EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Irreversible Climate Change Looms Within Five Years
LONDON - Unless there is a "bold change of policy direction," the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system, the International Energy Agency warned at the launch of its 2011 World Energy Outlook today in London.
Coal-fired power generating station in Shanxi, China. (Photo courtesy Skoda Export) The report says there is still time to act, but despite steps in the right direction the door of opportunity is closing.
The agency's warning comes at a critical time in international climate change negotiations, as governments prepare for the annual UN climate summit in Durban, South Africa, from November 28.
"If we do not have an international agreement whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door will be closed forever," IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol warned today.
"Growth, prosperity and rising population will inevitably push up energy needs over the coming decades. But we cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy," said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.
"Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies," she said.
"The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge," van der Hoeven said.
Some key trends are pointing in worrying directions, the agency told reporters today. CO2 emissions have rebounded to a record high, the energy efficiency of global economy worsened for second straight year and spending on oil imports is near record highs.
In the World Energy Outlook's central New Policies Scenario, which assumes that recent government commitments are implemented in a cautious manner, primary energy demand increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035, with 90 percent of the growth in non-OECD economies.
In the New Policies Scenario, cumulative carbon dioxide emissions over the next 25 years amount to three-quarters of the total from the past 110 years, leading to a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5 degrees C.
"Were the new policies not implemented, we are on an even more dangerous track, to an increase of six degrees C.
The IEA projects that China will consolidate its position as the world's largest energy consumer. It consumes nearly 70 percent more energy than the United States by 2035, even though, by then, per capita demand in China is still less than half the level in the United States.
The share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls from around 81 percent today to 75 percent in 2035.
Renewables increase from 13 percent of the mix today to 18 percent in 2035; the growth in renewables is underpinned by subsidies that rise from $64 billion in 2010 to $250 billion in 2035, support that in some cases cannot be taken for granted in this age of fiscal austerity.
By contrast, subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to $409 billion in 2010.
"As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the "lock-in" of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals," said Birol.
The World Energy Outlook also presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to two degrees Celsuis above pre-industrial levels.
Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories, the report finds.
Without further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035.
"Delaying action is a false economy," Birol warned, saying that for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
233 Comments so far
Show All"What I'm trying to say is that we all share some responsibility for consumption of all things. And people in every country now have cell phones, computers, cars, shoes, clothing, etc. "
Sorry but the only answer I can give to this (and I thought about this and wrote a few posts I subsequently didn't post) is "fuck off".
Fuck off.
skeptimist
Overpopulation is a very serious issue, but you may stop being concerned about overpopulation, health care, the economy, wars, nuclear accidents, crop failures, etc. Everything,,, everything will be a moot issue when global warming hits the (runaway) mark of (no return), no "do-overs", no turning back.
When that happens it will be the only issue and there won't be one damn thing we will be able to do about fixing it... No "do-overs" means no "do-overs"... It will be equivelant to incurable cancer,,, for ALL life on this once beautiful water world..
That is how it is,,,, period! __ It cannot be said any more dramatic than that. We either start fixing it now or else.... And five years to act is very likely very optomistic.
Actually, world fertility rates are decelerating and ther is now speculation that "voluntary" population decline could lead to the the extinction of humanity. This from the "human extinction article in Wikipedia:
[One casue of human extinction could be]:
1. Preference for fewer children; if developed world demographics are extrapolated they mathematically lead to 'soft' extinction before 3000 AD. John A. Leslie estimates that if the reproduction rate drops to the German level the extinction date will be 2400.[1]
2. Political intervention in reproduction has failed to raise the birth rate above the replacement level in the rich world, but has dramatically succeeded in lowering it below the replacement level in China (see One child policy). A World government with a eugenic or small population policy could send humanity into 'voluntary' extinction.
Time to throw Erlich's yellow-paged and ragged old books into the recycle bin.
And you write:
---"the fundamentals are steadily becoming inescapable, e.g., in U.S. grocery stores, drinking water is now more expensive than gasoline."---
This reflects market and PR brainwashing forces in a capitalist economy, not the abundance of fresh water. People are being propagandized into buying vast quantities of outrageously over-priced water in those awful little oil-based plastic bottles, when the regulated and tested water from their taps is perfectly fine.
Human extinction caused by a voluntary lack of reproduction? What organization sponsored that 'study' and how much... Wait, this rant is interrupted by me noticing your source is Wiki... Nevermind.
So why didn't you go to Wikipedia and look at the source itself? The argument may be false, but your mocking of Wikipedia and dismissing the post based on that is not exactly the scientific method as its best.
On some issues Wikipedia could be a useful source, kind of like how the printed version of the Encyclopedia Britannica is also useful for some things. However, on any issue that is even remotely controversial using wiki as any sort of source is foolish. I should have just canceled my post. But I didn't. Mostly because the idea of humans causing their own extinction by voluntarily not having enough children is as likely as seeing an entire nation decide to stop eating, even though there is enough food for them; it's not going to happen.
We could lose 99 percent of our species and still have enough humans to repopulate the world afters. (not that such a scenario would be a good thing at all.)
Wikipedia has links to its references, which is what makes it worthwhile, not the actual content, and the post you replied to had an actual name of a scientist in it which you could have checked out :-/ You just dismissed the entire post without any actual information though. The post itself doesn't seem to have much to do with the current discussion, more of an interesting connection to the overpopulation debate, whether reliable and good science or not, but it's still worth more than this.
"Mostly because the idea of humans causing their own extinction by voluntarily not having enough children is as likely as seeing an entire nation decide to stop eating, even though there is enough food for them; it's not going to happen. "
This silly parallel isn't exactly helping :-) But it doesn't really matter, sorry about nitpicking.
Our dinosaur economy, run on fossil fuel and based on the false premise that consumption equals happiness, is about to come crashing down all around the world. Once people unplug from the insitutions operated by economic terrorists and stop their purchasing of irrelevant Chinese goods, the Ponzi system will collapse and the demand for these sources of petroleum will deminish. The displacement and discomfort caused by the collapse of false capitalism will be nothing compared to the disaster of irreversable climate chaos.
If the population were 1 billion instead of 7 billion, we would find ways to consume 7 times the amount of fossil fuels that we consume today. The problem is not people; it is private accumulation of capital.
Exactly! Economic growth under capitalst conditions drives energy and fossil fuel consumption, not population. As mentioned earler, a USAn emits 170 times the CO2 as a Somali.
It would be be a simple matter to get all our energy from a mix of renewables and safe next-generation nuclear (in another several decades, fusion), and replace 99% of personal automobile with a seamless continuous-service system or electric public intra-and-inter city public transportation (like we once had until the 1950's) and emit nearly no carbon and consume vastly less resources per person. The trouble is, no one would be able to become a millionaire under such a system.
Look,
The One Percent and their Wall Street Dictatorship got us in this mess since they force insane energy policies on us. I say: Declare War on CO2 and Unsafe Nuke Power. Confiscate all wealth over a million dollars per individual, for example, and use it to go solar in all the southern regions. Outlaw the private automobile. Enforce a worldwide one-child policy. Put everyone back to work building mass transit and replanting anything green that will absorb excess CO2. Queerplanet is right: we don't have five years.
Now only Direct Democracy could ever stomach something as rash as what I have suggested because such communal thinking will spell the end of reckless Casino Capitalism.
So what are we waiting for? OWS!
http://www.occupytogether.org/
If you want to see a real popular uprising - "people on the streets," as the saying goes - just try implementing this batsh*t policy. Yes, nothing endears you to the people like taking away their children, their prosperity and individuality (as symbolized by their cars, an object of universal desire), and their chance at wealth (middle class types often own houses worth a million dollars - it's not that much money anymore, Dr. Evil). Thanks but no thanks, Tom. I'll take my chances with climate change, and fight to the last ditch anyone who tries to implement a policy such as yours.
I hope you are joking. Climate change will be taking away a chance for a decent life for all our children. Let the children suffer food shortages, droughts, floods and a hot earth with polluted air and waters ... or ... heavens forbid, take the bus and put some solar panels and windmills in the community.
I have rarely been more serious in my life. Climate change will sort itself - when people say the sky is falling, it almost never is, and the people who say it almost always have their own agenda. To repeat, I'll take my chances. Worldwide technological tyranny, on the other hand (and that is what would be required to establish the radical environmentalist political agenda advocated above), might not be so easy to sort out - and then there is no where to run to baby, and nowhere to hide. What is being advocated is more than solar panels and windmills. I would resist - billions would.
Dwat.
Your words speak volumes, baby.
Good work.
My dear Mr dwatkins, lol,
What part of Direct Democracy did you not understand? The people would either vote for a radical green policy that has a chance to slow down this runaway melt, or they would vote to commit suicide with you.
You want to see people in the streets, just wait till Most of Florida disappears. If the Greenland ice cap goes, that twenty foot rise in Sea Level is going displace more human bodies on top of you than you can believe. They have to go somewhere.
I'm simply saying the choice should not be made in this fake democracy where Bill Gates and Warren Buffet make the call after building a seed vault and shorting stocks all over the world as a way of getting even more of our money. It should be made by the new generation that has to live in this mess. It'll be a Waterworld if they value a bunch of junk over land and longevity for their children.
If I'm wrong about the peril and we clean up cesspool Earth unnecessarily, you just lose your car and your Vacation homes. If I'm right about the peril, we delay human extinction for several generations. In rational schools of thought, you always err on the side of caution when the stakes are so high.
But it's clear to me, that Representational Government run by Unchecked Capitalism is not rational.
TJ
"What part of Direct Democracy did you not understand? The people would either vote for a radical green policy that has a chance to slow down this runaway melt, or they would vote to commit suicide with you. "
I don't think a global policy decided by a single vote could be considered "direct democracy" by any definition. Also, I think this idea in its entirety:
"Now only Direct Democracy could ever stomach something as rash as what I have suggested because such communal thinking will spell the end of reckless Casino Capitalism. "
is completely false. I don't think there's any democratic structure that could make such a fast decision, and afaics all processes involved in any form of direct democracy would actually be much slower than how we make decisions today. That's a good thing in general btw, but I'm pretty sure it is not an efficient way to handle global crises that require quick action :-/
Quick action traditionally requires a centralised organisation, which is the opposite of "direct democracy". What is true is that only a proper democracy could provide the moral support for a comprehensive, global change of material economic behaviour, and that a good long term solution should very much involve democratic organisation (imo a solution that works in the long run actually necessitates this); but as far as efficiency goes, centralised control does that better. Which is why I kind of think drwatkins9 is also partly right in fearing for this push being more of an opportunity of centralising power in times of crisis, although imo he is very much underestimating the importance of the ongoing ecological crises.
"...as far as efficiency goes, centralised control does that better."
How's that working for ya, or any of us?
Not very well. And I dislike it also. But according to my experience, it works better in short term emergencies. Democracy takes a lot of time. Commanding troops doesn't. Seriously, what's wrong with believing in something despite its (imo obvious) imperfections? :-D
By contrast, subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to $409 billion in 2010.
--------------------
If you include our six ongoing military resource wars the subsidies total several trillion dollars.
Look,
I'm a prolific climate change inventor.
A runaway positive feedback loop is not irreversible. My cost estimate is about $1 billion per year, with almost no discernible environmental damage to the Arctic biosphere (!), for restoring the Arctic Ocean's ice pack plus maybe a bit more pack ice to offset climate change. Massive algae-based sequestration of the existing carbon dioxide is also quite possible, although it would be a commitment of resources and jobs, certainly nowhere as large as the U.S. military budget, but a worldwide commitment nonetheless.
What may or may not be irreversible is a runaway worldwide corporate government that won't lift an eyebrow about the coming disaster. See no good, hear no good, speak no good.
What is irreversible is species extinction by the millions of species. We can't get the marine species back once the ocean is too acidic. A wise government would WALL-E the plankton in liquid nitrogen and/or in aquariums until we can correct the problem. However, see the previous paragraph.
PaulK wrote:
My cost estimate is about $1 billion per year, with almost no discernible environmental damage to the Arctic biosphere (!), for restoring the Arctic Ocean's ice pack plus maybe a bit more pack ice to offset climate change.
This is your own invention we're talking about here? In that case, I suppose it's impossible to explain what the hell you're talking about, because of intellectual property concerns.
Maybe you should concentrate on your promising sketches of a perpetual motion machine.
I probably won't make any money on the device because our stupid government would never want to face up to climate change. What intellectual property concerns are left?
It's a thermal transfer device. The ocean is warm and the Arctic winter air is relatively cold. It remains to pump heat out of the deeper ocean, where the permanent heat resides, and put it into the winter air. The entire ocean gets colder, which means that an ice pack forms early and gets thick fast. The only trick is driving down the cost. We're going to need to deploy on the order of one million of these devices, costing a ballpark $5,000 apiece, to effectively negate runaway polar climate change.
The ocean beneath the ice is naturally oxygen-deprived, and my device maintains this original anaerobic environment. Polar bears could in theory disable a device or two, but in practice there isn't any food value to taking such an action and bears are pretty smart.
Hmmmm..... If the water is colder than the surrounding air, you will likely get fog. Pack ice forms because air temp gets much lower than water, and thus freezes the top layer.
The fact is we must move to avoid exinction. The power elties need to snap their head out of their oversize booties, as they will go right along with the rest of us-- "surprise."
The fact is we must move to avoid exinction. The power elties need to snap their head out of their oversize booties, as they will go right along with the rest of us-- "surprise."
By "move," I presume you mean change location to a locale likely to be more hospitible in the longrun. That we've already done, and chose our current locale in Oregon with the climate's future in mind. As sea level rises, this locale will disappear in about 200 years or so, but its economic viability will be washed away within 100 or sooner--far enough away to be of no concern, but troubling nonetheless.
The biggest problem noted by the IEA is not having enough energy sources to meet the needs of mitigation once the deleterious effects of ruinous climate change become widespread to the point they can no longer be denied (Note the IEA accepts the fact of human fossil fuel use being the agent for changing the climate), a condition known as the "Energy Trap" and recently discussed here, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8526
Hmmmm.... You have a problem of comprehending what is written Karlof1.
Paul wrote the waters were warm and the air was cold... You reversed it... Lol.
Wayne writes:
"Hmmmm.... You have a problem of comprehending what is written Karlof1.
Paul wrote the waters were warm and the air was cold... You reversed it... Lol."
Actually, Wayne -- you did not understand Karloff's point. So by mocking him rather than asking for a clarification you make yourself look like a smug fool.
Paul K wrote:
"It remains to pump heat out of the deeper ocean, where the permanent heat resides, and put it into the winter air. The entire ocean gets colder, which means that an ice pack forms early and gets thick fast."
Karloff responded:
"Hmmmm..... If the water is colder than the surrounding air, you will likely get fog. Pack ice forms because air temp gets much lower than water, and thus freezes the top layer."
In other words if you pump heat out of the lower layers of the ocean and into the air -- you do not get ice packs on the surface at all. That requires LOWER air temperatures -- not higher.
That is Karloff's point.
I am not advocating for or against Paul K's alleged invention. I don't even know if it exists or not. I am just suggesting you slow down with your smirky comments until you understand the exchange.
Hmmm ~Randy G,,, you wrote,,,("Paul K wrote: "It remains to pump heat out of the deeper ocean, where the permanent heat resides, and put it into the winter air. The entire ocean gets colder, which means that an ice pack forms early and gets thick fast.")..End quote of Randy G.
Nope Randy G uh-uh,,, PaulK (actually) wrote,,, ("The ocean is warm and the Arctic winter air is relatively cold. It remains to pump heat out of the deeper ocean, where the permanent heat resides, and put it into the winter air. The entire ocean gets colder, which means that an ice pack forms early and gets thick fast.")... End quote of PaulK.
You too may have a problem of readng comprehension Randy G,,, you left out the first 12 words PaulK (*actually*) wrote, the first 12 words,,, which Karlof1 reversed. ("The ocean is warm and the Arctic winter air is relatively cold")
What is your point Randy G? A friend of Karlof1, who is a GW Denier and stated he will no longer reply to me.. LOL. GW deniers have their sockpuppets... Stuff it and hang it by the fireplace RG.
Thanks Randy G. I refuse to respond to that individual's comments and now ignore him always for sound reasons, two of which you highlight.
Speaking of Mother Nature hummingbird,
There's Presently a HURRICANE hitting Mainland Alaska right now. There's no ice to protect the shoreline, so everyone's bailing since they're going underwater with a ten foot swell. Now, I've only been going to Alaska since the 70's, but I never saw an Ice Hurricane hit it!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story
/2011/11/09/alaska-storm-epic.html
Thailand and about a score of countries I can think of all turned into Bangladeshes this century. Thailand is still under water as I type this. Too creepy. The Poles and the Glaciers melted so extensively that now all that moisture has to come down somewhere. We now get record Equatorial rains here since the tropics have shifted North past the Tropic of Cancer.
But no! Faux News says this is all a secret scam by Al Gore and George Soros to steal money from you!
We should Occupy Fox News Next. And Newscorp, for trying to get us all killed with their dishonest reporting......
Thanks, T.J. Ths site gets its share of climate change deniers and it's tough to tell if they really believe their own hype, confusing what some capitalists see profit in (carbon tax) with the REAL item; or if their jobs depend upon trafficking in dis-information. Nefarious, equally precarious times mean opportunities for those with shaky moral compasses, after all.
Hey SR,
Good to read you again. Good point about some confusing a Carbon Tax scam, which might be the case, with the actual science of AGW. The permafrost is mush right now and due to extremely hot average temps in the Arctic there's no sea ice or coastal ice of any thickness to buffer coastal villages.
And some, it seems, have never heard of "literary license" when I describe hurricane force winds as a Hurricane. I also use the word Hurricane when describing Typhoon or Cyclones I encounter because people on the other side of the world are confused by those geographic terms. Seems like there's always one Climate Denier around to pick nits about your post doesn't it?
Loved your post on the Hedges thread, btw.
Best,
TJ
Mr. Jefferson, it's a relief to have you back on-board! You should see the rationales posted on today's article about "Disney and nuclear." The article considers the risk of launching the latest shuttle as it will have plenty of the worst sort of plutonium as its fuel source. Only one person, who like me, lives in Florida argued for safety on that thread. Every one turned the article's concerns into a reflection of the author's alleged hysteria. From my standpoint, the consistent evidence of the casual disregard for nature as seen in most decision-making bodies is emblematic of patriarchal conditioning. All this he-man crap about what men, logic, or science can do... as so much falls asunder. It's rhetoric all pumped up, balloon style, on sheer hubris. ----------------------------------------------------------
There's no question that both genders act as consumers and thus contribute to climate decimation in their own ways. However, the big decisions are made by corporate heads or heads of state, and neither shows much heart or any spirit of connection with vital forces. These interests reliably side with short-term profit over sustainable (for life) scenarios. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between what the winds from Fukushima's region carry, to the melting glaciers, to most points between... so much is coming apart so quickly. I happened to explain--at length--what a very powerful astrological configuration (summer 2010) meant insofar as "coming apart." I also spoke of Uranus' transit across Aries as a time where people would rebel. Truthfully, I didn't realize the citizen rebellions would be of the magnitude and geographical diversity now in sight. However, desperate times call for desperate responses, and that explains why so much is on the rise... including sea levels.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as for the reliable presence of at least one climate change denier... whether it's a branch of Homeland Security watching the forum to make sure nothing radical emerges (they just want all the passengers on the Titanic to remain calm as they guide the wealthy elite passengers to the lifeboats first), or some subsidiary of the Koch Brothers paid to observe (and take notes) in this forum, the net result is the same thing. Can you think of a time on earth where dis-information campaigns were more pervasive, and so much at stake... resting on the need for Truth?
...the middle ages...
I disagree. Although people did know less, and had less education, there was not nearly as much explicit propaganda and disinformation as now. This industry of lying is actually a relatively modern thing, and the reliance on social structures on this kind of mass misinformation basically only started in the 20th century. This of course doesn't mean that people knew more before - just the opposite: propaganda is more needed now exactly because people have better education and have the chance to be better informed.
Here i thought it was good i was being not only clever but concise. That always turns out badly.
I give you the Catholic church, one of the most durable, widespread, sizable, influential and consistent purveyors of 'propaganda and disinformation' that has ever existed. While it was not industrial propaganda, nor consciously scientifically psychological in its basis and technique as today's is, many of the messages, techniques and effects were the same. (Those effects include rage, shame, fear and grief, as well as the teaching beginning in childhood of a practice of unexpressiveness which keeps those embedded in our bodies, resulting in a "need" for all the things which are destroying our world. They confessed; we shop.
Our industrialization of propaganda/advertizing has its origin in this less researched version. Indeed, as we will continue to discuss elsewhere (see you at the end) despite the laser-beam focus of 'consciousness' of a sort applied to technique, the modern industrial propagandists, especially but hardly exclusively on the right are plagued by the same unconsciousness about their own motives and the nature of human and Gaian reality as their religious forebears. As Einstein said, in an only slightly different context, "Thus we drift toward unparalleled catastophe."
Propaganda, as the conscious manipulation of public attitudes and thus behaviours, is in fact a pretty new thing, it appeared around the Reformation, so very late in the Middle Ages. What you are talking about is not propaganda, but its ancestors, (mostly unconscious) older forms of social control.
The original question was this:
"Can you think of a time on earth where dis-information campaigns were more pervasive, and so much at stake... resting on the need for Truth? "
You answered "the Middle Ages", and I think you were incorrect. Not just because of what I said earlier, but also because even at the height of the counterreformation, disinformation and propaganda were not nearly as prevalent and as important a part of everyday life as today. The more than $400 billion per year (some say a trillion) spent on marketing or the 40'000 ads children see each year indicate that disinformation campaigns are much more important and pervasive today than ever. The role of propaganda and disinformation in education is also well known. The Catholic church had nothing comparable to this.
"Our industrialization of propaganda/advertizing has its origin in this less researched version. Indeed, as we will continue to discuss elsewhere (see you at the end) despite the laser-beam focus of 'consciousness' of a sort applied to technique, the modern industrial propagandists, especially but hardly exclusively on the right are plagued by the same unconsciousness about their own motives and the nature of human and Gaian reality as their religious forebears. "
That people designing propaganda campaigns don't know what you consider the "ultimate truth" and don't understand their own ultimate psychological drives doesn't mean that there is no difference between consciously applied propaganda, to achieve concrete goals of mass manipulation, and historical societal (self) control techniques. My point was that propaganda as a kind of mass technology is pretty new and its use is much more widespread than at any previous point of history.
Of course things are different now. Everything is different from everything else. Yes, mass technology is new. That's because masses are new; ie, population size demands different tools. That seems so obvious it can't be what we're disagreeing about; if it is shame on both of us for wasting time on a stupidity. We do have more scientifically-researched and designed campaigns of information now. Whether they are any more intentional is an unanswerable question. And of course there is no single then--we're talking about hundreds of years over many different realms, and the conditions of each was slightly different. Having said that...
The Catholic church of that time was overwhelmingly THE authority in the daily lives of the vast majority of people in its realm, affecting everything people did, thought, felt, saw, smelled, heard--how children were raised, what they were told about nature, farming, relationships, sex, the world, the sky, time... how bodies moved and operated down to a physiological level, what people did every single day of their lives... and so on ad infinitum. There is no such single dominating force in today's world, not capitalism, not religion, nothing. While our philosophies, technologies and otheries are similarly pervasive, we have so many more independent influences and so much more freedom to choose almost everything about our lives now that it is more like 2 science fiction stories about different planets than an evolutionary process of there-to-hereness. But compare their life with however many ads people see... etc.: Apples and organs. Impossible to quantify or judge objectively. I think that aspect of their life is more similar than we realize when we think about it, which is almost never, but it's silly to say this is more that than that or then was less whatever. And it doesn't really matter that much besides.
One thing I'll give you; they were not faced with the spectre of the actual end of civilization and the biosphere (although millennial beliefs, and therefore symbolic language and actions, then and now are also remarkably similar). So in that way it is much more crucial now to come to grips with the lies of conservatives. if I’ve mistaken you and that is your main point we have nothing to disagree about. We’re on the same side there.
double post argh
We were talking about the pervasiveness of "disinformation campaigns", or rather more generally, propaganda, not the general level of indoctrination, which is exactly why I wrote this in my first post:
"This of course doesn't mean that people knew more before - just the opposite: propaganda is more needed now exactly because people have better education and have the chance to be better informed. "
The question was about propaganda, "disinformation campaigns", and this is exactly why I don't think your "Middle Ages" answer is right at all. If the question were "Was there a time when more people were misinformed and ignorant", or even "Was there a time when more people were misinformed and ignorant but still believed in being right" your answer would have been more true (and I wouldn't have replied). But the question was this: "Can you think of a time on earth where dis-information campaigns were more pervasive, and so much at stake... resting on the need for Truth?"
Of course this is mostly nitpicking, as we do not seem to disagree even on the actual issue.
"One thing I'll give you; they were not faced with the spectre of the actual end of civilization and the biosphere (although millennial beliefs, and therefore symbolic language and actions, then and now are also remarkably similar). So in that way it is much more crucial now to come to grips with the lies of conservatives. if I’ve mistaken you and that is your main point we have nothing to disagree about. We’re on the same side there. "
Well that was a part of the original question also, but I knew we'd probably agree on this issue anyway (after all, this belief that something is very wrong and change is needed is a common point for most CDers, I think it's true for almost anyone here who's not a paid shill), so no, I wasn't thinking of that at all. I was thinking exactly what I wrote: that even though people weren't as educated etc, there was not nearly as much conscious manipulation of attitudes and beliefs in the Middle Ages as there is now. I even mentioned that part of the reason was that it was unnecessary.
To me a "disinformation" campaign involves exactly the same things as what the church did/does: it's not, as it seems to imply, just a negation of truthful information but a positive presentation of framed "truths" as part of an expressed systematic worldview. (Almost exactly like the information it is dissing.) The church presented its view of life, god, behavior, even thoughts and feelings, in an astoundingly totalitarian form of control; for example, through rules that create so many sins that no one remains sin free. When combined with a semi-effective and thus addictive form of relief—the confession, it binds its adherents to it as effectively—or more so, as a coke habit binds people to a drug dealer or beverage company-as-part-of-a-consumer-complex. As with all totalitarian systems the church’s most basic, fundamental, effective and important means of control is the repression of sex. All other forms of control flowed from that. (See Reich, The Function of the Orgasm, and the Mass Psychology of Fascism).
(These totalitarian systems include ours, which is rapidly morphing from soft to hard (gray to black?) fascism.)
Again maybe we come to your intransigence over psychology; I say the unintentional actions of an unconscious person manifest virtually the same amount of consciousness as the intentional actions of an unconscious person, which is to say, very little. Whether someone takes a propagandistic action because a corrupted science tells him to, or because a corrupted religion does, seems inconsequential. Full understanding of the system almost certainly does not reside in the low functionary who actually writes, speaks and models the propagandal messages, or anyone else, really, whether the system is scientific or religious. In science, knowledge (authority from whence the propaganda actions flow) resides in technocrats who are not in charge, (they simply inform the leaders what they discover about what works). In religion, tradition serves as the repository of authority and knowledge, transmitted with varying amounts of discretion by church fathers. That tradition is descended from intuitive forebears and long-standing trial and error (essentially, a system of scientific theorizing and confirming experimentation). So how different are the 2 systems?
And in any case I don’t know, and I suspect in general no one knows, how conscious most of the church officials were of the actual functions of church communications (which include all manner of communication—verbal, written, symbolic, role-modeling, structural, direct, indirect, disapproving looks…). One thing we are talking about is the difference between function, simply a description of how something affects the world, and purpose, which is how someone intends something to affect the world. Functions in complex systems are hard enough to discern; purpose is often impossible, as at most we have 1. only what someone says is the purpose, which could be a lie or an unconscious falsehood, and 2. other statements and actions by which we can sometimes infer motives. Since the people who engage in propaganda have strong motivation to hide their motivation, and since they are almost without fail psychologically unhealthy people and therefore unaware of their own motives as well as usually wrong about others’ motives, it’s hard to say anything about the question with any certainty. So how different are the 2 systems?
I think that you are confusing a carbon tax with "cap-and-trade." They are two entirely different things.
Cap and trade (which already exists in Kyoto protocol contries) is only leading to a lot of shell-game investment schemes of dubious effectiveness.
A broad-based carbon tax imposed at the wellhead or tipple _would_ be effective is discouraging fossil fuel use - and raise a lot of needed revenue for public services including public transit and clean energy development.
Thanks for the heads up. Jeff Masters is also keeping an eye on this storm:
Historic hurricane-force blizzard pounds Alaska and Siberia
It seems like common sense that if a storm is packing hurricane force winds, then it's a hurricane - but that's not the case. Hurricane is one of the synonyms of tropical cyclone - which means a storm originating in the tropics, among other things.
wow! thanks! i check in with cbc on a semi-regular basis. i don't take cable, but check the establishment's latest propaganda from munitions manufacture, general electric. the evening "news" spinner likes to use terms like "biblical proportions," "unprecedented," "history making" and my favorite. "the wrath of Nature." gee, i'm still waiting for them to mention the flooding in siam--now that the case of michael jackson's doctor has been decided.
This early in November, there usually is zero sea-ice in place to protect the Bering Sea side of Alaska as it normally starts to build up in December. The storm itself is on a very rare northerly track, the first since 1974, which was preceded in 1913; so, it would meet the criteria for a 50-Year storm event, http://news.yahoo.com/powerful-storm-rips-off-roofs-floods-alaska-135532692.html
Karlof,
Yes, I guess you're right. Certainly you're right about the Southern Bering Sea. But on my flights I remember the Cook Inlet being choked with ice most years by now and the ground hard as a rock. I would wager that the two other "epic storms" you reference as 50 year events occurred with a solid permafrost structure, which I've read has swallowed whole towns in the Yukon, for example the last few years. Those buildings didn't have foundations, didn't need them because the ground was so solid all year. I would imaging the erosion from this storm is going to really be something.
Wiki says this about a normal year in the Arctic (Most of the Bering Sea is in the Arctic Isotherm),
Autumn
In September and October the days get rapidly shorter, and in northern areas the sun disappears from the sky entirely. As the amount of solar radiation available to the surface rapidly decreases, the temperatures follow suit. The sea ice begins to refreeze, and eventually gets a fresh snow cover, causing it to reflect even more of the dwindling amount of sunlight reaching it. Likewise, the northern land areas receive their winter snow cover, which combined with the reduced solar radiation at the surface, ensures an end to the warm days those areas may experience in summer. By November, winter is in full swing in most of the Arctic, and the small amount of solar radiation still reaching the region does not play a significant role in its climate.
Perhaps I'm spewing nonsense, but in flying up there since the 70's, I don't remember ever seeing a cyclonic cloud structure this big, this far North. And keep in mind that low pressure systems, storms, rotate counter-clockwise , so the most severe part of the storm will not likely be to the West, but to the Eastern side of the spinning eye.
Cheers,
TJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic
Sorry it took so long to see your reply. I shunned the thread once it became poisoned. A good friend drove ships in the Bering and elsewhere in that vicinity for years and lived to tell some whoppers. Given the storm track, I'm curious as to how much additional destabilization was done to this season's ice formation and look to nsidc for some good pics documenting whatever occurs.
I'm looking for ways to work from home (conditions are "ideal" since I was let go from two jobs in less than two years) and hope to start walking or bicycling for all of my errands. What else can I do? Writing to my legislators and president do not work; they only care about what people like the Koch Brothers want.