Thanks again for great info on Klein's book, breakmarysfall. Some thoughts:
25 years of knowing about the dangers of Global Warming but no emissions cut back or changes in our economic system...
I lived next to a meteorologist in the late 80's (Well I'll be!... about 25 years ago!) and he showed me data that indicated global warming and warned me then that if something wasn't done to reverse the trend soon we were in deep poop.
widen out the alternative energy supply that is already existing and working just well instead of searching for new, fancy ways - like dimming the sun by geo-engineering or building a community on Mars!
Madness, indeed! These are desperate, head-in-the-sand, ideas fostered by industry and/or people in deep denial about the reality of climate science and/or people sadly desperate for an easy answer.
She recommends to think about ourselves again as being just a part of the huge living system instead of acting like the master of it all!
Yes! We would do well do consider the Gaia concept- planet as living system. So totally YES!
Above all, she ask for a re-design of the Capitalist Mantra: ongoing growth as the salvation for all of us... steady growth is NOT possible if the resources are limited!!! It is just a matter of logic
Frustrating, isn't it, that something so basic, so simple, is so overlooked!
Thanks again! Thia is great stuff!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Think about it this way... what happens when you add ise to your glass of water? The water gets colder, right? That is what is happening. The polar caps are breaking off in big chunks and being carried off by the ocean currents. When the ice mixes with the warmer waters it creates unstable weather systems. The cold air we are experiencing has always been cold... the difference being, the cold air is usually at the Arctic region, not forced down to the Great Lakes region by the jet stream. That's basically it... it a very simplistic form. More ice being added to our oceans as global temperatures rise and breaks off huge chunks the polar caps and disrupts Eath's normally stable and fairly predictable short term weather system.
Thanks again for great info on Klein's book, breakmarysfall. Some thoughts:
25 years of knowing about the dangers of Global Warming but no emissions cut back or changes in our economic system...
I lived next to a meteorologist in the late 80's (Well I'll be!... about 25 years ago!) and he showed me data that indicated global warming and warned me then that if something wasn't done to reverse the trend soon we were in deep poop.
widen out the alternative energy supply that is already existing and working just well instead of searching for new, fancy ways - like dimming the sun by geo-engineering or building a community on Mars!
Madness, indeed! These are desperate, head-in-the-sand, ideas fostered by industry and/or people in deep denial about the reality of climate science and/or people sadly desperate for an easy answer.
- p.s. those ideas are not only fostered by industry. One chapter explains in detail, that our green billionaires follow these ideas most.... it is a good one: why the billionaires won't save us. B. Gates spends his green money for further development of all kinds of geoengineering R. Branson spends his money to evaluate and organize a life on mars for the elite...
She recommends to think about ourselves again as being just a part of the huge living system instead of acting like the master of it all!
Yes! We would do well do consider the Gaia concept- planet as living system. So totally YES!
- p.s.2: dunno exactly what a Gaia concept is about but I surely will get informed about it... Klein does not use this explanation, although the name is mentioned once. But, however and maybe I inhaled the Gaia concept already and Naomi Klein as well... I'll find out
Above all, she ask for a re-design of the Capitalist Mantra: ongoing growth as the salvation for all of us... steady growth is NOT possible if the resources are limited!!! It is just a matter of logic
Frustrating, isn't it, that something so basic, so simple, is so overlooked!
Thanks again! Thia is great stuff!
Thank you for your kind words that is really nice... and I've hoped all the while that I could sum up the book in a good way. Well, dear brainlux, tell me how good of a sum up it was when you have read it. To me, it is indeed really great and somehow almost important to read... ... and now I am happy that I could encourage you for doing so ...
there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
Thought this story was very interesting, and how scientists are getting manipulated out of the public view by deniers with no factual evidence supporting their views.
Thank you for your kind words that is really nice... and I've hoped all the while that I could sum up the book in a good way. Well, dear brainlux, tell me how good of a sum up it was when you have read it. To me, it is indeed really great and somehow almost important to read... ... and now I am happy that I could encourage you for doing so ...
Thought this story was very interesting, and how scientists are getting manipulated out of the public view by deniers with no factual evidence supporting their views.
Great read, thanks bsL! This part really got me rile:
" few years later, Santer was reading the morning paper and came across an article describing how some scientists had participated in a program, organized by the tobacco industry, to discredit scientific evidence linking tobacco to cancer. The idea, the article explained, was to “keep the controversy alive...
Not only were the tactics the same, the people were the same, too. The leaders of the attack on him were two retired physicists...
...Both were extremely hawkish...
and both had previously worked for the tobacco industry, helping to cast doubt on the scientific evidence linking smoking to death.”
This really floored me because I was just reading this from the book The New Universe and the Human Future by Abrams and Primack:
"Remarkably, a small number of scientists have used prestige that they have earned in other areas [besides climate] to obscure the truth again and again, using virtually the same strategies on numerous issues from acid rain, tobacco smoke, and the ozone hole to global warming."
Oh man, I really hope we are just preaching to the choir at this point. The blatant obscuring of truth for no good purpose whatsoever surely must be obvious by now. The practice of those who do so is disgusting and preposterous at a time when urgent measures to reduce our harmful impact on climate and environment is paramount.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
What I find disturbing Brian is the number of scientists willing to compromise integrity when being offered money.
Just found this, I don't really trust Newsweek (NASA on the other hand is reputable), but we know the SW is having trouble with water supply… I don't know about only one year left… And I know you're in CA!
What I find disturbing Brian is the number of scientists willing to compromise integrity when being offered money.
Just found this, I don't really trust Newsweek (NASA on the other hand is reputable), but we know the SW is having trouble with water supply… I don't know about only one year left… And I know you're in CA!
Good article, thanks bsL. Some of the comments left at the end of that article are interesting too. I agree with the notion that we need to change our way of doing agriculture since a huge portion of our water is used for that purpose. The first thing we would be wise to do is cut way down on our animal consumption, especially beef (which I all but stopped eating). And not just here in CA but everywhere since every cow releases something like between 70 and 120 kg of methane per year- a huge contribution to greenhouse gasses.
Also good to see someone there suggested growing hemp. (see hemp thread).
I half Joking tell C. that maybe droves of people will get freaked out and move out of the state. Yes, a very selfish view but when I was born here in California the population of the state was 11.13 million and today it is 38.8 million. Population will definitely factor in to the long-term drought situation (and of course it is related to almost all of the rest of the problems we face),
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Sorry BS but, really, very few (especially climate scientists) who are informed and well educated on environmental issues take Moore seriously. He left Greenpeace in 1986 and since then has mostly done consulting and corporate speaking.
"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out a hat! Ooops, sorry, wrong hat."
Nice try, BS.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Sorry BS but, really, very few (especially climate scientists) who are informed and well educated on environmental issues take Moore seriously. He left Greenpeace in 1986 and since then has mostly done consulting and corporate speaking.
"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out a hat! Ooops, sorry, wrong hat."
Sorry BS but, really, very few (especially climate scientists) who are informed and well educated on environmental issues take Moore seriously. He left Greenpeace in 1986 and since then has mostly done consulting and corporate speaking.
"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out a hat! Ooops, sorry, wrong hat."
Nice try, BS.
Nice try?
Sorry, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Do you agree with Moore? Do you have doubts about anthropogenic global warming?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Sorry BS but, really, very few (especially climate scientists) who are informed and well educated on environmental issues take Moore seriously. He left Greenpeace in 1986 and since then has mostly done consulting and corporate speaking.
"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out a hat! Ooops, sorry, wrong hat."
Nice try, BS.
Nice try?
Sorry, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Do you agree with Moore? Do you have doubts about anthropogenic global warming?
Of course I have doubts. Science demands doubt. There is a pause in temperature data that does not line up with earlier predictions. It is possible that our early assumptions on the effect of carbon dioxide are wrong. Science must test to find out. Don't fear the answer.
Sorry BS but, really, very few (especially climate scientists) who are informed and well educated on environmental issues take Moore seriously. He left Greenpeace in 1986 and since then has mostly done consulting and corporate speaking.
"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out a hat! Ooops, sorry, wrong hat."
Nice try, BS.
Nice try?
Sorry, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Do you agree with Moore? Do you have doubts about anthropogenic global warming?
Of course I have doubts. Science demands doubt. There is a pause in temperature data that does not line up with earlier predictions. It is possible that our early assumptions on the effect of carbon dioxide are wrong. Science must test to find out. Don't fear the answer.
BS, I appreciate a certain amount of skepticism but, look, I've already posted 18 gazilion rebuttals here to this kind of climate change denial and I no longer see any point in arguing against information that is put out by a very small percentage of people who claim to be scientist who get their pay checks from corporations that are far more concerned about their profit margin that about what we are doing to trash the planet. Fear has nothing to do with for me. For those who come after me, concern, yes.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
So when it's the coldest day on record in "name your city" it has nothing to do with Global Warming but when it's the warmest day in Antarctica it obviously has everything to do with it.
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
So when it's the coldest day on record in "name your city" it has nothing to do with Global Warming but when it's the warmest day in Antarctica it obviously has everything to do with it.
Not exactly "everything" to do with it, but acting like temperatures in the continental U.S. are as significant in climate science as temperatures at the poles is just plain wrong. We know, even beyond the range of deniers, that the variability in climate at the poles is typically far less dynamic, and we also know that when the global climate shifts, greater variability, and greater effect in general is experienced in those regions. Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
So when it's the coldest day on record in "name your city" it has nothing to do with Global Warming but when it's the warmest day in Antarctica it obviously has everything to do with it.
Not exactly "everything" to do with it, but acting like temperatures in the continental U.S. are as significant in climate science as temperatures at the poles is just plain wrong. We know, even beyond the range of deniers, that the variability in climate at the poles is typically far less dynamic, and we also know that when the global climate shifts, greater variability, and greater effect in general is experienced in those regions. Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
So when it's the coldest day on record in "name your city" it has nothing to do with Global Warming but when it's the warmest day in Antarctica it obviously has everything to do with it.
Not exactly "everything" to do with it, but acting like temperatures in the continental U.S. are as significant in climate science as temperatures at the poles is just plain wrong. We know, even beyond the range of deniers, that the variability in climate at the poles is typically far less dynamic, and we also know that when the global climate shifts, greater variability, and greater effect in general is experienced in those regions. Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
So when it's the coldest day on record in "name your city" it has nothing to do with Global Warming but when it's the warmest day in Antarctica it obviously has everything to do with it.
Not exactly "everything" to do with it, but acting like temperatures in the continental U.S. are as significant in climate science as temperatures at the poles is just plain wrong. We know, even beyond the range of deniers, that the variability in climate at the poles is typically far less dynamic, and we also know that when the global climate shifts, greater variability, and greater effect in general is experienced in those regions. Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
We don't "know" any of those things.
You might not, but scientific consensus does.
Please forward the published article that supports the theory that changes in one region's temperature is more significant then changes in another region's temperature when measuring global climate.
The funniest thing about that article is that the new "record" is only 0.8 degrees above the old record set in 1961. When the record hit that day the world was just starting to be concerned about global cooling!
The funniest thing about that article is that the new "record" is only 0.8 degrees above the old record set in 1961. When the record hit that day the world was just starting to be concerned about global cooling!
The global cooling claim was not a large scientific consensus, it was a popular theory that has been traced to that venerable pillar of science known as Time magazine.
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
So when it's the coldest day on record in "name your city" it has nothing to do with Global Warming but when it's the warmest day in Antarctica it obviously has everything to do with it.
Not exactly "everything" to do with it, but acting like temperatures in the continental U.S. are as significant in climate science as temperatures at the poles is just plain wrong. We know, even beyond the range of deniers, that the variability in climate at the poles is typically far less dynamic, and we also know that when the global climate shifts, greater variability, and greater effect in general is experienced in those regions. Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
We don't "know" any of those things.
You might not, but scientific consensus does.
Please forward the published article that supports the theory that changes in one region's temperature is more significant then changes in another region's temperature when measuring global climate.
I don't have enough time or data to do that or I would. I know just from plain old memory that while the average global temp has increased something like .6C, the Arctic region has increased by something like 3C. Maybe tomorrow I will have time and find some wifi.
A potential Antarctica record high of 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on March 24 at the Esperanza Base, just south of the southern tip of Argentina—a temperature exceeding any figure yet observed on the Antarctic landmass or Peninsula, according to the Weather Underground blog. The previous record high at the base, of 62.7 degrees Fahrenheit, was recorded in 1961.
So when it's the coldest day on record in "name your city" it has nothing to do with Global Warming but when it's the warmest day in Antarctica it obviously has everything to do with it.
Not exactly "everything" to do with it, but acting like temperatures in the continental U.S. are as significant in climate science as temperatures at the poles is just plain wrong. We know, even beyond the range of deniers, that the variability in climate at the poles is typically far less dynamic, and we also know that when the global climate shifts, greater variability, and greater effect in general is experienced in those regions. Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
We don't "know" any of those things.
You might not, but scientific consensus does.
Please forward the published article that supports the theory that changes in one region's temperature is more significant then changes in another region's temperature when measuring global climate.
I don't have enough time or data to do that or I would. I know just from plain old memory that while the average global temp has increased something like .6C, the Arctic region has increased by something like 3C. Maybe tomorrow I will have time and find some wifi.
Please do and don't forget the part outlining how one region's temperature change is more significant when discussing overall climate.
You know, these days anyone claiming or alluding to being a global warming denier is probably just saying stuff to a) attempt to be funny or b) contentious shit stirrers or c) sincerely confused by misleading information or d) really deep into some strange form of denial (in which case I really do give my sincerest empathy). I find this interesting.
It's true, bsl12's post does refer to a specific place and global warming is not about specific places but the whole. However,I think her point was missed and that is that this is yet another example of an extreme weather event. If we stand back from these individual scenarios, the picture comes into focus rather than remain just a blur.
Anyway, just in case there really are some who are still sincerely on the fence out there and really do care, and who are confused by all the various reports on local trends, here's an excellent article that will help put all that into focus. Notice there are some areas that are abnormally cold but then step back (so to speak) and look at the big picture:
It's a stupid debate by this point. You'd have to be a complete and utter moron to not believe that trashing the oceans, levelling forests and pumping billions of tons of pollution into the air has no effect on climate.....not to mention just dangerous for life to exist.
If they refuse to acknowledge it by now it is simply wilful ignorance for some reason.
I admire those who keep debating the deniers. I have no stomach or patience for ignorance and stupidity any more.
It's a stupid debate by this point. You'd have to be a complete and utter moron to not believe that trashing the oceans, levelling forests and pumping billions of tons of pollution into the air has no effect on climate.....not to mention just dangerous for life to exist.
If they refuse to acknowledge it by now it is simply wilful ignorance for some reason.
I admire those who keep debating the deniers. I have no stomach or patience for ignorance and stupidity any more.
I refuse to debate deniers anymore. The proof is there, the glaciers are nearly gone, the polar caps are warming (which was the point of my article), the coasts are rising (very slowly, but still), droughts are worsening.
Comments
25 years of knowing about the dangers of Global Warming but no emissions cut back or changes in our economic system...
I lived next to a meteorologist in the late 80's (Well I'll be!... about 25 years ago!) and he showed me data that indicated global warming and warned me then that if something wasn't done to reverse the trend soon we were in deep poop.
widen out the alternative energy supply that is already existing and working just well instead of searching for new, fancy ways - like dimming the sun by geo-engineering or building a community on Mars!
Madness, indeed! These are desperate, head-in-the-sand, ideas fostered by industry and/or people in deep denial about the reality of climate science and/or people sadly desperate for an easy answer.
She recommends to think about ourselves again as being just a part of the huge living system instead of acting like the master of it all!
Yes! We would do well do consider the Gaia concept- planet as living system. So totally YES!
Above all, she ask for a re-design of the Capitalist Mantra: ongoing growth as the salvation for all of us... steady growth is NOT possible if the resources are limited!!! It is just a matter of logic
Frustrating, isn't it, that something so basic, so simple, is so overlooked!
Thanks again! Thia is great stuff!
Thank you for your kind words
Well, dear brainlux, tell me how good of a sum up it was when you have read it.
To me, it is indeed really great and somehow almost important to read...
... and now I am happy that I could encourage you for doing so ...
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/the-relentless-attack-of-climate-scientist-ben-santer/
Thought this story was very interesting, and how scientists are getting manipulated out of the public view by deniers with no factual evidence supporting their views.
Great read, thanks bsL! This part really got me rile:
" few years later, Santer was reading the morning paper and came across an article describing how some scientists had participated in a program, organized by the tobacco industry, to discredit scientific evidence linking tobacco to cancer. The idea, the article explained, was to “keep the controversy alive...
Not only were the tactics the same, the people were the same, too. The leaders of the attack on him were two retired physicists...
...Both were extremely hawkish...
and both had previously worked for the tobacco industry, helping to cast doubt on the scientific evidence linking smoking to death.”
This really floored me because I was just reading this from the book The New Universe and the Human Future by Abrams and Primack:
"Remarkably, a small number of scientists have used prestige that they have earned in other areas [besides climate] to obscure the truth again and again, using virtually the same strategies on numerous issues from acid rain, tobacco smoke, and the ozone hole to global warming."
Oh man, I really hope we are just preaching to the choir at this point. The blatant obscuring of truth for no good purpose whatsoever surely must be obvious by now. The practice of those who do so is disgusting and preposterous at a time when urgent measures to reduce our harmful impact on climate and environment is paramount.
Just found this, I don't really trust Newsweek (NASA on the other hand is reputable), but we know the SW is having trouble with water supply… I don't know about only one year left… And I know you're in CA!
http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647
NASA: California Has One Year of Water Left
Also good to see someone there suggested growing hemp. (see hemp thread).
I half Joking tell C. that maybe droves of people will get freaked out and move out of the state. Yes, a very selfish view but when I was born here in California the population of the state was 11.13 million and today it is 38.8 million. Population will definitely factor in to the long-term drought situation (and of course it is related to almost all of the rest of the problems we face),
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out a hat! Ooops, sorry, wrong hat."
Nice try, BS.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/01/scientists-record-warmest-day-ever-antarctica
Not exactly "everything" to do with it, but acting like temperatures in the continental U.S. are as significant in climate science as temperatures at the poles is just plain wrong. We know, even beyond the range of deniers, that the variability in climate at the poles is typically far less dynamic, and we also know that when the global climate shifts, greater variability, and greater effect in general is experienced in those regions.
Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
Do you think that the winter temperature in (insert your city) and the autumn temperature in Antarctica are of equal significance in global climate, or are you simplifying the issue to blur the point and create hypocrisy from nothing?
We don't "know" any of those things.
You might not, but scientific consensus does.
Please forward the published article that supports the theory that changes in one region's temperature is more significant then changes in another region's temperature when measuring global climate.
I don't have enough time or data to do that or I would. I know just from plain old memory that while the average global temp has increased something like .6C, the Arctic region has increased by something like 3C.
Maybe tomorrow I will have time and find some wifi.
Maybe tomorrow I will have time and find some wifi.
Please do and don't forget the part outlining how one region's temperature change is more significant when discussing overall climate.
It's true, bsl12's post does refer to a specific place and global warming is not about specific places but the whole. However,I think her point was missed and that is that this is yet another example of an extreme weather event. If we stand back from these individual scenarios, the picture comes into focus rather than remain just a blur.
Anyway, just in case there really are some who are still sincerely on the fence out there and really do care, and who are confused by all the various reports on local trends, here's an excellent article that will help put all that into focus. Notice there are some areas that are abnormally cold but then step back (so to speak) and look at the big picture:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/a-hypothesis-about-the-cold-winter-in-eastern-north-america/
If they refuse to acknowledge it by now it is simply wilful ignorance for some reason.
I admire those who keep debating the deniers. I have no stomach or patience for ignorance and stupidity any more.