Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - TeaPotty

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: September 15, 2018, 04:35:22 AM »
Thank you once again AbruptSLR, for finding that link from Joe Romm who closes the argument about Methane's warming potency.

Oh, but where are all the wonderfully "skeptical" conservatives? Where is Ned W,  his defenders, and those who claimed he taught them something new?

Its like you never learn. AbruptSLR makes the same simple argument that Joe Romm made in the 2015 article, presented the same data. Now go look at the last few pages of ridiculous and irrational arguments defending the conservative viewpoint. So detached from reality. Simply utter nonsense.

And somehow, so many discussions follow this path. Its so tiresome, and you conservatives never change. As usual, there is never any reason to apologize or even take fault for being wrong when your bias is conservative. And one conservative usually brings another to post like a choir of nonsense.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 26, 2018, 09:14:42 PM »
although I may think otherwise I don't find this was the whole of the discussion.

Then you havent followed the discussion from page 1, where this whole argument began. You must have also missed all the attacks at AbruptSLR. As usual, conservatives are always the victims.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 26, 2018, 08:06:55 PM »
The graph quoted shows that for some years the increase in forcing from CH4 is very small compared with the increase in forcing from CO2.

A slower increase in the rate of forcing isnt the same as insignificant measure of total forcing, and present forcing is definitely not the same as future forcing amplified by expected feedbacks. Why are you comparing apples and oranges?

Unless and until CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere significantly increase

CH4 levels are definitely accelerating. And again, we have significant known and expected future feedbacks.

The whole point of this thread's argument is about Ned's claim that CH4 will be insignificant in future decades. And yet it keeps being sidelined, intentionally.

You know, it seems to me your comments here might be received in a better light

By whom? I have better things to do than be careful not to hurt fragile entitled egos.

screeds against established science and well-known scientists,

Which are all true, and based on research from scientists like Jim Hansen. Scientific Reticence and scientists "erring on the side of least drama" is established fact by now.

I doubt those points are getting through to the mostly genteel, overwhelmingly knowledgable people here.

I think anyone who knows wtf they're talking about wouldn't say something like "CH4 insignificant in future decades" and not provide any proof.

There's nothing wrong with heated debate--that's how science works. But maybe try arguing your position with more facts and less troll-like behavior, whattaya say?

Theres plenty of facts in this thread, and little debate. Moreso, I am an engineer. I dont belong to this silly polite culture of the academic world, and I thankfully never will. Truth deserves to be spoken, wrong behavior deserves to be called out.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 26, 2018, 06:20:04 PM »
Ned, it looks like ur cherry-picking to try to make a point that still makes little sense. And again your changing the subject. You specifically said CH4 will be trivial in coming decades, and u still have said a word that might validate this claim.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 26, 2018, 02:39:42 PM »
Nah Ned, you sound pretty clueless about the Science too.

In this 2015 EPA graph, does CH4 look "trivial"?
Keep changing the topic of discussion Ned. This is how you win arguments, apparently.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 26, 2018, 01:59:23 PM »
Another word rant from Ned. I think this thread should just be locked. Ned claims methane is insignificant, and proceeds to lead everyone down a goose-chase.

For some reason there's a disproportionate emphasis on methane here on ASIF.  It was very important in the past but over the next few decades it will be basically trivial in comparison to the warming from CO2.

As I keep telling people, I have no particular background in this (economics/policy/mitigation issues).  Not that I think it's unimportant, I just don't want to speculate about something outside my area of comfort.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 26, 2018, 01:26:59 AM »
All this talk of “do the math” as a winning argument, and no math to prove their side. In fact, Ned hasn’t even posted an “I’m right because...”. All I see is passive aggressive attacks of AbruptSLR, appeals to authority, and outright dismissal of any information opposing his worldview. With a few simple google searches, it’s easy to see he’s wrong.

Even Ned admitted in this thread that he doesn’t know much of what he’s talking about, and then he acts all confident about his opinion. I bet Ned will also tell us 2C is still possible too, bc the IPCC said so, LOL.

This in-depth research raises more important questions than answers. Trying to wrap my head around it.

"We review the scientific evidence behind three leading hypotheses on the influence of Arctic changes on mid-latitude summer weather: Weakened storm tracks, shifted jet streams, and amplified quasi-stationary waves. We show that interactions between Arctic teleconnections and other remote and regional feedback processes could lead to more persistent hot-dry extremes in the mid-latitudes. The exact nature of these non-linear interactions is not well quantified but they provide potential high-impact risks for society."

"Future impacts from extreme weather are likely to be most pronounced in summer, as most ecological activity and agricultural production takes place in this season. Though the uncertainties are large, changes in atmosphere dynamics have the potential to cause rapid transitions at a regional scale leading to surprises for society. In summer synergistic effects between thermodynamic and dynamic drivers of extreme weather could act in the same direction to cause very-extreme extremes. Recent summers have seen such anomalous weather and these events are not well understood. This presents risks for society and in particular for global food production, given that the major breadbasket regions are located in the mid-latitudes with many crop types vulnerable to heat extremes"

"The current literature provides robust evidence that AA influences mid-latitude summer circulation substantially by weakening the storm tracks. The uncertainties to do with other dynamical aspects and with how dynamical changes ultimately affect regional weather conditions are admittedly large. Nevertheless, we identified several possible feedback mechanisms for how storm track weakening can lead to persistent and therefore extreme weather in the mid-latitudes. Several studies suggest that Northern Hemisphere summer weather is indeed already becoming more persistent"

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 23, 2018, 04:25:43 AM »
Yeah, I dont think its by accident that CH4 is downplayed. Every time CH4 research comes out that all these 1%-friendly scientists come out barking like dogs, and always argue that "all focus must remain on CO2" like a mantra.

To me, the Paris Climate Agreement was a death sentence signed by the 1%. The whole point was not just to continue with dirty fuel, but to continue the methane-natural-gas money-train, specifically the Fracking boom. The 1% dont want to cut any methane, period.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 22, 2018, 12:21:39 AM »
Ned, you havent presented a good argument for the reason you started this thread. I don’t think the math is on your side, so I’m not sure how you aim to prove that CH4 isn’t important or significant in forcing.

You seem stuck on RF vs ERF, favoring one side bc the numbers fit your reality. As far back as I can remember, ERF was the better measurement. Besides that, you just ignore all methane feedbacks. Is there a point to continuing this discussion?

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 21, 2018, 02:25:34 PM »
Ned, you’re doing a whole lot of talking, and not making any sense.

Is this how you try to win the argument you’ve started, while slandering posters like AbruptSLR?

Stop rambling and try to give a logical explanation for your method.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: August 21, 2018, 01:16:35 AM »
Whatever helps these ppl sleep better at night.

A politician has the same loyalty as a prostitute, and historically always has. Conservative scientists are part of the system driving us to collapse, and they believe it is their duty to mislead the public. They think the public cant handle the truth, and would just break down in despair.

I’m done arguing with you. Everyone shares responsibility for their part.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 20, 2018, 10:21:08 PM »
CH4 forcing today tiny compared to CO2? REALLY? 1.9 ppm vs 410 ppm. 100 times more potent (conservatively) means it is almost half as strong a forcing as C02. I guess you could think as that as tiny, but not to me.

I guess tiny is the wrong word. It would be be interesting to see a graph comparing raw forcing.

In any case, CH4 will undeniably be a major climate change factor in the future.

Science / Re: Comparison: forcings from CO2, CH4, N2O
« on: August 20, 2018, 09:52:26 PM »
Is this thread concern trolling, Ned?

Of course CH4 is tiny today compared to CO2 forcing. But CH4 levels are accelerating, we know of many CH4 feedbacks waiting to kick in, and we are already seeing significant reductions in atmospheric OH (Hydroxyl Radicals) necessary to break down CH4.

CH4 will be a very big factor in decades to come. This is now almost fact, Ned.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: August 20, 2018, 08:31:23 PM »
Anyone that thinks that conservative scientists are the problem
instead of our politicians who put their future before their electorates future
is deluded

1) Anyone with good knowledge of politics of knows that politicians don’t do what’s rational and best for their citizens. Sorry, but this reeks of isolated naivety.

2) Conservative scientists provide the ultimate excuse for inaction.

3) At this point in time, talking to the public about 2C is outright deception.

4) In our ultra-capitalist society, money shapes and corrupts every industry. Science and academia is no different. Conservative scientsts hold most of the top positions because their interests align better with the big money.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: August 20, 2018, 01:40:18 AM »
I note that high-end ESMs always use the correct value of methane, which they calculate based on chemistry.  Thus the real question is what standard are we going to hold policymakers to; as to date they simply state that they are entitled to assume that future methane emissions will be low

Exactly. But lets not forget that our policymakers will continue taking foolish strides hand in hand with out scientific elite, as till now. Remember how just a few years ago many in the scientific elite bullied methane researchers? Gavin Schmidt was especially cocky about it. He denies it all now of course.

Many scientists are still speaking up whenever methane research comes up, and stating thats its a mistake to take any "attention" off CO2. Such petulant little children, virtually zero self-reflection, and an embarrassment to science.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: August 18, 2018, 04:58:25 AM »
This is really really bad on several levels.

Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from abrupt thaw beneath thermokarst lakes will more than double radiative forcing from circumpolar permafrost-soil carbon fluxes this century

So first, they are pointing at our ongoing "abrupt thaw" as a driver of an increased ratio of CH4 vs CO2. Possibly because the bacteria cant break down the CH4 fast enough? This would seem to makes sense.

In the gradual thaw setting for RCP4.5, atmospheric carbon uptake by plants growing in active layer soils is stimulated more than decomposition of soil organic matter. However, the same degree of warming triggers an acceleration of abrupt thaw via thermokarst-lake formation on up to 4.9% (3.0–6.6%, 68% uncertainty range) of the permafrost-dominated landscape

Then, they point out that the CH4 to CO2 ratio increase from abrupt thaws under IPCC's RCP4.5 (moderate) warming is fairly similar to RCP8.5. Of course, our current path is pretty much BAU, so this is doubly bad news. The feedbacks have feedbacks! (sorry, I couldnt help but use some humor here)

Now, couple this research with this:
”We find a 64–70% probability that a decline in OH has contributed to the post-2007 methane rise.”

Role of atmospheric oxidation in recent methane growth


”Based on our analysis, the mathematically most likely explanation for the renewed growth in atmospheric methane, counterintuitively, involves a 25-Tg/y decrease in methane emissions from 2003 to 2016 that is offset by a 7% decrease in global mean hydroxyl (OH) concentrations, the primary sink for atmospheric methane, over the same period.”

Ambiguity in the causes for decadal trends in atmospheric methane and hydroxyl

The big picture on CH4 looks grim. We're not really sure why its accelerating, and we're not sure why OH is already declining significantly too. And now we know that the permafrost is extremely sensitive to our current climate pathway. To sum it up, here's another quote from the original article (my bold):

In contrast to shallow, gradual thaw that may rapidly re-form permafrost upon climate cooling, deep, CH4-yielding abrupt thaw is irreversible this century. Once formed, lake taliks continue to deepen even under colder climates, mobilizing carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere over tens of thousands of years. The release of this carbon as CH4 and CO2 is irreversible in the 21st century.

Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 13, 2018, 03:36:27 PM »
We not only haven't stopped it's growth, we haven't even slowed it's acceleration.

If we added CH4 to the chart it could get scary. :-\

Good to see more people saying this, because I've felt alone repeating it for years. We havent done anything to cut CO2 emissions significantly enough to fight climate change.

The climate movement keeps getting used for purposes other than fighting climate change. The movement spent years caught up pointlessly arguing with deniers, abstaining from politics while publishing articles promising false hope, and even protesting Trump like he caused this problem.

I love hearing this comedy about how horrible Conservative parties are destroying all the non-existent progress of Liberal parties. There was also a good joke a few years back claiming that actual emissions paused, even though CO2 emissions didnt.

Now that CH4 emissions are accelerating along with CO2, this show is starting get interesting. How much longer can people keep lying to themselves that things will be alright?

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 16, 2017, 10:39:17 AM »
Mocking Mann and his contributions to our understanding of climate change is
just wrong.

I understand his motivation for attacking the NYMag's,(got it right this time), article and choose to disagree with him on this issue.

No, twisting facts is unscientific.

What motivation can be justified and defended when someone uses a position of influence/power to mislead & placate others? The world is heading towards collapse, unless drastic action is taken.

Dr. Mann believes that we must stay above the fray and always ensure that every T is crossed and every period is in place.

No, he believes in twisting facts. He believes that he and other academics are better suited to deal with the facts of reality, and that the public must be treated like children with soft minds. It is a perversion of Science into some vehicle for agendas.

This why the general public has a natural distrust of snotty academics. Politicians are much better liars.

I believe that lighting a fire in the cooling embers of the climate change battle is of primary importance.

That's a nice story that most of the public is unaware of. No battle, no cooling, no importance. The strategy to date has absolutely failed. Zero proof of any effective climate action to date. CO2 emissions have yet to stop accelerating.

If I'd experienced what Dr. Mann has experienced since his famous hockey stick graphic rose from obscurity, I'd probably agree with him

What do his personal experiences of being sued have to do with justifying his rotten attitude towards the public and shutting up of those who speak the truth? How do you reconcile that with continued endangering humanity's future? How do you wake up in the morning and tell yourself that this is OK?

I think it's important at this time to be opening a new Overton Window. When I first came across the term I thought it a disgusting way to win an argument. I felt it was a disingenuous, deceitful ploy that others would use, not I, nor mine.

This type of approach has a lot to do with the failure of the scientific community's communication on Climate Change. The manipulation of public discourse and opinion by politicians and the wealthy elite is well documented history. The US even has a special secret school where subversion is taught regularly.

Many scientists show a gross ignorance of how the world works outside their field of expertise, and approach it so naively. Why not investigate matters before reaching conclusions, like in any scientific field? I'm afraid this attitude can only come from the belief that they are somehow above human nature through their education. But if the climate movement's history continues to show, many scientists are played with and twisted very easily, just like the simplest of humans minds.

Keep patting yourselves on the backs, I'm sure the current strategy will start working someday, right?

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 15, 2017, 10:33:19 PM »
about who cares what deniers say i disagree to the point that:

- if they are leaders of major enterprises or even POTUS it matters, whether we like it or not

You misunderstand. Collectively, we are all deniers. Both sides of the political aisle are deniers. Anything less than drastic war-scale action is denialism. Those are the facts shown to us by decades of scientific research.

The blatant "climate change deniers" many envision as the enemy is not some social movement. It's a marketing campaign pushed by the 1%. Engaging them only wasted time and gave them more power. This tool is historically well established in politics in controlling public discourse and shifting the Overton window. Politicians know that the best way to defeat an enemy is from within, to keep them busy fighting and arguing among themselves.

People who mock Trump's denialism while praising Obama are deniers, and worse hypocrites. I've written much on the facts of Obama's climate destruction, his missed opportunities, his expansion of the fossil fuel empire, and his desecration of the Paris Climate Agreement. Hillary wouldn't have been any better for fighting climate change, for veering us off a 4C future. The Climate Movement's elite were certainly busy discrediting a lifelong environmentalist Bernie Sanders and propping up fossil-fuel-shill Hillary Clinton. Chew on that.

about the "on purpose thing" related to scientists. this i would not sign. i believe that most scientist are doing their best while they are dependent (funding etc.) on their masters and have to be careful not to overshoot.

The academic and scientific community are corrupted by the influence of a system governed by profit, and the motivation and desires of those who wield the money and power.

In addition, it is established fact that the scientific elite have consistently erred on the side of least drama. Not because of the hard Science, and certainly not because of being "careful to overshoot". I think its impossible to dismiss the systemic corruption, a corruption of what is supposed to be hard science.

There are individual exceptions of course, but they are indeed the exception, and generally wield less power and influence than those who are part of the problem.

thinking a bit back and even now not all feedbacks and consequences were the kind of obvious that an employee could easily lean out of the window and offend his boss or paymaster. could even be counterproductive since less funds means less data means even more time lost.

This type of excuse could maybe have been made in the 90s. We are well past the stage of doubt in feedbacks. For example, the last IPCC report's dismissal and omissions of many well-established feedbacks at the time of publishing can be considered nothing less than deliberate. The way the scientific elite mocked, belittled, and dismissed "alarmists" for decades is nothing less than deliberate. Just look at how hastily so many well-known scientists jumped out of their seats to put down this article.

One may argue that scientists are just people like anyone else. However, this only further highlights how being a scientist has been reduced to just another profit-motivated "job" in the current system. Science has been reduced to a tool controlled by profit, and objectivity has become a crown worn by the elite, instead of a goal one strives to.

Its long past time to take a good look in the mirror.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 15, 2017, 08:19:16 PM »
I'm going to frame this argument in simple terms.

Its like a patient who has cancer. The correct approach is to lay out exactly how dire his situation is, along with the possible treatment courses and their chances for success. Fear and hope go hand in hand to lead one to make the best decisions.

In our case though, most our scientific elite have spent decades essentially trying to downplay the risk, to frame the dangers in a way that doesnt threaten the patient's worldview and daily lifestyle as much. Is it really so surprising then, that the patient isnt properly treating himself? The patient is intentionally led to believe that he has more time than he does, and that the consequences are less dire than they are.

Those criticizing this article (and others before it) are less concerned with humanity's future, and more concerned with their egos and feelings. It is a corruption of science to feel that you must constantly frame scientific research in a way that minimizes the risks. An insignificant percentage of humanity is informed that we are literally heading towards catastrophe. Its no longer a question of "if" we are, and more of how many will survive, and what portions of Earth will remain habitable?

I am disgusted by those who use their expertise and influence to criticize the "tone" of this article, without highlighting the reality it is trying to push in people's faces. We must face reality. We don't need the hand-holding and coddling.

Its also time to stop talking about climate deniers. Who cares what they say? They lost the argument long ago, and in recent years their view is little more than a joke. We give them life the more we engage them. We waste our time arguing them instead of pushing for action that might actually make a difference.

Worse, we corrupt the whole argument when we defend the actions of Democrats over Republicans, or when we defend the Paris Climate Agreement.  The actions taken or proposed till now cannot be described statistically as anything more than insignificant. I've said for years, they have only placated those who have been at least somewhat worried about our crisis. The difference in climate projections between what either side of the political aisles have proposed is laughable. If anything, the political Left has only taken on the climate change mantra to buy your votes and cheerleading. They are just as much a problem as the political Right, with a denialist "all-of-the-above" energy policy that ignores our crisis.

Trump isn't the problem. Deniers arent the problem. WE are the problem, we are the deniers. We are the ones brushing aside the scientific reality every day in order to go on with our daily lives and rituals, and feel better about ourselves. Our descendants will not look at us kindly, and rightly so.

Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: May 30, 2017, 07:49:52 PM »
We've passed the Annual peak so it's going down until august-september. Sheesh. Government propaganda, hah.

Oh, thats what you meant, lol. Now i feel silly.  :P

Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: May 30, 2017, 06:37:00 PM »
This should start going down now

No, it really should not be expected to. We haven't had any serious climate action, and by all records, C02 levels have yet to stop accelerating:

And plz dont bring up government propaganda about C02 emissions going down. Those are calculated numbers, and i guarantee they have lots of deliberate and/or unintended omissions of data. Similar to IPCC garbage.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: May 29, 2017, 11:07:26 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "How the IPCC becomes a climate change denial tool", and it discusses how AR5 is out of date and underestimates such issues as abrupt sea level rise and the correlation of extreme weather events to global warming.  While it is helpful to point-out that denialists are taking advantage of AR5 inherently being behind the times; it fails to call attention to recent research related to how dynamical climate sensitivity can result in substantially higher effective climate sensitivity than AR5 acknowledges:

Extract: "Climate science is progressing very rapidly, especially in some areas. There are things we know now, or that we feel fairly comfortable asserting as pretty likely, that one year ago, and certainly four years ago, were fairly uncertain or in some cases inconceivable.

Citing the most recent IPCC report about a climate change relate issues tells me two things:

1) You don’t read the literature or talk to climate scientists; and
2) You are not especially interested in an honest conversation about this important scientific and policy issue."

Thank you for this AbruptSLR. I've said this for a long time, and was even criticized by a few on this forum for it. It has nothing to do with me, or intelligence. Its a simple observation of the facts and scientific research.

I take this observation and combine it with politics to reach the conclusion that we have very little to hope for. Our owners and the political elite have succeeded in dividing the populace into two equally nonsensical polar camps. This is why months ago I said good riddance to NASA's shit scientists, those who for years upheld the status quo that can only lead to collapse of civilization. Those who for years ridiculed "climate alarmists". Fuck them.

For a good few years now, our greatest enemy has not been the "climate deniers", but most of the "climate movement" sheep who buy into all the corporate-sponsored greenwashing and political propaganda. Posting irrefutable facts on most forums, like Obama being a huge driver of climate change, or how we have yet to begin any serious climate action at all, is still met with tribalistic hostility. Facts be damned. As far as our owners are concerned, this is working wonderfully as intended.

I cant help but find myself thinking every day "we deserve this". I dont wish anyone ill, and I dont think the average person deserves whats coming. But who would pity the adult who hurts himself by thinking he can ignore the laws of physics like gravity?

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: January 06, 2017, 08:30:45 AM »
The election is over.

...Save your vitriol for the incoming administration, they'll do plenty to earn it.


Nothing is over. The party is still fighting off internal change, trying to deny ppl who share Bernie's views from entering or taking leadership roles. To fight climate change, we have to take control of the party. Their is no other option available for Millennials like myself if we wish to avoid experiencing a collapse of civilization.

Maybe you havent noticed, but there is an election for Dem party chair Feb 23-26, and Keith Ellison is being smeared in disgusting ways by the party heads. Keith has the record of a true Progressive, especially on Climate Change, so of course the corrupt corporate party heads oppose him.

This is the same party who purposely lost seats in congress to Republicans in 2010 and 2014 by not funding Progressive candidates, while throwing money at pro-corporate candidates (most who lost). This was so Obama could get his Fast Track Authority so he could sign TPP into law without public review. After much anti-TPP activist noise, Republicans happily granted the man they call "dictator" the power to directly negotiate & sign trade deals into law.

If you havent heard much of any of this, its because of the proliferation of fake-news empire-mouthpiece outlets like CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX, who dont report what the 1% dont want us plebes to notice.

Your arguments parrot the words of Stephen Harper's conservatives here in Canada. just prior to them bailing out on Canada's climate commitments. their silencing of climate scientists, and their full support of various tar sands projects.

Much of Conservatives' criticism of Liberals is a twist of truth. It really is brilliant how the 1% splinters the public, you gotta hand it to them. They essentially leave you to defend a position that is indefensible, and let tribalism do its work. The Dems' greenwashing is practically whip-cream at that point.

Come on, dont you think its ridiculous that you have to defend the lame commitments Canada made? In order to correct future actions, there must be a reflection and analysis of that failure, or else we are doomed to repeat them (as we indeed have so far).

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: January 05, 2017, 12:54:07 AM »
My Response to Joe Romm's Medium Essay that Lets Democrats off the Hook on Climate Change

Like may liberals, he's either under the mistaken impression that Democrats actually give a damn about taking steps to address anthropogenic global warming and the climate disruption it is causing, or he has chosen to deliberately ignore that Democrats, despite the lip service they occasionally pay the matter to pander to environmentalists while continuing to accept money from the fossil fuel industries and do the least possible to address what is now literally a worldwide "hair on fire" situation, one in which warming is accelerating at a rate unforeseen even by the climate scientists themselves only a few years ago.

...he takes dead aim at Trump and the GOP, while failing to acknowledge that the record of Democrats regarding climate change is hardly any better, and in some respects, worse, since they give the impression they actually care about doing something when the truth of the matter is that most of them are in bed with Big Oil and could not care less.

Think Progress (and thus Climate Progress, as well) is "a project of the Center for American Progress (CAP)," an liberal establishment "think tank" whose board of directors and executive staff read like a Who's Who of the Democratic elite. Indeed, CAP's CEO and President is Neera Tanden, a Clinton advisor and loyalist

while I agree that Trump is certainly bad news for America in terms of his policies on climate change, I find it naive, at best, and disingenuous, at worst, to pretend the Democrats would have done anything to reduce carbon emissions significantly under a Clinton administration.

In fact, both Obama and Clinton were avid supporters of the TPP and other trade deals. These deals (as do current ones such as NAFTA) would have permitted corporations to override our current environmental laws and protections in secret tribunals staffed by corporate friendly judges and lawyers.

Not surprisingly, I find the entire premise that Democrats would have done anything to advance the goals of the Paris climate agreement both ludicrous and deceitful. One need look no further than Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine, a known free trade and TPP supporter, as her running mate, and the actions by the Clinton campaign to "steamroll" Sanders' appointees to the platform committee when they tried to get provisions rejecting the TPP inserted. Add to that the fact that at the Democratic National Convention, Sanders' delegates protesting the TPP were aggressively censored, and you have all the evidence you need to know about what the Democratic elites really think about protecting the world from our ongoing climate crisis.

After all, it was Clinton herself, in the middle of her campaign that said "environmentalists need to get a life" in a private meeting with labor leaders. Trump, at least did not hide his opinion of climate change and, more importantly, what he plans to do to promote fossil fuels. Clinton would have delayed implementation of anything to advance the "pledges" set forth in the Paris accord, and lied all the while about her desire to support the planet while she did so. At least with Trump in office, the Democrats publicly will actively advocate for a pro-environmental agenda in reaction to Trump, rather than surreptitiously support an anti-environmental one

...come out and demand real change from the Democratic establishment in addition to merely writing click bait screeds against Trump and the GOP. Anyone can do that in their sleep. It takes real courage and conviction to come out against the secret pro-fossil fuel agenda

In our modern political theater Republicans are the ones shooting at us, and Democrats are the ones who show up to take photos with the media holding bandaids and "We Care" posters.

Every bad legislation that Trump signs will be at the hand of Democrats as well, since the Republicans dont have a majority in congress.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: January 02, 2017, 03:33:50 AM »

Referencing your reply #116 to Tea Potty, I would have liked to hear his response. Unfortunately, he decided to vent elsewhere, perhaps another blog where he wont be challenged. Great response by the way!

Nah, just no point in arguing with a bunch of amateurs. Not my fault you wont accept or educate yourself on the reality revealed to us through leaks from Snowden and Wikileaks. This is bc you are mostly concerned with "feeling" right.

Its also offensive to compare people like Trump to Hitler if they havent actually enslaved and murdered millions, just so you can promote "The Narrative". If anything, Obama and moreso Hillary are responsible for the deaths of many more innocents than Trump ever has.

We Millennials cannot afford such ideological purity - we are trying to take every practical step possible to give us the best chance to improve the sorrid future waiting for us. Hillary would have done less than Obama's symbolic-action, and thats a fact if you actually care to ever look them up.

You seem to think that throwing a few smart-ass comments at me will change reality. What I've described is history - the facts and reaction of millions of independents and millennials who used their voting power against a crook like Hillary. Go argue with them if you want, plenty of forums around for the movement on a variety of platforms and sites are still going.

Or, keep believing the paradoxical conspiracy-theory that the leaks that caused Hillary to lose were caused by Russia, and yet somehow the leaks were also a nothing-burger and didn't reveal primary rigging against Bernie among many other anti-Left and anti-Climate stances.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 21, 2016, 10:39:52 AM »
The Donald Trump presidency will be a historic one, like Hitler's was.

As a dark skinned person I'm telling you your confusing racism and bigotry, and which Trump is the latter. But I'm guessing your experience with it is limited to what you read. And as a Jew, I say your  comparison to Hitler is insulting. Your actually minimizing what millions of ppl went through bc of blind tribalism.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 19, 2016, 03:52:33 PM »

The only chance we have now is REVOLUTION, and we almost had one this election, no thanks to Liberals.

You still haven't answered my question as to what could be expected from a Sander's presidency. More vitriol and polemics will not win you many converts. I've enjoyed the challenge Tea Potty, but I see no point in discussing this further. Good luck with your REVOLUTION.

Won't win me many converts? Concern trolling me and this forum with "what would you have done?" is pathetic, and trying desperately to make this about me to deflect is sad. You conceded the argument when you started attacking me instead of addressing the irrefutable facts I raised. Namely, that your precious Obama fucked us over with every decision he made in office.

Once again, the Leftist/Profressive movement sparked by Bernie is the largest political uprising in American History. By polls, he is still the most popular politician in America. Had Bernie been the candidate, we would have sweeped the Senate and the House. That's the only chance we have now, Revolution. Since you don't have a better strategy and a huge coalition like ours to enact change, I suggest it's time to educate yourself rather than throw snark at those who are trying to change things.

Now that we are out of time to deal with climate change, those who for years promoted the current failed strategy can be dismissed and ignored. They've failed and yet they still insist that only they know best. Time to move over for a new generation who wants to actually save their future.

That Donald Trump is the other option scares the living hell out of me, because it will be a very bitter medicine, bordering on poison.

It won't be so bad as you think. The media is largely to blame for turning this simple asshole into Hitler/Boogeyman. We had to punish the Dem party so that we can take over the party and win the next election. Hillary would have used her power to further suppress the Leftist agenda of economic justice and climate change. So better a strong chance for change in 4 years, rather than 8 more years of BAU, and a combination of voter ass-kissing of climate destruction and apathy to the scale of necessary action.

Ppl are angry now, so mission accomplished. Time to wake the fuck up and channel it for something productive.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 19, 2016, 08:33:15 AM »
Tea Potty:

Consider the following scenario: Bernie Sanders is our President-elect, the Democrats have taken a majority in the Senate, while the Republicans control the House. What do you think a Sander's presidency would accomplish in it's first term? Are the Republicans going to suddenly become cooperative? With close to fifty percent of the electorate voting for Trump, how is any president going to do a 180 degree turn with respect to climate change legislation?

...Calling a member's argument "sophomoric" and "stubborn" will not help you build consensus. All you're going to do is alienate people.

First, he didn't make an argument. He wrote many words to suggest depth where there was none. Its very clear when discussing politics with people who is actually informed and who believes the MSM, and these two are growing more separate by the day.

Second, your argument of "what could you accomplish in 4 years?" is an absurd attempt at apologizing for Obama's bad actions. Did he use all his charisma and influence to spread the importance of cutting carbon so that billions wont die? No. Did he even try to make a serious push for significant climate action? No. Had Obama made a sincere attempt, then one could throw this argument at me "what would you do?". At least Bernie would have tried.

You want ideas? We're FUCKED. Its time to get this through our collective skulls. Stop praising a man who called himself a savior for bringing a bucket to stop a flood. The only reason we got into this horrible mess now is because of this endless ass-kissing of politicians and being team players, an incredibly naive perspective of many scientists and academics who want to claim objectivity. We have verified leaks and bills like TPP proving Dems oppose real climate action, so its a fact whether you want to accept it or not.

I wonder if you supported the Iraq War in the beginning back when ppl like me were arguing that there is no proof, and establishment Dems lined up to vote for it like good soldiers, Hillary even making a speech to convince others. Now we see bullshit like "Russia interfered with our election". Anyone who believes this is falling for the same american empire fake news that brought you Iraq, not a shred of evidence of Russian tampering (as verified Dec 15 by Loretta Lynch & John Kerry). Besides, its rather funny the Dem party is suggesting Russia is interefering in our election by revealing the Democrats interfering with elections. Is this OK in your eyes because they aren't Republicans?

The only chance we have now is REVOLUTION, and we almost had one this election, no thanks to Liberals.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 19, 2016, 04:02:15 AM »
Science is a collective activity. Programs that *make a difference* at a policy-making level rely on hundreds of programs that do pure science, out of public sight, except in places like this. So yes, the axing of pure research programs that "make no difference" will do irreparable harm.

Thats not an argument that refutes anything I wrote.

Our current BAU policies are the ones doing irreparable harm to our climate. Dismantling research will harm science somewhat, but not at the extent that some are suggesting, and wont make our current BAU policies significantly worse. Trump will never match Obama's fossil fuel production growth, nor will he succeed in deploying enough coal plants to come close to the nearly equal emissions from Obama's gas boom and their leaking fracking wells/pipes. Theres actually a very good chance that fossil fuel production growth will slow down under Trump because we've already grown production so much, lol.

TeaPotty, that's really not right.

I work in risk management in the oil & gas industry. Energy production decisions are taken ten, twenty or fifty years out. The lead time to peak production for an oilfield can easily be a decade, and in some cases, such as offshore, twenty years or longer. Most (maybe all?) of the oilfields included in those numbers have been live since *before* Obama, and perhaps before either Clinton or Bush.

Their specific output is the result of industrial decisions taken entirely outside the realm of government or politics. The tax incentives that made oil & gas so profitable in the United States have been in place since the Reagan years. The only way the government can reduce output is by reducing those tax incentives

So you're saying that oil production will decrease under Trump because of Obama's actions? Did Reagan not effect production in his term?

This story you're telling is just that - thats not how politics works. A president can push various industries through various levers and executive policies. If you're going to be stubborn and insist otherwise, I will not continue discussion with such sophomoric analysis wasting my time and others.

The fossil fuel industry knew it invested wisely when it poured money on establishment Dems, most notably Obama & Hillary.

Your fervour to exonerate one side is unhelpful. I say that as a fiscal conservative.

1) You're proving again that you don't seem to remember what you read. I've said time and time again the only way significant climate action will occur is through revolution, and not through either establishment parties.

I've explained that we have irrefutable evidence from leaks of both establishment parties working together against the public's wishes. Leaks from Snowden, Wikileaks, and Manning have been verified by checksum, meaning its pointless to argue against their authenticity. We even have a study from Princeton proving from over 30 years of political data that the major factor in whether a bill passes or not is support of the 1%, regardless of what the public wants. We just had a Dem primary where the most significant Climate candidate (Bernie Sanders) ever led the largest uprising here since the American Revolution, and in return was blacklisted and later smeared by the Dem party in collusion with the media. Did you not see all the emails to journalists telling them what narrative to push in the news? The party spent millions on online trolls laughing at Progressives' agenda, more than they spent on outreach to any minority group. They threw money at violent actors to storm Trump & Bernie rallies just so they can push negative headlines and claim those ppl were candidate supporters. Money was even funneled through state parties so Hillary could circumvent individual donation limits, since most of her money cam from wealthy ppl and industries. Bernie received more contributions than any candidate in any election in American history, even more than Obama's 2008 massive general election campaign. When all that failed the primary had to be rigged for Hillary to win, even as polls showed her likely to lose to Trump.

Dems lose bc Progressives/Leftists and much of the climate movement punished the party for what has clearly become an abusive relationship. Its time to grow a spine and stop kissing the ass of evil people. When it was clear in the primary that we had the majority power, there was such a strong feeling of hope for us Millennial's future. You would actually hear ppl talk about it, we finally had a candidate we absolutely knew would push as hard as he could to cut emissions urgently. There was absolutely no hope with Hillary, who would have undoubtedly maintained the same BAU climate path as Obama, and told her 1% pals that ppl who want to cut carbon should "get a life".

2) You're a fiscal conservative? No wonder you're fine with Obama fucking over the working ppl who voted for him.

I agree based upon what you have written in several posts.
However I would much prefer the CC research programs and environmental protection rules stay and are reinforced rather than dismantled.

Agreed, I wish Bernie Sanders was president now too. My point was more that we already were ignoring the research, with the assistance of establishment scientists.

Tea Potty, once again I agree with most of what you say. However I invite you to examine these points.

1. Up until recently, if you even mentioned that climate change will have consequences in our lifetimes you would have gain the scorn of any serious scientist.  What the scientist told Obama was that temp would rise by 2C in a century, the arctic will last until 2070. So Obama invested in pure research as if we had time. Sure there was risk for us but it would be perfectly manageable for now. Right now that doesn't seem to be the case, but in 2008 that was the best science.

We knew by 2008 that we had much bigger problems than 2C, and that we were running out of time.

Obama didn't bring about any surge in climate science. History will not be so kind to him because his direct actions speak for themselves. James Hansen said about Obama's Paris Climate Agreement (my emphasis):

  • Obama is not proposing the action required for the essential change in energy policy direction
  • How can such miserable failure of political leadership be explained
  • Get ready for the great deceit and hypocrisy planned for December in Paris
  • Negotiators do not want the global leaders to look like fools again, as they did in Copenhagen. They are determined to have leaders clap each other on the back and declare the Paris climate negotiations a success.
  • They express optimism on the Paris summit, citing an agreement of the U.S. and China to work together to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS). That spin is so gross, it is best described as unadulterated 100% pure bullshit.
  • I am only pointing out the dishonest spin that is being put on total failure to address the fundamental issue.
  • I have suggested, asked, or begged lawmakers, in more nations and states than I can remember, to consider a simple, honest, rising carbon fee with all funds distributed to legal residents... Instead legislation is proposed by liberal governments who want funds for bigger government or programs such as renewable energy subsidies. A carbon tax is hidden in “cap-and-trade-with-offsets”, yielding higher energy prices, more government controls, and a burden on the public and businesses. The proposed bill in the United States (Waxman/Markey) included 3500 pages of giveaways to every lobbyist who could raise his arm to write a paragraph that was then stapled into the bill.
  • “(Many have said) we need a carbon price and (investment) would be so much easier with a carbon price,” Figueres said, “but life is much more complex than that.” Baloney. A flat carbon fee is too complex? Figueres deserves our respect and thanks for hard work, but we cannot let politeness damage the future of our planet and loved ones.
  • The danger that Paris may mimic Kyoto is heightened by the “guard rail” concept, which allows governments to promise future emission reductions rather than set up a framework that fosters rapid emissions reductions.
  • note that his signature victory (EPA regulations that reduce domestic emissions), assuming that it stands up in court, amounts to only several percent of U.S. emissions
  • Obama’s climate legacy, on his present course, will be worse than a miserable failure
  • Watch what happens in Paris carefully to see if all that the leaders do is sign off on the pap that UN bureaucrats are putting together, indulgences and promises to reduce future emissions, and then clap each other on the back and declare success.

    In that case President Obama will have sold our children, and theirs, down the river.

3.  To make matter worse, traitor congressmen both dems and reps, did not allow him to govern, mostly because he is black with a muslim name and that scared the shit out of xenophobes.  Pretty much all of Obama's accomplishments come from executive action

Welcome to political theater. Most of this noise was pushed by the establishment of both parties to provide cover for some incredibly ugly policies they wanted. Every negotiation with Republicans started with Obama first offerting THEIR position on a silver platter. Then the Republicans would cry that he's a LEFTIST COMMUNIST & throw a tantrum until he moved further and further and further right. If you follow politics down to the nitty gritty ugly procedures with wierd names in congress like C-SPAN, this is what you saw. Obama signed off on really really really bad bills, willingly. Obama got a lot done with the Republican majority congress he fought for, and TPP was a love affair where both parties were practically hugging in public from joy of their success. Among a nearly endless list of Wall-St/Banker Christmas wishes,TPP also directly prevents a populist uprising from properly addressing Climate Change, namely through a secret international business  tribunal (court) not accountable to the public.

Under Obama we DOUBLED fossil fuel production. Our government has been hostile and violent to any uprisings and protests, like Keystone Pipeline, Dakota Access Pipeline, Occupy, Black Lives Matters, and the current Left huge uprising sparked by Bernie Sanders. His PR-pushed "good" actions were inadequate at best.

There is no need to make excuses for any man or party who uses their power to make our crisis worse, which he undeniably has.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 17, 2016, 08:46:54 AM »
I'm no fan of the Democrats, or American politics generally, but *much* worse.

This team could dismantle programs, ...

The ones which are weak and ineffective at fighting climate change and not having any noticeable effect on our accelerating carbon levels?

...extract the United States from binding international agreements, ...

What agreement are u referring to? Paris isn't binding, and Free Trade agreements should be ended.

...sideline climate scientists in public service roles, ...

Who failed to inform the public, and obstruct others from doing so.  >:(

...withdraw funding from vital research programs, ...

Yeah, this part sucks.  :(

and do irreparable harm to science.

How can he significantly further harm a field already corrupted to the core by Capitalism?  ::)

Those aren't partisan political issues. And no amount of impotent fury in the face of such raw excess is worth a hill of beans, once it's gone.
Not sure what your argument is here  ???

There's a vast gulf between doing too little and deliberately doing harm. Ask any surgeon.

I have proven above that Obama has harmed the climate more than Bush, and it was very much deliberate.  :'(

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 17, 2016, 03:32:42 AM »
Trump's administration is all about the "Carbon Bubble."

Trump, Putin and the Pipelines to Nowhere
You can’t understand what Trump’s doing to America without understanding the “Carbon Bubble”

Another factless article by a Liberal. Its not wrong, except for claiming this about only 1 party, when it applies very well to both. Trump didn't make America the #1 oil producer, Obama did. Trump didn't spread fracking around the USA and the world, Obama did. Trump didn't make Paris non-binding or prevent poor nations form suing rich ones, Obama did. Trump didn't send his violent henchmen to attack peaceful climate/environmental protesters (yet), Obama did.

Plus, Obama and Hillary both received bribes from the fossil fuel industries, who dont invest in ppl who oppose burning carbon.

The Carbon Lobby and the Trump Gang

...For high-carbon industries to continue to be attractive investments, then, they must spin a tale of future growth. They must make potential investors believe that even if there is a Carbon Bubble, it is decades away from popping — that their high profits today will continue for the foreseeable future, so their stock is worth buying.

Just like the last 8 years.

•You’d dispute climate science — making scientists’ predictions seem less certain in the public mind— and work to gut the capacity of scientists to continue their work (by, for instance, defunding NASA’s Earth Sciences program).

Or you can do like Obama: declare yourself a climate champion, and then do jack squat.

•You’d attack global climate agreements, making them look unstable and weak, and thus unlikely to impact your businesses.

Yup, like Obama, who made sure the agreement is non-binding and prevented poor nations from suing rich ones.

•You’d attack low-carbon competitors politically, attempting to portray the evidence that they can replace high-carbon industries as fraudulent (or at least overly idealistic).

•You’d use every leverage point to slow low-carbon industrial progress — for example, by continuing massive subsidies to oil and gas companies, while attacking programs to develop new energy sources.

Is that better than deluding everyone with propoganda that solar/wind can completely replace carbon in time for our necessary carbon reductions, while only investing a paltry amount in them compared to fossil fuels?

•You’d support putting a price on carbon, since this makes you look moderate and engaged, but you’d make sure that the definition of a “reasonable” price on carbon was so low and took so long to implement that it was no real threat to your business, and at worst would replace the dirtiest fossil fuels with others (switching for example from coal to gas).

The Democrat establishment has literally opposed putting a price on carbon every step of the way, and stifles any discussion of it.

•You would ally with extremists and other sources of anti-democratic power, in order to be able to fight democratic efforts to cut emissions through the application of threats, instability and violence.

Any proof of this? Nope, just more grandstanding Dem talking points. Extremists didn't win the election for Trump, not even close.

•Most of all, you’d invest as heavily as possible in new infrastructure and supply. For oil and gas companies, this means new exploration and new pipelines. Why would you do this, if you know you may have to abandon these assets before they’ve paid off? Two reasons: First, it sends a signal of confidence to markets that you expect to continue to grow in the future. Second, it’s politically harder to force companies to abandon expensive investments than it is to prevent those systems from being built in the first place — the mere existence of a pipeline becomes an argument for continuing to use it. This, too, bolsters investor confidence. (Note that whether these assets are eventually abandoned or not is of little concern to current investors looking to delay devaluations).

So, like Obama.

In Bush’s last year in office (2008) U.S. crude oil production averaged 5.0 million bpd (barrels per day). Under Obama, we've reached 9.4 million bpd in 2015 — a whopping 188% increase! Except it to be even higher in 2016. Also, this is from someone who supposedly understands our carbon-budget well.

Here’s the kicker: If you were going to put in place a presidential administration that was dedicated to taking these actions, it would look exactly like what we have now: a cabinet and chief advisors in which nearly every member is a climate denialist with ties to the Carbon Lobby....

So, this is worse than Obama's administration full of bankers/lobbyists/shills/WallSt ppl who did nothing to push for climate action for nearly 4 years, then did some PR and took credit for saving the world?

I want to emphasize, that my objective to properly direct the newfound outrage many have found. This may actually turn out to be Trump's greatest gift to mankind ;)

Please, stop parroting the Democratic Party. They are not our friends. We must separate our messaging and reach out to non-voters and independents. Even better if we tie ourselves to economic justice.

Explain to those apathetic why they should be angry as well, why society is collapsing. Its only right (and healthy) to be angry at those who are literally killing us.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 16, 2016, 03:44:17 AM »
For that you first need a landslide within the Democratic Party itself to get rid of the neoliberals and take over where Trump will stop. But it seems everyone is too busy bashing Sanders and whining about the 'Russian hack'. Which plays right into the hands of the 1%.

Thats the establishment/MSM narrative, which mattered jack squat this entire election, and matters even less now after their "fake news" propaganda campaign. Who cares what those talking heads say to the few Boomers who watch them?

Recent polling showed Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, by the numbers and not 1% narrative. Independents are the largest voting block, while identified Repubs and Dems are ~25% each and lower.

The Russia nonsense is absolutely "fake news", just like the Iraq War. Not a shred of evidence, and its funny to suggest that Russia rigged our election by uncovering how Hillary rigged the primary and how corrupt she is. Well boo hoo, don't do the crime if you dont want to take responsibility.

That's why supporting Liberals is tantamount to climate denial now. It's obvious they are in on the game to deny significant climate action.

Sorry, I fail to see how your argument supports this conclusion.

Show me an example of Liberals who want to actually cut carbon directly, or any example of a Liberal who have taken significant climate action in power. Today, Liberals=Neoliberals, and their agenda is against working people and against fighting climate change. Did you know Nixon was more progressive on economics than Obama?

While Liberals' agenda does differ slightly from Conservatives, we have all the proof of circumstance and leaks from Snowden and Wikileaks that they ultimately serve the same masters. They are not Leftists, they don't value science and truth the same way, and they are mostly into feeling good about themselves rather than actually helping ppl.

Obama oversaw no significant climate action, CO2 levels accelerating at record rates, made USA the #1 world oil producer, approved almost as many pipelines as Bush, and pushed fracking around the world with $Hillary as Fossil Fuel Lobbyist under the guise of SOS (not to mention largest weapons sales in history). Ultimately, Obama/Hillary fought hardest these last 8 years for TPP (which prevents climate action and exacerbates poverty) and making sure the Paris agreement was non-binding and no poor country could sue for climate damages. That alone speaks volumes and a president who did everything else laid back.

Professor James Hansen said about Paris/Obama that its "BULLSHIT", and "selling our kids down the river".

Thus, based on our current history, leaked facts, and basic analysis of politics, one understands that Liberals are the biggest enemy of progress at the moment. Leftist policies have polled for years to be preferred by the American public when no labels are presented. Bernie Sanders sparked this revolution, which became (and still is) the largest movement with most donations in history.

Democrats rigged the primary and smeared the Economic Justice ideas espoused by progressives in this movement, and called our vision for climate action "fringe". Hillary told her 1% friends behind closed doors that climate activists who want to cut carbon should "get a life".

If you're still confused, I'll make it clearer. 99% of humans agree, a traitor or double agent is worse than an enemy. Liberals have made it their job for decades to suppress Leftist ideas. After this disgusting primary, we on the Left have divorced the Dem party, and made sure Hillary lost. 11% less independents and 11% less Millennials voted for Democrats compared to 2008, half of which voted for Trump.

Better 4 years with a chance to take over the corrupt Dem party and easily get a Leftist in power, than 8 more years of non-action and the truth being further marginalized, the public more apathetic, and the party further nested in its current power structure (or worse).

The Liberals are not just our best bet to combat denial, they are the only (electable) game in town.

No, Liberals are deniers. Try talking to ur average blind Dem voter about the urgency of climate change. They are very poorly informed, and think our urgency is nonsense. Most of them think everything Obama did is practically holy, and you'll be called racist if you question him.

Working now to assure a Democratic landslide in 2 years is the best we can do with the cards we have left to play. Anything that fragments this endeavour will assure another 2 years of Trumpian/Republican domination of all branches of government.

This is what establishment Democrats want you to believe. Polls clearly showed, 1 year in advance of the election during the primary, that it was most likely Hillary would lose to Trump and Bernie would win against Trump in a landslide. Bernie had far far stronger support of independents than Trump, and it was clear to most that Trump copied a lot of rhetoric from Bernie. The Democrat party got what they rigged, with the candidate least favored and trusted in history (except for Trump, lol).

Fact is, the Democrat establishment would have rather lost with Hillary than won with Bernie, bc he represented a threat to the Neoliberals' iron grip of the party, and a threat to the bosses. Just like now, the bosses want Trump out bc of his threats to end the Free Trade scam, and both parties are working on flipping electors and circumventing democracy. Anyone who cheers this on is intellectually bankrupt and a puppet of the empire.

After 30 Years of Throwing Working People Under the Bus, Democratic Party’s “Centrist” Leaders Remain Clueless About Voter Revenge

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 15, 2016, 06:18:14 PM »
Has anyone asked if Trump only >pretends< not to know about the facts? US people feel the drought, the hurricanes, the extremely cold-in contrast to most (media sedated) people here in Central Europe.

How to tell better about a lie than emphasizing its discrepancy with the truth people feel in their daily lifes? I think that is the cracking point of the postfactual times we live in. People feel the truth, the lies, they feel patronized. Tragically they seem to set their only hope into people they hope could help - those who have the power -- of money.

And we could only pray that these horrible rich people not only plan to build an Arche Noah for their own families-leaving the rest of us behind.... I personally do not think they are spurred by idealism.  :'(

Of course our politicians are all lying, they all know how deeply we're fucked. Theyre not stupid, they just pretend. It's obvious by the non-stop goalpost moving.

The 1% don't care about us, at all. They never have throughout history, and they have enslaved us in this rigged economic system we live in today. That's a fact, for those who don't follow politics.

They have no interest in fighting climate change, so they play a game with us. On one hand they pay conservatives and right-wing orgs for the climate denial campaign. On the other hand they pay Liberals and greenwashing orgs to soak up all the climate movement energy and promote apathy.

That's why supporting Liberals is tantamount to climate denial now. It's obvious they are in on the game to deny significant climate action. Remember how Hillary told her 1% pals climate activists should "get a life"?

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 15, 2016, 09:23:19 AM »
Would it have really hurt any of these government scientists to have mentioned in the primary which climate plan was better? Don't you think maybe these seat-warming establishmentarians should have felt compelled to shake off their smug elitism and warn us plebes of how urgently we need to CUT CARBON this election so we can hopefully avert the death of billions?

I say good riddance, cant wait till they are all fired. None of them deserve the public's money for keeping as quiet as possible about climate change and the need to cut carbon emissions.

This way, when we get our Progressive into power, they can appoint some real scientists who aren't into the cult faith of objectivity.

Do you guys think Gavin is now yelling "we're fucked! we're fucked!" over the loss of his job, or is he keeping true to the principles he enforces on climate activists?

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 02, 2016, 09:55:32 AM »
One of the reasons I'm taking a break from blogging, is that I want to get angry again, get that fire going, boil the blood a bit. Too tired now. But it all started 10-12 years ago, getting really angry, at the lies of consumer culture that we get conditioned with.

In this sense Trump may be better than Clinton. Under Clinton the anger would have subsided (while the anger on the 'other side' would have grown even more fervent), with people going: I did my job, I've voted, they'll take care of it, back to sleep now.

More and more people now realize that neoliberals and neocons is the exact same thing, and that they have been played for years by a system that favours the super-rich. This should get people angry, and this anger may make things change.

But only if the anger gets channelled the right way.

We are on the same page my friend  ;)

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 02, 2016, 08:47:34 AM »
Nice post Magnamentis. Neven has founded and hosts the Forum and leads by example. I believe Tea Potty's response to Neven has been at the very least disrespectful.

I didn't perceive it as such, and even if I did, I don't mind most of the time.

Yeah, I have absolutely no reason to be upset at Neven, he isn't to blame for any of this ;)

Also, the anger I am posting about is directed primarily at ppl with positions of importance and the climate movement in general, not ppl on this forum. Its not like I am advocating that everyone on Neven's forum getting angry is our means to salvation. But we do have a problem, of a climate movement that has been too afraid to rock the boat when progress is still non-existent, we have proof that establishment politicians are using us for votes, and we have the moral highground.

For example, many see Trump's election as the final nail in our climate coffin, or at last extremely bad. Now, how many ppl who vote do you think knew anything about our existential crisis? Where were the politicians (besides Bernie Sanders) telling ppl that this election is our last hope for a chance at dignity? Why didn't thousands of our big scientists come together and publicly announce the urgent need for action? Where was even all the climate media on this among all their stories about Trump's denialism?

99% of ppl i talk to have no idea we are quite likely headed for 4C of climate change - they still remember the old 2C goal from the 90s. They have no idea the scope now involves collapse of civilization, the death of billions, etc.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 02, 2016, 02:45:26 AM »
i've seen the word Righteous above quoted and that's exactly what overshadows the entire series of posts.

"Righteous Indignation - Righteous anger is typically a reactive emotion of anger over mistreatment, insult, or malice. It is akin to what is called the sense of injustice"

I hope this clarifies this up. Billions of ppl dying and living in misery is an injustice. It makes me angry, and its definitely not wrong to be. I hope it hurts you inside and makes you angry too.

wisdom is the word and anger never leads to anything than further and more problems.

That a nice mantra, but saying it doesnt make it true. Not showing anger doesnt necessarily lead to desirable results either.

anyone who believes that he got it and especially only "he" got it automatically disqualifies at the very same instance and one can more or less ignore the rest and wait for the individual to grow up.

Its called math, and its true whether ppl believe it in or not. Climate Action is still a myth, a PR campaign - there is no proof of any effect to-date, we're still on the worst case path. I'm not the "only one" either, as my conclusions are directly taken from great minds on this forum and other experienced scientists like Professor James Hansen.

I recognize your patronizing moralism as coming from someone who doesnt expect to live through a 2C or 3C Earth and beyond. Well, good for you!

last but not least 33 years of age is barely above youth and by no means an indicator for extraordinary levels of experience and wisdom, one knows that only when heading to double or triple that age LOL and yes i'm a many times grandpa as one can guess haha...

Your still attacking the messenger here. They aren't my conclusions, and they are rock solid.

let me say that this is the nicest way i'm capable to suggest to stop this ongoing use of heavy sub-level wording (like and the likes ) based on anger of course and exactly proving that anger of that kind has rarely a good outcome, we shall see.

I get it, you want me to get off your lawn. Its unpleasant when someone points out what this generation's legacy is.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 01, 2016, 11:56:41 PM »
I don't see how you can tell ppl that you are right for being less angry. It's even a bit insulting. We are under attack. Apathy is denial at worst,  or submissive acceptance at best. Billions of ppl are going to die, so nobody can justify telling others that anger isn't warranted at our impending anthropocene crisis.

I didn't say less angry is necessarily better. I'm just saying that Righteous Indignation as a type of anger is contributing to the problem.

You've got to be kidding me. This doesnt make any sense at all. Where are "angry ppl" contributing to our climate crisis at all?

To solve the problem you need to transition to another kind of anger, one that leaves room for compassion and an understanding of where other people's perspectives are coming from.

I have plenty of compassion for humanity and individuals, and am a very spiritual person. That doesnt contradict that other ppl deserve to hear the facts that exist outside their bubble. My love for our human body is what spurs me to such extents of bombastic communication beyond what 's normally respectable in everyday matters, which aren't so catastrophically urgent.

Its not unlike a parent who gets angry at a child who is harming himself and refuses or cannot see the truth of it. These 1% children are killing us, and all we do with complacence is provide support or mere decoration to their system.

I think its time this whole fuckin movement gets fuckin angry, and stop playing the violins on the deck of the titanic. Otherwise WTF is the point? Show me where in this graph of CO2 emissions do we see this climate movement or renewables or any climate action to-date have ANY effect whatsoever?

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 01, 2016, 01:55:21 AM »
I think you just haven't gotten to where I have yet. I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

Either it is that I haven't gotten to where you are yet, or you haven't gotten to where I have yet.  ;)

10 years ago is was your age, with a slightly older daughter, and I was very angry at the time as well. The anger will get less as the understanding grows. Or maybe not less, but focused differently.

I don't see how you can tell ppl that you are right for being less angry. It's even a bit insulting. We are under attack. Apathy is denial at worst,  or submissive acceptance at best. Billions of ppl are going to die, so nobody can justify telling others that anger isn't warranted at our impending anthropocene crisis.

And I understand our situation very well, far better than most of the public, especially thanks to many great minds on this forum. The math presented is solid and undeniable: we are fucked. There is no escaping the catastrophic consequences now, only a question of how much additional pressure we want to place on future humanity's neck.

Now, politics I have also studied for a long time now. A clusterfuck of corruption & collusion are the rules that govern our society. It's incredibly naive to think the system will change without a fight, just as history shows us. The longer ppl "play nice" with our politicians, the longer BAU continues. Those at the top are murderers, and those assisting them are accomplices. Yes, that includes establishment scientists who obey and keep quiet, it includes Democrats who praised Obama for his climate action (read:destruction), it includes the hippies who thought they will save the world through Veganism.

Our kids will be disgusted with the ppl alive at this time, especially at those in a position to do anything at all. I'm just already there. Do you think our descendents will also lack "understanding" as they suffer through their life of indignity?  So much could have been done, and all you hear from the older generation are excuses for why we cant save our future, why we can't get angry about it, and why we can't tell ppl that their kids are likely to die on a planet that can't even sustain 1/3 of our current population.

This generation is the WORST in human history, and that's how it will be rememebered. My anger is called Righteous Indignation, and I'm damn proud to be a human who's not asleep like the rest of the sheep awaiting their slaughter.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: November 30, 2016, 08:15:47 AM »

 I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

I've read your posts under the conservative scientists thread and I think I have a better understanding of your point of view. You're rocking the boat, and we are at a point where we need more boat rockers. Good for you! My question is how do we get from the status quo to where substantial change becomes a reality as opposed to fantasy?

Thank you for seeing my point of view. I wish I knew the magic answer buddy. But I believe we must start by learning from past mistakes is necessary.

1) Climate Optimism fails to bring together a movement strong enough, by design. The 1% use their strings to steer the climate movement this direction in order for it to fail - it minimizes the influence it has on the voting public. The media occasionally covers important climate news, flashing sensationalized headlines for one news cycle before washing it over quickly with other sensationalized headlines from anything they can find to throw at their audience to keep them distracted.

2) Dont be afraid to upset or jarr ppl out of their bubble of denial. Forget the MSM's (mainsteam-media) narrative propaganda peddling. They play this game to keep ppl arguing about narrative rather than action. Look at how their election narrative blew up in their face, completely out of touch.

3) Its time to stop playing nice with our politicians. The overwhelming majority of them dont serve us, they dont mean us well, and they dont care how the consequences affect us.

4) To change our system, we must fight it. We must strip the power out those that are part of the system. Bernie Sanders sparked the emergence of the largest grassroots movement in American history. The establishment is busy now trying to destroy it from the inside and out, but if it survives these 4 years, it has potential to sweep in a good candidate - if we can find one by then. The Democratic Party must be taken over by Leftists/Progressives who will serve the working class again, and not just use social issues to tag-team it with Republicans in splitting up voters.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 30, 2016, 05:01:12 AM »
I do hope UBI becomes a reality.

For those who do not know what UBI is:

Extract: "... technologies such as usage-based insurance (UBI) enhance existing digital capabilities, with data and analytics playing key roles in safety, maintenance and consumer engagement."

Wasnt UBI refering to Universal Basic Income in this context?

Maybe I misunderstood.

Yup, I referred to Universal Basic Income as AbruptSLR linked to in the article.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 30, 2016, 01:51:19 AM »
As the first image indicates: "There is no sense in crying over spilt milk".  We most likely are stuck with Trump for four years and I believe that any improvements that he makes will be short-lived at best and will most likely make matters worse in the long-term.

So, pretty much like every other president before him.

As far as your "coalition can easily sweep in a real Leftist willing to take urgent action", I refer to the second image to quote Frederick Douglass that: "Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never did and it never will."

Exactly. I never understood why anyone believed the fossil fuel industries would just allow their empire to be toppled. Its clear now we are at war with the 1% through both major parties.

I imagine that we are headed for turbulent times, and remember that the 1% have been planning the 4th Industrial Revolution for some time now & it will be interesting to see what the populist response is to the 4th Industrial Revolution.

At the very least, it will be interesting. I do hope UBI becomes a reality.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: November 29, 2016, 10:59:10 PM »
Teapotty, I understand what you mean, but try not to refer to people like Gavin Schmidt like you did. It's undeserved, even if everything you say is true.

You know I have much respect for you Neven. But I disagree with you. Gavin Schmidt and establishment scientists like him have a clear agenda: anti-alarmism.

What can you say about a scientist who ridicules alarmists at a time when we know are really really fucked. He is practically trolling us. Do you think history will look kindly on his behavior, at a time when urgent action was still able to save our climate?

I think you just haven't gotten to where I have yet. I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 29, 2016, 10:52:18 PM »
While I appreciate your logic (which is one reason that I have made so many posts in this thread that you created); in this world that we all live in often one must choose the lesser of two evils, in much the same way that moving towards the light is better than moving towards darkness even if one still remains in the dark.

We agree on that my friend. But things have changed. Liberals are no longer the "lesser evil", or more correctly they have been blackmailing us by offering the minimum they could sell in pretty packaging. We have proof that for the past ~30 years they are the bigger enemy than the Conservatives, both from their own actions when in power, and from leaks revealed by Snowden or Wikileaks. They are much like someone who pretends to be your friend only to keep backstabbing you without your knowledge. Liberals have undermined any political efforts to help the working class, while quietly acting in favor of the 1%.

lets just say that I am alarmed without trying to be alarmist because it is easy for the public to ignore an alarmist; while it is more difficult to ignore someone who is actually (& consistently) pointing at smoke coming from the approaching fire.

I think the 1%-controlled media likes to make a joke out of those who are openly alarmist. Its part of their tactics to dissuade climate action. Unfortunately, I don't think humans will act if they are not alarmed. The past 20 years of climate activism is surely proof that non-alarmism is a failed tactic - which is why the 1% push us toward that stance. Its no coincidence that many establishment scientists are anti-alarmists - they earned their positions bc they were team players. Do you think history will look favorably upon them?

That said, it definitely gets my blood boiling to think of the current, on-going, 6th Extinction and the billions of men, women and children who will likely suffer/die before the end of this century due both to the lack of wisdom from both our leaders and from most of the public.

Damn right.

Again, acknowledging that suffering exists is much different than promoting, or accepting, suffering; but if we are going to reduce (or eliminate) suffering thrashing around mindlessly is not the right way to move in the right direction.

Thats what we've been doing till now. More of the same tactics will not result in any significant climate action. Leftists have spoken for decades about the root of all our problems, that nothing will get done without flipping the table on the 1%. They were right.

This election saw the biggest grassroots uprising in American history raise more money from small donors for Bernie Sanders in the Dem party primary than any candidate ever has even for the general election. The movement focused on economic justice and climate change, and the majority were independents & millennials. Wikileaks confirmed Hillary & the Dem establishment's disdain for the movement and its agenda, employing tactics like McCarthyism, race-baiting, hiring of online trolls to falsely smear 24/7, collusion among party elites, use of the state party branches to create a pyramid scheme circumventing max donation limits, collusion with media/journalists on their smear campaigns and fake scandals. They worked tirelessly to take the movement down and destroy it as the threat to the monied interests that it is. Just like Obama did to Occupy Wall St too, destroyed by gov operatives. Ultimately, they still had to rig the polls to barely win with a candidate who was already polling as losing to Trump a year before the gen election, with historic unpopularity (especially among independents, who Trump polled well with do to his fake economic populism).

After all the ridiculing and attacking of Bernie Sanders and our movement, the   numbers showed a loss of ~11% of independents & Millennials, nearly half of those which voted for Trump so Hillary would lose. Those key votes in the swing states lose Hillary the election, by ppl who are economically ruined and see the so-called "working ppl party" working with the Repubs against them. Truth is, the Dem establishment prefers to lose with Hillary than win with Bernie. That is their job.

Of course, Trump is highly unlikely to improve the lives of working ppl much, and our coalition can easily sweep in a real Leftist willing to take urgent action. The media's narratives are meaningless now, about half of voters dont trust a word of their propaganda. The same propaganda as all the climate optimism and "progress" published... nothing more than a marketing campaign to deceive & capture voters. Too many older adults accepted the Dem party's corruption, not realizing that their "lesser evilism" proved a slippery slope as both parties marched rightward. For example, Nixon was to the left of Obama economically.

The biggest problem now is who our 2020 candidate will be. Bernie is too old by then, and most Democrats are electoral poison now. The establishment Dem are irredeemable, bc they are not on our side. They dont intend to fight climate change. They are not the lesser evil. They lost this election bc we cannot take over the Dem party with them in power.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: November 28, 2016, 08:55:10 AM »
Tea Potty:

I laid out the political landscape of the last eight years. In your idealism, you can certainly choose to ignore the facts. Rarely is anything black and white in this world, there's usually a large grey area.

If you wish to continue your incendiary rhetoric, go ahead. The real world is far more complicated and there are no easy answers.

No, what you call the "real world" is theater. You laid out Dem party talking points, and I pointed out the absolute statistical insignificance in raw numbers of any action taken on climate change. Carbon emissions are STILL accelerating (yet to even slow) - we're still on worse-case path. Worse, Obama did more to contribute to climate change than his predecessor.  Saudi America, fracking, TPP, undermining the Paris Climate agreement, global drone-bombing thousands of innocents... these are his legacy, all done by him without any Repubs to intervene. Dems used Climate Change the way a bullfighter uses his red cape, for votes.

I would love some gray area, but we are far into Black. Demanding immediate action is not idealist in the slightest. Without immediate urgent alien-invasion-scale climate action, we are looking more and more likely to pass 4C of climate change within a Millennial's lifetime. That means USA ceases to exist as a country, and we can only hope what % of humanity remaining  find  a new area suitable for human life on an Earth with a climate foreign to any human in history!

But whatever, I'm not even angry anymore. If you prefer denial, go ahead (not beings sarcastic). You are far from the only one, so believe me you won't even have to feel guilty in the future.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 28, 2016, 04:16:31 AM »
In short it is easy to find fault in others, but it is more effective to first take responsibility for our own actions; which then leads to an understanding of our interconnectedness to others.

I understand what you mean my friend, but this is different.

I am pointing fault at a president who handicapped the Paris climate agreement and did nothing to actually reduce our accelerating carbon emissions. Tinkering around the margins in the market with tiny investments in renewables is symbolic feel-good PR. Even his regulations border on the edge of insignificance (to climate, not environment). He made USA the #1 oil producer, spread fracking with help of FF shills selling gas as a "bridge fuel". Ultimately, carbon emissions are still accelerating. How does Obama get to claim having a climate legacy?

Then I got upset at the surge in posts blaming Trump already for everything, from ppl who praised Obama his whole presidency. Tribalism has become more important to these ppl than fighting climate change, bc they cant yet recognize that their "side" is blatantly lying to them. Even Hillary was revealed to have told business leaders in a paid speech that climate activists calling to stop burning carbon should "get a life". Many of these same ppl have been in denial at how fucked we are on Climate Change, and now they suddenly have all this concern and outrage bc of Democratic Party tribalistic talking points.

" Welp, it's been nice guys."
I don't know if this means you're signing off TeaPotty ?

What? And miss out learning from all the great minds on this forum?

I just meant that I've given up hope. I could be surprised, but I dont expect to. I don't even talk to my loved ones about it anymore other than small updates on significant research. Just seems depressing and pointless to them since nothing is getting done, and I can't blame them.

I think our best chance is not delaying the inevitable. The quicker things get bad, the better chance we have of ppl waking up and voting. There was so much potential with Bernie, and we really started the most successful & largest grassroots movement in American history. We raised more for Bernie's primary from small donors than Obama did for either of his presidential campaigns. Millennials actually enthusiastic and active to help this wonderful man fight for economic justice and try his best to fight climate change & the FF industry hampering action.

But the combination of election rigging, party favoritism, media collusion, smear campaigns, paid online posters, and a smug apathetic i-got-mine older generation brought that dream down. The movement still exists, so there is some potential here, but we wont see how much of an electoral force it is until next election. The establishment & MSM are busy trying to destroy it through their usual dirty tactics.

I have enjoyed your posts and a little fire in the belly  is a great improvement over staid acceptance.

Thanx buddy, I've always learnt much from your thoughtful posts.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: November 28, 2016, 03:38:24 AM »
I keep trying to comfort myself with thoughts of "Dubya wasn't that bad... the world continued on...".

Yeah, its gonna be bad. On one hand, he's really not much worse than George W Bush, and on the other Obama wasn't really much better than Bush. Ultimately, nobody is to blame more than the establishment Dems, who enabled all the worst Republican actions.

Democrats are better with climate change issues. How much better is open to debate.

Sorry, but math disagrees with you. Sure, the Neoliberals talk better, but those globalists have proven that they literally don't care much. They believe that a global free-market will magically warp our technology forward and solve climate change. They believe it so much, they based all the budget math in the Paris agreement on it (CCS) somehow magically existing in the future and saving our sorry asses. Then we have all the "Progressives" in branding only, who really are also Neoliberals, and sometimes conservatives. Finally, the few real Progressives (read: Leftists) are the real deal, but they have no power, and the party makes sure of it.

The Dem establishment's #1 priority is undermining the Progressive movement and Progressive ideas. This has been true for decades, and is ultimately what enabled Republicans most of wall: denying the public a working-ppl-party to vote for.

Remember, for most of the last six years the Republicans have had majorities in both houses of Congress. The only chance to accomplish anything was by Executive action.

Sorry, but that sounds like willful denial. Obama & the Republicans got much done together. Leaks from whistleblowers like Snowden & Wikileaks have proven to us that he is an evil man like most politicians before him, with bad intentions for working-ppl. Good ppl dont undermine Climate Agreements - even Professor James Hansen described it all as "bullshit" and "selling our kids down the river". Good ppl dont drone innocent citizens around the world (Obama bombed more countries than Bush too). Good ppl dont FRACK and poison families around the country (and thanx to Hillary's shilling, the world). The list is endless, and he is not a good man.

Its unfortunate so many enjoy defending him in full tribalist identity politics, it just makes me sad that ppl are so uninformed. True, his tongue is slicker than most, and our media has become a circus: the 1% drive their narrative by mixing trivial news with propaganda and non-news distractions to keep the public from noticing the world collapsing around them for as long as possible.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: November 28, 2016, 02:35:17 AM »
Climate inaction > Action against climate change research. The math works out

Thats fair, but I'm not outraged about it either. We're fucked either way by now. At some point, this has to be fully grasped. Trump literally cant make it much worse.

 The loss of data is the worst part, but I'm sure other countries will continue to do better and probably make up for it. I'm rather happy the scientists are getting fired, they deserve it.

Most of our top scientists keep pretty quiet (not all of them of course, thankfully). Imagine what effect they could have had on the public if they tried through some united body or alliance, formally addressing humanity in every language. Instead, most of them stood aside as our politicians never failed to miss an opportunity to act or acknowledge its urgency or ultimate consequences.

Assholes like Gavin Schmidt are religious anti-alarmist, despite their full admission that the research is actually alarming. Gavin even patronized climate realists, by reducing us to a caricature yelling "we're fucked, we're fucked", and then ridiculing it (I believe its in an interview with Esquire). Worse, the anti-alarmist work behind the scenes to undermine the "alarmists" for violating their precious faith of objectivity.

Throw these bums out, they are part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. They sure as hell aren't serving the public.

Remember the president is not the king, he is there to execute legislation. Real climate action must come through comprehensive legislation not executive action

Oh please, spare me. I followed almost every step Obama & congress took during his term, and he is a crook. He never put any serious effort at all into actually improving the economy for working ppl or fighting climate change. He'd always started negotiating by first adopting the Republicans' position, to which they'd respond in scripted outrage. It made for some lovely political theater, but the truth is Obama and the Repubs got a lot done together, all bad for our country. His most aggressive political efforts were on TPP, against his own base and voters. His pet TPP literally seeks to submit all countries in the agreement to the ruling of a secret international business tribunal, and specifically undermines our future ability to fight climate change (among many other horrible things).

It is true that Obama continued oil exploration and expanded fracking, but a great part of his mandate is to deal with the Economy.

So, he didnt do anything significant to fight climate change, and nothing significant to improve the economy. Gotcha.

Since legislation was never passed to make the necessary changes to prop up the economy using renewables

Say what? Renewables weren't then and can't now "prop up the economy". Sure, we really need efforts beyond WW2-scale, but thats a different kind of economy.

I think if the IPCC and climate scientist would have not taken the least drama approach and if Obama didn't have such a racist hostile congress, he would have done more.

Nah. The politicians make sure IPCC is corrupt to the core. Obama & Hillary had their hands in really ruining the Paris agreement. Also, the opposition to Obama is all theater, an excuse for both parties to not actually act in the interest of the public. Again, much was accomplished legislatively these past 8 years, and most of it was very very bad for us.

In the future, our kids will wonder why everyone kissed this asshole's ass. He is a murderer, a 1% pillager, and a climate menace - thats his legacy. Oh, and he gave wonderful speeches.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4