Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See prorev.com for full contents of our site
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
96 Maine Street #255
Brunswick ME 04011
202-423-7884
Your editor has been a
musician for many decades. He started the first band his Quaker
school ever had and played drums with bands up until 1980 when
he switched to stride piano. He had his own band until the mid-1990s
and has played with the New Sunshine Jazz Band, Hill City Jazz
Band, Not So Modern Jazz Band and the Phoenix Jazz Band.
APEX BLUES Sam
playing with the Phoenix Jazz Band at the Central Ohio Jazz festival
in 1990. Joining the band is George James on sax. James, then
84, had been a member of the Louis Armstrong and Fats Waller
orchestras and hadappeared on some 60 records.More
notes on James
Johann Hari, Independent, UK - Every day, I pine for the global warming deniers to be proved right. I loved the old world - of flying to beaches wherever we want, growing to the skies, and burning whatever source of energy came our way. I hate the world to come that I've seen in my reporting from continent after continent - of falling Arctic ice shelves, of countries being swallowed by the sea, of vicious wars for the water and land that remains. When I read the works of global warming deniers like Nigel Lawson or Ian Plimer, I feel a sense of calm washing over me. The nightmare is gone; nothing has to change; the world can stay as it was.
But then I go back to the facts. However much I want them to be different, they sit there, hard and immovable. Nobody disputes that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, like a blanket holding in the Sun's rays. Nobody disputes that we are increasing the amount of those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And nobody disputes that the world has become considerably hotter over the past century. . . .
Yet half our [British] fellow citizens are choosing to believe the deniers who say there must be gaps between these statements big enough to fit an excuse for carrying on as we are. Shrieking at them is not going to succeed.
Our first response has to be to accept that this denial is an entirely natural phenomenon. The facts of global warming are inherently weird, and they run contrary to our evolved instincts. . .
It's tempting to allow this first response to harden into a dogma, and use it to cover your eyes. . . But the basic science isn't actually very complicated, or hard to grasp. As more carbon dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere, the world gets warmer. Every single year since 1917 has been hotter than 1917. Every single year since 1956 has been hotter than 1956. Every single year since 1992 has been hotter than 1992. And on, and on. If we dramatically increase the carbon dioxide even more - as we are - we will dramatically increase the warming. Many parts of the world will dry up or flood or burn.
This is such an uncomfortable claim that I too I have tried to grasp at any straw that suggests it is wrong. One of the most tempting has come in the past few weeks, when the emails of the Hadley Centre at the University of East Anglia were hacked into, and seem on an initial reading to show that a few of their scientists were misrepresenting their research to suggest the problem is slightly worse than it is. Some people have seized on it as a fatal blow - a Pentagon Papers for global warming.
But then I looked at the facts. It was discovered more than a century ago that burning fossil fuels would release warming gases and therefore increase global temperatures, and since then, hundreds of thousands of scientists have independently reached the conclusion that it will have terrible consequences. It would be very surprising if, somewhere among them, there wasn't a charlatan or two who over-hyped their work. Such people exist in every single field of science (and they are deplorable).
So let's knock out the Hadley Centre's evidence. Here are just a fraction of the major scientific organisations that have independently verified the evidence that man-made global warming is real, and dangerous: Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, L'Academie des Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the UK's Royal Society, the Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the US Environmental Protection Agency. . . I could fill this entire article with these names. . .
"dramatically increase" is the overstatement --- the earth makes a huge amount of CO2 humans make a tiny amount. We are dramatically increasing our tiny amount.
The rest is bosh. Climate changers hate the way things are, hate burning energy, hate that people drive bigger cars and have bigger houses than they do.
These people don't want to work but they don't like being outcompeted, so they want to slow everybody else down.
Trees Cause Pollution Dept: Friedmanite economic and psychological models posit that there are no limits, in any way, to our behaviors. Even if we ignored h. sapiens' well-documented impacts on climate, we'd still be facing ecological catastrophe on several fronts; deforestation, collapse of fish stocks, and pollution of air/water/land, for starters.
Such crises are obvious enough to a person observing an overcrowded fish tank or legions of deer destroying an island, but add in consumer fetishism and bullshit ideology and you get the above post. The denial is similar to that surrounding cannabis; against mountains of evidence that it is beneficial in many ways, one (1!) circumstantial case of overdose appears and deniers triumphantly prattle "Case closed."
I've hated Al Gore since before it was cool, and have ample contempt for the scientific priesthood, but denying global warming (spare me the plastic term 'climate change') is like denying you need clean food, water, and air. It's too bad we can't divide up the consequences of inaction by levels of willful ignorance; that's one competition the previous poster wouldn't like.
Lots of people make sacrifices large and small. In a consumer-mad plantation economy like the US, it does make a difference. Which leads me to the next...
Unmentioned here are the ongoing, regular, legalized fabrications that sustain global warming's chief foe: free market (sic) capitalism. As deniers shift into higher dudgeon, lets keep in mind the source of the criticism - ridiculously transparent mountebanks.
And a Q4U: If a new model of econ had to emerge to keep survival on the table, who would lose the most? People who are already destitute or the super rich? Those who keep communities intact or those who make careers smashing them?
Honestly, explaining this stuff is like missionary work.
If you would like to believe the 'deniers' (as an aside, that word is selected for the context 'holocaust denier' because it is believed that CO2 warming the planet is as obvious as a pile of millions of bodies) then what you should first do is look at the atmosphere as a screen with a million pixels on it. Separate the figure for CO2 into the well-mixed assumption so that is evenly spaced.
Also, another thing that must be understood is that the value of temperature added from CO2 is heavily dependent upon positive feedbacks in the climate system. CO2 has a logarithmic increase, as the bandwidth of upwelling IR saturates at a certain (apparently undiscovered by scientists, or undisclosed by media) concentration. It is widely assumed that absorbed upwelling radiation from the surface of the Earth enacts other molecules to absorb radiation also, despite the also widely acknowledged lack of hard evidence for this.
It is unfortunate that the study of climate science was hijacked by the oil companies and their counterparts at East Anglia University, but it is what it is. CO2 causes warming, but whether it causes enough to sound the alarm bells is certainly up in the air. And therein lies the slight of hand that perpetuates the nonsense until global temperatures cool off. But, then again, global warming can also cause Ice Ages (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5705296) so who is to really say that global warming is overblown while we all freeze to death anyway?
The above point is the perfect illustration of how little is understood about the climate system, but it will be lost on deaf ears.
If you would like to believe the 'deniers' (as an aside, that word is selected for the context 'holocaust denier' because it is believed that CO2 warming the planet is as obvious as a pile of millions of bodies) then what you should first do is look at the atmosphere as a screen with a million pixels on it. Separate the figure for CO2 into the well-mixed assumption so that is evenly spaced.
Also, another thing that must be understood is that the value of temperature added from CO2 is heavily dependent upon positive feedbacks in the climate system. CO2 has a logarithmic increase, as the bandwidth of upwelling IR saturates at a certain (apparently undiscovered by scientists, or undisclosed by media) concentration. It is widely assumed that absorbed upwelling radiation from the surface of the Earth enacts other molecules to absorb radiation also, despite the also widely acknowledged lack of hard evidence for this.
It is unfortunate that the study of climate science was hijacked by the oil companies and their counterparts at East Anglia University, but it is what it is. CO2 causes warming, but whether it causes enough to sound the alarm bells is certainly up in the air. And therein lies the slight of hand that perpetuates the nonsense until global temperatures cool off. But, then again, global warming can also cause Ice Ages (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5705296) so who is to really say that global warming is overblown while we all freeze to death anyway?
The above point is the perfect illustration of how little is understood about the climate system, but it will be lost on deaf ears.
In an elaboration to the above comment, it is difficult to explain why CO2 is the only molecule that con make these other molecules act so, but if you or any readers are up to the task, a Nobel Prize awaits. Good hunting.
Climate change / global warming / greenhouse effect is only part of the problem.
Peak Oil is also part of this, but most "environmentalists" are no longer interested in the limits to growth on a finite planet.
The issue isn't whether we will figure out how to "reduce carbon by 2050." We will stop burning fossil fuels because they will decline and run out, with the last drops reserved for billionaires and military forces.
The framing of the "climate" issue as "reducing carbon" long after the current crop of politicians are long forgotten was a brilliant public relations strategy, but it is extremely misleading.
It's also misleading to suggest we are "addicted" to oil. Fossil fuels are more concentrated than the alternatives, which is why we've used them. A solar and wind powered economy will be a much smaller one based on steady state principles, not "smart growth." Get ready to live much more locally and to grow food if you like to eat.
SEARCHING FOR A MIRACLE Net Energy Limits and the Fate of Industrial Society by Richard Heinberg Foreword by Jerry Mander A Joint Project of the International Forum on Globalization and the Post Carbon Institute. [ False Solution Series #4 ] September 2009
9 Comments:
"dramatically increase" is the overstatement --- the earth makes a huge amount of CO2 humans make a tiny amount. We are dramatically increasing our tiny amount.
The rest is bosh. Climate changers hate the way things are, hate burning energy, hate that people drive bigger cars and have bigger houses than they do.
These people don't want to work but they don't like being outcompeted, so they want to slow everybody else down.
Trees Cause Pollution Dept: Friedmanite economic and psychological models posit that there are no limits, in any way, to our behaviors. Even if we ignored h. sapiens' well-documented impacts on climate, we'd still be facing ecological catastrophe on several fronts; deforestation, collapse of fish stocks, and pollution of air/water/land, for starters.
Such crises are obvious enough to a person observing an overcrowded fish tank or legions of deer destroying an island, but add in consumer fetishism and bullshit ideology and you get the above post. The denial is similar to that surrounding cannabis; against mountains of evidence that it is beneficial in many ways, one (1!) circumstantial case of overdose appears and deniers triumphantly prattle "Case closed."
I've hated Al Gore since before it was cool, and have ample contempt for the scientific priesthood, but denying global warming (spare me the plastic term 'climate change') is like denying you need clean food, water, and air. It's too bad we can't divide up the consequences of inaction by levels of willful ignorance; that's one competition the previous poster wouldn't like.
"So let's knock out the Hadley Centre's evidence..."
The point is, the CRU's e-mails show that they were colluding with climate scientists all over the world to fudge the data. Nice try, Hari.
How many people here really limit their lifestyles out of concern for the earth? Be honest. And none of that "I recycle" b.s.
Lots of people make sacrifices large and small. In a consumer-mad plantation economy like the US, it does make a difference. Which leads me to the next...
Unmentioned here are the ongoing, regular, legalized fabrications that sustain global warming's chief foe: free market (sic) capitalism. As deniers shift into higher dudgeon, lets keep in mind the source of the criticism - ridiculously transparent mountebanks.
And a Q4U: If a new model of econ had to emerge to keep survival on the table, who would lose the most? People who are already destitute or the super rich? Those who keep communities intact or those who make careers smashing them?
Honestly, explaining this stuff is like missionary work.
If you would like to believe the 'deniers' (as an aside, that word is selected for the context 'holocaust denier' because it is believed that CO2 warming the planet is as obvious as a pile of millions of bodies) then what you should first do is look at the atmosphere as a screen with a million pixels on it. Separate the figure for CO2 into the well-mixed assumption so that is evenly spaced.
Also, another thing that must be understood is that the value of temperature added from CO2 is heavily dependent upon positive feedbacks in the climate system. CO2 has a logarithmic increase, as the bandwidth of upwelling IR saturates at a certain (apparently undiscovered by scientists, or undisclosed by media) concentration. It is widely assumed that absorbed upwelling radiation from the surface of the Earth enacts other molecules to absorb radiation also, despite the also widely acknowledged lack of hard evidence for this.
It is unfortunate that the study of climate science was hijacked by the oil companies and their counterparts at East Anglia University, but it is what it is. CO2 causes warming, but whether it causes enough to sound the alarm bells is certainly up in the air. And therein lies the slight of hand that perpetuates the nonsense until global temperatures cool off. But, then again, global warming can also cause Ice Ages (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5705296) so who is to really say that global warming is overblown while we all freeze to death anyway?
The above point is the perfect illustration of how little is understood about the climate system, but it will be lost on deaf ears.
If you would like to believe the 'deniers' (as an aside, that word is selected for the context 'holocaust denier' because it is believed that CO2 warming the planet is as obvious as a pile of millions of bodies) then what you should first do is look at the atmosphere as a screen with a million pixels on it. Separate the figure for CO2 into the well-mixed assumption so that is evenly spaced.
Also, another thing that must be understood is that the value of temperature added from CO2 is heavily dependent upon positive feedbacks in the climate system. CO2 has a logarithmic increase, as the bandwidth of upwelling IR saturates at a certain (apparently undiscovered by scientists, or undisclosed by media) concentration. It is widely assumed that absorbed upwelling radiation from the surface of the Earth enacts other molecules to absorb radiation also, despite the also widely acknowledged lack of hard evidence for this.
It is unfortunate that the study of climate science was hijacked by the oil companies and their counterparts at East Anglia University, but it is what it is. CO2 causes warming, but whether it causes enough to sound the alarm bells is certainly up in the air. And therein lies the slight of hand that perpetuates the nonsense until global temperatures cool off. But, then again, global warming can also cause Ice Ages (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5705296) so who is to really say that global warming is overblown while we all freeze to death anyway?
The above point is the perfect illustration of how little is understood about the climate system, but it will be lost on deaf ears.
In an elaboration to the above comment, it is difficult to explain why CO2 is the only molecule that con make these other molecules act so, but if you or any readers are up to the task, a Nobel Prize awaits. Good hunting.
Climate change / global warming / greenhouse effect is only part of the problem.
Peak Oil is also part of this, but most "environmentalists" are no longer interested in the limits to growth on a finite planet.
The issue isn't whether we will figure out how to "reduce carbon by 2050." We will stop burning fossil fuels because they will decline and run out, with the last drops reserved for billionaires and military forces.
The framing of the "climate" issue as "reducing carbon" long after the current crop of politicians are long forgotten was a brilliant public relations strategy, but it is extremely misleading.
It's also misleading to suggest we are "addicted" to oil. Fossil fuels are more concentrated than the alternatives, which is why we've used them. A solar and wind powered economy will be a much smaller one based on steady state principles, not "smart growth." Get ready to live much more locally and to grow food if you like to eat.
http://www.oilempire.us/triple-crisis.html
Peak Oil, Climate Change, Overshoot
http://www.oilempire.us/peak-fascism.html
Peak Fascism: Peak Oil, Climate Change, Civil Liberties
http://www.postcarbon.org/new-site-files/Reports/Searching_for_a_Miracle_web10nov09.pdf
SEARCHING FOR A MIRACLE
Net Energy Limits and the Fate of Industrial Society
by Richard Heinberg Foreword by Jerry Mander
A Joint Project of the International Forum on Globalization and the Post Carbon Institute. [ False Solution Series #4 ] September 2009
Post a Comment
<< Home