"We are in a planetary emergency."

[MindMover]

Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 07:56 PM - Edit history (3)

Arctic Ice Melt, Psychopathic Capitalism and the Corporate Media

Last month, climate scientists announced that Arctic sea ice had shrunk to its smallest surface area since satellite observations began in 1979. An ice-free summer in the Arctic, once projected to be more than a century away, now looks possible just a few decades from now. Some scientists say it may happen within the next few years.

The loss is hugely significant because Arctic sea ice reflects most solar energy into space, helping to keep the Earth at a moderate temperature. But when the ice melts it reveals dark waters below, which absorb more than 90 percent of the solar energy that hits them, leading to faster warming both locally and globally.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, warns that the Arctic may be ice-free in summer as soon as 2015. Such a massive loss would have a warming effect roughly equivalent to all human activity to date. In other words, a summer ice-free Arctic could double the rate of warming of the planet as a whole. No wonder that leading NASA climate scientist James Hansen says bluntly: "We are in a planetary emergency."

In a comprehensive blog piece on the Scientific American website, Ramez Naam points out that:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11970-arctic-ice-melt-psychopathic-capitalism-and-the-corporate-media

"We have got to prevent what we cannot adapt to" .... Bill McKibben

See more at http://climatecrocks.com/

[davidn3600]

1. No one cares

Sorry to say but it is true.

Obama rarely brings climate change up. Was it even ever discussed at the DNC?

[Live and Learn]

26. I do. I think quite a few others do as well.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to be the majority. Obviously, this is a case where majority rule doesn't favor society in general.

[daleanime]

88. No, I think we are the majority....

we just don't have the $$$$$$$$'s!

[tex-wyo-dem]

44. I think it has more to do with basic human psychology....

Than simply "not caring". Basically what we have is the psychological equivalent to "whistling past the graveyard", consciencely and sub-consciencely purposefully ignoring the problem because the truth is overwhelming, depressing and scary. The "fix" for the problem (if there truly is a fix anymore) will require drastic and uncomfortable changes in everyone's lifestyle. Unfortuately, it is human nature, primed by out-of-control capitalism, that we are competitive...wanting more than the next guy/gal and willing to do anything to aquire more material things.

[defacto7]

99. I absolutely agree.

It's the comfort factor that humans can't handle now that we live in a world where comfort and entertainment trump everything. That is what will kill us off in the end if we as a species don't wake up. We have become blind to survival and the earth does not ultimately accept complacency. The earth will spit us out.

[closeupready]

105. The story of Easter Island demonstrates, on a small scale,

how humans will consume every last resource available in pursuit of vanity and comfort.

I do believe that we are going to destroy the current environment and thus, our civilization. And extinguish many other species in the process.

I don't see a viable alternate path.

[Zoeisright]

47. Wrong. Plenty of people care.

Plenty of people are extremely angry about this. And if you think repukes are going to do one god damned thing about it, you're delusional.

[villager]

52. The problem is Dems aren't really doing one god damned thing about it, either.

Not anything significant.

So something beyond a two-corporate-party system, and the usual "shut up and vote (maybe)" kind of discourse will be needed. Immediately.

[LiberalAndProud]

72. A $90 billion investment is not nothing.

Not everything Mitt said was totally false.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1004/Romney-zinger-Obama-backs-green-energy-losers.-Is-he-right-video

[villager]

87. It's not bad, but we know that a many-years-off investment in some green technologies...

...still isn't what's going to be required in the face of this.

However terrifying even that modest step might seem to Repubbies.

[JDPriestly]

96. Let's set the record straight. The large part of the money went for energy efficiency

and will save Americans money.

From the New York Times:

As we reported in August when Mr. Romney first raised the figure, sort of. The $90 billion is a real number drawn from the 2009 stimulus package, but it wasn’t all spent, as Mr. Romney said, and a lot of the green energy spending that went out the door on Mr. Obama’s watch was authorized during the Bush administration.

The biggest component of the $90 billion was $29 billion for energy efficiency, of which $5 billion involved improvements in the homes and apartments of low-income households. There was also $18 billion for fast trains and $21 billion for wind farms, solar panels and other renewable energy. Supporters point out that much of the energy spending drew in private capital.

Mr. Romney also said, “I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they’ve gone out of business.” One, Solyndra, a maker of solar equipment, went under and took the government’s $528 million with it. (The Solyndra grant process began during the Bush administration, however, as my colleague John Mr. Broder noted.) Others went bankrupt, but the government recovered some of the stimulus money. The defaults were far less than Congress had allocated to cover losses, and far, far less than half of the ventures, although some others may yet fail.

As Mr. Broder also pointed out, Mr. Romney asserted that all the increase in oil and gas production during Mr. Obama’s term occurred on private lands, but federal statistics contradict this.

. . . .
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/90-billion-for-green-energy-a-closer-look/


Of the $90 billion handed out, less than $1 billion has been lost, even counting two other failures Romney didn't mention: Beacon Power and Abound Solar. That's less than the $2.4 billion Congress has set aside for losses, The New York Times points out. If Romney had that kind of record at Bain Capital, he'd be a proud member of the billionaire's club right now.

. . . .

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1004/Romney-zinger-Obama-backs-green-energy-losers.-Is-he-right-video

Wonder who paid the CSMonitor for that little Romney plug.

[LiberalAndProud]

101. I didn't read the CSMonitor as critical.

Of the $90 billion handed out, less than $1 billion has been lost, even counting two other failures Romney didn't mention: Beacon Power and Abound Solar. That's less than the $2.4 billion Congress has set aside for losses, The New York Times points out. If Romney had that kind of record at Bain Capital, he'd be a proud member of the billionaire's club right now.

That seems like a very reasonable assessment of the Green Energy program. To pretend that Obama hasn't taken a risk would be short-sighted. These technologies are in their infancy, experimental, and facing huge political and industrial opposition. We have to expect that a few start-ups will fail. It is a gamble. For the sake of our future, let's hope that the gamble pays off.

[JDPriestly]

112. It will pay off. There is no alternative to green energy. None.

[abumbyanyothername]

136. Green energy will not save the day.

It cannot.

We are currently using something like 50 years of the total plant conversion of solar energy on the whole planet each year.

No technology can bring us up to that level of living.

We have to downsize.

[JDPriestly]

143. We will downsize and rely on green energy for what we can get. I understand that.

[Selatius]

68. Most of those people don't have deep pockets and an army of lobbyists working for them.

That's the problem with the government of the United States. Everything is sold to the highest bidder. The idea of establishing a republic on privately funded elections where the wealthiest have a competitive advantage and expecting that it would be representative of the population it reigns over has struck me as incredibly idiotic for a long time now.

[Plaid Adder]

48. It is not true.

Plenty of people care. I personally worry about it every day. The problem is that the people who care are not the ones who have the power to make the changes necessary to reverse global warming. Sure, we can do what we can about our individual carbon footprints; but if we want the planet to stop warming up we basically have to change the way things are made and the way people get from point a to point b. Conservation alone cannot do that.

The Plaid Adder

[RoccoR5955]

51. Not true

Many of us DO care, because as we all know, there is no Planet B.
We have only one home planet, and have not learned how to colonize other planets.
Even if we did, we would be foolish to make our ancestral home a place where we could not live.

This is all being driven by capitalism. All I hear is consume, consume, consume. Not one word of conserving resources. Few about recycling resources. It's really a shame.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. Most of us care.

It's just there's not a whole lot we can do about it on a global level. All we can do is try to leave the smallest carbon footprint we can manage with the time we have left.

(I know it's educational and all but I'm not real excited about the doom-and-gloom, we're-all-gonna-die aspect of these threads. It's unusual that I opened this one. Ya gotta admit, they're depressing as hell.)

[Bohunk68]

81. I think you are right.

It is beyond the time of caring. The shit is already hitting the fan. That being said, it has always been humankinds actions to despoil the nest and then move on to another location and do the same thing all over again. While many have this awe about Native Americans not doing the same thing, it is true that they did, indeed do such a thing. Oh, this place is a mess, and the game is all gone and the land is no longer fertile, let's go down the block a few miles and do it all over again. As a poster said above, there is no Planet B to go to, we've already fucked up things pretty bad here and with the population continuing to increase by leaps and bounds, things are going to get shitty long before anyone finally looks at history and really learns something. And if they are a Republic, only if a buck can be made from it. I think the best we can do is to leave as a small a footprint as possible. Hope? Well, as granny used to say, wish in one hand and spit in the other and which do you think will get full quicker? Yes, she did say "spit", although we surely understood what she really meant.

[Zorra]

69. Many care, but not enough to get out in the streets with Occupy to

try to change this system that is responsible for the destruction of mother earth.

Simply caring is not enough. Action is needed.

We need a worldwide general strike to bring this poisonous system to its knees and then set about fixing it. Because the people that are killing this planet don't give a shit, and they are not going to fix it for us. And the corporate buttsuckers who keep saying "oh, we can change it just by voting" are fracking deluded beyond redemption, just bricks in the wall.

If we want something done, we are going to have to do it ourselves, and that takes courage and will, two virtues that seem to be sadly lacking among the general American populace these days. We had a chance, if enough people would have gotten off the couch, before the cops beat Occupy down.

Who will stand with us on our next go round?

[Duppers]

74. bravo!!

nt

[tama]

113. I've been on strike for a decade

I don't work for money. It is very much possible to join the slacker strike even without getting off the couch.

And I'm all for DIY revolution. Learning gardening is a good start.

[Ya Basta]

75. Actually I think its normalcy bias with most people

n/t

[2on2u]

78. Insurance companies care. n/t

[freshwest]

89. Yes, their data keepers as well as the DOD know the dangers and have prepared for them.

Not saying that their solutions are kind, though.

[Chemisse]

82. I care so much it is my number one issue.

None of the political issues of our day can come close to the importance of this one issue.

Losing Social Security would be awful, over turning of Roe v Wade would be a terrible thing, increased taxes on the middle class would be financially crippling.

But the annihilation of the human race via drastic and irreversible climate change would be oh so much worse than all the others put together.

Now if only we could get a politician or two to care.

[stuntcat]

85. mine too

I've been learning about this for too many decades now, watching my fellow citizens care less and less for science, nature, other species.

The only people I know who think it's important are some people online. I've seen too much from my fellow citizens to have any hope. At this point we'd have to go back in time to make sure the rest of this century isn't a shame on our entire species.

I'll never stop voting D, but I've already lost hope in Americans, no matter how loudly a few of them protest what's happening. The only things I'm glad for are that I'm 42, and that I resisted the twisted pressure I'm still getting to give the next 90 years to my baby.

[AverageJoe90]

118. I don't like where all this is going, but......

let's try to be realistic at the same time: humanity will not be destroyed by this alone and global warming is reversible, at least in many aspects(sea level rise may be an exception to the rule, but it's one of only a very few). If AGW could destroy humanity, then how did our primitive ancestors survive the Toba eruption, which produced changes even worse, and far more sudden, than AGW has so far?

[thetonka]

94. It's not that no one cares

It's that the message is lost or distorted.

I tell people I do not believe in Global Warming, because Global Warming has been turned into a propaganda religious movement. It is tainted by misinformation, misguided passion, and misguided loyalties.

And just that statement alone will get many on here spun up.

There is no doubt the climate is changing, it is always in flux. The real issue is what has our society, and industry contributed to this and how can we address this. Fundamentally when you start going after people with fear tactics, and over the top propaganda you will alienate a significant part of the audience, especially in the world today that is filled with people who are more interested in distinguishing themselves from the "Enemy" instead of working together towards a compromise, regardless of whether the enemy is the Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, socialist, capitalists, Christians, Muslims, or independents.

I was raised to always be mindful of my impact. This fundamental concept applies to everything, environment, social interaction, public action. If you get people to think about and understand their impact you are much more likely to get people to make the decisions that account for their impact, than if you try to scare or force them.

I do not consider myself to be a liberal, a progressive, or a democrat. I also do not consider myself to be a conservative, or a republican. On the other hand, many of the people I know who argue in favor of Global Warming or radical measures to fix the harm caused by human society and industry rarely ever do anything but talk, at least not when it comes to themselves. A perfect example of this is Al Gore. It wasn't until real pressure was put on him did he actually take measures to clean up his act and reduce his impact. In contrast Ed Begley Jr., who I am a huge fan of, has always walked the walk. Ed never did the things he has been doing for so long, like riding a bicycle to movie premiers, for publicity, he did them because they were the right thing to do.

In the end the only way this world will cut the waste and reduce the impact of human society and industry is if we all make a personal commitment to first and foremost be mindful of our individual impact. Both my wife and I drive a Prius, and this week I am having a huge Solar Array installed on my house. For both of these things I have not saved much money, but that is not the point. I did them because they were the right thing to do. Right now I know more conservatives that are adding Solar Arrays and energy efficient appliances and upgrades than I do liberals. They do it because it is the right thing to do, not because they are trying to comply with propaganda like the Global Warming religious movement. None of them brag about it.

If you care, what have you done to understand and adjust your impact? What have you done to prove that you can and will do the right thing?

/END RANT

[abumbyanyothername]

135. The people who care

are taking the wrong approach.

We must change our lives individually and prepare for both climate change and energy descent. We cannot wait for government or business institutions to do it for us.

Are you willing to give up running water? Are you ready to grow all or even a significant portion of your own food? Can you live without the internet?

You may be faced with the necessity of making these adaptations . . . IN YOUR LIFETIME.

I suggest that you spend some amount of time preparing for this possibility/eventuality.

[Speck Tater]

2. And it does help that, to quote the article...

"...On a sane planet, action would have been taken long before now to limit the risk. But, as Greenpeace International head Kumi Naidoo notes, fossil fuel industries have been working hard to corrupt the political process..."

[MindMover]

3. Yes, Psychopathic Capitalism and the Corporate Media

[AAO]

34. Corporations killed us all, in the end. We, the people were not strong enough, nor smart enough. N/T

[CrispyQ]

83. Yeah but we got alotta cheap shit & cool gadgets!

"Consuming our ecosystem for the profit of a few."

From the movie "The Eleventh Hour," narrated by Matt Damon.

[Iwasthere]

4. You won't see a ton of comments to this I bet

We CAN slow this, too late to stop it but it can be slowed. Greed is destroying the planet.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. What is there to say?

We know? We know.

I watched An Inconvenient Truth. Nothing has changed. The populace is all prepped for the Apocalypse; the End of Days. It's right there in the Bible. See? I'm not seeing anyone in power talking about it. I hope Obama's Green Energy investment pays off, but it's slow going. How do you move from our expanding consumption model to an earth friendly model? I don't know.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Doing that. So now what?

[MindMover]

11. How about huge panels or tarps to trap sunlight ...

convert into electricity ... effectively blocking sunlight from reaching dark water ...

We have to start thinking outside of our boxes ...

[LiberalAndProud]

12. We're trying to convert to solar.

It can be done, but it's not inexpensive. Landlords won't make that kind of investment because why bother? In many ways, this is a money issue and the world is on an austerity kick.

[MindMover]

16. We put Rover on Mars, We can save this planet ...

Money issues are man made and can be remedied rapidly ...

[LiberalAndProud]

21. Can be and will be are two different things.

We could do much if we had the will. As I indicated above, too many are invested in the fulfillment of prophesy. Even if you don't believe in The Second Coming, faith insulates against urgency. God's got this.

I don't want to make this an argument over religion, but the effect can't be ignored.

[MindMover]

23. The religious second coming argument is becoming less

effective as temperatures across our nation this summer were record highs ...

The statement that "God wants us to destroy this beautiful earth planet???" just does not compute anymore ...

Unless you are handling snakes for a living ...

They have become a smaller and shrinking minority as they themselves predicted ...

[LiberalAndProud]

42. I want to live where you live.

Unless you have some stats, my experience doesn't sync with what you claim.

[MindMover]

63. This is one of the better articles on the subject ...

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

[LiberalAndProud]

65. I'm not convinced.

When the first paragraph states that polling organizations are incorrect (by a HUGE margin), followed by an independent analysis made up of random numbers, I tend to dismiss the argument.

[MindMover]

67. Thankfully I am not trying nor do I have to convince you ...

If your analysis is stopping at the first sentence or two and you dismiss the argument on your assumptions, you could be part of the problem ...

There are hundreds of studies and literally thousands of articles on this subject which justifies my statement ...

It is your choice to ignore these truths ...

[LiberalAndProud]

70. There is also this:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/assemblies-of-god-surpasses-3-million-followers-in-us-51791/

Assemblies of God Growing Faster Than U.S. Population

The Assemblies of God, one of the largest Pentecostal denominations, is growing faster than the U.S. population.

AG reported that its U.S. adherents increased four percent in 2010, which is several times higher than the U.S. population growth rate, which is about one percent a year. Adherents of the Assemblies of God USA have surpassed three million followers, 3,030,944 to be exact, in 2010.

This is the largest annual percentage increase since 1983, according to AG records.

You may recognize this denomination, because Sara Palin is a congregant. I don't know where you are, but the Pentacostal churches in my area are doing bang-up business. I realize we're only talking about .1 percent of the US population in this article, but this is one denomination. I can't count the number of small community churches with the same Pentacostal outlook that are sprouting up all over the place, but I see them.

This is just a subset of the Republican party, which preaches that "Global warming is a hoax." Just for kicks, let's throw in the Aztec calendar, because it ends this year, you know.

I don't live in the most rational area of the country, so my experience is probably no barometer, but it does tend to squelch my hope for a unified effort to care for our planet. First God will save the worthy, second there is no problem, and third, it's written in the stars.

I apologize if I seem overly pessimistic, but I can't help it. It infuriates me that religion, the Republican Party and other superstitions have set themselves against science. Rational people are left to tilt at windmills.

[Duppers]

79. same here, L&P

much of the south reflect the opinions of my mother who said, "god wouldn't let good people and life on earth burn up."


but at least she doesn't subscribe to the 'end time' bullcrap.

[LanternWaste]

93. I imagine that when it comes to religion, we hear what better validates our biases.

"aith insulates against urgency. God's got this. .."

Odd-- at almost every church service where I attend, we are reminded that we are to be responsible stewards of the earth-- meaning we leave it in better shape than when we arrived.


I imagine that when it comes to religion, we hear what better validates our biases.

[LiberalAndProud]

98. I understand LanternWaste.

Truly I do. I used to share your faith and I was taught that same stewardship in my own religious training. But it is too easy -- far too easy -- to "rest assured" that God will see to the best outcome. When an obstacle seems insurmountable, when an issue become too large for us to cope with, we can rely on a supreme being to see to it that it all comes out okay. I don't see any evidence of that, and it induces a dangerous passivity where urgency is required.

[AverageJoe90]

127. Same thing goes for the "We Can't Fix The Climate Problem!" crap.....

doesn't matter if it's the apocalyptics on our side, or the Chris Bookers on the other, who say "So what? Nothing we can do to stop climate change if it is happening, so we should just adapt....". It's practically a goddamn religion with some of these people, on both sides.

[marions ghost]

39. Better get on it then...

[csziggy]

49. If extra electricity could be sold, they would

If utility companies were required to buy electricity generated at distributed locations then more people and companies could justify putting in solar panels. Of course part of the reason that the utilities do not do this is that their grids and meters are not capable of handling a distributed electrical system.

It is possible, though. It has been done in Germany. And Germany does not have as many areas that receive as much solar energy as many well populated parts of the US.

[LiberalAndProud]

61. Again, money. That requires a huge investment in infrastructure.

Our electric company will buy electricity, but there is a lot of waste in the energy transfer.

Hubby is a hobbyist and he has built one solar panel. It lit up a 25W light bulb in full sun. He figures he'll put his aquarium on solar first (three panels to run the aquarium). So for now it's a hobby. The price of the product has to come down. Part of that will require moving manufacturing back to the States from China. If you want to buy a solar panel today, you will most likely buy from China.

Hubby is also intrigued with the Bloom Box. It looks promising, but still cost prohibitive. We know of a feed lot nearby that powers its operation exclusively by methane gas.

The world has made some headway toward finding solutions, but the financial cost is prohibitive for most industries and certainly for most individuals.

[thetonka]

95. It's not just about landlords not bothering

In some places there is no legal way to install Solar equipment on multi-family residences.

I have a friend whose dad owns a small apartment complex in Long Beach. He has looked into installing Solar Equipment, but because of the way the utilities are set up, and the way the laws address rights of passage, it can be a VERY sticky situation. He decided that the liability was to high, even though he had cash on hand to pay to install enough to cover the electric usage for the entire complex.

Overly complicated, outdated, and overbearing laws.

[LiberalAndProud]

100. Time to storm city hall?

Laws can be changed. The good thing is that a problem has been identified. The hard thing is to change it.

[Bluestar]

102. Paint the rooftops white

In Los Angeles companies are encouraged to paint their rooftops white to save on energy. This is cheap and easy. It could go worldwide.

[glinda]

107. Cease big box stores and their black humungo parking lots.

[Auggie]

27. I think of this every day

[slackmaster]

5. I don't see it as an emergency because there is no urgent intervention that could stop it

It's a slow-moving disaster that we all will have to deal with.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. But it didn't have to be that way.

[slackmaster]

9. If you can explain how we can go back in time and make it didn't happen

That would be great.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. We wait for the last of the Humpback whales to die, and for

Captain Kirk to show up.

[MindMover]

28. PBMUS = Please Beam Me Up Scotty ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Yes, please!

[stuntcat]

86. that's right

plenty of people warned us, plenty of people told exactly what we needed to do to help ourselves, to help the babies we won't stop giving the rest of the century.

All the otherwise strong species we're wiping out of existence is the biggest Fail ever for Humanity.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. As is Fukishima, "because there is no urgent intervention that could stop it"

[AverageJoe90]

120. The science seriously disagrees with you, slackmaster.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm

And it's kind of funny how certain views of some end-of-the-world nuts seem to line up rather well with the anti-AGW skeptics, the "we can't fix climate change" baloney in particular.

[slackmaster]

141. I fully understand that it is TECHNICALLY possible, and even believe the USA could do its share

The problem is getting the rest of the world to cooperate. In particular China, India, and the inevitable growth that will come to much of the rest of the third world.

[AverageJoe90]

144. Sadly, you may be correct on this.

There is still hope for the third world, though. At least most places.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. It is a human emergency, not a planetary emergency

The planet has had worse changes in its long history. It will continue swimmingly. New species will evolve to take advantage of ecological niches.

Humans are up shit-creek without a paddle if we don't do something.

[The Doctor.]

10. We could accidentally Venu-form the atmosphere.

It'll be a long time before the few surviving bacteria evolve enough sentience to thank us.

[Agnosticsherbet]

103. Such things have happened before...

And why would you think that sentence is an end point. If such things should happen, it would have been sentience that brought it about.

Effectively, we are creating a sort of red tide with disastrous consequences, but the earth will remain.

[AverageJoe90]

121. Not even close.

Honestly, man, I'm sorry, but that's just pure baloney. You do realize that Venus's atmosphere is 99% carbon and that it's far closer to the Sun, right?

[The Doctor.]

146. Ummm.... really?

No, I'm not saying it will have the exact same composition.

I didn't realize Venus had carbon in the atmosphere other than as CO2. Or is that what you meant?

Either way, it doesn't matter. We could indeed see runaway warming evaporate the oceans. It may not be probable, but we really don't know what the fuck is going to happen because nothing like this has ever happened before that we know of.

[AverageJoe90]

147. We may not know all the specifics, but we do know......

That Earth could not possible see runaway warming evaporating the oceans thru climate change. C'mon, man, even the K/T event didn't go that far and it was far more devastating that AGW could ever be.

Just because anthropogenic warming has never happened before, doesn't mean that people should give credence to these extreme hypothetical scenarios being put out there these days. It's kind of worrisome that some are still buying into that, in a time where it's definitely not needed, and was never helpful.

[The Doctor.]

148. So, you're certain something can't happen,

despite the fact that nothing like we are seeing has ever happened before.

I know how much more comfortable it must be to believe we couldn't possibly tip the dynamic past habitability. I get that.

The fact is, NOTHING like this has happened before in our currently survivable ecosphere.

I'm glad you can be certain of something that is impossible to be certain about.

Stay comfortable, my friend.

[AverageJoe90]

149. The truth is, I'm being realistic, Doc.

I just simply stated the facts as they are. Now, it doesn't mean that we couldn't face a catastrophe: we could, especially at +6*C by 2100, if nothing is done and if at least some of the major feedbacks come to pass. So no, it wouldn't be a pretty picture, but it also wouldn't be the end of humanity.

[The Doctor.]

150. Did you miss my qualifications?

I never said it was likely to happen. I said that we've created a chance for something terrible to happen. One more time: What we are doing to the atmosphere HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE at this insane rate.

I'm glad you think you know where the positive and self-reinforcing feedback loops will end. The only realistic position one can take here is; "I don't know".

Is there a reason you can't admit that?

[AverageJoe90]

151. I absolutely did not.

And yes, it has happened before. Not under anthropogenic conditions, but it has happened. Look the Younger Dryas period; it ended with a pretty sudden change of about 2.5*C, pretty much ending the Ice Age; we've been putting shitloads of Co2 into the air since the 1800s and only within the past 60 years or so has there been any noticeable trend upwards. So yeah, it's crazy, but it's not like relatively sudden changes haven't happened before, either.

And, why can't you admit that I'm at least correct on the fact that Earth CANNOT experience Venus Syndrome? Our sister planet is significantly closer to the sun, has an atmosphere that is about 98% Co2, and suffers from constant volcanic eruptions, far more than our own planet does.

I don't doubt that things will be bad, maybe worse in some ways than people may think, but we have got to stop throwing out these extreme hypothetical scenarios because not only will it make people stick their heads in the sand, but it'll even give ammo to our enemies. In fact, just a couple of days ago, I came across a denier trying to use that exact same scenario as 'evidence' in an attempt to 'debunk' climate change!

In fact, here's this idiot's blogspot site:
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/die-welt-earth-could-become-like-venus-875%C2%B0f/

[The Doctor.]

152. Can you explain why Mercury is cooler than Venus?

Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus.

It is not a 'fact' that the Earth cannot experience the Venus syndrome.

It is a fact that we cannot know whether it can happen or not.

The fact that you think proximity to the Sun dictates heat absorbtion really kind of disqualifies your opinion on this matter. What dictates absorption is atmospheric composition. Just because we don't have the same composition as Venus doesn't mean we can't wind up with a runaway warming scenario.

I can't admit that something is impossible when there is the slightest chance that it could happen.

That you can't admit to the possibility is also a disqualifier. Any climatologist will admit that anything is possible when it comes to the climate. They'll just assign probabilities. That you can't do that makes your opinion unqualified.

So, over what period of time was that 2.5°C change?

[AverageJoe90]

153. I didn't say what you thought I said re: Venus.

Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus.

Very true, but Mercury has virtually no volcanism or any atmosphere to speak of; that's a large part of the reason that it also gets extremely cold in areas not facing the sun's rays.

The fact that you think proximity to the Sun dictates heat absorbtion really kind of disqualifies your opinion on this matter. What dictates absorption is atmospheric composition. Just because we don't have the same composition as Venus doesn't mean we can't wind up with a runaway warming scenario.

Way to take me out of context, Doc. I never said the Sun had ALL to do with heat absorbtion, and in fact, I actually did mention that the atmosphere's composition was a major part of why Venus is so hot. So, I don't know where you got the idea that I insinuated that the Sun had everything to do with it.

So, over what period of time was that 2.5°C change?

Here you go:



the figure I quoted is in the green. As far as I know, the Cariaco Basin in Venezuela has been a decent marker for observing climate change over time.

However, though, it appears that it could have been even higher than that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#End_of_the_climate_period

edit-Here's a few more graphs:



https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLXw0W0qaNuUVBaUtPNEben_ODyzNy1o2mCP5c3-hhPJZO4e8G7eNHgg


So, it does look like I may need to reconsider a few things regarding the YD period.

[The Doctor.]

154. Fair enough.

Great graph too. I never seem to be able to come up with graphs for particular stats if I haven't explicitly seen one before. I suppose that because not every graph can be gotten around to.

The IPCC has also stopped just short of calling Venus-like runaway warming 'impossible'. I imagine it is because of the unprecedented rapidity of current warming.

I try to take solace that the odds are extremely low, to the best of our knowledge, that such a thing could happen. But being in unknown territory is certainly unsettling.

[TahitiNut]

14. Obviously, the planet's ecosystem doesn't need us.

It'd be better off without us ... so it'll shed us easier than a dog shedding fleas.

[tama]

41. If you don't love yourself

how can you love anything else?

Forests and plains would be much poorer without our song and laughter. We are talented horticulturists, plants compete for our attention and we add greatly to biodiversity. In addition to plants we have developed coevolutionary relations with many animal species, who are our companions and teachers. We have developed technology that can stop a large meteorite hitting Earth.

We are wonderful, beautiful species and very much loved.

[TahitiNut]

43. We shit where we eat.

We foul our own nests. A river regarded by a plurality of humanity as holy is now but a flow of raw sewage -- human excrement. We stopped being of the land when we chose to think of ourselves as above the land. We will expel ourselves from this Garden of Eden.

[tama]

58. I don't

think of myself "above the land" or external to nature. I know some people think and feel that way and it seems to make them unhappy.

And having studied gardening I've learned that land transforms shit to food. From gardeners point of view shit is good and it shouldn't be wasted.

[AverageJoe90]

122. Very true.

Earth may not "need" us in the sense that life absolutely couldn't go on without us.

But Nature would lose a key member of it's family if we ever did reach this (purely theoretical) point.......though, I seriously doubt it will happen, unless a K/T event or gamma ray burst happens and we can't get off the planet in time...or at all.

[Agnosticsherbet]

104. The planet is neither alive nor sentient...

It doesn't move to get rid of us. We are 100% responsible for what happens.

[MindMover]

110. AMEN

[tama]

114. You know that how?

Can you prove your statement?

[Agnosticsherbet]

128. There is no current scientific theory of life that fits the planet itself as living.

It does not eat.
It does not grow.
The core of the earth is, in accordance with current theory, a molten sphere of iron with a scrim of impurities that form a surface upon which we cling. It is quite similar in construction to Venus and Mars, or the moon, all of which consist of unliving mater. (Mars may, itself, have once hosted life, but that doesn't make it alive).

Can you show evidence that the earth, itself, has a life independent of the various organisms on its surface?

[tama]

129. Do you have evidence Mars is not sentient?

I'm not making any claims. I'm OK with open questions.

[Agnosticsherbet]

130. I have seen no scientific theory or evidence...

that any planet is sentient, let alone alive.

My working theory backed by Scientific consensus is that planets are made of un living matter and ours is infected with life that utilizes the raw materials of the planet as a growth medium, life being nothing more than an emergent property of natural law. (Other planets are likely also infected with life, but the evidence isn't there yet.)

In order to consider a notion, contrary to that, I would have to see evidence.

On a slightly related note, as a teenager in the 60's, I remember a Thor comic, where he fought a living planet named Ego. (I suspect something Freudian in that). That was a story, though a good one. I think a living planet is a cool idea. especially if it has a cool beard.

Where i have seen no evidence that planets are sentient, I also admit there is no conclusive evidence that they aren't. (That is the agnostic part of my handle). I am open to evidence of a planet being alive and even sentient. But that would require evidence and I have seen none yet.

So in short, I have no evidence. Because all the evidence from physics that I have seen contradicts the very notion of a living or sentient planet, I would have to see some contrary evidence to give the notion more credence than just to think it would be a cool idea to write novels about.

[tama]

132. It may be testable

but are you willing to bet your life?

Premiss of the test is theory of evolution, including cultural evolution, as adaptability of cultural world views. According to comparative anthropology most human cultures that have succesfully spread around the globe surviving the test of environmental adaptation have had animistic or "pan-psychic" world view. World-view of materialistic scientific realism is rather new phenomena compared to some cultures that have adapted and lived sustainably for millenia with unbroken cultural continuity; and what is remarkable is that culture based on or acting according materialistic scientific realism is strongly predicting it's own fail in terms of cultural evolution, as it is suicidally destroying the carrying capacity of the ecosystem that it is dependent from.

Would you agree that a fail in evolutionary adaptation means falsification of the world view that the failing culture uses as it's Darwinian map?

[Agnosticsherbet]

133. Adaptation and evolution are a species wide biological action. A single member of the species...

is pretty much irrelevant. As a species we continue to evolve. A Comprehensive Map of Human Genetic Diversity

All historical cultures have failed, or simply evolved culturally until they were a different culture. Ancient Sumerians, the Great Buddhist empires, Rome, or Czarist Russia all failed, as they have been replaced by new cultures. Their world view wasn't repudiated, and many of them used sustainable forms of living right up until they vanished. Ancient Easter Island culture vanished because, though they lived a life close to the earth they still manage to destroy the ecosystem of the Island they lived on. The Evidence of archeology appears to show that religion and world view led ot massive deforestation and the collapse of their civilization.

The ancient civilizations of Cambodia and Thailand vanished when their climate changed, even though they used sustainable forms.

Read the book 1493, which shows how the impact of Columbus's adventure wiped out the vast majority of American Indian Culture, killing as high as 90% of the population from Canada to Tierra del Fuego. No real culture survived the Columbian Exchange, and those that exist afterward developed new ways of living to cope with that disaster. Their sustainable methods of existence meant exactly dick.

The Anasazi culture of the Southwest developed sustainable methods of agriculture that allowed them to grow and thrive, until the climate changed, the rains stopped, and they passed out of history. When the rains stopped, it appeared that they assumed they would start again. Culturally, they were unable ot get up and move. The Hopi, who share many sustainable cultural practices never reached the size or scope of the anasazi, because the climate never returned.

As to betting a life, that is sucker's bet that we all lose. I am going to die and nothing I can do will alter that. If my children thrive, they may add my genetic material to the pool.

The Kung Bushmen of Africa have lived pretty much unchanged for 40,000 years. As nomadic hunters and gatherers, they sustain only a tiny population. That is sustainability but it is unrealistic on a world wide scale.

None of this is evidence of a world consciousness. Through testing, it may very well be possible to show that the way of life of the Kung is more sustainable over a long period of time. But that doesn't mean the world is living and sentient. It only means that their culture adapted their way of life to their ecosystem much like other animal species that have thrived over geologic time.

[tama]

134. I believe

population biology is what we are talking about, and various human populations have various cultural world views as their adaptation strategies. While success of animistic world view as adaptation strategy may not direct (scientific) evidence of animistic world, the failure of materialistic scientific world view to pass adaptation test would de facto falsify it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

137. What data in the experiment would be validating factors.

Population growth favors the Scientific World View. Science itself is an outgrowth of larger populations. Without a large population base there is no energy to think, experiment, or learn about things that don't direclty put food on the table. Moving from hunter gatherer sytems to agriculture began the ever growing knowledge base that science is based on. As knowledge expanded, hunter gatherer populations declined and disappeared except in a few distant areas. The expansion and evolution of the Scientific world view that dates back to those first cultures that began planning and planting crops shows that it is remarkably successful on a species level. Our species has thived and expanded everywhere because we are the only species that used the tactic of knowledge aquisiton to expand our range.

Without it, humans would live in small, widely sepated bands of closely related homonids adapted to their local ecosystem.

Very small stable populations favor a world view where people live winthin their ecological niche. LIke other animal populations, they can remain stable for a very long time. But, geolgical history shows that ecological niche's themselves fade away and species go extinct when their range is limited, a new better adapted animal appears, or things change is too fast. Extinciton level events are not unusual in geological time and the vast majority had nothing to do with humans screwing things up.

[tama]

139. Horticulture (growing plants)

is much wider phenomenon than agriculture (basically field monocultures of few hay plants) and predates it. In terms of population density horticulture in form of multilayer food forests can in fact support much greater population than agriculture, and do it sustainably. Not to mention carbon negatively:
http://www.eprida.com/hydro/yahoo2004.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening

[AverageJoe90]

124. Nah, we won't go extinct. We've survived a lot worse than this.

Only question is, how bad will things get by 2100? 2-3*C if we take drastic action, or 5-7*C if we do nothing?

[AZ Progressive]

13. Thank you, 2000 Supreme Court and George W. Bush

If Al Gore would have rightfully become president, the U.S. would have led the world in dealing with Global Warming. This is how important U.S. presidential elections are.

[slackmaster]

15. I doubt that Al Gore could have had any real influence on the bigger fossil fuel picture

i.e. Increasing fossil fuel use in China, India, and the Third World in general.

[The Wielding Truth]

32. It is the very probably true. And Jesus said to GOD,"Forgive them they know not what they do."

[csziggy]

50. If the country had listened to Jimmy Carter in 1977

When he sounded the warning and gave the country a plan to become energy independent, we would not be in this fix. Instead, the country elected Ron Reagan who immediately removed the solar panels from the White House and turned the country over even more to big oil companies.

Proposed Energy Policy
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

[RoccoR5955]

53. Very good point

They didn't listen, and we got Ronald Reagan, because John Wayne was dead.
We got an actor working for the big corporations, whose only concern is profits.

[CrispyQ]

84. No one wants to be the one to tell Americans they have to cut back their lifestyles.

They saw what happened to Carter.

I sort of agree with poster #1. People care about the situation on an intellectual level, but few do anything in their own lives to cut back. Consumption is tied to so many things - our capitalist system, greed, status.

There's going to have to be a profound shift in the way we view ourselves on a global level, our views on our place in nature & social justice, how we treat the other animals & how we treat each other. What kind of species are we going to be? So far, I'm not impressed with homo sapiens.

[AZ Progressive]

97. History is going to look at America very badly

After all, the American people were the ones that didn't listen to Carter, that didn't want to cut back our lifestyles, and didn't want to lead the world in dealing with Global Warming, and set the bad example for China and other developing nations (the glory of capitalism, greed, and materialism, and freedom to consume and pollute and be reckless.) This is the nation that elected Reagan and Bush's second term, and this is the nation with the corporations that moved their manufacturing jobs to China (thanks in large part to tax incentives and free trade) and not deal with pollution regulations, and to allow China to industrialize so that Chinese people could become as energy consuming as Americans (not to mention as greedy and materialistic as well). America in effect will be responsible for the destruction of Earth's climate balance and life in oceans, and the drowning of island nations and coastal cities.

[AverageJoe90]

18. Nice article.

Yeah, we're in trouble. No denying that. What kind of worries me, though, is the number of people on the comments board over there who seem to have bought into the "Humanity will go extinct" and "Earth will turn into Venus" fearmongering. That scares me, because the one group of people who really benefits from all this, are the very same ones who caused most of this problem in the first place....Big Energy.

For those of you who truly believe that scaring people with extreme scenarios is going to wake them up, I have news for you; it won't, and it hasn't.
People who are waking up, are doing so thanks to people like Peter Sinclair and the guys over at Skeptical Science.

[bananas]

62. Peter Sinclair runs Climate Denial Crock of the Week

His videos are really good.
http://climatecrocks.com/

He's also a member of DU.

[AverageJoe90]

71. I'm a fan of his.

Dr. Sinclair does a really good job at both exposing denier fallacies, and keeping a focus on the facts.

(P.S. He's a DUer, too? Good to hear! Thank you for the heads up. )

[bananas]

73. Same username at youtube and twitter and du

Here's one of his recent posts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101760926

[AverageJoe90]

123. Thanks. nt =)

[limpyhobbler]

19. We need a collective mass movement to address the climate emergency.

Start by taking over the Democratic Party in the United States.

Take power.

[MindMover]

20. Collectively we have the power ... "We the People"

I agree that takeover is necessary on an intellectual level ... EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE

[limpyhobbler]

22. Yes. Education and action.

Good thread. Thanks.

Here is a video of some people trying to block the tar sands pipeline.

http://tarsandsblockade.org/

[MindMover]

66. Thank you for your continued resistance to The Psychopathic Machine ...

[silverweb]

24. K&R

[Pharaoh]

29. Yup, but don't talk about that

or 911..............

You will be ridiculed.

[Locrian]

30. fail

We have failed to evolve to the point were we (as humans) realize we are a part of out environment, and need to work together.

The 'rugged individual' will not save the planet - it's going to take a new consciousness that we do not possess.

[MindMover]

31. The new consciousness is here ...

THE INTERNET ....

And it is becoming easier everyday to access it ...

[davidthegnome]

36. An excellent point.

Still... it will take time - and the forces that would keep people ignorant and poor are far more powerful than our fledgling new consciousness. I say fledgling not because it's weak - but because it is in it's infancy... how many thousands of years did humanity struggle through without the internet? Without so much as a printing press or telephones?

I have faith that we will eventually do the right thing... it is just a question of whether we will do it in time.

[AverageJoe90]

126. We will, but......

there is the possibility, sadly, that we may not avoid the moderate climate change, of 3-4.5*C, even with drastic actions, if all the worst plausible feedbacks occur. And if we do nothing? 6-7*C by 2100, maybe even 7.5. Not something that would destroy humanity but not a pretty picture, either.

Still though, there is an awakening going on, and we can thank people like Peter Sinclair and Rachel Carson for what they have done and continue to do.

[Savannahmann]

35. Interestingly I just watched a Nat Geo Documentary

It was on rebuilding Ground Zero in New York. They wanted the outside lined with prismatic glass. The Glass was manufactured in huge bullet resistant sheets in Pennsylvania. Then it was boxed up, and shipped to China. Seriously, the huge heavy sheets of glass was shipped to China. There it was ground down to the prismatic specs, and laminated to increase its strength and safety feature. Then obviously, it will be shipped back to New York, where it will be placed in the building.

That is the modern manufacturing process at work. Even the Toyota Prius uses this around the world technique to be built. Lead is mined in one place, refined thousands of miles away, transported again to another manufacturing plant and then finally made into batteries, which are then shipped with the car half way around the world again. It is unbelievably wasteful. Tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel is burned just to move the batteries around.

What I am trying to say is even our success is a failure. We take one step forward, and three steps back.

[Danmel]

45. It is very common

I had to go to a funeral so I bought some purse packs of Kleenex Tissues. When I got home, I looked at the package and they were made in China. I was pissed at that, so I called the toll free number to complain. The woman told me that the tissues are made in California and then get this....shipped to China to be put in the little packs and shipped back to the US!

So I asked, how much can you possibly save packing them in China?

And then I asked "what is the carbon footprint of this package of tissues?"

And she said, that is a really good point, I didn't think of that. I will pass tht along.

How ridiculous is that? They ship tissues to be packed in China and ship themback? Bizarre.

[Savannahmann]

76. It is insane isn't it?

I mean, we take something simple, like tissues, and then transport it around the world several times. By the time we're done, the bloody thing has the carbon footprint of a Jumbo Jet. Once you take that into account, you're just better off keeping the old car, and maintaining it, than you are buying a Prius. The same is true of electric cars. Yes, they have a smaller carbon footprint regarding operation, but the manufacturing of the various components, including the batteries, includes extensive transport and mining of rare earth elements which is hardly an ecological process. The factory where they refine the Lead in Canada is used by NASA to simulate Mars for rovers. The terrain is as lifeless near the factory. Canada has one of the most pure gold available, highly prized and sought after by collectors. The reason that Canadian gold is so pure? They use Arsenic in the refining process, which is released into the atmosphere.

Other times, we are in such a hurry to get to the future, we grab something that is as bad, if not worse, than we are doing. Yes, Incandescenlight bulbsbs are wasteful. They produce a huge amount of heat, and use a ton of electricity. Yes CFL's are more efficient, but they use Mercury as part of the process. If the bulb is dropped and breaks, you literally have a toxic spill in your house. If a company spilled that much Mercury in a factory, it would require a Haz Mat Cleanup. In your home, the EPA says to sweep it gently onto a piece of paper, and then fold the paper up and dispose of it. Well, if that is all that it takes to clean up the Mercury spilled, why do we make the companies spend tens of thousands of dollars to clean it up? Because the Mercury isn't cleaned up that way, if you vacuum the stuff it flies everywhere. One broken bulb and you have toxic levels of Mercury in your home with your children running through it, breathing it, and nobody knows what will happen down the line, but it won't be good.

LED's are good, but they use circuit boards to operate, which contain toxins that leech into our ground water from dumps. Or if your area incinerates its trash, like mine does, then it is released into the air.

Granted, they use less electricity, but is the resulting pollution from disposal any better? FYI I have switched to LED's almost exclusively for the house. My flashlights are all LED's, and the only incandescent bulbs left are in emergency lights plugged into sockets and headlights/taillights on cars. The emergency lights when they fail will be replaced (presuming the bulb can't be) with LED oriented lights.

Personally, I think we are doomed as a species, and if we are all eliminated by our own stupidity, then I'm certain Gaia will conclude, Good riddance.

[AverageJoe90]

125. Well, regardless of what you may THINK, Savannah, I KNOW for a fact.....

That humanity is not doomed to extinction because of AGW. If we truly were, then Toba would have killed all of our ancestors when it blew 72k years ago and we'd have absolutely no chance of surviving the long term if Yellowstone were to blow tomorrow. It may seem non-sequiturish to some, but my point is, we've been thru worse. And, unlike a supervolcanic eruption, we can go to great lengths to undo the damage we've done, at least in most instances.

[progressoid]

46. I saw that too.

It was just plain depressing.

[polichick]

37. So sad. "Psychopathic Capitalism" is right - not even our own...

...children's futures matter when there's a buck to be made.

[mick063]

38. One of the big scientific questions

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

If you get a space ship to travel at near the speed of light, then how do you slow it down or stop it?

Our planetary destruction is approaching the speed of light.

We don't have the technology or political will to stop it. Our ship will travel at light speed until it collides with something. The best we can hope for is slick, short term navigation. Even that won't happen until we collectively agree that we are traveling faster than a Saturn rocket.

[DhhD]

40. Methane turn over. Anybody remember the BP oil spill in Spring of 2010?

In simple terms, carbon hydrates moved up from the bottom of the ocean on to the first tower cover that was tried in getting the well shut off. When the ocean warms, methane rises. Methane is very poisonous. It is a species extinction atmosphere.

If I had billions of dollars, I would try to fund a colony on Mars (some think the moon will do). Seems like today the first private space craft went up to the International Space Station to deliver goods. They do not need NASA anymore. Seems like one of these private space stations in along the Gulf Coast and there is another one near White Sands in New Mexico.

Right Wing Dummies better pay attention to the scientists. Are there Bubble Colonies here on Earth? You Bet-Ya.

[RoccoR5955]

55. We still need NASA

NASA has done some great things in revealing this climate change. NASA is not only about space exploration. It's more about scientific exploration, and we still need it.

[Kennah]

54. Lots of people care, but far too few care enough to do anything.

Many are sitting around watching their 401Ks waiting until "something changes" and they are able to buy an electric SUV or Corvette that costs $18K, can go 600 miles on a charge, and recharges in 10 minutes for $10.

[RoccoR5955]

56. Consuming less would be a start

But few people consume less. Everyone wants more, more, more. It's gotten out of hand, and will have consequences.

[Kennah]

111. I've had this conversation with the wife

Her: So we're conserving but other people aren't?
Me: Yes
Her: So we endure hardship that other people don't?
Me: Yes
Her: Why?
Me: Because it's going to reach a point where REAL conservation kicks in, and then the REAL hardship will begin. But, we'll be better prepared and be more able to adapt to those hardships. For some, it's going to prove too much.

The stony silence from her is one part, "Shit, that asshole is right", but another part, "Shit, that asshole is right."

[tama]

115. Not everyone. Not by near.

Less is more. Real wealth is lack of needs.

[HeeBGBz]

57. EMP the planet

A la Revolution...

[Canuckistanian]

60. It's like our house is on fire

And we're fighting about which way the toilet paper roll should be mounted.

It's collective insanity.

[ZombieHorde]

108. That toilet paper thing is pretty important to me. nt

[tama]

117. I like it too

but can live without if necessary. Shower+towel works also fine, moss and big leaves when taking crap in woods, lots of options.

[AverageJoe90]

119. Not to mention that......

One group keeps pointing out that we can still put out the fire, while the other keeps saying that this fire will eventually burn down the neighborhood and that there's nothing we can do to stop it(yes, doomsday advocates, I'm talking about you in particular!).

[laruemtt]

64. we're a suicidal species

and the stupidest species, the only one that destroys what it needs to live. whoever said homo sapiens are the most intelligent species was not paying attention.

[tama]

116. Not species

no need to generalize suicidal culture to species and all human cultures.

[cilla4progress]

77. god help us

[ruffburr]

90. HELLO

I've been following these things since the scallion maps in the early 80's, While there is no way i can explain all that i have learned over the years in this post, Know that I am not one for B.S. and i research all that i read before coming to conclusions, SO all I can recommend to folks is to read the Extinction protocol web site:http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com

[robertpaulsen]

91. DAMN! And I thought American MSM sucked.

Sounds like BBC is just as bad as FAUX when it comes to climate change.

[MindMover]

92. Corporate Media and Psychopathic Capitalism ....

[glinda]

106. K&R n/t

[ZombieHorde]

109. Oh well. Easy come, easy go. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

131. No, We're Not!

I saw this guy on Maher who said it's all overblown. Why would he lie?

Oh yeah, because he's a conservative with ties to the oil industry.

Never mind.
GAC

[Spike89]

138. The problem isn't really apathy

Global climate change is not something that attitude alone can change. When everyone rallies against apartheid, it can be destroyed. Having every single person in the world scowl real hard in the direction of the sun will do nothing to solve climate change. In other words, the issue isn't climate change, but really a whole series of behaviors and actions that affect it.

Without being a defeatist, it is still a daunting challenge because it requires global action. The real kicker is that to make the biggest positive changes will require those with the least today to sacrifice the most. In the technologically developed world, moving green might be an austerity measure, but no one is being asked to give up electricity, clean water, sewers, effective transportation. In other words, we've got our infrastructure and all we need to do is make the conversion to green(er) versions. Developing nations don't have this and they generally don't have the choice to skip right to high-tech green solutions. If the only hope you have of getting clean water to your village and saving the lives of many children is to build a dirty coal-burning plant to power the pumps--well, it isn't a clear morality equation any more.

The other thing it is hard to overlook is just how "upfront" dirty and devastating many green technologies really are. Are there even enough rare earth materials to build all the storage batteries a quick global conversion to solar homes and hybrid/plug-in cars? Could we deal with the toxic refuse from the production (and disposal) of said batteries and the billions of circuit boards, chips, and other electronics needed?

I hate being such a downer, but the problem is NOT that global warming isn't getting enough attention. It is that we have almost no real plans for dealing with it that aren't simple feel-good band-aids.

[tama]

140. We do:

Terra preta
http://www.eprida.com/hydro/yahoo2004.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening

[Spike89]

145. Fascinating links, thanks nt

[kenny blankenship]

142. And you get TWO chances to vote

to continue blithely ignoring the problem.

Choice! It's the Free Market's calling card.