EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change Deniers Are Not Skeptics - They're Suckers
My fiercest opponents on global warming tend to be in their 60s and 70s. This offers a fascinating, if chilling, insight into human psychology
There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the world has been warming over the last few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months. Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe global warming has natural causes (44%) outnumber those who believe it is the result of human action (41%).
A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?
It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that's raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.
An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn't say whether he meant fahrenheit or centigrade. But this can't be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics.
One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio 4 a few days ago he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during which he maintained that "the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing". He presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that "either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can't call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say that the science is in."
Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of Ian Plimer (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called Heaven and Earth), commenting on a recent article in the Spectator: "Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us." These people aren't sceptics; they're suckers.
Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?
There are some obvious answers: they won't be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.
In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies" or "the armour of character". We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. More than 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker's thesis. When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.
One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that people who reported that driving boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after they had been exposed to reminders of death.
A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult to repress thoughts of death, and that people might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. There is already experimental evidence that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.
If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven't been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the last two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?
- Posted in
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...
109 Comments so far
Show Alljbentham
"A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult to repress thoughts of death, and that people might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. "
Notably, within the last two years the warnings have been not only more constant but far more dire. Instead of the end of the century, many of the theorized (and utterly devastating) event horizons have shrunk to within the next few years or at most the next decade. There is a leaden awareness that develops when one watches the slower-than-molasses progress of the first world toward any remotely meaningful reversals of our carbon-producing practices (not to mention even a detailed discussion of the ways in which they permeate our daily lives); with so little movement on the one side, and the increasing clamor of experts prophesying disaster on the other, it's a wonder we haven't all of us begun to dissociate. A little memory loss, a bit of emotional numbness could not only feel but be a form of self-defense, about now....
"These people aren't sceptics; they're suckers." I agree with that statement, but after reading the rest of the article, it left me with the feeling, "There goes another five minutes of my life I'll never get back."
It presents a theory, then...
I think there are too many factors for denial. You can't lump them all together.
One that really bothers me.......creationists think the whole thing is nonsense because the earth is only 6000 years old so its all crap to them. And the person I hear that from the most is a former aeronautical engineer and devout catholic. An ENGINEER!!!!
Business people deny because it will cost us too much to stop CO2 emissions. And you just can't let the economy go to hell just to keep the earth from warming.
Then there are all of us Americans who have been brought up to believe that its us or them. And we have to fight to "better" ourselves. Meaning make more money. Buy a bigger house. Drive a better car. Buy your kids more toys. Take more expensive vacations. Buy a bigger faster boat. Have a nicer RV. Etc. And who's gonna go first on giving up their toys?
How about all the followers of brother Glen Beck and Rush and Hannity? They don't need reasons. They're just pissed off that life is not bending to their will.
And Mr. Monbiot, you won't get much argument out of younger people. They live in a plastic world. They communicate electronically. They have no connection to the earth. It's all just talk to them.
And we americans also have the attitude that we can solve any challenge if we really want to. Hell, look how we saved Europe from the nazis. Look how we landed a man on the moon just cause we wanted to. Look how we kicked ass on polio. Look how we stared down Castro and kept a blockade for 50 years. (LOL I hope everyone sees the sarcasm in that last paragraph.)
Unfortunately, I don't think many people understand the concept of momentum. The world climate is a huge and complex thing. The science of climate change is there. Scientists are poor marketers. But the evidence is there if you do just a bit of digging. And the changes in the earth's climate are rapidly increasing. Changes that should take may tens of thousands of years are happening in decades. Ever heard that old saying.....shoveling shit against the tide?
Maybe deniers are just people who don't have enough time to think for themselves so they listen to whoever is screaming the loudest?
"Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in."
The sportswriter Grantland Rice once wrote something that pertains to this topic. Borrowing a phrase from Ecclesiastes, he said: "The race does not always go to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
In other words, those who bet on long shots usually lose their money. Only in this case, much more than money is involved.
You fight it through education, how much green house gas is created just by combined the USA Military?
Why not disband it? Why is there? To make sure that the last human to die is a USAer? Seems pretty stupid to me.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Stupid is as stupid does.
George Monbiot is a card carrying member of lunatic environmental agitprop. Anything that people do is a cancerous growth on Mother Gaia according to him. Someone disagrees with his views, must be a sucker, or worse a denier (with holocaust right there in the background). Having grown up under State Socialism, George Monbiot brings back not so fond memories.
The "progressive left" is making a major strategic mistake by turning Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) into its battle cry. The tide will turn, and this community will get a black eye, looking again as a bunch of people who are reflexively anti-business and of socialist mindset. There are far more important issues to take up as a battle cry, including real environmental problems. The science of AGW is at best unsettled, at worst does not favor the AGW hypothesis. The public is beginning to realize this, which realization is aided by the fact that the climate, for the time being, is not cooperating with alarmists. I personally hope that the sun wakes up, even if it may help the alarmists, because I do not like the cold so much.
So are you in your 60s or 70s?
"The science of AGW is at best unsettled, at worst does not favor the AGW hypothesis."
That is a COMPLETELY FALSE statement, period, end of discussion.
Big Oil etc. knows they don't have to prove Climate scientists wrong about Global Climate change, all they have to do is muddy the argument, so that's what they do. But even some Big Oil companies are starting to throw in the towel in denying climate change, BP for one now acknowledges it is true. Here is a link to an article discussing this.
http://www.indigodev.com/BPclim.html
But other large corporations like Property Insurance companies are not falling for big oils mud. They are already changing how they conduct their business because of the changing climate. These are not socialist lefties. These are in companies that completely concern themselves with with two things, risk and money, not the environment, and god know not peoples lives.
Most of our atmosphere is contained in a layer only about 7 miles think. That's it. About 7 miles between us and death in space. Do you honestly think that 200 years of an ever increasing human population, at an ever increasing rate, keep pumping more and more greenhouse gases into this thin layer and it wont have an effect on the climate?
If so I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. I can give you a real good deal on it? You interested?
"The public is beginning to realize this, which realization is aided by the fact that the climate, for the time being, is not cooperating with alarmists."
At last somebody gets it right, after all it’s not like the Arctic ice caps are melting or for the first time in human history ships have sailed across the Northern Passage.
As to not liking the cold why would you wear a sweater when all you have to do is turn up the thermostat.
"Someone disagrees with his views, must be a sucker, or worse a denier (with holocaust right there in the background)."
That of course is not what he said. But it's not surprising to find a right winger engaging in distortion and misrepresentation.
Monbiot has been looking for a denier like you. He'd like to make a £5K bet with you. Will you do it? Other deniers have turned him down: they're despicable hypocrites but not actual fools. Do you have the courage of your claimed convictions? Surely you'd like an extra £5K, wouldn't you? If you're right, you'll never have to pay off.
How about it? He'll come here and announce it if you do, I'm sure. So how about it? It's an easy £5K, if you're right.
This remark brings up something an Australian climate activist said on Democracy Now a few weeks ago. He said that only in the Unites States is believing that AGW is a serious threat in need of strong action regarded as "left", "socialist" or even "unpatriotic". Likewise, only in the USA is AGW denialism regarded as "right-wing". Elsewhere, especially in Australia where the effects of AGW are so obvious, AGW denial is not right or left, it is just regarded as being a kook.
It's exactly the kind of post that Exxon would reward with a brand new 4 ton SUV or pickup truck.
What do we do about it?
We need leadership that makes 'doing more with less' socially desirable.
Role models of downsizing don't appeal to enough people (Jimmy Carter tried).
I think the best answer is for moral leaders - heads of religious denominations, widely respected spiritual people, from all over the world - to get together and make an unambiguous statement that humanity needs to downsize its ambitions, work together, and think of the seventh generation after us. And stay with that commitment, and keep a high public profile, and scold companies, people and countries that pursue unsustainable policies.
well done Monbiot.
because anybody who fails to tow the official line is a "sucker"
i guess those 30,000+ scientist who dont agree with man made climate change are all suckers as well.
ad hominem attacks are useful because once you label someone a "denier" (holocaust anybody) you dont have to refute their point with FACTS.
climate change is about de-industrialization and global governance (government). that 350 group was founded with rockefeller money. oligarchs dont care about the environment, theyre all about consolidation of power.
dont be duped people. theres nothing wrong with living in equalibrium with nature, but dont force your views on others and dont surrender national sovereignty.
the climate changes naturally. it has been for millions and millions of years.
No, you are a sucker, and a liar. This lie has been exposed REPEATEDLY here at CD and yet here you are again repeating it.
Here's what i posted to you last time you repeated this lie:
*************************************************************
"31,000 scientists do not agree with human caused global warming."
Another LIE. That petition was up on the internet, anyone could sign it, including non-scientists, including people with zero background in climatology or related subjects, there is no vetting of the credentials of the signers, the National Academy of Sciences has refuted and denounced it as ridiculous and purposely misleading.
Here's what i wrote to another poster who cited your petition:
"i'm very happy to see you expose yourself so openly.
Let's see, the OISM - whose petition sat on the internet where anyone can sign it, whose signatories can be anyone with any or no relationship to science or climate science, and whose work is refuted and denounced directly by the National Academy of Sciences, which actually does verify the credentials of its scientists unlike those on the OISM petition, etc etc etc.
Let's see, watchdog group Sourcewatch also analyzes the work of OISM and its founder Arthur Robinson, who cites his own "scientific" paper ("published" in the same format with the same typeface as NAS papers, leading to the direct denunciation by the NAS) to back his claims about climate change. Let's look at Robinson's "argument":
*******************
"Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."
*******************
Notice the extensive documentation and field research that supports Robinson's claims about the inevitable future positive impacts from climate change - NOT.
Oh look, he also sells a kit on home-schooling to return good Christian families to "the days before socialism in education." OISM published another wonderful book on the myths of nuclear war, asserting that if you just got ten feet of earth between you and the aftermath of the blast you would be fine.
Better and better, the OISM lists 8 "faculty" for their "school" that has no classrooms and offers no courses, and two of the faculty listed are deceased, and three of them are Robinson and two of his sons."
gilgamesh, you are are making yourself look foolish. You are like the emperor who had no cloths, (and may I add that is a very odd place for a birth mark!)
British Petroleum, (BP) now acknowledges that global climate change is real and it is caused by human activity.
Even Exxon has thrown in the towel on fighting the climate scientists, and has stopped funding the climate deniers.
(Link shown below)
http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-acknowledges-climate-change
Dude get with the times! Proving you guys wrong now is like shooting fish in a barrel.
"i guess those 30,000+ scientist who dont agree with man made climate change are all suckers as well."
Where are those 30,000+ "scientists" publishing their research and their articles? Since there are 30,000+ "scientists" who support your position, surely you don't have no problem citing an article in either a respected peer reviewed scientific journal, or in a peer reviewed scientific journal that specialises in climate science?
"ad hominem attacks are useful because once you label someone a "denier" (holocaust anybody) you dont have to refute their point with FACTS."
Right. Let me guess, the holocaust is a zionist conspiracy.
"climate change is about de-industrialization and global governance (government). that 350 group was founded with rockefeller money. oligarchs dont care about the environment, theyre all about consolidation of power."
Yeah they are. You notice the amount of power they have now? You notice that the oligarchs are hardly enthusiastic about restrictions on carbon?
"dont be duped people. theres nothing wrong with living in equalibrium with nature, but dont force your views on others and dont surrender national sovereignty. "
Spare me. The oligarchs, the ones with money, are not restricted by national sovereignty. National sovereignty only restricts those who don't have money to get around it.
Monbiot's been looking for a denier to bet with. It's only £5K. Will you take him up on it? Other deniers are despicable hypocrites - they won't bet with him. How about you?
"Monbiot's been looking for a denier to bet with. "
What are the exact terms? Thank you.
I don't know the exact terms, just that it was for £5K and he couldn't find any takers--they all ran away.
Mail him and ask him.
All I could find was a single instance of a 5K bet against a particular individual he was about to debate. No one should accept a bet where the terms are not understood.
Did you mail him?
"climate change is about de-industrialization and global governance"
Exactly. Our response to global meltdown should be to reaffirm our commitment to what we should have been doing for quite a number of other reasons: retire/retrain 3 out of 4 merkans cuz 3/4ths of what they produce/consume is completely unnecessary waste. But it's not their fault entirely. They are pushed by the elite pushers. As for global governance, sure, let's have it. Governance of reason, which is relatively abundant outside the petro-fried USA.
"that 350 group was founded with rockefeller money. oligarchs dont care about the environment, theyre all about consolidation of power."
If an elite tries to co-opt a progressive movement, that doesn't discredit the movement's original agenda. But when you try to use such an event, in a strategy to discredit the movement's agenda, you may as well be taking payola from that very same elite.
"theres nothing wrong with living in equalibrium with nature, but dont force your views on others"
You could tell the elites to not force their views on others. But if you give them a pass, then it appears from here that you are kind of in cahoots with them.
"and dont surrender national sovereignty"
Tell the elites that. The elites shipped our industry off to China, and whacked our democracy, cut the enlightenment foundation out from under us. Donated our government to vicious corporate monsters. Where's the sovereignty?
"the climate changes naturally. it has been for millions and millions of years"
Right, so let's allow it to resume its natural course, by drastically cutting our fossil consumption.
The Ernest Becker posit of "vital lies" & "the armor of character" can well be characterized in another way; as narcissism. Human history is littered with a myriad of "legacy projects," with the Pyramids of Giza as the shining example. That the deniers have a demographic profile that also fits the lunatic fringe that it currently taking over the GOP is no surprise, as climate change denial is part and parcel of their warped extraction corporation (Oil, Coal, Agri-business, etc.) infected program. It's bad enough that the rest of us have had to suffer while that bunch misruled spectacularly during the Bush errors & Grandpa Caligula (Reagan), but now they want to leave us with a "legacy" that has an environmental disaster which our great-grandchildren will be lucky to see through: NO WAY!
I'm a member of the age group Mr Monbiot finds difficult to convince. I was convinced that humans were destroying the planet back in 1969. Not destroying through global warming, but simply from destruction and pollution... Forty years later I'm a lot closer to a natural death but having been aware since I was thirteen that we are all one minute away from death every moment of our lives my age has not changed my views of humanity's dire effect on the planet. I have no problem at all believing that thousands of scientists might possibly be right about global warming.
The point is that it's not about my death, or other old peoples' death, or young peoples' death. It's about the death of nearly every living creature on this amazing blue jewel God gave us to live on. We will never stop destroying it until we realise that we are only one species amongst billions, that we should always be in a relationship of equality with our co-inhabitants of planet earth. We've been given this miraculously beautiful place to live and we've turned most of it into a garbage dump. Now we're planning to incinerate the garbage.
If people are acting on a fear of death and searching for a road to immortality tell them they can go out fighting for the ants and the koalas and the snakes and the polar bears and the trees and the rocks and the sunrises and snow in the moonlight. Tell them to pick up their stiff old bones and go out and shout that they won't allow the deniers to murder this wondrous place and all its true inhabitants. Tell them their death won't matter a bit if they leave a world full of songbirds behind.
That was the most thoughtful post I have read anywhere today.
On your comment, "It's about the death of nearly every living creature on this amazing blue jewel God gave us to live on.";
When the Voyager space craft was way out in space Carl Sagan asked to have it turned around so a picture of the Earth could be taken from 4 billion miles away. The result was a pale blue dot only .12 pixels in size. This is what he wrote about that distant view of our fragile Earth.
"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."
I want to personally thank you for a wonderful and thoughtful post, that was shoulders above some of the truly uninspired thoughtless drivel that was found in parts of this discussion thread.
How could Carl Sagan or anyone possibly know whether or not human life does or has existed elsewhere in the universe besides earth?
I think you missed the point he was trying to make. He was saying anything and everything we know about humans was found on that little blue dot, Earth.
In the unlikely event that "humans" live on other planets is irrelevant to what he was saying because we don't know anything about them.
Sioux Rose
3645: Eloquent and moving post. Thank you for sharing it. I feel a very strong affinity with the natural world, too. The heinous disregard on the part of so many who argue for their materialistic, don't give a shit attitudes as per their usage patterns is a crime against nature, our collective home, and yes, a blue-green jewel given us by The Infinite to love and maintain in a loving manner.
Lowering C02 levels below 350 ppm by means of political action is politically impossible. Few people are willing to believe that the sky is falling. It is more plausible to think that there is scaremongering going on in the service of a collectivist political agenda.
That said, if global warming is anthropogenic, and if it is going to result in climate change that will eliminate a large percentage of the human population by means of disasters untold, then how is this not in fact a self-solving problem? Over the years, population radically decreases, consequently anthropogenic green house gas emissions radically decrease (perhaps as the remaining humans are forced by circumstances to adopt an essentially medieval economy), and eventually CO2 levels stabilize, and then finally begin to fall. Right? In a couple of thousand years, we're back to pre-industrial CO2 levels. Darwinian evolution has again worked its magic, and the fittest have survived. Problem solved.
I think I saw this post on another article, and the response was well put. It went something like:
Fine, but we're not talking about simply ridding the world of humans, but also untold numbers of other species. The recovery time could be millions of years, or never.
We are told by scientists ("trust me, I'm a doctor") that 20 million years ago, CO2 was about 450 ppm, and of course the earth was teeming with animal life 20 million years ago. Humans and many other animal species can survive a seven degree temperature variation. If New York City is underwater, humans will move inland. Humans cope -indeed we are better at coping on an ad hoc basis than we are at grandiose uber-planning, possibly because that is the way we evolved.
What, Me Worry?
ALFRED E NEWMAN for PRESIDENT!!
Oh wait -- he already is.
A really big problem with global climate change are positive feedback loops. At 350 ppm of CO2 we are already seeing permafrost melting and Methane being released in the arctic. Methane is a a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is. If large amounts of it get released there is no guarantee that warming will stop at a seven degree rise in temperature.
You also have huge amounts of Methane Hydrates frozen at the bottoms of various oceans. If things warm enough to release them we are screwed. This is what is thought to have happened during the greatest mass extinction ever. The details of that extinction are shown below.
"During the Permian extinction (about 251 million years ago), about 95 percent of all marine species went extinct. This catastrophe was Earth's worst mass extinction, killing 53 percent of marine families, 84 percent of marine genera, and an estimated 70 percent of land species (including plants, insects, and vertebrate animals.)"
We are literally playing with fire with what we are doing to the planet. Will some people survive if climate change goes completely out of control? Who knows. I guess it depends how bad things end up getting.
Sioux Rose
DWATKINS: And the top 40 # 1 tune goes out to "Jungle Jim and the Shaman," for their: "Steamy Love" in the year's countdown for 2045.
Someone sneaks into your house. Ties you up. Tortures you to death. Sneaks out unnoticed.
The rest of humanity copes. Life goes on. Survival of the fittest.
"The unfit die: the fit both live and thrive."
Alas, who say so?--They who do survive.
So when her bonfires lighted hill and plain,
Did Bloody Mary think on Lady Jane.
So Russia thought of Finland, while her heel
Fell heavier on the prostrate commonweal.
So Booth of Lincoln thought; and so the High
Priests let Barabbas live, and Jesus die.
after a certain point, planning for the future becomes ludicrous, the changes will be so dramatic and widespread...the only logical things to do are:
stop destroying the world, restore natural conditions
replant, especially locally native amd sustainable edibles
I suggest we start planting now, and stop destroying on...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...
you can stop destroying now, at the same time you start planting, of course...I just built in a window for people to get ready first...the primary thing in our way is the financial system we've built on top of the private ownership of property...
Monbiot's been looking for someone like you to have a £5K bet with. Just think of the credibility you could gain --not to mention a nice bit of pocket change. How about it? Are you willing? Or are you a despicable hypocrite, like the other deniers?
This battle has already been lost. The deniers control the resources and the megaphone. The Gilgamesh's have their back, blathering on about 30,000+ "scientists" who disclaim human-made climate change -- peer-reviewed by themselves in one mass circle-jerk.
It is now a matter of just how bad it'll get and how fast it'll happen. Which brings us to a section of the human community I don't see referenced in these discussions very often, if at all ...
These folks, numbering in the millions, are the same ones mesmerized by the spectacle of a train wreck and fascinated with images of Armageddon, whether described in the Bible or brought to them on the IMax screen.
No one wants to actually be IN the train wreck, of course, but the visceral attraction of imagining and watching one is overwhelming.
So many climate change scenarios are, well, captivating. It'll be so cool to be ALIVE to see it ...
... and then get Raptured away at the appropriate moment, of course.
Beam me up, Scotty...right now, Mr. Scott...Scotty?
The IRONY of this is:
while the USA goes around preaching and hectoring other countries about "caps and trade" on pollution designed to EXCUSE the USA from having to do what it demands other countries should do for the environment....
CHINA is on track -- as an article notes : "ENORMOUSLY DETERMINED to correct its Pollution problems" - to becoming what it has expressly, openly stated:
to become the world's PREMIERE nation in combating Global Warming and Pollution TIED to its own national interests.
that means - a great majority of its own population UNDERSTANDS and is willing to cooperate.
================
article below , which, mind you, is written by an American Masters degree student.
=================
Business
Nov 4, 2009
China electrifies urban transit
By Ryan Rutkowski
Chinese companies such as Zhengzhou Yutong Bus and Anhui Ankai Automobile China, whose vehicles serve an urban market two times as big as the entire population of the United States, are set to lead the world in making public buses fit for a health-conscious world, backed by a government drive to clean up China's vast and growing cities.
The government in Beijing is determined to resolve the competing demands of a growing urban population and ever-mounting air pollution in China, already the world's biggest maker of conventional buses.
China's overall goal is to create a generation of environmentally friendly cities, exemplified by the "Better City, Better Life" slogan for the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. The country is at the forefront of a change that will see megacities around the world
develop clean urban transit systems to reduce pollution, offering people low-emission buses for their daily commute rather than gasoline-powered cars. As one of the fastest urbanizing countries in the world, China is by far the largest market for metro buses, seeking to meet the needs of an urban population already twice the population of the United States although so far only 45% of Chinese people live in cities. By 2030, China's urban population is expected to reach close to 1 billion.
Public buses account for 70% of all forms of public transit, with the remaining 30% subways, light-rail and taxis. By next year, China will need to have 630,000 public buses on the road to meet the demand for an estimate 630 million urban residents. In 2007, the country's 347,000 public buses carried 554 million passengers, compared with only 65 million public-bus passengers in North America.
That demand is matched by production of buses, at which China leads all rivals. Zhengzhou Yutong Bus is one of the world's top producers of transit buses, after only Daimler Chrysler, South Korea's Hyundai, India's Tata, Fiat of Italy, and Brazil-based Marco Polo.
article continued
================================
By next year, China will likely account for one-third of global autobuses sales and is expected to become the dominant global exporter.
However, in the wake of rapid urbanization, China faces widespread urban pollution. In 2006, China became the leading emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. The country is already home to 16 of the world's 20 worst air quality cities, with particulates such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide making live miserable and hazardous in most of China's cities.
The Chinese government hopes to alleviate urban pollution and make Chinese bus manufacturers dominant players by supporting the development of alternative-fuel transit vehicles.
Large-scale capital investment for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and a concern for presenting a clean city to overseas visitors for the event, helped to bring electric buses to that city, and the same is now happening in Shanghai in advance of the World Expo.
In 2008, Beijing employed 50 super-capacitor lithium-ion electric buses around the city to ferry visitors of the Beijing Olympics. Shanghai hopes to go one up next year, by deploying more than 500 zero-emissions vehicles, including super-capacitor electric and hydrogen fuel cell buses, for visitors traveling to the trade extravanganza. The city will also introduce 4,000 hybrid buses on the road in time for the event.
This year, China launched the "10 city, 1,000 buses" initiative to encourage the adoption and development of alternative fuel buses across the country. The initiative calls for more than 10 of China's large cities, such as Shanghai, Beijing, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Wuhan and Zhuzhou, to put 1,000 alternative fuel vehicles on the streets within the next three to four years. The plan also calls for public services - taxis, postal services, public transit companies, government agencies - to adopt at least 60,000 alternative fuel vehicles. In doing so, they will help obtain the national goal of having 10% of China's domestic vehicles using alternative fuel by 2012.
Electric buses are the most promising alternative fuel vehicles in the near term. This type of vehicle has been around for decades, but the next generation of electric bus will utilize new battery technology and infrastructure to make them more competitive in price and efficiency with the diesel buses prevalent in most cities today.
Electric buses offer less vibration, lower emissions, less noise pollution, higher efficiency, and often lower costs over the lifetime of the vehicle than conventional diesel-powered counterparts.
Nonetheless, there are still significant barriers to their widespread adoption. They still require a higher initial capital investment than diesel engines to develop the recharging infrastructure or power lines necessary for daily operation. Many types of existing electric buses also utilize different types of infrastructure.
Among the four broad categories of electric buses that operate in China today, hybrid-electric vehicles utilize lithium-ion batteries to reduce reliance on traditional diesel or gasoline engine for propulsion. Trolley buses, which have come in and out of popularity for decades, use overhead electric wires to charge capacitors in the vehicles.
Lithium-ion electric buses use lithium-ion batteries to power an electric motor and motor controller, rather than a gasoline or diesel engine. Due to the lack of recharge infrastructure and limits of lithium-ion recharge speeds these buses operate during the day and charge at night, reducing reduce demand on the power grid during peak hours.
Ultracapacitor vehciles are a new type of bus that uses overhead recharge stations at bus stops to recharge a capacitor in the bus, rather than using batteries or diesel fuel. While, these ultracapacitors can only function for a couple of miles on a single charge, they can charge much faster than battery-powered buses, making them ideal for metro buses with frequent starts and stops.
China's leading bus manufacturers Zhengzhou Yutong Bus and Xiamen King Long United Automotive Industry are dominant players in hybrid-electric bus technology.
Article Continued
-===========================
Yutong's new hybrid electric metro-bus (the ZK6126HGZ1) claims to have 15-20% better fuel economy than traditional counterparts. Currently, Yutong has seven hybrid buses in trial operation in Beijing, the southern industrial center of Guangzhou and Zhengzhou, in central Henan province.
Xiamen King Long Motor, a subsidiary of Xiamen King Long United Automotive Industry, partnered with Dongfeng Electric Car Technology Group in 2004 to produce two hybrid electric bus models, with one, the XMQ6125GH, already involved in trial operations in Wuhan, capital of Hubei province.
Zhongtong Bus & Holding, Anhui Ankai Automobile, and First Automobile Works (FAW) Group are leading China in the development of battery-powered electric buses. Zhongtong Bus has three fully-electric models and six hybrid-electric, with its LCK6128EV model capable of running 250 kilometers on a single charge.
Zhongtong Bus provided five fully-electric buses for the 2008 Beijing Olympics and will produce 200-300 alternative fuel buses for the 10 cities, 1,000 buses initiative.
Ankai Automobile Co's fully-electric battery-powered bus model (the HFF6127K46EV) was also put to use during the Beijing Olympics and will be featured in the Shanghai World Expo. Ankai's new third generation battery-powered model claims to travel up to 200 kilometers on a single charge and recharge in less than four hours.
FAW Bus and Coach has partnered with Tongkun New Energy to release a new line of battery-powered buses capable of covering 300 kilometers on one charge and recharging in under 20 minutes. Jilin province in northeast China has already agreed to purchase 70 of these new 24-passenger buses.
Shanghai Sunwin Bus Corporation (SUNWIN) is a joint-venture between Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp (SAIC), Volvo China Investment Group, and Volvo Bus Corp. Recently, Sunwin has provided buses to Shanghai Aowei Technology Development Company and its US partner Sinautec Automobile Technologies to develop a new model of ultracapacitor electric buses. Over the past three years, they have built 17 of these buses in the outskirts of Shanghai.
Rather than using overhead power-lines to recharge buses, these buses will recharge using designated stations at bus stops. SAIC Motor Group has agreed to provide 300 electric-line buses and 36 super-capacitor buses for the Shanghai World Expo in 2010 under the SUNWIN brand.
All this activity, backed by government goals, will give Chinese manufacturers serving the world's largest market for buses, additional advantages to propel the spread of electric buses worldwide and put them in the driving seat to dominate that market.
Ryan Rutkowski is a masters student studying international economics at the Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
by the time the "climate deniers" in the USA - are DEAD -- and IF countries manage to come together following the LEAD OF CHINA in actually making the changes --
and by the time the USA is HOLLOWED OUT even more by its BACkWARD , BARBARIC wars for conquest and energy resource...which it can't find other ways of getting except by GANGSTERISM ....
by the time Americans WAKE UP to the reality that EVEN THEIR OWN "electric grid" tied to SOLAR and WIND and other renewable resources power and distribution are controlled BY china or other countries .........
the USA will be known as the "BACKWARD NATION" that
was LEFT BEHIND.
and only TOLERATED as a nation of "customers" for resources and infrastructures America REFUSED to build or take part in building.
as of this week -- CHINA has openly expressed interest in FINANCING Solar and Wind Power energy companies IN THE USA - in texas , - that americans don't even want to really support or are too much of an IDIOT constituency to support - or their own billionaires are hedging their funds until "further notice of profitability".
and lo and behold - some americans, including IN CONGRESS are HOWLING that the "chinese are coming".........
well - guess what -- IF AMERICANS won't DO THE JOB required -- the CHINESE are READY to DO IT!!!
i've said it for over a decade now - especially to friends and relatives , if they are into "investing":
"INVEST IN FUTURES - such as SOLAR and WIND POWER - anything "green" if you can study the companies that are legitimate"
"INVEST even if the current "markets" are not yet so committed"
"INVEST in CHINA's plans and companies to go Solar, Wind, Electric Grid"
"INVEST in high-rise urban architecture in firms that are futuristic and use technology , even if they are not YET *financially viable* as of today , that use URBAN FARMING incorporated INTO architectural structures "....
I am proving to have been right.
i just wish i HAD the money already to invest in these things.
hehe.
SIOUXROSE -- this is specially for you.
here are a few examples of visionary stuff I would invest in , if i had any money at all:
http://dornob.com/green-in-3d-16-vertical-farm-skyscraper-park-designs/
http://dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/urban-pyramid-farm-landscape-idea.jpg
In increasingly dense urban areas, sometimes the only way to build is up. And with a movement to grow more food locally and to add more green to our urban environments so too has grown the impulse to build skyscraper farms, solar tower parks and other unique and uncanny forms of vertical vegetecture such as the sixteen shown here.
http://dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/urban-creative-green-roof-designs.jpg
Green roofs have recently become almost the industry standard for urban architectural designs, found on many major civic projects but also in residential complexes and office parks. In turn, these have given way to vertically vegetated surfaces and structures – skyscraper farms were the almost inevitable next step.
http://dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/urban-vertical-farm-design-ideas.jpg
Many initial vertical urban farm ideas were theoretical, at least to begin with. They involved layering buildings with levels of greenery or applying a green layer to their facades – in short, they were attempts to integrate green alongside traditional architectural forms and functions.
http://dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/urban-skyscraper-farming-ideas.jpg
Subsequent ideas for building up and green have further integrated greenery into the very function of buildings, from pragmatic passive cooling and filtering systems to organic forms that reflect the function of these hybrid structures.
http://dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/urban-farm-plants-vegetables.jpg
Many current urban farm and skyscraper park proposals are also incredibly thought-out to the tiniest details, including the species of plant that will work best in various positions throughout the structure.
Thanks for all that, teddy. I agree. I especially liked: "the USA will be known as the 'BACKWARD NATION' that was LEFT BEHIND." That is so true. Many at CD are so USA- and Euro-centric that they cannot fathom that the USA and Europe are not the best places to find hope for the future of human civilization. That future lies in Asia, as that is where the real action is taking place. The USA is a dying, disintegrating country with a decadent culture. As I have been saying for many years, the USA's greatest value in the future will be to serve as an example of what not to do.
Sioux Rose
TEDDY: Funny, I was going to add a P.S if you had any ideas in the way of companies to recommend. I never bought a stock in my life, but my parents both passed over in the past 3 years and they left me and three sisters some stocks. I thought it was typical of my life of much financial struggle to actually appreciate a gain, just when the markets were about to implode.
In any case, I'd like to send you one of my books as a thank you. I see you are up on lots of international news. You post things I don't see anywhere else. I hope to travel to Asia in 2010, and when I am overseas I will look into ways to get off the US dollar, see about producing this Oracle I designed many years ago, and get a beat on how life is progressing on the other "side" of the world. You can obtain my email through my website, and choose which book you'd like (they are posted there). www.siouxrose.com