As Rush Limbaugh proclaimed in 2019, “Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus.”
Thus, we cling to the delusion that dollar supremacy shall reign supreme now and forevermore, and Blue Team loyalists assume that debt doesn’t matter because we can mint those trillion dollar coins when push comes to shove.
We can spend trillions year-on-year, because 1) it is too big a number for anyone to actually relate to; 2) because it keeps the air in the mega balloon floating Wall Street and corporations—especially in the MIC; and 3) because we have lost all sense of thrift and stewardship. And in losing any sense of stewardship, so too have we lost any moral compass.
Tom I think a good example of the situation we are in as a nation is what so often happens with lottery big winners. They find they have a huge amount of money, so much that it appears to be limitless and they go on a binge with no limits. All is well for some time and they get used to a lifestyle far beyond what they have known with the ability to have anything they want immediately. But what seems to be an infinite amount of money isn't, the bills they run up must be paid and a sorry end comes.
Climate change is a hopeless debate if we're unable to get beyond the 'is/is not' happening, which is now primarily ideological. Two pertinent questions then don't get discussed or debated.
First, climate change is happening. The deep ocean sediment studies over the last 40 years or so reveal 11 glacial/inter glacial periods in the last 800 years (with over 30 of each in the last 2 million years). The last glacial period ended around 18,000 years ago - in the current interglacial, sea level rise could be another 200 feet, based on the geological record. So, humans haven't caused it.
Have humans contributed to it and can humans do it anything to lessen it (ruling out stopping it from above)? Those are the two questions that should be debated in the political and public spaces.
And no, those discussions won't be happening anytime soon. And how seriously is anyone going to take it when the elite 'climate activists' fly to global meetings (and everywhere) on their private jets?
I would drop your question "have humans contributed" because it is a fact that they, we have. There is no debate except that between scientific fact and ignorance which is no debate at all.
The result of millions of years of carbon storage in both rock (coal) and liquid (petroleum) form have been released into the air from our burning of those dense forms into a tenuous (gas) form in about 175 years and the container (the atmosphere) that is holding the release has been and is being loaded with the result. It's a simple as that.
I think you missed my point - or I didn't state it clearly enough. I agree with your assessment of the situation, but to call it between those who accept scientific fact and those who you imply are willfully ignorant again stifles any debate in either the political or public spheres. Claiming there's no need for any debate or discussion on it - hardens the views of those who don't accept or understand the science.
I agree with Clif that the debate is indeed between those who accept science and those who are willfully ignorant. My thought is that if we get stuck on trying to persuade the ignorant, we're going to run out of time. To take an extreme example, the new Sec Def appointee says that germs aren't real because he can't see them. Should he fall ill, he might die while doctors were trying to convince him to be treated for a germ-caused infection.
I also suppose since he doesn't believe in Atoms as well because he can't see them? I guess seeing he's made of atoms he's "Invisible" too. I take it these amateur experts/ wannabe Scientists lol never heard of an Electron Microscope!!!
Tom, one has to be willfully ignorant to deny global warming and that it is caused by humanity. It is happening, CO2 and methane are known greenhouse gasses rising to higher levels all the time with the results science has predicted. There are no grounds for debate. A person acknowledges fact or they don't. All of the excuses that have been offered, for example the changing position of the sun, solar activity, etc. have been carefully examined and rejected in the face of the obvious greenhouse effect. This is a follow-on to the nonsense of "creationism" that was put out intending to debunk evolution, all of it now evaporated because there was no basis for it that could not be shown false. Remember the call to "teach the debate"? That was nothing short of a way to force nonsense into schools pretending that it was on the level of science. That's over with, I hope, deserving the ridicule it received.
Regarding willful ignorance. A great number of Americans today are not only willfully ignorant, they are proudly and defiantly ignorant. This is in keeping with the "nobody is going to tell me what to do" theme presented as "nobody is going to tell me what to think" and "my opinion is as good as any other". I call this toxic individualism.
Reasoning, that requires effort, is submerged for easy satisfying emotional attack. I have argued repeatedly and vehemently against such people online. I do not call names, I do not use profanity and personal insult is never an option though I face all three coming at me. I stick with reason exclusively with facts to back up what I say. I extend basic respect, speaking as if the other party was intelligent, as should be done in any debate. BTW, should I mention to the other party that we are having a debate, I get a defiant, "no we aren't, this isn't a debate!" Huh?
The encounters end in the same way. After hearing me appeal to them to treat me with the same respect as I do them and after they have exhausted the three emotional and pointless attacks mentioned above with no evidence presented to defend an indefensible view (because it is baseless), they depart. Did they leave in a rage? Perhaps. But it is possible that by not returning anger though I have received it, they just might possibly think about what I said to them. Maybe. But I do not descend to their level at any point, hoping that they will rise above it. I see no other way to deal with the ocean of ignorance in America.
Global warming morphed into climate change with a couple record cold snaps. We should have called it F-upped weather from the start. The Texas Tribune wanders into some extensive truth telling from time to time. Having lived in far west Texas, I could attest with my own eyes to the stories they conveyed: 1) abandoned, uncapped oil wells contaminating ranch land and water tables; 2) fracking chemicals bubbling back up; and 3) flares of un-piped methane burning 24 hours a day—just to name a three issues. No one’s accountable. They love to keep smaller time operators in some part of equation so bankruptcy protects the real corporate rape of the land.
Then there are the “green solutions.” The carbon offset crowd tells us ruminants are a huge problem, and their “investment opportunities” are the solution. (Somehow cows but not billions of people let off methane from their orifices.)
What are the two most “carbon intensive” construction materials? Concrete followed by steel. What does one 5MW wind turbine require of these two materials? Over 160 tons of steel and 600-1,000 tons of concrete.
How many electric vehicle owners do the full research required to understand what energy source is charging their vehicle? Odds are it is coal, oil and gas. How many have any clue to the ecosystem damage from cobalt and lithium mining those same vehicles require?
Here in Ecuador, the Correa administration built hydro power but with no back-up plans should a severe drought hit. They went so far as to offer big credits for people to change out their gas cooktops for induction. (I’ve had induction cooktops and loved them—just as a matter of record.) Now, drought upon us along with multi-hour power cuts, 30% of gas cooktop sales are people yanking out their induction tops. And we have gas and diesel generators all over town trying to keep things going. Walking down the sidewalk has gotten noisy and smelly!
At this point, I see only two immediate remedies since the climate has already changed: 1) begin a true conservation of the land, air and water; and 2) assume catastrophe will hit and thus plan for as much resiliency as possible.
I just ran across this Thomas Merton quote, "The Desert Fathers believed that the wilderness had been created supremely valuable in the eyes of God precisely because it had no value to men." Of course, that was a few centuries before men went looking for oil in those mideast deserts.
Probably a minority opinion, but I'm thinking climate change means next to nothing to more people than anyone wants to admit. If your life's good, you don't care. If it's not good, you've got more important day-to-day concerns than what may happen in 50 or 100 years.
As for the nuclear question, again ... who really cares? There's the old "don't worry about things you can't control" saw ... It may, in fact, be the only thing people trust politicians to get right, thinking they won't set off the Big One (or Big Ones) because they'd get wiped out, too.
I could be wrong, of course ... but I really don't think all that many people give a damn about either issue.
I think people do give a damn when they realize $2 trillion of their money is being wasted. And Tulsi has spoken eloquently about the nuclear attack false alarm that hit Hawaii a few years ago. And of course people give a damn when their houses are flooded due to climate change, or they lose power for weeks at a time due to hurricanes, when crops are destroyed due to drought, etc.
It's all in how you present the problems to people. You have to personalize them. Explain them in down-to-earth terms.
Yes, when the bad times hit home, but just like the "forever wars": as long as it doesn't touch them, it's not a problem. If I live in Kansas and Florida is wiped off the map, "Gee, that's tough." There is no sense of communal loss, no broad empathy. And in the aftermath, no sense of outrage lasts long enough to be reflected at the ballot box.
Yes WDT all too true if its not in my backyard plus all those Rich people "knew what the job was when they took it" in regards to living right on the coast, or on a flood plain...:/ :o) So tough titty!
I find it rather sad that otherwise seemingly-intelligent and thoughtful people still see climate change as a "debatable" subject or even some kind of scam / conspiracy, etc.
The principles which led to the earliest predictions (including by some never-publicized internal research by fossil fuel companies themselves) were fairly well understood, derived from laws of physics, i.e. of thermodynamics, to which some of us were introduced in High School. In summary, we can't continue to raise the density of 'greenhouse gases' - i.e. those which trap heat, without increasing global warming, absent some barriers to solar radiation. And we can't continue to push beyond the boundaries in which the current climate control system operates, without pushing that system into chaos. There is no scientific challenge whatsoever (or debate, that I know of) to this; the science (and mathematics) is inarguable. And the computer models had long ago predicted substantive increases in average global temperatures, etc., as well as their effects on the climate control systems (such as the global thermohaline circulation). While the models, being just that, have had to be refined over time to account for previously underappreciated variables, including feedback loops such as the thawing of permafrost which is allowing much faster release of methane, they have recently been, if anything, understating the predicted effects.
One can introduce new hypotheses, such as 'sun cycles' , to try to account for the observed phenomenon, but the science doesn't validate these as anything close to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Some, of course, will just ignore all that inconvenient "science-y" stuff and accept unvalidated claims in order to cling to their beliefs. But again, the facts and the science remain incontrovertible. The corporate insurance giants, for one, have already made clear that their profits and viability are dependent on their understanding of it; and have already been adjusting operations and policies to account for it. They wouldn't do this if climate change and its effects were debatable. At least one fossil fuel company, as I said, did its own internal research into it, and confirmed what others had already concluded: that burning their products would heat the planet and would be unsustainable. (That they did not immediately change to a more sustainable path only reflects SOP for most corporations- focus on this and the next quarter's profits!). Now many are investing in developing 'carbon capture' stragegies, along with (in varying degrees) trying to gain market share in renewable technologies.
Some write that 'global warming became termed climate change' - as if to hide some flaws in the science itself. Make no mistake- the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate; and that warming will produce not only hotter weather, but also all kinds of signals of the destabilizing that is taking place. Some places will get VERY WET. Some (like where I live) are experiencing long-term drought - with the hotter air evaporating any moisture that might ameliorate it. Some will get far more cold and snow at times. These are all the faces of instability.
And yes, we lack at present the ability to fully, accurately predict ALL the effects. The climate control system is extremely complex. It wasn't fully understood, for example, just how much CO2 (and heat) the oceans could absorb before they stopped being a buffer; and that's just one factor. We failed also to recognize how quickly the polar caps would melt; in addition to its impacts on coastal civilizations, the flood of fresh water into the ocean is itself a potential large-scale disrupter of climate.
Again, all this follows the science, and the observed data is remarkably consistent with the predictions that are the natural conclusion from the principles already stated.
I suppose I have far too little patience with people who fail to read or try to comprehend what is, at its root, fairly basic principles of physics. But I find it especially annoying when such people opine that it's "debatable" or unproven, or explained by some quack's alternative explanations, whether about planetary wobble, solar cycles or "God's retribution" for not following the strictures of the Old Testament.
Roger that.., and well said Carl Sagan testified before Congress in 1985 about the effect of Global warming on the planet due to the burning of CO2 gasses. Its certainly not "God's retribution" for not following the strictures of the O.T..! Religion I.M.O. is for those who can't abide, or face reality every thousand one of them N.G.L.
The two threats are insidious in a common way - they are difficult to detect. Nuclear weapons are hidden away and give no evidence of what they can do until they do it. Global warming is gradual and, as is typical of climate, daily weather doesn't necessarily reveal the problem and certainly not immediately.
People must understand that a warmer planet may have places on it that become cooler than they have been. Since it is the average temperature and not the daily excursions from the norm that reveal warming, it is foolish to say that because a week or a month is chilly then GW is a hoax
I have found the best and most obvious way to see if warming is occurring is to use the graphics that the National Weather Service provides for many major airports in the US. Take a look at this example.
The daily temperatures over the year are shown on the top graph as a jagged dark blue trace. The historical norm for each day is a band of green. Hotter than normal historical temps show as a band of red above the green band and colder than normal historical temps are in a band of purple below the green band.
At a glance you can see where the dark blue trace (actual measured daily temp) has been. If it goes up into the red more often than it goes down into the blue, you have a warmer then normal period. A cooler than normal period has the dark blue trace going down into the violet. Record setting heat will have the dark blue trace going up into the red and beyond it. Record setting cold will have the dark blue trace going down through the violet and beyond it.
Once you know how to read this graph, you instantly see what is going on for the year to date. For Chicago it is obvious that 2024 has been a warmer than average year - you can see more of the green band below the dark trace than above. FYI, since 2016 every year except 2019 has been warmer than normal.
It's not obvious that our climate change actions have accomplished anything other than make a well-connected group of investors richer through government loans, grants, mandates, etc. In terms of climate change - not much. The best thing we can do is adapt to climate as it changes, as it always has throughout history.
As others mention, it isn't as simple as you make it out to be, by saying essentially, "deal with it". Not only is the change we are experiencing happening quickly by comparison to what has happened in the past, we are dependent on so many things that are very carefully matched to the climate we have known. A good example are the agricultural heartlands around the world that grow crops specifically for the soil and the temperatures found there.
There are a multitude of things that depend very closely on temperature. One that is certainly not of great importance is the range of the fire ant, a pest in the southern US that cannot survive when the subsoil temperature falls well below freezing, typical of the northern states, that kills any fire ant colony. I mention this because insects in particular are extremely sensitive to temperature with plants not far behind.
It is a simplification beyond belief to think that it is only our own direct tolerance of climate change that is involved. Consider the global thermohaline conveyor, the globe circling ocean circulation that is critically dependent on the salt content of the seawater. This is truly threatening because of polar ice melt that reduces the salinity of the seawater, much more of a threat than the very gradual rise in sea level.
We have no way to know the full extent of nature of the problems we are causing by flagrant use of fossil fuels. For most of my 74 years gasoline has been burned profligately, and I include myself as a user. Now that the issue is clear, people are rushing to buy huge vehicles in which they will drive alone, and as anyone can see who gets on the highway, these big gasoline powered vehicles are racing far above the speed limit, the drivers giving no thought to the extra fuel they are burning to move faster.
Lemmings are thought to be stupid for running in masses over a cliff to their deaths. We, who pride ourselves on intelligence are rushing toward bad times with a will. If man is the rational animal, that animal is very hard to find in hyper-consuming America.
Again - look at the rise in atmospheric CO2, no moderation indicated, none. Check out methane, 23 times the greenhouse gas of CO2...it is ramping up.
The problem with this approach is that many other species cannot adapt or evolve as quickly as needed. Biodiversity is essential for the health of the planet, including our health.
Ask the polar bears to move to higher ground? Every year they have to swim further and further to sea ice to hunt seals. "While polar bears have shown some ability to adapt to changes in their surroundings – for example, by foraging for food on land or swimming more to hunt for prey – scientists project that polar bears will become more food-stressed as sea ice diminishes and that populations will decline.Dec 7, 2022". Basically I think that it is naive to think that there will not be loss of many species because of climate change because they will adapt. To me the loss of any species because of humans is a tragedy.
Charles Darwin "Survival of the Fittest", or the most Intelligent to evolve & adapt a Polar Bear is basically the same as a Brown Bear a Bruin if we may say, and if there is no more polar ice then the Polar Bear will once again adapt to Land hence brown ie. no more Polar Bears..! Just like there are no more Wooly Mammoths!
Yes.., we must evolve as a species "Evolution" might save us until about 4 billion yrs. from now when our Local Star swells into its Red Giant stage (then all bets are off tho. as Earth will be engulfed) like Aldebaran now the Eye of the Bull in Taurus in the Hyades our closest Star Cluster. Maybe by then the Human Race will have outgrown its tendency to self-destruct!
Why would egotistical trump want to end himself in a big bang scenario. He wants security and comfort. So not to worry unless your skin ain't white and you aren't Arab. Otherwise worry a lot.
I was having some sort of TV drama-like experience in my dream that ended irretrievably when I woke thirty minutes ago. Being woke, I then spent twenty minutes reading Bracing Views' latest warning about reasons to worry about Trump. Now THAT'S a true nightmare that we humans won't wake up from, but wake up to. Thanks, big thanks, American Demonocracy, for creating a real monster. Who's gonna kill it & save the world?
If you don't mind the antithesis of an intelligent, thoughtful, wise, visionary, futurist, "Saganist" type of man and like instead a servant to the richest like "Elongated Muskrat Love" an arrogant, presumptuous, conspiracy theorist, against Science as well as in the grip of his own delusions of grandeur and omnipotence then the very stable esteemed genius is your man...
A critically important difference between these major threats, Bill Astore: It is now clear to anyone with a functioning mind--a minority of Americans?--that climate change WILL wreck the planet, is running wild to that end already, whereas nuclear holocaust is NOT guaranteed. Trump's vow to ramp up fossil fuel use from Day One reflects his uncontainable ego declaring to us all: "I can and will do anything I wish, America. My party will control all branches of Fed. Government. Just try to stop me!!" To intentionally seek to accelerate the planet's decline, in my book, qualifies for description by a four-letter word: E-V-I-L. Congrats, America, this is what you have chosen, by a majority of about 5 million of the votes cast.
Real credibility when one's approach is to build a mega-arsenal (whether Obama or Trump). Why does the line, "Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also," come to mind?
And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which has power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, Revelation 16: 8-10
I don't know Ray prophecy crusading is very iffy business. I don't put one iota of faith, or belief in them... They've been predicting the "End" is nigh for Centuries on end!!!
Except that can be seen unfolding in REAL TIME in THIS Material World TODAY! You seem to be in denial. Time will tell! I think the Time will be sooner rather than later.
My comment starting this thread is about Global warming, separate and additional to the Existential threat of the Military Battle of the great Day of God Almighty.
Trump supports Israel at WAR with Iran if you follow what the MSM is projecting in OUR Generations.
Ignorance and recklessness are not unique to Trump and in the American sphere I see them as unavoidable: American ignorance a recklessness is and has been destroying everything it touches for decades.
Concentrating on Trump is itself an indication of the wrongness of American politics: it is nominally a democracy but actually an oligarchy manifesting as dictatorship which is horrible enough but the ultimate horror is that is what Americans want.
They do not look to improve, enhance, improve their crippled democracy: they look for 'saviour' one person leaders. Get this one and all will be good. Get that one and all will be bad. That predicates all depends upon one person. That is not how it should be or how it should be desired to be.
The thing I dislike most about Trump (whom I wanted rather than the other side) is his cabinet being wholly Israel war hawks.
It seems clear Trump is owned by Israel. Astonishing or not it seems true that America is owned by Israel. And Israel is owned by a stone age apocalyptic cult.
We need the rationality of Russia and Asia to step in an restore some sanity.
As Rush Limbaugh proclaimed in 2019, “Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus.”
Thus, we cling to the delusion that dollar supremacy shall reign supreme now and forevermore, and Blue Team loyalists assume that debt doesn’t matter because we can mint those trillion dollar coins when push comes to shove.
We can spend trillions year-on-year, because 1) it is too big a number for anyone to actually relate to; 2) because it keeps the air in the mega balloon floating Wall Street and corporations—especially in the MIC; and 3) because we have lost all sense of thrift and stewardship. And in losing any sense of stewardship, so too have we lost any moral compass.
Tom I think a good example of the situation we are in as a nation is what so often happens with lottery big winners. They find they have a huge amount of money, so much that it appears to be limitless and they go on a binge with no limits. All is well for some time and they get used to a lifestyle far beyond what they have known with the ability to have anything they want immediately. But what seems to be an infinite amount of money isn't, the bills they run up must be paid and a sorry end comes.
Climate change is a hopeless debate if we're unable to get beyond the 'is/is not' happening, which is now primarily ideological. Two pertinent questions then don't get discussed or debated.
First, climate change is happening. The deep ocean sediment studies over the last 40 years or so reveal 11 glacial/inter glacial periods in the last 800 years (with over 30 of each in the last 2 million years). The last glacial period ended around 18,000 years ago - in the current interglacial, sea level rise could be another 200 feet, based on the geological record. So, humans haven't caused it.
Have humans contributed to it and can humans do it anything to lessen it (ruling out stopping it from above)? Those are the two questions that should be debated in the political and public spaces.
And no, those discussions won't be happening anytime soon. And how seriously is anyone going to take it when the elite 'climate activists' fly to global meetings (and everywhere) on their private jets?
I would drop your question "have humans contributed" because it is a fact that they, we have. There is no debate except that between scientific fact and ignorance which is no debate at all.
The result of millions of years of carbon storage in both rock (coal) and liquid (petroleum) form have been released into the air from our burning of those dense forms into a tenuous (gas) form in about 175 years and the container (the atmosphere) that is holding the release has been and is being loaded with the result. It's a simple as that.
I think you missed my point - or I didn't state it clearly enough. I agree with your assessment of the situation, but to call it between those who accept scientific fact and those who you imply are willfully ignorant again stifles any debate in either the political or public spheres. Claiming there's no need for any debate or discussion on it - hardens the views of those who don't accept or understand the science.
I agree with Clif that the debate is indeed between those who accept science and those who are willfully ignorant. My thought is that if we get stuck on trying to persuade the ignorant, we're going to run out of time. To take an extreme example, the new Sec Def appointee says that germs aren't real because he can't see them. Should he fall ill, he might die while doctors were trying to convince him to be treated for a germ-caused infection.
I also suppose since he doesn't believe in Atoms as well because he can't see them? I guess seeing he's made of atoms he's "Invisible" too. I take it these amateur experts/ wannabe Scientists lol never heard of an Electron Microscope!!!
Tom, one has to be willfully ignorant to deny global warming and that it is caused by humanity. It is happening, CO2 and methane are known greenhouse gasses rising to higher levels all the time with the results science has predicted. There are no grounds for debate. A person acknowledges fact or they don't. All of the excuses that have been offered, for example the changing position of the sun, solar activity, etc. have been carefully examined and rejected in the face of the obvious greenhouse effect. This is a follow-on to the nonsense of "creationism" that was put out intending to debunk evolution, all of it now evaporated because there was no basis for it that could not be shown false. Remember the call to "teach the debate"? That was nothing short of a way to force nonsense into schools pretending that it was on the level of science. That's over with, I hope, deserving the ridicule it received.
Regarding willful ignorance. A great number of Americans today are not only willfully ignorant, they are proudly and defiantly ignorant. This is in keeping with the "nobody is going to tell me what to do" theme presented as "nobody is going to tell me what to think" and "my opinion is as good as any other". I call this toxic individualism.
Reasoning, that requires effort, is submerged for easy satisfying emotional attack. I have argued repeatedly and vehemently against such people online. I do not call names, I do not use profanity and personal insult is never an option though I face all three coming at me. I stick with reason exclusively with facts to back up what I say. I extend basic respect, speaking as if the other party was intelligent, as should be done in any debate. BTW, should I mention to the other party that we are having a debate, I get a defiant, "no we aren't, this isn't a debate!" Huh?
The encounters end in the same way. After hearing me appeal to them to treat me with the same respect as I do them and after they have exhausted the three emotional and pointless attacks mentioned above with no evidence presented to defend an indefensible view (because it is baseless), they depart. Did they leave in a rage? Perhaps. But it is possible that by not returning anger though I have received it, they just might possibly think about what I said to them. Maybe. But I do not descend to their level at any point, hoping that they will rise above it. I see no other way to deal with the ocean of ignorance in America.
Global warming morphed into climate change with a couple record cold snaps. We should have called it F-upped weather from the start. The Texas Tribune wanders into some extensive truth telling from time to time. Having lived in far west Texas, I could attest with my own eyes to the stories they conveyed: 1) abandoned, uncapped oil wells contaminating ranch land and water tables; 2) fracking chemicals bubbling back up; and 3) flares of un-piped methane burning 24 hours a day—just to name a three issues. No one’s accountable. They love to keep smaller time operators in some part of equation so bankruptcy protects the real corporate rape of the land.
Then there are the “green solutions.” The carbon offset crowd tells us ruminants are a huge problem, and their “investment opportunities” are the solution. (Somehow cows but not billions of people let off methane from their orifices.)
What are the two most “carbon intensive” construction materials? Concrete followed by steel. What does one 5MW wind turbine require of these two materials? Over 160 tons of steel and 600-1,000 tons of concrete.
How many electric vehicle owners do the full research required to understand what energy source is charging their vehicle? Odds are it is coal, oil and gas. How many have any clue to the ecosystem damage from cobalt and lithium mining those same vehicles require?
Here in Ecuador, the Correa administration built hydro power but with no back-up plans should a severe drought hit. They went so far as to offer big credits for people to change out their gas cooktops for induction. (I’ve had induction cooktops and loved them—just as a matter of record.) Now, drought upon us along with multi-hour power cuts, 30% of gas cooktop sales are people yanking out their induction tops. And we have gas and diesel generators all over town trying to keep things going. Walking down the sidewalk has gotten noisy and smelly!
At this point, I see only two immediate remedies since the climate has already changed: 1) begin a true conservation of the land, air and water; and 2) assume catastrophe will hit and thus plan for as much resiliency as possible.
I just ran across this Thomas Merton quote, "The Desert Fathers believed that the wilderness had been created supremely valuable in the eyes of God precisely because it had no value to men." Of course, that was a few centuries before men went looking for oil in those mideast deserts.
Probably a minority opinion, but I'm thinking climate change means next to nothing to more people than anyone wants to admit. If your life's good, you don't care. If it's not good, you've got more important day-to-day concerns than what may happen in 50 or 100 years.
As for the nuclear question, again ... who really cares? There's the old "don't worry about things you can't control" saw ... It may, in fact, be the only thing people trust politicians to get right, thinking they won't set off the Big One (or Big Ones) because they'd get wiped out, too.
I could be wrong, of course ... but I really don't think all that many people give a damn about either issue.
I think people do give a damn when they realize $2 trillion of their money is being wasted. And Tulsi has spoken eloquently about the nuclear attack false alarm that hit Hawaii a few years ago. And of course people give a damn when their houses are flooded due to climate change, or they lose power for weeks at a time due to hurricanes, when crops are destroyed due to drought, etc.
It's all in how you present the problems to people. You have to personalize them. Explain them in down-to-earth terms.
Yes, when the bad times hit home, but just like the "forever wars": as long as it doesn't touch them, it's not a problem. If I live in Kansas and Florida is wiped off the map, "Gee, that's tough." There is no sense of communal loss, no broad empathy. And in the aftermath, no sense of outrage lasts long enough to be reflected at the ballot box.
Yes WDT all too true if its not in my backyard plus all those Rich people "knew what the job was when they took it" in regards to living right on the coast, or on a flood plain...:/ :o) So tough titty!
Your last paragraph is boring and insulting. It's unnecessary to dumb down your rhetoric for the rest of us ordinary thinkers.
I find it rather sad that otherwise seemingly-intelligent and thoughtful people still see climate change as a "debatable" subject or even some kind of scam / conspiracy, etc.
The principles which led to the earliest predictions (including by some never-publicized internal research by fossil fuel companies themselves) were fairly well understood, derived from laws of physics, i.e. of thermodynamics, to which some of us were introduced in High School. In summary, we can't continue to raise the density of 'greenhouse gases' - i.e. those which trap heat, without increasing global warming, absent some barriers to solar radiation. And we can't continue to push beyond the boundaries in which the current climate control system operates, without pushing that system into chaos. There is no scientific challenge whatsoever (or debate, that I know of) to this; the science (and mathematics) is inarguable. And the computer models had long ago predicted substantive increases in average global temperatures, etc., as well as their effects on the climate control systems (such as the global thermohaline circulation). While the models, being just that, have had to be refined over time to account for previously underappreciated variables, including feedback loops such as the thawing of permafrost which is allowing much faster release of methane, they have recently been, if anything, understating the predicted effects.
One can introduce new hypotheses, such as 'sun cycles' , to try to account for the observed phenomenon, but the science doesn't validate these as anything close to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Some, of course, will just ignore all that inconvenient "science-y" stuff and accept unvalidated claims in order to cling to their beliefs. But again, the facts and the science remain incontrovertible. The corporate insurance giants, for one, have already made clear that their profits and viability are dependent on their understanding of it; and have already been adjusting operations and policies to account for it. They wouldn't do this if climate change and its effects were debatable. At least one fossil fuel company, as I said, did its own internal research into it, and confirmed what others had already concluded: that burning their products would heat the planet and would be unsustainable. (That they did not immediately change to a more sustainable path only reflects SOP for most corporations- focus on this and the next quarter's profits!). Now many are investing in developing 'carbon capture' stragegies, along with (in varying degrees) trying to gain market share in renewable technologies.
Some write that 'global warming became termed climate change' - as if to hide some flaws in the science itself. Make no mistake- the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate; and that warming will produce not only hotter weather, but also all kinds of signals of the destabilizing that is taking place. Some places will get VERY WET. Some (like where I live) are experiencing long-term drought - with the hotter air evaporating any moisture that might ameliorate it. Some will get far more cold and snow at times. These are all the faces of instability.
And yes, we lack at present the ability to fully, accurately predict ALL the effects. The climate control system is extremely complex. It wasn't fully understood, for example, just how much CO2 (and heat) the oceans could absorb before they stopped being a buffer; and that's just one factor. We failed also to recognize how quickly the polar caps would melt; in addition to its impacts on coastal civilizations, the flood of fresh water into the ocean is itself a potential large-scale disrupter of climate.
Again, all this follows the science, and the observed data is remarkably consistent with the predictions that are the natural conclusion from the principles already stated.
I suppose I have far too little patience with people who fail to read or try to comprehend what is, at its root, fairly basic principles of physics. But I find it especially annoying when such people opine that it's "debatable" or unproven, or explained by some quack's alternative explanations, whether about planetary wobble, solar cycles or "God's retribution" for not following the strictures of the Old Testament.
Roger that.., and well said Carl Sagan testified before Congress in 1985 about the effect of Global warming on the planet due to the burning of CO2 gasses. Its certainly not "God's retribution" for not following the strictures of the O.T..! Religion I.M.O. is for those who can't abide, or face reality every thousand one of them N.G.L.
The two threats are insidious in a common way - they are difficult to detect. Nuclear weapons are hidden away and give no evidence of what they can do until they do it. Global warming is gradual and, as is typical of climate, daily weather doesn't necessarily reveal the problem and certainly not immediately.
People must understand that a warmer planet may have places on it that become cooler than they have been. Since it is the average temperature and not the daily excursions from the norm that reveal warming, it is foolish to say that because a week or a month is chilly then GW is a hoax
I have found the best and most obvious way to see if warming is occurring is to use the graphics that the National Weather Service provides for many major airports in the US. Take a look at this example.
https://www.weather.gov/images/lot/cliplot/KORD2024plot.png
Here is how to read the graph...
The daily temperatures over the year are shown on the top graph as a jagged dark blue trace. The historical norm for each day is a band of green. Hotter than normal historical temps show as a band of red above the green band and colder than normal historical temps are in a band of purple below the green band.
At a glance you can see where the dark blue trace (actual measured daily temp) has been. If it goes up into the red more often than it goes down into the blue, you have a warmer then normal period. A cooler than normal period has the dark blue trace going down into the violet. Record setting heat will have the dark blue trace going up into the red and beyond it. Record setting cold will have the dark blue trace going down through the violet and beyond it.
Once you know how to read this graph, you instantly see what is going on for the year to date. For Chicago it is obvious that 2024 has been a warmer than average year - you can see more of the green band below the dark trace than above. FYI, since 2016 every year except 2019 has been warmer than normal.
It's not obvious that our climate change actions have accomplished anything other than make a well-connected group of investors richer through government loans, grants, mandates, etc. In terms of climate change - not much. The best thing we can do is adapt to climate as it changes, as it always has throughout history.
As others mention, it isn't as simple as you make it out to be, by saying essentially, "deal with it". Not only is the change we are experiencing happening quickly by comparison to what has happened in the past, we are dependent on so many things that are very carefully matched to the climate we have known. A good example are the agricultural heartlands around the world that grow crops specifically for the soil and the temperatures found there.
There are a multitude of things that depend very closely on temperature. One that is certainly not of great importance is the range of the fire ant, a pest in the southern US that cannot survive when the subsoil temperature falls well below freezing, typical of the northern states, that kills any fire ant colony. I mention this because insects in particular are extremely sensitive to temperature with plants not far behind.
It is a simplification beyond belief to think that it is only our own direct tolerance of climate change that is involved. Consider the global thermohaline conveyor, the globe circling ocean circulation that is critically dependent on the salt content of the seawater. This is truly threatening because of polar ice melt that reduces the salinity of the seawater, much more of a threat than the very gradual rise in sea level.
We have no way to know the full extent of nature of the problems we are causing by flagrant use of fossil fuels. For most of my 74 years gasoline has been burned profligately, and I include myself as a user. Now that the issue is clear, people are rushing to buy huge vehicles in which they will drive alone, and as anyone can see who gets on the highway, these big gasoline powered vehicles are racing far above the speed limit, the drivers giving no thought to the extra fuel they are burning to move faster.
Lemmings are thought to be stupid for running in masses over a cliff to their deaths. We, who pride ourselves on intelligence are rushing toward bad times with a will. If man is the rational animal, that animal is very hard to find in hyper-consuming America.
Again - look at the rise in atmospheric CO2, no moderation indicated, none. Check out methane, 23 times the greenhouse gas of CO2...it is ramping up.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/index.html
Many excellent points here, Clif.
Exactly. Learn to adapt. It's what human intelligence is designed for.
The problem with this approach is that many other species cannot adapt or evolve as quickly as needed. Biodiversity is essential for the health of the planet, including our health.
Years ago I evolved to a city that's about 800 feet above sea level. I figure I'm safe from rising oceans for the next 14.5 million years. At least.
What about other species?
They're smart enough to move to higher ground.
Ask the polar bears to move to higher ground? Every year they have to swim further and further to sea ice to hunt seals. "While polar bears have shown some ability to adapt to changes in their surroundings – for example, by foraging for food on land or swimming more to hunt for prey – scientists project that polar bears will become more food-stressed as sea ice diminishes and that populations will decline.Dec 7, 2022". Basically I think that it is naive to think that there will not be loss of many species because of climate change because they will adapt. To me the loss of any species because of humans is a tragedy.
I wish Mother Earth would shake humans off its surface like so many fleas, or mites on a Plum plus we'd deserve it!!!
Charles Darwin "Survival of the Fittest", or the most Intelligent to evolve & adapt a Polar Bear is basically the same as a Brown Bear a Bruin if we may say, and if there is no more polar ice then the Polar Bear will once again adapt to Land hence brown ie. no more Polar Bears..! Just like there are no more Wooly Mammoths!
Ha, ha, ha...! At least!!!
Yes.., we must evolve as a species "Evolution" might save us until about 4 billion yrs. from now when our Local Star swells into its Red Giant stage (then all bets are off tho. as Earth will be engulfed) like Aldebaran now the Eye of the Bull in Taurus in the Hyades our closest Star Cluster. Maybe by then the Human Race will have outgrown its tendency to self-destruct!
And the time to evolve is now!! How's that for a slogan?!
Why would egotistical trump want to end himself in a big bang scenario. He wants security and comfort. So not to worry unless your skin ain't white and you aren't Arab. Otherwise worry a lot.
Also if you are a young attractive woman I'd advice staying away from Margo or the White House. **BEWARE MAD DOG LOOSE**
Given that Biden just authorized the use of U.S. long-range missiles by Ukraine for strikes deep into Russia [ https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-lifts-ban-ukraine-using-us-arms-strike-inside-russia-2024-11-17/ ] ; and
Given that Russian lawmakers have declared that Ukraine strikes on Russia with US missiles could very well lead to world war [ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-strikes-russia-with-us-missiles-could-lead-world-war-russian-lawmakers-2024-11-17/ ] .....
Folks may not have to worry about what Trump does if World War III starts before January 20 and his inauguration.
I was having some sort of TV drama-like experience in my dream that ended irretrievably when I woke thirty minutes ago. Being woke, I then spent twenty minutes reading Bracing Views' latest warning about reasons to worry about Trump. Now THAT'S a true nightmare that we humans won't wake up from, but wake up to. Thanks, big thanks, American Demonocracy, for creating a real monster. Who's gonna kill it & save the world?
If you don't mind the antithesis of an intelligent, thoughtful, wise, visionary, futurist, "Saganist" type of man and like instead a servant to the richest like "Elongated Muskrat Love" an arrogant, presumptuous, conspiracy theorist, against Science as well as in the grip of his own delusions of grandeur and omnipotence then the very stable esteemed genius is your man...
A critically important difference between these major threats, Bill Astore: It is now clear to anyone with a functioning mind--a minority of Americans?--that climate change WILL wreck the planet, is running wild to that end already, whereas nuclear holocaust is NOT guaranteed. Trump's vow to ramp up fossil fuel use from Day One reflects his uncontainable ego declaring to us all: "I can and will do anything I wish, America. My party will control all branches of Fed. Government. Just try to stop me!!" To intentionally seek to accelerate the planet's decline, in my book, qualifies for description by a four-letter word: E-V-I-L. Congrats, America, this is what you have chosen, by a majority of about 5 million of the votes cast.
So far, Trump has 76,430,989 to Harris's 73,738,437, a majority of 2,692,552.
Which means that he got 50.1% of the Total Popular Vote. Which means that 49.9% of those who voted voted AGAINST him. [https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/?office=P]
Quite a "MANDATE," eh?
Mandate to do exactly What?
Thanks for the update, I had not seen these latest revisions. No surprise, of course, that The Donald would declare the win a "historic landslide"!!
It's not just Trump who is calling it a "historic landslide.," Gregory.
Go back and look at the terms used and still being used by the MSM/CON to report it.
Real credibility when one's approach is to build a mega-arsenal (whether Obama or Trump). Why does the line, "Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also," come to mind?
Globes and Nukes have never ever been seen, that means they are in your imagination, silly!!😂🤡🌎😎
https://rayjc.com/2012/07/11/revelation-global-warming-fact-or-fiction-truth-or-consequences/
And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which has power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, Revelation 16: 8-10
Armageddon outa here..! :/ :o) Angels in the Outfield!
Armageddon=Battle of the great Day of God Almighty
Shaping up in the Middle East TODAY between Israel, the Jewish Theocratic State, and Iran, the Islamic Theocratic State
I don't know Ray prophecy crusading is very iffy business. I don't put one iota of faith, or belief in them... They've been predicting the "End" is nigh for Centuries on end!!!
Except that can be seen unfolding in REAL TIME in THIS Material World TODAY! You seem to be in denial. Time will tell! I think the Time will be sooner rather than later.
We'll see Ray if we haven't died ourselves in the meantime, and we've moved on into the spirit world if there is one....
My comment starting this thread is about Global warming, separate and additional to the Existential threat of the Military Battle of the great Day of God Almighty.
Trump supports Israel at WAR with Iran if you follow what the MSM is projecting in OUR Generations.
I think the climate thing is bogus, too.
Nuclear proliferation is terrible, should not be.
Ignorance and recklessness are not unique to Trump and in the American sphere I see them as unavoidable: American ignorance a recklessness is and has been destroying everything it touches for decades.
Concentrating on Trump is itself an indication of the wrongness of American politics: it is nominally a democracy but actually an oligarchy manifesting as dictatorship which is horrible enough but the ultimate horror is that is what Americans want.
They do not look to improve, enhance, improve their crippled democracy: they look for 'saviour' one person leaders. Get this one and all will be good. Get that one and all will be bad. That predicates all depends upon one person. That is not how it should be or how it should be desired to be.
The thing I dislike most about Trump (whom I wanted rather than the other side) is his cabinet being wholly Israel war hawks.
It seems clear Trump is owned by Israel. Astonishing or not it seems true that America is owned by Israel. And Israel is owned by a stone age apocalyptic cult.
We need the rationality of Russia and Asia to step in an restore some sanity.