[Tanada]

In honor of the New Year I unlocked this thread, please try and stay on topic.

[jedrider]

Seems to be if humanity was close to destruction, that the PTB would figure out that it is in their best interest to slow down our path to the end and start implementing a remedial strategy:

1. Rainforest preservation.
2. Ocean fisheries preservation.
3. Fossil fuel preservation.
4. A command economy.

What better enforcement tool than the U.S. military. Who would need international agreements?

So, what am I missing here?

[dissident]

Seems to be if humanity was close to destruction, that the PTB would figure out that it is in their best interest to slow down our path to the end and start implementing a remedial strategy:

1. Rainforest preservation.
2. Ocean fisheries preservation.
3. Fossil fuel preservation.
4. A command economy.

What better enforcement tool than the U.S. military. Who would need international agreements?

So, what am I missing here?

We tend to give TPTB too much intellectual credit. A lot of them are of the successful businessman type, the one that does not have a particularly high IQ and knowledge. They just lucked out and made a lot of money. We even had one such moron here in Ontario as part of the Mike Harris regime who was proud of having only a high school level education. Via second hand information I know of bankers who think global warming is a hoax. They really are that ignorant and actually virulent in their ignorance. So TPTB are a big reason why we are headed over the cliff and it's not just the fault of the proles being lead around by the nose by the MSM. But then again, the MSM is a mouthpiece for TPTB and reflects their moronic agenda.

[Newfie]

Yale does a Six Americas report, here is a link.

I don't know if it is I this report but a few years ago they published some of the demographics that made up the different groups. The deniers were:
Older
White
Better educated
Richer
Married
Home owners

Kinda sounds like congress and our business leaders.

I believe the operative force here is that these folks have a lot to loose if CC is correct, so they (unconsciously) decide to not believe. This is pretty common stuff, they way our emotional mind works. The British ruling class had a hard time accepting empire was over.

[Newfie]

BTW, thanks Tanda.

[dohboi]

Yeah, it's not so much about intelligence (by usual definitions), one way or the other. I think it's really mostly an emotional thing, something that these guys would never admit to. One thing that intelligence gives you is the ability to endlessly rationalize things that your deeper emotional self just doesn't want to face.

And I'l join newf in a hearty thanks to Tanada for unlocking this important thready, and a newyear's resolution to be good.

Best wishes to all for a low carbon new year!

[dissident]

Having your intelligence overruled by irrationality does not speak highly of your mental capacity. Pretty much everyone is invested in the current system, including me. But some choose not to shove their head in the sand and pretend there is no problem. I guess we see here what natural selection looks like. A species where the individual members used their intelligence to investigate the threat and objectively evaluate it would obviously have much higher chances of survival. Clearly, the human species has failed in this regard. But we sure love to praise ourselves about how superior we are over the other animals.

[dohboi]

"Having your intelligence overruled by irrationality does not speak highly of your mental capacity."

Tru dat.

[Graeme]

Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice? Scientists Consider Extinction

“We’ve Never Been Here as a Species”

“We as a species have never experienced 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of evolutionary biology, natural resources, and ecology at the University of Arizona and a climate change expert of 25 years, told me. “We’ve never been on a planet with no Arctic ice, and we will hit the average of 400 ppm... within the next couple of years. At that time, we’ll also see the loss of Arctic ice in the summers… This planet has not experienced an ice-free Arctic for at least the last three million years.”

For the uninitiated, in the simplest terms, here’s what an ice-free Arctic would mean when it comes to heating the planet: minus the reflective ice cover on Arctic waters, solar radiation would be absorbed, not reflected, by the Arctic Ocean. That would heat those waters, and hence the planet, further. This effect has the potential to change global weather patterns, vary the flow of winds, and even someday possibly alter the position of the jet stream. Polar jet streams are fast flowing rivers of wind positioned high in the Earth’s atmosphere that push cold and warm air masses around, playing a critical role in determining the weather of our planet.

McPherson, who maintains the blog Nature Bats Last, added, “We’ve never been here as a species and the implications are truly dire and profound for our species and the rest of the living planet.”

While his perspective is more extreme than that of the mainstream scientific community, which sees true disaster many decades into our future, he’s far from the only scientist expressing such concerns. Professor Peter Wadhams, a leading Arctic expert at Cambridge University, has been measuring Arctic ice for 40 years, and his findings underscore McPherson’s fears. “The fall-off in ice volume is so fast it is going to bring us to zero very quickly,” Wadhams told a reporter. According to current data, he estimates “with 95% confidence” that the Arctic will have completely ice-free summers by 2018. (U.S. Navy researchers have predicted an ice-free Arctic even earlier -- by 2016.)


McPherson does not hold out much hope for the future, nor for a governmental willingness to make anything close to the radical changes that would be necessary to quickly ease the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; nor does he expect the mainstream media to put much effort into reporting on all of this because, as he says, “There’s not much money in the end of civilization, and even less to be made in human extinction.” The destruction of the planet, on the other hand, is a good bet, he believes, “because there is money in this, and as long as that’s the case, it is going to continue.”

Leifer, however, is convinced that there is a moral obligation never to give up and that the path to global destruction could be altered. “In the short term, if you can make it in the economic interests of people to do the right thing, it’ll happen very fast.” He offers an analogy when it comes to whether humanity will be willing to act to mitigate the effects of climate change: “People do all sorts of things to lower their risk of cancer, not because you are guaranteed not to get it, but because you do what you can and take out the health protections and insurance you need in order to try to lower your risk of getting it.”

The signs of a worsening climate crisis are all around us, whether we allow ourselves to see them or not. Certainly, the scientific community gets it. As do countless communities across the globe where the effects of climate change are already being experienced in striking ways and local preparations for climatic disasters, including increasingly powerful floods, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, and storms are underway. Evacuations from low-lying South Pacific islands have already begun. People in such areas, out of necessity, are starting to try to teach their children how to adapt to, and live in, what we are causing our world to become.

informationclearinghouse

[Tanada]

The problem with these kind of over the top extinction predictions is they cause most people to stop listening. They don't just stop listening to the extreme hyped prediction either, they stop listening to ALL global warming predictions.

[Ibon]

The problem with these kind of over the top extinction predictions is they cause most people to stop listening. They don't just stop listening to the extreme hyped prediction either, they stop listening to ALL global warming predictions.

Over the top predictions of all sorts without the consequences in real time to back them up are as you say totally unproductive. Because when you are already primed to rationalize away the threats the very fact that the consequences aren't happening makes it very easy to believe that the warnings are without merit.

Credible Scientists need to team up with the social engineers who design the TV ads we watch and use the same psychological techniques that manipulate people into buying crap into reaching past their denial.

A mom puts on a bicycle helmut on little Johnny before he heads out to school while the graphs and consequences of a dangerous future looms in the horizon.

WE have to use the message of fear more cunningly, waiting for the consequences to hit when timing the message.

Talking doomsday while the sun is shining and the stores are stocked with products just sounds like whining.

[dissident]

The problem with these kind of over the top extinction predictions is they cause most people to stop listening. They don't just stop listening to the extreme hyped prediction either, they stop listening to ALL global warming predictions.

In other words, evolutionary fail. People listen to all sorts of shit spewed by the MSM and believe every drop. If they selectively choose not believe uncomfortable facts. Well then, that's just retarded.

Anyway, don't worry, scientists do not use the language of doomsday and instead ladle on waffle phrasing that undermines their message.

[Lore]

So true, the IPCC is a good example of an organization tasked with divulging the facts, but continually gets its message watered down by political pressure.

I don't feel sorry for people that can't handle the truth because they're only adding to the problem.

As far as extinction being over the top, if only our present endangered species had voices, they'd probably disagree.

[RobertInget]

People are freaking out about the world coming to an end—I totally get that,” said the Google C.E.O. Larry Page in a conference call with reporters. “But at Google we view the Apocalypse as a unique opportunity. This company was founded with the goal to ‘organize the world’s information’ and we see the next three days as our chance to get that done.”

As for the marching orders that Page gave to Google’s team of designers: “The world is going to be destroyed and mankind will cease to exist. Make Google the last page they see, and give us one last chance to serve them tracking cookies.”

With the ancient Mayan prophets predicting that on Friday the earth will crash into a comet, collide with the planet Nibiru, or burn to a crisp in a mammoth solar storm, “our designers have had a lot of cool stuff to work with,” Mr. Page said.

Mr. Page said that a buzz-worthy home page is crucial to what he sees as Google’s final mission on Earth: “We want to communicate to billions of people that this is the last day of human history, so maybe they should finally sign up for Google Plus.”

When reminded that the end of the world would mean the end of Google, too, Mr. Page was philosophical: “As long as it also means the end of Apple and Microsoft, I’m fine with that.”

Andy Borowitz Report

[jedrider]

There is RECOGNITION but not yet broad public ACCEPTANCE:

Kerry Shifts State Department Focus to Environment

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/world/asia/kerry-shifts-state-department-focus-to-environment.html?hp&_r=0

It's a lame duck administration, so I guess they can try their luck, although the article says China and US are banning hydroflurocarbon refrigerants and I actually thought this was ALREADY banned a decade ago! By 2050, we may have consensus!

[dissident]

There is RECOGNITION but not yet broad public ACCEPTANCE:

Kerry Shifts State Department Focus to Environment

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/world/asia/kerry-shifts-state-department-focus-to-environment.html?hp&_r=0

It's a lame duck administration, so I guess they can try their luck, although the article says China and US are banning hydroflurocarbon refrigerants and I actually thought this was ALREADY banned a decade ago! By 2050, we may have consensus!

Yes, by 2050 agricultural failure will be plain for everyone to see. Then deniers and delayers will have no fig leaf of uncertainty to hide their junk.

[Lore]

There will be consensus by governments during the next few decades that something is majorly wrong, but my guess is that very little will be done if anything about it. Not until it's far too late. This isn't like WWII when Japan bombed the hell out of Perl Harbor. We're not about to take action unless we get a sign from God. I think God though has already marked us off his dance card.

[Newfie]

2050? Hell, I'm worried about 2015!

Freaking bloody hell!!! Damn NPR had a report on this morning about cod fish collapse off of Cape Cod. Did they talk about resource depletion or sustainability? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

They talked about how the fishermen are adapting by changing to dog fish (sounds so much better than shark, which is another endangered group.) The final line was someone saying they should change the name to Cape Dogfish.

Don't blame this on the scientist, don't even blame it on the media. Lay blame where it belongs, right on the stoopid population who buys only what satisfies their immediate, just in time, desires.

I mean, how much more OBVIOUS can things get? The cod is on the great seal of Massachusetts. And it is named Cape COD for a reason. So if the cod collapse, (like that has not happened before) then perchance there is a problem with our fisheries management? Maybe?

I'm sorry, they are just out and out avoiding discussing resource depletion because if they did their donors (rich white folk, remember the above??) would not get their happy pill and would start not donating.

Sorry, rant off.

BTW - 63 yo Caucasian in the top 10% wage bracket (if I worked full time) married, with house. So, yeah, I fit that demographic.

[jedrider]

I'm vegetarian although I just had clam chowder the other day, so go figure! Anyway, I'd prefer broccoli soup to 'dog' chowder anyday, so just call me old fashioned. Yes, it is odd that the media just reports from the 'consumer' angle. That must be it, we've been reduced to categories such as consumers and we've accepted the demotion from full citizen of the world to just an economic category without a clamour or even a peep, except for the brief Occupy Wall Street movement.

[Edit. Anyway, NPR is the 'voice' of empire. It's good that it is not entirely commercial and, therefore, sensational, and it caters to an 'educated' class that usually gives a damn about such issues, so you sort of learn that something is going on, but not necessarily exactly what!]

[Newfie]

Last summer I was gone for a couple of months, pretty much out of the loop. Thanks to Dohboi and some others for providing links to much environmental news. It appears to me that the overwhelming trend in this news is pretty darn depressing and pretty widespread over a number of discilpines. The most treacherous of the news surrounds the potential for excessive, self sustaining methane release. I really get the feeling that there are enough scientist talking out loud that this is a real issue, not just some fantasy by a bunch of misanthropes.

In summary, what is clear to me is that there is, at least, sufficient concerning news to warrant an open discussion, in the general public about the ramifications of our culture. But is not occurring. That fact, in itself, is about as bad as the methane potential for it defines our inability to even consider our actions.

So while credible scientist may be contemplating the end of humanity, the social scientist are mum. I don't know what to do about it, most likley nothing. Still, it troubles me. Makes me angry.