Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

I wonder why Chris Martenson did not talk about Climate Change in the Crash Course ? 

I suppose only Chris Martenson can answer this question, but I know he is a very busy man !

I also suppose it is a huge new subject area which is probably a huge job to take on and present. 

I still think there is enough serious concern on the topic though to support it as important as the three E's.  I feel that it is a very real and impending phenomena that is going to create just as much upheaval as the three E's.  Actually perhaps more.  Depending on your view point, probably more.

With peak oil we see a bell shaped curve - where if you take the peak at 2005, then in 2030 the worldwide oil production would be the same as it was in 1980.  Which of course is terrible because demand and population has gone up since then.

My point is that if we continue to burn oil at the rate we are - forget 2030 - we are going to be stuffed waaaay before then. Climate change is going to "get us" before the oil runs out.  Maybe not before it is extravagantly expensive.  But we will still be burning it.

This opinion comes after reading "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer.  Gosh, I give us 5 years max till climate change chaos really kicks in badly.  And that is not counting the chaos of the three E's on top of it.  It will be a perfect storm. 

I just don't want the people on this forum to miss that.  We are all here trying to plan, theorise, debate and discuss different scenarios by sharing opinions on the outcome of the three E's.  But I feel climate change will be right in the middle of it making it worse. 

It is sometimes mentioned that there could well be war as a result of oil shortage.  If climate change produces food shortages before then - that could well result in war too.  Both of them together will be almost certain.

War is a very real outcome of our future.  I would like to see readers consider planning for its possibility in their preparations.  Just a thought and I don't want its consideration to be overlooked, that's all.

 

 

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
AmandaPops wrote:

I wonder why Chris Martenson did not talk about Climate Change in the Crash Course ? 

I still think there is enough serious concern on the topic though to support it as important as the three E's.  I feel that it is a very real and impending phenomena that is going to create just as much upheaval as the three E's.  Actually perhaps more.  Depending on your view point, probably more.

Even at its height of power and ideals, all the CO2 reduction targets seem to have achieved very little, even in the countries that really worked at meeting their goals

Peak Oil on the other hand is going to force us to reduce our consumption of oil by 6% per year from now according ti the IEA. The current meltdown is going to accelerate this reduction in the future due to the drop off in investment in new fields.

The effort to replace this oil loss with tar sand oil, shale oil, and coal to petrol, to maintain our current consumption rate is almost certainly beyond our capability.

This means that we ARE now going to start to reduce our CO2 emissions from these sources.

The rate at which we loose oil & oil substitutes is in all likelihood going to be at a pace which causes at least  tens millions of deaths due to starvation/war etc.

I don't believe that any politicians will be willing to suggest we reduce our consumption faster and essentially kill millions more than otherwise would so we can lessen the potential danger of AGW side effects.

War will break out first, guaranteed.

So debate on AWG is a side show that will not have any meaningful impact on a CO2 emissions

Personally, I am sceptical about the quality of much of the "science" put forward by the IPCC and its brethren.

However, In my hunt for the perfect bit of land, anything too near the sea is not being considered Wink

Cheers Hamish

 

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War


The Christopher Booker Prize for Climate Change Bullshit

Today I launch a prestigious and coveted award. Who will the lucky winner be?

 

By George Monbiot. Published on my Guardian blog, 6th February 2009

The award will go to whoever manages, in the course of 2009, to cram as many misrepresentations,
distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture,
film or interview about climate change. This work must be available
online. You score a point for every mistake, though one point will be
deducted for every retraction or correction published by the author or
the original outlet within a reasonable length of time.

For more details, and a picture of the beautiful trophy - made entirely from recycled materials - see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/04/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-prize

Downrange's picture
Downrange
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 13 2008
Posts: 62
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Certainly can't speak for Chris, but it might have something to do with the fact that the role of human CO2 release in the scheme of the planetary warming cycle has not been definitively established.  As such, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is more of a religion, complete with articles of "faith," and, in my view, a basic Calvinist sense of self-denial, that doesn't belong in a serious view of our predicament and what we might realistically do about it.  As another poster pointed out, the problem of excess carbon release is likely to be a short-lived one anyway, as we've high-graded out most of the carbon-based fuel supply anyway...

In fact, if AGW had some basis in fact, it could prove to be delaying the arrival of the next ice age, which would be a true global catastrophy for the billions not living in equatorial zones.  So it could be a good thing, if it were real, kind of ironic, eh?

 

pwoody82's picture
pwoody82
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 51
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

A few things that I have run across:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302139006837027

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301188009150002

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300928533183022

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12317&tid=282&cid=23446

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=9210&sectionid=1000

There are a host of other articles out there that makes the hypothesis of global warming due to CO2 uncertain. Also the fundamental tenant of global warming advocates is that the current climate is the ideal climate and it should not be permitted to change, even if some other climate, warmer or colder would be better.

In the Museum of Natural History here in Albuquerque NM there is a section dealing with the history of New Mexico showing the changes in flora and fauna over a period of about 20,000 years. 20,000 years ago the climate of New Mexico was much colder than now. The highest peak in NM is a little over 13,000 feet with several others over 12,000. The museum has a diorama along one wall showing how the vegetation has changed over the the period. At the start of the period displayed, the highest peaks had snow year round, coming down 3-4000 feet below the summits. Halfway through the period the snow came down only a 1000 feet or so, and today the peaks do not have snow year round.

This diorama was not done to illustrate global warming since it was done before Al Gore's book but it does illustrate it here in the southwest. It clearly shows that here in the southwest, 'global warming' has been occurring for at least that long. Now that long ago, there was little fossil fuel being burned but warming was still happening, and the flora/fauna record of New Mexico makes it pretty plain that it is probably still occurring. That is what makes me believe that while global warming may be occurring, it is not certain that it is caused by CO2, and less certain that controlling CO2 emissions will change the process of a trend that goes back that far.

The point is that this world has matters a lot more pressing than global warming to deal with and that we should not take our eyes off the ball to try to change a natural process that is ongoing and probably outside of our control. We have urgent problems about Peak Oil, population growth, depletion or resources, pollution, and severe shortage in the near future. Lets work on what we can and not waste resources on a bug-a-boo that will eventually take care of itself.

pwoody

Arthur Vibert's picture
Arthur Vibert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2008
Posts: 116
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Sadly, this is a bad subject for this site, as it invariably devolves into potshots fired back and forth by "believers" and "non-believers" in climate change, a veritable perfect storm of tit-for-tatting that results in interminable, multi page forum subjects in which no one's mind is changed. To date, CM has (wisely, I think) refused to wade in with a point of view on this subject, and I suspect this will continue to be his policy.

People do get polarized on this issue. I happen to be in the "Climate change is a given and I'm pretty sure it's anthropogenic in origin" camp but I also think that, given the circumstances we find ourselves in that little will be done to alleviate it. The world needs to shed a few billion people, and it is finding ways to take care of that.

Arthur 

Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned climated change.  It is just too controversial, and Arthur you are absolutely right - there are the believers and non believers - and nothing can be said to change either's side.  A bit like religeon.  Besides climate change has been discussed on the forum before - to the same conclusion.  Back and forths between believers and non believers.

Whether it is anthropologically induced or not, though, is a different question to whether it is happening or not.  I don't think I am going to debate climate change any more.  Suffice to say that IF you believe, then MY PERSONAL OPINION is that its consequences will be serious before peak oil has serious consequences to humanity.  But that both of them will bring war.

And I really just wanted to see people thinking ahead with how they might deal with war.  If there is anything we can do.  I don't know.  Relocate ? Or just keep doing what we are and being as self reliant as possible ?  Or just start doing something - anything - sooner.

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
AmandaPops wrote:

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned climated change.  It is just too controversial, and Arthur you are absolutely right - there are the believers and non believers - and nothing can be said to change either's side.  A bit like religeon.  Besides climate change has been discussed on the forum before - to the same conclusion.  Back and forths between believers and non believers.

Whether it is anthropologically induced or not, though, is a different question to whether it is happening or not.  I don't think I am going to debate climate change any more.  Suffice to say that IF you believe, then MY PERSONAL OPINION is that its consequences will be serious before peak oil has serious consequences to humanity.  But that both of them will bring war.

And I really just wanted to see people thinking ahead with how they might deal with war.  If there is anything we can do.  I don't know.  Relocate ? Or just keep doing what we are and being as self reliant as possible ?  Or just start doing something - anything - sooner.

There is a third class of thought out here. What about the concept that AGW is exacerbating the already natural global warming cycle? I don't think anyone denies the reality in the historical record of cyclical periods of global warming and cooling.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
AmandaPops wrote:

there are the believers and non believers - and nothing can be said to change either's side.  A bit like religeon. 

 

Which is rather sad because it is supposed to be about science and numbers,

but it became political.........

then the media got into it.............

 

 

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 651
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Sam, you obviously haven't read the IPCC report and looked at its phony graph of historical average temperatures. They try to peddle the idea that mean temperature was very nearly constant until  a hockey stick change began in the last century. Anyone who takes an honest look at historical climate data will be disabused of the notion that mean temperature is constant on timescales exceeding a century or so. It is downright wild in its variation on millennial timescales. Only when seriously costy measures to reign in CO2 emissions are proposed will there be an honest debate on the scientific merits. Until then people can and will keep their religion and ignore the data.

Stan

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3157
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

I can't speak for Chris, but,  as is obvious any time the subject comes up, it quickly degenerates into political tirades.  It's divisive and, therefore, contrary to the purpose of this site.

Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Well I think that is a bit harsh.  Since when did you decide which topics are contrary to the purpose of this site, or what the purpose of the site even is?

The purpose of the site forums is discussion.  You can call it devisive or you can call it debate.  I am sure we are all big enough and ugly enough to state our opinions without it deteriorating in to a "degenerative divisive tirade".

Even then it is a matter of defining "degenerative divisive tirade".

I didn't say we shouldn't discuss climate change, I just don't think there is any point.  Mostly because it has all been discussed before.  I mostly wanted to bring up the topic of war being a possibility.  But please don't try to prelude others from discussing climate change if they wish.

 

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

I think there are many out there that have not read enough regarding biology, chemistry, and earth science to understand the technical aspects to this argument.  There is A LOT of numbers that go into both theories.  There is A LOT of data that is included into these theories.  There is so much, even AFTER reading books on the specifics of this issue, that I cannot comprehend and mold into a basis for my own conclusions.  After all, I am not a climatologist.  But- given the information I have read and should re-read, I have been more convinced with by AGW than its counterpart.  That is, I find the AGW proponents, and those that actually collect the data, provide more necessary evidence.  To many, AGW may not be sufficient for the moment, but, as to whose theory is better (not necessarily sufficient) founded, I believe is AGW scientists.  I urge people to read about this issue before making conclusions.  Some members just post technical jargon (which is fine for those that understand the science behind it).  Laypersons will hardly understand the technical jargon, BUT if you go and get a book that lays down foundational information to help understand the technical jargon is a much better approach at understanding this complex issue (IMO of course).

Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

And I second that.

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
stanrobertson wrote:

Sam, you obviously haven't read the IPCC report and looked at its phony graph of historical average temperatures. They try to peddle the idea that mean temperature was very nearly constant until  a hockey stick change began in the last century. Anyone who takes an honest look at historical climate data will be disabused of the notion that mean temperature is constant on timescales exceeding a century or so. It is downright wild in its variation on millennial timescales. Only when seriously costy measures to reign in CO2 emissions are proposed will there be an honest debate on the scientific merits. Until then people can and will keep their religion and ignore the data.

Stan

 

Stan,

Are you referring to this figure?:

It certainly isn't what I was referencing to when I stated, "I don't think anyone denies the reality in the historical record of cyclical periods of global warming and cooling." Like you, I'm talking millennial timescales. That said, I think it is also reasonable to state that AGW could be a contributing factor to the current warming cycle. I don't think it is the only factor.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3157
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Amanda

Quote:

Well I think that is a bit harsh.  Since when did you decide which topics are contrary to the purpose of this site, or what the purpose of the site even is?

I was responding to your question, not stating that AGW shouldn't be discussed.  You asked why Chris hasn't weighed in on the subject, I was suggesting a reason.

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

I think chris is right to focus on peak oil rather than GW. Personally I'm a AGW believer, however I'm still on the fence as to what the practical effects are going to be, and how warming is divided between natural and man made causes.

The possibilities range from a minor, temporary (due to PO) impact to catastrophic venusian runaway, and even the best climate scientiss don't really know the likely outcome.I don't object to debating it here, but it doesn't really add much to the issue of what to do about PO.

Population growth is a more useful talking point I think with regard to PO. This bears directly on personal energy budgets, and is also a subject which is hugely mis-understood.

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
Downrange wrote:

Certainly can't speak for Chris, but it might have something to do with the fact that the role of human CO2 release in the scheme of the planetary warming cycle has not been definitively established. As such, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is more of a religion, complete with articles of "faith," and, in my view, a basic Calvinist sense of self-denial, that doesn't belong in a serious view of our predicament and what we might realistically do about it. As another poster pointed out, the problem of excess carbon release is likely to be a short-lived one anyway, as we've high-graded out most of the carbon-based fuel supply anyway...

In fact, if AGW had some basis in fact, it could prove to be delaying the arrival of the next ice age, which would be a true global catastrophy for the billions not living in equatorial zones. So it could be a good thing, if it were real, kind of ironic, eh?

I believe AGW is real because of DATA, not faith.  Just because climatologists cannot be sure how severe things will become by offering a range of possibilities does not mean it isn't happening.

High grading of ores does NOT mean we might reduce CO2 emissions.  If we persiste with keeping the status quo going for as long as possible, it will actually mean INCREASED CO2 emissions, as more and more energy will need to be consumed to simply keep up with lower grades.

Believe me, the current disasters in Australia have not reduced the 'faith' in AGW, it's all everyone talks about at the moment:

 

Bushfires and climate change

Are more bushfires a symptom of climate change?
The ongoing blazes in New South Wales and Victoria have again brought
this question to the fore, and it comes as no surprise that many
scientists believe in a link between climate change and an increased
likelihood of bushfires. Of course, nobody can point to any one blaze
and say “that fire is the result of climate change”; mother nature will
invariably deliver natural disasters without compunction. Furthermore,
bushfires have always been an important part to many Australian
ecosystems, so to attribute all future blazes to global warming would
be specious.

It stands to reason, however, that as fire-prone areas become hotter
and drier as a result of climate change, the number of days marked by
‘extreme’ fire danger will grow.

In October 2008, the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, established in 2003, issued a report
highlighting the link between climate change and bushfires. While
careful to point out that bushfires are not in and of themselves bad
things, the report notes that the south-east region of Australia is one
of the world’s three most fire-prone areas. That makes it particularly
important to know about the effect that global warming might have on
bushfire frequencies, so that the groups who respond to fires can
prepare.

But it’s not just more bushfires that Australia might have to brace for. It’s commonly held
that climate change will result in an increase in all sorts of extreme
weather events. You could take a tour of Australia for a few examples.
Floods in Queensland, fires in Victoria and New South Wales and drought
throughout much of the country; some would say that’s pretty strong
evidence that climate change is already taking its toll. Others,
however, would argue that these events are nothing new in Australia and
provide no evidence for climate change, and even the claim that there
has been a global trend toward more extreme weather events is hotly debated.

But according to Senator Bob Brown, the trend exists. In his opinion
the tragic bushfires that have consumed much of Victoria in the last
few days could be a harbinger of future flare-ups. Speaking with Sky
News, he reportedly said:

Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event
happen 25%, 50% more. It’s a sobering reminder of the need for this
nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to
tackle climate change.

 

 

Are the Victorian bushfires the beginning of global warming?


9/02/2009 2:00:00 PM.
 | Tim Brunero
Fire engine bushfires | AAP
 

Phil Koperberg knows bushfires.  He’s spent his whole life fighting them.
 
For 10 years he was on the front line as NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner.
 
Before that, he was the Director-General of the NSW Bush Fire Service.
 
And now he represents some of our most bushfire-vulnerable countrymen in as the member for the Blue Mountains.
 
So
when he comes out and says firefighters are going to have to adjust
what they do because of global warming - it’s worth listening to.
 
This
morning, in the face of the worst bushfires ever experienced by this
nation, he stated categorically that fires are now behaving in
different ways because of global warming.
 
“There will be a revision now (due to) climate change,” he said on Sydney radio.
 
“Fires
are behaving differently in many, many ways. The fuel conditions change
according to the amount of rainfall, according to the amount of
moisture content in the fuel.
 
“And these are the challenges ahead of fire authorities in the next 20 to 30 years.”
 
These
simple words are something those who make a living out of denying the
existence of climate change should read very carefully.  Even with all
our technology more people than any other bushfire episode in our
history, 130, have died.

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
stanrobertson wrote:

Sam, you obviously haven't read the IPCC report and looked at its phony graph of historical average temperatures. They try to peddle the idea that mean temperature was very nearly constant until a hockey stick change began in the last century. Anyone who takes an honest look at historical climate data will be disabused of the notion that mean temperature is constant on timescales exceeding a century or so. It is downright wild in its variation on millennial timescales. Only when seriously costy measures to reign in CO2 emissions are proposed will there be an honest debate on the scientific merits. Until then people can and will keep their religion and ignore the data.

Stan

There's only one problem with this line of thinking:  we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for barely 200 years, and had ZERO effect on the climate before then.  Therefore, whilst looking back a few hundred thousand years gives is a basis for what normally happens, it cannot be used as reasoning for what is happening now, because today's events have never happened before.  Just think of the millions of tons of CO2 that have just been released into the air in just two days because of the fires in southern Australia....  they will take decades to be re-absorbed.

Mike 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
scepticus wrote:

I think chris is right to focus on peak oil rather than GW. Personally I'm a AGW believer, however I'm still on the fence as to what the practical effects are going to be, and how warming is divided between natural and man made causes.

The possibilities range from a minor, temporary (due to PO) impact to catastrophic venusian runaway, and even the best climate scientiss don't really know the likely outcome.I don't object to debating it here, but it doesn't really add much to the issue of what to do about PO.

Population growth is a more useful talking point I think with regard to PO. This bears directly on personal energy budgets, and is also a subject which is hugely mis-understood.

The very best thing about this site is how it gathers all the horsemen of the apocalypse into one perfect storm.

You can't view any of the prob;ems we now face in isolation.  Chris says as much in the CC, even mentioning AGW at the start, but seemingly changing his mind later.

Make no mistake, PO might make  AGW less bad, but it could make it worse if we decided to try sticking with BAU with the likes of Coal to Liquids, Shale Oil, and Tar Sands....  or even ethanol and biodiesel.

I have now concluded that the only thing that might save us from AGW is a depression of the worst kind.  Such a depression would reduce population and consumption, and that is what we have to have.  The medicine might be worse than the ailment, but there you go.

Mike 

cejstrup's picture
cejstrup
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 10 2008
Posts: 20
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Reduce population. Less consumption. Doesn't sound bad to me Smile

Only problem is if I'm one of those in the population that will be reduced,but I guess I have to accept that. It's the only way out of this mess we're in.

Personally I've reduced my consumption a lot this last year.

I've sold off my expensive sports car. Reduced my spending on luxury items. I've spent more time with my family and friends.

Now my standard of living has dropped dramatically,but my quality of living has reached an all-time high. I'm glad I took the step. 

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

"The very best thing about this site is how it gathers all the horsemen of the apocalypse into one perfect storm."

Which is fine if your aim is just to prepare for or broadcast armageddon. I'd rather focus on possible solutions (while also preparing for armageddon a little bit on the side), and separation of variables helps here, although you are right in saying that any solutions must be considered as part of the wider picture.

 

Arthur Vibert's picture
Arthur Vibert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2008
Posts: 116
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Perhaps you should repost this, Amanda, only without the "Climate Change" part.

Arthur 

Nichoman's picture
Nichoman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2008
Posts: 422
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Another endless diatribe on Climate Change (sigh) from both sides.

For those who have joined recently or haven't read any of my earlier posts on Climate Change (which I've stated I wouldn't respond further to) as to how to properly address and solve.   Will make a rare exception.

The unique properties of water increasingly support the ability to manage/mitigate worldwide weather and facilitate the cleansing process of the planet by 2100Even if worst cases are possible...would be solved...but don't hear this.  Why?

Roughly, applying scales of Natural, Man-Enhanced and Organically-Enhanced Thermodynamic (e.g. Rankine cycles, etc.) properties of water combined with its other unique properties.

To restate.  By only applying the highest professional, scientific, and management standards to address this or any issue can we succeed.

Put simply, there is inadequate professionalism, failed leadership, near non existent education on this subject...otherwise it wouldn't be so contentious of where were at and where we need to go.  This topic of Climate Change is an excellent  example of why were in the world-wide situation were now in.

Please, don't give into maintaining special interests, dogma, fear, ignorance and most important... compulsive judgement and/or blame.  Be open minded, objective and learn.  As I've said before, won't respond any further on this subject because my experiences are its fruitless.

For those scientifically and mathematically inclined...

  http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

Then apply to thermodynamics principles  (Search on line).   The numbers speak for themselves.

Believers and sceptics will continue to post media articles to "prove" their point.    

Sad.  This post will be ignored or dismissed by many who maintain their right and others are wrong.   Why is the question? Please consider this as to finding solutions.   No wonder were where were at.

FWIW...my perspective this topic is tertiary to earth asset depletion if we applied proper cost-impact-benefit analysis standards.   Chris has it right.

 

 

Nichoman  (Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Change Manager)

 

 

gtazman's picture
gtazman
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 48
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Today's Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler entry is very good.   Link: http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/  

Poverty of Imagination  

"If this nation wants to survive without an intense political convulsion, there's a lot we can do, but none of it is being voiced in any corner of Washington at this time. We have to get off of petro-agriculture and grow our food locally, at a smaller scale, with more people working on it and fewer machines. This is an enormous project, which implies change in everything from property allocation to farming methods to new social relations. But if we don't focus on it right away, a lot of Americans will end up starving, and rather soon. We have to rebuild the railroad system in the US, and electrify it, and make it every bit as good as the system we once had that was the envy of the world. If we don't get started on this right away, we're screwed. We will have tremendous trouble moving people and goods around this continent-sized nation. We have to reactivate our small towns and cities because the metroplexes are going to fail at their current scale of operation. We have to prepare for manufacturing at a much smaller (and local) scale than the scale represented by General Motors."

Alex Szczech's picture
Alex Szczech
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 105
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Yes, Kunstler's post today was excellent. Along similar lines check out Alec Dubro's peice on the myth of the efficient car: http://www.progressive.org/mag/mpdubro020309.html

Speaking for myself and to return to the topic at hand --  human induced climate change is very real and extremely serious. So much so that it'll result in the extinction of our species (along with a bunch of other species) in a few hundred years if we don't act in a meaningful NOW  way to counter act it (which, of course, we won'tCry),

Nichoman's picture
Nichoman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2008
Posts: 422
Re: Jim Kunstler Article...Prophacy?
gtazman wrote:

Today's Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler entry is very good.   Link: http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/  

Poverty of Imagination  

Yes...his articles are compelling and insightful.   His ability to paint issues in an understandable manner, yet with depth is exceptional.

Find his last sentence the most powerful...

Jim Kunstler wrote:

"... This striking poverty of imagination may lead to change that will tear the nation to pieces."

 

Look at actions being taken and tone...speaks volumes.

 

Nichoman

 

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
Alex Szczech wrote:

 

 
human induced climate change is very real and extremely serious. So much so that it'll result in the extinction of our species (along with a bunch of other species) in a few hundred years if we don't act in a meaningful NOW  way to counter act it (which, of course, we won'tCry),

Get a grip on reality

Man armed with stone clubs and fire made it thorough an ice age.

To wipe out man you will have to almost sterilize the earth ( well ok cockroaches will survive )

 

Ad is not halving our oil consumption in 10 years meaningfull, becuae we are going to do that

 

 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War

Hi Amanda,

something I wished to offer that I watched back at the end of April last year, is Senator Roscoe Bartlett talking at Congress about American energy depletion.

 

Now, I know April last year seems like I'm dragging up 'Old News' but, Roscoe has been on the case of this for well over 30 years, which is pre President Carter days, when I feel we should have been providing a new and influential take on sustainability. Jimmy Carter put solar panels onto the roof of the White House back then, but when Reagan came to power, they were the first things to be ripped out and trashed, with excessive consumption the ideal that has been the cause of both our existing depletion and the model that Asian countries have followed. Congress is empty yet again during the lecture but I recall Sen Bartlett gained an audience with Bush in early June because of it - I haven't been holding my breath for any results from that meeting...

Paul

P.S. I'm begining to loath this expression but, this is but more evidence of government being 'Asleep At The Switch'. 

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
Damnthematrix wrote:

they will take decades to be re-absorbed.

Mike 

if not longer (at the maximum, millions+ years)

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Climate Change, the Three E's, and War
gyrogearloose wrote:

Man armed with stone clubs and fire made it thorough an ice age.

Now, since the cards have been changed, add to this "Man armed with stone clubs and fire made it thorough an ice age" with little to no resources.

We may or may not live through another "mini" ice age.  That depends upon how prepared we are.  I say that is not likely. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments