+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11100
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 100 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
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: December 14, 2018, 09:37:29 pm »



New Study Could Make It Harder for Trump’s 🦀 EPA 🦕 to Ignore the Dangers of Greenhouse Gases

By Yessenia Funes

December 13, 2018 2:12pm Filed to: TAKE THAT TRUMP

SNIPPET:

“It’s not always obvious that those health impacts are related to climate change,” Duffy said. “It’s not always obvious that an extreme weather event is made more likely by climate change. It’s not always obvious that an economic cost is exacerbated by climate change, but if you look at the scientific data, it’s clear that all those things are happening
.”

The team cited more than 250 studies, but the paper could’ve easily included more, Duffy told Earther. While the endangerment finding groups information into seven sections (air quality; food production and agriculture; forestry; water resources; sea level rise and coastal areas; ecosystems and wildlife; and energy, infrastructure, and settlements), this study went further and also looked at ocean acidification, national security, violence and social instability, and economic wellbeing.

Read more:

https://earther.gizmodo.com/new-study-could-make-it-harder-for-trump-s-epa-to-ignor-1831077278
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 14, 2018, 08:36:16 pm »


Thu 13 Dec 2018 06.48 EST

By Jonathan Watts

SNIPPET:

Prof Richard Betts, who leads the climate research arm of Britain’s meteorological monitoring organisation, made the comments amid growing evidence that rising temperatures have passed the comfort zone and are now bringing increased threats to humanity.

“Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet,” the scientist said at the UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland. “We should be talking about risk rather than uncertainty.”

Full article: 🧐

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 14, 2018, 08:14:46 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

December 14, 2018   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 14, 2018, 07:57:43 pm »

 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

December 13, 2018
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 13, 2018, 07:43:53 pm »

December 13, 2018

A plan to topple fossil fuels with people power

May Boeve - 350.org

I won’t sugar coat this, the last couple of weeks have been tough for our movement.

Each day seems to bring a new attack, from slashing regulations on coal plants to stalling climate agreements. But I'm writing you now because even as the fossil fuel industry is digging in its heels, I remain positive that we can do this. Our resistance is growing in strength, and we urgently need your support to keep that momentum going.

In the coming months, we're working to scale up our movement. I've recorded this short video to share how we're planning to do it but we need your help. Will you watch and make a gift right now to help us take on the fossil fuel industry in 2019?


With just ten years to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, this is our moment to bolster the youth movements that are rising up around the globe, to support the Indigenous movements that are taking down pipelines, and to mobilize even more people like you to delay and defeat fossil fuel projects.

Please, make a gift of $10 right now to start 2019 strong.

There is so much work to be done, but I couldn’t be prouder to be in this fight together with you.

Thank you, and happy holidays,

May

https://act.350.org/donate/may-video-2018/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 13, 2018, 04:58:03 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Since this Hard Truth filled Speech by Chomsky, Trump 🦀 and his Hydrocarbon 🐉🦕🦖 Hellspawn Wrecking Crew's heinous biosphere degrading, Profit Over Planet RAMPAGE has INTENSIFIED! 😱            




trustylimbs🗺️

Published on Apr 12, 2017 56,861 views

Noam Chomsky Climate Change Speech 2017






Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 12, 2018, 07:46:33 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Max Boot, a former Climate Change Denier, and a rather evil neocon warmonger too, has learned to add and subtract in biosphere math. 👍 I applaud his critical thinking skills and his honesty in admitting that he was wrong. I also applaud the fact that he makes it crystal clear WHY so many "conservatives" (i.e. bought and paid for reactionaries who have ZERO interest in conserving anything but their fat wallets) continue to insist (i.e. pretend) that Catastrophic Climate Change "ain't happening", WHILE ferociously defending welfare queen subsidies for the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn and the use of fossil fuels for energy. All you need to do is follow the ethically BANKRUPT money. >:( Yeah, they will all eventually come around to ADMITTING REALITY, even though I am certain that, right now, all those "conservatives" (they are evil, but they are not stupid) know full well how Greenhouse Gasses (i.e. Carbon Dioxide, Methane and excess water vapor) are devastating our biosphere. They just want to keep the bribes contributions gravy train from the polluters coming in as long as possible. It ain't poisonal; it's jes' bidness.

The question is, will enough of them come around soon enough to stop this insane profit over planet before it is too late?   ???

I don't know. What I do know is that we are running out of time.

 

I was wrong on climate change. Why can’t other conservatives admit it, too?

By Max Boot Columnist

November 26, 2018

I admit it. I used to be a climate-change skeptic. I was one of those conservatives who thought that the science was inconclusive, that fears of global warming were as overblown as fears of a new ice age in the 1970s, that climate change was natural and cyclical, and that there was no need to incur any economic costs to deal with this speculative threat. I no longer think any of that, because the scientific consensus is so clear and convincing.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment, released Friday by the U.S. government, puts it starkly: “Observations collected around the world provide significant, clear, and compelling evidence that global average temperature is much higher, and is rising more rapidly, than anything modern civilization has experienced, with widespread and growing impacts.” The report notes that “annual average temperatures have increased by 1.8°F across the contiguous United States since the beginning of the 20th century” and that “annual median sea level along the U.S. coast . . . has increased by about 9 inches since the early 20th century as oceans have warmed and land ice has melted.”

The report attributes these changes to man-made greenhouse gases and warns: “High temperature extremes, heavy precipitation events, high tide flooding events along the U.S. coastline, ocean acidification and warming, and forest fires in the western United States and Alaska are all projected to continue to increase, while land and sea ice cover, snowpack, and surface soil moisture are expected to continue to decline in the coming decades.”

The U.S. government warnings echo the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In October, it released a report that represented the work of 91 scientists from 60 countries. It describes, in the words of the New York Times, “a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040.”

The wildfires are already here. The Camp Fire blaze this month is the most destructive in California history, charring 153,000 acres, destroying nearly 19,000 structures, and killing at least 85 people. The second-most destructive fire in California history was the one last year in Napa and Sonoma counties. The Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies notes that climate change has contributed to these conflagrations by shortening the rainy season, drying out vegetation and whipping up Santa Ana winds. Massive hurricanes are increasing along with wildfires — and they too are influenced by climate change.

It’s time to sound the planetary alarm.   This is likely to be the fourth-hottest year on record. The record-holder is 2016, followed by 2015 and 2017. A climate change website notes that “the five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s” and “the 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998.”

Quote
Opinion | Climate change is political — when you deny it's happening (video at Washington Post Web site)
More powerful hurricanes are one of many signs of climate change, and those who deny it are complicit in the destruction, meteorologist Eric Holthaus says. (Gillian Brockell, Kate Woodsome, Adriana Usero/The Washington Post)

Imagine if these figures reflected a rise in terrorism — or illegal immigration. Republicans would be freaking out. Yet they are oddly blasé about this climate code red. President Trump, whose minions buried the climate-change report on the day after Thanksgiving, told Axios: “Is there climate change? Yeah. Will it go back like this, I mean will it change back? Probably.” And, amid a recent cold snap, he tweeted: “Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?”

By this point, no one should be surprised that the president can’t tell the difference between short-term weather fluctuations and long-term climate trends. At least he didn’t repeat his crazy suggestion that climate change is a Chinese hoax. Yet his denialism is echoed by other Republicans who should know better. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told CNN on Sunday: “Our climate always changes and we see those ebb and flows through time. . . . We need to always consider the impact to American industry and jobs.”

Quote
Agelbert FACT CHECK:: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is a LIAR (and an Orwellian too!) when he claims to be "considering the impact to American industry and jobs". That's a Denier mendacious talking point his Hydrocarbon Hellspawn OWNERS have been pushing for decades. Look at IOWA in the following chart. Clean energy jobs are FAR more important than the Dirty energy fossil fuel jobs for the economy of Iowa. But, this Republican Senator Ernst ONLY cares about fossil fuel jobs, NOT the economy of Iowa.

Don't tell me he hasn't seen that chart! He could care less about jobs for Iowans! All he cares about is pleasing the fossil fuel fascists that OWN him! Sen. Joni Ernst 😈 (R-Iowa) is actually HURTING the jobs picture in Iowa by refusing to increase clean energy jobs.



We do need to consider the impact on U.S. jobs — but that’s an argument for action rather than, as Ernst suggests, inaction. The National Climate Assessment warns that global warming could cause a 10 percent decline in gross domestic product and that the “potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century.” Iowa and other farm states will be particularly hard hit as crops wilt and livestock die.

Compared with the crushing costs of climate change, the action needed to curb greenhouse-gas emissions is modest and manageable — if we act now. Jerry Taylor, president of the libertarian Niskanen Center, estimates that a carbon tax would increase average electricity rates from 17 cents to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. The average household, he writes, would see spending on energy rise “only about $35 per month.” That’s not nothing — but it’s better than allowing climate change to continue unabated.

I’ve owned up to the danger. Why haven’t other conservatives? They are captives, first and foremost, of the fossil fuel industry 🐉🦕🦖 , which outspent green groups 10 to 1 in lobbying on climate change from 2000 to 2016. But they are also captives of their own rigid ideology. It is a tragedy for the entire planet that the United States’ governing party is impervious to science and reason.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/i-was-wrong-on-climate-change-why-cant-other-conservatives-admit-it-too/



 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 08, 2018, 08:40:27 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 08, 2018, 03:02:42 pm »

CO2 emissions to hit historic highs in 2018

Date 05.12.2018

Author Elizabeth Schumacher


A study released at the COP24 climate conference blamed rampant use of coal and oil for the increase beyond the limits set by the Paris agreement.

Full article with video:

https://www.dw.com/en/co2-emissions-to-hit-historic-highs-in-2018/a-46606292
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 05:13:41 pm »

Climate Crisis Critical Issue in 2020 Elections – Jane Sanders

December 7, 2018

Jane Sanders tells Paul Jay that voters shouldn’t support candidates who claim to be progressive, but don’t prioritize the fight against fossil fuel interests


Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

The Gathering, a meeting of 200 or so progressive thought leaders invited to Burlington, Vermont, was a meeting to talk about what comes next in the coming 2020 elections to help create a vision, a policy framework, for what candidates might run on, what people might fight for. It comes at a rather momentous time in human history, as I said in one of the other interviews; 2020 is maybe the most important election anyplace, ever, given what’s at stake. The Gathering was called by Jane O’Meara Sanders, who’s co-founder of the Sanders Institute; now serves as a fellow. Jane served as a political consultant, has held appointed and elected office, and Jane was the driving force behind the Gathering. And she now joins us here in our studio at the Gathering. Thanks for joining us.


JANE SANDERS: Thanks, Paul.

PAUL JAY: Your hopes going in—and I heard this a little bit in the email back and forth—is we don’t want to spend all this time trashing Trump. We really want to talk policy and what a different world might look like. How do you feel that was achieved?

JANE SANDERS: I was astounded. I mean, we had 49 speakers in 48 hours. And actually, I think a few added on during the weekend. It was thought provoking, inspiring, much better than I had ever envisioned. I had pretty high thoughts for this weekend. We came—you mentioned thought leaders. And what I realized by the end is they’re not just progressive thought leaders. They are bringing the heart to the, their hearts to the causes, to the issues that we talked about. They’re leading from values and principles, and then their intellect informs the rest. But the first layer is the values and the principles that we espouse, for democracy and for human dignity.

PAUL JAY: The times we live in are, as I said, this may be—the coming election may be the most important ever, to a large extent because of climate change. If a climate denier is elected again, or if a corporate Democrat is elected who pays lip service to the climate crisis and doesn’t take effective action, we’re kind of screwed. We’re already close to 1.5 or 2 degrees above—in terms of warming, above pre-industrial averages. The tipping point is really within sight. In terms of the messaging of the extent of the crisis and what to do about it, do you think that was addressed here?

JANE SANDERS: I think it was. I think that people walked away with the concept that, and with the realization, that time is running out. And what we need to do is not just ask people what to do or inform people about the issue.

One of the things that we need to do, and the reason for the Gathering, was to amplify each other’s voices, resonate on the issues. We need leadership that actually says, I’m sorry, this is a crisis. We need to address it now. Not next year, not the year after. It’s leadership at the local, the statewide, the national, the international level. Not just people who are elected, but people who want to make a difference in the world.

At the end of the climate crisis panel, Bill McKibben said that we need to have healthcare, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and 100% renewable. Those are not the only things. But the 100% renewable and the focus on the climate crisis has to be at the outset of anybody running for office. Where do you stand? Where do you stand? Not [crosstalk]

PAUL JAY: Absolutely. But I’m not hearing it. Even with progressive candidates it’s like, I have to say even to some extent Bernie, although he’s certainly better than any of the others that actually have a mainstream role. But the extent of the threat is not like—it’s got to be front and center. We’re often, it’s like a shopping list, healthcare, Medicare for all, $15, climate. Well, climate is, it doesn’t matter if you get $15 an hour if we ain’t here. There seems to be a feeling both amongst people that work on this issue in the climate sector, people involved in political campaigns, that if you talk about the extent of the crisis you’re just going to scare people. Well, shouldn’t we be scaring people?

JANE SANDERS: I think so. I think you’re absolutely right. And we have to start—I believe a lot of people have conferences, and that’s the end game. Let’s have a conference. This was a jumping off point. We want to have the conference inform future action. What I heard from the questions from the attendees, the hallway conversations was that we have to hold people accountable. It’s not from a perception of you have to vote for this or vote for that. What do you understand about the climate crisis? Where do you stand on it, what are you willing to do, and what are you not willing to do? Don’t talk to me about in sound bites, don’t talk to me to say climate crisis is really bad, but no, I’m not going to fight the pipelines in the states. I’m not going to not take fossil fuel industry money. I think with the climate crisis, I think more than anything else we have to draw a very clear line and say these are the expectations. If you don’t do this, I don’t care how progressive you are, supposedly, it’s not—we’re not interested.

PAUL JAY: It’s got to be a criteria people use on who they vote for. But to do that we’ve got to get into those sections amongst working people who right now, climate is barely on the top 20 of their list. We did some work in southern Pennsylvania, we’ve done work around Baltimore where we’re based. And without doubt, the day-to-day suffering is such that people, they want that addressed. This thing has to be framed in a way that it is today. It’s not some great future prospect. And it’s your kids at stake, your grandkids at stake. The messaging is not getting through much to ordinary people.

JANE SANDERS: Well, when you look at the floods and the torrential rains and the fires, there is no analysis of that on the news. They cover it like voyeurs to say, oh, look at this terrible thing that’s happening. These people are helping, this is good news. The community is coming together, great. But they don’t ever ask why. Why is this occurring? Cover the science. And that is not happening. They need to cover the science.

PAUL JAY: Every day.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, every day. But they’re not, and we need to insist they do.

PAUL JAY: We’re going to be, we are. and we’re going to be every day doing science. Because what’s missing from the whole discourse for ordinary people, people coming in on the issue, is the sense of urgency. People that understand what’s going on, we feel a sense of urgency, but there’s still this feeling that you can’t tell people that because it’s going to overwhelm them. It’s like treating people like kids.

JANE SANDERS: Partly. But I also think that people don’t want to have—want to just focus on a problem without a solution. Many of the people that are speaking about it or looking for votes don’t want to deal with the solutions. I do think that we have an opportunity at this point in time to say, to lay out what this administration has been doing in terms of rolling back air and water and all this, and all these regulations, and to recognize the support they’re giving to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars and not to renewables, which would help us. But to be able to say there is an answer.

The House just turned, and we should be making it very clear to the Democrats that are in control of the House, are you going to do something? If you’re not going to do something, thank you very much, we’re not going to be supporting you. If we say to the people, this is what you can do, and this is what we expect of you as leaders in your community or as elected leaders, we need your voice out there, then we can make a change. I think people need to not just focus only on the climate crisis, because as you say, that’s what everybody is saying. Everybody is going to be very nervous about it and very concerned. They should be, but we have to give them a path forward. We have to say how are you going to be able to make this-

PAUL JAY: Well, one of the things that came out of the conference was the discussion of a new green deal, a Green New Deal, I should say, which seems to make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense when you already understand why we need a new green deal—Green New Deal. Most people don’t even get the urgency of that.

JANE SANDERS: I think the bully pulpit really matters. The people in that room, and hopefully the people that watched on livestream, and the people that watch the things we’ll be putting out in the future at the Sanders Institute, will understand more. And Real News. You’ve been talking to people this entire time to have the Real News be covering the science, covering the facts, and having people who are in a position to lead their communities to solution. That helps. Now, the problem is that so many of the solutions, or so many of the approaches, seem to be protesting only. That’s not what we—I mean, protests are very important. That’s not enough. What we need to do is demand accountability, demand that they don’t take money from pipeline, they don’t support banks that fund pipelines. We need to say to our representatives and to the media, we expect you to ask and answer serious questions that are complex and not just give us sound bites.

PAUL JAY: I got a suggestion for the Sanders Institute.

JANE SANDERS: Okay.

PAUL JAY: One of the things I learned over the weekend was how Barcelona has created a publicly owned energy company. It seems to me more of that kind of program, like here’s what, if you actually took over a city, major city in this country, here’s what a city can do, here’s what a state could do. Also in terms of Congress, I think there’s going to be a real fight over whether real hearings are going to be held over what to do about climate change or trash Trump. I have no problem with trashing Trump. But if the focus is on that it’s just more of the same rhetorical battle.

JANE SANDERS: I agree. I think, unfortunately, the Democrats have a great opportunity, and unfortunately I’m concerned that they are going to blow it and focus on investigations, investigations, investigations. People want them to pay attention to the real issues facing their lives. And what’s happening now, I know, I really want Medicare for All, I really want $15 minimum wage, we want a lot of things. And a lot of new ideas and replicable policies came out of this conference. In terms of the climate crisis, what we need to do is focus on it, and if they don’t deliver to the voters that put them in, I think that it’s over. I think it’s over for that party. I don’t, I think-

PAUL JAY: It’s over for us humans.


JANE SANDERS: Well, but no. Because I think if they don’t focus on real change, on effecting real change, especially in this area, I think that we will be able to lead from below.

PAUL JAY: The logic—I mean, other than the fact that a whole section of the Democratic Party is very tied up with finance and fossil fuel, but set that aside for a second. They accept the dictatorship of corporate media. What I mean by that is the corporate news media is making a fortune out of this partisan battle. Not only does it drive ratings, because it’s like watching a football game, then the parties spend a billion, over a billion dollars, billions on advertising and campaigns. The partisan war, the news media loves. The logic goes if we have a hearing on climate change they won’t cover it.

JANE SANDERS: That’s what they said, actually. They have said that to us, that the ratings on climate change don’t matter. Then, at the same time, the ratings on fires and floods, they cover ad nauseum. Now, how hard would it be to cover them in a way that said these are the facts, this is climate change at work. This is why it’s happening. And this is what you can expect to happen later. These parts of the world are going to be underwater, and there’s going to be mass migration, and there’s going to be food shortages. They don’t have to cover it all at once. But when you look at things and you see the same footage for three days of terrible personal pain that people are experiencing, the loss of their homes and of their communities and even their cities, instead of saying, okay, we don’t have to put that on again, we can keep informing the people. That’s my, one of my concerns, is I think the fourth estate has been letting us down. A democracy requires an informed electorate. The media, the fourth estate, is supposed to inform the public. They’re not doing that. They’re selling ratings. But they’re not even thinking deeply about it. Because if they covered the fires and explained them, they’d get the same ratings.

PAUL JAY: I agree with you. But I have no expectation that corporate news media is going to change. This Democratic-controlled House, if they’re serious about climate change, they can create hearings with as much drama as the Kavanaugh hearings. You know, subpoena the head of Exxon, create a real dramatic presentation.

JANE SANDERS: Like they did with tobacco years ago, under Henry Waxman.

PAUL JAY: Exactly. But they have to want to do it. And that’s going to be a fight.

JANE SANDERS: It is going to be a fight, because people don’t want to take on the banks. They don’t want to take on the fossil fuel industry. They don’t want to take on the large donors and the big corporations. My hope is there will be—and I know there will be a group of people that will in the new Congress. And the Progressive Caucus in the Congress is pretty good.

PAUL JAY: There is a group now pushing for hearings on a Green New Deal.

JANE SANDERS: I think we’ll see some, for once, moving in the right direction. And I think the fact that under the Trump administration so many things have been so difficult for not just climate crisis, but everything, that I think people are beginning to realize we can’t take six more years of this. We can’t possibly survive that well. I guess that’s dramatic but-

PAUL JAY: A lot of people won’t survive.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, a lot of people won’t. I think people are getting that. I have more faith in the American people. I think that they’re going to pay attention if they can be informed. That’s why places like The Real News and the Sanders Institute and all the people that were here from different organizations are so important, because—you started it with I don’t think they know. That education is extremely important.

PAUL JAY: Great, thanks very much.

JANE SANDERS: Thank you.

PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/climate-crisis-critical-issue-in-2020-elections-jane-sanders
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:55:01 pm »

Cold-blooded as f u c k, but different only in degree from the plan to deny access to health care to millions as part of a "Great Culling" of "useless eaters."

A Wet Dream for Mass Murderer Watson.  He'll make Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot together look like Saints.

RE




If the studies are accurate, then I would say the best thing we can do go about our lives like it isn't happening.

Very defeatist attitude.  No, it can't be reversed and there are feedback loops that will keep it accelerating even if we power down.  But a power down presents the best opportunity we have to Save As Many As You Can.


Far as Tarantulas are concerned, they feed on Cockroaches.



RE

By Jove, RE, I think you've GOT IT! ;D If Ashvin worked for the gooberment he would be one of these:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:48:33 pm »


If that can be scientifically proven, then I may be in favor of the power down. But it can't be, because we are talking about extremely complex systems. Who knows, a power down may not even be enough to stop the warming at this point, which means we would be adding more suffering and death for nothing.

It can't be scientifically proven there would be millions of deaths either if we power down, but you are willing to buy that one.  That is hypocritical.

RE

Probably true. Which is why I would hold to this general maxim - don't tinker with complex systems until we more fully understand them, because we're much more likely to make things worse than better. Related to that but also distinct - there is a big price to pay from ceding such power to the government (mandated power down) and we better be damn sure it is necessary to pay before forking it over.

The best scientific evidence to date shows that if we don't significantly reduce carbon emmissions inside the next 10 years, thousands of cities along the coasts will be inundated and billions of people will DIE, along with a significant portion of the animal kingdom as well.  What we are doing now is not decreasing carbon emissions, but rather increasing them.  The only way to reduce these emissions significantly is to remove the source of them, primarily things like automobiles and planes and the factories that produce them.  This is not geoengineering, it's just putting a stop to what is quite obviously killing the planet.  If you are not in favor of putting a stop to this, you are in favor of mass murdering Billions of people, far more than I ever dreamed of doing.  That is what the scientific evidence says.

RE

Can you link specific studies which predict this? And which show that power down is likely to have enough impact to stop it?

The information is endless and produced by numerous scientists and agencies, from the IPCC to NASA and many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.56983a77a98d

Research it yourself.

RE

If the studies are accurate, then I would say the best thing we can do go about our lives like it isn't happening. At least that way we have some peace and happiness before everything turns to ****. The likelihood we come close to implementing anything resembling a "power down" is zero, and therefore there is no way to reverse the warming. Of course AG would have us believe differently, but then again he predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful.

Anyway, I stated at the outset that I don't know anything about the climate science. The only reason I responded to you initially was that you asked a question and told me it was a violation of the CoC not to answer it. It's unsurprising that AG and Surly have now decided to pretend like I am making bold assertions about AGW and asking for research dissertations. That's resentment speaking. It's all very tarantula-like.

Again, Watson defends the status quo. Here is the "rationale" that Watson uses to not DO Climate Change:


You, Watson, are lying when you state that, " AG ... ... predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful."

Nice try at pounding the table, Counselor (CoC be damned, right?).  ;)

That's defamatory as well as being a deliberate attempt at distorting both the content and subject matter of my posts over the last 6 years, along with those of Surly.

Surly said it best when he addressed your language twisting, morally challenged, sophistry early in this thread, so it is appropriate for me to repost it now with regard to the bold faced lies you just posted about me, in still ANOTHER attempt to derail this thread, where RE has successfully exposed your refusal to face facts about the dire threat to humanity that Catastrophic Climate Change represents:

The problems with socialism are many. Orwell recognized very quickly that the socialists of his day were motivated by intellectual snobbery and resentment rather than compassion for the poor working class. 60 years later and nothing has changed...

Socialist ideology ignores human nature and treats everyone as "blank slates" who can be molded by the totalitarian state to achieve equality of socioeconomic outcomes. They set up re-education and re-training camps which are doomed to failure. This flies in the face of decades of psychological and sociological research.

Postmodern ideology tries to sneak in thoroughly debunked socialist ideology by pointing out the corrupt aspects of capitalist institutions, and then pretending that there is no other conclusion to reach other than ALL capitalist hierarchies are corrupted by power. And as long as we are playing this game, why not advocate for the socialist power hierarchies instead of the capitalist ones?

Among the numerous facts they ignore is that intelligence and trait conscientiousness account for some 25-40% of long-term life outcomes in capitalist society. This does not fit in with their ideological critiques, because it suggests that competence actually plays a role. But everyone knows competence plays a large role, and that makes them even more resentful and envious of the successful. To the point where they are willing to advocate for bloody revolutions and extermination campaigns as a justified means of "leveling the playing field".

What a pile of crap, false assertions, straw men and charged language. You certainly know how to wield language as a weapon, but you're not selling anything here.

And for the record, no on here is "playing a game" but you.

How well I remember the stories told by my father and uncles about the gulags and re-education camps they suffered under FDR.

Be sure to post the URL of your new blog, celebrating this, the best of all possible worlds.

Also, Ashvin, your claim to "know nothing of climate science" is, and has been, for the last 5 years or so, another lie. Yeah, you aren't a Climate Scientist. So? You aren't illiterate. You have always "known enough" to consistently doubt the validity of drastic national action to mitigate the cause of Climate Change. An objective observer who is honestly and genuinely, and innocently, ignorant of what science has clearly stated about greenhouse gasses would have to be living under a rock for the past 30 years with no radio, newspapers, television, internet or human neighbors. That does not apply to you.

You, Ashvin, a person who frequents financial web sites, could never have avoided real science based warnings in the literature among all the Fossil Fuel funded Denier CRAP you have read.

You formed an opinion based on what you have read. It is disingenuous to claim you are "without an opinion" or "don't know enough about it to form an opinion" on the causes of climate change. The fact that you vigorously defend a status quo that has been proven by science to be the overwhelming cause of climate change evidences that.

I recall how you supported the, "it's mostly meat production, not fossil fuels",  baloney and would not let go of it even when I posted well referenced charts to try to explain to you that fossil fuels are far and away the main contributor to Global Warming. I made it clear that, even though it would help (slow it a bit) somewhat, the problem of increasing global average temperature would not be stopped by everyone going vegan. At which point you retreated into your "not knowing enough about the science to form an opinion".

One thing that is consistent about your sophistry laden "debating technique" is the despicable attempt to frame the opponent as "hysterical, irrational, nonsensical, etc.".

As Surly said earlier about what you typically post, you're not selling anything here.

For those reading this, the following chart, or one with similar emperical data, is something Ashvin may claim he has "never seen". I doubt that.


Here's another one that Ashvin may claim he, "knows nothing about". I don't think so.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:47:20 pm »


So then he sez,
" It's unsurprising that AG and Surly have now decided to pretend like I am making bold assertions about AGW and asking for research dissertations. That's resentment speaking. It's all very tarantula-like."



The best scientific evidence to date shows that if we don't significantly reduce carbon emissions inside the next 10 years, thousands of cities along the coasts will be inundated and billions of people will DIE, along with a significant portion of the animal kingdom as well.  What we are doing now is not decreasing carbon emissions, but rather increasing them.  The only way to reduce these emissions significantly is to remove the source of them, primarily things like automobiles and planes and the factories that produce them.  This is not geoengineering, it's just putting a stop to what is quite obviously killing the planet.  If you are not in favor of putting a stop to this, you are in favor of mass murdering Billions of people, far more than I ever dreamed of doing.  That is what the scientific evidence says.

RE

Can you link specific studies which predict this? And which show that power down is likely to have enough impact to stop it?

Not pretending anything, sophist. Just serving up your words back to you.

Note how the resident Prince of Lies accuses others of doing the very things he accuses them of. Very Trumpian in that regard..

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:45:22 pm »

Powering down is not something that will be done voluntarily on a large scale. And there is no political will to legislate it. So  it will happen by default when the wheels fall off. A decision to power down your own life is noble, and maybe sensible from a prepping standpoint, but don't look for it to catch on.

Quite true, because the system is run by Capitalists.  There's no PROFIT in powering down.  So if you want to power down, you have to eliminate the Capitalist.  That is very straightforward logic.

Once you do that, you are correct most people wouldn't voluntarily do it, so you tax it out of existence.  Make it so expensive nobody can afford to buy the stuff.

As it is, the power down will occur anyhow, but it will be chaotic and billions more people will needlessly die because of that.  It's murder, plain and simple.  All to keep the profits flowing from Happy Motoring.

RE

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:42:37 pm »


Don't hold your breath waiting for Watson to research Climate Change. The old "can you reference dis, dat and de udder" apparantly innocent, but thoroughly disingenuos, request for info (data request wild goose chase fallacious debating technique) is something he has pulled repeatedly for the past five years here (at least) every time the ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE (which of course includes millions of unnecessary deaths of humans and many other life forms which he won't admit to until he reads it in Forbes or the Wall Street Journal) caused by burning fossil fuels is brought up. Watson has his pitch and his story, and he is gonna stick to it as long as his status quo loving ass can benefit from the present unsustainable, biosphere destroying, CAPITALIST status quo.

Watson does not want you and me, or anybody else, to "Tinker with a complex  (i.e. CAPITALIST PROFIT OVER PEOPLE AND PLANET) system" because said system has "proven" to be the best, super duper, good economic system benevolently feeding the hungry and poor masses of the world, compared with all those "failed, miserable, snobish, murderous, nonsensical SOCIALST systems, that have been "unsuccessfully" tried over and over and over (according to Watson 😇, a self declared authority on the definition of Socialism and it's history). Watson however, can never seem to link CAPITALISM with CLIMATE CHANGE because, uh, he doesn't feel "confident" enough on the matter to TINKER (i.e. criticize CAPITALIST PROFIT OVER PEOPLE AND PLANET IDEOLOGY) with the present, very, very "complex system" the is such a benefit to the poor of this world.

 

You do a good impression of Watson AG!


RE

😎
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:38:34 pm »

Re: Watson comes out in favor of the Mass Murder of Billions of People 


If that can be scientifically proven, then I may be in favor of the power down. But it can't be, because we are talking about extremely complex systems. Who knows, a power down may not even be enough to stop the warming at this point, which means we would be adding more suffering and death for nothing.

It can't be scientifically proven there would be millions of deaths either if we power down, but you are willing to buy that one.  That is hypocritical.

RE


Probably true. Which is why I would hold to this general maxim - don't tinker with complex systems until we more fully understand them, because we're much more likely to make things worse than better. Related to that but also distinct - there is a big price to pay from ceding such power to the government (mandated power down) and we better be damn sure it is necessary to pay before forking it over.

The best scientific evidence to date shows that if we don't significantly reduce carbon emmissions inside the next 10 years, thousands of cities along the coasts will be inundated and billions of people will DIE, along with a significant portion of the animal kingdom as well.  What we are doing now is not decreasing carbon emissions, but rather increasing them.  The only way to reduce these emissions significantly is to remove the source of them, primarily things like automobiles and planes and the factories that produce them.  This is not geoengineering, it's just putting a stop to what is quite obviously killing the planet.  If you are not in favor of putting a stop to this, you are in favor of mass murdering Billions of people, far more than I ever dreamed of doing.  That is what the scientific evidence says.

RE


Can you link specific studies which predict this? And which show that power down is likely to have enough impact to stop it?

The information is endless and produced by numerous scientists and agencies, from the IPCC to NASA and many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.56983a77a98d

Research it yourself.

RE

👍 😎

Don't hold your breath waiting for Watson to research Climate Change. The old "can you reference dis, dat and de udder" apparantly innocent, but thoroughly disingenuos, request for info (data request wild goose chase fallacious debating technique) is something he has pulled repeatedly for the past five years here (at least) every time the ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE (which of course includes millions of unnecessary deaths of humans and many other life forms which he won't admit to until he reads it in Forbes or the Wall Street Journal) caused by burning fossil fuels is brought up. Watson has his pitch and his story, and he is gonna stick to it as long as his status quo loving ass can benefit from the present unsustainable, biosphere destroying, CAPITALIST status quo.

Watson does not want you and me, or anybody else, to "Tinker with a complex  (i.e. CAPITALIST PROFIT OVER PEOPLE AND PLANET) system" because said system has "proven" to be the best, super duper, good economic system benevolently feeding the hungry and poor masses of the world, compared with all those "failed, miserable, snobish, murderous, nonsensical SOCIALST systems, that have been "unsuccessfully" tried over and over and over (according to Watson 😇, a self declared authority on the definition of Socialism and it's history). Watson however, can never seem to link CAPITALISM with CLIMATE CHANGE because, uh, he doesn't feel "confident" enough on the matter to TINKER (i.e. criticize CAPITALIST PROFIT OVER PEOPLE AND PLANET IDEOLOGY) with the present, very, very "complex system" the is such a benefit to the poor of this world.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 07, 2018, 08:44:30 am »

Quote
The first continuous, multi-century study of surface melt from the Greenland ice sheet was published in Nature Wednesday, and the results are clear: the ice sheet is now melting at rates unseen within at least the last 350 years.

EcoWatch

Greenland Melting Is ‘Off the Charts’

By Olivia Rosane

Dec. 06, 2018 09:30AM EST


Article with above video:

https://www.ecowatch.com/greenland-melting-overdrive-2622570930.html

Agelbert NOTE: Trump 🦀 Adminstration CAPITALIST Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕🦖 reaction to the above irrefutable, scientifically determined empirical evidence of Catastrophic Climate Change resulting from the burning of hydrocarbons for energy:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 04, 2018, 08:54:20 pm »

In the Face of Extinction, We Have a Moral Obligation
BY Dahr Jamail, Truthout

PUBLISHED December 3, 2018

With a president unashamed to declare that he does not believe scientific reports on climate change and an administration that denies climate change is human-caused, a dystopian climate future seems inevitable. Humans have already set in motion processes that could bring about our own extinction; now it's up to each of us to consider how to use our time and energies most wisely and carefully, as we face down our species' most monumental test.

Read the Article →

https://truthout.org/articles/in-the-face-of-extinction-we-have-a-moral-obligation/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 30, 2018, 06:55:19 pm »

The Extinction Domino Effect That Could Annihilate Life on Earth Has Already Started 💣 😟

416 views

Thom Hartmann Program

Published on Nov 30, 2018

Is the extinction of the human race the final domino to fall in a chain of extinctions and species die offs that may have always started? What can we do to save the planet before the domino ends all life on earth?

SUPPORT THE PROGRAM
► Join us on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/thomhartmann where you can also watch a re-run of the three hour program at any time
 
AUDIO PODCASTS
► Subscribe today: http://www.thomhartmann.com/podcast
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 28, 2018, 01:26:06 pm »

November 28, 2018

Rising insurance costs may convince Americans that climate change risks are real


Quote
One of the great challenges of tackling climate change is making it real for people without a scientific background. That’s because the threat it poses can be so hard to see or feel.

In the wake of Hurricanes Florence and Michael, for example, one may be compelled to ask, “Was that climate change?” Many politicians and activists have indeed claimed that recent powerful storms are a result of climate change, yet it’s a tough sell.

What those who want to communicate climate risks need to do is rephrase the question around probabilities, not direct cause and effect. And for that, insurance is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” sensitive to the trends of climate change impacts and the costly risks they impose.

In other words, where scientists and educators have had limited success in convincing the public and politicians of the urgency of climate change, insurance companies may step into the breach.

Steroids and climate change

Dr. Jane Lubchenco 👍, an environmental scientist who oversaw the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 2009 to 2013, offers a clever analogy to convince people of the connection between the destruction wrought by a single hurricane and climate change. It involves steroids and baseball.

Her analogy goes like this. If a baseball player takes steroids, it’s hard to connect one particular home run to his drug use. But if his total number of home runs and batting averages increase dramatically, the connection becomes apparent.

“In similar fashion, what we are seeing on Earth today is weather on steroids,” Lubchenco explains. “We are seeing more, longer lasting heat waves, more intense storms, more droughts and more floods. Those patterns are what we expect with climate change.”

And those weather patterns come with a cost.

Someone has to pay for these damages

In 2017, for example, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria and other natural disasters like Mexican earthquakes and California wildfires caused economic losses of US$330 billion, almost double the inflation-adjusted annual average of $170 billion over the prior 10 years.

Estimated costs from Hurricane Florence, which struck the Carolinas in September, range as high as $170 billion, which would make Florence the costliest storm ever to hit the U.S.

More broadly, total economic losses from wildfires in the U.S. in 2017 – the third-hottest year on record, behind 2016 and 2015 – were four times higher than the average of the preceding 16 years and losses from other severe storms were 60 percent higher.

This led me and others to realize that we should be more focused on insurance companies, society’s first line of defense in absorbing these costs, making their industry arguably the one most directly affected by climate change.

For example, the insurance industry paid out a record $135 billion from natural catastrophes in 2017, almost three times higher than the annual average of $49 billion. That’s not to mention the uninsured losses that were also incurred – uninsured losses from 2012’s Hurricane Sandy were 50 percent of the total $65 billion in losses, a staggering tab picked up by individual citizens and the taxpayer.

Insurers will eventually adjust to this emerging reality. And with it will come changes in our economy, including higher costs that will affect everyone’s pocketbook.

A whole new ballgame

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors, a respected international standard-setting body for the insurance sector, recently published a report calling climate risk a strategic threat for the insurance sector. It cautioned against relying on annual adjustments to manage climate risks as physical risks can change suddenly and in “non-linear ways.”

Recognizing this threat, many insurers are throwing out decades of outdated weather actuarial data and hiring teams of in-house climatologists, computer scientists and statisticians to redesign their risk models.

In response, insurances premiums will increase and coverage will decrease.

The take-away? It’s going to become increasingly hard for people living in disaster-prone areas to insure their stuff. And this trend might not be gradual. Note the term “non-linear” a couple of paragraphs above. This refers to the tendency of markets in times of stress to suddenly jump to dramatically higher or lower price ranges. For homeowners insurance, that could mean Floridians or Californians paying two or three times more than just a few years earlier – at a time when property taxes are also rising due to clean-up costs of past disasters.


Agelbert NOTE: Expect to hear/read (repeatedly, of course) this bit of (BS) happy talk spewing forth from the CAPITALIST profit over people and planet cheerleading mainstream media SOON:

Quote
Hi, I'm here from the Insurance Business.  I'm here to help.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 27, 2018, 06:47:08 pm »

#ExtinctionRebellion Launches Civil Disobedience Campaign Over Climate Change

November 26, 2018

A day after a new US Government report warned of imminent climate catastrophe, TRNN spoke to some of the protesters who marched and shutdown traffic in Manchester, England, to urge action over the climate crisis
Story Transcript

PROTESTER: We are Extinction Rebellion. We’re here to protest the government’s inaction on climate change. They’ve failed us with inadequate policy over the last thirty years. We demand the government declares a climate emergency, that they communicate this to the general public, that they set up a national assembly of citizens to help decide on policy and that they’re committed to carbon neutrality by 2025.

JAISAL NOOR: I’m Jaisal Noor in Manchester, England. As you can see behind me, dozens of people have sat down in the center of the street to protest climate change as part of extinction rebellion. Hundreds of people marched today in Manchester, perhaps thousands more in London. Last week, 70 people were arrested in London as they shut down five bridges, key arteries. And the point of the protests is to draw attention to the catastrophic impacts of climate change and to demand immediate action.

ANNA: I’m Anna. I’m here because we’re talking about, in 10 years, mass starvation, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of climate refugees, we’re talking about more flooding in my hometown of Lancaster, we’re talking about more wildfires like we’ve seen in California. And we’re here to say that we are willing to interrupt, our normal lives, give up our normal lives. Some of us are willing to be arrested, some of us are willing to go to prison and give up our liberty because this is an extinction we’re talking about, and we want to stop that from happening, we want to save the living planet. It’s a simple and apparent desire.

JAISAL NOOR: This march comes just a day after a U.S. government report detailed the catastrophic impacts of climate change already underway and the future impacts that could happen, including hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage across the United States and the world.

SPEAKER: The ecological crisis impacting upon this nation, and indeed this planet, its wildlife, can no longer be ignored, denied, nor go unanswered.

MINA: Our goal is basically that the government acknowledges that we are facing an emergency, and it demands that we implement the necessary procedures to declare a crime emergency and cut carbon emissions. I think XR has a better chance than anything I’ve ever met of working, because it doesn’t tell people what to do, it allows people to mobilize themselves, it gives people the freedom to choose and tells them that they have that power to do it themselves.

JOSH REDNER: Because we’re facing the greatest crisis in the history of humanity on current trajectory as we’re headed towards sort of major, major disruption by climate change within the next few decades, within my lifetime. I’ve got friends with small children; their lives are quite likely to be destroyed by this if things don’t change soon.

JAISAL NOOR: Current U.S. President Donald Trump has said global warming is a hoax.

JOSH REDNER: Well, that’s actually interesting because Trump’s widely thought of as sort of the archetypal climate denier due to his public statements. But if you look at what he’s actually doing in his private life, his company has actually recently applied to the Irish Government for planning permission to build flood defenses around his golf course due to the expected sea level rise and increase in frequency and intensity of storms that are basically putting his property at risk. So even if he doesn’t believe in climate change, the people who are running the show behind the scenes, they know exactly what’s going on. They’ve known exactly what’s going on for decades and their response has been pumping funding into groups that try and basically try and cloud the judgment of the public, essentially.

Look at the recent midterms, look at the level of funding from fossil fuel interests for climate denying candidates, basically trying to block any attempt to get any kind of effective legislation through to limit CO2 emissions. These people know what’s going on and they’re basically acting to try and prevent action on it. This is due to the system, the companies that are tied up in fossil fuels and the financial institutions that are actually increasing investment in things like fracking, tar sands. These are the worst things that we could be investing in, and the people in power are basically behaving as if they’re trying to make things as bad as possible as fast as possible. And the only people who can actually stop that is the mass of the population.

Extinction Rebellion is a sort of grassroots organization. We’re trying to organize this in a democratic way to try and join the people together. We’re taking inspiration from movements from through history like the suffragettes, like the civil rights movement in America, the fight against apartheid, all these movements of ordinary people who through history have actually joined together and won things from power, they’ve won rights, they’ve won the vote, they’ve made strides towards greater equality. We’re trying to take inspiration from them to sort of force the issue.

Climate justice, to me, means that it’s sort of the opposite of what we have now, essentially. So the projections for climate change now, and this actually goes somewhere into explaining why there’s been such a lack of action, is because the impacts will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in societies around the world. So the people who are likely to be feeling the brunt of the force the earliest and the hardest are people who are already suffering. The UN released a report just a couple of years ago that found that already, displacement around the world due to war and things like that is already higher than it was during World War II. These are the people who are going to feel the brunt of climate change through drought, the impacts on food security, extreme flooding, extreme weather events. These things are going to impact the poorest people the hardest.

The Lancet released a report a couple of years ago that said that climate change is the single greatest threat to human health in the 21st century and the people who are going to be feeling those health impacts are, again, the most vulnerable people in the world. So that, for me, is complete climate injustice because the people who have contributed to climate change the most are the richest, the rich countries, Britain, the U.S., the industrialized nations who have burned all the fossil fuels, extracted all these resources for their own economic development to build these rich countries that we live in at the expense of the Third World and the poor people around the world. And now, they are the people who are going to be feeling the brunt of it.

So climate justice, for me, is an attempt to try and reverse these relations between the people of the world and sort of make a fair and equitable plan for how we’re going to cope with it. We know what we need to do, it’s time to do it. And the only way that we can force it is if enough people join together and get out in the streets and demand it.


https://therealnews.com/stories/extinctionrebellion-launches-civil-disobedience-campaign-over-climate-change

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 27, 2018, 11:25:46 am »

November 22, 2018

Atmospheric CO2 Hits New High

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit a new high in 2017 with no signs of an upcoming reversal, according to a new report from the UN. The annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, released last week by the World Meteorological Organization, finds that carbon dioxide concentrations hit 405 parts per million last year--50 percent higher than preindustrial levels--while methane concentrations have also spiked to 2.5 times higher than their preindustrial levels. "The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5m years ago, when the temperature was 2-3C warmer and sea level was 10-20 metres higher than now,"

WMO secretary general Petteri Taalas told The Guardian. "The science is clear. Without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, climate change will have increasingly destructive and irreversible impacts on life on Earth. The window of opportunity for action is almost closed."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/22/climate-heating-greenhouse-gases-at-record-levels-says-un


 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 26, 2018, 07:02:00 pm »

Part 2 of 2 - Wanna Bet? with Guy McPherson

5,701 views


UPFSI

Published on Nov 22, 2018

If you are fluent in another language and can help us translate our videos, tell us at mailto:Translation@ScientistsWarning.TV

Here is Part 2 of my July conversation with Guy McPherson, in which I challenge him on his messaging about the certainty of 'near term human extinction by the end of 2025'.

 
Watch Part 1 first at


 then Part 2.  Watch both and decide for yourself
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 25, 2018, 11:52:10 am »

CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

November 25th, 2018 by Jake Richardson

SNIPPET:

9. Does Colorado have a “Cash for Clunkers” program to get the most polluting vehicles off the roads?

All Federal funds have been allocated for the Cash for Clunkers program. The Clear the Air Foundation accepts donations of old “gross emitter” vehicles, sells them to parts yards, and donates the proceeds to various charities.

10. Will having an LEV standard reduce smog in cities?

It could definitely help, but vehicle tailpipe emissions are not the only contributors to ground level ozone (i.e., “urban smog”). Fossil-fueled power plants, construction, oil & gas development, industrial activities, wildfires, paint, etc. also contribute, and Colorado is addressing each of these through other programs.

11. How much might having an LEV standard improve over all air quality?

Our answer to #10 can also apply here, as “overall air quality” varies widely based on different combinations of all those contributing sources. As for climate change, however, we predict that CLEAR will help reduce over 30 million tons of GHGs in the years 2022-2031.

Full article with particularly informative comments by BigWu:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 23, 2018, 08:22:50 pm »

AXIOS


November 23, 2018

Andrew Freedman

New climate report warns of increasingly dire risks to U.S.

 
An American flag hangs at a burned out mobile home park in Paradise, California on Nov. 18. Photo: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

The Trump administration released a major new climate science report on Black Friday, warning of "hundreds of billions of dollars" in annual losses to some economic sectors without scaled up actions to adapt to current changes and slash emissions to avoid future warming.

Why it matters: The report by scientists from 13 federal agencies constitutes the second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is a congressionally mandated report. Its conclusion: Lives and property are already at risk in the U.S. due to climate change.

The release date, on the Friday after Thanksgiving, which is traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year, is likely to bury the news coverage of its findings.

On a call with reporters this afternoon, David Reidmiller, the director of the assessment, said the timing was determined in order to have the report come out in advance of the next round of U.N. climate talks beginning in Poland on Dec. 2 as well as a large scientific meeting in Washington in mid-December.

“We wanted to get this out sufficiently in advance of those meetings so that folks have a chance to review it," Reidmiller said.

Monica Allen, a spokesperson for NOAA, said the decision to release the report on Black Friday was "made in the last week or so."

The details: The contents of the new report, which consists of 29 chapters that were extensively peer reviewed, are bleak. The report points out that the era of climate consequences for the U.S. is well underway, and only actions taken in the next few years can be effective in addressing the scope and severity of the problem.

The authors warn that neither climate adaptation or the pace of emissions cuts are keeping up with the severity and swiftness of the challenge.

The report release comes as the death toll from historic California wildfires continue to rise, and it finds that climate change is expected to bring more frequent wildfires and poor air quality.

The report finds that under a worst-case climate change scenario, in which emissions continue to climb at current rates, extreme heat would cause labor-related losses of an estimated $155 billion per year by 2090. At the same time, coastal property damage in the U.S. from sea level rise and storm surge flooding could reach nearly $120 billion per year.

The backstory: The new report builds off of findings from the first volume of the National Climate Assessment, which was released by the Trump administration in November 2017.

The second volume contains more information specific to vital U.S. economic sectors, regions and national interests. It includes a region-by-region breakdown of how global warming is altering life and economic productivity, as well as what opportunities there are to adapt to it.

The first report was a sweeping overview of climate science findings, which decisively concluded that there is no credible explanation for modern-day global warming other than the burning of fossil fuels for energy.

The report was written and published under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which brings together the 13 federal agencies that work on climate change issues, from the Energy Department to NOAA.

"This report dives into details concerning the US in a way that has not been done before," Michael Wehner, a climate researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, told Axios.

Between the lines: The Trump administration has allowed the National Climate Assessment process to move forward without interference, while at the same time expressing doubt about the causes and extent of the threat of human-caused climate change when it comes to forming its energy policies.

In an interview with in November with "Axios on HBO," President Trump 🦀 was presented with the first volume of the assessment, and he dismissed it.


https://www.axios.com/major-new-climate-report-warns-billions-losses-climate-change-159ba78c-41bd-462b-aa60-578f64878a85.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 23, 2018, 07:56:03 pm »


DONALD TRUMP'S 🦀 CLIMATE CHANGE TWEET LAMBASTED BY SCIENTISTS: 'HE'S A DANGEROUS CLOWN'

BY KASHMIRA GANDER ON 11/22/18 AT 6:38 AM

SNIPPET:

Mann told Newsweek: "It is disturbing to see the titular head of our nation misinforming the public about the greatest threat we face—the threat of catastrophic climate change impacts. Not only has Trump sought to dismantle the environmental protections put in place by previous administrations, he has also sought to lower the level of discourse by making nonsensical public comments that are untruthful factually, and deliberately conflate normal day-to-day weather fluctuations with climate change.

"It is shameful, irresponsible and most unbecoming of someone who would call himself President of the United States."

This is not the first time Trump has seized a cold snap as an opportunity to question whether climate change is real.

Full article with EXCELLENT video:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-climate-change-tweet-lambasted-scientists-hes-dangerous-clown-1227310

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 23, 2018, 03:05:06 pm »

TD ORIGINALS

November 22, 2018

Will Democrats Back a ‘Green New Deal’?

Rep.-elects Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Joe Neguse exit a Democratic Caucus meeting at the Capitol. (J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

News related to climate change is rarely good. More often than not, it engenders a sense of doom and helplessness among the public. But lately there has been a glimmer of hope on the horizon for climate justice, and it bears the name Sunrise Movement.

Even before the midterm elections took place, activists in the youth-based climate justice organization had planned a sit-in at the Washington, D.C., offices of California representative and longtime Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. A week after the election, the approximately 200 people that crowded into Pelosi’s office were visited by newly elected New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Addressing the climate activists, Ocasio-Cortez said, “My journey here started at Standing Rock,” referring to the powerful indigenous-led rebellion to stop the Dakota Access pipeline project in 2017. Immediately afterward, Ocasio-Cortez pledged to introduce legislation to create a “Select Committee on a Green New Deal,” as one of her first actions in Congress.

William Lawrence, a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, explained to me in an interview that the movement is motivated by the existential threat of the climate crisis. “We have hundreds of millions of lives worldwide that are at stake because of the threat of runaway climate change,” he said. The solutions out of this crisis are known and achievable: “We need to overhaul our energy system, our food system and our transit system,” Lawrence explained. In his opinion, “The only way to do that in time is for the government to take an active role in the economy to shape and guide the transition. That’s exactly how we got ourselves out of the Great Depression.”

But lawmakers are still undecided on a plan of action. Pelosi, feeling the pressure from grassroots activists and new colleagues like Ocasio-Cortez, made the call for reviving a defunct committee called the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which was established the last time Democrats controlled the House.

While that committee’s mandate would not go nearly as far as the one Ocasio-Cortez has proposed, other Democrats, like New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, dismissed Pelosi’s position, saying a select committee was “not necessary.” His opposition highlights a strongly regressive streak within the Democratic Party that feels compelled to maintain the status quo in the face of the climate devastation that is already happening all around us.

Establishment Democrats now have two powerful forces working to push them in the right direction on climate: a strong grassroots movement intent on holding politicians’ feet to the fire, and a bold new crop of aggressive young Democratic Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, who have been elected to office. It is the perfect storm of forces needed now more than ever to push a strong climate agenda.

Coming off a violent hurricane season on the U.S. East Coast, this fall brought record-breaking fires to the nation’s West Coast, underscoring the urgency of climate catastrophe. The death toll from the worst fire in California’s recorded history—the Camp Fire in Butte County—has now reached 83, with more than 600 still missing. Meanwhile, rain is expected this week in the northern part of the state, which could bring relief to the dry areas but could also trigger dangerous mudslides and flash flooding in areas stripped bare of brush and vegetation. Scientists are in clear agreement that climate change is behind this unprecedented fire season.

But President Trump barely acknowledged climate change during his weekend visit to the impacted areas. In addition to (embarrassingly) forgetting the name of the devastated town of Paradise—he referred to it as “Pleasure” before being corrected—Trump lectured state officials about the importance of raking and cleaning forest vegetation. His interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, went even further, saying in an interview with the extremist right-wing outlet Breitbart that the fires were the fault of “environmental radicals.”

Rather than confront Republicans like Trump and Zinke (Lawrence dismissed the GOP as “An organized alliance between fossil-fuel billionaires and white supremacists”), the Northern California chapter of the Sunrise Movement showed up outside the offices of Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, a strong progressive figure and veteran lawmaker. They wore masks to protect their lungs from the toxic air that blanketed the areas surrounding the Camp Fire, and they called upon Lee to support the resolution that Ocasio-Cortez plans to introduce. So far, Lee has not responded.

Lawrence said the activists were sending a message to Lee, saying, “We love you, we respect you, you have been a progressive champion for many years on so many issues, but that doesn’t mean you get a pass on this.”

What activists with the Sunrise Movement are cleverly doing is demanding that their elected representatives, including Pelosi, Pallone and Lee, answer the question: “What Is Your Plan?” “Not only do they not have a plan,” said Lawrence, “but they don’t have a plan to make a plan.”

Angry about Pallone’s recent stance that no action is needed to establish any sort of select committee to address climate change, Sunrise Movement activists paid him a visit, too. According to Lawrence, Pallone attempted to cast himself as their ally, citing his statements in support of climate action and his 2009 vote for a “cap and trade program.” But Lawrence pointed out that Pallone “has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from fossil fuel companies.”

Lawrence and his fellow activists are demanding that Democrats back a “Green New Deal”—a proposal whose very name invokes the important government jobs program that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law to help end the Great Depression. The idea is one whose time has come. Rampant poverty and climate change are arguably the two most important challenges facing the U.S. today. A Green New Deal would address both crises together. At this moment, Congress has no plan to solve either income inequality or global warming. Indeed, Trump and the GOP’s deregulatory agenda is exacerbating these problems through actions like last year’s tax-reform bonanza for the wealthy and ending the Paris Agreement. Our elected officials are literally erasing our children’s future.

This is not a pie-in-the-sky movement. Lawrence said he is realistic: “We know that we are not going to pass anything until 2021 when we have Trump out of office, and hopefully we have a more favorable breakdown in the Senate.” With regard to recent developments, he insisted, “But now that the Democrats hold the House, it is absolutely imperative that they make a plan that will be ready to go in 2021. The climate—and our species—depend on it.

Agelbert COMMENTS:

Ocasio's version of a "Green New Deal" is not as thorough as the Green New Deal put forth by the Green Party. The Green Party platform is the only hope this country, and any other country on Earth, HAS for a Viable Biosphere.



That said, Ocasio has made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that part of her version REQUIRES THAT NO DEMOCRAT WHO TAKES "contributions" (BRIBES) FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY be allowed on the committee to address Climate Change with a Green New Deal.

Also, the Sunrise movement that accompanied Ocasio supports the Zero Hour platform, which is even more comprehensive than the Green Party's Green New Deal.

[img wisth=80]http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-260718183407.png[/img]
Quote

Marian Griffth 

The system is too damaged and corrupted to be repaired. It does need to be replaced with a system that is socialist, or otherwise with one that puts the needs and interests of the people at the top rather than the accumulation of imaginary numbers on a computer.

The question remains /how?/
The political parties responsible for this mess are not going to cooperate and have to be forced out.

Which is why I called the notion to reform the democratic party from within an act of desperation.

Agelber > Marian Griffth

To say that Fossil Fuel Industry 🦕🦖 😈 disinformation isn’t the whole story is to knock down a straw man: the fact remains that it is a major--and perhaps the most important--part of the story.

I am not concerned any more about the foot dragging by the hydrocarbon hellspawn 🦕🦖 bought and paid fors 🐵 🐒 🦍 🙉 🙊 that curse most of the governments on this planet in general, and the USA in particular.

Catastrophic Climate Change is NOW in the driver's seat, no matter how much the Fossil Fuel Fascist 😈 👹 controlled Media and Politicians try to spin it.

Yeah, it might be too late for many species, including ours. 🤬

However, there is the distinct, nearly 100% probability that the violence of all the deadly environmental mayhem will bankrupt the Bastards 👹 💵 🎩 🍌 that now drive Capitalist Profit Over People and Planet INSANE 🏴‍ ☠️ 🚩 poliicies.

http://emilysquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/If-you-think-the-economy-is-more-important-than-the-environment-try-holding.jpg

At that, extremely close at hand point, a worldwide effort will concentrate on mitigating Climate Change.

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203111.png

http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif

The following wise quote explains the knife edge that the human species finds itself now:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new paradigm without dying right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt


http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270317142022.png
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 20, 2018, 09:44:57 pm »

Climatologist Wallace Broecker: "The Deniers Are Going to Go Apeshit. They're Going to Have a Riot"

9,560 views

Collapse Chronicles 💣

Published on Nov 4, 2018

In this week's edition of my Collapse Chronicles interview, I have the pleasure and honor of speaking with climatologist Wallace Broecker.

+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:56:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:37:29 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:10:55 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 02:34:18 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 12:17:36 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 07:15:13 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 04:16:22 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:35:12 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:25:57 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 05:07:12 pm