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

Tag Archives: Climate change

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


“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


There are no comparisons to be made. This is not like war or plague or a stock market crash. We are ill-equipped, historically and psychologically, to understand it, which is one of the reasons why so many refuse to accept that it is happening.  What we are seeing, here and now, is the transformation of the atmospheric physics of this planet. author George Monbiot 

At a time when a growing consensus of climate scientists are telling us more severe climate change from increased atmospheric CO2 brought on by our use of fossil fuels is highly likely, do we really want a climate skeptic in the Oval Office ?

 

There’s an argument to be made that what Mitt Romney has done all of his life as a venture capitalist won’t significantly serve him in creating real job growth.  This type of work entails providing capital, usually other people’s, for business start-ups or expansions. They look for a high rate of return for their investment but often know very little about the business they are risking other people’s money with.

Critics within his own Party have challenged his business skills referring to venture capitalists as vultures, who “sit there, and … wait until they see a distressed company, … then they swoop in and … pick the carcass clean and fly away,”  says Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Newt Gingrich said it really isn’t good capitalism.  I think it’s exploitive. I think it’s not defensible,” he told reporters in South Carolina back in January.   

Economist Dean Baker agrees with both Perry and Gingrich

Bain Capital is not about producing wealth but rather about siphoning off wealth that was produced elsewhere in the economy. There is no doubt that one individual or one company can get enormously wealthy if they are able to do this successfully. However you cannot have an entire economy that is premised on the idea that it will siphon off wealth produced elsewhere.  SOURCE

So, not only is there reason to doubt that Romney’s business model will serve the nations’ need to create real job growth but it brings into question his ability to address perhaps the worst issue we and every other nation are currently facing – climate change from anthropogenic global warming.

I can imagine the heads of many people exploding at the thought of this.   Huh?  What’s that?  Are you talking about what Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and a few other politicians are calling “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people.”?   Our nation desperately needs jobs and your raising the question about a hoax?  

Yep.  I am indeed.  And here’s why.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NO HOAX!

Recent studies have shown that unless we start taking more dramatic steps to curb the CO2 content being emitted into our atmosphere from spent fossil fuels, the destruction from climate change on global societies “could claim the lives of 100 million people in the next two decades and lost economic prosperity in world economies would be measured in the trillions of dollars”

Findings contained in the “Climate Vulnerability Monitor”—a study sponsored by 20 nations and conducted by the humanitarian and development research organization DARA—point to unprecedented harm to human society and current economic development if runaway carbon emissions are not contained and new models of energy generation and consumption are not pursued.

“A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade,” the report said.

Oxfam International executive director Jeremy Hobbs told Reuters that the costs of political inaction on climate were “staggering”.

“The losses to agriculture and fisheries alone could amount to more than $500 billion per year by 2030, heavily focussed in the poorest countries where millions depend on these sectors to make a living,” he said.   SOURCE  

If this analysis turns out to be accurate, jobs will be the least of our worries in a few short years.  It’s not that we won’t be busying ourselves with some kind of work but it will be that of making preparations to survive food and water shortages, not to mention attempts to barricade our borders from the hordes of people making their way to our shores to escape the serious consequences of climate change they have already encountered in their homelands, like Africa and third world nations on the Asian continent.

Not only does Romney have dubious credentials to spark economic growth for anyone other than the top 1% but he apparently doesn’t have an urgent sense of the threat that man-made global warming poses for civilization.  Climate change, like many of the businesses he invested in, is not something Romney knows a great deal about.

To his credit he did say that the world is getting warmer, [and] that human activity contributes to that warming.”  But he’s clearly paying lip service to the threat of global warming when he confesses that he believes “there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue.”

FACT:  97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes when asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The belief that there is no consensus by climate scientists on man’s contribution to climate change is scary in light of the facts that more than contradict this.  This dangerously naive view is the same position that the Koch brothers and the CEO of Exxon/Mobil hold.  These are people who have paid millions to various groups to dispute the climate science for obvious reasons that will impact their long-term economic self-interests.  So for Romney to take this tact is to side with these nefarious corporate shills and risk the future of not only our economic survival but the survival of the planet itself, a risk that voters just can’t take.

So how would Romney the venture capitalist, who knows very little about this critical issue, take his Bain Capital expertise and try to employ it in the face of these likely catastrophic scenarios?  Believing that people like Exxon/Mobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson and oil supply billionaires Charles and David Koch are the job creators, would he view 100 million lives as a necessary loss to insure the continued profits for those in the fossil fuel industry?   Tillerson characterized these devastating climate change scenarios as something  that “could be solved by adapting” to such risks.  Easy for him and his wealthy cohorts to say who probably have secluded and well-stocked fortresses in remote areas around the globe when natural disasters occur.  

It’s very likely that when many of these 100 million human beings start dying off that they will instinctively move to those regions that still have ample supplies of food and water.  Western Europe and the North America would be two areas at the top of their list.  Is it any wonder then that Romney and the GOP are diametrically opposed to any spending cuts for the military as part of any deal to reduce the deficit?

So it might not be outside the realm of probability to think that rather than taking the steps necessary to reduce man-made global warming, Romney would instead instinctively act on his business model that always seeks to assure the highest return on his investment?  One way of doing this might be to advise the wealthy capitalist that share his aspirations to invest in all things related to security?  Just think of all the job creation such activity will generate.

Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians did what was in the best interests of this planet and its occupants rather than the self-interests of a small group of very wealthy people?

Why do we foolishly buy into the notion that people who have accumulated vast sums of wealth are necessarily smarter than those who don’t?  Are material assets realistically the true measure of wisdom and insight?  Obviously you must have a certain amount of genius to be a successful entrepreneur to create and run a productive enterprise but does this genius translate into all other fields of thought?  If this line of thinking were true then why couldn’t you trust your heart valve replacement to your podiatrist?  Both of them have earned a degree from an institution of higher learning.

Yet people like Rex Tillerson, the Koch brothers, Donald Trump and other prosperous people are weighing in on this issue of climate change as if they had equal insights into this phenomena at the same level as, say, Dr. James Hanson, who first laid out the threat of global warming to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works back in 1988.

Dr. James Hansen

Should somehow we find Romney winning the election next month, I would like to believe that he has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth over the last two years just to appease the various groups in order to win the nomination for more nobler purposes than what he has demonstrated thus far?  I would like to believe that he is smarter than someone who thinks global warming is a hoax and that man-made climate change is not a conspiracy by Al Gore and a handful of scientist to get rich off of higher energy prices.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Romney’s strategy to create the 12 million jobs – a promise he has made but has yet revealed to anyone how he would go about it – were to be achieved by implementing the recommendations of those who strongly support reinvesting in cleaner, renewable energy sources?  Not just here in the U.S. but around the globe, especially in those countries who will be hit the hardest by climate change.  According to a 2008 United Nations Environment Program report we can transform our dying planet effected by fossil fuel consumption to a sustainable one by the next generation through the primary use of clean, renewable sources, IF we act now to reduce our use of dirty finite sources of energy.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Romney really was someone who did care about the 47% he says don’t pay taxes and are dependent on the government?  Wouldn’t it be nice if his plans really did entail measures to refute those in Congress who continue to support Big Oil while stiff arming efforts to expand renewable energy sources to rebuild our economy?

Climate change from increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is a threat to our livelihoods as well as the future of our children and grandchildren.  Rather than the failed 20th century policy of trickle down economics and the 19th century belief that it’s “everyone for themselves”, wouldn’t it be nice if Romney was part of the 21st century thinking needed to prevent further deterioration to our ecosystem?

And now a little number to accommodate my post this morning sung to the tune of the Beach Boy’s “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”

(Yes, yes.  It’s a little hammy but hey!  Lyric writing is hard work, right Mrs. Romney?)

Wouldn’t it be nice if we were smarter

Then we wouldn’t have to wait so long

To change the ill effects of green house gases

In the kind of world where we belong

You know its gonna make our lives much better

If we could all just simply come together

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wake up

In the morning when the day is new

No longer ever having feelings of worry

If we’ll still be here in 2052

Happy times together we’d be spending

If glacier melts were not soooooooo unending

Wouldn’t it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true

Maybe then there wouldn’t be a single thing we couldn’t do

We could be healthy

And then we’d be happy

Wouldn’t it be nice

You know it seems the more we fight about it

It only delays the urgent need to change it

So quit talking about it

Let’s all save the ice

Good night deniers

Sleep tight skeptics

RELATED ARTICLES

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds

The Fragile Earth

Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Does Mitt Romney Really Understand Energy?


“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.


Could this be the Pacific Ocean view from the eastern side of Nevada in the not so distant future?



Though the denunciations by climate deniers of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming have subsided over the last year, the increase in temperatures continues none-the-less.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.

New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions.   SOURCE  

The evidence is mounting so fast that even a former skeptic has now joined the scientific consensus that attributes the “ever-faster rates” to man’s use of fossil fuels to run their automobiles and heat their homes.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, who was concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data … [established] the Berkeley Earth Project [using] new methods and some new data, [found] the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa. – SOURCE

What is especially ironic about Dr. Mueller’s study is that some of his funding came from the Koch brothers who have been paying any climate scientist who is cash strapped to dispel the overwhelming evidence that points a finger at the burning of fossil fuels for the increase in atmospheric CO2.  The Koch brothers wealth comes from the products they sell related to oil, energy, chemicals and financial products.

Employing no less than 30 lobbyists in Washington, Koch Industries has lobbied to change more than 100 pieces of federal legislation. They included trying to loosen regulations on potentially poisonous substances like dioxins, benzene and asbestos. They have pushed back against restrictions on carbon emissions and funded thinktanks and groups that promote efforts to discredit climate change science.  SOURCE

These lobbying efforts have payed off handsomely as many conservatives in Congress have stymied nearly all legislation that seeks to educate the public on man-made global warming or promote funding and subsidies to generate greater efforts for clean, renewable energy as the supply of finite fossil fuels are consumed .  American peak oil pretty much occurred back in the 1970s yet many in Congress try to ensure the public with the false notion that there are yet untapped sources of oil within our boundaries that will make us oil independent.

One of the most recent efforts to block efforts to better inform the public on dramatic climate change, occurrences that many who study it say are the effects of global warming, is the opposition that recently blocked a request by NOAA “to reshuffle its offices to establish a National Climate Service akin to the agency’s National Weather Service.”

It asked for no new funding to do so.  But in a political climate where talk of the earthly kind of climate can be radioactive, the answer in last week’s budget deal was “no.” Congress barred NOAA from launching what the agency bills as a “one-stop shop” for climate information.

Demand for such data is skyrocketing, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco told Congress earlier this year. Farmers are wondering when to plant. Urban planners want to know whether groundwater will stop flowing under subdivisions. Insurance companies need climate data to help them set rates.  SOURCE


But even if all the deniers in the public and Congress converted and accepted the evidence of climate science, they may have done so too late.  Things are changing so rapidly now that we may have passed the point of no return.  What many climate scientists feel is the acceptable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to slow and eventually reduce the green house effect of 350ppm was passed 20 years ago.

Governments have focused more on projected temperature increases rather than carbon levels. Since the mid-1990s, European governments have set a goal of limiting warming to slightly more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above current levels by the end of this century. The goal was part of a nonbinding agreement reached in Copenhagen in 2009 that was signed by the U.S. and other countries.

Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors Ron Prinn, Henry Jacoby and John Sterman said MIT’s calculations show the world is unlikely to meet that two-degree goal now.

“There’s very, very little chance,” Prinn said. “One has to be pessimistic about making that absolute threshold.” He added: “Maybe we’ve waited too long to do anything serious if two degrees is the danger level.”

Andrew Weaver at the University of Victoria, Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University and Gregg Marland of Appalachian State University agreed with the MIT analysis that holding warming to two degrees now seems unlikely.

“There’s no way to stop it. There’s so much inertia in the system,” Morgan said. “We’ve committed to quite a bit of warming.”

So don’t sell that isolated cabin near the top of Donnelley Peak in Nevada’s Calico Mountains.  Your grand kids could enjoy some sandy beach twilights listening to waves splash up against stone facings where nearby mule deer and antelope once grazed.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Global Warming Has Pushed the Arctic into a New Normal


I’ve made numerous references in my posts on this blog about the association between fossil fuel use, how it affects our health and how that impacts our health care costs.  I have been adamant on the use of coal-fired power plants and their harmful emissions that create greater risks for lung disease and those who have allergies.

Studies show that coal dust causes pneumoconiosis, bronchitis and emphysema in exposed workers.  The waste products coal production produces include uranium, thorium, and other radioactive and heavy metal by-products along with  toxic metalloids like arsenic.  These toxic elements make their way into the local drinking water supplies and the air we all breathe, creating long-term health issues and drive up health care costs for all Americans.    SOURCE

The point I was trying to make and continue to make is that for those who feel that it’s cheaper to persist in using cheaper sources of energy like coal, oil and natural gas that emit toxic pollutants in our air, drinking water and the earth’s atmosphere are missing the bigger issue and the effects it has on each individual’s pocketbook.  The costs we may be saving now by using fossil fuel energy sources will not last as this limited source of energy is diminishing rapidly as demand from China and India develop rapidly.

There is now another cost reason we need to distance ourselves from fossil fuels as fast as we can.  It’s related to the increased rate of extreme weather we are experiencing – property insurance rates.  The severe weather we saw last year and are seeing this year are creating property damages at extensive rates that neither the businesses, homeowners or the insurance industry themselves anticipated.

The extreme weather of 2010 exacted a huge human and economic tollMore than 380 people died and 1,700 were injured due to weather events in the United States throughout the year. And the magnitude of these events forced the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to declare 81 disasters last year. For nearly 60 years, the annual average has been 33. In 2010, total damages exceeded a whopping $6.7 billion. As of April 2011, FEMA had dedicated more than $2 billion in financial assistance to those harmed by extreme weather in 2010.  SOURCE

This year alone we are on pace to register about 100 declared disasters with 36 on record as of May 20th.   The recent southeastern storms and tornadoes took at least 297 lives across eight states and the tornado that ripped through Joplin Missouri yesterday has thus far claimed 116 lives; a combined figure that already exceeds last year’s 297 count.  In Joplin, 25-30 percent of businesses and homes were destroyed and untold damage to vehicular property.

The Property Insurance Industry has been hit hard and are at a loss on how best to deal with potential future cost from extreme weather.

It’s a tough time to be in the $500 billion U.S. property insurance business. Storms are happening in places they never happened before, at intensities they have never reached before and at times of year when they didn’t used to happen.

Those bizarre weather patterns damage not just homes but also insurance companies’ financials. If seas rise and houses flood, insurers pay. If winds shift and buildings blow down, they also pay. If temperatures rise and crops fail, same thing.  SOURCE

According to George Backus with the Discrete Mathematics & Complex Systems Department at Sandia National Laboratories, “the climate uncertainty as it pertains to rainfall alone [puts] the U.S. economy at risk of losing between $600 billion and $2 trillion, and between 4 million and 13 million U.S. jobs over the next 40 years.”

Thus far property insurers around the world have laid out payments to victims of extreme weather damage to the tune of $36 billion in just 2010 alone, according to Swiss Re a global reinsurer with focus on risk transfer, risk retention financing, and asset management.  Another reinsurer, Munich Re stated last year that “the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change”.  Tom Wilson, the chairman and chief executive of Allstate, the largest publicly traded property insurer in the country agrees.  “Some people believe that [these cataclysmic storms are] because weather patterns have changed. I happen to be in that camp.  I just don’t think it should happen three years in a row.”

There of course is no absolute link between specific extreme weather conditions and  global warming but as Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D., head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explained “Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming. [I]t’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”

If the likelihood is that increased use of CO2 sources like coal, oil and natural gas are intensifying global warming, then by insisting that we should “drill baby, drill” instead of converting as quickly as possible to clean, renewable sources of energy, the argument that it’s cheaper to sustain the status quo will no longer have any merit as health and property insurance rates wipe out any temporary savings that people realize now from using dirty fossil fuels.  Not only that, our children and grandchildren will be faced with the destructive forces of nature from our short-sightedness as they will ultimately be forced to make this switch themselves simply because coal, oil and natural gas supplies will be pretty much used up by the end of this century.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:

A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes?  Never!


Did you hear on the news where the extreme weather we’re seeing around the country and the planet may be related to global warming?   Of course you didn’t.  Why is that?





For about half of the United States there have been serious weather conditions that seem extreme.  An historical look at some of these will show they are indeed unusual and could be the result of climate changes that result from an increasing warming planet.

The Department of Ecology in Washington State is but one scientific agency that lays this out for us:

Recent climate modeling results indicate that “extreme” weather events may become more common. Rising average temperatures produce a more variable climate system. What can we expect with weather changes? Localized events could include

  • windstorms
  • heat waves, droughts
  • storms with extreme rain or snow, and
  • dust storms.

What creates more extreme weather?
Carbon dioxide (CO
2) from cars, industries and power plants trap heat near the earth’s surface. More heat means more energy. Adding so much energy to the atmosphere creates the potential for more extremes.

Climatologists say extreme weather events will become more common as our climate heats up.  SOURCE

NOAA Scientists tell us that:

Global Surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.   SOURCE

In 2007 the IPCC declared:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocalMost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Indonesia has been experiencing its most extreme weather conditions in recorded history 

There is a trend in record heat events for Australia.  More sites recorded highest daily maximum temperatures in 2009 than in any other year.

Closer to home -

  1. Tennessee’s flooding broke all-time records, according to USGS measurements.
  2. Record Droughts in Texas.   The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook issued on April 7th and valid through June 2011 indicates that drought is likely to persist or intensify in Texas.
  3. Wildfires in US break record

Just yesterday for the third day in a row, violent storms hit North Texas where I live with tornadoes touching down in some areas everyday.  The number and velocity of these storms are above average as they have been in other regions of the midwest and the South.   Yet these events are reported meteorologically without any indication of the records they set in relationship to the scientific data that strongly suggests they are related to warmer global temperatures: temperatures that are man-made though our increased use of fossil fuels.

We know the mainstream media are owned by corporate interests that tend to align themselves with portfolios filled with fossil fuel companies and their large profits each year.  To top this off many in Congress have refused to eliminate the federal subsidies to big oil companies that are in the billions each year, encouraging further development of dirty energy sources emitting CO2 into the atmosphere rather than funding clean, renewable energy technology.


Some in Congress may be more serious about changing this though now that gas prices are hovering around $4.00 a gallon.   According to a report from Rick Klein with The Note “Rep. Earl Blumenauer, sponsor of a bill that he says would strip $40 billion in subsidies from the largest oil companies over five years, said Congress should stop giving tax breaks to companies that don’t need them.

“Our $8 billion a year that is handed to the oil interests does not affect a $2 trillion global price for oil. What it does is it just goes to the bottom line, and you see those profits at record highs,” Blumenauer, D-Ore., told us.

Even Republican House Speaker John Boehner appears amenable “to ending some tax breaks for large oil-and-gas producers that Democrats have long sought to eliminate.”    SOURCE

But even if these actions are taken there is still resistance by many conservatives in Congress which consists primarily of most Republicans and a handful of Democrats to allow the EPA to do their job of monitoring and regulating CO2 output from industrial sources like coal-fired power plants; sources that generate tons of CO2 and other toxic elements that go into our air and water supplies.

According to an article from the National Resources Defense Council “More than 100 new conventional coal-fired power plants are in various stages of development throughout the United States. By 2030, the Department of Energy projects that the equivalent of 450 new large (300 MW) coal-fired power plants will be completed. With a lifetime of more than 60 years, these plants will produce more than 60 billion tons of CO2 in total—10 times the current annual emissions from all sources— enough to effectively foreclose the option to prevent dangerous global warming.”

Why aren’t all these dots being connected and aired to the public at the level that the Royal Wedding is or the war in Libya?  This information will have more far-ranging effects on more people than either one of these incidences.  Who makes the decision at the corporate level that dismisses this vital information that can alter the future of our civilization?  Why is this NOT news for consumption by the general public?  The major news sources in this country owe it to it’s viewers , listeners and readers to open up this dialogue in the public interest.


Have you noticed lately that science and intelligent thinking have become items of disdain with a certain crowd, to the point where some even refer to branches of science as “religious cults“.  A religion is of course a closed system of belief where the more fundamentalist sects focus strictly on one ideal and a definite end. Science and knowledge are open-ended and have no goal other than exposing what their measured research reveals, wherever that leads.

Therein appears to lie the rub with the anti-science, anti-knowledge crowd. Science and the knowledge it uncovers are welcome as long as they don’t disturb traditional views. But the age-old battle between religion and science has diminished over the years only to be replaced with another opponent that finds science to its dislike as it impacts its domain – corporatism.

You would think a conflict between corporations and scientific knowledge would be a perfect match.  Science and the knowledge it obtains has allowed entrepreneurs to flourish commercially through the discovery of how things work, leading to the development and manufacture of products for general consumption. This relationship has enabled science to gain the upper-hand over the traditional authority of religion.  Man’s ingenuity in the form of scientific discovery and creating products to make life easier, safer and healthier, fulfills a basic desire in all humans; one that is expressed as an important  principle in capitalism – satisfying our self-interests.  So why might there now be a conflict between big business and many within the scientific community?

Religion fulfills the spiritual self-interests of humans but it doesn’t directly impact our physical needs to sustain life. If we could all turn water into wine and a few loaves of bread into abundant supplies to feed thousands, some religions at least would look very different today and malnourished rates around the world would disappear.

So man’s ability to develop consumer products from the earth’s resources has generated a successful economic system that provides these material essentials.  This success has evolved into an autonomy by humans away from religious authority and towards a non-religious set of rules to govern us. Clearly religion has not faded from the scene and has recurrent periods of strong influence but it no longer rules the roost of human decision-making.

THE NEW AUTHORITY OVER THOUGHT

As religion’s influence over the public weakens another monolithic force is arising to influence people’s view of life and appears to becoming equally restrictive in what it will and won’t allow to prevail in human thought as the Church did centuries ago. Corporatism evolved from the middle ages of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries that saw the rise of Mercantilism.  It became the economic system by which people began to provide for themselves as they left their indentured servant way of life.

Mercantilism and the entrepreneur spirit it created developed and spread throughout Western European cultures as people overthrew their Lords and Kings for a more democratic form of government. The principles of mercantilism became codified into what has become known as capitalism, defined by Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations; the bible for corporate minded people the world over.

As a power and a political force, large multi-national corporations are able to influence the decision-making process of so-called democracies to insure their own survival. The legislative process in this country has been the laboratory for this relationship where very wealthy people in industry have peddled their ideas to men in politics as they keep elected officials’ campaign coffers filled.  When corporate policy or their hegemony with members of congress and state legislatures is threatened by “radical” voices, the reaction is like that of a mother bear protecting her cubs, but it is their man or woman in elective office that actually does the attacking

So now comes the situation where the nexus between scientific knowledge and commercial enterprises that benefit from it find themselves at odds with each other.  And the most conspicuous battle between these two is emerging between the climate science and the fossil fuels industry.

Climate science, known as climatology, has expanded dramatically over the last few decades and can now illustrate physical changes in our world which pose a serious risk to life as we know it from  actions we began two centuries ago. That action was the discovery and use of fossil fuels for running the commercial enterprises within our capitalistic economy. One of the pitfalls of science however is that its theories usually don’t pan out for years, decades and even centuries depending on the discipline and what is being studied.  Often long trial and error periods are necessary to affirm more precisely the cause and effect conditions science puts forth.

The early warning signs that were emanating within the climate science community during the 1950‘s,1960′s and 1970′s were little known to the general public.  But as the nature of the problem became more apparent through discoveries with improved technology the need to go mainstream with this critical information was imperative.

So, in 1988, when Dr. James Hansen, a conservative Republican went before the U.S. Congress and warned the Senators that the threat he referred to as “global warming” was rapidly growing from our increased use of fossil fuels, the gauntlet had been thrown down, presenting a challenge to the corporate energy sources of coal, oil and natural gas.

Those within the industry saw the threat to their existence as people became aware that their product was hazardous to the health and well-being of planet earth and the inhabitants that reside there. If this realization caught on with Joe Q. Public, the fossil fuel industry would go the way of the horse and buggy as new ideas surged to take their place. This in fact was happening as new technologies in the field of solar panels and wind turbines were having success generating small amounts of kilowatt power, but their potential had yet been unleashed.

It apparently became clear to the industry thinkers too that taking an anti-science approach to stop this information would be viewed as hypocritical by the public. Many in the public may be dumb but they weren’t stupid. They were however self-centered, so if they could be convinced that the science was not only questionable but a plot by a perceived enemy to create a new world order, then Big Oil and Big Coal could fight to live another few years, at least until their depleting resources ran out and they could walk away with their billions to see them through the hard times any effects of global warming would cause; or so they hoped.

WHERE WILL THIS ALL LEAD?

By creating the illusion that there is a legitimate scientific body out there disputing the real climate science, along with exploiting the disdain many Americans have developed  towards liberals, the corporate entities of Big Oil, Coal and Gas pay handsome amounts to anyone in the scientific and broadcast field who are willing to muddy the water on the climate science

By fostering a sense that there is a “hoax” being perpetrated by liberal-loving scientist, the fossil fuel industry hopes to generate enough fear to counteract the science and knowledge they feel threatened by. They’ve had plenty of time to develop this ruse because the signs of global warming have not been obvious to the casual observer. They know too, from previous experience using marketing techniques, that the public can be easily influenced to buy in to their reality through the use of redundant and cleverly designed messages sent to them through media sources.

The power that corporations hold today with their combined wealth has built a 21st century structure not unlike that of the Church in its heyday as it kept the public in line through fear.  Information is subtly disseminated that is aimed more at improving their image as it diminishes those scientific challenges that expose their weaknesses.

History always seems to repeat itself and millions die and suffer needlessly because of a general resistance by the public to accept new knowledge that overturns the dated views we’ve been comfortable with.   So it is today as we attempt to deal with our understanding of new knowledge that seeks to save us while simultaneously asking us to move beyond our comfort zones that is dependent on cheap energy provided by finite sources of carbon-based fuels.

The conflict is underscored by the efforts of corporatism defending its turf. Once again the general public has to come to grips with a force that seeks to preserve its own self-interest if we are to advance democracy and individual freedom to a higher level from where we were when we broke from the authoritative ties of the medieval Church.

RESOURCES:

Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature

Drought drives decade-long decline in plant growth

Anti-Science syndrome goes viral within the GOP

Hansen and Ruddiman debunk RI GOPer’s false claims

Related Articles



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers