Can I get an Amen?! Anything Bach, really.
For the same reason Bach cantatas do it for me. I have 60 CDs of them (performed by the Bach Collegium Japan conducted by Masaaki Suzuki... the best there is). Not exactly Japanese music, though
I'm not buying it if there are no previews. In any case, there's already Radio Swiss Classic or my own vast MP3 collection (ripped from legal CDs!) or Stan Getz bossa nova or Schiller.
Michael Mann is just protecting his gravy train. I suppose you can't blame him, really, but he is totally unworthy of respect as a consequence.
I'd call such people "realists" because the warming isn't happening, and hasn't happened for 18 to 19 years. Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph was called that for a reason: it predicted a sharp turn upwards in temperatures - WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED. Q. E. D.
Mann starts off lamenting the ad hominem attacks on scientists, then goes on to describe those who disagree with him as "deniers-for-hire". He's clearly comfortable with double standards, at least. His hockey stick graph has no credibility because temperatures in the past 18 to 19 years have NOT taken a sharp turn upwards as he predicted. Scientists tend to call this a falsification of the hypothesis, unless you're a "climate scientist", that is.
That's just the kind of non-sequitur intelligent people have come to expect from single issue progressives. The human race will "dumb" itself out of existence before we get a chance to use the nukes
Ah, biomass. Chopping down forests in the USA so that it can be classified as "sustainable" fuel for biomass plants in the UK. Own goal for the environment. Coal is one of the most dense and cheapest forms of energy on the planet, so it involves much less harm to the environment than biomass, solar, and wind turbines (the last two of which require land clearing for any large installations).
You're also forgetting that the developing world cannot now, and will not for many decades to come at least, afford these "renewable" forms of energy. Preventing them from using coal is immoral, and smacks of green self-righteousness.
I have always cared about ACTUAL environmentalism, not this global warming alarmist claptrap by watermelon greenies. It's sad how real environmentalism has been thrown under the bus for the sake of a few iconic baubles to satisfy the new eco-puritans who don't even realise the damage they support.
No wind turbine (or field of same) is going to generate enough electricity to smelt iron ore. If greenies weren't so prejudiced against nuclear power, we might take them seriously about climate change.
You don't think that a totalitarian regime might have something to do with poverty in North Korea?
The embedded emissions in wind and solar are so high as to render them a complete waste of time. You do realise that coking coal is used in smelters to make all the steel to build these worthless contraptions? And the cement foundations for the wind turbines; cement is made from heating limestone & shale, releasing vast amounts CO2. You then have all the steel needed to prop up the solar panels, also made by burning coal. It all adds up, you know.
Just because you can see a shiny new wind turbine (that kills birds and bats in high numbers, by the way) doesn't mean all that CO2 released into the atmosphere during its production doesn't exist. Then you have the fact that wind turbines in cold areas draw electricity from coal-fired grids to keep them spinning during low wind conditions to prevent ice formation. Turbines also have to shut down in high wind conditions to stop them from breaking apart. A coal-fired plant is needed to back them up anyway, and you can't just flick the switch on a coal plant the moment the wind dies down, they take a day or more to get going. It would be funny if we all weren't paying for this huge waste of time.
There's no point trying to argue with somebody who HIMSELF has fingers in his ears about the actual data, which is here:
8 New Years Resolutions For Climate Scientists:
The data relied upon by climate "scientists" are so tortured they no longer resemble original readings. Adjusting temperature records and making them up where there were none proves only the extent of this massive fraud.
You do know that there's PLENTY of scientific evidence out there which ISN'T funded by big oil refuting the ridiculous notion that carbon-dioxide is pollution? Just because something is funded by people with whom you have an ideological dispute it doesn't alter the quality (or lack thereof, as the case may be) of the writing on the page.
Most "climate science" is produced by rent-seeking alarmists whose jobs are dependent on a steady stream of government-funded group-think for their livelihoods. I would argue that this is the BIGGEST problem today. In fact, the state of "climate change" evidence (if you could call it that) is very analogues to medieval Catholicism:
Hypocritical Pope: Al Gore (flies about in jets all the time and has several electricity-guzzling mansions)
Indulgences: carbon credits
Inquisition: the gullible mainstream media
Excommunication: the so-called "peer review" process which refuses to publish anything that doesn't toe the "CO2 is pollution" line
The past two to three decades have been an utter waste of time and money spent on this crap. You people could have been helping the world's poor by not providing them with unreliable/intermittent/costly "renewable" energy and letting them have coal-fired power plants to lift them out of poverty. But no, you prefer to hold them back. This is the great moral bankruptcy of this whole charade.
How many of these billion "Catholics" actually attend church other than for weddings, funerals, and baptisms? Ten percent of that figure, if you're lucky. But bums on pews doesn't affect the climate in any way, and certainly isn't going to make carbon dioxide any more or less of a "pollutant" simply because Pope Francis puts out a document. CO2 is good for the planet.