean circulation are more likely to follow climate than vice versa (ocean currents drive weather rather than climate I think). So what IS still changing? The amount of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). I also agree that it is possible (maybe even probable) that models for the earlier periods took too little account of other factors (such as those I just mentioned) and overestimated the contribution of greenhouse gases like CO2 - but that doesn't mean the effect of CO2 is not significant - especially if it is combined with a natural warming cycle. But this is the particular part of the report that I think betrays an unscientific approach:

Understanding and explaining the climate variability over the past 400 years, prior to 1950, has received far too little attention. Without this understanding, we should place little confidence in the IPCC’s explanations of warming since 1950. (page 11).
​

That is equivalent to suggesting that since we don't have complete and accurate models for a cholera pandemic in the 19th century we cannot have confidence in scientific models for outbreaks of the disease in the late 20th/early 21st century. Surely you can see the failure of the argument?

Obviously we have much better data for the last 50 years than we have ever had before - we have satellite data for almost the last 40 years which means we have a more reliable estimate of 'global' averages and we can (presumably) compare that to the current measurements using more traditional techniques and - with some confidence - refine both the older data (which 'skeptics' of course call 'cooking the books') and the models. Either way, there is still no denying that (a) increased concentrations of greenhouse gases make planets hotter (like I said before, if you don't believe that ask the Venusians), (b) the concentration of greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere is increasing (this is not controversial) and (c) our planet is getting hotter (only the completely scientifically illiterate will deny this). The only serious arguments are whether (b) is sufficient on its own to make (c) happen at the rate it is happening. But seriously, the major contenders for alternative explanations (increased solar activity, increased volcanic activity...etc)...are not evident for the current phase of warming. Maybe there is some other unknown cause - but if that is so - we don't know what it is yet and increasing greenhouse gas emissions seem to be the only consistent factor over the last 200 years - its effect being small at first and masked by other (possibly more significant factors) but it is now possibly the single most important factor and certainly the only one we have any control over.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes - the argument is that some of the earlier warming trend is accounted for by increased volcanic activity (agree that makes sense), increased solar activity (that also makes sense) and long term ocean current oscillations (these three factors being mentioned on pages 2, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 16) but there is little if any evidence that the first two of these factors are significant in the more recent (continuing) warming trend (since the 1970s according to the report itself) and I am inclined to believe (but I certainly need to read up on the data on this) that oscillations in ocean circulation are more likely to follow climate than vice versa (ocean currents drive weather rather than climate I think). So what IS still changing? The amount of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). I also agree that it is possible (maybe even probable) that models for the earlier periods took too little account of other factors (such as those I just mentioned) and overestimated the contribution of greenhouse gases like CO2 - but that doesn't mean the effect of CO2 is not significant - especially if it is combined with a natural warming cycle. But this is the particular part of the report that I think betrays an unscientific approach:

Understanding and explaining the climate variability over the past 400 years, prior to 1950, has received far too little attention. Without this understanding, we should place little confidence in the IPCC’s explanations of warming since 1950. (page 11).
​

That is equivalent to suggesting that since we don't have complete and accurate models for a cholera pandemic in the 19th century we cannot have confidence in scientific models for outbreaks of the disease in the late 20th/early 21st century. Surely you can see the failure of the argument?

Obviously we have much better data for the last 50 years than we have ever had before - we have satellite data for almost the last 40 years which means we have a more reliable estimate of 'global' averages and we can (presumably) compare that to the current measurements using more traditional techniques and - with some confidence - refine both the older data (which 'skeptics' of course call 'cooking the books') and the models. Either way, there is still no denying that (a) increased concentrations of greenhouse gases make planets hotter (like I said before, if you don't believe that ask the Venusians), (b) the concentration of greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere is increasing (this is not controversial) and (c) our planet is getting hotter (only the completely scientifically illiterate will deny this). The only serious arguments are whether (b) is sufficient on its own to make (c) happen at the rate it is happening. But seriously, the major contenders for alternative explanations (increased solar activity, increased volcanic activity...etc)...are not evident for the current phase of warming. Maybe there is some other unknown cause - but if that is so - we don't know what it is yet and increasing greenhouse gas emissions seem to be the only consistent factor over the last 200 years - its effect being small at first and masked by other (possibly more significant factors) but it is now possibly the single most important factor and certainly the only one we have any control over.

If the planet had previous warming trend periods over the last 400 years prior to 1950, when human CO2 emissions were not significant, then what precisely were the natural causes of said warming? If present science can not determine that, than who is to say that the present warming is predominately natural, albeit with an undeniable human derived extra CO2 emission warming component.

That is the dilemma, the agw activists claim the human derived GHG are the predominate cause of recent warming trend, while the skeptics say the science is not settled as to the proportion of natural to human contribution. Looking at the IPCC data, most of the GCMs they use run too hot and should be thrown out, and at lower order GCMs that better match the present trend, there is only about a 1C increase in temperature by 2100. This is not catastrophic and we can not only live with it, but the addition CO2 will improve agricultural production and green the planet. It does not make sense to spend trillions of dollars on warming mitigation when at present trends, there will only be a net benefit to the planet and humanity.

 

[siti]

If the planet had previous warming trend periods over the last 400 years prior to 1950, when human CO2 emissions were not significant, then what precisely were the natural causes of said warming?

We don't know precisely but increased solar activity, long term ocean current fluctuations and increased volcanic activity are the main non-anthropogenic candidates according to Professor Curry's report. I can accept that to a point.

• High levels of volcanic activity do indeed produce higher levels of greenhouse gases (CO2 and water vapour); volcanic eruptions also release SO2 which forms aerosols that can cool the atmosphere for as long as 3 years after an eruption and dust and ash the lighter particles of which form clouds which also have a cooling effect by blocking the suns radiation
• Multidecadal oscillations in ocean currents apparently do affect the climate but even when these low-frequency trends are filtered out of the data, there remains a warming trend that must be accounted for by other explanations as in this study.
  
• Increased solar activity is a possible explanation for early 20th century warming but not, it seems for the warming phase from the 1970s onwards during which solar activity has been relatively stable.

Interestingly, the same paper identifies the success of the Montreal Protocol as another potential partial explanation for the apparent slowing down of warming since the late 1990s. CFCs are potent greenhouse gases as well as ozone depleters (often thousands of times more potent than CO2). There has also seems to have been a reduction in methane emissions during roughly the same period. And this paper shows that a series of small volcanic eruptions since 2000 may also have dampened the warming trend to some extent. So overall, the so-called 'hiatus' during which warming has apparently slowed down might be explained by a combination of the successful reduction of CFC emissions, reduction of methane emissions and possibly a contribution from a series of volcanic eruptions. If so, that's mostly good news and means that we might indeed have overestimated the CO2 influence - but if the volcanic one is right, then we have to hope that we continue to have just enough eruptions to contribute SO2 and ash clouds for cooling but not enough to push the greenhouse gas levels too high. I'm still not sure what the influence of decadal and multidecadal ocean oscillations have - the AMO has been in a relatively warm phase and the PDO in a relatively cool phase for most of the 2000s - so I guess these probably more or less cancel each other out in terms of global average temperatures over most of the 'hiatus' period - but the PDO seems to have switched to a positive (warmer) phase since about 2014 and the AMO remains (as far as I can see but I couldn't find data later than 2015) in a positive phase so it could be that this coincidence has had some influence on the last three consecutive years breaking the global average record. I still need to do more reading up on that and get the latest data.

None of this changes the fact that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. The effect may be enhanced or attenuated by other factors that we don't properly understand - but like I said earlier - the only one we can control is our emissions into the atmosphere - and it certainly looks (from the data in the first paper I linked to above) that those emissions do account for a significant amount of observed warming.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We don't know precisely but increased solar activity, long term ocean current fluctuations and increased volcanic activity are the main non-anthropogenic candidates according to Professor Curry's report. I can accept that to a point.

• High levels of volcanic activity do indeed produce higher levels of greenhouse gases (CO2 and water vapour); volcanic eruptions also release SO2 which forms aerosols that can cool the atmosphere for as long as 3 years after an eruption and dust and ash the lighter particles of which form clouds which also have a cooling effect by blocking the suns radiation
• Multidecadal oscillations in ocean currents apparently do affect the climate but even when these low-frequency trends are filtered out of the data, there remains a warming trend that must be accounted for by other explanations as in this study.
  
• Increased solar activity is a possible explanation for early 20th century warming but not, it seems for the warming phase from the 1970s onwards during which solar activity has been relatively stable.

Interestingly, the same paper identifies the success of the Montreal Protocol as another potential partial explanation for the apparent slowing down of warming since the late 1990s. CFCs are potent greenhouse gases as well as ozone depleters (often thousands of times more potent than CO2). There has also seems to have been a reduction in methane emissions during roughly the same period. And this paper shows that a series of small volcanic eruptions since 2000 may also have dampened the warming trend to some extent. So overall, the so-called 'hiatus' during which warming has apparently slowed down might be explained by a combination of the successful reduction of CFC emissions, reduction of methane emissions and possibly a contribution from a series of volcanic eruptions. If so, that's mostly good news and means that we might indeed have overestimated the CO2 influence - but if the volcanic one is right, then we have to hope that we continue to have just enough eruptions to contribute SO2 and ash clouds for cooling but not enough to push the greenhouse gas levels too high. I'm still not sure what the influence of decadal and multidecadal ocean oscillations have - the AMO has been in a relatively warm phase and the PDO in a relatively cool phase for most of the 2000s - so I guess these probably more or less cancel each other out in terms of global average temperatures over most of the 'hiatus' period - but the PDO seems to have switched to a positive (warmer) phase since about 2014 and the AMO remains (as far as I can see but I couldn't find data later than 2015) in a positive phase so it could be that this coincidence has had some influence on the last three consecutive years breaking the global average record. I still need to do more reading up on that and get the latest data.

None of this changes the fact that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. The effect may be enhanced or attenuated by other factors that we don't properly understand - but like I said earlier - the only one we can control is our emissions into the atmosphere - and it certainly looks (from the data in the first paper I linked to above) that those emissions do account for a significant amount of observed warming.

That GHG cause warming is not in dispute, that human GHG contributions to the atmosphere are the predominate cause of the warming is!

The IPCC GCM prejections run too hot, so the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentrations used in them are in error, that is what the skeptics are saying, and the IPCC's own data shows they are right.

 

[siti]

The IPCC GCM prejections run too hot, so the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentrations used in them are in error, that is what the skeptics are saying, and the IPCC's own data shows they are right.

But if the reduced warming over the last decade or two is the result, not of over-estimating sensitivity to CO2 but of underestimating other (less predictable) negative feedback parameters (such as some of those I have mentioned) and we do nothing to control emissions of GHGs then we can only hope that all the other parameters continue to line up in our favour. And whether or not human contributions to warming are predominant, they are the only ones we get to control. Pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is warming the atmosphere to a greater or lesser extent. I still think, given all the evidence, that our influence is significant and great enough to tip the scales in or out of our favour depending on what we choose to do about it. I'd rather think that, be cautious and ultimately proved wrong when we really know the truth about our climate, than think opposite, continue on our current trend and let my grandchildren regret it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But if the reduced warming over the last decade or two is the result, not of over-estimating sensitivity to CO2 but of underestimating other (less predictable) negative feedback parameters (such as some of those I have mentioned) and we do nothing to control emissions of GHGs then we can only hope that all the other parameters continue to line up in our favour. And whether or not human contributions to warming are predominant, they are the only ones we get to control. Pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is warming the atmosphere to a greater or lesser extent. I still think, given all the evidence, that our influence is significant and great enough to tip the scales in or out of our favour depending on what we choose to do about it. I'd rather think that, be cautious and ultimately proved wrong when we really know the truth about our climate, than think opposite, continue on our current trend and let my grandchildren regret it.

Listen to yourself, if those other (less predictable) negative feedback parameters were not in the GCMs. that means the agw creators of the GCMs were still wrong. It would be absurd to proceed at this point to spend trillions of dollars of tax payers money based on the projections of the currently inaccurate GCMs. The skeptics should be consulted in a collective effort to progress climate science, a house divided and all that stuff!

 

[Debateable]

Yes but not in his equation - in his equation solar radiation is absorbed only once and then emitted and re-absorbed successively between the surface and the atmospheric gh gases. Obviously it doesn't really work like that because as fast as the gh gases release the heat energy to the surface they (and the surface) are warmed by more solar radiation directly and reflected or re-emitted from the surface (and vice versa) and the more greenhouse gases there are the more solar radiation gets trapped between surface and atmosphere and does not escape back into space. If his interpretation were correct, then the more 'greenhouse gases' there were in the atmosphere the colder the planet would become. Obviously this is not what really happens. Ask the Venusians.

Umm, no, that equation allows for such things. Is the equation over simplified, sure, but there's no reason it can't work as long as you add and subtract the energy accordingly.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Amazing! one person expresses a personal opinion and it's reported as "the real reason" millions of people actually care about. Trash! Incompetence! Irresponsible!

She was speaking as the UN representative on global warming, er, climate change, expressing the UN's promotion of the upcoming climate change conference in Paris, and why they think it's important.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

She was speaking as the UN representative on global warming, er, climate change, expressing the UN's promotion of the upcoming climate change conference in Paris, and why they think it's important.

Regardless, the article claims that because one, or more, or many people believe this nonsense that is therefore "the real reason" there is any discussion of climate change. I'm speaking of taking individual statements and claiming they apply universally to any and everyone that expresses an interest in climate change.

There is a difference in stating something like 'the un rep says' and 'the un rep reveals the real reason...'

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Regardless,

You dismiss everything I said with one cavalier word.

....the article claims that because one, or more, or many people believe this nonsense that is therefore "the real reason" there is any discussion of climate change. I'm speaking of taking individual statements and claiming they apply universally to any and everyone that expresses an interest in climate change.

Apparently things aren't going that well in the global warming propaganda department, and this blatant statement was targeted mainly at the recidivists and backsliders on your side in the face of the damage done by the thousands of revealing climategate emails--which this thread is showing are impossible to defend with anything other than bluster, fabrication and name calling. The mainstream media dutifully didn't spread the word beyond the narrow channels it was intended for. Praise be to IBD.

There is a difference in stating something like 'the un rep says' and 'the un rep reveals the real reason...'

Her title (executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change) indicates that she is an official representative of the UN on the subject, and speaks for them. As such, if she misspoke or misrepresented them, she'd have a least been told to retract it, or been publicly corrected.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Update:
I did some digging and found what looked like bad news for Figueres authority. She is the former executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change. She was replaced 9 months ago. But they must have really liked the job she was doing because shortly after that, she was nominated to be the next Secretary General of the UN. The anti-capitalist-in-chief and global warming alarmist all in one nice neat package.

 

[siti]

Listen to yourself, if those other (less predictable) negative feedback parameters were not in the GCMs. that means the agw creators of the GCMs were still wrong. It would be absurd to proceed at this point to spend trillions of dollars of tax payers money based on the projections of the currently inaccurate GCMs. The skeptics should be consulted in a collective effort to progress climate science, a house divided and all that stuff!

Did you actually understand any of what I wrote or linked to? Here's a summary of facts about global warming over the last century or so:
1. Solar activity was increasing for the first half of the 20th century but relatively stable for the last 70 years
2. The 20th century was a relatively quiet period in terms of volcanic activity, the early 21st century has had a series of small eruptions the combined effect of which would be a cooling effect
3. The Atlantic and Pacific decadal and multidecadal oscillations have continued to...well...oscillate - during the early part of the warming phase that began in the early 1970s both oceans were in a relatively cool phase and since then they have been more or less in opposite phases to each other with the possible exception of the last couple of years when it may be (but its too early to be sure) that both have been in relatively warm phases - however, all that said, the overall trend for both Atlantic and Pacific Ocean temperatures is upward over the last century so the oscillatory phases may simply be successivley enhancing and masking the general trend. The Pacific was in a relatively cool phase from about 2000 to about 2014 (so may be partly responsible for the apparent 'hiatus' in global warming as heat is, as it were, trapped in the deep ocean).
4. The level of GHGs in general and CO2 in particular have continued to rise - however there have been some temporary slowing of this rise due to interruptions of industrial expansion - the great depression, two world wars - and the success of the Montreal Protocol in more or less eliminating an important class of GHGs (Also over more or less the same period as the much trumpeted 'hiatus')
5. Global temperatures have continued to rise (albeit not as sharply as predicted) despite various (unpredictable in advance but observable in retrospect) negative feedback factors.

It seems to me with a relatively frequent but low level of volcanic activity, PDO in a negative phase and relatively stable solar activity, the climate probably should have been cooling over the last 15-20 years but it wasn't. Why? There remains, as far as I can see, only one positive correlation and that is continued increase in GHG (esp CO2) emissions. Everything else has gone up, down and sideways, but GHGs and temperature have both continued to rise.

What all of this means is not that we should admit oil-funded lobbyists to dictate the policy (even less the 'science') but that we need to accept that our models, though not perfect, are telling us something very important that we need to take notice of. Our continued profligate and cavalier attitude to the use of fossil fuels is misguided and potentially disastrous.

 

[siti]

Update:
I did some digging and found what looked like bad news for Figueres authority. She is the former executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change. She was replaced 9 months ago. But they must have really liked the job she was doing because shortly after that, she was nominated to be the next Secretary General of the UN. The anti-capitalist-in-chief and global warming alarmist all in one nice neat package.

Fantastic - I hope she gets it - it will be really great to have a UN Sec Gen that is actually prepared to speak the truth and an anti-capitalist to boot. Excellent news...Oh! but wait - they've already picked someone else...drat...TPT you really must try to post current news - well at least Guterres is a socialist.

As far as this thread goes though, it really seems like you've shot yourself in the foot with this doesn't it?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Fantastic - I hope she gets it - it will be really great to have a UN Sec Gen that is actually prepared to speak the truth and an anti-capitalist to boot. Excellent news...Oh! but wait - they've already picked someone else...drat...TPT you really must try to post current news - well at least Guterres is a socialist.

As far as this thread goes though, it really seems like you've shot yourself in the foot with this doesn't it?

Nice try but no, she essentially moved up when she was replaced because it was the end of her term. Thanks for the update though, And of course Guterres is a socialist. The UN is a socialist organization since I'm not sure if there's even a semi-capitalist government out there (Hong Kong, Singapore ???), and global warming is a socialist propaganda tool after all, obviously.

 

[Jose Fly]

2016 was a massive El Nino. Of course it's going to be warmer than other years. 1998 was the hottest year prior to that, again due to a massive El Nino. Learn some facts.

For someone chastising others about "learning facts", you seem to be rather ignorant of them....

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record

 

[siti]

Umm, no, that equation allows for such things. Is the equation over simplified, sure, but there's no reason it can't work as long as you add and subtract the energy accordingly.

Duh! You don't say! And what do you suppose happens to "T∆" (which really should have been ∆T but we won't confuse the issue with basic math here) when you do that?

 

[siti]

...she essentially moved up when she was replaced because it was the end of her term.

Oh really? What position does she have in the UN now? Moved up? She was nominated for the SG by her home country Costa Rica and she didn't get it. She no longer represents the UN on any subject.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you actually understand any of what I wrote or linked to? Here's a summary of facts about global warming over the last century or so:
1. Solar activity was increasing for the first half of the 20th century but relatively stable for the last 70 years
2. The 20th century was a relatively quiet period in terms of volcanic activity, the early 21st century has had a series of small eruptions the combined effect of which would be a cooling effect
3. The Atlantic and Pacific decadal and multidecadal oscillations have continued to...well...oscillate - during the early part of the warming phase that began in the early 1970s both oceans were in a relatively cool phase and since then they have been more or less in opposite phases to each other with the possible exception of the last couple of years when it may be (but its too early to be sure) that both have been in relatively warm phases - however, all that said, the overall trend for both Atlantic and Pacific Ocean temperatures is upward over the last century so the oscillatory phases may simply be successivley enhancing and masking the general trend. The Pacific was in a relatively cool phase from about 2000 to about 2014 (so may be partly responsible for the apparent 'hiatus' in global warming as heat is, as it were, trapped in the deep ocean).
4. The level of GHGs in general and CO2 in particular have continued to rise - however there have been some temporary slowing of this rise due to interruptions of industrial expansion - the great depression, two world wars - and the success of the Montreal Protocol in more or less eliminating an important class of GHGs (Also over more or less the same period as the much trumpeted 'hiatus')
5. Global temperatures have continued to rise (albeit not as sharply as predicted) despite various (unpredictable in advance but observable in retrospect) negative feedback factors.

It seems to me with a relatively frequent but low level of volcanic activity, PDO in a negative phase and relatively stable solar activity, the climate probably should have been cooling over the last 15-20 years but it wasn't. Why? There remains, as far as I can see, only one positive correlation and that is continued increase in GHG (esp CO2) emissions. Everything else has gone up, down and sideways, but GHGs and temperature have both continued to rise.

What all of this means is not that we should admit oil-funded lobbyists to dictate the policy (even less the 'science') but that we need to accept that our models, though not perfect, are telling us something very important that we need to take notice of. Our continued profligate and cavalier attitude to the use of fossil fuels is misguided and potentially disastrous.

Of course I am familiar with what you posted, but it doesn't prove human CO2 emissions are the predominate cause of global warming!

You seem to be in denial about the fact that as the science now stands, the degree of warming or cooling as the case may be, of each of the various variables such as Solar activity, Volcanic activity, Ocean sloshing, etc., along with CO2, can not be accurately quantified, and so the disparities in GCMS reflect the lack of agreement on the precise values of each variable on the part of the various climate scientists.

The test for GCM accuracy can only come in time when the projections can be compared with reality, the historical data. It is here where we see that they mostly run too hot, and the disparity increases in time, so they are useless. At this time, no one knows for sure the precise amount of warming contributed by human GHG emissions, nor even if the contribution is predominate cause of warming. As I said uplink, the skeptics should be consulted in a collective effort to progress climate science, a house divided and all that stuff.. However it requires time to both improve the understanding and to have the latest extended recorded temperature data available with which to compare with the latest GCMs, so everyone should be patient.

 

[siti]

everyone should be patient.

I am trying my best...but I also think that all of what you said suggests we should also exercise caution - look for potentially less damaging alternatives for our energy needs and seek to limit our emissions of GHGs as much as possible. If after doing all that, we ultimately discover that GHGs really weren't that significant after all, no problem, we now have a number of energy alternatives that are - quite apart from being possibly less damaging to our environment - more long-term sustainable into the bargain. How is this a bad thing for anyone but the CEOs of the big oil corps?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am trying my best...but I also think that all of what you said suggests we should also exercise caution - look for potentially less damaging alternatives for our energy needs and seek to limit our emissions of GHGs as much as possible. If after doing all that, we ultimately discover that GHGs really weren't that significant after all, no problem, we now have a number of energy alternatives that are - quite apart from being possibly less damaging to our environment - more long-term sustainable into the bargain. How is this a bad thing for anyone but the CEOs of the big oil corps?

It is not a bad thing so long as the alternate and/or renewable energy sources are price competitive with the present coal, gas, or hydro, else the poor of the world who are waiting to be connected to a grid will never experience the standard of living we take for granted. And the consumers and/or taxpayers of the developed world should never have to pay to subsidize these alternate and/or renewable energy sources, for that would erode the standard of living that we all take for granted.