"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Category Archives: Climate Science/Global Warming

The notion that we are a free people or that “free-markets” work in all our best interests is a myth that is slowly eroding genuine personal liberties.  No better example of this misguided concept can be better demonstrated than by how wealthy special interests determine what we eat.

misc9

 

I could have spent this past week researching a subject matter that is close to my heart.   But then I would have gotten very little personal tasks done that needed to be done.  So I consider myself fortunate to find a piece on the Organic Consumer Associations website that did an excellent job of conveying a timely topic that can’t be stressed enough

In their piece, Climate Chaos: Boycott Genetically Engineered and Factory-Farmed Foods, Will Allen and Ronnie Cummins have provided us with one of the most detailed assessments I have ever read that frankly spells out how industrialized crop production and factory farming impact global climate instability, even more so than the mere production of fossil fuels.  I encourage everyone to read the entire article and absorb its wealth of information.

It hits virtually every aspect of the food we eat from the farm to the table and how the concentration of power to achieve this by those, motivated only for profits, has not only negatively impacted our health and economy, but threatens the sustainability of the planet itself   To whet your appetite I’ve provided a few paragraphs below from their article to indicate just how rich the information is that Allen and Cummins’ efforts have produced here.  Learn its message and share it with as many people as you can.

 

Irrefutable Numbers

Traditionally conservative World Bank scientists estimated in 2009 that animal farming worldwide emits at least 51 percent of the world’s greenhouse gasses every year. (3) In spite of these truly alarming statistics, the focus on efforts to mitigate climate change have not been directed toward reversing or reforming unsustainable, climate-disrupting farming practices. In spite of the fact that industrial agriculture exceeds the combined U.S. green house gas emissions from transportation, energy production and industry, the farm and food emissions are ignored and trivialized, and thus unregulated.

A large share of factory farming’s greenhouse gasses in the U.S. come from using fossil fuels in 25 million tractors, and millions of combines, mowers, balers and other farm implements. Another large and increasing share of those gasses come from nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer production and use, and the spraying of ever increasing amounts of insecticides and weed killers as pests develop a tolerance to all but the most deadly and polluting poisons.

The animals we raise, mainly on CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), and the feed we grow for these animals are responsible for a huge share of the excess greenhouse gas emissions and climate chaos we are experiencing. Currently 92.5 percent of U.S. farmland is devoted to grazing animals and grain production: corn, soybeans, wheat, rye, oats, barley and cottonseed for confined cows, hogs, chickens and turkeys. Consequently, most of our farmland produces food for meat- and milk-producing animals. This inefficient use of land produces a majority of the most destructive greenhouse gasses: methane and nitrous oxide. Only 7.5 percent of U.S. farmland produces vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts and berries for direct human consumption. (4)

 

We can survive indefinitely where all people have ample food supplies.  But by allowing a small wealthy elite to control the vast amount of resources that are inherently all of ours, we are dooming not only ourselves but future generations as well.  It is becoming more and more clear that our elected officials are working more for these special interests than they are for the rest of us.  So how can we achieve the means to turn things in a direction that favors every man, woman and child?  Will Allen and Ronnie Cummins offer this.

We need to change our food habits. We need to stop eating factory-farmed meat and milk products. Since over 90 percent of all non-organic meat, dairy and eggs in the U.S. come from factory farms, we need a nationwide boycott and marketplace pressure, in the form of a CAFO labeling campaign.

A drastic reduction in sales of products from CAFOs will lead to a major increase in the sales and consumption of organic, pasture-raised and grass-fed meat and animal products, which today account for only 5 percent of the market. As we boycott all CAFO products, which means choosing vegan menu options in most restaurants shopping more carefully in grocery stores and farmers markets, we need to eat more organic, climate-friendly vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans and whole grains. If you eat meat and drink milk, make sure that is pasture-raised and not raised in an animal prisons, such as confinement feedlots, hog hotels and massive dairies. Ask your grocer or butcher where the food comes from and how it is raised. Stop eating meat that is glued together with pink slime.

WeThePeople

If WE the people change our ways, by default we can change the system.  The only thing we have to lose is the repression of the mega-corporations that currently hold our lives in their greedy little hands.

“This is not a futuristic vision that must await more research. The appropriate technology for a world-wide shift to sustainable, organic agriculture already exists, and each year it gets more efficient and sophisticated.”  – Will Allen & Ronnie Cummins


A standup comedian asks the question to perhaps the most critical concern of our time.   Why do people who profess to believe in the biblical God trash the home he is alleged to have entrusted to their care?

 angry God

I was watching CK Louis’s standup routine “Live at the Beacon Theater” the other night on Netflix.  In it there was this 3 minute segment about two-thirds of the way through where he played out a scenario as God chastising some of those he entrusted to act as good stewards for his earth creation.  CK pretends to be God and comes back to earth to see how his creation has been taken care of and is simply blown away with what he sees.  Portraying both Jehovah and the earthling he grills, here’s the gist of that interaction in typical CK Louis fashion

God:  “What the fuck did you do?  I gave this to you mother fucker!  Are you crazy?  The polar bears are brown, what did you .. what did you do to the polar bears?  Did you shit all over every polar bear?  Who did this?   Who spilled this shit”?

Then he points at an imaginary earthling and tells him, “Come over here!   Did you spill this shit?  What is that”?

Earthling: (in a rather doofus voice) “It’s oil, its’ just some oil.  I didn’t mean to spill it.”

God:  “Well why did you even take it out of the fucking ground?”

Earthling:  “Because I wanted to go faster” as he gyrates his arms in a locomotive fashion.  “and I was cold” wrapping his arms around himself imitating being chilled.

God: “What the fuck do you mean cold?  I gave you everything you needed you piece of shit” 

And then the earthling dribbles out a few words that are meant to explain everything like most Republicans do when they talk about tax cuts for so-called “job creators” and the very wealthy.

Earthling: “Well, because of ‘jobs’”

God:  “Jobs?  For what?  Why do you need jobs?”

Earthling:  “To make money.  Money is needed to buy food”.

God:  “I gave you free food.   Just eat the stuff off of the floor I gave you”

Earthling:  “Yes, but … it doesn’t have like bacon around it.  I like when it has bacon on it.”

It’s laugh out loud funny to think fossil fuel extraction has been all about our cravings for bacon.  This skit does in its simplicity though unmasks where most of our values lie – in the self-interests of creature comforts that often wreak havoc on the only planet we’re ever going to be able to call home.

It struck me then how some Christians strain a gnat but will swallow a camel as they ignore the word of God, according to their own scriptures, failing to be good stewards of this planet but can milk a few words from the psalmist to rationalize the massive campaign to prevent a scared teenager from aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

In a christian apologetic written back in 1977 by assistant professor of political theory at the University of Michigan, J. Patrick Dobel, entitled “Stewards of the Earth’s Resources: A Christian Response to Ecology” the author drives home, through the use of multiple biblical references, where humans lie within in the scheme of earth and its resources and who in fact owns them.  Capitalists and free-marketers may want to close their eyes and block their hearing, chanting la-la-la-la-la-la-la as loud as they can.

The proper relation between humanity and the bountiful earth is … complex. One fact is of outstanding moral relevance: the earth does not belong to humanity; it belongs to God. Jeremiah summarizes it quite succinctly: “I by my great power and outstretched arm made the earth, land and animals that are on the earth. And I can give them to whom I please” (Jer. 27:5). For an ecological ethic this fact cannot be ignored. The resources and environment of the earth are not ours in any sovereign or unlimited sense; they belong to someone else.

Humanity’s relation to the earth is dominated by the next fact: God “bestows” the earth upon all of humanity (Ps. 115:16). This gift does not, however, grant sovereign control. The prophets constantly remind us that God is still the “king” and the ruler/owner, to whom the earth reverts. No one generation of people possesses the earth. The earth was made “to endure” and was given for all future generations. Consequently the texts constantly reaffirm that the gift comes under covenanted conditions, and that the covenant is “forever.” The Bible is permeated with a careful concern for preserving the “land” and the “earth” as an “allotted heritage” (Ps. 2:7-12).

This point is central to the Judeo-Christian response to the world. The world is given to all. Its heritage is something of enduring value designed to benefit all future generations. Those who receive such a gift and benefit from it are duty-bound to conserve the resources and pass them on for future generations to enjoy. An “earth of abundance” (Judg. 18:10) provides for humanity’s needs and survival (Gen. 1:26-28, 9:2-5). 

Now I no longer consider myself a religious person.  I’ve seen too much within the institution of the church to know that self-preservation tends to crowd out the general welfare principles that have been espoused thoughout human history.  Lip service is given to much what passes as “God’s law” but people are clever in their ways to circumvent it when it serves their needs.

So Dobel’s biblical assertions carry no weight with me other than the point he makes about the earth belonging to “no one generation”.  I would paraphrase the last line in the first paragraph to read instead that “the resources and environment of the earth are not [the private property of select individuals] in any sovereign or unlimited sense; they belong to [everyone].  But I am in sync with the lines in the last paragraph that asserts that “The world [and it’s resources are] given to all. Its heritage is something of enduring value designed to benefit all future generations. Those who receive such a gift and benefit from it are duty-bound to conserve the resources and pass them on for future generations to enjoy.

The Christian capitalist mentality in this country is often silent on those scripture that points out mankind’s responsibility for being good stewards of the earth.  Dobel enumerates quite a few.  But he also notes there are those verses that some Christians are ready to use to justify their right to own private property and do with it what they will, even if it deprives others of the necessary resources they need for survival.  Dobel feels however that the convenant spelled out in 1 Chron. 16:14-18 negates any self-serving use of what is supposed to be their “inheritance”.

capitalist christian

The Christian capitalist will exploit the earth to fulfill their need for wealth and power yet prevent unwanted pregnancies based on a single metaphor from the psalmist that suggests God knew David personally while he was still in his mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:13)  They will also cherry-pick the handful of scriptures that refer to using violence in order to invade countries and claim their resources while overlooking all that is written about the compassion of Jesus.  Unlike “christian soldiers”, Onward Christian Earth Stewards is nowhere to be found in contemporary christian lexicon.

Today’s representatives for God here on earth are willing to usurp and drain the resources of one region as if it was their “manifest destiny” ordained by a God who is supposed to have commanded that “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” (1Cor:10-24)

When special interests pollute the air and water we all own and food sources dry up because man-made conditions have contributed to drought, floods and famines for many, it will be the righteous Christian who will assert that such bounty comes not from our exploitation of others but as manna bacon from heaven.

It may be crude and offend the sensitivities of many but CK Louis’ version of God’s response to those responsible for the stewardship planet Earth seems appropriate.

“What the fuck did you do”?


When dishonest collaboration with others arises from ideological zealotry we can create our own web of deceit that ensnares us and can forever discredit what we prize so highly.  Our integrity.

walter williams

Hypocrites, liars, cheats and thieves will often over step reasonable limits in their practices and eventually ensnare themselves with their own inflated self views.  Joe McCarthy finally fell from grace when he demonstrated he had no decency in his delusional attacks on alleged communists in America.  Bernie Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars finally came unravelled and sent him to prison for life.  The lies of George W. Bush were legendary and along side his general incompetence will eventually put him with the likes of Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore, Ulysses Grant, John Tyler and James Buchanan

Their excesses were their own undoing but it took the work of others to expose their malfeasance.  So, when someone who engages in unethical practices becomes their own condemner it becomes so much more rewarding for those of us who have battled with them to reveal them as the frauds they are.  It is with great delight then that I present the case against conservative columnist Walter Williams who has been part of the echo chamber of misinformation regarding climate change.

Williams over the years has berated the specialist in the field of climate science for being a part of what his companion in the U.S.  Senate, James Inhofe, has called “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.  As part of the fraternity of climate deniers people like Williams and Inhofe have taken the talking points of the fossil fuel industry and tried to convey a legitimate authority that disputes the evidence from specialists in their field.  Evidence that strongly suggests that CO2 from burning oil, coal and even natural gas is adding to the natural limits of CO2 in our atmosphere and thus creating a barrier making it more difficult for the suns rays from escaping back out into space.

In doing this we are warming the planet quicker than any historical natural incidence of warming and dooming future generations to a planet that most species will perish from and many civilizations will also be unable to recover from,  Adaptability will likely not be able to overcome the devastating impacts of multiple monstrous climate disasters.  The frequency of such destructive forces like the Japanese tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and severe drought in Africa, parts of Russia and most of the lower 48 states will overwhelm human resources and capabilities to marginalize, if not defeat, their effectiveness.

earth defect

Large populations will have to be relocated as sea levels rise from melting polar caps and mountain glaciers.  This melting will also contribute to dangerous acidic levels in the seas and oceans destroying the marine life that is vital as a food source for millions of people.  Farming land will turn to deserts as droughts continue to impoverish the soils reducing not only food supplies for human consumption but necessary feed stock for meat and dairy suppliers.  The economic impacts will begin to create chaos around the world.  More arid regions means less plant life needed to carry out the photosynthesis necessary to generate the oxygen all life requires.

Had we listened to the climate scientists like Dr. James Hansen over two decades ago that warned us of this impending threat, our ability to stave off the worst aspects of man-made global warming could likely have prevented much of what we are currently experiencing.  But once the monied interests that infects the fossil fuel industry devised their scheme to create doubt about the climate science warnings, the pubic became too unwilling to listen with their minds and instead allowed people like Walter Williams to convince them that conspiracies were afoot to rob them of their hard-earned money.  A notion created out of thin air but none-the-less, when cleverly presented, strikes at the concerns of most working people’s hearts and pocket books.

How ironic then, when after years of disputing the climate science by people who themselves were not specialist with this field, that Walter Williams has come to tell us now that we should be leery of the claims made by people whose expertise lies outside the authority of those they judge.  In one of his ethereal tangents Williams attempts to remove any notion of deity from certain experts, citing examples throughout history of people who were “the greatest and most influential scientist” in their field but whose credibility suffered when they stepped into areas that belied any expertise.

The take-home lesson is that experts are notoriously fallible outside of their fields of endeavor — and especially so when making predictions.  …  The bottom line is that the fact that a person has academic degrees, honors and status is no reason for us to abandon our tools of critical thinking.    SOURCE 

And yet throughout the last few years Williams has on numerous occasions tried to act as some sort of expert in the field of divining who the authorities were that could best tell us what does or doesn’t impact our climate these days.  Climate science is a special field of science and as things stand today, 98% of climate scientists support the consensus that man-made climate change is real.  That’s up 2% from a just a few short years ago when a clear 96% believed this.

Yet Williams, throughout his years of reporting on climate change and man-made global warming, has insisted that the opposite is true and that the planet is more likely cooling down rather than heating up.  Using the disputed claims of two geologists, Williams violates his recent claim about using “experts” outside their field of expertise to bolster the notion that “an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling” is occurring.

Like many of his fellow deniers Williams provides no numbers or predictions to support most of his contentions beyond the vague and un-sourced assertions he makes.  Rather he engages in what many in the climate denier camp do, using false equivalents that presumes there are equally legitimate arguments to dispute the data of climate scientists.

In January, 2010, never citing any irrefutable evidence from a legitimate climate scientist, Williams made the audacious claim that “many climatologists have been intimidated into silence.”   I can count on one hand how many real climate scientist still associate with the deniers.  Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, syndicated columnist and author is also on record for saying that “there is absolutely no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature.”  Ask anyone who owns a greenhouse if the energy exchange between the suns rays and the emitted CO2 given off from their plants that gets trapped does not generate heat.

When Williams talks about numerous scientists who refute the claims of man-made global warming he is talking about a list cited in one of James Inhofe’s senate presentations where he said that more than 650 International Scientists dissented over man-made global warming claims.  Upon close scrutiny of this list the vast majority of these people were either not scientist or practiced in fields other than the climate sciences.  Experts, Williams tells us, that can benotoriously fallible outside of their fields of endeavor”.

So I concur with Mr. Williams in his assessment about how a person’s “academic degrees, honors and status is no reason for us to abandon our tools of critical thinking”.  Now if only he would reflect on this about himself he may fully understand how it has come about that he has firmly planted his foot in his own mouth.

climate-change denier

 


Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

Some of the fanatics who were dreading the possibility of an Obama re-election have reacted in ways that resemble the image they portrayed for those on the left who, it was suggested, would become mad and begin rioting if Obama did not win.  Indeed there were hundreds of Tweets, largely by blacks, that intimated a riot would ensue if Romney won.  Such sentiments however have always been a part of our political environment but seldom made as public as the new social media allows today.

I can recall in 2000 that my supervisor in the new-home building industry indicated that if Al Gore wound up getting the Florida vote that “there will be blood in the streets.”  My supervisor then was something of a racist based on his frequent use of the “N” word that he used when he felt sure he was amongst those who shared his prejudices.  He knew damn well that I didn’t but I was an “underling” so he felt no compulsion to respect my views.  The point being, there’s no reason to think his sentiments toward an Obama victory are any different from what he felt about Gore and yet I haven’t read anything in the newspaper where he has participated in any violence.

Strong feelings run deep within us all about political issues today and rage and anger is frequently expressed.  Fortunately most of this has not materialized into real action though there are those who have carried their dark, bitter feelings to a final solution.

The man in Florida who killed himself after Obama was elected was convinced that the end was nigh.  It was a conviction that many are overcome with when they get so steeped in extremist political ideologies where it literally suppresses all rational thought.  Again, this is not a new phenomena.  John Wilkes Booth is a character in history that was led by his virulent antipathy toward Unionists to kill the man he felt represented all that was evil about things he had conjured up in his small little brain.

But the influence of these hyper-angry people back then was marginalized considerably compared to today by their lack of an effective means of communication.   So when the same personalities today have access to the broadcast medium in our modern age, they are bound to influence millions.  Some of those millions will have mental deficiencies whose fear and hysteria can push them over the edge.  Glenn Beck is one of those demagogues who can have an extreme influence on some of those with mental deficiencies.

Mr. Beck requires no introduction or background to those who have resided on this planet for at least the last ten years are so.  His flights of fantasy are well-documented on videos that were produced by his former bosses at FOX.  However it seems that Glenn Beck’s madness exceeded even the typical mindlessness that FOX accommodates with their slanted portrayal of social and political issues and so was summarily dismissed in April, 2011.  Even the ultraconservative WorldNetDaily website posted a story on Beck’s firing entitled “TOO CRAZY FOR FOX – AND THAT’S CRAZY”

So what has Glenn Beck done that elicits his name amongst those who have reacted alarmingly to President Obama’s re-election?

On his radio show, former Fox host Glenn Beck lamented the downgrade of the country, but promised “I won’t make a deal with the devil… I will tell you last week we purchased more farmland as a family. May I recommend if you have a chance to buy farmland, you buy farmland. If you live in the east may I recommend get the hell out of the east. Find a place where you are surrounded by like-minded people and the best way to find those people is, you should probably look at the maps on how counties voted… May I highly suggest you get grandfathered in to the second amendment today. Oh and don’t forget the ammunition.”     SOURCE  

Now lest one might think that the self-described “rodeo clown” was advocating a pastoral return to a life where self-sufficiencies were met by the nuclear family, please read what is clearly stated by the man who is literally asking people to band together in a circle-the-wagons mentality.  And though some of us may laugh at his overreaction to current conditions, it is his illogical solution in response to an Obama victory that requires our attention.

What Beck want’s his followers to alter their life’s for is a change that by itself would ruin most of those families who took his advice; far more than any perceived evil he or they may have attributed to a renewed Obama administration.  By moving to those areas he implies, away from the East coast and purchase farmland, is to put these desperate people in regions that are suffering some of the worst drought conditions since the Dust Bowl days of the Great Depression era.  These droughts today can be linked to that bugaboo the former FOX host was and remains in denial of – man-made climate change  – where natural disasters are enhanced by increased warming attributed to accelerated levels of CO2 from fossil fuels in our atmosphere.

In the main stream media’s failure to report substantively, if at all, on the growing threat of climate changes, Jim Naureckas with the FAIR website has pointed out how bad things are as a result of global warming.

July 2011 to June 2012 was the hottest 12-month period ever recorded for the mainland United States, the National Climatic Data Center announced in July (CNN, 7/9/12)―which itself turned out to be the hottest month ever in the lower 48 (CNN, 8/10/12). Drought produced the largest agricultural disaster area in U.S. history (Atlantic Wire, 7/12/12), and the accompanying wildfires burned unprecedented acreage―nearly 7 million (Mother Jones, 8/21/12)―while the Arctic icecap shrank to its smallest historical coverage (BBC, 9/19/12).     SOURCE 

Here’s a map of the area that Beck is suggesting his disgruntled supporters move to and purchase farms.  Notice that those areas “away from the East coast” are under severe drought conditions.

These areas are also short on water resources with many lakes and reservoirs below acceptable levels.  Underground aquifers are also dwindling from agricultural use as well as extraction for use on the thousands of natural gas wells sprouting up in these areas.  Fracking just one natural gas well can use on average 4.5 million gallons of precious clean water that’s needed for crops to be cultivated and families to have drinking water.  History has shown that individual property owners – like those who Glenn is encouraging to “buy farmland” – have less sway over the authorities that control water access.

Farmers in the Great Plains are expecting to harvest just a fraction of their corn and other crops this year as the worst drought in 50 years plagues nearly two-thirds of the nation.    SOURCE

It’s not outside the realm of probability to believe that Beck’s desire for his listeners to buy farmland is perhaps an appeal to find sponsorships from the rural real estate market.   You can only appeal to so many people about buying gold, the industry sponsorship that stayed with Beck even when he was dumped by Roger Ailes at FOX.

So in his hysteria, the excommunicated moron from FOX news is enticing emotionally distraught people to invest their life savings in ventures that are likely to fail for reasons that they have been poorly informed of.  Poorly informed because they have listened to people like Glenn Beck far too long.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:

Drought stretches across America, threatens crops

Agenda 21: The Latest Slight of Hand trick by Corporate Elite


Not realizing that “It’s the Economy, Stupid” cost George H. Bush a second term as president in 1992.   But even though it is staring us all right in the face, neither presidential candidate in 2012 acknowledged the greatest threat that faces us and our prodigy today.  And no, it isn’t the deficit.

In the spirit of President Obama’s 2012 campaign theme of “Forward”, I challenge the President and everyone else to focus their sights on the growing threat of climate change from anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.  The President said almost nothing throughout most of the election season about how global CO2 in our atmosphere had passed the tipping point, yet the threat this poses to our economic well-being (not to mention our very survival) is becoming more apparent everyday in the form of “frankenstorms” like that associated with Hurricane Sandy just two weeks ago.

It is time to look past the banal and debunked arguments of climate deniers even though they remain vociferous through the financial aid of the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyist, the American Petroleum Institute (API).  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also guilty of being a cheerleader for Big Oil, Coal and Gas but many of their members have taken issue with the national CofC’s position, supporting instead the policies that convert dirty fossil fuel energy sources to clean renewable ones.  And though the numbers may remain small of those people who go to bat for the likes of the Koch brothers, Exxon/Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson and Chevron’s CEO John Watson, they are still able to drown out the views of the public through the corporate control of print, radio and TV media sources.  By virtue of their vast resources, they have the power of the megaphone if not the numbers.

Is this what Exxon-Mobil CEO Tillerson was referring to when he said “that people would be able to adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates”?

But things are changing.  One of the biggest turnarounds occurred when former climate skeptic Richard Muller, who now calls himself “a converted skeptic”, published research, funded surprisingly by Charles Koch of the Koch brothers.  Muller’s findings left him declaring that, “global warming is real and humans are almost entirely the cause.”   I’m sure this is not the return on investment(ROI) that the Kochs were looking for.

For those who don’t know, Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, was also one of the critics who supported the notion of foul play following the theft of e-mails from University of East Anglia (UEA) climate scientists, infamously referred to as “Climategate”.

“I was deeply concerned that the group [at UEA] had concealed discordant data,” Prof Muller told BBC News.

“Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared.”    SOURCE   

But after setting out to discredit the climate science discussed in those e-mails, Muller instead found, using new methods and some new data, that their research did support the view that man’s activities are indeed creating a warmer climate around the globe.

One of the barriers in this contentious issue I seldom approach in order to get people to see things a bit clearer is to put the committed climate deniers and their claims up for exhibition; putting a mirror up, so to speak, with the rebuttals of their claims reflecting back on them.  But who are some of the “committed climate deniers”?   Let’s break them down.

The 2 per centers

Perhaps those with the most authority on this subject within the denier ranks are real climate scientist who have not been won over like Professor Muller and 98% of the other climate scientists. 

Dr. Roy Spencer [and] Dr. Richard Lindzen (the subject of a fewrecent articles), [are two of a] few climate scientists who remain unconvinced that most of the recent global warming has been caused by humans.

Dr. Spencer has grown frustrated with the fact that most of his climate scientist colleagues conduct research under the premise that the recent warming is anthropogenic, and in an article on his blog, has thrown down the gauntlet:

“Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.”     SOURCE

  It is this fallacious type of challenge by the deniers that excite skeptics because it is the type of challenge that cannot provide the absolutes that deniers demand from their adversaries.  Spencer knows that any scientist worth his or her salt would not pick up that gauntlet that would attempt to establish a certainty, an absolute or a truth where one doesn’t exist by scientific standards.  And because they can’t, the layperson is easily convinced that anthropogenic climate change claims are false or unworthy of consideration.

What isn’t revealed here to the common layperson however is that Spencer himself cannot make equally superlative claims about his positions because true scientists know that there are few certainties, absolutes and truths in science.  Even for the few that do exists like the force of gravity and the rotation of the earth around the sun, these were objected to by the powerful authority of the Church just a few short centuries ago.  And even today there are still fundamentalists that ignore these absolutes when they challenge certain biblical passages, which still passes as “the inerrant word of God” to many believers.   The biggest climate denier in Congress, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, uses these scriptures today to support his notion that “that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.    SOURCE 

But this is all a philosophical issue and I’m here to discuss climate science.

What Spencer’s gauntlet ignores is that just because there is no “peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles” to cause the recent increased rate of warming, doesn’t mean that HIS hypothesis about what does cause climate change is valid.  And if our understanding about how humans are effecting global warming was based on just one scientific study, Spencer’s contention would have significant merit.  But the reality is that there are innumerable studies that exists and as the science improves with new and more accurate models and equipment, so does the legitimacy of climate science’s theory on anthropogenic warming.

The fact that there are still a few legitimate climate scientists out there holding onto to their weak and often outdated views, is a sign to just how much ideology and even financial rewards can infect their discipline.  Spencer and Lindzen have been compensated for their work through their associations with the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute, both funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders.

“Thousands of science skeptics”

The next group of climate deniers would be the “thousand of scientists” who are alleged to support the notions of people like Spencer and Lindzen.   So-called skeptic lists have been touted for years by some of the puppets for the fossil fuel industry, all eventually proven to be shams.  They are nothing more than names of scientists in fields not even related to the climate sciences, while others on the list are non-experts like weathermen and radio broadcasters.  One early list was The Leipzig Declaration and at the time was “regarded in some circles as the gold standard of scientific expertise on the issue.”  However, journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times, upon a thorough investigation, found the Declaration to be a whitewash by a handful of people who were on the dole with big oil giants like Exxon-Mobil.

… most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen – a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Some did not even have a college degree, such as Dick Groeber of Dick’s Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio.

A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration’s 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects.   SOURCE 

The Mouth Pieces

The last batch of deniers are the ones that feed all of the debunked claims of climate denier scientists to the poorly informed public.  They are the bloggers and broadcasters paid by the fossil fuel industry.  But it is more than just the influence of a paycheck that motivates this level of denier.  A lot of them have become convinced that climate change is nothing more than a liberal conspiracy between people like Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen to enrich themselves by cashing in on Cap and Trade, a marketing strategy that deals with carbon emissions trading.

Some of the more recognizable names in this area are of course Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck but these guys deals with an array of issues besides global warming concerns.  Of all the climate-denying mouth pieces out there, the most notorious one, and who shares the mindset of Senator Inhofe, is Anthony Watts and his wattsupwiththat blog

  

Climate denier blogger Anthony Watts and his accomplice in crime Lord Monckton

Watts is another climate denier who has been compensated for his efforts by the Heartland Institute.  He digs up every pseudo claim that conflicts with the climate science of today and runs it through his blog as further evidence of the contrived conspiracy to be “perpetrated on the American people”.  Christopher Monckton, who prefers the title of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has fantastically claimed at one time or another to be  “a member of the British House of Lords, a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article, is often quoted on Watts’ blog.  Both Watts and Monckton are borderline sociopaths who relish the attention their actions garner.  Neither is capable of promoting any peer-reviewed science.

Times is no longer on our side

So let’s be clear then what our number one concern should be.  This is not to say that the deficit doesn’t have a place in our priorities.  It does.  I believe the writers at Think Progress have made the cogent point as our political leaders confront important issues following the election.

… the election provides President Obama with a mandate to push his vision — a balanced approach that invests in the middle class, makes smart spending cuts, and, most importantly, makes the wealthy pay their fair share. Conversely, the election was also a definitive repudiation of the GOP’s failed top-down approach.  SOURCE 

But economist Dean Baker draws a better distinction about what our priorities should be.

Imagine if in response to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in December of 1941, our political leaders had debated the best way to deal with the deficits from war spending projected for 1960. This is pretty much the way in which Washington works these days.

What is perhaps most infuriating about [the deficit scare-mongers] is the claim that their efforts are somehow designed to benefit our children and grandchildren. This is bizarre for a number of reasons.

We’ll be able to tell our children and grandchildren that they don’t have to pay interest on government bonds (they also won’t be receiving interest on government bonds, but let’s not complicate matters with logic), even as they evacuate their homes ahead of flood waters.

In reality, the campaigners are spewing utter nonsense when they imply that the well-being of future generations will be in any way determined by the size of the government debt that we pass on to them. We hand down to future generations a whole society and a planet that will be damaged to varying degrees, depending on our current actions. Neglecting the steps necessary to fix the planet out of a desire to reduce the deficit is incredibly irresponsible if we care about future generations.   - economist Dean Baker

Put the budget in proper perspective.  We don’t need to be led down some “fiscal cliff” path to the point that totally or even partially ignores the real threat civilization is faced with.  Obama needs to take all of his political capital at this early stage and be a FORCEFUL leader on climate change policy. People will follow if he can use his articulate skills along with the knowledge we now have of man-made global warming.


The billionaire Koch Burns Brothers

More Americans are agreeing with the preponderance of climate scientists.  They no longer are buying into the fear and ignorance that claims there is a conspiracy to raise our energy prices by some “liberal” cartel.  The science is there now as is the physical evidence in all the massive destruction from natural disasters that exceed anything we have witnessed in the last couple of generations.

We need to pounce and pounce hard.  Not only to prevent the self-serving forces of the fossil fuel industry from regrouping and counteract what advances have been made but simply for the sake of our children and grandchildren who will pay a much heavier price for our shortsightedness on global warming than on any adverse affects from a lingering national debt.

Postscript:  For those who feel strongly that man-made climate change is real but are intimidated when someone challenges you about the science, ask them first what it is that are questioning then use this handy one-liner rebuttal source to shut them down.  It’s worked for me on numerous occasions.

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths -Rebuttals

 

RELATED VIDEO & ARTICLE:

Meet the Climate Denial Machine

The (unreal) problem with the fiscal cliff

Climate Change’s ‘Terrifying Math’ Coming to City Near You

It Global Warming, Stupid

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility – In One Pie Chart


“The best things carried to excess are wrong” - Winston Churchill

According to a statement made by Mitt Romney’s campaign press secretary, Andrea Saul back in July of last year.

“Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them … CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.”   (emphasis mine)       SOURCE 

Andrea is correct.  CO2 is indeed a naturally occurring gas that humans emit every time they exhale.  As a walk away statement you simply want to shrug your shoulders though and say, “Okay?”   However,  what Andrea was primarily doing here in the larger context was giving Big Oil and Big Coal a wink, letting them know that Romney would remain in their back pocket.  On a lower level she was assuring those climate-denying conservatives, who were still undecided at the time if Mitt was their man or not, that he too is climate-science challenged.

But what’s even more deceptive about this statement is the suggestion underlying it that CO2 is nothing to be concerned about. It’s natural and it’s been here since Adam and beyond.  This is reflective of the half-truths that climate deniers are good at spitting out and that poorly informed people are good at swallowing, as if it were a whole truth.

If there is no need to worry about CO2 then we clearly don’t need trees, flowers, wild grasses and other flora that take this toxic CO2 and regurgitate it into healthy oxygen necessary for all life on this tiny blue dot.

Remember how all of this was explained to us in grade school?

As long as there are the natural (or “God-given” if you prefer) capabilities to convert this seemingly harmless CO2 into a more life friendly molecule, there is no reason to be concerned.

But let me add something to the knowledge base here for those who may have thought Ms. Saul was a gifted thinker.  When you extract CO2 from beneath the surface where it is an inert substance – which essentially means that it has little or no ability to react with our biosphere – then you offset the natural balance whereby our planet can exchange CO2 at a rate that still allows us to have adequate oxygen to breathe and process life.  Let me make this even simpler for those whose heads are fixing to explode if all of this is beginning to shine a light into your cave.

Put a plastic bag over your head and see how pleasant the CO2 your emitting is compared to the O2 you have now deprived your lungs of.  Uncomfortable isn’t it?  What’s happening ought to be clear because it happens at such a rapid rate.  But this is exactly what is happening to the planet we live on; just at a slower rate that keeps you from noticing it – UNTIL IT’S TOO LATE.   While you were busy buying those material creature comforts that require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy to make, your ability to survive was and continues to be, slowly squeezed off.

When we destroy millions of acres of forest to put up a new mall or housing development we are changing the balance nature has provided us to exchange CO2 for O2.  Remember also that we lose millions of trees from wild fires which will be growing and spreading quicker over the coming years.  Combine this along with all of the CO2 we extract lying out of harms way far below the Earth’s surface as fossil fuels and impose it upon the natural balance that allowed life to develop as we know it, then we dramatically alter the means to provide sufficient food sources, drinking water and healthy air that every living species on this planet requires to sustain itself.

So get one of those life’s Ms. Saul  and all of you that thought she and others who parrot this half-truth knew what they were talking about.  Join the majority of people who believe man-made global warming that impacts climate change is nothing to mock,  like RMoney Romney did at the Republican National Convention just a few short months ago.

I wonder if those people laughing at Romney’s shallowness in this video are laughing now at those people on the East coast that have recently suffered immense property damage and the death of a loved one from one of the worst natural disasters in our history?  A natural disaster that was made worse from higher than natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that has resulted from burning oil, coal and natural gas.  This imbalance  has warmed the planet at unnatural rates and in so doing has rapidly enhanced ice melts in Greenland and the Arctic that elevated sea levels along the East coast and generated warmer ocean waters to make Sandy the ‘Frankenstorm” it became.

Will Romney and those who follow him realize too late that by helping us and our families requires something more than knowing how to invest other people’s capital and making yourself rich?  Jobs will be the least of our children’s worries as they try to deal with water and food shortages and the inundation of climate change refugees.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Science Denial and Andrea Saul -Romney 2012 Campaign Spokesperson


In my fantasy world every politician would have to demonstrate normal cognitive skill capabilities before becoming eligible for elective office and rather than picture IDs to vote, certifications of sanity for each voter.

 

We’ve all heard of the unpretentious ignorance by people who selectively ignore the facts to support an idea that serves a subjective purpose for them.   “Don’t bother me with the facts.  I’ve already made up my mind” is often the expression that comes to mind when we hear of such people.   And though we may chuckle at this, there are also chills that go up one’s spine when realized that this is played out everyday.  It’s a little spooky to realize that this is likely occurring at a mildly effectual level in the general public only.  But when it seems common place in the leadership positions of this country, it becomes downright frightening to realize that critical decisions that will seriously impact our lives have been and are being made by people whose cognitive skills are apparently damaged or may have never fully developed.  At least not in all ranges.

Cognitive abilities are the brain-based skills we need to carry out any task from the simplest to the most complex. They have more to do with the mechanisms of how we learn, remember, problem-solve, and pay attention rather than with any actual knowledge. Any task can be broken down into the different cognitive skills or functions needed to complete that task successfully.  SOURCE  

Among the cognitive abilities the brain is capable of producing are what Dr. Pascale Michelon calls Executive Functions.  Some of the characteristics of Executive functions are Anticipation: prediction based on pattern recognition; Decision making: the ability to make decisions based on problem-solving, on incomplete information and on emotions (ours and others’); and Inhibition: the ability to withstand distraction, and internal urges.

These characteristics, when properly functioning should allow individuals to recognize problems arising from clear and consistent patterns, utilize the available data at their disposal to offer viable solutions to confront the issue, and finally be able not to be distracted from lesser or inconsequential influences that don’t compute with the overall analysis.

In other words, if your brain is healthy and functioning as it was designed, you’re not going to circumvent the natural path that these skills lay out for you and decide that you “don’t believe that’s correct.”  To do such a thing could indicate that there is perhaps some malfunctioning going on with your brain’s ability to properly sequence events in the order that a healthy brain would.

It will probably come as no surprise to you to find out that more than a few congressional leaders are making decisions that appear to be occurring with a weak set of cognitive skills.  One current example is that of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama.

 

The Koch Brothers continue to use their oil wealth to fund campaigns, front groups, think tanks, and politicians to sabotage climate and clean energy policies.

 

The climate deniers in Congress, almost exclusively made up of Republicans, had some recent hearings on the subject of climate change.  The oil-industry lackeys on the Senate’s Environmental and Public Works Committee,  including minority Chairperson James Inhofe of Oklahoma and fellow climate denier Jeff Sessions of Alabama, were on their game and brought in one of the handful of real climate scientists who is actually a certified climatologists, unlike all those “thousands of other scientists” that skeptics refer to as proof that there is no consensus about man-made global warming.  A notion that has been adequately debunked

One of the top witnesses called by the Republicans was Dr. John Christy.  His full written testimony can be viewed here.   

Indeed, a significant portion of the discussion was dominated by debate over Dr. John Christy’s particular brand of denialism, a well-trod debate.

Nonetheless, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) was more than surprised when informed by Senator Barbara Boxer that roughly 98 percent of climate scientists, contra Christy, accepted that anthropogenic warming was real and serious — he was outraged:

     Sessions: Madam Chairman, I am offended by that, I’m offended by that — I didn’t say anything about the scientists. I said the data shows [sic] it is not warming to the degree that a lot of people predicted, not close to that much…

    Boxer: The conclusion that you’re coming to is shared by 1-2 percent of the scientists. You shouldn’t be offended by that. That’s the fact.

   Sessions: I don’t believe that’s correct.   

SOURCE

 

The fact that the preponderance of actual climatologist do not concur with Dr. John Christy’s assessment of extreme events and their relationship with human-caused climate change disasters is deemed to be incorrect by Jeff Sessions.  Sessions doesn’t produce anything a logical person with fully functioning cognitive skills would consider as evidence to produce this view.  He simply passes off all of the testimony from the almost exclusive peer-reviewed literature  that has isolated John Christy and the other few men like Richard Lindzen who keep insisting, not that global warming is occurring but that there is still inconclusive evidence that shows a strong correlation between global warming and human activities.

Let’s see how Sessions’ response -  “I don’t believe that’s correct” – measures up to someone whose cognitive skills in the areas I mentioned above may be deficient.

  1. Anticipation: prediction based on pattern recognition.  Over the last 10 years there have been some clear climate patterns that have produced record droughts, flooding and ice melts in glaciers and polar caps.  This should raise some concern with even the least scientific amongst us.  If there weren’t alarms being sounded by people who study this phenomena, known as climatologists, it could be passed off as nothing we haven’t seen before over time.  But once the alarms have been raised and a clearer picture shows the degree by which we have experienced these patterns increasing, then our anticipation capabilities should become more heightened, not remain in neutral or even become dormant.
  2. Decision making: the ability to make decisions based on problem-solving, on incomplete information and on emotions (ours and others’).  With the increasing evidence laid out by the preponderance of climate scientists that man-made global warming is real, a healthy normal reaction would be to bring in the experts who share this view and arrange a system by which all the expertise can be made available to allow the greatest efficiency for potential problem solving.  The fact that absolutes are not primarily present shouldn’t offset the need to expect the worst.  The overreactions by some should not be viewed unworthy and tossed out in an integral plan to prepare for the worst scene scenario.  Caution, not dismissiveness, should be employed with emotional responses and incomplete information.
  3. Inhibition: the ability to withstand distraction, and internal urges.  As the science of climate change has evolved it has always pointed a finger at our growing use of fossil fuels contributing to the accelerated rates of CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing the green house effect.  The fossil fuel industry has clearly waged a war against this view.  Not from any authority on their own but, in the early stages at least, on the reliance of a few scientists they paid to find any evidence that would question the rising tide of peer-reviewed studies that concluded man-made CO2 was likely have negative consequences on our biosphere.  Once the greatest share of these challenges were reasonably debunked, this distraction should not carry equal or greater weight in determining what policy actions we and our government should take.

 

Even if Mad Hatter Sessions had an extra set of eyes would he still be unable to see the signs of man-made climate change?

Sessions has apparently lost the cognitive abilities of prediction based on pattern recognition and allows his decision-making skills to be unduly influenced from the distractions and internal urges he harbors about the funding he receives from the fossil fuel industry.  The oil and gas industry are among the top 10 donors to Sessions re-election campaign.   I’m not sure how else to assess such a mindless response like “I don’t believe that’s correct” in face of the overwhelming evidence that says it is correct.

The people of this country have a right to know that the health of their leaders is sound and will not inhibit their ability to function at the highest level of efficiency.  Though no laws exists that I am aware of demanding a physical health exam be made public for each candidate, the tradition to do so has been there by some to allay any fears voters may have.  Might it not now be a good idea in this era of fringe politics to also inquire of and expect a report on the soundness of a candidate’s mental health as it relates to cognitive skills.  Voters need to know that a modicum of common sense will be entertained by their representatives when critical decisions are under review?

 

 

RELATED MATERIAL

Climate Gate Sacks Hack Attack Part 1 Video asks and answers the question, “Are people really that stupid”? 

The 8 Minute Epoch: 65 Million Years with James Hansen 

19th Century thinking on pollution is alive and well today 

Beware of false balance: Are the views of the scientific community accurately portrayed?  


“Subway’s no way for a good man to go down.  Rich man can ride and the hobo he can drown”  - from Elton John’s Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters

 

 

The earth’s global temperatures are slowly rising but at a rate faster than any other time in Earth’s history because of the man-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.  Temperatures may only be increasing in fractional degrees – 2011 was 0.22°F (0.12°C) warmer than 2010 - but our biosphere becomes imperiled if global temperatures exceed the narrow range that allows for human and plant life to exist as we now know it.  A full degree fahrenheit change will have tremendous consequences for the planet’s life support system, especially the polar ice caps and global glaciers.  This melt-off raises sea levels around the globe and threatens civilizations that currently reside there.

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.    SOURCE  

This is only one of the climate change effects of global warming.  Along with droughts, dwindling water supplies, floods and other violent climate actions like increased velocity and numbers of tornadoes and hurricanes, rising sea levels will impact our economies negatively and create massive human populations shifts that will have the more economically deprived nations seeking relief in the richer, industrial countries.   Rising sea levels effect this pattern as they start to flood the lower coastal areas and river inlets around the world.  These are areas where the highest population densities exist.

Most indigenous populations in these areas are unable to build and live on the higher, more expensive real estate that accommodates wealthy people who want and can afford to pay for such solitude and magnificent scenic views, away from the crowds and as it tends to be the case, the higher rates of crime.  We’ve observed lately however the disadvantage of living in mountainous regions near urban centers where forest fires are increasing due to drier seasons as the planet warms up.  But in actual human numbers, the people who will suffer the most will be those that reside at or below sea level.

In the U.S. the most vulnerable regions are California, Florida, New Jersey and South Carolina according to a new study by Katherine Curtis, a sociologist and demographer at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and her colleague Annemarie Schneider.

When the researchers combined sea-level data with projected populations in those areas for the year 2030, they came up with an estimate of 19.3 million people who will be at risk of being inundated by rising sea levels in just the four regions they looked at.

That number, which they reported in the journal Population and Environment, is 35 percent higher than the estimated 12.5 million people who would have been predicted to be at risk if the study had considered population levels in the year 2000. And it’s 30 percent higher than the 13.7 million people predicted with 2008 population levels.

In Florida alone, nearly 10 million people are likely to be displaced by storm surges, flooding and inundation, the study found.

Where do all of these people go?  They clearly will have to move inland and inundate other communities who may themselves be experiencing the other side effects of climate change.  It’s been recently reported that over half of the country is experiencing moderate to high levels of draught.  The most we have seen in over half a century.  This is a pattern that will continue but at more frequent intervals.

As sea levels continue to rise economies begin to fail as sources of employment are lost to damages resulting from flooding and dying sea food supplies from acidified oceans experiencing higher temperatures.  Many family owned small businesses will be forced to shut down as these conditions grow worse.  As these populations migrate to other areas with already existing high unemployment rates, the social services that may still exist will be stretched beyond reasonable capabilities.

As resources diminish from catastrophic climate changes social unrest will swell and push civilizations to the brink

 

Social unrest will bring about further chaos and some, if not most, of the rich will demand that such “deviants” be thrown into over crowded jails rather than making necessary accommodations to address the unwanted economic conditions that climate change brings.  For those devotees of laissez-faire economics their support of the social Darwinist view will likely be willing to ignore the plight of low-income families and other indigenous people like the homeless and many mentally handicapped and elderly people.  In his book, “The Golden Door” the late Isaac Asimov was well aware how believers of the social Darwinism model professed by Herbert Spencer were willing to ignore acceptable levels of social responsibility to the unemployed or needy.

“In 1884 [Spencer] argued, for instance, that people who were unemployable or burdens on society should be allowed to die rather than be made objects of help and charity. To do this, apparently, would weed out unfit individuals and strengthen the race. It was a horrible philosophy that could be used to justify the worst impulses of human beings.”   SOURCE 

While more affluent people will be able to stave off these “discomforts” longer than poorer people, they too will become desperate as higher population rates negatively impact unemployment and crime along with diminishing food and water supplies.  But the poor will suffer first and the longest.  Conditions much like that described in Steinbeck’s 1939 novel “The Grapes of Wrath” will have families with few resources relocating as authority figures in the various states and communities they make their way to will resist such influxes.

“And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.”John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, Chapter 1

As Elton John’s lyrics signify, under extreme conditions of man-made climate change,  good men will die, not because they are weak or thoughtless but because they simply find themselves more deprived of the means to adapt to massive ecological paradigm shifts.  The thoughtless people, the Mad Hatters of oil and coal production and their coterie of media pundits, lawyers and bankers, are those who have enabled global warming to exceed Earth’s natural biological-sustaining limits and beyond natural rates that would have made adaptation by all humans and the others species more plausible.

While Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters

Sons of bankers, sons of lawyers

Turn around and say good morning to the night

For unless they see the sky

But they can’t and that is why

They know not if it’s dark outside or light

 

The darkness of global warming’s impact on climate change is encroaching with tremendous force.  Steinbeck’s imagery of hard times has leaped from the pages of his novel and is once again thrown full square into contemporary reality.  But what’s different in this era of economic hard times where income disparity has reared its ugly head once again, is a condition that Tom Joad and the other Okies in Steinbeck’s novel didn’t have to contend with.  The dust bowl is no longer a regional thing.  Moving to another state will not offer long-term relief.  It’s now a global condition where droughts, floods, extreme weather and rising sea levels from ice melts feeds itself vociferously with each CO2 molecule we emit into the atmosphere from our unbridled use of oil, coal and natural gas.

What IS similar now is that like the Joads of the Dust Bowl migrations it will be the poor and disenfranchised that feel the greatest suffering and not because they are victims of natural causes but because  “great owners” of industries refused to allow their eyes to read history and to know the great fact that man’s activities have disregarded nature’s delicate balances and pushed us to the brink where Earth’s life system is rejecting what mankind has wrought.

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change  

Kiribati’s Entire Population is Being Moved to Fiji 

The Endless Summer


Our ignorance of man-made climate change is only as secure as our inability to see its destructive capabilities in real time.   We don’t seem to have that luxury any longer.

 

I’ve been reviewing a lot of the articles I have been saving over the last few months on Global Warming, hoping to get a theme to put together as an article for my blog.  In light of the fact that climate change from global warming has been rearing its ugly head here recently in grand fashion, this seems to be an opportunity to strike while the iron is hot (pun intended) and make the argument once again on how man’s activities are contributing to this phenomena.

From the wild fires in the West, a record-setting heat wave in the midwest and the Eastern U.S. to the significant ice melts in glaciers and at the polar caps which in turn effect sea level rises occurring around the globe, it’s important that some climate deniers and many who are just confused and uncertain begin to realize that man’s footprint is clearly visible here.  By burning vast amounts of carbon-based fossil fuels and losing millions of trees each year to deforestation programs we are not only emitting more CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, heating up the planet and acidifying sea waters, but are eliminating sources of carbon sequestration important for plant growth by removing millions of acres of forests.

The climate science has advanced over the last couple of decades from the time Dr. James Hansen first testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee back in 1988 that the warming trend we were experiencing then “was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.”

This testimony can be cited as the catalyst in this country where the forces of the fossil fuel industry perceived a threat to their industry and began to marshal forces that would countervail the climate science that indicted our mass consumption of oil and coal.  Since then petroleum giants like Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips and billionaire oil product suppliers Charles and David Koch are some who have created a network of pseudo-scientists and media pundits to create enough doubt about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming to disorient the public from this very real threat.

They have actually found a few legitimate climate scientists to conjecture that other things are effecting this warming, like solar activity or presented the evidence of early warming and cooling trends in earth’s history to conjecture that what was occurring now was natural and not man-made and therefore there was nothing we could do to stop it.  In areas of economics they have had their minions hard at work in the corporate owned press to raise the issue that the actions which climate scientists were calling for to reduce our carbon footprint would in fact cost consumers in areas that would have a direct effect on their pocket books, like higher energy prices.  But all of their efforts and misinformation over time have been met with sound science and careful analysis to either mollify their concerns or debunk them completely.

Underlying the climate denier’s sense that “global warming is a hoax” is the belief that human beings are too small a factor in effecting significant climate change.  This sentiment was recently expressed by one of the more notable climate deniers, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.  In an interview with a conservative christian radio program, Inhofe told listeners, based on his very narrow interpretation of Genesis 8:22, that “The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what [God] is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Clearly Inhofe hasn’t seen the graphics that show the scale by which humans have increased not only in numbers but in human activity in just the last 250 years alone.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words but an image will have to suffice here.  These graphs serve as a visual aid to show how such a profound transformation of Earth’s environment can be attributed to the numbers and activities of people as opposed to the forces of nature or extraterrestrial sources.

                            Click on image and then on each graph to view enlargement

 

As these graphs show, humans have been busy little creatures multiplying and generating vast amounts of wealth for a select few as earth’s resources have been consumed at levels that threaten their existence.  Essentials to life, like food supplies and potable water are clearly threatened by this rapid rate of growth

From the dawn of human evolution until just a hundred years ago the world population grew to 1 billion people, but since the turn of the 20th century it leaped to over 7 billion today and will add another 1 billion in less than 15 year.

Economic activity increased nearly 10-fold between 1950 and 2000. The world’s population is more tightly connected than ever before via globalisation of economies and information flows. Half of Earth’s land surface has been domesticated for direct human use. Most of the world’s fisheries are fully or over-exploited. The composition of the atmosphere – greenhouse gases, reactive gases, aerosol particles – is now significantly different than it was a century ago. The Earth is now in the midst of its sixth great extinction event. The evidence that these changes are affecting the basic functioning of the Earth System, particularly the climate, grows stronger every year. The magnitude and rates of human-driven changes to the global environment are in many cases unprecedented for at least the last half-million years.   SOURCE 

Though CO2 in the atmosphere has reached dangerous levels during earth’s history, information gleaned by climate scientists from ice cores show that such increases never occurred at the rates we have seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in 1750.

Within the current limits of resolution of the ice-core records, the present concentration [of CO2 in the atmosphere] has been reached at a rate at least 10 and possibly 100 times faster than carbon dioxide increases at any other time during the previous 420,000 years. Thus, in this case human-driven changes are well outside the range of natural variability exhibited by the Earth system for the last half-million years at least.    SOURCE  

   A few termites pose no threat to homeowners

    but when their numbers multiply rapidly the damage can be irreparable 

 

The adage “Seeing is believing, but feeling is the truth”  comes into play here.  Words that do not match the physical realities should be challenged.   We not only have the visual reality depicted in the graphs above to show us how mankind has evolved to a level that is capable of seriously impacting Earth’s system, but the physical evidence of droughts, floods, massive ice melts, extraordinary rises in sea level as well as rare tornado activity in some locations are nature’s response to this human growth that can be genuinely felt by people today who live in those affected areas.

I don’t want to belittle anyone’s religious faith.  It serves as a basis to help people deal with the complexities in modern life.  But there are those, like James Inhofe, who use their faith to exploit personal agendas.  Inhofe no more know’s the mind of God than anyone can say with absolute certainty that anthropogenic global warming is undeniable.  But, be it a gift of creation or a factor of evolution, we do have a brain that has developed over the years and did so with the ability to look at our environment and make judgements based on analysis and observation.  Our survival owes it to this cerebral capability.  Future generations rely on it.


Social Security continues to be under attack from private interests who want to use your SSI payroll contributions and risk them in speculative ventures that may or may not succeed.  For most Americans, gambling with their retirement savings can have serious consequences at a time when financial security is most vulnerable.

The anti-government crowd headed by anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist wants to  dissemble a secure retirement program and have you put your faith in a system that is often quite similar to casino gambling.  You could walk away comfortably rich or you could walk away with nothing but the clothes on your back.  To encourage this they are using the nation’s deficit structure as a fear-mongering tool to intimidate poorly informed Americans and direct them to make a choice that will assuredly benefit them and enhance their wealth at even greater levels while making no guarantees how your results will end up.  As an added measure to persuade you, they would argue that Social Security is on the threshold of bankruptcy.  The truth is quite different but there are issues with this system that can be easily fixed if only wealthy interests would quit creating obstacles to make such improvements

The hue and cry from the extreme right within the GOP is that public sector spending needs to be cut back to reduce the deficit.  This itself is a political smokescreen that appeals to that austerity crowd who want continued cuts in social welfare programs while leaving a bloated defense budget untouched, along with leaving the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% in place.

The GOP has its sights on changing Social Security as we know it to correct it’s deficiencies while eliminating its impact on the deficit, or so they claim.  But does Social Security dramatically affect the deficit?  The CATO institute, a Libertarian think tank founded by billionaires Charles and David Koch, thinks it does.  They have put some numbers together to support their contention.  But there are equally creditable organizations who show a different story and point to the Bush tax cuts and the two wars in the mideast having the biggest affect on our growing budget.  Dean Baker with the Center for Economic and Policy Research also points out something missing in the deficit hawk’s argument.

Under the law, Social Security is financed by a designated tax, the 12.4 percent payroll that workers pay on their first $107,000 of income each year. The money raised through this tax is used to pay benefits. Any surplus is used to buy U.S. government bonds. All funding for the program comes either from this tax or from the bonds held by the program’s trust fund. (The Social Security system is also credited with a portion of the income tax paid on Social Security benefits.)

Social Security is prohibited from spending any money beyond what it has in its trust fund. This means that it cannot lawfully contribute to the federal budget deficit, since every penny that it pays out must have come from taxes raised through the program or the interest garnered from the bonds held by the trust fund.   SOURCE   

What seems clear to a layman like myself is that projecting the future for a program so large as Social Security is not any easy task and we are dependent on the experts to give us an honest assessment of this important retirement resource for millions of Americans.  We need honest, objective analyses that utilizes all data and not studies subjected to ideological dogma.  Creating choices that fail to take in all considerations does a disservice to a public that is forced to trust those who are supposed to have the aptitude for such things.  I like to gamble as much as most people do but when it comes to a retirement fund needed to meet my needs in old age, I don’t want to wake up one morning like many did in 2008 to find they lost most of their savings to a system that gambled on unsure bets.

What’s at stake here is a system that has served this country well for 75 years keeping many people from falling below poverty levels.  It serves as a back up for those people who worked hard all of their life and still were unable to put enough away on their own to sustain them through old age.  Raising a family with costly health care needs and equally costly education expenses makes the ability to set enough aside with wages that have been shrinking for several decades difficult if not impossible for some.  Since the cost of living doesn’t ever really go down it is important that wages keep pace with the cost of goods and services.

The record shows that this hasn’t happened for the large majority of working families in this country.   Since the 1980’s wages have been stagnant in comparison to wages for the top 1% of wage earners while the costs of goods and services continue to rise.  As a result, pensions have been diminished and in a lot of cases lately, eliminated as businesses find ways to keep their profits on track.  Income revenue for most Americans no longer allows people to save as they once did.

Social Security thus becomes essential in keeping many people from starving and succumbing to illnesses easier from lack of adequate health care once they lose their ability to work.  It’s a system that a humane society put in place following the Great Depression of 1929 and has saved millions of lives.  Each month a portion of one’s paycheck – 6.2% – is deducted and matched by their employer to pay in to the Social Security trust fund.  Until 2010 there has been a surplus from this source to pay benefits for retirees who claim these benefits in old age.  The economic disaster that occurred at the beginning of 2008, resulting from excessive risky investments by banks too big to fail sent the economy into a nosedive, creating massive jobs losses.

These job losses took with them the payroll deductions that are used to pay benefits to SSI beneficiaries causing the shortfall in 2010.  But many of those years collecting revenue had surpluses.  This money was set aside by purchasing U.S. treasury notes to cover Social Security in times when intakes didn’t match outputs.  To the hoot and holler of many this most recent shortfall means doom for the system.  It’s a scare tactic that’s been around almost since the inception of the program back in 1936.

Wealthy financial corporate interests in this country have been jealous of the fact that so much money has alluded their grasps all these years and have attempted to squeeze the life from this program so that they can access such funds for their own self-interests.   And though there is something to be said for the larger returns many might see over the years by investing this money in private financial markets, there is also much evidence to weigh that shows how such a move could actually hurt more people than it helps.

“You can trust me with your retirement funds”

Social Security sets a specific amount aside and let’s simple interest enable it.  It is not put into risky investments that may show high returns one year but then go belly up the next year.  Organizations like the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation and wealthy individuals like Peter Peterson who want to privatize Social Security like to point out that “despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years … would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security.”   What is concealed here however is that if you retired in January 2008 you would have lost half of that retirement in just a few short months as a result of the stock market crash that saw the Dow Jones go from an all time high of 14,100 on October 9th, 2007 to hit a a low of 6,547.05, a 53.78% loss over a period less than year and one that had not been seen since November 25th 1996.  Social Security recipients on the other hand saw no change in their benefits.

Herein lies the devil within the details.  Those who seek to end Social Security as we know it do so NOT because it’s an unworkable system but because it is so effective and they are losing out on money that their capital ventures would create for them.  But under this Superman Cape of “free markets” is the reality that the values of your stock are subject to the volatility of the markets and if they collapse as they did in 2001-02 and 2008 at the time you decide to retire, then your net worth may in fact be much less than someone who is collecting social security.  They don’t call it Social “SECURITY” for nothing.

Now, are there problems that could prevent benefits from continuing as they have for 75 years, including COLA increases each year?  With a poor economy, a continuing high war debt, large numbers from the baby boom generation retiring and revenue cuts from lower tax rates, of course there is.  The fact that the government decreased the amount of the payroll tax by 2% in 2011 to help struggling income earners hasn’t helped either.

But killing this system as we know it and turning it over to private venture capitalists and their cronies in those banks too big to fail is a gamble that will ultimately hurt many low and middle-income families whose wages will never reflect what their parent’s did in the 1950′s, 60’s and 70’s.   Unless we address the serious issue of income disparity in this country, the belief that the free markets prop us up in our retirement years is as unlikely as it is to believe that homeownership is more of a reality now than it was a generation ago.  Both possibilities have suffered at the hands of people whose self-interests are focused on profits – not your long term needs.

Congress can fix Social Security in one of two ways long before it reaches a state where full benefits have to be cut back in 2036.

  1. Eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on income above $250,000, or
  2. Reinstate the Bush tax cut on the top 2% of American income earners.

Either one of these quick fixes would eliminate any real or imagined threat to Social Security.  As for the deficit – President Obama has put forth a budget that would reduce annual deficits, “through his proposals to raise $1.5 trillion over 10 years mostly from the wealthy but also from closing some corporate tax breaks, chiefly for oil and gas companies.”

There is plenty of room to find resources necessary to reduce the deficit without touching the Social Security trust fund, especially during these economic hard times.  By making deficit reduction the focal point of their 2012 campaign on the backs of the elderly and dependent children while job losses remain high, the Republican Party has informed low and middle-income retirees and wage earners who their real constituency is.

RESOURCES:

Experts: Contrary to Mainstream Myth, ‘Social Security is Strong’ and Could Be Made Stronger

Breaking the Social Security Glass Ceiling: A Proposal to Modernize Women’s Benefits 



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers