Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This 5 minute video features a former founder of Greenpeace and president of Greenpeace Canada. He premises his discussion on that climate change is continuous, based upon such things as the solar relationship to the Earth, e.g. the Milankovitch Cycles, and then goes on to briefly discuss other details. From my perspective, the whole political aspect is, firstly, driven by certain elites who, as always, wish to advantage themselves over everyone else, by garnering crony economic benefits among others. But as Moore is saying, we can't predict which way the near term changes will break, because there are yet too many factors to take into account. Moore links the use of the term GW Denial to associate and paint skeptics with Holocaust Denial, and, of course, the real debate is about Man-Made Global Warming.


That said, the history of human civilizations are dominated by climate and such as short term famines as described in the Bible and confirmed by archaeology (see Brain Fagan's The Long Summer). This basic knowledge, at least, seems to have been understood by the ancient elites, and ultimately why such kings as Akhenaton and Shalmanesar III identified themselves as sun kings. In this case, and apparently as today, they saw themselves as the elite "worthies" worthy of positioning their human pawns in a manner to preferentially favor their own outcomes.

Perhaps we should be concerned about our addiction to carbon based energy, but it was these same elites that got us addicted to it, as they literally did with opium, human slavery (where are your Christmas toys made Christians?), and such.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
This 5 minute video features a former founder of Greenpeace and president of Greenpeace Canada. He premises his discussion on that climate change is continuous, based upon such things as the solar relationship to the Earth, e.g. the Milankovitch Cycles, and then goes on to briefly discuss other details. From my perspective, the whole political aspect is, firstly, driven by certain elites who, as always, wish to advantage themselves over everyone else, by garnering crony economic benefits among others. But as Moore is saying, we can't predict which way the near term changes will break, because there are yet too many factors to take into account. Moore links the use of the term GW Denial to associate and paint skeptics with Holocaust Denial, and, of course, the real debate is about Man-Made Global Warming.


That said, the history of human civilizations are dominated by climate and such as short term famines as described in the Bible and confirmed by archaeology (see Brain Fagan's The Long Summer). This basic knowledge, at least, seems to have been understood by the ancient elites, and ultimately why such kings as Akhenaton and Shalmanesar III identified themselves as sun kings. In this case, and apparently as today, they saw themselves as the elite "worthies" worthy of positioning their human pawns in a manner to preferentially favor their own outcomes.

Perhaps we should be concerned about our addiction to carbon based energy, but it was these same elites that got us addicted to it, as they literally did with opium, human slavery (where are your Christmas toys made Christians?), and such.
Watching every breath you take taxing your existence
I am going to fill up carbon dioxide bloons and trade them. Have you ever seen a carbon dioxide scale weighting tons of carbon?

We are carbon-based creatures carbon dioxide is just as important oxygen to your life. A gas that make up .03% what % is man made jerry?
When you exercise and Breath the perfect mix of carbon dioxide and oxygen is introduced into your body. When I add more carbon dioxide to my greenhouse I get faster growth more vegetables. It's never caused by the greenhouse to get Hotter! All the carbon dioxide humans computer programs are not allowed to consider the sun.
Carbon sinks it does not rise to the sky and affect the atmosphere ..
No one can predict the weather it's always changing that's why they call it climate change.

We were with war with Germay now there are friends
The earth was getting colder they told us then they sad it was getting hotter now it's just changing?

To blame humans for the problem but not themselves is there game to tax you to reduce your numbers all for there families future but not yours, the new religion is earth. But not human based any more,there only in the way. That is 90% is not needed. Sorry to say.. They looked for a reason for uniting us space Aliens to climate change it's all faith based. 911 story tellers.

Good stuff richard hope dr. jerry watches it! Its hard for Those you have been indoctornated
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following excerpt is the opening paragraphs of a long article on the Green New Deal championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The article persuasively argues that this proposal is well within the long tradition of the American government guiding the "invisible hand" of the private sector in fostering the tackling of vast, new economic projects. And that without it having done so, we would not have interstate highways, railroads, computers, the Internet, and more.

The economic thinker who most influenced the Green New Deal isn’t Marx or Lenin. No, if you want to understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s bid to remake the economy to fight climate change, you need to read Hamilton.
Yes, Alexander Hamilton. Long before he was associated with theatrical hip-hop, former Treasury Secretary Hamilton called for policies that sound familiar to us today. Like Representative Ocasio-Cortez, he wanted massive federal spending on new infrastructure. Like Donald Trump, he believed that very high tariffs can nurture American manufacturing. And like Elizabeth Warren, he was willing to bend the Constitution to reform the financial system.
Hamilton, in short, successfully used the power of the federal government to boost manufacturing, to pick winners and losers, and to shape the fate of the U.S. economy. He is the father of American industrial policy: the set of laws and regulations that say the federal government can guide economic growth without micromanaging it. And the Green New Deal, for all its socialist regalia, only makes sense in light of his capitalistic work. ...

The article discusses that beginning with Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, the new libertarian laissez-faire economic ideology has mostly won the day and thus we have unwisely abandoned this practice of guiding the Invisible Hand (of Adam Smith's). The consequence of which has been the ceding of vast swathes of economic growth to other regions, thus creating the divisive social environment of today.

As the article also discusses Trump's use of such as tariffs have been tinged with his racist rhetoric, making the proponents of the Green New Deal adopt less effective political messaging in reaction.

The nuanced metaphor of a 'guided Invisible Hand' goes partway to the notion of a 'hybrid' socialist/capitalist economy, of which we've actually had to some degree for a long time.

The article provides a link, also below, to the considerable reading list of the New Consensus, the economic group also pushing the Green New Deal. Some of the books discuss the successful history of how countries, recent and centuries past, including the USA, have done all this before.

https://newconsensus.com/reading-list/
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I've been reading an interesting article series about where the "Left" in the US is headed today. Namely, there's an increasing level of panic about the Global Warming threat. This is being orchestrated by the "non-profit industrial complex" consisting of various nouveau riche left-leaning foundations including Gates & Buffett, as well as old money like Ford & Rockefeller. They're currently focused on creating a movement among the youth, aka "Generation Z", currently ages 10 to 24 (born 1995-2009). The themes are "We Don't Have Time", "Zero Hour", "Extinction Rebellion" and so forth.

In her intricately researched six part series entitled "The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg", Cory Morningstar traces the machinations and vast resources of this movement. And, she points out that it's focused on high-tech capitalist solutions, including carbon trading and carbon sequestration, and nuclear power and vast industrial solar & wind farms. Very little about conservation beyond a personal level, and certainly nothing about the vast environmental destructiveness of the military. Morningstar also identifies a strong racist & colonialist viewpoint, as "overpopulation" transfers blame to poverty-stricken rural villagers who have nothing else but kids.

Morningstar shows that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was recruited to run for Congress by the "Justice Democrats" and "Brand New Congress", both intimately tied to this foundation-driven green movement. Thus, it's not surprising to find her pushing the "Green New Deal".

It's left for another article at the same "Wrong Kind of Green" website, "Scurrying Fascist Cockroaches", to identify the basically anti-democratic orientation of the movement. John Steppling quotes Left icon Noam Chomsky:

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.
— Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, 2002
This faux eco-movement is still at the left fringe of US politics, while the right wing is more determined to burn every last drop of oil before Jesus gets back. Maybe it will take a testimonial from "Space Jesus" to tilt the balance of public opinion?
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Jerry, for the Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg link and for the Wrong Kinda Green website. While I knew of corporate sponsoring for Al Gore I was not aware that 350.org was in the same category. Though I should have known, as I had already dumped a former link to Avaaz news when it began spouting hate against Assad in Syria on behalf of the FSA, ISIS in disguise!

Yours faithfully
Claude

CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) is of course bunk since the CO2 will readily be released by earth tremors etc. Haven't these people ever heard of trees? I note that Greta Thunberg's claim to fame is that she is a descendant of Svante Arrhenius who discovered CO2 rise from industrialization in the first place. Note too that global warming began in 1977, the year Martin Heidegger died, having preached against Western technology for decades.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Somewhere in my library I have a book about the late Armand Hammer, the provocative leader of Occidental Petroleum. Al Gore's father was known as being Hammer's US senator, and thus garnered a ton of Occidental stock, which Al Jr. inherited. At some point Occidental got into some violent issues with an indigenous tribe in Columbia, and Gore Jr. managed to side-step complaints that he was quite aware of what was going on.

Hammer, of course, was an interesting figure based upon his long ties to the USSR and Nixon. But then, regarding doing business with the USSR, there were many other 'capitalists' like the rabidly anti-Semitic Henry Ford.

This is how the underlying imperium operates, with such as 'controlled opposition' fronts.

There is a claim that Man Made Global Warming began around 8,000 years ago when post-Ice Age humans began organized rice farming and agriculture motivated deforestation. Its also interesting to note that the famous Joseph story about the 7 years of feast and 7 years of famine (leading to the Egyptian implementation of feudalism in Genesis 47) seems based upon the realities of short term weather patterns that are found to have driven the waves of emigration into and out of Mesopotamia and Europe for thousands of years. This is well discussed by Brian Fagan in his The Long Summer, which posits that the present Holocene interglacial period is artificially long.

Waves of emigration into and out of Mesopotamia and Europe?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
More discussions of global warming & climate change can be found at these old threads:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/the-winger-effect-is-effecting-you.10

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/co2-climate-change-who-is-the-real-deniers.1574

It seems that I'm in a minority at this site. Most Postflavians over the last few years have argued that the "Man Made Global Warming" threat is greatly exaggerated.

Whereas I would point out that there's no question that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed over the past several decades, and I don't think the consequences of this experiment are fully understood yet. And, it's basic science that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas that can cause the temperature of the earth to increase.

I think that the IPCC projections are very much middle-road estimates. Perhaps the so-called "denialists" like Patrick Moore are correct to argue that nothing unusual is going on; but I think it's just as likely that alarmists like James Hansen and Guy McPherson might be correct, and that increased CO2 levels could lead to runaway feedback effects.

When it comes to Patrick Moore, the video touts his credentials as a "co-founder of Greenpeace". Greenpeace categorically states that this is a flat-out falsehood, and that Moore is actually an industry lobbyist.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Patrick Moore Does Not Represent Greenpeace
Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace....
Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).
Here's a very nice, detailed rebuttal of Moore's climate change video:

 

CplCam

Member
It seems that I'm in a minority at this site. Most Postflavians over the last few years have argued that the "Man Made Global Warming" threat is greatly exaggerated.

Whereas I would point out that there's no question that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed over the past several decades, and I don't think the consequences of this experiment are fully understood yet. And, it's basic science that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas that can cause the temperature of the earth to increase.
If "they" say the climate is changing dangerously the opposite must be true. Of course some post Flavians have used the same rationale to argue that the earth is flat so...

Personally I accept pascale's wager on climate change. If the theory is false and we acct like it's true then we'll have cleaned up our environment and revolutionized cheap, green energy "for nothing." Whereas if it's true and we don't act we all burn in hell (or something like that.)
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
It seems that I'm in a minority at this site. Most Postflavians over the last few years have argued that the "Man Made Global Warming" threat is greatly exaggerated.

Whereas I would point out that there's no question that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed over the past several decades, and I don't think the consequences of this experiment are fully understood yet. And, it's basic science that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas that can cause the temperature of the earth to increase.
This is yet another field where it is very difficult for the average person to determine what is real. If 97% of scientists agree on MMGW, then 3% of degree'd, acreditted scientists at least have some doubts. You and I helped convert a photovoltaic materials physicist from a believer into a doubter. It doesn't help when the IPCC had its own email scandal (about data extrapolation or fudging), and the dubious nature of some of its backers (beyond Gore).

Besides GW, we have enough problems with religious and non-religious motivated overpopulation, pollution, massive corruption, income inequality, etc.. And like the Flat Earth issue, remember we had a problem here with our suggesting that maybe we didn't need so many babies that God supposedly wants for some reason. The Wall Street market economy needs ever more babies.

What would happen to GW if suddenly we stopped covering our glaciers and polar caps with carbon soot? What if .... ?
 
Man-made global warming (MMGW) is very real in Australia. The worst drought in NSW's history - only starting to break now - has convinced even previously global warming denialist farmers of the reality of global warming. Warm temperatures in May lead to delayed planting of winter wheat crops - and the failure of the winter rains in the last two years in NSW led to the importation of hay not merely from South Australia but Western Australia, most of this being hauled by truck. Given your November fires in California I thought most people there would agree with global warming as real. The only substantial point the deniers have is over methane (CH4), since it essentially decays within 10 years of its release into the atmosphere, its rise from human activities confusing and often exaggerating the global warming signal.

However, the question of the 350.org is very concerning. In post #4 the 'Scurrying Fascist Cockroaches' article indeed reveals 350.org's control by elites who wish to privatize natural resources under their capitalist institutions which oppose fossil fuels categorically. But no-one else has any money to fund an alternative proposal - let alone of a Georgist kind. Hence, our future lies in a splitting up of the elites as multinational organizations fight amongst themselves for control (fossil fuel companies versus anti-fossil fuel companies & organizations fighting for predominance, even with certain board members no doubt in common on both sides). And so even Chomsky admits that fascist rule may then be the only alternative. Hence 350.org itself could readily fracture internally as the difficulties mount, leading to very new opportunities.

But is this a surprise? Has democracy ever worked anywhere - other than being led by demagogues or mere transient mob rule?

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Our polar caps and glacier are being covered by carbon soot much less now than 50 years ago - due to improved technology decreasing the number and use of home chimneys and increasing technological efficiency at thermal power stations. CO2 is the global warming factor; soot in contrast comprises C60 in the main, i.e. buckyball-shaped carbon molecules, so is quite distinct and a sign of incomplete combustion. Soot falling on a glacier would indeed enhance its melting due to soot absorbing the sun's heat - but the corollary is that the soot is soon washed off the glacier by the meltwater.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Given your November fires in California I thought most people there would agree with global warming as real.
Did you mean GW or MMGW?

In any case, I agree with CplCam's position, let's act like MMGW (and GW) is real and see if we can garner some wide societal benefits at the same time.

Since you are a once aspiring astronomer, is it correct that chimpigs or other 'agencies' are also warming the other planets of our solar system? Or is this fake news, like I was 'Horn' swoggled about the LUCIFER telescope?

However, the question of the 350.org is very concerning. In post #4 the 'Scurrying Fascist Cockroaches' article indeed reveals 350.org's control by elites who wish to privatize natural resources under their capitalist institutions which oppose fossil fuels categorically. But no-one else has any money to fund an alternative proposal - let alone of a Georgist kind. Hence, our future lies in a splitting up of the elites as multinational organizations fight amongst themselves for control (fossil fuel companies versus anti-fossil fuel companies & organizations fighting for predominance, even with certain board members no doubt in common on both sides). And so even Chomsky admits that fascist rule may then be the only alternative. Hence 350.org itself could readily fracture internally as the difficulties mount, leading to very new opportunities.
Back in the days of yore, such as fascists, socialists, or communists would ironically (in some cases) 'nationalize' resources and/or industries as they perceived their respective national interests. As such, I have wondered if such 'nationalization' would be scaled up to 'globalization'. Hmmm, the globalization of global resources or industries justified by a global crisis. All this while crass individual others are trying to achieve crass market uhmmm ... 'globalization'.

Briefly touched on this forum has been the optimal deployment of 'capital', as to who or what agency deploys capital. As such 'states', such as the conservative American state of North Dakota, which has a state bank chartered to deploy capital to its citizens, might be better suited to such a cause than more traditional banks with more selfish 'or other' interests.

Of course, zealous 'nationalists' would oppose any such efforts and agencies, many sure that some preferred non-human agency will save them one way or another. This begs the question of whether or not Dogod helps those who help themselves or not? And then, who will save us from these zealous nationalists?
PS: Our polar caps and glacier are being covered by carbon soot much less now than 50 years ago - due to improved technology decreasing the number and use of home chimneys and increasing technological efficiency at thermal power stations. CO2 is the global warming factor; soot in contrast comprises C60 in the main, i.e. buckyball-shaped carbon molecules, so is quite distinct and a sign of incomplete combustion. Soot falling on a glacier would indeed enhance its melting due to soot absorbing the sun's heat - but the corollary is that the soot is soon washed off the glacier by the meltwater.
I brought up soot as just one example of many, hence the "..." . That said, don't forget that such soot, and ash, and dust, also changes the reflective albedo of Earth's remaining glaciers.
 
Claude B said:
Given your November fires in California I thought most people there would agree with global warming as real.
Did you mean GW or MMGW?

In any case, I agree with CplCam's position, let's act like MMGW (and GW) is real and see if we can garner some wide societal benefits at the same time.
...
...don't forget that such soot, and ash, and dust, also changes the reflective albedo of Earth's remaining glaciers.
I meant MMGW but I have to admit that many of these people, as in Australia, consider GW to be some occult natural phenomenon - but still in need of some kind of solution.
That present day GW is MM is clear both from the cooling of the sun (revealed by diminished sunspots) which effect has merely delayed the severity of global warming, and by global dimming where sulfates and other 'soot' released into the atmosphere by industry have blocked some of the sunlight reaching earth, the effect overcome by GW (which may yet prove to be due to the transient CH4 component*). Actual soot, ash and dust on glaciers has only a transient effect until washed out by melting, though I admit that recent post-industrial glacial ice would be 'sootier' than earlier historical ice deposits which are now also melting.
Since you are a once aspiring astronomer, is it correct that chimpigs or other 'agencies' are also warming the other planets of our solar system? Or is this fake news, like I was 'Horn' swoggled about the LUCIFER telescope?
I'd have to say that a general warming of solar system planets is a fantasy despite the collective efforts of alien chimps, pigs and celestial Trump-clones.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Personally, I believe that the GW component of increased high-altitude cirrus clouds associated with extreme heat but not heralding a warm front are due to this excess methane, due to the fact that CH4 is lighter than H2O so quickly rises up to the level of the highest clouds, presumably interacting with the water vapor there. However I have not checked recent research on this.
 
Last edited:

Suchender

Member
Hannes Alfven's ideas are pioneering - but he cannot be invoked for Global Warming. The claim that other solar system planets are warming in synchrony with the earth is a baseless claim.

Just because one conspiracy theory is wrong doesn't mean all others are too.
I agree on your last point ! Just from where comes your idea of a 'conspiracy theory', Claude, when the subject is physics ?!

The point of the presentation was NOT about the warming of other planets of the Solar System, Claude ! It was something completely different, LOL

Picking only this other-planet-warming for a reply is not the smart way, Claude !
After reading your other posts I somehow was prepared you would do exactly what you did !
How interesting !
 
Ha ha ha!
Picking only this other-planet-warming for a reply is not the smart way, Claude !
After reading your other posts I somehow was prepared you would do exactly what you did !
How interesting !
:cool: Not even when your "electric solar system" links global warming to electrical current influences from the sun to other solar system planets? Hence your smarter move is to NOT to read whatever I write!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I think it's just as likely that alarmists like James Hansen and Guy McPherson might be correct, and that increased CO2 levels could lead to runaway feedback effects.
I must admit that up until now, I haven't understood the reason for all the panic regarding the consequences of a few degrees change in the average planetary temperature. But, I visited Guy McPherson's site and found that he's promoting a new study that explains the concern, and tends to confirm it. The authors of the study say:

Last year, some Oxbridge astrophysicists (David Sloan and colleagues) published a rather sensational paper in Scientific Reports claiming that life on Earth would likely survive in the face of cataclysmic astrophysical events, such as asteroid impacts, supernovae, or gamma-ray bursts. This rather extraordinary conclusion was based primarily on the remarkable physiological adaptations and tolerances to extreme conditions displayed by tardigrades — those gloriously cute, but tiny (most are around 0.5 mm long as adults) ‘water bears’ or ‘moss piglets’ — could you get any cuter names?
aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA5OC81NzMvb3JpZ2luYWwvc3dpbW1pbmctdGFyZGlncmFkZS5qcGc=
Found almost everywhere and always (the first fossils of them date back to the early Cambrian over half a billion years ago), these wonderful little creatures are some of the toughest metazoans (multicellular animals) on the planet. Only a few types of extremophile bacteria are tougher.
So, boil, fry or freeze the Earth, and you’ll still have tardigrades around, concluded Sloan and colleagues.
When Giovanni first read this, and then passed the paper along to me for comment, our knee-jerk reaction as ecologists was a resounding ‘bullshit!’. Even neophyte ecologists know intuitively that because species are all interconnected in vast networks linked by trophic (who eats whom), competitive, and other ecological functions (known collectively as ‘multiplex networks’), they cannot be singled out using mere thermal tolerances to predict the probability of annihilation.
Co-extinctions — the phenomenon of species going extinct because the species on which they depend go extinct first — mean that defaulting to physiological tolerances alone would severely underestimate extinction rates. But by how much?
Giovanni and I immediately responded to the journal that the Sloan conclusions could not be defended because of this simple fact. But they refused to publish the response because we could not quantify by how much they underestimated extinction.
Well, “fair enough”, we said. So, we set about trying to do the impossible — estimate the global extinction rate of species facing planetary catastrophes with co-extinctions taken into account.
So, with the appropriate level of skepticism based on the authors' admission that their self-imposed task is "impossible" and that this is all based on a huge computer simulation, here are the results:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/climate-change-may-cause-mass-extinctions-new-report-shows

The extinction of plant and animal species from extreme climate change could lead to a "domino effect" that annihilates all life on earth, new research has found.
The worst-case scenario is outlined in the journal Scientific Reports and describes how organisms die out because they depend on other doomed species in a process called co-extinctions.
The study found just five to six degrees in average global warming would be enough to wipe out most life on the planet.

The rapidity of the change makes a huge difference, because many species cannot migrate very quickly. Plants at the base of the food chain are very vulnerable to climate changes, and tend to be the first to go.

Another point that's critical to McPherson's argument, and that I hadn't understood, is the phenomenon of "Polar Amplification":

Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the net radiation balance (for example greenhouse intensification) tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average.[1] On a planet with an atmosphere that can restrict emission of longwave radiation to space (a greenhouse effect), surface temperatures will be warmer than a simple planetary equilibrium temperaturecalculation would predict. Where the atmosphere or an extensive ocean is able to transport heat polewards, the poles will be warmer and equatorial regions cooler than their local net radiation balances would predict.[2]
On Earth, Arctic polar amplification is a big deal, because the ice cover is mostly floating on the surface of the ocean, and is therefore vulnerable to warming from below as well as above. Whereas, most of the continent of Antarctica is at extreme low temperatures, and therefore is not subject to melting.

I've seen global warming skeptics (including Ralph Ellis) argue that arctic sea ice may be declining, but Antarctic ice is stable or indeed increasing, so the net effects cancel out. But, this neglects the unique effects of the warming taking place in the arctic region. As the ice melts, the exposed ocean is much darker in color, thus creating an accelerating feedback effect. (It also neglects that massive sea ice losses are taking place in West Antarctica, at the Larsen shelves.)

The ice levels in the Arctic get remorselessly lower every year. Unless some miracle occurs, the ice will be completely gone during some summer coming soon. What happens next is more controversial. But, some specialists are very concerned about gigantic methane deposits stored as hydrates within the ice, or embedded in permafrost. As the ice melts and the permafrost thaws, the methane concentration in the atmosphere will immensely intensify the greenhouse effect already underway.

To conclude this post, I offer this short video, in which President Niinisto of Finland explains to Donald Trump that the arctic ice is in trouble, and he mostly blames Russian coal-burning power plants. (McPherson obviously doesn't think this is correct, he thinks that arctic ice melting is mostly a result of global greenhouse effects.) Niinisto says "If we lose the arctic, we lose the globe. That is reality." Trump responds with some platitudes that he also wants crystal clean water and air. He looks like he hasn't understand a word of what Niinisto said.

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
An Oxford University Korean language instructor professes that aliens are hybridizing themselves with us standard model chimpigs, with Global Warming as the underlying motivation.

Of course, the Reverend Sun Young Moon revealed that he was greater than Christ, and such as Jerry Falwell took millions of dollars from Moon in acknowledging the reality of this. Oxford University printed the Scofield Reference Bible, where 'Scofield's' interpretations enabled the Futurist Second Coming (in support of the centuries old Jesuit teaching of same), where Christ arrives with an army from the heavens.

The first excerpted paragraph below mentions a Sitchinesque scenario, where Sitchin, an alumni of the London School of Economics, interpreted ancient Mesopotamian and Biblical texts to claim that aliens had engineered humans in the first place, making humans (as synthesized chimpigs?) literal slaves of their creators.

If you're familiar with UFO lore, you know there are a couple of common explanations for these breeding experiments. One is that the aliens are in a reproductive bind on their home world: They can no longer successfully procreate and so have come to Earth to use humans as incubators to spawn alien offspring. The other is that the aliens are producing hybrid beings that will somehow help them take over our planet.
Scientists, of course, are dubious of such claims. After all, there's never been any good evidence that the abductions are taking place. No one ever seems to bring along a cellphone to take photos or to pocket an artifact from the saucers.
But an instructor at the University of Oxford in England believes the abductions are real. Young-hae Chi, who teaches Korean at the university, also claims to know what the aliens have in mind. In lectures given at the university, he says they're creating alien-human hybrids as a hedge against climate change. To support his unorthodox theory, Chi notes that for several decades the number of reported alien abductions has risen. He bases this statement on the work of David Jacobs, a retired Temple University historian who has published several books on ufology and who runs the International Center for Abduction Research.
Jacobs has interviewed more than a thousand people who claim to have been abducted, using hypnotic regression that apparently allows them to recall their unearthly encounters with aliens. (Mind you, this too is controversial, and Jacobs himself admits that people should be skeptical of these recollections.)
Chi takes the claims at face value, and links the growing number of abductees cataloged by Jacobs to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. He doesn't imply a cause and effect: The abduction experiment is not responsible for global warming. Rather, it's a reaction to it. The extraterrestrials are producing hybrids that can better withstand the rigors of a toastier planet. By producing a new model of Homo sapiens, this project would eliminate the need for difficult climate accords or elaborate geoengineering projects. It would also help the aliens themselves — who are said to be living among us — by preserving the part of their DNA that's carried by the temperature-tolerant hybrids. ...
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
A massive disaster is unfolding in the US midwest this farming season. Extreme heavy rains and flooding are making it impossible for many farmers to plant their crops at all. If the crops are planted, the flooding is causing stunted growth. As of May 28, only 58% of corn acreage and 29% of soybean acreage had been planted, vs. typical figures of 90% and 66% respectively. John Newton, chief economist at American Farm Bureau Federation, reportedly said he's never experienced anything like this. Michael Coren at Quartz says:

https://qz.com/1631469/midwest-floods-linked-to-climate-change-are-devastating-us-farms/

If this sounds like part of the climate crisis, it is. As the planet warms, extremes in heavy rain and drought are becoming the new normal, says Sean Sublette, a meteorologist at Climate Matters. It’s not that every weather event is the result of global warming. But the probability of extreme disaster rises as humans increase the levels of carbon dioxide, now at their highest point in the planet’s atmosphere in 3 million years. Greenhouse gases trap heat and destabilize the climate system. Higher temperatures “supercharge” evaporation, leading to droughts and desertification. Water is dumped back on arid soil in torrential rains, creating flooding.

Apparently, the US is not alone in experiencing unusual weather conditions. Meteorologist Nick Humphrey provided a list of links, which I've visited to provide additional summaries.

This isn't an exhaustive list as surrounding nations are also suffering as well in some cases and this is a snapshot of what's been reported mostly in just the last 30 days.
Towns along the Mississippi River have been experiencing the longest stretch of major flooding from the river in nearly a century.
The Arkansas River near Little Rock is cresting at its highest level since 1945 as the region braces for more rainfall.
Saskatoon and Moose Jaw had their driest springs ever recorded.
14% less rainfall in northeast, India record lowest pre-monsoon in 65 years
Australia is staring down the barrel of another lower-than-average winter crop, as ongoing dry weather hinders planting across the nation...
North Korean media outlets have been urging all-out efforts to fight drought in the face of a record dry spell. According to the Rodong Sinmun, the North's official newspaper, the country's precipitation level during the first five months of this year was the lowest since 1917.
Nearly half of all rural Afghans now face some level of food insecurity, a UN agency said on Monday, as a historic drought and deteriorating security grip the country.
An extended, severe drought in southern Veracruz has proved fatal for rare howler monkeys. A combination of extreme temperatures nearing 40 C and a three-month dearth of rainfall in the region has deprived the monkeys of access to sufficient water.
A lack of rainfall last year and so far this year means that irrigation prospects across the country are low, meaning that new measures are having to be put in place in order to ensure at least some potatoes grow.
According to phys.org, the four-month period from April to July 2018 was the warmest in Germanysince the beginning of weather recording. As a consequence, by August, about 90 percent of the German territory was suffering a drought.
Germany's DWD weather service says that soil moisture deficits lingering since Europe's 2018 drought have not been relieved by winter rainfall. DWD agricultural meteorologist Udo Busch stated that conditions after the winter in many regions of Germany were "significantly worse in 2019 compared to the previous year".
Southern Angola is facing the worst drought in decades, with at least 2.3 million people at high risk of suffering malnutrition because they couldn’t get enough food, the United Nations Children’s Fund says.
Among them is 58-year-old farmer Eduardo Noukala, who is struggling to find enough grass and water for the cattle his family now depends on.
The worst drought to hit southern Angola in decades destroyed his entire crop.
It hasn’t rained since November and thousands of farmers like Noukala were left with no harvest and little hope.
He says only God knows about the drought this year, because he hasn’t seen something like this before.
At least 24 people have been killed in a wave of torrential rainfall and flooding that has pounded Iran for the past two weeks, local officials say.
According to Mojtaba Khaledi, a spokesman for Iran's emergency services, four people were killed by flooding while another 20 lost their lives after having been struck by lightning.
A severe drought is baking parts of China, with southwestern Yunnan province and northeastern Jilin province getting the worst of it, according to the Beijing-based National Climate Center.
Crops have been damaged by the drought, including rice and wheat in southern areas and corn in the northeast.
According to the Yunnan government, the drought has made it difficult for about 309,000 people to get drinking water. About 141,000 hectares of crops have been affected, with more than 29,000 hectares experiencing serious damage.
Namibia is facing a "natural disaster" because of poor rains, President Hage Geingob says.
He has declared a state of emergency - the second in three years - over the situation, mobilising all government agencies to respond to the drought.
The lack of rain has already left 500,000 people - one in five Namibians - without access to enough food, the government says.
The sparsely-populated country has seen a succession of droughts since 2013.
At least 37% of the urban populace require food aid in Zimbabwe and, unlike in the past, aid will also be distributed in towns and cities.
According to Famine Early Warning Systems Network in May, levels of acute food shortages are up because of poor rainfalls experienced last year in November, which meant a delay in planting and subsequently harvesting normally done in April.
Mozambique’s first disaster was a cyclone. The second has been cholera. Now hunger could be the third.
The raging floodwaters that left a large part of central Mozambique a vast inland sea are draining away, laying bare a severe lack of food for the months ahead.
Low-lying rice fields in this fertile region were destroyed when rivers burst their banks. Maize crops on higher land were shredded. Their mangled stalks now wither under an almost constant sun. Exposed, the clay earth is cracking.
The UN says climate change has "undermined" the lives of farmers in Vietnam, where the wet season has come earlier or brought in heavier rains in recent years.
"In Vietnam and elsewhere, climate change has put weather in flux. When you can no longer plan for the future, you can only hope," said Dechen Tsering, UN Environment's Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

All of this might represent just a string of bad luck, and it's impossible to prove anything about the climate from particular and specific incidents. But, there's very little doubt that increased CO2 levels are causing increased temperatures and also increased amounts of water vapor in the air. Climate models say that this should result in both increased storm intensity, and also increased episodes of drought.

Unfortunately, if we wait long enough for definitive statistical proof of a trend towards crop failure caused by bad weather, the problem could easily also cause a collapse of the world economy owing to increased food prices, food riots, and so forth.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The NYT supposedly posted an article in the last few days that severe drought is an additional motivating factor, besides criminal gangs, for people to abandon the countries south of Mexico to come the USA.
 
Top