New World: Climate Change

[Tyger]

Hello.

Purpose of thread is to review the changes being reported worldwide.

Climate Change is the kickstarter. There is far more afoot than 'just' that - though that's enough. Population is also a force. Pollution is a force. A shifting paradigm in how we view ourselves in the universe, both as a species, as a world, and as a consciousness (and this includes psychological, religious, political and spiritual aspects).

Climate Change is the raison d'être for the thread. It is a given, not a debate. There are innumerable threads where that "debate" can be waged, but not here. It is generally accepted that we are undergoing a change in climate worldwide. It is happening way ahead of schedule, by thousands of years - far faster than it would have ever happened 'on its own terms'. The deciding factor? CO2 produced by humans. We - our activities - appear to have been the kick that has gotten the ball rolling.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
LINK: What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

What the Science Says: "Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions. Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions."

Climate Myth: "Climate's changed before: Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)"

TEXT: "Science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes, and that evidence makes the human cause of modern climate change all the more clear. Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When changes were big and rapid (as they are today), the consequences for life on Earth were often dire – in some cases causing mass extinctions.

"So why is the myth wrong?
"The myth is wrong for two reasons:

• First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing theclimate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
• Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.

"Third rock from the Sun – why we’re not deep frozen.
"A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in theatmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic platesubduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.

"Ice ages
"Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistoceneice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.

"But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions.

" CO2 doesn’t lag behind temperature
"Until 2012, Antarctic ice core data suggested CO2 may have lagged behind the warmingtrend by hundreds of years. This was used by skeptics to question the link between CO2 and climate. More recent studies, with much more precise correlation between ice cores and global temperature records, have shown that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously in Antarctica during the end of the last ice age, and globally CO2 rose slightly before global temperatures.

"Palm-fringed Arctic and balmy dinosaurs
"It’s true that at times in Earth's past the climate has been as warm or even warmer than temperatures projected for the end of this century and beyond. Aside from some warminterglacials, the average climate was last as warm as we expect in 2100 during the Pliocene epoch – before the emergence of the genus Homo which includes you and me. In that time, summer Arctic temperatures were 3°C (5°F) warmer than today, with CO2 levels similar to today’s and sea levels were 15-25m (50-82ft) higher than today. Rain-drenched forests fringed the Arctic Ocean at the time.

"Going further back to the Eocene, the world then was very warm and humid – on average 10°C (18°F) warmer than today. Lush swamp forests fringed the Arctic, inhabited by turtles, alligators, primates, tapirs, and the hippo-like Coryphodon (just as the myth claims). Lowland Antarctica was warm and covered in near-tropical vegetation, and London was a mangrove swamp as rainforests spread across much of the planet. Going back even further to the age of the dinosaurs, life flourished in a time of high CO2 and generally warm average temperatures with high sea levels. Even Antarctica was forested and supported a healthy population of dinosaurs.

"Sudden vs slow change
"Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in theatmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

"But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.

"Those rapid global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (huge and rapid carbon emissions, a big rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, widespread oxygen-starved zones in the oceans) are all happening today with human-caused climate change. The outcomes for life on Earth were often dire. The end Permian extinction saw around 90% of species go extinct, and it left tropical regions on the planet lethally hot, too hot for complex life to survive. The Triassic extinction was another, one of the 5 biggest mass extinctions in the geological record. Even in the end Cretaceous extinction, in which dinosaurs were finally wiped out by an asteroid impact, a major global-warming extinction event was already underway causing a major extinction within 150,000 years of the impact. That global warming 66 million years ago was due to catastrophic eruptions in India, which emitted a pulse of CO2 that sent global temperatures soaring by 7°C (13°F).

"So yes, the climate has changed before, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions offer no comfort at all for the likely outcome from today’s climate change."


Skeptical Science linked above is an excellent source of the current science, as well as 'debate'. It's website links to a library of hundreds (maybe thousands) of science research papers for back-up to every claim made.

One can have questions, of course, but every question invariably has an answer on-line somewhere - such as Skeptical Science. I don't think one should be looking for an in-depth 'education' in this area on a chat site not peopled with scientists nor with it as a direct focus. That's not saying that there are not exceedingly intelligent posters here with a considerable grasp of complicated facts. However, the conversations have taken place on several other threads here which are still extant, not even archived - so one's best bet is to go reading (and conversing) on those threads, if one seeks 'debate' on whether there is warming, whether it is human caused, etc..

Here we will look at the way the world is shifting - or must shift. What does the future hold? Apocalypse? Guns and violence? I don't think so. In fact, in times of great turmoil history seems to indicate that there are indeed the breakdowns, but there is also the re-forming into cooperative groups. IMO Cities will be vital in the future - not the places to flee from. Those that survive are not the one's who lose all civility and restraint and hole up in caves with a sprinkling of others. Rather they are the ones doomed to extinction. In the end it was always the barbarians who folded into the civilized world who survived, because in the end, that is the only route to survival. Cities will always be where the libraries are and sources of learning reside and renewal will originate. People together create safety and comfort - not isolated and apart. So I see a more cohesive world albeit local.

Hence, I am suggesting that the steady diet coming from Hollywood of societal breakdowns and roving bands of cannibals is overblown. In fact, I'd be keen to have a conversation about this divergence of views.

Whatever comes, I view the thread as exploring the possible world coming due to the changes afoot - climate change (caused by humans to whatever degree) being one. If you feel inclined, please join in.

 

[Tyger]

I never heard of these two - or Citizen Radio (at least consciously enough to take note) - until I came across this interview. The whole of it is interesting imo but it gets relevant to the topic of this thread at 10:25.

Note: For me, the, like, you know, just awesome, I don't know, way they talk, is a bit, well, like, unexpected - you know? But, you know, they are, like, comedians, after all, and, well, you know, young, but it's like, amazing that they can, like, think such, you know, deep - like - thoughts, while, you know, talking like this. Awesome!

Taking Down the Daily Show with Allison Kilkenny and Jamie Kilstein
Abby Martin interviews co-founders of Citizen Radio and authors of the new book, #NEWSFAIL, Allison Kilkenny and Jamie Kilstein, about the biggest flaws in corporate comedy news and why topics like feminism and climate change are covered so poorly by cable news.

Taking Down the Daily Show with Allison Kilkenny and Jamie Kilstein - YouTube

TEXT: "Published on Oct 21, 2014: Abby Martin interviews co-founders of Citizen Radio and authors of the new book, #NEWSFAIL, Allison Kilkenny and Jamie Kilstein, about the biggest flaws in corporate comedy news and why topics like feminism and climate change are covered so poorly by cable news."

BOOK:
Newsfail: Climate Change, Feminism, Gun Control, and Other Fun Stuff We Talk About Because Nobody Else Will

TEXT: "A hilarious and informative primer on the most urgent issues of our day, from the creators and co-hosts of Citizen Radio, a 100% listener-supported show whose slogan is “independent radio that won’t lead you to war.”

#Newsfail is not your grandmother’s comedic-memoir-slash-political-manifesto. From page one (in a preface titled, “In Which the Authors Interview Ralph Nader in the Bathtub”), comedian Jamie Kilstein and journalist Allison Kilkenny pledge to give you the news like you’ve never gotten it before.

"On issues ranging from feminism to gun control, climate change to class war, foreign policy to net neutrality, they tell you how the mainstream media gets it left, right, and utterly, unforgivably, irresponsibly wrong—think Noam Chomsky as channeled by Fred and Carrie from “Portlandia.” #Newsfail is all this, plus the story of Allison and Jamie's own DIY foray into independent media via their podcast, Citizen Radio, which has featured guests such as Jeremy Scahill, Sarah Silverman, Glenn Greenwald, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and been downloaded millions of times by people all over the world.

"Their mission is truth-telling above brainwashing. All you have to do is listen."

 

[Tyger]

I lived in Washington D.C. for some years and so have a newsfeed from the Washington Post. Their reportage is understandably chronicling what is afoot locally in Maryland, Delaware and the Chesapeake Bay, with interest south to Virginia and north to Pennsylvania.

This article is interesting in that it illustrates how the small temperature increments impact an eco-system.

USGS study says Chesapeake tributaries are warming, and pollution may increase
December 10, 2014
LINK: USGS study says Chesapeake tributaries are warming, and pollution may increase - The Washington Post

TEXT: "A slight increase in air temperature over the past half-century has caused waters to warm more than two degrees in tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay, a change that could reduce the expected benefits of the multibillion-dollar bay cleanup plan and eventually alter the behaviors of marine animals, a new study says.

"The mean temperature of the bay’s tributaries is about 2 1/2 degrees higher now than in 1960 as a result of climate change, according to the study by two U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists. Although that doesn’t seem like much, warmer water allows phosphorous, a type of nutrient pollution, to rise from sediment in the bay at a faster rate. “We expected that we’d find a link between rising air temperature and water temperature,” said John Jastram, who co-wrote the study with Karen Rice. But they were surprised to find that even in the northernmost parts of the 64,000-square-mile watershed, such as Pennsylvania near its border with New York, temperatures in brooks and streams increased significantly.

"The effect can lead to “a chain reaction that can occur in different ways,” Jastram said. The oxygen-depletion events called “dead zones” are well-known. A lesser-known impact could be a change in the movement and behaviors of sport-fish species that drive local economies through lucrative yearly fishing events. “As waters warm, species of fish that prefer warm water can move into the habitats of species that prefer cooler water,” Jastram said. For example, smallmouth and largemouth bass that swim in warmer streams could stray into the habitat of brook trout that enjoy cooler water tributaries, he said.

"Bass flourish in water warmer than 80 degrees, but the trout cannot survive in waters with temperatures higher than 68 degrees. Between spring and the early days of summer, female bass seek warm waters of up to 90 degrees to lay thousands of eggs that males fertilize. Trout juveniles would not survive those conditions.

"The study, published in the journal Climatic Change in mid-November, was announced Monday by the USGS. Jastram and Rice analyzed data collected by USGS stream gauges at about 125 sites in bay watershed states that include Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York, as well as the District of Columbia.

"Bay tributaries in the region — Difficult Run, Accotink Creek and the northwest branch of the Anacostia River — warmed at about a half-degree per decade from 1960 to 2010, slightly higher than the bay-wide average, the researchers said. “We realized we had this trove of data” that policymakers could use to determine whether adjustments are needed in the approach to the bay’s cleanup, Jastram said. “I think it’s remarkable that we have data collected over such a long time to do these sorts of analyses.”

"The Chesapeake Bay is the nation’s largest estuary, a storied body of water where fresh water pours from major rivers and mixes with the salty Atlantic Ocean. “More than 100,000 streams, creeks and rivers . . . thread through it,” supporting 3,700 species of plants and animals, according to the USGS. The bay and the animals in it fuel a major recreation and fishing economy — blue crab and rockfish are major staples of the fishery, along with oysters, although to a lesser extent.

"But the bay is troubled by pollution that can pose health risks to swimmers and threaten the lives of animals in and around it. Crab populations rise and fall, often from pollution. The oyster stock in Virginia and Maryland has been devastated by a pair of waterborne diseases. As part of a pact developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the bay region’s six states and the District are collectively spending billions of dollars to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities that often dump storm water mixed with raw human sewage into its waters. They also are regulating animal feed operations where manure flows into streams. Those sources, along with sediment, combine to create nitrogen and phosphorous that make the bay unsafe, especially during summer. Warming waters are a significant concern because they can contribute to a pollution cocktail that could undermine the goals of the bay cleanup.

"The bay cleanup plan is a factor in an ongoing dispute. Environmental organizations blame cities and farms for a majority of the pollution, while elected officials in agricultural counties say sediment pouring over the Conowingo Dam near Maryland’s border with Pennsylvania is the largest pollution source. Millions of tons of sediment — loose dirt and sand from farms and cities, often from housing development work sites — have flowed down the Susquehanna River for decades, collecting behind the dam. Maryland’s governor-elect, Larry Hogan (R), has called for dredging behind the dam, saying it would have a greater effect than other expensive efforts, including storm-water fees, restrictions on farm runoff and changes in septic disposal.

"Jastram said the next step for researchers is to determine how much pollution is generated by warmer water and distributed to the bay through its tributaries. “We have to determine how much of an impact this is having on nutrient pollution and how much does it confound our cleanup plan,” he said."

 

[Tyger]

This video was linked by @flipper on another thread and it has fascinated me - mainly because I was wondering if there was exactly this kind of overview being compiled by someone, somewhere - and lo! here it is. It suffers from the drawbacks of all YouTube videos - speed and lack of depth - but there's enough here to at least check references.

SOTT Earth Changes Summary - November 2014

TEXT: "Published on Dec 7, 2014
"SOTT Summary, November 2014: Fireballs, Extreme Weather, High Strangeness and Earth Changes

"The eleventh installment in our monthly series, the following video compiles footage of 'signs of the times' from around the world during November 2014 - 'earth changes', extreme weather, meteor fireballs, high strangeness and planetary upheaval.

"It's one thing to have record early cold temperatures and record early snowfalls in both Eurasia and North America. To have the greatest ever snow coverage for the Northern Hemisphere by mid-November is something else. November 2014 was alternately mild and super-freezing as the Polar Jet Stream whip-lashed the North American continent, bringing monster snowstorms that dumped entire annual snowfall averages in many parts of the U.S., not least the city of Buffalo, New York, which was buried under 7 feet (2.25 meters) of snow.

"Numerous bright meteor fireballs were caught on camera, including several big ones - probably comet/asteroid fragments - that were seen from huge swathes of the US, Russia, China, Japan and Europe. Buenos Aires was flooded for the second time this year, while record-breaking (in many cases, breaking records set last month) rainfall levels were seen across much of the western Mediterranean, killing many people in Morocco, southeastern France and northwestern Italy.

"Sinkholes from China to Florida opened up to swallow people and cars. Brisbane, Australia was literally smashed by baseball-sized hail in a surprise 'super-storm'. The Great Lakes began to refreeze by mid-November, not 4 months after finally thawing from last winter. Japan's largest active volcano erupted, as did Colima Volcano in Mexico, and Pavlof in Alaska, each sending ash plumes several kilometers high, while lava flows from Hawaii's Kilauea and Cape Verde's Fire Island destroyed homes.

"Then there were UFOs over Paris and Iran, pods of deepwater whales seeking shallow waters, and tornado outreaks in the Mediterranean... has the world gone mad?"

 

[Tyger]

The Booms Over Britain are Baffling and Bizarre
December 3, 2014
LINK: The Booms Over Britain are Baffling and Bizarre | Mysterious Universe

TEXT: "As readers of Mysterious Universe are aware, booms are booming around the U.S., from Dayton, Ohio, to Kansas and New Jersey. Now it appears they’ve crossed the pond, as people across the UK reported window-rattling blasts for hours the evening of November 29th. Reasons for the pops are popping up as fast as the governments and military officials can deny them. What caused these explosions in the UK and were they linked to booms heard at the same time in Buffalo, New York?

"Reports of the bangs over Britain began around 9.45pm GMT. Some reports compared the sounds to fireworks. However, the only known fireworks display at that time was in Croydon, south London, while the reports came in from areas up to 200 miles away and many witnesses said they were much louder than fireworks.

"Many of the recent mysterious loud noises are being attributed to sonic booms from known or secret military jet. The Ministry of Defence reported no supersonic jets in the air at the time of the explosions. There have been recent rumors of tests of a hypersonic American aircraft, codenamed Aurora, that uses a “pulse detonation engine” that will propel it to at least five times the speed of sound. As expected, no American government officials would confirm this and, even at hypersonic speed, it could not cause a simultaneous sonic boom in New York. There were also no reports or sightings of foreign or enemy aircraft.

"Looking to the sky for an explanation, the booms could not attributed to meteors or space debris reentry since the sky was clear and there were no visual sightings or scheduled meteor showers. That clear sky means that extreme weather could be ruled out, which was confirmed by the Met Office.

"On the ground, earthquakes – which can cause noises and light flashes – were ruled out by the US Geological Survey’s map of seismic activity that night in the UK and New York. So there’s no explanation for a series of loud sounds occurring simultaneously on two continents and over large geographic areas. Not to mention all of the other loud booms being heard lately. That leaves UFOs, aliens or something else. The winter solstice is coming. Did anyone check Stonehenge? Any other ideas?"

 

[Tyger]

I wonder if these booms have anything to do with fracking? Though haven't they been around since before fracking? The sinkholes opening up in Florida and Siberia, now we see some in China (I think - must check). Now these booms - the loss of oil - would that cause movement? That's a lot of oil we've removed in the last 150 years.

But while we seem to have no real scientific understanding of the booms' origin, one scientist says he suspects they originate from earthquake activity (though without overt movement).

Mystery booms: What’s the cause?
December 2, 2014
LINK: BBC - Future - Mystery booms: What’s the cause?

TEXT: "Hill suspects that earthquakes are to blame in the majority of cases. He’s talking from experience; while in California’s Mammoth Mountain he was surrounded by a muffled booming sound, despite feeling no shaking. On inspecting his instruments he found evidence of small earthquakes less than 4 km (2.9 miles) below the surface. Whereas sounds of deeper earthquakes may be too low for human hearing, he has calculated that judders near the surface could transmit audible noises of the cracking crust."

 

[manxman]

Firstly you write the rules of what can and cannot be discussed.
Then you declare science has spoken and AGW is no longer speculation, and cite an activist hacks website because it has science in its title, beef dog biscuits, have beef in the title, however there's still more real beef in the biscuits, than real science in your activist hacks website.

Your social engineering of this little group has been quite impressive, your behind the scene pm activitie's, your likes and support for anything even remotely environmental has given you the confidence to strike out as the voice of reason to your little congregation.

Quite impressive indeed, i take my hat off to you, i was wrong, your not an idiot, you know exactly what your game is.

 

[Tyger]

Firstly you write the rules of what can and cannot be discussed.

Firstly, what I am doing is normal protocol on chat sites when someone is interested in a particular topic being discussed. I haven't suddenly made this up. If you have been on other chat sites - and you claim to have been - you have to be aware that this is what one does.

By stating the topic up-front, at the top, with clarity, there is less chance of thread-naps, divergences down by-ways not relevant to the topic of the thread.

I want to give the topic a half decent chance of life, after all, given there are posters like yourself who want to debate one particular view. The topic of the thread is not a debate on the causes or reality/unreality of Climate Change/Global Warming/AGW. There are other threads that are engaging that 'debate', and have done so across years.

Then you declare science has spoken and AGW is no longer speculation

That's correct. Science has spoken - as much as science can 'speak'. In science, among scientists, this is not an area of speculation in the way you mean. The overarching theory of Climate Change is accepted. That we are undergoing a change in climate is pretty well acknowledged. You disagree with this - that's fine, but that is not what will be discussed here. There are other threads for that.

and cite an activist hacks website because it has science in its title

You make accusations but never back up what you say with evidence. You attempt always to denigrate those who hold different views from you. That's not science - that's politics.

I do not cite a site because it has science in the title. I cite it because it has real scientists blogging. Plus it backs up every claim with links to the actual research papers.

beef dog biscuits, have beef in the title, however there's still more real beef in the biscuits, than real science in your activist hacks website.

Read the article I have quoted in post#1. I would ask you to back up what you say - that there is no science in the article - with clear evidence that there is no science - but I am not asking you to do so because that is not what this thread is about. Take this discussion you want to have to another thread. Start your own thread. Be creative.

Your social engineering of this little group has been quite impressive

Wtf? There is no 'little group'. There is me. No one else.

your behind the scene pm activities'

Feeling excluded are we? Be more affable. You, too, might make some friends on the site. Just a suggestion.

your likes and support for anything even remotely environmental

It does sound sinister.

has given you the confidence to strike out as the voice of reason to your little congregation.

Manxman, get a grip. There is no 'little congregation'. I will likely post away to my heart's content on this thread with nary a compadre. Won't be the first time. I'm perfectly content. But if I do get some conversation that will be a bonus. I will say this, though: responding to your trolling is not what I will do again. If you stay on topic - fine, but if you try to derail this thread, I will ask for moderator review. Only fair.

Quite impressive indeed, i take my hat off to you, i was wrong, your not an idiot, you know exactly what your game is.

With that you expect me to take your posts seriously?

FYI - my 'game' is what everyone else's is on a chat site - to have some conversation. 'Nuf said.

The above is an example of a troll's attempt to derail a thread. As long as it goes no further than this, no damage done.

 

[Tyger]

Here we will look at the way the world is shifting - or must shift. What does the future hold? Apocalypse? Guns and violence? I don't think so. In fact, in times of great turmoil history seems to indicate that there are indeed the breakdowns, but there is also the re-forming into cooperative groups. IMO Cities will be vital in the future - not the places to flee from. Those that survive are not the one's who lose all civility and restraint and hole up in caves with a sprinkling of others. Rather they are the ones doomed to extinction. In the end it was always the barbarians who folded into the civilized world who survived, because in the end, that is the only route to survival. Cities will always be where the libraries are and sources of learning reside and renewal will originate. People together create safety and comfort - not isolated and apart. So I see a more cohesive world albeit local.

Hence, I am suggesting that the steady diet coming from Hollywood of societal breakdowns and roving bands of cannibals is overblown. In fact, I'd be keen to have a conversation about this divergence of views.

Change is coming. Change is upon us. The projected scenarios tend to be bleak. Societal breakdown, families holed up with arsenals (in the US) to fend off the bestial elements roving abroad. I am reminded of many decades ago at a Science Fiction Convention (before they were 'cool' ) - it was noted that western writers were positing very dark, dystopic futures, whereas eastern writers (Russian, under communism) were writing more upbeat, optimistic utopia-like scenarios. Interesting observation from way-back-when - purely anecdotal.

However, the above makes me wonder about the dystopic world-views that are so au currant these days. Facts themselves are innocent - it's what we make of them that determines our future. Many find the prognostications of scientists regarding their interpretations of the data - scary, alarmist. That's one reaction. There is another reaction - seeking solutions, innovation.

As noted in my quote of me my bias is that as humans we react generally - especially borne out in US history - as groups. We have an instinct to sublimate self to the well-being of the group. This is directly counter to the powerful influence of Ayan Rand.

Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation
15 Dec 2014
LINK: Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation

TEXT: "The ‘Atlas Shrugged’ author made selfishness heroic and caring about others weakness. "Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society….To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. - Gore Vidal, 1961

"Only rarely in U.S. history do writers transform us to become a more caring or less caring nation. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) was a strong force in making the United States a more humane nation, one that would abolish slavery of African Americans. A century later, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) helped make the United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world, a neo-Dickensian society where healthcare is only for those who can afford it, and where young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

"Rand’s impact has been widespread and deep. At the iceberg’s visible tip is the influence she’s had over major political figures who have shaped American society. In the 1950s, Ayn Rand read aloud drafts of what was later to become Atlas Shrugged to her “Collective,” Rand’s ironic nickname for her inner circle of young individualists, which included Alan Greenspan, who would serve as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006.

"In 1966, Ronald Reagan wrote in a personal letter, “Am an admirer of Ayn Rand.” Today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) credits Rand for inspiring him to go into politics, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls Atlas Shrugged his “foundation book.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says Ayn Rand had a major influence on him, and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is an even bigger fan. A short list of other Rand fans includes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Christopher Cox, chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission in George W. Bush’s second administration; and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

"But Rand’s impact on U.S. society and culture goes even deeper.

"The Seduction of Nathan Blumenthal
"Ayn Rand’s books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and her philosophy that celebrates self-interest and disdains altruism may well be, as Vidal assessed, “nearly perfect in its immorality.” But is Vidal right about evil? Charles Manson, who himself did not kill anyone, is the personification of evil for many of us because of his psychological success at exploiting the vulnerabilities of young people and seducing them to murder. What should we call Ayn Rand’s psychological ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of millions of young people so as to influence them not to care about anyone besides themselves?

"While Greenspan (tagged “A.G.” by Rand) was the most famous name that would emerge from Rand’s Collective, the second most well-known name to emerge from the Collective was Nathaniel Branden, psychotherapist, author and “self-esteem” advocate. Before he was Nathaniel Branden, he was Nathan Blumenthal, a 14-year-old who read Rand’s The Fountainhead again and again. He later would say, “I felt hypnotized.” He describes how Rand gave him a sense that he could be powerful, that he could be a hero. He wrote one letter to his idol Rand, then a second. To his amazement, she telephoned him, and at age 20, Nathan received an invitation to Ayn Rand’s home. Shortly after, Nathan Blumenthal announced to the world that he was incorporating Rand in his new name: Nathaniel Branden. And in 1955, with Rand approaching her 50th birthday and Branden his 25th, and both in dissatisfying marriages, Ayn bedded Nathaniel.

"What followed sounds straight out of Hollywood, but Rand was straight out of Hollywood, having worked for Cecil B. DeMille. Rand convened a meeting with Nathaniel, his wife Barbara (also a Collective member), and Rand’s own husband Frank. To Branden’s astonishment, Rand convinced both spouses that a time-structured affair—she and Branden were to have one afternoon and one evening a week together—was “reasonable.” Within the Collective, Rand is purported to have never lost an argument. On his trysts at Rand’s New York City apartment, Branden would sometimes shake hands with Frank before he exited. Later, all discovered that Rand’s sweet but passive husband would leave for a bar, where he began his self-destructive affair with alcohol.

"By 1964, the 34-year-old Nathaniel Branden had grown tired of the now 59-year-old Ayn Rand. Still sexually dissatisfied in his marriage to Barbara and afraid to end his affair with Rand, Branden began sleeping with a married 24-year-old model, Patrecia Scott. Rand, now “the woman scorned,” called Branden to appear before the Collective, whose nickname had by now lost its irony for both Barbara and Branden. Rand’s justice was swift. She humiliated Branden and then put a curse on him: “If you have one ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health—you’ll be impotent for the next 20 years! And if you achieve potency sooner, you’ll know it’s a sign of still worse moral degradation!”

"Rand completed the evening with two welt-producing slaps across Branden’s face. Finally, in a move that Stalin and Hitler would have admired, Rand also expelled poor Barbara from the Collective, declaring her treasonous because Barbara, preoccupied by her own extramarital affair, had neglected to fill Rand in soon enough on Branden’s extra-extra-marital betrayal. (If anyone doubts Alan Greenspan’s political savvy, keep in mind that he somehow stayed in Rand’s good graces even though he, fixed up by Branden with Patrecia’s twin sister, had double-dated with the outlaws.)

"After being banished by Rand, Nathaniel Branden was worried that he might be assassinated by other members of the Collective, so he moved from New York to Los Angeles, where Rand fans were less fanatical. Branden established a lucrative psychotherapy practice and authored approximately 20 books, 10 of them with either “Self” or “Self-Esteem” in the title. Rand and Branden never reconciled, but he remained an admirer of her philosophy of self-interest until his recent death in December 2014.

"Ayn Rand’s personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a shit about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the “unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.” After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she needn’t mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused.

"How Rand’s Philosophy Seduced Young Minds
"When I was a kid, my reading included comic books and Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasn’t much difference between the comic books and Rand’s novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.

"Rand said, “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible….The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth—or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.” For many young people, hearing that it is “moral” to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.

"I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: “My ex-husband wasn’t a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.”

"To wow her young admirers, Rand would often tell a story of how a smart-aleck book salesman had once challenged her to explain her philosophy while standing on one leg. She replied: “Metaphysics—objective reality. Epistemology—reason. Ethics—self-interest. Politics—capitalism.” How did that philosophy capture young minds?

"Metaphysics—objective reality. Rand offered a narcotic for confused young people: complete certainty and a relief from their anxiety. Rand believed that an “objective reality” existed, and she knew exactly what that objective reality was. It included skyscrapers, industries, railroads, and ideas—at least her ideas. Rand’s objective reality did not include anxiety or sadness. Nor did it include much humor, at least the kind where one pokes fun at oneself. Rand assured her Collective that objective reality did not include Beethoven’s, Rembrandt’s, and Shakespeare’s realities—they were too gloomy and too tragic, basically buzzkillers. Rand preferred Mickey Spillane and, towards the end of her life, “Charlie’s Angels.”

"Epistemology—reason. Rand’s kind of reason was a “cool-tool” to control the universe. Rand demonized Plato, and her youthful Collective members were taught to despise him. If Rand really believed that the Socratic Method described by Plato of discovering accurate definitions and clear thinking did not qualify as “reason,” why then did she regularly attempt it with her Collective? Also oddly, while Rand mocked dark moods and despair, her “reasoning” directed that Collective members should admire Dostoyevsky, whose novels are filled with dark moods and despair. A demagogue, in addition to hypnotic glibness, must also be intellectually inconsistent, sometimes boldly so. This eliminates challenges to authority by weeding out clear-thinking young people from the flock.

"Ethics—self-interest. For Rand, all altruists were manipulators. What could be more seductive to kids who discerned the motives of martyr parents, Christian missionaries and U.S. foreign aiders? Her champions, Nathaniel Branden still among them, feel that Rand’s view of “self-interest” has been horribly misrepresented. For them, self-interest is her hero architect Howard Roark turning down a commission because he couldn’t do it exactly his way. Some of Rand’s novel heroes did have integrity, however, for Rand there is no struggle to discover the distinction between true integrity and childish vanity. Rand’s integrity was her vanity, and it consisted of getting as much money and control as possible, copulating with whomever she wanted regardless of who would get hurt, and her always being right. To equate one’s selfishness, vanity, and egotism with one’s integrity liberates young people from the struggle to distinguish integrity from selfishness, vanity, and egotism.

"Politics—capitalism. While Rand often disparaged Soviet totalitarian collectivism, she had little to say about corporate totalitarian collectivism, as she conveniently neglected the reality that giant U.S. corporations, like the Soviet Union, do not exactly celebrate individualism, freedom, or courage. Rand was clever and hypocritical enough to know that you don’t get rich in the United States talking about compliance and conformity within corporate America. Rather, Rand gave lectures titled: “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business.” So, young careerist corporatists could embrace Rand’s self-styled “radical capitalism” and feel radical — radical without risk.

"Rand’s Legacy
"In recent years, we have entered a phase where it is apparently okay for major political figures to publicly embrace Rand despite her contempt for Christianity. In contrast, during Ayn Rand’s life, her philosophy that celebrated self-interest was a private pleasure for the 1 percent but she was a public embarrassment for them. They used her books to congratulate themselves on the morality of their selfishness, but they publicly steered clear of Rand because of her views on religion and God. Rand, for example, had stated on national television, “I am against God. I don’t approve of religion. It is a sign of a psychological weakness. I regard it as an evil.”

"Actually, again inconsistent, Rand did have a God. It was herself. She said:

"I am done with the monster of “we,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: “I.”

"While Harriet Beecher Stowe shamed Americans about the United States’ dehumanization of African Americans and slavery, Ayn Rand removed Americans’ guilt for being selfish and uncaring about anyone except themselves. Not only did Rand make it “moral” for the wealthy not to pay their fair share of taxes, she “liberated” millions of other Americans from caring about the suffering of others, even the suffering of their own children.

"The good news is that I’ve seen ex-Rand fans grasp the damage that Rand’s philosophy has done to their lives and to then exorcize it from their psyche. Can the United States as a nation do the same thing?"

 

[Tyger]

If the planet keeps warming, methane looms. Temperature rise of 1.4 degrees is already 'cooked into the cake'. It's already happened. We are 1.4 degrees warmer. Methane.....once that puppy is let lose, it's game-over. That's what the science says.

Shifting oil subsidies to renewable energy is the major roadblock. Oil does not want to lose those subsidies. Nope.

Climate Disaster Lurking off the Coast of Washington?

TEXT: "Published on Dec 16, 2014: Karen Orenstein, Friends of the Earth & Oscar Reyes, Institute for Policy Studies, join Thom Hartmann. There’s something lurking off the coast of Washington State - and it could mean disaster for our planet."

 

[DaveM]

If the planet keeps warming, methane looms. Temperature rise of 1.4 degrees is already 'cooked into the cake'. It's already happened. We are 1.4 degrees warmer. Methane.....once that puppy is let lose, it's game-over. That's what the science says.

Shifting oil subsidies to renewable energy is the major roadblock. Oil does not want to lose those subsidies. Nope.

Climate Disaster Lurking off the Coast of Washington?

TEXT: "Published on Dec 16, 2014: Karen Orenstein, Friends of the Earth & Oscar Reyes, Institute for Policy Studies, join Thom Hartmann. There’s something lurking off the coast of Washington State - and it could mean disaster for our planet."

Yes, it's called the radioactive water from Fukushima. This story has faded from the front pages but the water from the nuclear plant is still poisoning the Pacific Ocean and this barely gets a mention these days. We are going to pay for this stupidity for generations.

 

[Tyger]

Yes, it's called the radioactive water from Fukushima. This story has faded from the front pages but the water from the nuclear plant is still poisoning the Pacific Ocean and this barely gets a mention these days. We are going to pay for this stupidity for generations.

That's a strange one, I agree. It is suggested that the Global Nuclear Industry is controlling the news on this. The following report from Thom Hartmann is over a year old but still pertinent.

Fukushima Still out of control May-2014

TEXT: "Published on Aug 15, 2013: The World is at a critical crossroads. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has brought to the forefront the dangers of Worldwide nuclear radiation. The crisis in Japan has been described as "a nuclear war without a war". In the words of renowned novelist Haruki Murakami: "This time no one dropped a bomb on us ... We set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives."

"Nuclear radiation --which threatens life on planet earth-- is not front page news in comparison to the most insignificant issues of public concern. While the long-term repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are yet to be fully assessed, they are far more serious than those pertaining to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, which resulted in almost one million deaths (New Book Concludes -- Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer Global Research, September 10, 2010, See also Matthew Penney and Mark Selden The Severity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster: Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima, Global Research, May 25, 2011)

"The shaky political consensus both in Japan, the U.S. and Western Europe is that the crisis at Fukushima has been contained. The realties, however, are otherwise. An opinion poll in May 2011 confirmed that more than 80 per cent of the Japanese population do not believe the government's information regarding the nuclear crisis. (quoted in Sherwood Ross, Fukushima: Japan's Second Nuclear Disaster, Global Research, November 10, 2011)

"The Impacts in Japan -
"The Japanese government has been obliged to acknowledge that "the severity rating of its nuclear crisis ... matches that of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster". In a bitter irony, however, this tacit admission by the Japanese authorities has proven to been part of the cover-up of a significantly larger catastrophe, resulting in a process of global nuclear radiation and contamination: "While Chernobyl was an enormous unprecedented disaster, it only occurred at one reactor and rapidly melted down. Once cooled, it was able to be covered with a concrete sarcophagus that was constructed with 100,000 workers. There are a staggering 4400 tons of nuclear fuel rods at Fukushima, which greatly dwarfs the total size of radiation sources at Chernobyl." ( Extremely High Radiation Levels in Japan: University Researchers Challenge Official Data, Global Research, April 11, 2011)

"Fukushima in the wake of the Tsunami, March 2011 - Worldwide Contamination
"The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination. Radioactive elements have not only been detected in the food chain in Japan, radioactive rain water has been recorded in California: "Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements -- called internal emitters -- migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer". (Helen Caldicott, Fukushima: Nuclear Apologists Play Shoot the Messenger on Radiation, The Age, April 26, 2011)

"While the spread of radiation to the West Coast of North America was casually acknowledged, the early press reports (AP and Reuters) "quoting diplomatic sources" stated that only "tiny amounts of radioactive particles have arrived in California but do not pose a threat to human health."

" "According to the news agencies, the unnamed sources have access to data from a network of measuring stations run by the United Nations' Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization. ...Headquarterd in Austria.... Greg Jaczko, chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,(a Commission with no current funding) told White House reporters on Thursday (March 17) that his experts "don't see any concern from radiation levels that could be harmful here in the United States or any of the U.S. territories. The Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee chairman Anne McIntosh described the scale of the contamination in the food chain as "breathtaking". "

 

[Tyger]

Fukushima Radiation Testing Positive on the West Coast

TEXT: "Published on Oct 22, 2014: Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear, joins Thom Hartmann. Three and a half years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster - ocean waters off the West Coast are testing positive for radioactive elements. How concerned should we be by that - and is just a sign of things to come?"

 

[Tyger]

As someone said: 'The entire Island of Japan will be dead in the not too very long future. Radiation in the air, soil, water, vegetation, animals, sea life and people. California here we come.'

The future is complicated because of curve balls like radiation. Incubation for cancer is 20 years. So nothing now - but, come 2034....

Helen Caldicott: Fukushima's Ongoing Impact

TEXT: "Published on Oct 13, 2014: Unbeknownst to most consumers of US corporate media, radiation in the ocean from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster has finally reached the United States’ West Coast, impacting fisheries along the Pacific Ocean. Three years later, these and other effects of Fukushima are only beginning to appear. Helen Caldicott, former President of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, examines the radiation-related health risks, and other lasting consequences of the calamity in her new book Crisis Without End. In this talk she sheds light on these trends, giving an overview of how they impact not only the people of Japan, but the United States and the rest of the world comparing it with the ongoing Chernobyl disaster which scientists estimate has so far killed over a million people. Caldicott also shares her judgement on how these lasting impacts should impact U.S. nuclear policy. A trained physician, Caldicott is also the author of several other books, including 'If You Love This Planet' and 'The New Nuclear Danger' "

 

[Tyger]

Lecture begins at 3:15. This entire lecture is essential listening for those fuzzy on exactly how science works. At 11:00 some pertinent comments viv-a-vis what has been trolled on various climate threads as 'legitimate' counters to the science.

The way this works, however - if you've been reading - is that the lecturer will become the target of ad hominem attacks, no matter how distinguished or respected a scientist they are. (And in the US we can expect more of this as indicated in a previous post since the ALEC meeting). In sum - the ideas will not be discussed, the person will be. This is what I do not want to take place on this thread.

I present this here simply to bring people 'up-to-speed' on 'how science works'.

Stephen H. Schneider ~ Is the Science of Global Warming Settled Enough for Policy?

TEXT: "Uploaded on Mar 29, 2011: Dr. Schneider is the Inaugural Visitor in the Zurich Financial Services Distinguished Visitors Program on Climate Change. He is the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biological Sciences, and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. From 1973-1996 he served as a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where he co-founded the Climate Project. His research focuses on climate-change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He has consulted for federal agencies and White House staff in six administrations."

 

[DaveM]

Here is the mindset of the Japanese government. Japan is to host the 2020 Olympics and not a word has been spoken about the radiation still spewing from Fukushima. What does that tell you?

 

[manxman]

Theres no problem.
Or there wont be where and when the games take place, thats what it tells me.

 

[DaveM]

Theres no problem.
Or there wont be where and when the games take place, thats what it tells me.

It tells me something vastly different. It says to me that these officials have blinders on and don't wish to admit to the Fukushima problem.

 

[manxman]

Yes you scientists are cantankerous.

 

[DaveM]

Yes you scientists are cantankerous.

No scientist here, just a deep thinker.