How Bad Is Global Warming?

[fruhmenschen]

Jason Box knows ice. That’s why what’s happened this year concerns him so much.

Box just returned from a trip to Greenland. Right now, the ice there is … black


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... about.html

[stillrobertpaulsen]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks fruhmenschen. That is...visually sobering. That about sums up my chagrin.

[Luther Blissett]

Uh, no search results for "climate march" or "flood wall street", and there's a LOT to unpack. I don't even know where to begin, but I liked my friend's simple post about it on facebook.

My prediction: despite the best efforts (and massive spending and fossil fuel use) to get people to this climate march in NYC, the mass media narrative will not be on how wonderfully diverse the front of the march is, or how there are contingents marching in their own blocks for labor, anti-nuclear, anti-fracking, anti-capitalists and other aspects of the issue. The media will focus on that there's a big UN climate conference and that Obama's administration has a plan to move the U.S. away from coal to address CO2 emissions. The "other side" will be industry talking about how Obama's plan will crush our economy, and Ban Ki Moon marching WITH the march will steal the show, making it look like the UN and the thousands of activists and Obama are all on the same side.
If we wanted all this time and money spent to make a difference and break a message through to the media (as if the big money behind 350, Avaaz, CJA, Sierra Club, etc. would allow it), we wouldn't allow Ban Ki Moon to march with us, and we'd clearly separate ourselves from Obama and would lead with a message that Obama's plan would do MORE HARM THAN GOOD for the climate. Without that framing, the message will just sound like every tepid enviro press release... about how Obama's plan is a "good start" and a "step in the right direction" but please tweak this or that.
Bullshit.
Obama's plan does more harm than good by encouraging a huge switch from coal to natural gas (which is worse for the climate than coal), to biomass (50% worse than coal) and trash incineration (2.5 times as bad as coal), and to nuclear (which sucks up all the money we need to transition away from combustion sources). We'd be better off without such a plan.
Will enviros be bold enough to speak this truth? Nope. Haven't seen it so far. Not even from our "climate justice" friends.

I'm really back and forth on the whole thing. I very much enjoyed seeing upwards of 400,000 marching and applaud my friends who went. But the key really was the media's handling of it, which is almost exactly as my friend predicted, coinciding with coverage of the UN's climate talks.

[82_28]

On a Warmer Planet, Which Cities Will Be Safest?

Under any model of climate change, scientists say, most of the country will look and feel drastically different in 2050, 2100 and beyond, even as cities and states try to adapt and plan ahead. The northern Great Plains states may well be pleasant (if muggy) for future generations, as may many neighboring states. Although few people today are moving long distances to strategize for climate change, some are at least pondering the question of where they would go.

“The answer is the Pacific Northwest, and probably especially west of the Cascades,” said Ben Strauss, vice president for climate impacts and director of the program on sea level rise at Climate Central, a research collaboration of scientists and journalists. “Actually, the strip of coastal land running from Canada down to the Bay Area is probably the best,” he added. “You see a lot less extreme heat; it’s the one place in the West where there’s no real expectation of major water stress, and while sea level will rise there as everywhere, the land rises steeply out of the ocean, so it’s a relatively small factor.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/scien ... afest.html

There goes affordable rent for forever.

[DrEvil]

^^Start buying property. High rent is nice if it's going into your pocket.

[Sounder]

“The answer is the Pacific Northwest, and probably especially west of the Cascades,”

Ah yes, radiation coast, just the place to be.

[smoking since 1879]

“The answer is the Pacific Northwest, and probably especially west of the Cascades,”

Ah yes, radiation coast, just the place to be.

yep. gonna be real fun when shit starts growing funny.
that includes the kids.

[American Dream]

Against Climate Exceptionalism


“Climate Change is Not an Environmental Issue”

It’s easy to forget the roots of climate change. For many people, climate change and environmental destruction are synonymous with human society, or population growth. Non-profits, academics, and even some radicals blame environmental destruction on the “anthropocene” and “human intervention.” But we want to call the origin of the crisis what it is. We are not only dealing with an environmental crisis. The same root cause that creates climate change is behind inequality, poverty, many contemporary illnesses, homelessness, and everyday alienation. This root cause is not humans, or “human society” writ large. It is instead a particular form of human social relations: capitalism.

Capitalism is the organization of society around production purely for exchange and profit, as opposed to use. Capitalism requires overproduction, debt, endless growth, and most important of all, inequality. Capitalist social relations are inherently anti-democratic. Whether you work for an NGO or for an energy company, you are working for something that exists outside of your direct control. Without inequality, there would be no workers to exploit, no land to grab, and no rents to raise. Without hierarchy, capitalist production would become obsolete–as the people formerly on the bottom would take democratic control over the means of production, and end exploitation. Inequality, hierarchy, exchange, misery, and alienation are all sources of life for capitalism, and sources of death for working and poor people. The state (congress, the police, local civic bodies, courts) exist to maintain inequality and hierarchy, and work out conflicts within the ruling class.

We will continue to face crises as long as we live in a society based on producing things for exchange, whether gas or compostable forks; where people are forced to work for a wage, whether at Monsanto or 350.org; where deadly institutions of “law and order” are required to keep the whole system running. The organization of society based on exploitation is the cause of environmental destruction–not “climate criminals” or corrupt politicians.

Under capitalism, environmental crisis affects everyone, but it affects us unequally. For example, when people protest to shut down nuclear power plants, the electric companies and the state blame anti-nuclear activists for higher electric bills. When NGOs support indigenous peoples’ struggles against land-grabbing through the monetary funding, communities are made to compete with each other. While radioactive isotopes from Fukushima equally contaminate all buildings-from luxury condos and city housing complexes-only those with financial means can prevent exposure to radiation. We will never live in harmony with nature or with ourselves as long as the world and everything in it, including us, can be parceled up to be bought and sold. And no organization that accepts this state of affairs will be capable of solving the problem.

Continue reading →

[Sounder]

Continue reading →

Thanks, I've heard enough.

Capitalism is a result not the cause of our coercive mentality, therefor Capitalism is not the root cause of our problems.

The deceptions and delusions of false imperatives create our suffering and misguided attempts for 'solutions'.

Our 'beliefs' are often little more than attempts at imposing our limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality. What hubris.

[brainpanhandler]

Continue reading →

Capitalism is a result not the cause of our coercive mentality, therefor Capitalism is not the root cause of our problems.

Are we born with a 'coercive mentality'? If so, are we all born with it or just some of us? What would be an example of behavior which is motivated by a 'coercive mentality'?

Or if our 'coercive mentality' is not congenital then what is the root cause of our coercive mentality?

The deceptions and delusions of false imperatives create our suffering and misguided attempts for 'solutions'.

Define 'false imperatives'? What would be some examples of 'deceptions and delusions of false imperatives'?

Our 'beliefs' are often little more than attempts at imposing our limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality. What hubris.

Define 'belief'?

And why is that hubris? Sounds like the human condition to me. Since you say, 'our beliefs are often little more than...', what would be an example of when they are not? What would you suggest in place of our 'beliefs' which attempt to impose our (necessarily to date) limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality? Or should we just have no beliefs at all?

What are some examples of beliefs which are attempts at 'imposing our limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality.'

[Elihu]

What are some examples of beliefs which are attempts at 'imposing our limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality.'

there is really only one overarching belief that imposes limited conceptual models upon the whole of reality: government using coercion and then violence can do........"good".

[brainpanhandler]

Let's take this discussion to here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33625

[Ben D]

Hmmmm....some quite interesting informed AGW supporters....

[Iamwhomiam]

Climate Change Deniers

Climate Change Deniers, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deniers, refers to individuals or groups who disagree with claims that emissions of man-made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect. Often, their advocacy is funded by industry groups and corporations — sometimes disclosed, but more often not.

The use of the term "global warming skeptic" is falling into disuse.[1] According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in peer review journals. They basically deny this problem."[2]

Evolution of Meaning

Originally denoted "climate change skeptics" or "anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming skeptics", the term referred to those who are as yet unconvinced by evidence that emissions of man-made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect. But the accumulation of evidence led to a near-total scientific consensus,[3][4] making the word "skeptic" a misnomer and "a black eye on true skeptics".[5]

Since then the more accurate term denier has become universally used.

Climate Change Denial Arguments

You've heard them all, but if you must read more... http://tinyurl.com/qdgl545

And then there's this recent news, from Google,

Google pulls out of conservative group amid environmentalist pressure

By Evan Halper
September 23, 2014, 11:41 a.m.

Google's effort to build strong alliances with Republican politicians and conservative advocacy groups is paying dividends on Capitol Hill but has created a growing marketing and public-relations headache for the company.

Climate-change activists have shown up at shareholder meetings demanding that executives explain how the firm can, in good conscience, support lawmakers who deny that global warming is a threat.
------------
FOR THE RECORD:
Google: In the Sept. 23 Section A, an article about Google's ties to conservative politicians and advocacy groups gave the wrong first name for the owner of an Oklahoma rooftop solar business who attended Google's shareholder meeting in May. His name is Steve Wilke, not Jim. —
------------

A fundraiser that the company held for Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the most vocal climate-change skeptics in Congress, touched off a mini-rebellion among Google staff members, along with unwelcome media attention.

And the Sierra Club and major unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, joined 50 other groups this month in demanding that Google end its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative network of state politicians that, among other projects, works to roll back laws that promote solar and wind power.

Google bowed to that demand Monday, announcing that it would sever ties with ALEC because of the group's stand on climate change.

"The consensus within the company was that that was some sort of mistake," Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said of the decision to join the group.

"Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they're just, they're just literally lying," Schmidt said in an interview with NPR's Diane Rehm on Monday.

Environmental activists praised the decision but said they would continue to press Google to change other aspects of its political strategy.

The company is "going in the right direction" by abandoning ALEC, "but it is still funding the campaigns of climate deniers in Congress and on K Street," said Brant Olson, campaign director for Forecast the Facts, an activist group that had played a major role in organizing the anti-ALEC campaign. "It is still shooting itself in the foot in terms of its climate goals."

Lisa Nelson, ALEC's chief executive, attributed Google's move to "public pressure from left-leaning individuals and organizations who intentionally confuse free-market policy perspectives for climate-change denial."

Microsoft, which had come under similar pressure, recently abandoned its ALEC membership.

Like other firms in the tech industry, Google in recent years has become more active in trying to lobby Washington. At a time when the GOP controls the House and may soon control the Senate, the firm is looking to build as many relationships as possible with prominent conservatives.

But playing both sides of the street and hedging political bets fit badly with the company's carefully honed public image. Google has increasingly found it hard to reconcile its progressive Bay Area corporate persona with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to people and causes the progressive base detests.

Google's politics are complicated. The company receives accolades from green activists for $1.5 billion it has invested in clean-energy technology. It bankrolls some of the most ambitious solar projects on the planet. The company's passions for creativity, innovation and free expression play well with liberals.

But the tech behemoth's agenda in Washington is broad. Many of the issues on which it lobbies, including patent reform, digital privacy and net neutrality, do not fall neatly along partisan lines. As Google cultivates Republican allies on such issues, the progressive blowback intensifies.

"We should not be electing climate deniers into office, and we should not be supporting them in the marketplace," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

"Et tu Google?" was a headline on a report published this month by Forecast the Facts and the Sum of Us, two networks of liberal activists that boast a combined membership of more than 5.2 million.

The groups challenged Google's nearly $700,000 in cumulative corporate and employee donations to lawmakers who have publicly doubted the threat of climate change.

The list of climate skeptics was compiled by another liberal advocacy group, the Washington-based Center for American Progress, which has close ties to the Obama administration. The center, ironically, gets funding from Google.

The latest pressure came after 17 of Google's own science fellows, outraged by the Inhofe fundraiser, questioned the company's moral leadership in a letter last year to its top executives.

Anger over the ALEC ties had prompted several activists to journey to Google's shareholder meeting in May, including Steve Wilke, owner of a rooftop solar business in Oklahoma. He says ALEC-inspired legislation passed in his state is undermining the rooftop solar industry there.

"You continue to fund a group that is actively and successfully destroying renewable-energy markets," he said at the meeting.

David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, thanked Wilke for raising the issue, noting that he was not the first to do so. "We'll continue to review it," Drummond said at the time.

Twitter: @evanhalper

http://tinyurl.com/l3vclzg

edited once to correct misapplied url tag

[Ben D]

^

The use of the term "global warming skeptic" is falling into disuse.[1] According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists....

How credible is the Union of Concerned Scientists and what are the scientific credentials required when they have Anthony Watts' dog as a member?