+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 50
Latest: sleepless in Berkeley
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13637
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 15 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 22, 2019, 03:26:28 pm »

BLACK BEAR NEWS 9.21.19 Texas Flooding - Storms Forming
1,054 views•Published on Sep 21, 2019


Black Bear News
2.41K subscribers

'They're forming like roaches.' The 6 tropical storms whirling at once have tied a record
https://news.yahoo.com/theyre-forming...

Fifth death in Texas following flooding caused by remnants of tropical storm
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/...

Red Fawn Fallis Sentenced to 57 Months in Federal Prison
https://warriorpublications.wordpress...

Use Natural Climate Solutions To Protect Nature | Extinction Rebellion

Friday Gas Strike
https://www.facebook.com/events/21614...

Twitter @BlackBearNews1

Support via Paypal:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...

Support via Square: https://cash.me/$RedLlamaMusic

Red Llama Music
PO Box 132
So Pasadena, CA 91031
Category People & Blogs
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 20, 2019, 02:30:10 pm »


Quote
Indeed, this is martial law masquerading as law and order.

Any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray to do his job shouldn’t be a police officer in a constitutional republic.

All that stuff in the First Amendment (about freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances) sounds great in theory. However, it amounts to little more than a hill of beans if you have to exercise those freedoms while facing down an army of police equipped with deadly weapons, surveillance devices, and a slew of laws that empower them to arrest and charge citizens with bogus “contempt of cop” charges (otherwise known as asserting your constitutional rights).
BINGO!

Quote
It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.

Yes, all human action for the purpose of righting wrongs must be based on ethics, not the probablity of success in righting said wrongs, be they perpetrated by a police state or anyone else.

Where there is life, there is hope. We ain't dead yet. But, I admit things looks pretty grim (see below).

Police Say They Killed a Man Holding a Gun, But a Video Raises Doubts
3,740 views•Premiered 17 hours ago


The Real News Network
351K subscribers

Police in Aberdeen, Washington shot and killed a man while trying to serve a warrant two weeks ago. On this Police Accountability Report, we look at the video that raises doubts about their story and reveals underlying tensions caused by aggressive policing in the small Pacific Northwest town.

Subscribe to our page and support our work at https://therealnews.com/donate.

Category News & Politics
Posted by: Surly1
« on: September 20, 2019, 11:27:16 am »

Martial law masquerading as law and order: The police state’s language of force

“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)

Forget everything you’ve ever been taught about free speech in America.

It’s all a lie.

There can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.

What is this language of force?

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

This is not the language of freedom.

This is not even the language of law and order.

This is the language of force.

Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo.

This police overkill isn’t just happening in troubled hot spots such as Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md., where police brutality gave rise to civil unrest, which was met with a militarized show of force that caused the whole stew of discontent to bubble over into violence.

A decade earlier, the NYPD engaged in mass arrests of peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers and journalists who had gathered for the 2004 Republican National Convention. The protesters were subjected to blanket fingerprinting and detained for more than 24 hours at a “filthy, toxic pier that had been a bus depot.” That particular exercise in police intimidation tactics cost New York City taxpayers nearly $18 million for what would become the largest protest settlement in history.

Demonstrators, journalists and legal observers who had gathered in North Dakota to peacefully protest the Dakota Access Pipeline reported being pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip searched by police.

In the college town of Charlottesville, Va., protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their disapproval of a planned KKK rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police. Only after a motley crew of Klansmen had been safely escorted to and from the rally by black-garbed police did the assembled army of city, county and state police declare the public gathering unlawful and proceed to unleash canisters of tear gas on the few remaining protesters to force them to disperse.

More recently, this militarized exercise in intimidation—complete with an armored vehicle and an army of police drones—reared its ugly head in the small town of Dahlonega, Ga., where 600 state and local militarized police clad in full riot gear vastly outnumbered the 50 protesters and 150 counterprotesters who had gathered to voice their approval/disapproval of the Trump administration’s policies.

To be clear, this is the treatment being meted out to protesters across the political spectrum.

The police state does not discriminate.

As a USA Today article notes, “Federally arming police with weapons of war silences protesters across all justice movements… People demanding justice, demanding accountability or demanding basic human rights without resorting to violence, should not be greeted with machine guns and tanks. Peaceful protest is democracy in action. It is a forum for those who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Protesters should not have to face intimidation by weapons of war.”

A militarized police response to protesters poses a danger to all those involved, protesters and police alike. In fact, militarization makes police more likely to turn to violence to solve problems.

As a study by researchers at Stanford University makes clear, “When law enforcement receives more military materials — weapons, vehicles and tools — it becomes … more likely to jump into high-risk situations. Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.”

Even the color of a police officer’s uniform adds to the tension. As the Department of Justice reports, “Some research has suggested that the uniform color can influence the wearer—with black producing aggressive tendencies, tendencies that may produce unnecessary conflict between police and the very people they serve.”

You want to turn a peaceful protest into a riot?

Bring in the militarized police with their guns and black uniforms and warzone tactics and “comply or die” mindset. Ratchet up the tension across the board. Take what should be a healthy exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turn it into a lesson in authoritarianism.

Mind you, those who respond with violence are playing into the government’s hands perfectly.

The government wants a reason to crack down and lock down and bring in its biggest guns.

They want us divided. They want us to turn on one another.

They want us powerless in the face of their artillery and armed forces.

They want us silent, servile and compliant.

They certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully.

And they definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

You know how one mayor characterized the tear gassing of protesters by riot police? He called it an “unfortunate event.”

Unfortunate, indeed.

You know what else is unfortunate?

It’s unfortunate that these overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear.

It’s unfortunate that “we the people” have become the proverbial nails to be hammered into submission by the government and its vast armies.

And it’s particularly unfortunate that government officials—especially police—seem to believe that anyone who wears a government uniform (soldier, police officer, prison guard) must be obeyed without question.

In other words, “we the people” are the servants in the government’s eyes rather than the masters.

The government’s rationale goes like this:

Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It’s your choice: Comply, or die.

Indeed, as Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:

If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.

This is not the rhetoric of a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This is not the attitude of someone who understands, let alone respects, free speech.

And this is certainly not what I would call “community policing,” which is supposed to emphasize the importance of the relationship between the police and the community they serve.

Indeed, this is martial law masquerading as law and order.

Any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray to do his job shouldn’t be a police officer in a constitutional republic.

All that stuff in the First Amendment (about freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances) sounds great in theory. However, it amounts to little more than a hill of beans if you have to exercise those freedoms while facing down an army of police equipped with deadly weapons, surveillance devices, and a slew of laws that empower them to arrest and charge citizens with bogus “contempt of cop” charges (otherwise known as asserting your constitutional rights).

It doesn’t have to be this way.

There are other, far better models to follow.

For instance, back in 2011, the St. Louis police opted to employ a passive response to Occupy St. Louis activists. First, police gave the protesters nearly 36 hours’ notice to clear the area, as opposed to the 20 to 60 minutes’ notice other cities gave. Then, as journalist Brad Hicks reports, when the police finally showed up:

They didn’t show up in riot gear and helmets, they showed up in shirt sleeves with their faces showing. They not only didn’t show up with SWAT gear, they showed up with no unusual weapons at all, and what weapons they had all securely holstered. They politely woke everybody up. They politely helped everybody who was willing to remove their property from the park to do so. They then asked, out of the 75 to 100 people down there, how many people were volunteering for being-arrested duty? Given 33 hours to think about it, and 10 hours to sweat it over, only 27 volunteered. As the police already knew, those people’s legal advisers had advised them not to even passively resist, so those 27 people lined up to be peacefully arrested, and were escorted away by a handful of cops. The rest were advised to please continue to protest, over there on the sidewalk … and what happened next was the most absolutely brilliant piece of crowd control policing I have heard of in my entire lifetime. All of the cops who weren’t busy transporting and processing the voluntary arrestees lined up, blocking the stairs down into the plaza. They stood shoulder to shoulder. They kept calm and silent. They positioned the weapons on their belts out of sight. They crossed their hands low in front of them, in exactly the least provocative posture known to man. And they peacefully, silently, respectfully occupied the plaza, using exactly the same non-violent resistance techniques that the protesters themselves had been trained in.

As Forbes concluded, “This is a more humane, less costly, and ultimately more productive way to handle a protest. This is great proof that police can do it the old fashioned way—using their brains and common sense instead of tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray—and have better results.”

It can be done.

Police will not voluntarily give up their gadgets and war toys and combat tactics, however. Their training and inclination towards authoritarianism has become too ingrained.

If we are to have any hope of dismantling the police state, change must start locally, community by community. Citizens will have to demand that police de-escalate and de-militarize. And if the police don’t listen, contact your city councils and put the pressure on them.

Remember, they are supposed to work for us. They might not like hearing it—they certainly won’t like being reminded of it—but we pay their salaries with our hard-earned tax dollars.

“We the people” have got to stop accepting the lame excuses trotted out by police as justifications for their inexcusable behavior.

Either “we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t.

Either we live in a constitutional republic or a police state.

We have rights.

As Justice William O. Douglas advised in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.

The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.

Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).

This emphasis on nonviolence goes both ways. Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.

There is nothing safe or secure or free about exercising your rights with a rifle pointed at you.

The police officer who has been trained to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective “feeling” of being threatened, is just as much of a danger—if not more—as any violence that might erupt from a protest rally.

Compliance is no guarantee of safety.

Then again, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny.

The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.

Indeed, had Christ merely complied with the Roman police state, there would have been no crucifixion and no Christian religion. Had Gandhi meekly fallen in line with the British Empire’s dictates, the Indian people would never have won their independence.

Had Martin Luther King Jr. obeyed the laws of his day, there would have been no civil rights movement. And if the founding fathers had marched in lockstep with royal decrees, there would have been no American Revolution.

We must adopt a different mindset and follow a different path if we are to alter the outcome of these interactions with police.

The American dream was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.

It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president ofThe Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on theAmerican People is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can becontacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute isavailable at www.rutherford.org.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 29, 2019, 12:36:46 pm »

Quote
Today some Vermont racists in Addison county (that is south of Chittenden County where I live) flattened the tires of hard working (cow milkers) immigrants' toyota. They pushed the air conditioner into their home and generally terrorized them with some other property damage.

The police, who KNOW EXACTLY WHO DID THIS AND WHY, are "having difficulty" determining whether this is vandalism or a hate crime.  You see, if it is a hate crime, the penalty is greater. A hate crime would imply racism. Vermont doesn't like to admit that racism is UBIQUITOUS here.

Racism is ubiquitous everywhere. And white nationalists have done enough of a job infiltrating both the military and local law enforcement such that brownshirts get a police escort while protest is criminalized.

Stay prepared.

Sound advice. I'll do what I can.
Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 29, 2019, 06:30:04 am »

Quote
Today some Vermont racists in Addison county (that is south of Chittenden County where I live) flattened the tires of hard working (cow milkers) immigrants' toyota. They pushed the air conditioner into their home and generally terrorized them with some other property damage.

The police, who KNOW EXACTLY WHO DID THIS AND WHY, are "having difficulty" determining whether this is vandalism or a hate crime.  You see, if it is a hate crime, the penalty is greater. A hate crime would imply racism. Vermont doesn't like to admit that racism is UBIQUITOUS here.

Racism is ubiquitous everywhere. And white nationalists have done enough of a job infiltrating both the military and local law enforcement such that brownshirts get a police escort while protest is criminalized.

Stay prepared.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 28, 2019, 06:02:38 pm »

There are those extolling the virtues of the Proud Boys while decrying the "menace" of antifa, positing a false equivalency, the last argument of outgunned extremists everywhere. ("good people on both sides," don't you know.) Here's a firsthand report from the ground at Portland.

Those who want to minimize these blackshirt groups do so at their peril, while ignoring history.

The death toll ascribed to antifa remains at zero.


The Proud Boys’ Real Target



Ah yes, "Proud Boys" is the new name of the Skinheads (who never really went away but became Texas Dentists, preppers, Gold bug Libertarians, Wall Street brokers and used car salesmen). The younger Skinheads are always doing their predictable fascist crap. May they all go bald.

Today some Vermont racists in Addison county (that is south of Chittenden County where I live) flattened the tires of hard working (cow milkers) immigrants' toyota. They pushed the air conditioner into their home and generally terrorized them with some other property damage.

The police, who KNOW EXACTLY WHO DID THIS AND WHY, are "having difficulty" determining whether this is vandalism or a hate crime. You see, if it is a hate crime, the penalty is greater. A hate crime would imply racism. Vermont doesn't like to admit that racism is UBIQUITOUS here. They don't want to "needlessly" jail local white boys who are just "feeling their oats", don'tcha know? Vermont doesn't want to admit that these racists have been given the green SKINHEAD LIGHT by TRUMP and his RACIST WRECKING CREW.

I can guarantee you that if it was a latino or black that perpetrated these "fun and games" against a white family, the Vermont police would have no difficulty whatsoever in charging the minority person or persons with whatever crime had the greatest penalty.

If Trump doesn't go away, they'll be visiting my home soon, Surly. I hope I can be a good Christian and not respond in kind.   
Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 28, 2019, 09:01:50 am »

There are those extolling the virtues of the Proud Boys while decrying the "menace" of antifa, positing a false equivalency, the last argument of outgunned extremists everywhere. ("good people on both sides," don't you know.) Here's a firsthand report from the ground at Portland.

Those who want to minimize these blackshirt groups do so at their peril, while ignoring history.

The death toll ascribed to antifa remains at zero.

The Proud Boys’ Real Target
They are endangering both American citizens and American ideals at large.


JIM URQHART / REUTERS

Updated at 10:30 a.m. ET on August 25, 2019.

I haven’t seen Justice Hans Linde in more than a decade, but I thought of him last Saturday, when I found myself locked in a science museum with frightened parents and children while neofascist thugs marched by. Hans was a child in Weimar Germany; I suspect he would have known how I was feeling.

The museum was the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, in Portland. The occasion was a rally organized by the Proud Boys, an all-male group that exalts “Western values” and promotes Islamophobia. Other affiliated groups joined in—a loose conglomeration of racists, chauvinists, and just plain thugs. Some of them were connected to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, two years ago, at which a right-wing marcher drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing a woman named Heather Heyer. The Proud Boys aren’t from Portland, but they have selected the Rose City as the site for their rallies, threats, and clashes with local “antifa,” or antifascist activists. The rally Saturday was nominally to demand that Portland suppress the antifa groups so that the Proud Boys can march unopposed whenever they choose.

As a washed-up reporter who covered 1960s street protests, I felt the impulse to watch what happened when the Proud Boys confronted both police and a mix of local groups, some seemingly violent and others committed to overwhelming the occasion with harmless absurdity. (Some dressed as bananas, others in unicorn costumes.)

But Saturday was a family day. I was with my son, my daughter-in-law, and two little boys under five years old. We did not want my grandchildren anywhere near fascists. The Portland police bureau had published a map promising that OMSI, across the river from the planned site of the rally, would be safe. Alas, as police defused the main rally, some of the fascists found their way across the river and marched past the museum.

While the kids played in the beautiful Science Playground, the public-address system announced that the museum was in “lockup”; no one could enter or leave until further notice. We could not see the street; none of the staff knew what was going on; no one could tell us how long the lockup would last; no one knew whether the marchers might assemble in front of the museum, making escape impossible.

In any event, the group of marchers near the museum was apparently relatively small; within a few minutes, the lockup was lifted. But the walk back to the light-rail system through a stark industrial area was, for me at least, heart-in-mouth. We had no place to hide on the street if something went wrong. When we made it back to our hotel, I felt relief, unreality, and fury.

Citywide, the rally was largely anticlimactic; Portland police kept marchers and counterprotesters separate. Only after the main event ended did sporadic violence occur. Willamette Week described the aftermath as

a game of cat-and-mouse that felt more like a Tom and Jerry cartoon—and kept the two groups more than a mile apart at all times, even as some said they wanted a confrontation. Police made 13 arrests, and the few moments of violence arrived mainly as the right-wing groups attempted to leave downtown in two small buses. Antifascists were seen on videos shattering the bus windows, and a right-wing protester appeared to attack the leftists from inside the bus with a hammer.

I am glad the violence was not worse. But I’m sure I will never forget that moment in the museum. It was the second time in one week that my family’s vacation was disrupted by groups simulating a war zone on Oregon streets. The previous Saturday, we had planned to show my grandchildren the sheer magic of Eugene’s Saturday Market, where artisans sell their own creations, local bands perform, and farmers offer fresh produce from all over the lush Willamette Valley. But then a shadowy group calling itself “God, Guns, and Trump” (later changed to “God, Guns, and Liberty”) announced a pro-gun rally across the street from the market. The group’s Facebook post proclaimed that only “bold conservatives” should attend; those who had no firearms, it suggested, should buy them for the occasion. The group told those who wanted to march with Confederate or Nazi flags to stay away.

That rally was largely peaceful, with counterprotesters tangling with marchers using only words. But we couldn’t have predicted that in advance. Saturday Market was out. Who would bring a child near this unknown threat, only days after the shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio? Across the river, meanwhile, Eugene’s LGBTQ community was holding its Pride rally. That gathering went on as planned, but there was anxiety throughout the city.

What has this to do with Hans Linde? Hans was born in 1924 to a prosperous Jewish family in Berlin. He once told me that his first clear memory was of watching from the family apartment while Nazis in brown shirts brawled with Communists on the Kurfürstendamm below. When Jewish life in Germany became untenable, the Lindes relocated to Denmark, and then, by good fortune, obtained U.S. visas. The Lindes settled in Portland; Hans attended Oregon public schools, and then Reed College, in the city’s Eastmoreland neighborhood. He served in the Army, attended law school at UC Berkeley, and began a brilliant career as a U.S. Supreme Court clerk, a Senate aide, a law professor, and finally the greatest justice ever to serve on the Oregon Supreme Court. I came to know Linde because, many years ago, I wrote a profile of him.

Linde’s jurisprudence sparked a national movement to revive judges’ interest in the constitutions of American states. State courts, Linde said, should construe their state’s constitution first before diving into the Supreme Court’s federal case law; a state constitutional text might make a federal ruling unnecessary. Linde left the bench nearly two decades ago, but his “first things first” approach lives on. As recently as last year, Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, in his book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, called on state judges to “revive Linde’s idea—to make constitutional arguments the first line of defense in individual rights disputes.”

Perhaps the most important legacy of the Linde years were his opinions interpreting Oregon’s free-speech guarantee much more broadly than the federal First Amendment. That protection has helped preserve Oregon’s wide-open democratic culture, where ideas from the Neanderthal to the utopian can contend, and where human experience comes in many shades.

That very culture, I suspect, is what has drawn out-of-state fascist leaders to focus on Portland. From years of study—and personal experience—I know about Oregon’s dark racist past and the shadow it casts over the state today. Nonetheless, in recent years, leaders here have worked to create an inclusive culture—one that the fascists would like to discredit, stigmatize, and eventually destroy. Since the Saturday demonstration, the Proud Boys have announced that they will be back every month until the City suppresses the antifa movement, whom they call “domestic terrorists.”

The impudence is striking. The Proud Boys are threatening violence to achieve political change. That is the textbook definition of terrorism. Moreover, even before Charlottesville, domestic terrorism had emerged as a danger from people motivated by the far-right ideology—that is, from the political forces (if not the actual individuals) now demanding that the government crush their enemies so that they can own the streets. Consider a very partial list of horrendous crimes motivated by right-wing racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism: a mass killing at an African American church in Charleston, South Carolina; pipe bombs sent to public figures who oppose Donald Trump; a massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue; and 20 people—mostly Latino—gunned down at an El Paso Walmart.

Read: The lost boys

Meanwhile, some antifa protesters have worn masks or armor, or have shouted down speakers; some beat up the conservative journalist Andy Ngo at a demonstration earlier this year; some have thrown milkshakes, and some have threatened violence or physically fought at right-wing rallies. But the number of mass shootings committed by people identified with antifa is zero, and so is the number of lives taken. The demonstrators that trapped my family in the museum were there to disrupt the politics of a city they have no stake in. Many, if not most, of the counterprotesters were there to defend their hometown. Most of them were nonviolent and came to oppose violence.

Having lived in the Northwest for many years, I am familiar with left-wing forces that use violent tactics. Violence is self-defeating and morally wrong, and I want no part of it or them. But there is simply no equivalence here.

Although no major political figure has embraced antifa activism, the Republican Party has begun to embrace the Proud Boys. Last fall, the Metropolitan Republican Club invited a Proud Boys leader to speak at a club event. (After the event, two Proud Boys beat four protesters so badly that a jury on Monday convicted two of them on charges of assault and riot.) The Republican activist Roger Stone has said he was initiated as a Proud Boy, and Proud Boys appeared at a federal courthouse when he turned himself in on charges brought by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Stone and the Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson posed in the Fox greenroom with two Proud Boys accompanying Stone.

This summer, Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy are sponsoring a resolution that would designate antifa as a “domestic terrorist group.” No mention of the Proud Boys or any of the other neofascist groups who feel empowered by the ascent of Trump.

But the group’s greatest triumph came on the morning of last Saturday’s march. Trump tweeted, “Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA an ‘ORGANIZATION OF TERROR.’ Portland is being watched very closely. Hopefully the Mayor will be able to properly do his job!” One Proud Boy leader hailed the tweet as part of the protest’s aim: “We wanted national attention and we got it,” the organizer Joe Biggs told The Oregonian. “Mission success.”

Linde’s life was shaped by gangs of thugs deployed to shatter democratic order and impose racist dictatorship. Portland provided his family a haven and a life as citizens of a democratic nation.

Now the right has targeted Linde’s haven for destruction. The real target, though, is not Portland or antifa but all of us, and our sense of security that we are free citizens of a democratic nation, free to take our children downtown to play or to assemble peacefully to advocate values that the Republican Party does not approve. That party under Trump is now taking sides in the uneven war in Portland’s streets—and it is taking the dangerously wrong side.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 25, 2019, 03:29:45 pm »


For several years I have become angrier and angrier as I watched TPTB responding to warnings from scientists (like the quote below) by doubling down on their ruthless planetary predation.

"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.

These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior.

It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder

I know who the criminals are that are totally responsible for the "simple thievery" that George M. Woodwell so eloquently described. I have known who they are for at least 20 years. What has changed now is that the most people now know that too. I hope my small voice helped somewhat in getting the masses to finally understand why, in regard to the environment, things just keep getting worse, not better.

Critical mass awareness has been reached. Good .

However, there is no short term environmental solution. That too is understood now by most people.

True, most people still (erroneously) think there IS a solution, though longer term, with a lot of dead people and plants and animal SPECIES along the way, that TPTB will eventually embark on when they can no longer kick the can down the road.

TPTB are the source of the problem, so it is irrational to believe that they, and all the scientists they can pay to give us a techno-fix solution, will solve this problem.

The problem was never about pollution.

The problem was never about rampant greed based pecuniary profits that depend on trashing the biosphere.

The problem is a rejection of ethical standards of conduct. Slaves to greed and ambition embrace an Orwellian definition of ethics in order to justify irrational planetary predation. Without that "justification", peer presure alone can keep them somewhat in line. Today, ethical behavior is considered "weakness". The inevitable result of this inversion of ethical = common sense behavior is rampant environmental destruction.

So, the solution can only come from a society that reaches a critical mass REJECTION of the UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR at ALL levels of human society.

The principled, honest person who wrote that excellent, poignant article you just posted is aware of this painful, uncomfortable reality. Initially mourning a senseless personal loss, followed by mourning observed environmental degradation, she has now realized that the environmental losses are not senseless, but the result of malice aforethought (It's the lack of ethics, STUPID!).

Critical mass is here. That does does not mean this yet:

The conundrum here is that some angry people think killing off the 1% will solve the problem. It won't, but the 1% now have a very, very clear BULLSEYE drawn around them by most people.

I would form a committee of citizens (membership would be maximum net worth limited, of course) that would put the criminal elite, and 100% of the nomenclatura lackeys that embrace Orwellian "Ethics", and their familes, to work, for the rest of their lives, in humane conditions in massive duckweed ponds in the desert areas of the planet.

The entire juridical system hierarchy would be replaced by computer judges. Every human judge would be sentenced to a duckweed farm or some other type of community service, depending on his or her track record as a judge. The software for the computer judges would be written by programmers hired by Bill McKibben, Paul Beckwith anf Guy McPherson. 

Prison sentences for all nonviolent offenders would be cancelled and $100,000, tax free, would be paid to said individuals for education and reintegration into ethical society. EVERY case involving violent offenders would be scrutinized carefully. If prejudice was involved, that prisoner will also get freed and paid $100,000, tax free.

Police forces would be disarmed COMPLETELY. It would be illegal to have more than two bullets of ammunition in any home in any city on Earth. People either turn in excess bullets or expect to be sentenced to work at a duckweed CO2 reduction (Lemna minor photosynthetic CO2 capture and sequestration) farm for a period corresponding to the level of their ammunition hoarding. Body covering bullet proof armor would be worn by the police while on duty.

All polluting industries would be outlawed, period.

No manufactured product that cannot be 100% recycled would be outlawed, period.

Military budgets would be reduced to a size small enough that they could be "drowned in a bathtub".

That's just a small part of how an ethics based society MUST function. Cheap rationalizations solve NOTHING. For thousands of years, while there was still a lot of biosphere to trash, human society could get away with ignoring the ROOT of the UNETHICAL ROT abounding in human society's elte. That is no longer possible. The toxic sewer we allowed the most evil people among us to create has backed up into our faces. So there is no other option but to face the fact that an ethics based society is sine qua non, not just for the viability of the biosphere, but to prevent its destruction.

Yeah, that sounds real utopian, doesn't it?

BUT, an ethics based society is the ONLY type of society with the mental and spiritual tools to come up with a viable solution to Catastrophic Climate Change.

If the "rational" people out there decide it is "okay" to just kill off the Planet Eaters, we are toast as a species. We either go full ethical or we go extinct. There is no middle ground, no matter how much the "Orkin Man solution" types claim otherwise. The brutal (see below) "solution" to brutallity has NEVER worked.


It's time for our species to embrace ethics instead of cheap rationalizations about the causes and consequences of biosphere degradation.

Unfortunately for all of us, our species may go this route:

I sincerely hope not. September is coming. I suspect the events accross the globe this September will provide important clues to which way human society is going to go in dealing with TPTB criminals.

Fasten your seat belt.
Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 25, 2019, 10:49:02 am »

Let Yourself Feel How Bad This Is

Photo: Dado Galdieri/Bloomberg via Getty Images

I started waking up in the middle of the night in fear of climate change about five years ago. I was living with my parents in Southern California, and every day I discovered around me new signs pointing to the death of the world.

It was fall; their lawn had been bleached to straw by drought. I hiked the Santa Ynez Mountains with my dad, who ran his hands along rocks stained with the memory of creeks and falls, marveling, “The sound of rushing water used to be so loud here.” He was 13 the last time it snowed in Los Angeles — measly flakes that barely covered the street, but still.

Looking out from the trail at the Pacific, I imagined it rising up along the coastline and changing its whole shape. We didn’t know that in three years, fires would make the mountains and the foothills even more bone dry. And that a year after that, rain, when it finally came, would roll down with the force of a tidal wave, washing a body up on the beach.

I cried on the hikes, at the dinner table, when I couldn’t get to sleep, when I woke up from it. We tried carving pumpkins on Halloween and I was humiliated to find the feel of the cheap plastic knife sinking into the fruit’s flesh unbearable. Whatever had been separating my intellectual understanding of what was happening to the planet from my emotional state had collapsed.

Worse were my parents looking at me like I was temporarily disturbed instead of like I was reacting to something that was actually happening. They told me they were sure my anxiety was a delayed response to an event that had occurred two years earlier: the loss of my partner to an extremely rare cancer that took his life in nine months, from diagnosis to death rattle. That seems practical, I thought, and waited for the feeling to go away.

Still, sitting up at night on my laptop, I sought out the like-minded. I learned from a friend about an organization called The Climate Mobilization. It intrigued me because it was run by a woman trained as a clinical psychologist named Margaret Klein Salamon. I thought maybe I could try talking to a climate therapist in addition to my behavioral one, someone who wouldn’t make everything about me, when all I wanted to talk about was the whole world.

I ended up interviewing Margaret on the phone for a literary magazine. Her climate psychology work, funnily enough, had started with trauma. She had written a dissertation on women with romantic partners who had experienced a psychotic episode, and the tactics they used to endure terrible upheaval in their lives.

After this work was completed, she saw that most people used similar methods to avoid the terror of climate change, and that denial had created a massive lack of solidarity on the issue among family members, friends — networks who were used to talking about all the things that hurt them, except this. She devised a pledge that people could ask their loved ones to take, a kind of climate-change-awareness pyramid scheme, so that they could have a way to share their pain, to let them feel bad together.

We tend to think that the realm of the personal supersedes the global, but it makes sense to me that, instead, intimate grief can be the locus at the center of tenderness for the planet. Watching a young, healthy person as he took his last breath had left me porous, hysterically aware of my own smallness and mortality. I wasn’t displacing my mourning — it was simply expanding. I was suddenly awake to the fragility of everything: the eaves of my parents’ old house; kumquat bushes in their front yard; hatch chili salsa every August; the 101 hugging the ocean; water in Lake Cachuma; walking out at low tide. Their potential loss struck me like an earthquake, splitting the future open.

Sadness isn’t an endpoint; neither is fear. I don’t cry all the time anymore, though I cried last night, watching a video of Indigenous women singing in the streets of Sao Paulo to protest the fires raging in the Amazon, the product of agribusiness unleashed by a greedy, nihilistic president.

For those of us who haven’t yet seen climate change fill our lungs with toxic air, fill our pipes with poisonous water, carry away our homes, kill our crops, or drown our families, grief is an aperture. It’s an opening in the soul where the pain of those faraway people can rest with yours. And where you can start to be willing to consider a future different from the one you imagined, to redress an epically uneven distribution of suffering.

In my weaker moments, I tend toward ironic detachment when confronting massive-scale horrors like the burning of the Amazon, posting something cooly depressed. Or I look away entirely, which I tell myself is an act of self care. The brain simply can’t take it all in. I don’t think that’s true — we just don’t have the language for it yet. Or we’re not used to applying the language we reserve for talking about our private tragedies to collective pain.

At least, we aren’t used to it here. On Sunday, a team of researchers, activists, politicians, and regular, despairing people in Iceland held the first known funeral for a glacier. They hiked two hours up a volcano on which 15 square kilometers of glittering ice used to stretch, and where there are now long patches of bare rock and shallow puddles. The memorial plaque they installed on top of Okjokull, declared extinct a decade ago, lists the record amount of carbon in the air when it was inscribed, 415 ppm of CO2, a number that has only gone up. The glacier was issued an official death certificate.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 17, 2019, 05:39:31 pm »

This interview would have never seen the light of day in the US. they'd have Tucker Carlsoned this segment and have had Hallam's children murdered before letting this see the light of day.

"The Public Is Now Aware That the Elites Are Taking Them To Their Death!"
Roger Hallam BBC interview—like the infamous Newsroom scene with Toby, but IRL.


Excerpt:

UK Corporopresenter: So on the science there's no disagreement but are you saying that groups like Greenpeace and many many others have fundamentally failed in their mission to convince the world that things need to change?

Roger Hallam: Yes.  We fundamentally failed. I mean I failed, other activists have failed, campaigners have failed, we've all failed. The fact of
the matter is were facing mass starvation in the next 10 years,  social collapse and the possible extinction of the human race. It couldn't be worse. So that situation has come about over 30 years of failure failure by the elites, failure by the governments, and failure by
campaigners.

UK Corporopresenter ****: Your message is entirely about failure, it's about negativity.

Roger Hallam: It is in a way I suppose a howl of rage and despair. That's right it is and you think that is a message that the people of the world and the political leaders of the world are going to respond to yes and the reason why is because when people go through depression and rage they come out and decide to do things- extinction rebellion is the most successful climate change movement in the UK...




I just watched it. Roger Hallam gets it   . The 🙉🙊 status quo defending 😈 UK Corporopresenter doesn't.

I had a good discussion about the attitude of the elites and their lackey mouthpieces recently. People are figuring it out:

Drumroll > agelbert • 3 days ago
What Chris is recommending
Quote
We will save ourselves only by pitting power against power. And since our two major political parties slavishly serve corporate power, and have few substantial differences on nearly all major issues from imperialism to unfettered capitalism, we must start from scratch.

and
Quote
The American political system is not salvageable. It will be overthrown in a mass uprising—a version of which we saw recently in Puerto Rico—or vast swaths of the globe will become uninhabitable and the rich will feed like ghouls off the mounting human misery. These are the two stark options. And we have very little time left.
As long as the propaganda machine keeps the American public from remembering "garbage in; garbage out" from the early days of computer programming, we won't be able to start from scratch even if Chris Hedges were to lead the way.

agelbert  > Drumroll • 3 days ago
True. We all need to do our part to spread the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The bottom line is that if we do not stop these 🦕🦖 planet killers 🐉 corrupting the US Government from continuing to run roughshod over the biosphere, we have no future.   


Doubling Down: The Military, Big Bankers and Big Oil Are Not In Climate Denial, They Are in Control and Plan to Keep It That Way.










Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 17, 2019, 07:08:17 am »

This interview would have never seen the light of day in the US. they'd have Tucker Carlsoned this segment and have had Hallam's children murdered before letting this see the light of day.

"The Public Is Now Aware That the Elites Are Taking Them To Their Death!"
Roger Hallam BBC interview—like the infamous Newsroom scene with Toby, but IRL.


Excerpt:

UK Corporopresenter: So on the science there's no disagreement but are you saying that groups like Greenpeace and many many others have fundamentally failed in their mission to convince the world that things need to change?

Roger Hallam: Yes.  We fundamentally failed. I mean I failed, other activists have failed, campaigners have failed, we've all failed. The fact of
the matter is were facing mass starvation in the next 10 years,  social collapse and the possible extinction of the human race. It couldn't be worse. So that situation has come about over 30 years of failure failure by the elites, failure by the governments, and failure by
campaigners.

UK Corporopresenter ****: Your message is entirely about failure, it's about negativity.

Roger Hallam: It is in a way I suppose a howl of rage and despair. That's right it is and you think that is a message that the people of the world and the political leaders of the world are going to respond to yes and the reason why is because when people go through depression and rage they come out and decide to do things- extinction rebellion is the most successful climate change movement in the UK...

https://youtu.be/NItiaVobDPA
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 06, 2019, 09:51:23 pm »

America’s Very Violent President— Time for a morality check on the US presidency!
When giving a speech in Florida this past May, Donald Trump asked his audience “how do we stop these people (immigrants)?”

Someone shouted from the audience, “shoot them!”

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/you-will-have-to-pick-a-side-there-is-no-longer-room-for-procrastination/msg13141/#msg13141

America’s Very Violent President— Time for a morality check on the US presidency!
True.



Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 06, 2019, 08:14:10 pm »

America’s Very Violent President— Time for a morality check on the US presidency!
When giving a speech in Florida this past May, Donald Trump asked his audience “how do we stop these people (immigrants)?”
Someone shouted from the audience, “shoot them!”


https://medium.com/@m_weddle/americas-very-violent-president-12ff1f23e1b9



Donald Trump, when giving a speech in Florida this past May, asked his audience “how do we stop these people (immigrants)?”

Someone shouted from the audience, “shoot them!”

Trump, acknowledged this ignorant and insensitive remark with his own ignorant and insensitive laughter, quipping, “Only in the Panhandle! Only in the Panhandle can you get away with that!” The mesmerized audience broke into cheers, applause and even more ignorant and insensitive laughter.

Trump is also on record at a campaign rally in Iowa in 2016, stating “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.

Folks, we have a US president who easily could be rated R for violence.

But this is only if you discount the Triple X-rated proclivities of Trump’s past behavior. It’s no wonder Trump was once mentored by mobster and alleged **** lawyer Roy Cohn; he’s more recently been associated with Blackwater mercenary soldier CEO Eric Prince and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein; and considers himself buddy-buddy with murderous dictators Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammed Bin Salman.

Trump to Panhandle crowd: 'How do we stop these people?' Shocking reply: 'Shoot them.'
President Trump claimed immigrants are mounting an "invasion" at a Panhandle rally on May 8, 2019. He asked the crowd…
www.miamiherald.com
Government by Blackmail: Jeffrey Epstein, Trump's Mentor and the Dark Secrets of the Reagan Era
Appalling for both the villainous abuse of children itself and the chilling implications of government by blackmail…
www.mintpressnews.com

Sorry Gun-related Statistics

Five of the top 10 deadliest shootings in U.S. history have occurred since 2016 when the full-blown Trump came onto the national political stage. There have been 250 mass shooting in the United States this year alone, and we’ve still got five months to complete the year!

Trump repeatedly deflects calls for gun control by blaming the problem on mental health. But, again, his actions do not match his words.

In Feb. 2017, Trump signed HJ Resolution 40 to end the Social Security Administration’s requirement for entering the names of people receiving mental health benefits into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database used by the FBI to determine who can purchase weapons.

CNN produced some very interesting charts showing exactly how dangerous it is for our president to become loose-tongued and fancy-free with wrestling ring styled language in public forums. Why would any leaderuse threatening language against the backdrop as shown from the below charts:

America's gun culture vs. the world in 5 charts
The mass shooting at a Florida school has reignited the debate around gun rights in the US. Here's how America's gun…
www.cnn.com

Trump Respects Only Money and Power

Trump could care less that Saudi Arabia, since 2015, has daily and indiscriminately rained US-provided bombs upon innocent citizens in Yemen, he could care less that this combined with sanctions have killed 100,000 people and many are living under starvation conditions. He could care less the Saudis exploit impoverished Africans and private mercenary soldiers as a proxy army. Trump continues providing weapons to Saudi Arabia despite widespread worldwide opposition.

The median age (half older/half younger) of citizens of Yemen is 19.5, whereas the median age of Saudi Arabia is 31. 8 and it is 38.2 in the United States. Again, Trump could care less about the fate and well-being of people from Yemen.

Folks, I seriously think it’s time to stop voting for Republicans! Only Progressive Democrats who appeal to Independents can cure this. Centrist Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Since JFK got shot it has been right wing Republicans and centrist Democrats who have ruled our nation.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 07, 2017, 02:46:59 pm »

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/virginia-aclu-sounds-voter-suppression-alarm-over-phone-calls-telling-dems-to-go-to-wrong-polling-place/



And the genesis of voter suppression goes WAY, WAY back in our "representative republic" (lol!).

But at present, the reason cretins like Ryan can continue to do absolutely anything for the elite crooks while totally ignoring the overwhelming majority of voters in this country is because of gerrymandering.

Quote
Gerrrymander ger·ry·man·der

 NOUN

1.U.S. Politics. the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.

VERB (USED WITH OBJECT)

2.U.S. Politics. to subject (a state, county, etc.) to a gerrymander.

In a sane country that would be a crime against democratic government. But we do not live in a sane country.



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 13, 2017, 02:03:18 pm »

Switzerland From The Air


Published on Jul 25, 2014

Video brought to you by the Travel and Tourism Foundation (http://TravelFoundation.org) and Travelindex (http://Travelindex.com).
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2016, 09:14:52 pm »


Survey Shows Strength of Climate Science

One of the first peer-reviewed surveys of scientists used to determine the level of consensus on human-made climate change was undertaken by Dennis Bran and Hans von Storch in 1996. They used a standard survey response format known as the “Likert Scale,” where respondents answer questions based on a scale of 1 to 7 to determine, for example, how confident they are that warming is happening or that it’s human-caused.

They’ve repeated the survey a few times since 1996, and have recently released the 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists, for 2015/2016. Bart Verheggen helpfully goes over the key consensus findings as well as a couple of issues with the survey.

Because of the Likert Scale response format, though, describing the findings in numbers isn’t as effective as just looking at the graphs of responses. In many cases, the responses are so lopsided that some very clear statements can be made.

We can see that, as science has progressed, the level of risk associated with climate change has increased as has what’s at stake. In contrast to folks like Judith Curry who play up uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, the majority of scientists think that since 1996, climate science uncertainty has dropped.

Meanwhile, if society were to listen to voices highlighting uncertainty, and fail to act because of them, the potential for catastrophe for some parts of the world is fairly great.


To the point of the GOP AGs suggesting that Gore and others could be held responsible for exaggerating climate risks, scientists clearly think sea level rise will be just as bad as we thought five years ago, if not worse. The same can be said for other negative impacts. Over the last five years, the urgency to act on climate change has grown.

As for the public, scientists clearly think they should be told to be worried as we are already starting to experience the impacts of climate change. For example, they agree that the frequency of extreme events is increasing, as well as the intensity of those events, and the probability that those extreme events occur. Scientists expect these extreme events to become more powerful, tropical storms to get more intense, and certainly not any less frequent. Heat waves over the last 20 years are growing more intense as well as more frequent.

Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced that climate change poses a serious and dangerous threat to humanity, with only 2% responding that they’re not at all convinced. Again, with the Likert scale it’s a bit difficult to put simply. Assuming a 4 out of 7 is the midway point between “not at all” concerned and "very much" concerned, 8% of respondents fell between 1 and 3, 5.667% right in the middle at 4, and 85.74% between 5 and 7.

So, deniers claiming the science is still too uncertain to take action or that the public shouldn’t be worried need to take heed of this survey (like they have in the past, if even just to spin it) and accept that they’re a fringe minority at odds with an overwhelming consensus. That’s the facts, whether they Likert or not.

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/new-survey-of-climate-scientists-by-bray-and-von-storch-confirms-broad-consensus-on-human-causation/

Agelbert NOTE: SAMPLE of DIRECT QUOTES from a fellow named Alan that Ashvin found "reasonable":

Quote
I don't know enough about the climate issue. But I've been reading about it sporadically for 25+ years, and from everything I can gather, the scientists doing the analyses and projections are quite fallible, do not necessarily understand with such certainty the things they claim to understand, and cannot, in the end, be taken quite AS seriously as you seem to be taking them.

Quote
The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects.

Quote
the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.

All the above represent denier methods of temporizing, creating false equivalences and ignoring the FACT that dirty energy ENVIRONMENTAL HARM is greater that the alleged benefits.

Alan brought up a lot of the other denier happy talk about "greening the planet with more CO2" (which I countered and he ignored) while he refused to even consider the danger the sixth mass extinction represents to humanity and the biosphere as a cause for rejection of incremental reforms in favor of the drastic government funded action climate scientists advocate.

In short, both Alan and Ashvin are world class foot draggers that ridicule, disdain and disparage the action recommended by 97% of climate scientists as "extremist".

IOW, from Alan or Ashvin, do not expect intellectual honesty. What you can expect is  verbal goal post moving and a barrage of ridicule, derision and defamatory 'attack the messenger' type invective, along with continuous mendacity filled attempts to undermine the seriousness of the validity of the climate change threat. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 21, 2016, 07:03:04 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Az is short of Azozeo, a good man who has some beliefs that I do not agree with. I post this here because the pseudo Christian lawyer Ashvin is engaging in ridicule and dripping sarcasm that is totally unwarranted and highly unethical. The name "Ashvin" is not an internet handle, it's his real first name.  8)

Lawyers also know when someone is trying to avoid the substantive issues and distract from them because they have no arguments. Read the title of this thread, and then tell me how AZ has posted anything related to it, except his first statement that "there is only one set of rules - physics".

Also, how about showing a little intellectual honesty and backbone and telling your pal AZ that you completely disagree with his naturalist worldview. That is if you haven't already given up core Christian theology for ET conspiracy theories and Planet X annihilation any-day-now predictions.

LOL... was that this thread?  I don't read threads, as a rule I read messages in the "Most Recent 100" view, so I only respond to the parts of the thread that are quoted in a particular message.  Heck, I don't even know if this comment is directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I don't completely disagree with AZ's naturalistic worldview, I only fundamentally disagree with it.  Kind of like with how when once you understand and accept General Relativity, you realize that Newtonian Mechanics isn't exactly true anyplace in the universe -- but it's close enough most of the time.  Like with evolution: I believe in the fact of macroevolution, but from my perspective it is the tool God uses to create new species.  My worldview is big enough to encompass both Jesus and little green men.


Jd,
I recommend you take a step back and analyze the nature of the post by learned counsel more closely. Since I am a "paranoid whacko" (and that post came RIGHT AFTER MY post), I suspect that it was directed at me in a clever goal post moving, attack the messenger type of fallacious debating technique, RATHER than addressing the issue of empathy deficit disordered sophistry.

To those who will claim, no doubt, that sophistry is not germane to the debate here, I beg to differ.

The POINT Az was trying to make was that he was rewarded with BILE. I explained, in my post, that attacking the validity of an opponent's allegations is what lawyers DO. But when they see that their methodology is being exposed, they then attack anyone trying to expose it by attempting to sidestep the attack the messenger bullshit they are engaging in with claims of the new poster's hypocrisy.

This is most clever. It steers the thread away from the Machiavellian dismissal of Az's discussion of Hopi prophesies (etc.) to an attempt to silence anyone, like me, who disagrees with some of Az's beliefs, but agrees with the importance of taking seriously the validity of the scholarship on Hopi prophesies and anything else Az says.

Any charge of using unethical debating sophistry can also be countered with sophistry. That is the "beauty" of being an accomplished goal post mover. The previous paragraph can be parsed into sections with witty remarks like "Projection here", "Paranoia over here", "hypersensitivity there", "I never said that" AND, "where do you get this stuff?". All those remarks are MORE attack the messenger type verbal guided missiles that continue to serve the main purpose of the sophist; that is, to avoid treating the opponent as a credible person, that whether they are right or wrong, must be given respect.

The sophist will vociferously deny the above charge and claim they consistently provide all debating opponents with respect, as is their Christian duty. They will ask for a record of examples of their alleged "lack of respect". They claim these charges are ridiculous. When a detailed and irrefutable list is not quickly produced, they accuse the accusers of being out to lunch.

If that doesn't work, a clever sophist, when faced with a group of people pointing out his sophistry, will claim he is being unfairly victimized and refuse to continue the discussion. He will pick up his marbles and go home because level verbal playing fields are not something sophists are fond of.

The legal "profession" was founded on sophistry (lawyers will vociferously deny this and claim it's all about providing the wonderful legal system we "enjoy today" that evolved from "humble beginnings"  ). The Sophists claimed that any side of an argument could be won, if argued "effectively" (regardless of whether it is true or not). Lawyers are about wining arguments.

Ashvin is a lawyer.


Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.  ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 21, 2016, 05:50:45 pm »

Ashvin is a lawyer.  :P


Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.  ;D


Lawyers NEVER give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt. Lawyers ALWAYS deny responsibility for deliberately attempting to position a debating opponent as one to be scorned, derided and dismissed by any intelligent, reasonable, prudent (etc. you get the idea  ;)) person.

But that's what they are trained to do. And they LIKE doing it.


And of course, they question the mental health of anyone that claims they are trying to game the discourse with bullshit. Don't you know, only a madman or an irrational zealot would question the integrity and credibility of a lawyer...   


George Orwell understood lawyerspeak quite well. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 20, 2016, 06:14:10 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This is cross posted from another forum where Ashvin attempted to counter a post I made about what he had done here. As you can see in the thread above, Ashvin DID NOT bother to even address the September 18, 2105 post. It is blatantly obvious that he was only interested in supporting Alan's erroneous and disingenuous argument.

I think RE is correct in so far as my posts have not been censored or relegated to the Dungeon. At least I don't remember any instance of that.

Although it's not surprising for me to come back and find AG is descending into ever more delusion and paranoia.

As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on. Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did, walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical skills.

Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than intelligence or a quick wit.

Anyone can see that AG is quick to call me a brother in Christ when I agree with him, but call into question my Christian character when I show signs of being critical of his perspective. All it takes to draw AG's wrath and delusional accusations is to have a CRITICAL THINKING mindset when confronted with his theories, even if you are not really disagreeing with him. Even if you simply say you don't have enough information to make up your mind, he will accuse you of being a shill or dishonest rhetorician. This indicates a psychological defense mechanism that is clearly unhealthy and unproductive.

AG, you will never convince anyone of anything you are saying by being that much of a blowhard. As far as I remember, Alan was being entirely reasonable on your thread before you started in on your accusations and threats of censorship.

Quote
Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of objectivity and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by anyone to alter his preconceived world view on anything and anybody. He vociferously claims to be objective and quite willing to alter his views if you can "prove your point". But as soon he cannot counter any argument you make (and let me tell you, THAT is a TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or  pulls out his plethora of sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating techniques. He is relentless.

Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.

Quote
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell

For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't understand human psychology".

Yeah, a lot of projection going on in that comment...

As for the meat production thing, WHY are you so damn reluctant to admit it a significant factor and talk about it? Is it because you ONLY want us to focus on the fossil fuel industry? I have always had the feeling that you want to subtly steer us towards your more extreme conspiracy theories about government coverups and ETs and alternative "free energy" sources. Although I have no idea when you became utterly convinced of such theories, to the point where anyone questions them you label them a complete ignoramus or a shill or a "hired gun".

Quote
RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the wall in a debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because of any alleged censorship by RE.

I see that even RE doesn't claim to ever pinning me against a wall. I haven't been here for a variety of reasons, not least of which I have been very busy relocating to NOVA. Also I'm not eager to get into any online back and forth about something other than philosophy or spirituality, because I just don't see the value in it, especially when there are people like you present.
 

I realized, FINALLY, where you are coming from in that last bit of cheerleading for Alan's totally biased views that you engaged in.

Your obtuse refusal to blame the police for all the brutality against African Americans before that made me question your objectivity (to put it mildly).

Your evidence free assumption that meat production produced more pollution than fossil fuels was one of the last straws. 

Your predictable ridicule of anyone that brings up solid evidence that the USA is an OLIGARCHY, not a republic or a democracy, is evidence of your bias and lack of objectivity, not critical thinking skills. You will, NO DOUBT, claim the following is "blowhard conspiracy theory stuff".  ::)


As I said BEFORE, you are relentless in your prideful zeal to peddle your world class doubletalk. You can word parse and carefully and methodically take apart absolutely anything anybody says with your well practiced, context and ethics free sophistic modus operandi until the cows come home, for all I care. I just happened to spot this here and I will answer ONCE. I will not waste any more time on grappling with your lawyer grab bag of sophist skills.

I will never, ever discuss Christianity with you again. You do not now, or ever did, have the remotest idea what Christianity is all about. You are a testament to that quote from the Bible about the "letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". YOU are ALL ABOUT interpreting the LETTER for your own self interest. The claim that the "Spirit gave YOU life" is now, and always has been, part of your TALK, but never part of your WALK.

Of COURSE, you will now rush to 2 Corinthians 3:6 and yammer some more sophistic baloney about how I am the one that doesn't "understand" the bible, coupled with some crocodile tears about how "sad" it is that any person can be so "ignorant" of the "truth" (in true Calvinist pseudo Christian form). Perhaps you will even promise to "pray for me". That is, after you passive aggressively question my mental health and drag out every post where I lauded your prose as "evidence" that any credibility for my views must be questioned because I am "wishy washy".

After all that, you will soberly counsel all, who are willing to listen, that my credibility has ALSO been severely compromised by these defamatory statements directed at you, a member in good standing of the "royal priesthood".

As I said before, WORDS are your THING. YOU are relentless in the defense, not of truth, but of your PRIDE. You are WISE and PRUDENT in your own eyes. Have a nice day.

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 17, 2016, 09:07:02 pm »

I just posted this at another forum called the Doomstead Diner.

Since it related to the above thread, I am reposting it here.  8)



Quote
My hope is RE will see the light someday and restore the Diner to it's original form.

I have seen the light.  The light told me that as long as there are people out there like Futilitist, MKing and Karpatok who will disrupt a board with their own brand of Napalm, they will be moderated.  End of Story.

RE





BINGO!

What too many people do not seem to be able to understand, in their zeal to claim freedom of speech is somehow abridged or curtailed by the admins here, is the fact that repetitious propaganda is not, and never should be, classified as a "contrarian" view.

When someone appears to be off their rocker, like Alan, then they need to muzzled to ensure freedom of speech in this type of forum. Alan went to my forum and, within a single day, descended into repetition, rants, goal post moving and deliberate bold faced denial of statements he had previously made.

I put up with that for about a week, warning him repeatedly to stop reposting. I began to delete repetitious posts and he went nuts trying to plaster his posts. So. I banned him for a year. I have better things to do than spar with a thread hogging one trick irrational pony.

Also, anyone. like GO, who considers this a platform for corner bar BSing just for fun should certainly not get upset about whether or not some other member of the peanut gallery is given da bidness.

If there was no real merit in the discussions here, I would NOT BE HERE. I resent any claim that we are just BSing here to pass the time of day.     

MKing is, as Eddie surmises, a hired gun. He may have been "outed" two years ago, but I was never in the info loop and I never found out his NAME. If you know his name, Eddie, and it's no secret, then why don't you just print it here? I doubt MKing would sue you for doing that. Feel free to PM me with MKing's name, since it is no secret.  8)

I agree that MKing is a hired gun. He is a hired gun for the fossil fuel industry in general and the frackers in particular. The term "hired gun", in regard to forum post activity, is a metaphor describing a serial liar peddling mendacious propaganda. How anybody can classify a person as a "hired gun", and still value his posts as a "contrarian view", defies basic logic and critical thinking, UNLESS one likes to stir up sh it.

I am not here to "stir up sh it". I think that is stupid OR perfidious. I understand some people enjoy that sort of thing because it is an excellent rhetorical tool in  sophist ammunition. They deliberately foster arguments to prevent the discussion of solutions to a problem. MKing often has approached a problem like climate change by claiming there isn't one with a devious back door pseudo scientific allegation that the science is "not settled".

He doesn't do that because he is crazy. He does that because he is a liar for hire. Tolerating that sort of thing is almost as irrational as tolerating Alan's rants.

As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on. Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did, walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical skills.

Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than intelligence or a quick wit.

Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of objectivity and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by anyone to alter his preconceived world view on anything and anybody. He vociferously claims to be objective and quite willing to alter his views if you can "prove your point". But as soon he cannot counter any argument you make (and let me tell you, THAT is a TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or  pulls out his plethora of sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating techniques. He is relentless.

Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.

Quote
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell

For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't understand human psychology".

WTF!? I have to worry about ensuring some face saving clauses in my arguments to prevent the sin of  "offending" some high strung sophist with his nose so high in the air that he  drowns in a rainstorm?

RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the wall in a debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because of any alleged censorship by RE.
Posted by: trianglejohn
« on: March 07, 2016, 08:06:00 am »

I wish one day the countries will fight for who has better controlled global warming that day human being will be safe.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 29, 2015, 02:16:01 pm »

K-Dog is RIGHT!

Thank you telling it like it is. If most of us speak up about the insane behavior of certain members of our species, we might curb said insanity.

A petition I signed stopped helped stop the UK from building a coal fired power plant. So our voices do have a positive impact.      
Posted by: K-Dog
« on: September 29, 2015, 01:22:03 am »

All the Ilisu Dam is intended to do is produce Hydroelectric Power.  Turkish interference in the headwaters of the Tigris is an ongoing problem.  They will virtually cut off water to IRAQ soon.  This dam destroys obvious good land and history for Turkish electricity and exhibits the worst in human nature.  It is a crime.
Posted by: K-Dog
« on: September 29, 2015, 01:17:06 am »

Call For a Global Hasankeyf Action Day on 20 September 2015

By Ercan Ayboga, Initiative to Keep Hasankeyf Alive & the Mesopotamian Ecology Movement:


We call activists, social movements and NGOs in the world to join an action day for the conservation of Hasankeyf and the Tigris River on 20th September 2015! Let’s protest together against the Ilisu Dam Project; one of most controversial ones in the world!

On Sunday, 20th September, we organize a big protest in the 10.000 years old town Hasankeyf which is threatened by the Ilisu Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant Project. If the construction of the ongoing project is completed, there will be a massive social, ecological and cultural destruction in Turkish-Kurdistan, the North of Mesopotamia. Up to 80,000 people will end up in greater poverty and the unique Tigris River will lose its outstanding ecological value. Considering the developments in the Middle East, the Ilisu Project will also intensify the ongoing conflicts within and outside the Turkish borders, latter is valid for Iraq and Syria in particular.

20th September will be the last day of a three day resistance camp. Hundreds of affected people and activists will gather in order to resist the Ilisu Project. Thousands of people will join us in a big march on 20th September. Since the end of the 90s there have been campaigns against he Ilisu project which was halted several times in the past.

Hasankeyf protest; Photo – Damocracy

You are invited to organize a public action in your city or country against the destructive Ilisu Project. You are free to chose the type of action. The demands should target mainly the Turkish government, the Austrian company Andritz – the most crucial company in the Ilisu consortium – or the Iraqi government, which is silent about the upcoming drying out of its country. Do not hesitate to contact us or inform us about your planned action.

Xwedî Derkeve -­ Defend our culture, land and people!

By Ercan Ayboga, for the Initiative to Keep Hasankeyf Alive and the Mesopotamian Ecology Movement
Batman/Turkey

hasankeyfgirisimi@gmail.com
www.hasankeyfgirisimi.net
http://www.hasankeyfgirisimi.net/?p=256
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2015, 02:33:03 pm »

Ashvin,
Here I continue to address your questions with a post from Eddie that I comment on.

Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

A lot of people missed the memo on this, but I've read it from a number of sources I trust.

Exactly. AS David Wasdell states in the following video, if you wish to actually ameliorate the existential threat from catastrophic climate change, you must use the projected climate condition of about 40 years from now as your target, not what is observed at present. Acting on the present guarantees failure due to the fact that the feedback mechanisms are moving faster than the policies to ameliorate climate change. This is politically very unpalatable. But it is the only approach with science behind it. IOW, if the IPCC predicted 470 ppm of CO2 and a 2 degree C increase by 2055, then drastic action to eliminate any target above that must be taken now.

Of course, that is not happening. Every day that isn't happening makes it more and more difficult to deal with.
 

David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related topics.

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change), said that a global society (like the one we have now) is not possible with our present level of technology in 4degree C or higher world. And that's where we are going, despite the IPCC figures all revolving about an alleged agreement (with no teeth, no enforcement and all voluntary carbon limits. LOL!) by the piggy countries s of taking measures to keep the planet  below 2 degrees C. Collapse is baked in, so to speak, thanks to government piecemeal incremental measures.

Back to David Wasdell, he clearly and calmly stated that the 30 or so positive feedback loops, if not addressed with absolute limits on carbon output, including even foregoing even biofuels, approximately 80% of life on Earth may die. If that isn't an existential threat, I don't know what is.


Ashvin asked,

What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?'

According to both the scientists I mentioned, we do not have the technology to stop this catastrophe at this time, once the runaway greenhouse positive feedback loops push us past a certain point. Some say we have passed it. Due to the 40 year bake and the paltry government measures being employed, it sure looks that way. Drastic measures to stop emitting CO2 might change that equation.

But it is not realistic to expect governments to engage in them. When large masses of people are dying and a public outcry is sounded, it will be about 40 years too late.

All that said, there are technofix types that claim we just have to put a pack of aerosols up there and cool the planet like volcanic eruptions have partially done in the past. There is evidence that our government has been doing just that since 2000. It doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory, but some very obvious man made 'cloud' grids have been videoed for some time. And, they are not jet contrails.

Another less messy and much more expensive approach is to block out a portion of the sunlight reaching earth with some giant aluminum vapor coated, 1 mil thick, polyester film a few thousand miles in diameter to cool the planet. But we have no way of knowing whether such a simple solution would not trigger some, even worse, unforeseen climate effect. It certainly is true that the massive sun shield qualifies in the 'any port in the N.T.H.E. storm' category.

But it would do nothing to eliminate the other industrial toxins, unrelated to CO2, that have upped the probability of getting cancer in our lives from 1 in 10 back in 1950 to 1 in 2 (for men) and 1 in 3 (for women) at present. And no, that isn't because we "live longer" ( check the social Security stats and you will find the longevity increase applies to the top 20% wage earners. The bottom 80% "longevity increase" looks like a rounding error.  :P). ; it's because we are subject to more pollutants in our food, air and water from birth than any humans in history. 

We have a plethora of severe problems and the rug the gooberment keeps trying to sweep them under is starting to look like Mount Everest.


-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?


Well, here's the situation, according to Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville  Please note that he is a very conservative scientist. But he makes it clear how serious the urgency is BECAUSE of the limitations of our technology and government reaction times.

The above graph is discussing the procedure to limit the damage to 2 degrees C. That was in 2013. He explained that the required carbon limits, if not enforced by 2020, will basically be impossible to implement. We are passing by 2015 with no end in site to the INCREASE in carbon pollution.

As he said, once the window is closed, it will remain closed. That is a scientist's way of stating an existential threat. He understands the technology. He understands what will happen when we cannot hope to stop the positive feedback mechanisms from overwhelming reforms. He understands that will head us to 4 degrees C or more. That is a dire threat to our species, and literally millions of other species we share this planet with.



Notice how the IPCC sea level rise predictions only fit the data at the extreme end. It is not logical to think that they aren't erring on the side of caution. They are. Therefore, only the most extreme scenarios they come up with can be considered 'in the ball park'.

Every time a report comes out, they have to admit that, yeah, the ice melted more than predicted and several other predictions were a bit on the, uh, conservative side. Each report published every 7 or 8 years gets a little more real. Consequently, it is prudent to assume that a worse than their worse case scenario is highly probable.

That is why I believe firmly that mankind faces an existential threat from Global Warming AND all the other industrial pollution factors degrading the biosphere.

That is why I focused initially on extinctions with Alan. When the extinction rate of species in our biosphere is 1,000 to 10,000 the normal background rate of the last ten thousand years (at least!), it's logical to then assume our species faces an existential threat.

This extinction rate cannot be neatly approached as the product of a single cause. Our society is lousy at dealing with multiple causes. It's like we are as bad as crows (they can't count above three).

But  there are thousands of toxic chemicals, radionuclides and aerosols, along with the CO2 damage that have joined together to drown us in our industrial effluents. CO2 pollution is what we should all agree on. As you can see from Alan's posts, even that is like pulling teeth.

Also, there are too many corporations stuck in the incremental measures approach to expect them to own up the their responsibility to future generations. I just posted an article on the good and the bad corporations. But the 'good" are STILL not at 100% renewable energy. And the bad ones are worse than ever. :emthdown:

It's hard to communicate this threat dispassionately. I do the best I can. We are in a world of trouble.

These are the web sites Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville recommends for reliable information. I hang around RealClimate regularly. I have posted articles from RealClimate here during the last year and have recommended it to all readers. They are the ones who are now looking very hard at the meltwater tunneling by supercritical water (liquid water several degrees below freezing due to massive glacier pressures lubricating glacier movement) beneath Greenland glaciers that is NOT addressed in any of the IPCC predictions that David Wasdell discussed.

They cover all the climate bases. RealClimate is staffed exclusively by climate scientists. 



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2015, 02:28:25 am »

[/center]
The Arctic Sea Tumbles To A New Low  :(

Quote

Arctic sea ice reaches fourth lowest minimum



September 15, 2015   
 
On September 11, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2015. The minimum ice extent was the fourth lowest in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is average, a substantial contrast with recent years when Antarctic winter extents reached record high levels.

Please note that this is a preliminary announcement. Changing winds or late-season melt could still reduce the Arctic ice extent, as happened in 2005 and 2010. NSIDC scientists will release a full analysis of the Arctic melt season, and discuss the Antarctic winter sea ice growth, in early October.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 17, 2015, 08:10:44 pm »

Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important questions in my mind, given the data you and others have presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?

-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?

These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if you believe the general process of asking these and other questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation, manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be properly assessed.

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?


The videos I have posted addressed this in detail. To summarize the findings, the rate of the negative effects of Global Warming is not decreasing, all the tracked effects are increasing in quantity. But more alarming, is that all of them are increasing in the rate of increase as well. I will post another video, this one from 2013, but quite comprehensive in covering both the increase and the increase in rate.

That is, the graphed slopes of CO2 increase and Temperature increase and deforestation increase and desertification increase and ocean acidification increase (and others) are all tilting upwards in angle. As you will see in the graphs presented, the IPCC scenarios are overly conservative. The observed temperature data as of 2013 was right at the top range of their most extreme scenario (from the IPCC 2007 report). A new IPCC report came out this year. The scenario range has been adjusted upwards (to more extreme), but the models, as the videos I have already presented explain, still do not account for several factors.

So there is no logical reason to believe any of the scenarios are "within the ballpark", so to speak. And all the indicators point to an increased rate of deleterious global warming effects.

As to whether the rate increase of all these factors is sufficient to warrant warnings about a high probability of N.T.H.E. if drastic measures are not engaged in to ameliorate the existential threat, the answer is yes. If the rate was decreasing or constant, the answer would be a maybe. WHY? Because of the baked in approximately 40 year causative factor time lag.

Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

That is why incremental measures doom future generations to a high probability of extinction. Scientifically speaking, incremental measures will not even slow the rate if increase of deleterious factors, let along the quantitative increase.

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?


Positive feedback mechanisms are also addressed in the videos I have presented and some of my posts. These mechanisms, of which there are about 30, once having reached a self reinforcing state (which is why they call them positive feedback mechanisms) are difficult to control. They, in fact, cannot be controlled beyond a certain point. Yes, they burn themselves out eventually. But before they do, they result in mass die offs. This has been established by studies of CO2 build up in ancient times before humans walked the earth. When a positive feedback loop reaches a certain stage, our technology is incapable of arresting it's effects. This is not alarmist hyperbole on my part. This is a direct quote from the IPCC reviewer scientist in one of the videos I presented.

The video I present at the end of this posts shows that the negative feedbacks are being overwhelmed by the positive feedbacks at present.

Positive feedback loops are not like a line of falling dominoes that you can put your hand on to stop the rest from falling. Considering the fact that there are about 30 positive feedback loops involved in global warming, it is necessary to picture their cumulative interactive, multiple feedback reinforcing effects as a chain reaction. It's not 30 independent systems. It's more like 30 times 30 (30 times repeated) because they all act to boost each other in multiples of the last iteration exponentially. That means that they get beyond the ability of our technology to control exponentially.

This short video of ping pong balls on mouse traps is a crude analogy of how positive feedback loops work;

Start at the 24 second mark:


For example, we are triggering a positive feedback loop by reducing the earth's albedo (ice cover). The videos I have presented cover how we simply cannot stop the resulting runaway greenhouse effect once the positive feedback loops begin in earnest. Guy McPherson thinks we did that already. I entertain the hope that we can ameliorate those mechanisms somewhat and postpone or possibly prevent N.T.H.E. But it is not presently feasible to do that with incremental measures.

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

The main consumer culprits are the 20% in the rich countries that use around 76% of the world's resources, according to a 2007 UN pie chart. Consumers are doing quite a bit to mitigate destructive environmental trends.

But that pie chart leaves out the non-consumer polluters that do more damage than we ordinary piggies in the rich countries.

The problem is that the main polluters are outside of the consumer loop. Many people think this issue can be addressed by recycling and lowering our carbon footprint. Yes, that is important and many are doing it. But the industries that are unrelated to consumer products are gigantic polluters, showing no sign of slowing their massive polluting activities, never mind stopping them. The military of the USA, despite moves to go solar on many bases, still are one the largest polluters of the air , land and sea. In short, the governments of the world, backed by the large polluting industries continue to make things worse.

Year to date fossil fuel use:
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env3/

So the chances that consumers acting to try to mitigate the destructive factors are high. But the chances that those actions, absent massive government efforts stop all polluting industries quickly, will actually mitigate those destructive factors, are low to none. A collapse in industrial output from massive poverty still does not account for the 40 year baked in climate damage coming at us. It would reduce the amount of polluting, but not stop it. It is sine qua non to reverse it in order to mitigate or eliminate the existential threat to our species.

I support all efforts to recycle and conserve. But I know what the biosphere math is telling us. Nevertheless, I urge all people to conserve as much as possible. Just because that behavior is somewhat quixotic, does not mean it should not be done. Responsible behavior is based on the ethical concern for future generations, regardless of whether it is enough or not. I'm sure you agree that doing the right thing does not guarantee success in human society. In fact, the reverse is true most of the time.


-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?


I will address the above three questions after I exercise. Some of the answers are in this video, but I will verbalize them for clarity when I come back. It was published on May 2, 2013. All the data is accurate and backed by hard science. The more recent data is more alarming (this was before the latest IPCC report). But even with the data  Professor Somerville had then, the case for urgent action was clear.



The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change


Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.



Posted by: ashvin
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:47:51 pm »

AG,

Just to clarify in case this wasn't already clear, I believe we DO have sufficient evidence to establish the reality of AGW and it's devastating effects on the biosphere, which obviously supports human existence.

Using the court analogy, I see you as the prosecution in this - i.e. you have the burden of proving that humanity (mostly via AGW) is guilty of creating the conditions for NTHE (with a very high probability, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). I see myself as a juror who has to weigh your evidence and argumentation to determine whether it is sufficient to prove us guilty BRD. Like a juror in deliberation, I also must engage in cross-examination of your evidence, NOT with any specific goal of debunking it, but only with the intention of clarifying it and its implications.

And again, I am NOT using this BRD standard to oppose incremental OR drastic measures to combat AGW, as suggested by the precepts of the PP. The PP's application, in my mind, is all about policy initiatives and NOT about persuading people of imminent and extreme Doom. It does not serve an ethos of uber-Doom, because it readily admits that the evidence of NTHE may be insufficient (instead it says the tail risk is so great, we don't need sufficient evidence to enact certain policies).

Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important questions in my mind, given the data you and others have presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?

-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?

These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if you believe the general process of asking these and other questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation, manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be properly assessed.
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:01:20 pm »

also, regarding rock dust:

Quote

snippets from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Hamaker

 Hamaker believed remineralizing the world’s soil with rock dust, a quarrying by-product, could revitalise barren soil and reverse climate change. Rock dust nourished soil micro-organisms whose protoplasm is the basis of all living things. When mixed with compost, the dust created rich, deep soils which could produce high growth vegetation free from pests and predators, at an accelerated rate. The idea was later confirmed by agricultural scientists such as Arden Andersen, who showed how high sugar and mineral levels in soil gave immunity to soil bacteria, stopping insect and fungal attacks.[25] For Hamaker and Andersen, minerals were the primal food for micro-organisms which provided life and health for the soil....

 Hamaker believed that within as little as a decade, the growing season would decrease leading to mass starvation in rich and poor nations alike. He therefore proposed the remineralization of the world’s soils and reforesting the land, to propagate carbon sinks, thereby absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and so contributing to general climatic stability. By assuming the task of remineralizing the Earth’s soils, just like glaciers do during an ice age, remineralization would create fertile soils – the basis for the re-creation of stable ecosystems....

Remineralization benefits

Primary benefits
    Provides slow, natural release of elements and trace minerals.
    Increases the nutrient intake of plants.
    Increases yields and gives higher brix. Brix is the measure of dissolved solids in the sap of fruits and plants that correlate with greater nutritive value.
    Rebalances soil pH.
    Increases the growth of micro-organisms and earthworm activity.
    Builds humus complex.
    Prevents soil erosion.
    Increases the storage capacity of the soil.
    Increases resistance to insects, disease, frost and drought.
    Produces more nutritious crops (minerals are essential for human health).[40]
    Enhances flavor in crops.
    Decreases dependence on fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.[41][42][43][44]

Further benefits
    Reafforestation.
    Increases forest and land resources.
    Sustainable forestry, farming and energy opportunities.
    Enhances ecosystems.
    Increases biodiversity.
    Carbon offsetting.
    Greater climatic equilibrium.
    Preservation of interglacial climate conditions.

............................................

http://bio4climate.org/downloads/Campe-The_Potential_of_Remineralization_with_Rock_Mineral_Fines-Rio_Summit-RTE-2012.pdf

THE POTENTIAL OF REMINERALIZATION WITH ROCK MINERAL FINES TO TRANSFORM AGRICULTURE, FORESTS, SUSTAINABLE BIOFUELS PRODUCTION, SEQUESTER CARBON, AND STABILIZE THE CLIMATE

By Joanna Campe(1), Dan Kittredge(2), and Lee Klinger(3)

 snip

CONCLUSION

 Soil Remineralization will create abundance in an era of diminishing resources and shift us away from fossil fuels. Remineralization is nature's way to regenerate soils, and is needed on a large scale because mismanagement is causing us to lose soils far faster than they can naturally regenerate. The techniques are simple, easily and intuitively learned, and can be rapidly scaled up at the community level. The materials are readily available and an inexpensive byproduct wherever there is building and road construction using stone aggregates or concrete. No extra energy is needed to grind them up since it is a waste product of gravel plants. Hard silicate rocks are the most abundant resource on  earth. Millions of tons are readily available for the cost of transportation, and much more could easily be produced from existing rock crushing plants. Remineralization is an essential tool for sustainable development, economic empowerment, and social justice by creating a local nutrient dense food supply for all, and will improve health and generate livelihoods within local communities. It can play a critical role in overcoming hunger and poverty, ecological restoration, carbon sequestration and climate stabilization.


Agelbert Responds:
Your post discusses a laudable, but paltry and insufficient measure which will not ameliorate the existential threat. I read your posts on soil nutrients 3 years ago and agreed. That is a great idea. But it won't stop climate catastrophe, which is the subject of this debate.

+-Recent Topics

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
October 13, 2019, 10:39:34 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
October 13, 2019, 09:33:25 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 13, 2019, 04:51:21 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 13, 2019, 02:32:51 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
October 13, 2019, 07:37:09 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
October 12, 2019, 11:31:06 pm

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
October 12, 2019, 10:58:36 pm

Comic Relief by AGelbert
October 12, 2019, 08:29:57 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 11, 2019, 03:46:46 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
October 11, 2019, 12:38:32 pm