Scientists Take Issue With Rupert Murdoch’s Remarks on Climate Change:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...te-change.html
Printable View
Scientists Take Issue With Rupert Murdoch’s Remarks on Climate Change:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...te-change.html
all bullshit
It's probably worth taking a conservative approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohioguy13
And, too, if one thinks it's "bullshit," well, who's behind perpetuating this idea that global warming is completely fallacious????
Who invented this storyline that it's all untrue????
Because there's a massive corporate propaganda campaign to convince the American populace that it is, yes, all bullshit. It certainly serves very narrow interests: like the oil and gas sector. Plus they have to. By law. Corporations must, again, by law, maximize shareholder return. So, again, it's in their interest. And they can't concern themselves with future generations.
Ya know, we're collectively saying, because of global warming, that future generations have absolutely no value. None.
Global temperatures are rising. But what's very worrisome is the rapidity of the change. Unless you think it's merely an engineering problem and we can deal with the rapid rise in worldwide temperatures.
So, yes, a 3 degrees change in temperature, well, we can deal with that -- over thousands of years. Now we're talking decades.
OK, if it's all "bullshit" then we've spent a bit of money doing things we should do. But say it isn't bullshit. Then what?
We're effectively playing a game with the fate of the species!
Soaring Meat Consumption Bigger Problem Than Thought
Eating meat is turning up the heat:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...-thought-study
Fundamentalist Christians welcome global warming; it's just one of the frills that will accompany the glorious end times. The plus side for libertarian ideologues is the deterioration of government that will consequentially follow global climate change. It's all good news...depending on how bent one's particular POV. "Bullshit" is simply the response of an uncreative mind that can't even be bothered with understanding and why and wherefore of his own biases and opinions.
So what's the point of hell for us heathens? We all burn to death before the Final Day of Judgement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Hell is so we can burn for life after we burn to death.
it's gonna suck saying-"Oooooooooh, hot, hot,hot,hot,hot,hot,hot,hot,hot.......!!!" forever and ever.
Its a combination of a lot of folks trying to keep wealth in the east coast. Natural gas which is going for 12 bucks a foot in Europe keeps Russia going if we could export all the excess of which we have a shit load to Europe, it would hurt putin. It would also double every heating bill up and down the eastern seaboard during a tough winter. Washington doesn't want that wealth coming to places like western pa or west Virginia or Kentucky because then more development would come and more votes in congress and more power so instead we sit on the largest supply of energy and twittle our thumbs oh yeah when they said it 20 years ago it was coal that was bad what do we do now? ship that to china so they can burn it no one really cares about the environment if they did why wouldn't we export build the pipeline and get the entire country out of the shitter? it will be no coincidence that both pres candidates are from new York area they have their interests staked out.
and...what? A combination is an interaction of two or more things.Quote:
Its a combination of a lot of folks trying to keep wealth in the east coast...
A foot of natural gas?? Even if you meant per cubic foot, you're way off. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-from-russia/Quote:
Natural gas which is going for 12 bucks a foot
You're somewhat obsessed with the Eastern seaboard. Winters are even harder in the north central states whose climates are not moderated by ocean currents.Quote:
It would also double every heating bill up and down the eastern seaboard during a tough winter.
Yeah, Congress (which is held by the Republicans) doesn't want those conservative States like West Virginia and Kentucky to have any more political power than they already have.Quote:
Washington doesn't want that wealth coming to places like western pa or west Virginia or Kentucky because then more development would come and more votes in congress and more power
Who's sitting? Fracking is the thing of the present. We're producing natural gas out our collective wahzoos. We achieved, with fracking, energy independence in less than a decade. Of course we're also burning up and/or selling this natural resource at a phenomenal rate. I would've thought it would be a better strategy to burn up everybody else's fossil fuels first and reserve ours. But that would be long term thinking.Quote:
so instead we sit on the largest supply of energy and twittle our thumbs
You're half right. Our energy policy never fully addressed the long term issues of energy and climate. If we don't soon, it'll be too late.Quote:
20 years ago it was coal that was bad what do we do now? ship that to china so they can burn it no one really cares about the environment
By THE pipeline, I suppose you mean the XL-pipeline. You do realize it's a Canadian company that would own the crude that would be transported through that pipe, and it would be exported to Latin America. Our cut would be minimal (it would create some construction jobs while it's being built) and we would take all the risk to our Midwestern aquifers. Even the conservative governor of Nebraska is against it for just the risk to its fresh water sources.Quote:
export build the pipeline and get the entire country out of the shitter?
You claim anthropogenic climate change is "bullshit." When criticized for that "educated" opinion on a scientific issue, instead of addressing the science, you spout political nonsense. You have yet to give an rational critique of what you think is "bullshit." You have yet to address the fundamental science that you seem to think is in error.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Naomi Klein: CAPITALISM vs. EARTH's CLIMATE:
Naomi Klein: CAPITALISM vs. EARTH's CLIMATE - Chris Hayes - YouTube
I saw that interview the other night. So what do you think? Is she right?
To a large extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
She's right about CEOs locked into a system whereby they must maximize profits for their shareholders.
So, the CEOs of oil companies aren't, as Klein says, evil. Again, they're trapped within an institutional structure.
Sure, climate change could be absolutely catastrophic. But what can an oil or coal company CEO do? They simply don't have a lot of leeway... to address the dangers of climate change.
If he or she doesn't fulfill their actual legal obligation, well, they're out and someone else is in.
Someone like David Korten (http://livingeconomiesforum.org/) has a bleak outlook. He said that the human race is finished. Naomi Klein refuses to go there.
Anyway, I'm bias. Because I like Naomi Klein.
I'm curious to read her book. Which I will -- fairly soon.
She also seems to be saying that the only adequate approaches to addressing climate change involve radically rethinking capitalism. Not all of the world's nations are in a position where they can economically afford to curtail their production of greenhouse gasses. She says the rest of the world, for the common good and not that of the stockholder, will have to help these nations get beyond fossil fuel dependency. This will amount to a massive redistribution of the world's wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
The right is claiming global warming is just a way to sneak socialism through the backdoor. Of course that isn't the la raison d'être of global warming. Anthropogenic climate change is happening. But, according to Klein, the solution will require that human beings to abandon individualistic libertarianism and adopt economic philosophies more aligned with socialism and communitarianism; i.e. the right's fear of what global warming means for their world-view is in that sense justified.
Unless effective solutions can be found that are compatible with rigorous forms of capitalism, I don't believe there's much hope of doing anything of significance before it's too late. Is Naomi Klein doing us a disservice or is she laying out straight?
I'm hoping to read the book soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The solutions to climate change require collective action, which means government. Which, of course, goes against so-called free market capitalism.
But we don't have pure capitalism. Pure capitalism would mean getting rid of child labor laws and minimum wage laws. We do of course have these laws in place.
So, why not put laws in place that regulate the hell outta corporations? Because if the science is correct then we've got to have massive government action... which runs counter to the interests of the Koch brothers and Exxon etc., etc.
It's all a question of whether or not you believe the science. And these guys at all these various Think Tanks know the science is accurate and that's what scares them. Because they then have to reverse course. And demand government action.
Chris Hedges on Wilful Blindness, Climate Corporatism & the Underground Revolt - YouTube
This week John Stewart explained why we needed a march to raise awareness of global climate change. Big Oil misdirects deniers (and unfortunately the House of Representative's Committee on Science, Space and Technology) the way one might tease a kitten with a laser pointer.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed
At least we can die laughing.
I think there is a confusing message. Because capitalism is the dominant mode of economic behaviour, I don't see how we can discuss climate change and its remedies without capitalism being part of the debate, yet if you think of climate change and environmental politics in a different context, one of resource management, capitalism is not necessarily the villain. Historically, the buffalo were hunted almost to extinction by the first nations of America, not exactly capitalism in action; neolithic communities may have invented the slash and burn clearances of ancient forest which changed the climate even if it led to the cultivation of crops, including those for sale. The old USSR -described by many on the left as 'state capitalist'- was infamous for its desecration of the environment, notably in parts of Siberia but also in the grim industrial areas west of Moscow.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
And these days major multinationals are watched like a hawk by Greenpeace and other environmental groups and go to great lengths to be environmentally responsible -if anything, governments and the military are more likely to damage the environment than commercial enterprises.
That said, in the long term, if humans societies can be persuaded to engage in the kind of resource management that does not lay waste to forests, nutrients in soils, and water resources, and develops alternative energy sources that can be stored in large volume -we may lay the foundations for a cleaner world in say 100-200 years time. In the meantime, the way we live in cities also needs an overhaul, visiting London for a few days last month was a deeply depressing experience -a physically unattractive city, with an expensive, congested transport network, and an atmosphere of claustrophobic dread. There has to be a better way to live.
So, Ben, are you delighted now the Rockefellers have decided to sell off their shares in the petroleum industry?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...thout-oil.html
Half of the Planet's Animals Have Disappeared in the Last 40 Years:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...0930-0090.html
So, Ben, following the decision of the corporate giants the Rockefellers to disinvest from the fossil fuels industry, on which you have said nothing, comes this decision from the University of Glasgow. Glasgow is a large city in Scotland, the country whose 'National Party' recently based its entire economic policy on...fossil fuels....
Glasgow becomes first university in Europe to divest from fossil fuels
University court votes to divest £18m from fossil fuel industry in what campaigners call ‘dramatic beachhead’
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...m-fossil-fuels
Here's a link to a NYT article on the Rockefeller divestment. http://nyti.ms/XIPO1y
It say's they're divesting their philanthropic organization of fossil fuel. I presume that they might still privately own stock in fossil fuel companies or own shares in non-philanthropic entities that invest in fossil fuel?
It is the Brothers Fund that has disinvested, whether or not individual members of the family retain their interests in Exxon or the other firms I cannot say, and there are other Rockefeller institutions. The Brothers Fund has in any case been involved in philanthropical work since its foundation in 1940.
I think the topical aspect of this is the claim that over the next 10 years or so the fossil fuels industry will lose $50bn worth of investments from institutions switching to alternative fuels. I don't see this is anything other than a cosmetic arrangement, given that $50bn in the petroleum industry is not a crippling sum -less than a year's revenue for most oil rich states. Symbolically it looks good, but the real benefit, if there is one will be determined by the success alternatives have in displacing fossil fuels as the primary source of energy for consumers, industry and the military.
http://www.rbf.org/
doom.
[QUOTE=Stavros;1537337]So, Ben, following the decision of the corporate giants the Rockefellers to disinvest from the fossil fuels industry, on which you have said nothing, comes this decision from the University of Glasgow. Glasgow is a large city in Scotland, the country whose 'National Party' recently based its entire economic policy on...fossil fuels..../QUOTE]
It's important what the Rockefellers have done. Unquestionably.
But as Naomi Klein has repeatedly pointed out: it's much broader than mere fossil fuels.
Naomi Klein: Economic Model Is at War With Life on Earth:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/naomi...hzSV6i4qQ.html
It's state-corporate capitalism that is, well, destroying the planet.
Corporations, and the way they're structured, are destroying the natural world, the economy and even capitalism itself. (But needless to say we don't have capitalism; never have. So let us say: existing capitalism... or the way we perceive it.) Anyway, you won't have competition in a system governed by huge corporations.
Corporations because they're getting bigger and bigger (we're witnessing monopoly capitalism which obliterates, say, a competitive capitalist system... but yet again we need to underscore: we've never had capitalism... which means the elimination of ALL government interference) have an institutional imperative to ruin the planet.
I think we'll survive. But the world will be a pretty bleak place in 100 years or so thanks in large part to corporations.
Ben you must know that many of the largest corporations produce (indeed, are obliged to produce) reports on the environmental sustainability of their operations, and that they have had to adapt to environmental legislation as well as public opinion over many years -the regulation of pollution at sea of commercial vessels dates back to the 1920s, extended following the Torrey Canyon disaster in 1967, even more after Exxon Valdez in 1989. There are some offenders, it is true, but often smaller firms in logging with less accountable boards and enough money to bribe local officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
More worrying is your apparent refusal to admit that individuals abuse the environment, again through illegal logging or forest clearances, through an insatiable demand for fish or meat that can only be met in some places through changes to farming. The huge demand for narcotics in the USA means that in parts of Latin America and Afghanistan farmers have replaced food they can eat with the plant bases of narcotics -poppies, coca and so on which links them into a supply chain controlled by criminal gangs. Individuals have an enormous impact on the environment, from the pollution of rivers and the felling of trees, to the people who throw their used cigarette butts onto the pavement instead of putting them in a bin.
We are all in this together, and there are many ways in which the world would be a cleaner and safer place if we showed it more respect. It is about attitudes as well as capital.
From the Guardian's obituary of Tony McMichael (full link at the end)
Tony McMichael obituary
Australian public health researcher who established the link between climate change and disease
The scope of epidemiology has expanded dramatically over the past 150 years, from its origins seeking to understand the causes of epidemic diseases, through the role of specific risk factors in non-communicable diseases, to the really big, and complex, questions facing humanity, and in some cases threatening its very survival. Tony McMichael, who has died aged 71, after complications of pneumonia, pioneered this third strand, showing how epidemiological techniques could be applied to global environmental change.
Although, by the 1980s, he had long been concerned about what he termed "planetary overload" (later the title of one of his bestselling books), whereby the Earth is no longer able to sustain its expanding population with its increasing desire to consume natural resources and degrade the environment, it was not obvious how the debate could be shifted from speculation to empirical evidence.
Tony developed conceptual models of the global ecosystem, refined the methods needed to understand it and analysed an array of data to quantify the effects on human health of climate change that many suspected but that could not yet be measured. These included the impact of changes in the seasonal variation of deaths among older people in temperate climates and the distribution of insect vectors of diseases, such as Ross River virus in his native Australia.
Although this emerging understanding of the complex links between global ecology and human health involved various academic and research institutions, Tony was the most senior health expert in the team and, by virtue of his personality, powers of persuasion and, especially, his highly respected status in epidemiology, he was able to legitimise this topic as a field of research.
He was an obvious choice to chair the committee assessing health risks for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change between 1993 and 1996, during which time he moved to the UK, becoming professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 1994. In 2001 he returned to Australia to take over as head of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University in Canberra. There, he added greatly to understanding of the complex interaction between climate and infectious disease, researching topics such as the association between the El Niño phenomenon and the pattern of dengue fever in Thailand.
This research subsequently informed the 2013 report of the World Health Organisation's tropical diseases research programme on the combined climatic, environmental, agricultural and nutritional influences on the emergence of infectious disease, which he chaired after stepping down as director of the centre in Canberra in 2007.
Although Tony's arguments were based on solid research, he also recognised that publications in peer-reviewed journals, of which he published more than 300, would not in themselves lead to action. He was on the board of several NGOs, was a tireless advocate for action on climate and health and, just before his death, was a lead author of an open letter to the Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, calling for climate change and health to be placed on the G20 agenda. Given the hostility to such a move among the few people who, for whatever reason, still refuse to accept the international consensus on the causes of climate change, he was amused when one accused him of being a scurrilous fascist, and another, a socialist lackey.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...tony-mcmichael
Interesting article on the impact of man-made adaptations and climate change on the disappearing south of Louisiana. Might be best to call it a day, abandon the south and move New Orleans further north...
Lost Louisiana: the race to reclaim vanished land back from the sea
World’s fastest submerging state is looking to nature in an ambitious plan to turn back the tide, and to BP to fund it – but will it work?
The GPS showed David Morgan still on dry land – but the waves bumping beneath his boat revealed the reality of this lost Louisiana landscape. Rising seas have obliterated 30 points on the map in the last three years at Plaquemines Parish where Morgan lives.
Sugarcane fields, citrus groves, backwoods – all gone. “This was all land here when I was a kid. There was no water anywhere,” said Morgan, 57, slowing the boat to pass oyster beds. “I used to hunt rabbits there with my dog,” he said.
Louisiana is losing land to the sea faster than anywhere else in the world.
full article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...k-from-the-sea
Sarah Palin Compares Climate Change 'Hysteria' To Eugenics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6057934.html
Climate Change Denier to Lead Senate Environment Committee:
Climate Change Denier to Lead Senate Environment Committee - YouTube
Wrecking nature for short term profit:
Noam Chomsky: Wrecking nature for short term profit - YouTube
The Collapse of Western Civilization by Oreskes and Conway is a quick and easy read on the socio-economics of climate change.
For your edification and enjoyment the sculpture (currently in Berlin) pictured below is titled: Politicians Debating Climate Change.
Conservatives Don't Hate Climate Change, They Hate The Proposed Solutions: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...?utm_hp_ref=tw
G20 uses $88 billion of taxpayers' money to support fossil fuel exploration:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRiLQKEkGnY
Animal Agriculture: A Neglected Agent of Global Warming?
Animal Agriculture: A Neglected Agent of Global Warming? - YouTube
Climate change occurring ten times faster than at any time in past 65 million years: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142420.htm
Cows farting again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben