Open Thread Plus Cartoon Of The Week

Posted on

"Open Thread Plus Cartoon Of The Week"

Opine away!

Tags:

« »

113 Responses to Open Thread Plus Cartoon Of The Week

  1. Spike says:

    Martin Wolf, the UK Financial Times Economics Correspondent, has an excellent summary of the desperately poor human response to climate change which is well worth a read, though you will have to register at the site (which is free).

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c926f6e8-bbf9-11e2-a4b4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TYdIJhcc

    • Superman1 says:

      We the people have placed economics and self-indulgence in the here-and-now above health and survival. This is true in our response to climate challenges, and in our response to EMF challenges (as briefly discussed below). If we did what was necessary to protect ourselves against the ravages of climate change, or the ravages of EMF effects, the global economy would collapse. That’s why we do nothing, and will do nothing, in either case.

    • Brooks Bridges says:

      An excellent link. Thank you. Particularly liked:

      “A necessary, albeit not sufficient condition, then, is a politically sellable vision of a prosperous low-carbon economy. That is not what people now see.”

      and

      “Yes, there is talk and wringing of hands. But there is, predictably, no effective action. If that is to change, we must start by offering humanity a far better future. Fear of distant horror is not enough.”

  2. Henry says:

    Joe, here’s a Climate/CO2 related video from CNBC that’s making the rounds. It is in need of some serious debunking when you have the time.

    http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000169287&play=1

    H.

  3. Superman1 says:

    There are two sides to the hybrids coin. From the 2010 National Activity Report, State of Israel, Ministry of the Environment, Noise and Radiation Abatement Department: “The Ministry of Environmental Protection published the results of ELF magnetic fields in cars. It was found that the exposure in the hybrid cars models sold in Israel, mainly in rear seats, is higher, and for some models, much higher than the exposure in non hybrid cars.”

  4. Superman1 says:

    CONTINUED. Schwartz goes on to state: “In a study conducted last year, the Prius, Honda Insight, and Civic Hybrid all released 100 mG of radiation during acceleration. Normal driving of the Prius emitted between 14 and 30 mG of radiation.”

    • Superman1 says:

      Assume your wife is expectant. Researchers at Kaiser-Permanente placed gauss-meters on expectant Mothers, and tracked their magnetic field exposures. They found that once-a-day exposures above a threshold of 16mg resulted in a factor of six increase in miscarriage. Is that the type of environment you would want to place your wife?

    • Timothy Hughbanks says:

      What do you think that “100 mG of radiation” is? The earth’s magnetic field ranges from 0.25 to 0.65 G and we are all exposed to it all the time. These random “alarming” posts are embarrassing.

      • Superman1 says:

        The missing message preceding #4 above includes the statement: “any extended exposure to electromagnetic fields higher than 2 mG can possibly cause cancer, while the Israeli Ministry of Health believes 4 mG is the maximum amount of allowable radiation.” That’s the context for 100 mG.

        • Timothy Hughbanks says:

          Really, you need to take some physics courses – it IS embarassing. If 100 mG radiation “caused” cancer, every child ever born would have died in the womb. You don’t have a clue.

          • Superman1 says:

            I’ve taken more physics courses than you could dream of. The magnetic fields cause problems by changing direction of charged particles; electroporation that allows ions to penetrate e.g. blood-brain-barrier being one example of many. Huge fields are not required to cause damage, although the larger the fields at harmful frequencies, the larger the damage.

          • Timothy Hughbanks says:

            You are so full of it. I repeat: Please tell us, what is the energy of a photon of “100 mG radiation”? Of course magnetic fields penetrate the blood brain barrier. How do you think one takes an MRI image of the human brain. You have any idea what you are talking about. Next time you take a physics course, learn something about physical chemistry.

            Look, your concerns are often warranted, but when you spout of on every wild ill-conceived notion you run across from every ding-dong out there, you embarrass yourself. Equating skepticism about cell phones causing cancer with climate denial just undermines climate science – it does nothing to buttress your argument.

          • Superman1 says:

            “Of course magnetic fields penetrate the blood brain barrier”. Due to the magnetic fields, ions are able to pass through the ‘tight junctions’, allowing both drugs to enter the brain for treatments, and toxic materials to enter the brain and cause damage.

      • Superman1 says:

        “These random “alarming” posts are embarrassing.” Tell that to the expectant Mothers described above, who experienced six times the rate of miscarriage after once-a-day exposure to 16 mg (or more) fields than expectant Mothers who did not experience this exposure. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your concern.

        • Timothy Hughbanks says:

          Since the dawn of quantum mechanics, we’ve known the simple mathematical expressions that relate the energy, frequency, and wavelength of radiation. Please tell us, what is the energy of a photon of “100 mG radiation”. The phrase is incoherent. It doesn’t mean anything.

          • Ed Leaver says:

            I think it safe to assume the fields measured in the context of an EV were from a few to a few thousand herz. The AC component of the earth’s field is less than 1 mG in this range. (typically ~0.01 mG, ymmv). A key term is “possibly cause cancer.” There has long been such concern, though little in the way of direct evidence. But public (mis)perception is important. Also “fields are higher in the back seat” and “new generation Prius is safe” suggest minor changes in power cable and motor-generator design might alleviate the problem. Stay ‘tooned!

          • Lewis Cleverdon says:

            Timothy – you are plainly correct that this character could do with taking some basic physics courses. – Not that it’s his fault of course, he’s been a very busy fellow -what with working in the nuclear industry in the ’50s and then in the space programme in the ’60s (as he has proudly told us here on CP).

            The funny thing is he doesn’t write like an octogenarian, does he ?

            Regards,

            Lewis

          • Superman1 says:

            ” Please tell us, what is the energy of a photon of “100 mG radiation”.” Go back and read my post. I was quoting Schwartz verbatim, not taking statements out of context as you deniers do. That was his terminology.

          • Superman1 says:

            Lab experiment reports tend to provide both the magnetic field intensity and frequency, at a minimum. If I were writing an article on EMF effects, my words might be 100 milligauss magnetic field (or ten microTesla) and sixty hertz frequency (60Hz), or whatever frequency(s) is being used. Your rambling about photons might excite the Amen Corner here; I view it as irrelevant as your total line of questioning.

          • Superman1 says:

            Lewis Cleverdon, Your comments make as much sense as your proposals to send thousands of fossil fuel burning ships out to sea to spray aerosols into the atmosphere. That’s like asking a chain smoker to add another pack to eliminate his lung cancer.

          • Superman1 says:

            Ed Leaver, There was a Greek study on hybrid EMFs that examined the frequency range 0-32kHz. They found most of the EMF readings occurred under 100Hz, with the major spike somewhat under 30Hz. So, it’s in the low frequency long wavelength regime, and the desired limiting values described above, 2mg-4mg, derived for the power-line frequency regime (~60Hz) should be ballpark applicable here.

      • Superman1 says:

        “The earth’s magnetic field ranges from 0.25 to 0.65 G and we are all exposed to it all the time.” Ah yes, the Natural Variability argument; where have I heard that before? There must be a Deniers Handbook, applicable to cell phones, climate change, etc.

        • Turboblocke says:

          Superman1: your links are from 2010. How come there is nothing more recent on the subject?

        • Superman1 says:

          For those of you who want more detailed information on EMF biological effects without the spin of the deniers, I offer the following two references. First is the Bioinitiative Report, which addresses the scientific basis of EMF biological impacts from myriad perspectives (http://www.bioinitiative.org/). It is authored by the world’s premier researchers in EMF biological impacts.

          • Superman1 says:

            Second are the papers by Lennart Hardell, the world’s premier epidemiology oncologist in EMF cell phone and WiFi effects, in my opinion. Search the last four-five years on Pubmed. He has shown that heavy cell phone users (>30 minutes/day) for a decade who started as children have five times the odds of getting brain cancer, and who started as adults have twice the odds.

        • Superman1 says:

          Another article on the consequences of the Israeli study had this interesting conclusion: “Recently, the research committee stirred the public conscious as it advised the Israeli Police against adding hybrid cars to its mostly diesel powered fleet, due to medical hazards to officers exposed to radiation for lengthy periods of time.”
          http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/03/israel-preps-worlds-first-hybrid-car-radiation-scale/

          • Lewis Cleverdon says:

            You make your dishonesty very obvious. I never have proposed sending “thousands of fossil fuel burning ships out to sea to spray aerosols into the atmosphere.” There is no such comment in the archive, as regular readers here are well aware.

            What I strongly support is the research of the Cloud Brightening mode of Albedo Restoration, which would use one to two thousand wind-powered vessels to loft a mist natural seawater to low clouds over carefully selected sea areas. Professor Salter, who leads the research, estimates that in conjuntion with rapid stringent anthro-emissions control, this would restore the pre-industrial global temperature within two to three years. This in turn would decelerate climate destabilization and end the looming threat of serial mega-famines, and halt the acceleration of the interactive warming feedbacks while our fossil fuel dependence is rapidly ended.

            You make it very clear to all readers that you are not remotely interested in encouraging the necessary political pressure for commensurate action. On the contrary your focus is almost entirely on promoting defeatism and the delusion that there’s nothing can or will be done. You actively support the deniers’ goal of maintaining inaction on ending fossil fuel dependence.

            As I said, you make your dishonesty very obvious.

          • Lewis Cleverdon says:

            You make your dishonesty very obvious. I never have proposed sending “thousands of fossil fuel burning ships out to sea to spray aerosols into the atmosphere.” There is no such comment in the archive, as regular readers here are well aware.

            What I strongly support is the research of the Cloud Brightening mode of Albedo Restoration, which would use one to two thousand wind-powered vessels to loft a mist natural seawater to low clouds over carefully selected sea areas. Professor Salter, who leads the research, estimates that in conjuntion with rapid stringent anthro-emissions control, this would restore the pre-industrial global temperature within two to three years. This in turn would decelerate climate destabilization and end the looming threat of serial mega-famines, and halt the acceleration of the interactive warming feedbacks while our fossil fuel dependence is rapidly ended.

            You make it very clear to all readers that you are not remotely interested in encouraging the necessary political pressure for commensurate action. On the contrary your focus is almost entirely on promoting defeatism and the delusion that there’s nothing can or will be done. You actively support the deniers’ goal of maintaining inaction on ending fossil fuel dependence.

            As I said, you make your dishonesty very obvious.

          • Superman1 says:

            Lewis, Let’s examine the record. On the AMEG (Arctic Methane Emergency Group) Web site, they state that ‘a position statement on the Arctic methane emergency, proposed by the chairman, John Nissen, was agreed by the following:…Prof. Stephen Salter’. While the site is vague as to who actually constitutes AMEG, Salter is part of the position statement.

          • Superman1 says:

            My comments above, in cyber-space, summarizes the three techniques proposed by AMEG, including cloud brightening.

          • Superman1 says:

            Cloud brightening is a technique whereby a very fine salt spray is produced from special spray nozzles mounted on a ship, and gets wafted up to clouds where it increases their reflective power. Salter and Latham have proposed Flettner rotor spray vessels for this task. Some of the other techniques may involve fossil fuel generation, such as stratotankers.

          • Superman1 says:

            My comments above, in cyber-space, summarize their comments on the need for emissions from coal-fired power stations and from ship bunker fuel.

          • Superman1 says:

            My comments above, in cyber-space, include their request to suspend initiatives and regulations to suppress these emissions

          • Superman1 says:

            My comments above, in cyber-space, show the full plan requires substantial emissions, but the cloud brightening component requires little.

          • Superman1 says:

            I had conflated your Flettner rotor ships with some other proposals that used fossil powered ships.

  5. Joan Savage says:

    Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield is proudest of his photo of noctilucent clouds as he points out they are important for understanding global climate change.

    min 2:20 and following in the video

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22559537

  6. Jeff Huggins says:

    Political Preparedness

    In order to get ourselves into a position in which an excellent candidate who is truly serious about addressing climate change runs for the presidency next time around (2016); in order to avoid having two bad choices to choose from (two candidates who, for different reasons, will end up doing nothing or far too little to address the problem); in order to avoid having to listen to all those folks who typically argue that we have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils, even though that person won’t get the job done and even though that habit gets us nowhere; and in order to be taken seriously by candidates, who should understand that they simply won’t get our votes unless they adopt a real, solid, strong, clear, passionate and credible stance on climate change and how they will address it if elected; — we (the movement) should start setting the stage now, beginning with a conscious choice and clear tactics to make sure that there are excellent candidates to choose from (in the Democratic primaries, in a third party, and etc.) and to make sure that no candidate (for example, Hilary) takes us for granted by thinking that, no matter what her stance and record on climate change might be, at the end of the day we’ll have to vote for her because (shall I repeat the worn-out ‘logic’?) the Republican candidate will be even much worse and to vote for a third party candidate would be to throw away one’s vote.

    We have to start thinking and acting now in order to avoid that trap and the dismal, insufficient outcomes that it typically leads to.

    Among other things, I would like to see 350.org, the major environmental organizations, and other groups in the movement get ahead of the ball and state clearly that they will not support any candidate who does not meet (in actions as well as words and credibility) a high and sufficient “bar” in relation to climate change and how they’ll address it if elected. Period. No more “lesser of two evils” approach to voting! No more voting for candidates who we know will be insufficient to the task because of their prior record, lack of commitment, or shallow rhetoric! No more being taken for granted as folks who will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what he or she does or doesn’t do! We should begin to prepare now, so both major parties, independent parties, and all the candidates know we’re serious this time.

    Have we learned from the past? OK then, let’s do it differently this time around.

    Cheers,

    Jeff

    • That is exactly what we have to do. I would love to hear Redford, Hanks, Streisand and all of the other celebrity Democrats tell that party they will only give money to candidates who are serious about climate change and willing to follow a logical path to a sound conclusion. Another side is to have someone tell the unions (AFL/CIO, United Mine Workers, Teamsters, etc.) that their support of fossil fuel enhancements is not acceptable. After all Friends don’t let friends drive drunk and rational people don’t let their friends commit ecocide.

    • Andy Hultgren says:

      I agree, but 350.org and other non-profits are limited in what they can say about supporting specific politicians in specific elections due to restrictions on their not-for-profit status related to spending in politics.

      That said, mobilization is certainly necessary. Some primary knockouts in the next election cycle on Dems with poor climate records would be best.

    • BobbyL says:

      The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters are the only two major environmental organizations that endorse and support candidates. So basically, it really comes down to what these two organizations decide to do. I am a Sierra Club member and my feeling is that since they supported Obama in the last election despite all his failings regarding climate change it is very likely they will support the candidate of the Democratic Party in the next election. The Justice Party led by former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson is trying to get its act together but if would be foolish to count on that party at this point. There is also the Green Party but they seem to have severe limitations. I would say voting in the Democratic primary will be where the major choice is made. Hopefully some Democrat will take a bold step and make climate change a top priority issue in the primary, win the primary, and then make it a top priority issue in the general election.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        Sticking with the Demopublican apparatus guarantees failure. The Business Party, with its two wings but the same absolute loyalty, to the plutocracy that rules in all capitalist states, will never, ever, produce a President who will attack fossil fuels, the absolute bedrock of capitalist power, wealth and total political control.

        • BobbyL says:

          And the viable alternative is what?

          • Superman1 says:

            A third party, obviously. Think of all the benefits we got in 2000 from Nader and his boys, especially in Florida.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

            That’s where the system is fiendishly intransigent. I’d go Green, myself, as the least worst alternative, but delivering power to the Reptilicans is dire, which the Democrazies know. They assume that they have a captive constituency with nowhere else to go, hence their indistinguishability from the Reptilicans. You have to cut the Gordian knot, or you will just get another Obama.

          • BobbyL says:

            In theory the primary system should work to get candidates that reflect the views of the voters but often people decide to vote for the candidate who they think has the best chance to win in the general election rather than the candidate they really prefer. Therefore in the presidential election you almost always wind up with a Republican establishment candidate versus a Democrat establishment candidate. It seems regardless whether the party bosses or the voters choose the candidates you generally get the same type of candidates winning the primaries.

          • kermit says:

            Yes, Mulga. I had about decided to vote for our Green candidates until Romney ran. But I already regret voting for Obama a second time. I will not make that mistake again. If sufficient numbers of us had voted Green, then win or lose, perhaps the US Democratic party would be taking the climate emergency more seriously.

    • If you want a President who will address climate change, you can certainly count Hillary out. Her buddies at State (and those who were formerly at State and/or with her presidential campaign) were busy trying to slip the Keystone pipeline under the public’s radar — on her watch. Except for throwing a couple million bucks at the soot issue — which is like me giving a quarter to some guy on the street in NY and thinking I’m doing something about homelessness — she has done zilch for, and lots against the environment.

      Really, Christie, who got a close-up look at Hurricane Sandy’s devastation, would probably make a better climate-change president. However, his effectiveness would be limited by the fact that he’s a Republican — thought you really have to wonder why he is.

      In a recent interview, Al Gore, in a subtle way, gave the appearance that he might want to run again. If so, there’s your climate candidate.

  7. Raul M. says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding
    EMF shielding may be good for many people such as welders, cooks who srand in front of microwave ovens, etc.
    Emf seat covers for cars?
    Emf aprons for cooks?
    Etc.?

    • Ed Leaver says:

      Microwave already ovens have strict EMF containment. Aprons, seat-covers, etc are ineffective. EMF shielding pretty much has to be designed in. Google “Faraday Shield” or “Faraday Cage” for more on what’s involved. But let’s not get alarmed yet – a cell phone’s UHF transmission field is very different from any stray ELF field in a car.

  8. Tom L says:

    Good luck to everyone in harm’s way this weekend. Stay vigilant! Now I have to go pull a four foot rat snake out of our root cellar/storm shelter. They do wonders for rodent control but my wife would rather sit on the roof in an F5 than take shelter with him.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Try an eight foot brown snake who likes the rats that congregate around the chook-house. That can lead to some nasty surprises, and some regrettable sanitary accidents.

  9. Chris Winter says:

    In defense of the Washington Post, here’s the conclusion of this article about the current three so-called scandals:

    And then, of course, there are all the other problems Congress is ignoring, from high unemployment to sequestration to global warming. When future generations look back on the scandals of our age, it’ll be the unchecked rise in global temperatures, not the Benghazi talking points, that infuriate them.

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      I tuned into your NPR Newshour and saw all these pollies spouting such high falutin statements about “The American people deserve the facts” about the IRS, delivered with such gravitas, that I laughed mysself silly, ME

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        It’s a marvel how the ‘Free Press’ can concoct ‘scandals’ out of nothing, while ignoring inconvenient facts, like the fact that Petraeus’ paramour, Ms Broadwell, had let it slip that the Benghazi consulate was a secret CIA prison, with jihadist captives within at the time of the attack.

  10. prokaryotes says:

    “One does not play games, or take chances, when essentially the whole of civilization and humanity MAY be in peril.”
    http://climatestate.com/2013/05/03/false-climate-change-data-a-crime-against-humanity-ecocide/

    • Rabid Doomsayer says:

      All civilizations collapse as will ours. Unfortunately ours is now global, so the collapse will be global.

      The denial of so many problems is a worrying indicator that the collapse may not be far away. That people deny reality is not new, but that a major party of the worlds biggest super power denies reality so very obviously and still gets elected, worrying to say the least.

      Civilization is not at risk, civilization is already doomed. Mankind is now at risk. Never have we been less prepared and less resilient than we are now. We have never been further from the basic skills all will need to survive.

      The requirements for mitigation and the needs of preparation are two sides of the same coin.

      • Dave S. Nottear says:

        Never have we been less prepared and less resilient than we are now.

        You have good company with that opinion:

        ——–

        “Dr Bostrom says …

        “We’re at the level of infants in moral responsibility, but with the technological capability of adults,” he says…

        “There is a bottleneck in human history.

        The human condition is going to change. It could be that we end in a catastrophe or that we are transformed by taking much greater control over our biology.

        “It’s not science fiction, religious doctrine or a late-night conversation in the pub.”

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22002530

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      That ‘MAY’ is a bit weak, in my opinion. ‘Almost certainly is…’ seems more accurate, unfortunately.

  11. prokaryotes says:

    The XL Pipeline would act as an oil enema, releasing the impacted inventory, enriching the Gulf refineries.

    The result of opening the spigot through the XL Keystone will mean that US Midwest retail heating oil prices will skyrocket and gasoline in the region, as the crude drains away to other refineries, will rise an estimated 15 cents a gallon. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/koch-brothers-hugo-chavez-and-the-xl-pipeline

  12. PeterM says:

    The news hit me like debris from a global warming hurricane. According to scientists, the level of carbon dioxide, the biggest culprit in climate change, reached an atmospheric concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years. This milestone means that human efforts to curb climate change are falling short, and the potentially negative consequences of climate change are increasingly likely.

    How does this fearful news affect you? Does it motivate you to reduce your carbon footprint? Demand that your government rabidly pursue the reduction of carbon emissions? Set your hair on fire in solidarity with the earth? I hope this news motivates action, but as a social psychologist that studies persuasion, I know it may not.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/presence-mind/201305/blown-away-climate-change

    • Superman1 says:

      We’re on a steady path to extinction before the end of this century, with no visible roadblocks ahead. It’s a classic example of having won the battles (developing exotic technologies) and having lost the war (using those technologies responsibly). In answer to your question, I would expect zero action as a result of this milestone; there are no stakeholder groups of any consequence who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for survival.

  13. prokaryotes says:

    Amid growing scientific proof that global warming is man-made, we look at why the public gives credence to the sceptics. http://climatestate.com/2013/05/18/us-disconnect-over-climate-change/

    • Superman1 says:

      PK, This is an excellent video. At 7:50, makes the point that information deficit may not be main problem. At another point, Mann quotes Bush on ‘addiction to fossil fuels’.

  14. Will Fox says:

    Largest solar cell printer can make a new panel every two seconds

    http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2013/05/18.htm

  15. fj says:

    IBM’s ‘Building Whisperer’ on the future of smart buildings http://t.co/XaA0yKwpLc — GreenBiz (@GreenBiz)

  16. Lewis Cleverdon says:

    Joe – your policy of filtering out comments by deniers has the support of the readership – in that it allows coherent discussion of both climate science and of the options for mitigation, and avoids being stuck with the deniers agenda of “is it happening or isn’t it.”

    Having excluded the deniers, the discussions are now degraded by a troll energetically pushing defeatism, actively discouraging people from trying to generate action with highly persistent dishonest claims that the cause is hopeless.

    There is of course a stark difference between pushing defeatism and expressing doubt of a successful mitigation being achieved – the latter is open to rational discussion and persuasion of the real and effective options for mitigation that are available.

    There have been many calls for a shift to a war-footing on climate, including IIRC your own, and with that change comes the absolute rejection of defeatism, usually with the charge of “giving aid and succour to the enemy”. Given that the stakes in the climate predicament arguably outweigh those of any ordinary war, the ongoing tolerance of the site being abused as a platform for propagandas of defeatism seems anomalous.

    Perhaps you could explain the rationale for that tolerance to date ?

    Regards,

    Lewis

    • Superman1 says:

      One aspect of ‘Defeatism’ is advocating policies and proposals that can only lead to defeat. In the video offered by PK in #15, two of the speakers mention potential disasters from proposals such as you have made. Come up with a proposal that, at least on paper, will lead to victory, and you’ll have me as a supporter. But, don’t expect me to support another Little Big Horn.

      • Tom L says:

        Custer was a ‘defeatist’ by your definition.

        • Superman1 says:

          There are three general cases. One can propose a concept that, on paper at least, leads to victory. One can propose a concept that, on paper, can be shown to lead to defeat. One can propose a concept with sufficient uncertainties that victory or defeat, or anywhere in between, is indeterminate beforehand.

          • Superman1 says:

            One aspect of a Defeatist is to propose a concept that can be shown, on paper, to lead to defeat. In point of fact, most of the proposers here never even get to that stage; they usually propose some technological fix, and provide insufficient information for a reviewer to determine what the outcome would be relative to victory or defeat.

          • Superman1 says:

            That’s one reason I admire Kevin Anderson. He had the courage to place his proposals in the context of emissions trajectories that would not exceed a pre-defined ‘ceiling’. I see no one else doing that; obviously, they would not be able to meet the criteria. Lewis’ approach is to silence those who ask the hard questions, and proceed full speed ahead, like the Captain on the Titanic.

    • Brian R Smith says:

      Lewis. It’s a bit like trying to talk solutions with my neighbor who has an easement through my place and complains incessantly about the need for road repairs but never comes up with his share of the money to pay for them. Because I’m now dismissive of his rants he delights in accusing me of having no stomach for confrontation (!), revealing the unwanted necessity of trying to unravel underlying motives that have nothing to do with the question of what to do about the road but more with the smell of narcissism clinging to the hubris.

      CP’s Quisling in Residence still has an easement here, so one has to assume Joe sees some value in allowing it. So your question is a fair one. And no, he doesn’t write like an octogenarian.

      To Superman, for whom I coined the term “doomer” a few months ago: Why be content with ad hominem attacks and engaging in confrontation as your lead devise when you obviously have the passion and intellect for better, and must have noticed along the way that, to paraphrase, extraordinary claims of superior insight require extraordinary efforts to contribute solutions.

      “We’re on a steady path to extinction before the end of this century, with no visible roadblocks ahead.”, you say. And you believe this is news to this crowd? If you want the recognition you so transparently demand, you have to earn it by being very clear what solutions are in your playbook and seriously specific about the pathways to those solutions. That’s the hard part, illuminating the path. Either you’re in or you’re not.

      If you’re not thinking and talking about how exactly how to get from A to B, you are missing the point and missing the opportunity. Enough of grand pronouncements on the current reality. Surprise us. This is peer review. What’s your list of priorities for getting past the roadblocks? Or are you happy with doomer status and pushing people’s buttons? Seriously, what’s your plan? It’s time to have one.

      • Superman1 says:

        “Seriously, what’s your plan?” I have laid out the REQUIREMENTS as best I can many times; they are far more stringent than Kevin Anderson’s. I have also stated any plan I have devised will not be salable to the public because of its stringency, and any salable plans I have seen will not meet the requirements.

        • Superman1 says:

          If I can’t identify a plan that is both salable to the public and will meet the emission requirements, how can I be optimistic? If someone generates such a plan, I would be overjoyed to support it; so fat, I haven’t seen one.

          • Superman1 says:

            And stop referring to me as an octogenarian; I just passed my Diamond birthday; that’s bad enough!

          • Brian R Smith says:

            What’s salable to the public is a moving target depending on the efforts of progressives and disinformers and the outcomes. Though you seem to be saying there are no viable solutions, with or without the public so I’m not clear why you give them a determining status. My view is that educating the public is paramount and the responsibility & solemn obligation of climate leaders to take on. Maybe this is a point of agreement. ?

            Please link to wherever your REQUIREMENTS are to be found. All in one place would be helpful(and professional).

            My requirements are: absolutism is off the table; hubris is off the table; inaction in the face of terrible odds is not acceptable; generalizations about what’s to be done have to have to be supported by specific plans to implement before they can be rated as useful; if anyone thinks doing as much as possible is a fools errand even if we face disaster, it’s time to find another gig.

          • Andy Hultgren says:

            Brian R Smith: well said.

    • Joe Romm says:

      Let me think about it. The site is going to be completely redesigned this summer and that may change things.

      • catman306 says:

        Joe, please consider having a way for amateur supporters, like myself, ways to vote up or down various comments. Or perhaps a 5 point rating system that registered readers can use to rate each comment.

  17. prokaryotes says:

    In this speech from May 8, 2013, Senator Whitehouse rebuts the notion, recently expressed by one of his colleagues, that “God won’t allow us to ruin our planet.” http://climatestate.com/2013/05/19/time-to-wake-up-magical-thinking-on-climate-change/

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Good God. Don’t they realise that from any objective point of view, the poor old girl is already ‘ruined’. She’ll fix herself up, in a few millennia, but whether we are there to witness that miracle has nothing to do with patriarchal ego-projections in the sky.

  18. prokaryotes says:

    Methane Emissions Higher Than Thought Across Much of U.S. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515165021.htm

  19. prokaryotes says:

    Hansen Corrects BBC on “Climate Warming” http://climatestate.com/2013/05/19/hansen-corrects-bbc-on-climate-warming/

    Notice, the term “Climate Warming” resonates very well when messaging.

  20. PeterM says:

    Considering that the public remains largely disengaged about climate change. And that Obama seems unable or unwilling to do anything- all of us here continue to rave and rant- it does nothing bot provoke anger and dismay.

    YES we are likely going to be facing a hellish future – lasting the rest of this century and well into the next.

    Since it seems nothing will begin to be done about carbon emission for at least 2 decades- we all have to resign ourselves to C02 reaching 550-600ppm before anything is even started . By that time those viscous feedback’s will begin to kick in with a brutality that will leave the population of this country mesmerized to the point of delusional.

    By this point, the late 2020s and early 2030s the capitalist system will totter and fall- and all those who denied the science and its now apparent effects will be [snip]. Move on. Stop fretting- we are the voice of a few- The public as of now simply does not care.

    • Brian R Smith says:

      Your assessment: Obama is incapable of acting, nothing will happen in time, and the public doesn’t care. Your solution: stop fretting and wait for collapse? You may not have children, is all I can think of.

      • PeterM says:

        My assessment on this has nothing to do with if I have children. I have friends who have children and still believe there are ‘two sides’ to this issue. And when I try and ‘educate’ them- they tell me to be ‘quiet’.

        That being so-there will be nothing done until the climate becomes so unstable, the costs mounting begin to destroy the economy, and the increasing loss of life, and the shifting of agricultural belts might make the public begin to see we really have a problem- I do not see this for at least another 20 years-

        • Brian R Smith says:

          I hear you; we’re a long way from a public/voter epiphany on climate that would cause enough pressure at the top. So that’s the job. There is no getting around the necessity of dealing with disinformation, lack of clarity on the science, media failure and other fundamentals. Obama will not be doing this. It’s up to climate leaders to organize to take authoritative leadership. When this happens, if it happens, the public will finally become informed & empowered. It could happen a lot sooner than 20 years. We need it to happen before Nov. 2014.

  21. Frank Zaski says:

    Regarding the big and growing pile of petroleum coke on the shore of the Detroit River, we have an up close and personal example of what the Koch Brothers (Marathon, BP and Enbridge) do.

    Snips from: A Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste Is Rising Over Detroit

    And no one knows quite what to do about it, except Koch Carbon, which owns it.

    The company is controlled by Charles and David Koch, wealthy industrialists who back a number of conservative and libertarian causes including activist groups that challenge the science behind climate change.

    The company sells the high-sulfur, high-carbon waste, usually overseas, where it is burned as fuel.

    The coke comes from a refinery alongside the river owned by Marathon Petroleum,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/business/energy-environment/mountain-of-petroleum-coke-from-oil-sands-rises-in-detroit.html?_r=0

    • 6thextinction says:

      There has been a suggestion that the coke piles on the Detroit River would be a good spot for a local Michigan action as part of 350’s Summer Heat during the last two weeks of July.

  22. bedfordfalls says:

    I “opined away” as invited with a link to a friendly radio report; but that comment has disappeared – ? Is the public invited to comment here, or not?