Any good "argument" (that word is used, not to refer to bickering and disagreeing, but in the classic and/or mathematical sense, as a set of statements that lead logically to a proof or conclusion) must begin with, and remain faithful to, "facts" (as in, actual reality). Politics and government have degenerated so severely, over the past few decades, largely because the voting public has failed to hold candidates, and elected officials, to any reasonable standard of knowing (or admitting, candidly and publicly) what the relevant facts actually are, when they need to make important decisions. And, there is no better example of that, than the utterly grotesque falsehoods that some people, and politicians, create out of thin air, pseudo-assemble, and then hide behind, when they are "arguing" (in the modern sense, of "merely bickering and disagreeing") about global warming, climate change, and rising sea levels.

     So, this is part of an effort to identify, nail down, identify the sources (with a realistic assessment of the expertise, objectivity, and reliability of those sources), and bring a set of hard facts, to the attention of voters and candidates, in forceful, persuasive, and perhaps (hopefully) even "compelling ways".

          Because, in any competent and truly useful argument, facts should come first. They must be recognized, and given their fair and due attention.  Anyone who refuses to recognize or admit relevant facts is not worth listening to, and not worth arguing with – except in arguments where the goal is to prove to an audience that the person spewing the pseudo-facts is a fake, a charlatan, a liar, and someone who should NOT be trusted.

​

What are "MACRO-Facts"?

​

​

          The term "macro-facts" is used herein, to refer to facts which are important on a global scale, and which will affect everyone.

          The 'macro-' prefix was borrowed from the field of economics. In that field, MICRO-economics refers to facts and factors that affect a single person, family, or company, and which should be taken into account, when some person, family, or company must decide how to get money, and spend money.

          By contrast, MACRO-economics refers to facts and factors that affect entire societies, industries, nations, etc. Those are the sorts of things that governments, economists, bankers, and investment advisors should at least TRY to understand.

          Accordingly, climate advocates need to do more to recognize, respect, and call the public's attention, to the MACRO-facts of global warming, and refuse to allow themselves (and the messages and warnings they are trying to get the public to understand) to become entangled by petty arguments over MICRO-facts. Why? Because an entire industry has emerged, containing pseudo-experts who have found ways to make money, for themselves, by saying things that pathologically selfish and destructive people will pay them to say.  I refer to "climate deniers" as "paid disrupters", in public, and in this website. In private, I occasionally refer to them as "mouth-whores", a phrase that arose from a paid sexual practice that became common during the AIDS epidemic, among men in some impoverished countries who were desperate for money, but not homosexual.

          As just one example – entirely true – "paid disrupters" will argue that we cannot really know what is happening to polar bears, because we don't have any really good and reliable numbers, for polar bear populations, from, say, the 1950s. No legitimate scientist has any doubts that polar bear populations are struggling, terribly, because of the disappearance of the relatively small "sea ice" floes that seals rested on, in prior decades, in visible and vulnerable ways, which supported the most important way that polar bears hunted and caught seals, their main food supply. And yet, if the "paid disrupters" can find and then triumphantly pull out and point to some particular missing data point, they will loudly proclaim and argue that THAT gap in the data is part of why global warming has not yet been "proven", or proven to be man-made.

          Clearly, the fate of humanity does not depend, in the slightest, on whether scientists can somehow prove – to the satisfaction of the climate deniers and paid-disrupters (which will never, ever happen) – exactly how many polar bears there were, in the 1950s. However, the ability of "paid disrupters" to hijack, commandeer, disrupt, and divert any serious attempt to discuss serious problems – and turn those attempts into loud, bickering, never-ending arguments about things like polar bear populations, in the 1950s – is exactly the type of strategy that "paid disrupters" use, to help their puppet-masters stall, delay, and not have to face up – honestly or squarely – to the disasters that are coming at us, at high speed.

          How do "paid disrupters" make money? That question should be asked, not of me, but of Bjorn Lomborg, the favorite "paid disrupter" of the Wall Street Journal (which is effectively controlled by Rupert Murdoch, who also controls Fox News). The last time I saw an actual figure, Lomborg admitted that a foundation he had created and controlled, had paid him $700,000 (or possibly $750k; it was years ago, I'm working from memory, and his pay-rate has likely increased, since then), for his services, for one year, to say things in behalf of a "foundation" that was financially supported by money from oil and gas companies (and a few others). This oil and gas companies want someone who can at least "claim" to be an actual scientist (Lomborg has a PhD in what is called "POLITICAL Science", a phrase which people should question, and perhaps even challenge, by asking whether it truly is a form of "science" if "political scientists" study, and learn how to use, bombast, rhetoric, demagoguery, underhanded trickery and deceit, and outright lies, to get their clients elected to office). The oil and gas companies want someone they do not actually "employ" (so that he can at least pretend to be objective), who will keep claiming and arguing, as loudly and disruptively as possible, that global warming has not been proven, or is not sufficiently important or dangerous to be worth even trying to slow down. By paying other people to make those arguments, oil and gas companies, far-right-wingers, and "dark money" supporters do all they can to escape notice, and sidestep responsibility. They want false and misleading arguments to be made, first, by people like Lomborg, so that the people and companies who are paying people like Lomborg to make false, misleading, and distracting claims and arguments, can then simply point to and repeat those claims and arguments, and pretend that they came from "respected experts," while hoping that only a very few people know that people like Lomborg are being paid, quite generously, to say whatever they are saying, as mouthpieces, "meat puppets", and even "mouth-whores", for the companies that are paying them to say those things.

          So . . . the "Macro-Facts" section of this website describes nine specific, selected macro-facts about global warming, climate change, and sea level rise. These nine macro-facts are nominated by the author(s) of this website, for evaluation by any "Global Warming Strategy Council" that may be formed in the future (that is a strategy proposal, set forth below, in one of the sections that follows the "Facts" portion of this website).

          On the next page, each of those nine macro-facts is summarized in just a sentence or two; and, if any reader clicks on any topic-header sentence (in bolded red font), it will take the reader to a page where that fact is explained in more detail.

          One more note: the nine facts that were chosen for this list are limited to the Northern hemisphere. Why? Partly because most Americans really don't care all that much, or think all that much, about things like The Great Barrier Reef dying, or the Amazon rainforest being burned down, or how the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica (also called "The Doomsday Glacier", because of how much the ocean levels will rise, it if collapses) is "hanging on by its fingernails". Why bother going to the bottom half of the planet, when it's easy enough to come up with deeply disturbing facts, up here, on the top half of this planet, where we live?

          In addition, this focus on the northern hemisphere reflects the fact nearly all of the major decison-makers who have enough power to bring about actual changes, live in the northern hemisphere. And, in everything in this website, one of the major underlying themes is, "Stay focused on things you might actually be able to help, and change."

​

​

​​