Drilling off-shore is a “crazy thing” says Hansen on 20th anniversary of his famous testimony

Posted on  

"Drilling off-shore is a “crazy thing” says Hansen on 20th anniversary of his famous testimony"

hansenpic.jpgTwenty years ago today, before he became America’s top climate scientist, NASA’s James Hansen was among the first to warn Congress and the nation about the dangers of human-caused global warming. For a new analysis of that testimony, see Grist here.

Hansen just spoke at the National Press Club, which I attended. He is also giving a briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming. Looks like C-SPAN will skip both. Sad.

You can see look at his presentation and recent postings on his website. Here are some words of wisdom I took from his speech today:

This is not a time to celebrate. [After getting a standing ovation.] Emissions just keep going up.

You may have seen a lot of ads on TV about clean energy. It’s greenwashing.

Contrary to what you may have read on some blogs — we are not entering a global ice age. The world continues to warm even though we had a cold winter thanks mainly to La Ni±a.

[After all the attention he got from his 1988 testimony, he decided] I preferred to do science then communicate with the public after 1988 until 2004. At that time I realize there was a huge gap between what is understood by scientists vs. what is known by public

Planetary emergency because of tipping points.

>> 99% confidence that the dangerous level of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is 350 ppm.

Yes, we can overshoot 350 ppm, but only on a timescale of decades.

We must get back below 350 ppm to preserve civilization.

We have reached one tipping point. We will lose all summer ice in Arctic over the next 5 to 10 years.

And that endangers Greenland ice sheet, whose mass loss accelerating.

The subtropics have expanded in size — that is desertification

The glaciers are receding. hundreds of millions of people will lose their reservoir of water for summer/fall. We have a few more decades before they’re all gone.

The less oil production the better.

We must phase out coal by 2030 and go to carbon-free energy.We need a low-loss high voltage DC electric grid.

Basic conflict today is between fossil fuel special interests and young people/unborn/nature

The disinformation campaign today borders on crimes against humanity. We do know the consequences of inaction.

Drilling off the Outer Continental shelf is exactly the wrong thing to do. A crazy thing. Extends the addiction (a little).

Geoengineering is a last resort. You wouldn’t want to go down that path.

Nothing about the climate system that says it has to be stable. Sea level stable 7000 years. We have been in the ice “sweet zone”: Stable Ice sheets on Greenland, antarctica, ice covering the artic sea but not the continents.

450 ppm gets us an ice free planet.

He likes a carbon tax whose proceeds are completely returned to the public. He believes “Tax and Dividend” is needed to get the public to accept a very high CO2 price.

[Q: What about cap & trade bills] The things we are talking about today are too half hearted.

Related Posts:

[Okay, that’s enough for now. Yes I blog a lot on Hansen. I probably wouldn’t have started this blog if it weren’t for him, and if you don’t know Hansen’s latest thinking, you don’t know the latest on climate science.]

Tags:

« »

46 Responses to Drilling off-shore is a “crazy thing” says Hansen on 20th anniversary of his famous testimony

  1. Paul K says:

    If you only know Hansen’s latest thinking, you certainly don’t know the latest in climate science. Joe, are you willing to make a dispassionate analysis of Dr. Hansen’s 1988 projected scenarios vs real 20 year observations?

    Aren’t you at all suspicious that as temperatures remain in stasis – and we are told to expect them to stay there until 2015 – the disaster CO2 ppm number keeps getting lower.

    In the authoritative IPCC a doubling to 560 likely meant a 1.5 – 4.5C with above 1C or so dependent on forcings and feedbacks. It has gone down to 500, then 450 and 400. And finally we are at 350. Horrible enough that we are already past 350; 350 is, in fact, the tipping point!

    450 ppm gets us an ice free planet is not based on current science. Arctic ice melt, according to two separate NASA studies and two Swedish studies, is predominantly caused by decadal ocean oscillation and fine black soot, not AGW. Fortuitous wind patterns also play a major role.

    I am assuming that climateprogress does not support Dr. Hansen’s Tax and Dividend proposal.

  2. David B. Benson says:

    Paul K — The 450 ppm diagnosis comes from studying the climate of the mid-Miocene. When Antarctica was ice-free.

  3. Paul K says:

    David B. Benson,
    Two ages away at the other pole. Now that’s apples and oranges. How about today’s science comparing measured atmospheric water vapor and sea surface temperatures to that programmed into and forecast by Hansen’s model?

  4. Earl Killian says:

    Paul K, Dr. Hansen based his analysis on the paleo record, which is a different method from the IPCC’s primary method. He suggests that the paleo record shows fast feedback and slow feedbacks. The fast match the IPCC. The slow feedbacks are about twice the fast, but take decades or centuries to take effect. They are pretty obvious, but they are not included in the IPCC models because the IPCC only includes the things they are essentially certain of. As a result, there is nothing inconsistent between the IPCC and Dr. Hansen. He is building upon what we know well (fast feedback), and extending it further out in the future (the slow feedbacks). His work may influence the AR5 (but we cannot wait for that). The primary point of his 450ppm limit is that if we stay under that, we may be able to return to 350ppm through other changes. If we go much beyond 450ppm, it becomes almost impossible to return to 350ppm in time.

  5. Joe says:

    Paul — Hansen’s predictions have been accurate whereas the deniers claims have all been disproved. Sorry.

    Temperatures are not in stasis — I’m sorry you have bought into that nonsense and ignored everything that has been posted here about that. Nor are they going to stay flat for the next seven years, as I have repeatedly explained.

    Your understanding of the history of climate science, nor the current state, is not strong. You would do well to read some of Hansen’s writing.

  6. Ron Broberg says:

    I really wish he hadn’t said this: “In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

    As much as I respect his scientific work, this doesn’t help the political side.

  7. Joe says:

    Ron — Not my preferred language, nor is it what he said today at the National Press Club.

    That said, those who are financing the disinformation campaign — and those who are taking the money and spreading disinformation — are committing one of the great moral crimes against humanity in all of human history. Such people deserve the strongest condemnation.

  8. David B. Benson says:

    Ron & Joe — That appears to be the language in his written commentary.

    Just for the record.

  9. Joe says:

    David — Yes, I saw that. I hope someone posts a video of his testimony.

  10. Wonhyo says:

    All – When viewed in the narrow sense of Hansen’s role as a scientist, I agree that he shouldn’t have written the politically charged words, “high crimes against humanity”. But then I have to ask, who WILL bring up those issues?

    After 20 years of patiently waiting for policy makers to act on his scientific findings, Dr. Hansen shows remarkable restraint in his criticism of others.

    Under the circumstances, I admire Dr. Hansen for having the courage to be heard.

  11. civil behavior says:

    What?

    He shouldn’t say high crimes against humanity?

    What is it if it isn’t that?

  12. Paul K says:

    GISS Global Temperature Anomalies: May 1988 – 0.54C: May 2008 – 0.39

  13. Ron Broberg says:

    GISTEMP 1998 05 2008 05 LSM
    trendline: dTemp = 0.0016 * month + 0.1977
    yearly deltaT = 0.019
    standard deviation = 0.18

    yearly deltaT*20 years = 0.38 C

  14. Ron Broberg says:

    sorry, that was 1988 05 2008 05

  15. Nylo says:

    It is good to know that Dr Hansen predicts an ice-free anctartica in a 450 ppm scenario. It helps putting things in perspective.

  16. Joe says:

    Nylo — The ice free Antarctica at 450 is the paleoclimate experience. But he is quite clear that one can hit 450 and not go ice free as long as one does not stay there for an extended period of time, which might be measured in a century or more.

  17. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    James “Jimmy the Enforcer” Hansen is clearly suffering scientific senility

    [JR: Harold — this absurd slander of the nation’s top climate scientist and one of the most brilliant people I have ever met is pushing you close to the edge of being banned entirely.]

  18. Eli Rabett says:

    To reinforce what Joe said, 450 ppm leads to an ice free earth, the only question is when. It could be a few hundred years, it could be as little as 100 and increasing above 450 ppm moves the balance towards shorter times. Worse, there may be a tipping point before the ice disappears, beyond which recovery takes many hundreds of years.

  19. Barry Brook says:

    If you read Target CO2 careful, it is clear that 425-450 ppm does not necessarily guarantee an ice free world. It will almost certainly wipe out the GIS and WAIS at some future point (I’d bet sooner rather than latter – anywhere between a few decades to a few centuries), but not necessarily the EAIS, or at least not all of it.

    The key is that the EAIS partly maintains its own regional climate due to its height and albedo. So an ice-free world at 450ppm is different to a modern partially iced world at 450ppm, because the albedo, southern polar winds and regional precipitation patterns are different.

    That said, its hard to draw any simple palaeo-analogies. Current tipping elements and carbon-cycle feedbacks (e.g. Siberian methane) may be different, or more vulnerable now compared to the mid-Miocene – or indeed less so. As Wally Broecker said, all we can be sure of is that there will be surprises in the greenhouse.

  20. beefeater says:

    Just because Hansen has become unhinged in one area, trials for oil company executives who dare to disagree with him, doesn’t mean he has become totally unhinged, does it?

    He was, after all correct in 1988 when he predicted massive devastating drought in the Midwest, well except for 1993 and this year, but those were merely unpredictable anomalies.

    Kinda like this statement

    [JR: Harold — this absurd slander of the nation’s top climate scientist and one of the most brilliant people I have ever met is pushing you close to the edge of being banned entirely.]

    To the Hague with you, denier!

    Joe, you are sounding like Hansen, unhinged.

  21. David B. Benson says:

    beefeater — Careful regional climate forecasts predict much worse conditions for agriculture in the American midwest up to about 40 degrees north latitude. That’s about Springfield, IL. We’ve already seen some hints of that the the American southeast, which was, I believe, the area which Dr. Hansen made a forecast about, 20 years ago.

  22. Ronald says:

    What is the correct analogy to use with climate change.

    In the early 1940’s, there was alot of work on an atomic bomb to end World War II. Many of the Scientists who had worked on the bomb had decided that they should write a letter to the President of the United States about the use of that bomb and the ethical and destructive nature of that bomb. Who else would have more moral standing than those people who actually did the research, designs and building the atomic bomb?

    What if they had remained completely silent? Wouldn’t that have sent the message that it’s just about the technology, that even the builders of terrible devices have some need to speak out.

    The same is true with Scientists and the study of the climate and the possible changes that we as a society are doing to the climate. Who better to speak out about this than those who know the science the most.

    And if these Scientists only speak so that nobodies feelings get hurt, they haven’t told us how very important this really is. It is to bad that the only thing that gets press is name calling and the prosecution of people on moral and ethical grounds for destroying this planet, but that is what needs to be done however distasteful it may be.

  23. Keith says:

    “[After all the attention he got from his 1988 testimony, he decided] I preferred to do science then communicate with the public after 1988 until 2004. At that time I realize there was a huge gap between what is understood by scientists vs. what is known by public”

    Or could it be that the media and political world between 1988 and 2004 would have laughed him off into some obscure academic post without the credentials to be noticed again if he had repeated the “science” of his findings again in a national forum? I’m still waiting for him to present evidence that actually shows that a change of carbon dioxide from 0.035% of a gas sample to 0.045% produces any significant temperature change in the sample when exposed to sunlight. Can we at least get some empirical, reproducible evidence to go with our computer models, please?

  24. David B. Benson says:

    Keith — Human caused emissions of CO2:

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

    lead to the Keeling curve of additional CO2 in the air:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

    and as CO2 is a global warming (so-called greenhouse) gas, this leads to the climate warming. Here are the decadal averages from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg

    You can read about this and much more in “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

    Review of above:

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

  25. Rattle says:

    Isn’t it fantastic that we are so advanced that we can predict weather anywhere on the earth 6 months in advance within a degree? What? We can’t? Well, at least China and India are cleaner than the U.S. What? No? Look guys, you can call me a “denier” or a “heretic” I like to look at the facts whether good or bad. There is simply not enough evidence to prove man made global warming is real. Computer models? Yeah those are 100% accurate. I remember the “scientific community” warning of a coming Ice Age back in the 70’s. I just read that global energy consumption is going to raise 50% in two decades…so what are we to do? This site is very entertaining! Remember- don’t get to close to the edge of the earth! Wouldn’t want to see any of you Eco-brown shirts fall off.

    [JR: Why would I call you a heretic when you are a denier of the facts? Try to learn the difference between weather and climate — it actually matters to the future health and well-being of the next 50 generations. Nothing is so sad as the cockiness of the no-nothings blindly leading us to our self-destruction. But fret not — you deniers pretty much have the upper hand with the conservative movement, which should be enough to block serious action — and my guess is you will live to see just how tragically wrong you are. When your children and/or your nieces and nephews wonder who helped ruin the planet’s livability for them, do tell them you helped!]

  26. Conga Hands says:

    It’s just so impolite of Mother Earth to have cooled off 3/4ths of a degree (according to the UAH data) in the 18 months before Hansens re-emergence into the public spotlight.

    It’s even more impolite of Mother Earth to have cooled off over 0.35 degrees (same source) in the 20 years since he first spoke. This at a time when CO2 concentrations have been going up.

    May ice coverage at both poles is about 30% greater than the same month in 1980.

    Speaking out about a warming danger when all the current signs are pointing in the other direction just doesn’t get people too fired up. Hopefully the planet will start cooperating again soon. Maybe solar cycle 24 can get started here pretty soon and get us warmed back up.

    I hope so for Mr. Hansens sake.

  27. Keith says:

    “Rattle Says:
    June 25th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    …I remember the “scientific community” warning of a coming Ice Age back in the 70’s.”

    Interestingly, Jim Hansen was one of those wonderful prognosticators as is detailed at the following web site:

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

    Maybe he decided to invest in air conditioners instead of fur coats. Great pitch man there, Jim!

  28. Conga Hands says:

    There’s also the well publicized (NOT!) bug in the data that Hansen supplied indicating that 1998 was the warmest year of the last century. In reality 1934 was the warmest year of the century.

    Four of the top 10 hottest years were in the 1930’s and only 3 of the hottest 10 years are in the last decade.

    How many do overs should Mr. Hansen get.

    [JR: Your repetition of global warming denier talking points is quickly getting tedious. The data is clear that no year in the 1930s had a global temperature close to the temperatures of the last several years. See “Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!” I am not going to keep printing your disinformation. How many do overs should you get?]

  29. John Hollenberg says:

    > There is simply not enough evidence to prove man made global warming is real.

    Joe, do we have to read this sort of drivel here?

  30. David B. Benson says:

    Joe — I agree with John Hollenberg. Furthermore I found Rattle’s comment unnecessarily offensive.

  31. John Hollenberg says:

    > I remember the “scientific community” warning of a coming Ice Age back in the 70’s.

    This nonsense has been debunked here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

  32. Paul K says:

    One thing I’ve learned as a resident skeptic at climateprogress is not to rely on agenda driven websites for info. It’s pretty well established that Dr. Hansen was not part of the 70’s ice age crowd. He did provide much of the computer modeling they used.

  33. Joe says:

    David & John — you are right about Rattle. sometimes it is hard to keep up with the Deniers’ comments when I am working on one of my other projects.

    If he posts such drivel again, I will ban him.

  34. Keith says:

    No, David, not open ended probability studies assuming carbon dioxide has this great effect hypothesized upon a non-controllable set of environmental variables. Something simple, where the only variable is the carbon dioxide concentration. Something like take two large glass containers, if necessary, as large as a house. Fill one with a representative sample of the earth’s atmosphere with CO2 at a concentration of 350 parts per million. Fill the other with a similar sample, but with the CO2 concentration at 450 ppm. Have a highly sensitive and accurate thermocouple in each container to measure the temperature and expose both to the same amount of light for the same duration. If carbon dioxide is such a forcing greenhouse gas, the higher concentration sample will have a significantly higher temperature. A simple experiment, that as far as I can determine has never been done, to prove the theory that increased carbon dioxide will cause warming. Something in basic engineering student or high school science major would be able to suggest and understand. It is reproducible, empirical, done under rigid scientific method methods with a control subset in place. Has any global warming advocate ever done so simple a test?

  35. Keith says:

    Oh, one other little fact, David. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, based both on amount in the atmosphere and in the total effect it has, accounting for almost 99% of the greenhouse effect. That’s why the significance of such a small change in concentration of a minor part of the whole effect is the cause of all the doubt in my mind. A quantifiable difference in temperature effect from a simple reproducible experiment where the only variable is the concentration of carbon dioxide would, in my mind, be strong evidence that the doom prophesy was viable. But the advocates of global warming have not even done a basic science experiment to promote their cause. To me, that is reprehensible and irresponsible. I’m willing to wait for such an experiment to be done before I even begin to consider believing Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr.

  36. Earl Killian says:

    Keith, you are repeating well debunked denier dribble. Please see
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    argument #22

    As far as your proposed experiment, it is flawed in its design. Tyndall did do experiments around 1859 to show that CO2 blocks heat. The theory that the temperature of the Earth depends upon greenhouse gases goes back to Joseph Fourier in 1824. One needs primarily 19th century physics to understand the basics of global warming.

  37. Keith says:

    Earl, I’m not arguing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, I’m arguing the effect that an increase of 0.01% of the concentration of it will have. This is something that is measurable in such an experiment as I describe, just on a quantification basis. An increase of X% of this gas, as the only variable in the experiment, producing this result to the temperature of the experimental environment. Basic scientific method for proving causality, as I said something, a high school chemistry student could produce.

    I’ve studied 19th century physics, and understand about absorption spectra, and realize EVERY molecule in our atmosphere has the ability to absorb energy along certain wavelengths of electromagnetic energy from photons of light. This is not rocket science. It is the basis of modern color photography.

    As I said, the primary greenhouse gas is water, actually represented by a significant fraction of the atmospheric content. This fact has been documented for well over 30 years. If you want, from my experiment you can even leave it out. Base the gas sample upon nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide, but only 0.035% and 0.045% concentrations of carbon dioxide. Let the experiment last a full year, two giant sealed glass containers with thermocouples to monitor the heat inside each, sitting in the middle of a giant field with a color consistent background around each. The glass might trap some heat, but it will be similar in each. You should be able to track the heat build up in each enclosed environment with ease, and be able to have statistical proof whether there is any significant difference in the temperature of each container. If there is a significant difference, you will have proved your point, and in a relatively inexpensive manner.

  38. Guilt by association? says:

    “Paul K Says:
    June 25th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

    One thing I’ve learned as a resident skeptic at climateprogress is not to rely on agenda driven websites for info. It’s pretty well established that Dr. Hansen was not part of the 70’s ice age crowd. He did provide much of the computer modeling they used.”

    Sorry, Paul, something about that does not jive completely with me. If his computer models could be used then to predict cooling, then it calls into question the validity of using them to predict warming now. Either his models are shown to be subject to the whims and desires of the people programming them, or his models originally supported this view and he was willing to have them show this. Either way, it makes his current credibility suspect.

  39. Guilt by association? says:

    [JR: Your repetition of global warming denier talking points is quickly getting tedious. The data is clear that no year in the 1930s had a global temperature close to the temperatures of the last several years. See “Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!” I am not going to keep printing your disinformation. How many do overs should you get?]

    As many as Hansen has gotten, per chance? If they are needing to revise the data sets he is using to make predictions, then we have the right to draw attention to the fact.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml

    [JR: NASA has made one teeny revision in the temperature data. Please identify any others, else your comment is simply disinformation. My comment was not about mentioning the data revision, it was about spreading the disinformation about global temperatures.]

  40. Guilt by association? says:

    [JR: NASA has made one teeny revision in the temperature data. Please identify any others, else your comment is simply disinformation. My comment was not about mentioning the data revision, it was about spreading the disinformation about global temperatures.]

    But JR, isn’t having to retract and revise data set that you have published and touted as definitive an admission that you have spread disinformation?

    –noun

    false information, as about a country’s military strength or plans, publicly announced or planted in the news media, esp. of other countries.

    [JR: In short, no. That is the kind of comparison only a global warming denier. Making tiny adjustments to one’s work is the very essence of science. NASA shared its data! Now Christy and Spencer, they kept their data and their flawed analysis to themselves — creating the myth for a decade that the satellite data did not agree with the surface data. THat comes pretty close to scientific disinformation and that’s why I ignore everything they do now.

    Disinformation would be the intentional spreading of false information — that is what you are doing and you are one more such post away from being the and

    Someday you will understand science, when even you see the reality of the suffering and misery that you deniers will have helped put billions of people through. Until then, find another place to comment.]

  41. definitions matter says:

    American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source – Share This
    dis·in·for·ma·tion (dĭs-ĭn’fər-mā’shən) Pronunciation Key
    n.

    1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation
    2.Dissemination of such misleading information

    Has Hansen ever retracted his state to the effect that the 1990’s was the warmest decade after the revised data indicated that the 1930’s were warmer? If not, then as a government employee, he meets this definition of of disinformation provided here.

    [JR: This statement gets you banned. The 1990s were the warmest decade the world has seen in the historical record. So the only retraction needed is the retraction of your disinformation. I am painstakingly nonpartisan here politically. You, however, are not.]

  42. definitions matter says:

    BTW, JR, by deleting and editing the posts of interested individuals here concerning the topic, are you not yourself displaying nonpartisanship and helping in the spread of disinformation. Provided the discourse is civil, I see no reason to remove statements or arguments about the subject at hand unless you are yourself practicing censorship and actively pushing one agenda. Surely an open-minded, scientific curious individual should be willing and strong enough to allow an open discourse. AGW denier sites I have visited are rather open about allowing disputing opinions to have their say, without censoring the content for public viewing. I would take the disappearance of this post as an admission on your part that you are not interested in open discourse, and are an active partisan advocate of global warming.

    [JR: Def guy — I don’t care whether the discourse is civil or not. Why would I allow “civil” disinformation to be placed on my blog, especially long-debunked disinformation, that forces me or my readers to waste time that could be put to better use. I find that deniers aren’t interested in “open discourse” since they never bother spending any time learning the basics of the scientific method or climate science. They just want to spread their disinformation. Of course AGW denier sites allow “disputing opinions” [otherwise known as real science] — they want to make it look like there is a genuine debate. YOU are the active partisan advocate of global warming, since you apparently like global warming and want more of it. I am a nonpartisan advocate of science. It gets quite tedious when you misuse the English language like this — the word “partisan” in the context of this blog clearly means politically nonpartisan. And that I most certainly am. Governor Schwarzenegger is doing a terrific job in California on the climate issue, and I’m happy to say so. I thought the Boxer bill was lacking, and said so.]

  43. John Hollenberg says:

    Joe, how about requiring use of real names instead of anonymous posting here? A photography web site I belong to has a much higher level of discourse due to this requirement. If someone doesn’t want to use his/her real name (first and last), how about posting somewhere else?

  44. Paul K says:

    John Hollenberg,
    Anonymous incivility is the bane of the internet as are people who seem to go from site to site with their pet theories. I think the level of discourse at climateprogress is generally pretty good. The occasional bad behavior is usually short lived and comes from both the named and nameless. Would you also demand Dano, hapa and Eli Rabbett or any of the first name only commenters fully identify themselves? What about Tamino?

  45. BEN ERICSON says:

    what is the point of fault finding when we have no solution. i love what you are doing i understand you, but the people you need to convince need your alternative, a genuine replacement, not your criticism.

  46. BEN ERICSON says:

    You have the education – nobody else – you are known as in the ring of fire of academics, when things get worse, they will come to you they will give you recognition, but they will ask you – set critical analysis aside, give us a solution. Solutions begin by inching those stuck on stupid away from eminent death – that includes the planet. You are supposed to save their lives not lose them. You chose your education they did not. Most have no choice compared to you. They just pay taxes. Change your tune, start rallying for help from you Blog, try a little tenderness. Every body will love you so much more.