Some Thoughts On Climate Change

in #politics3 years ago

A new IPCC report written and edited by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies says we're looking at climate catastrophe as early as 2040 unless changes are made worldwide on a scale and speed which has no historic precedent. $54 trillion worth of damage is predicted to result from the 1.5 degree Celsius rise in global average temperatures we're expected to be facing at that time if drastic changes are not made.

To be clear, when climate scientists talk about a 1.5 degree hike in global average temperatures, they are not saying that days will tend to be around 1.5 degrees warmer, which doesn't sound bad at all. What they are saying is that there will be drastic heat spikes which elevate the overall average by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) around the globe. This means moving into a world which sees sea levels rising and destroying coastal and island civilizations, it means mass famine due to destruction of crops from heat spikes in summer months, freezes in the winter and other extreme weather events, it means potential worldwide violence and predation as livable regions and resources become scarce on a rapidly changing planet.

This is coming off the back of the Trump administration's seamless shift from claiming climate change is a Chinese hoax to saying it's very real and very bad but there's nothing that can be done about it. In a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Trump's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that a temporary freeze in fuel efficiency requirements for cars won't be that big of a deal in terms of environmental impact because we're headed toward a four degree Celsius increase in global average temperatures by the end of the century and avoiding that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

This also follows a recent report about the frightening phenomenon of positive feedback loops, warming effects which make themselves worse, which climate science has been reluctant to examine closely and as a group until recently. An example of a positive feedback loop would be the release of methane trapped in thawing Siberian permafrost, which exacerbates warming because methane is a potent and fast-acting greenhouse gas, which then causes more thawing and the release of more methane. After examining just a few of these feedback loops (there are dozens), the paper concluded that it may be possible for the earth to hit a "hothouse" point of accelerated warming from which there can be no coming back, regardless of changes made in human industry or behavior.

Alarming new reports like these are pouring out constantly, and, contrary to the narrative promulgated by climate change deniers, they don't generally get that much attention in the mainstream media. The British analysis website Media Lens just reported that the IPCC study was on the front of the BBC website for just a few hours before getting buried, despite its cataclysmic implications for our species. It's much easier to get a reader interested in high-profile boogie men like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump than it is to get them to look at data suggesting that they are staring down the barrel of an actual armageddon event in their lifetime, and the establishment powers which the corporate media serve have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. You are far more likely to see a news story about a celebrity or a politician when you switch on CNN than you are to see a report about the most important and pressing subject of our time.

This essay is guaranteed to get a lot of pushback from many of the conspiracy buffs who follow me, because they, unlike the Trump administration, still subscribe to the right-wing belief that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax being used by globalist elites to seize control of the world. And you know what? I get it. I will say that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that powerful plutocrats would be interested in using the concept of climate change to lock down control of human behavior and the world economy, and I will take it a step further and say it is a virtual certainty that there are plutocrats and their lackeys currently doing exactly that. When you're talking about a shift in industry and energy worth tens of trillions of dollars and the potential to degrade national sovereignty with global regulations, you may be absolutely certain that there are extremely powerful people scheming to exploit it. Of course they are.

But that doesn't mean it isn't real. The science showing the warming effect of man’s carbon-releasing industrial activities was discovered in 1896 by a man named Svante Arrhenius. Nobody accused him of being a pawn in a globalist conspiracy; the scientific world simply noted his discovery with an “Oh cool yeah, that makes sense.” One of his colleagues even suggested setting fire to unused coal seams in order to increase global temperature, because back then milder winters sounded like a nice idea. It wasn’t until this line of scientific inquiry became threatening to the fossil fuel industry that it turned into a radically politicized debate propelled by Koch-funded research teams and Fox News.

I've been watching climate deniers for a long time. They used to deny climate change altogether, then sometime around the turn of the century they started admitting that yes, we are seeing a warming trend, but that doesn't mean it's caused by human behavior. Now I'm starting to see them admitting that yes, the earth is warming, and yes, it probably is anthropogenic, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily be a bad thing. That's the dumbest one yet, in my opinion. In response to the latest IPCC report I've seen a flood of comments saying "Yeah, yeah, you guys have been predicting an approaching climate disaster for decades," despite the fact that the new report concludes that climate catastrophe appears to be approaching far faster than most had predicted.

I used to involve myself in the climate change debate very extensively, and I've yet to encounter an argument against it that couldn't be thoroughly debunked with a little research. It's one of those things like Russiagate or QAnon which has a lot of emotional appeal but doesn't hold up well to critical thinking. It seems clear to me from all the goalpost-shifting and strawman arguments that the primary impulse behind climate denial is distrust of authority (which is always a good idea) and a basic desire to avoid the psychological discomfort of grappling with the reality that in a few short decades humanity could be extinct (which is just garden variety cowardice).

It's always seemed so weird to me that conspiracy enthusiasts can understand nuance in so many other fields, but not this one. They generally understand that a false flag isn't necessarily a completely manufactured event from top to bottom and can in fact be as simple as allowing someone to make an attack they'd been planning. They can grasp complex financial arrangements and understand that alliances and power structures don't always move in the way your view of the world would predict, but the idea that anthropogenic climate change can be real at the same time as the existence of oligarchic plans to exploit it is something that rarely seems to occur to people.

Billions of large mammals digging up fuel sources from the earth and pouring their exhaust into the air for decades will necessarily change the environment. Of course it will. This should be obvious to everyone. Powerful manipulators who work constantly to control as much of the world as possible will necessarily try to make sure they grab up as much power as possible in a historically unprecedented global shift in energy and industry. Of course they will. This too should be obvious to everyone. Both are true. Both need to be dealt with. The fact that we are ruled by depraved oligarchs doesn't mean we shouldn't fight climate change, it means we should overthrow the oligarchs so that they don't find a way to herd us into a globalist Orwellian dystopia as they shore up power in the fight against climate change.

In fact, if seen in the right light, if you take both into account, you will see this is also a huge opportunity to spot the machinations of the plutocracy as it shuffles everything into place, and in the chaos, for the people to seize back control. The smooth running machine of the oligarchy will necessarily have to change shape to take advantage of the new industries and to keep in control. That's a tricky dance and one they haven't been planning for that long, so there will be many openings where the people can seep in like water and gum up the gears.

In order to do this, we must have as complete a roadmap as possible, and that means letting go of loyalties to partisan theories and taking a step back and engaging with all the data as it is. It can be done. It must be done. Our lives depend on it.

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal,buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


I feel like this post is in direct response to the thread I was arguing on yesterday.

yeah, "arguing" or another amount of hot air
also related:

and those who are wondering about Trump,
predicted by James Corbett 2017:
"So the US is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement not because [...]
And the Trump Administration is going to immediately begin negotiations to reenter the agreement?"

don't bother trying getting into a comment back and forth
that would have been possible before HF20.

I will gladly delegate you RCs when that becomes possible.

I'm not a climate change denier. That's a smear of the alternative position, and it's inaccurate. I'm a climate change non-alarmist. Climate change alarmism is a tool of control, and that's all it is.

At no point inhistory has the climate not been in a state of flux. Several factors influence that, including solar activity. About 3% of co2 in the lower atmosphere can be attributed to humans, and certainly it's possible that we're contributing to climate change. It's not valid to claim that we're the primary drivers of it. That's ridiculous. Volcanic activity, forest fires, solar activity, and orbital shifts all contribute just as much if not more. Furthermore, even with the recent spike in co2, levels are actually far lower than they have been for the majority of Earth's history.

But even if we assume that man is the primary cause of global warming, I'm still not willing to give the government any power to act on that assumption. Frankly, I don't trust the researchers, because their grants come people who are interested in control. I certainly don't trust any mainstream publications to accurately represent information relevant to this issue - for the same reason - that their money comes from foundations serving the interests of the power hungry. Finally, the free market is already moving towards more carbon neutral solutions anyway, without the tyranny of carbon taxes that literally amount to taxing people for breathing.

And here's another thing: if the rich and powerful were so concerned about global warming, why are banks they own still funding coastal real estate development? Why are LA, NY, DC, San Francisco and London still their main bases of operations? They're liars. They pay people to lie. It doesn't matter what a con man says. You have to ignore anything pretending to be "evidence" that has been tainted by their support and consider only evidence that is free of their manipulation and lucre.

Ice caps have stopped shrinking and are growing again. Although poorly reported on, scientists are now observing a "global warming hiatus." Even global warming alarmists only claim that ocean levels are rising 1/8" per year. Even IF we assume that that's true, AND that man is 100% responsible, AND that co2 will continue to increase at current rates (which it won't - technology is reducing that, and we will eventually reach peak consumption as the developing world reaches peak consumption and then begins to decline due to technological advancement), then, AT MOST, sea levels will rise a foot over the next century. Sea levels will not rise a foot over the next century. The assumptions that are required to produce that estimate are completely implausible. But even if it were true, it's hysterical to suggest that that means that islands will disappear en masse, and millions of people will be displaced. It's just silly.

Posted using Partiko Android

"...if the rich and powerful were so concerned about global warming, why are banks they own still funding coastal real estate development?"

Because their greed, already blinding them to the feelings of other people (like wanting to stay alive), also makes them very stupid as to climate change. Besides they sell their investments and get out as soon as they can turn a big profit. And with people trying to soothe everyone on this issue they can keep on selling their projects to misinformed people. "Soothe" Remind you of anyone?

It takes 30 years to get your money back on mortgage loans. If the land is underwater, you take a loss. You don't make huge intergenerational fortunes by making shortsided decisions. They aren't concerned about global warming. They're interested in using cap and trade to control people and tax them.

Posted using Partiko Android

Must be nice to live, like an ostrich, with your head so firmly implanted in the sand. I don't know whether your claim of glaciers gaining ice (suggesting global warming is reversing) comes from your alternate media's lies or your own fantasies. What I find most interesting is that your entire world view begins and ends with the belief that every crisis you can't see or feel for yourself is being used by the "one world order" to take our freedoms away. Yet you no doubt vote for candidates who are taking all of our freedoms away in other ways and turning them over to the corporations. This is what Republicans do, and they are the ones most likely to be climate change deniers. Not that Democrats are much better. They believe climate change is real but do next to nothing about it.

What you miss is that one can be both a believer in the scientific facts showing that we are facing a climate crisis that threatens to extinct the human race, while at the same time be wary of efforts by those in power to use the crisis for their own benefit, to profit off of us or take away our freedoms. What that does not preclude is using our government to create policies and incentives that move us rapidly off of fossil fuels and onto alternative energy. Think of it as a Manhattan Project for alternative energy. And it can certainly be done in a way that avoids scary government controls like the carbon tax, etc.

Now for the facts (not posting for you as your kind is ineducable, but for others with open minds):
Earth’s Ice Loss “Is a Nuclear Explosion of Geologic Change”
By Dahr Jamail
Published October 9, 2018

Much of the frozen water portion of the Earth, otherwise known as the cryosphere, is melting.

This is not news: It’s been happening for decades. What is news is that the long-term melting trends in the Arctic, Antarctica, and with most land-based glaciers are accelerating, often at shocking rates, largely due to human-caused climate change.

Antarctica is melting three times as fast as it was just 10 years ago, alarming scientists. A study earlier this year showed 3 trillion tons of ice had disappeared since 1992. That is the equivalent of enough water to cover the entire state of Texas with 13 feet of water, and raise global sea levels a third of an inch.

“From 1992 to 2011, Antarctica lost nearly 84 billion tons of ice a year (76 billion metric tons),” read the AP story on the study. “From 2012 to 2017, the melt rate increased to more than 241 billion tons a year (219 billion metric tons).”

“I think we should be worried,” one of the study’s 88 co-authors, University of California, Irvine’s Isabella Velicogna, told AP. “Things are happening. They are happening faster than we expected.”

In fact, the polar ice caps have melted faster in the last 25 years than they have in the last 10,000 years.

In the Arctic, the Greenland Ice Sheet is losing an average of 270 billion tons of ice each year, and the strongest sea ice in the region broke up for the first time on record this summer.

Over the last two days, James Corbett has put out two really good videos about 'climate change.' I think you should watch them. While you're at it, check out his documentaries How big oil conquered the world and Why big oil conquered the world.

I used to believe in climate change, then did a good amount of research and have found some interesting things. You have a big voice and I feel it's best to be as educated about things as much as you can.

This post was upvoted by @steemybot, Send at least 0.01 STEEM or SBD and get an upvote. Join my discord server for free weighted upvoting for each post, just put the command !upvote before the web address of the post and you will get a free upvote within 2 mins.

@steemybot our mission is to support high quality posts which will raise the value of the STEEM Blockchain.

Trump reversed his position on climate change? Apparently, he's not afraid to change his mind if the evidence warrants it. Got to give him a lot of credit for that.

My take on things, pretty much agrees with your essay, Caitlin, but with an interesting twist. Yes, I think scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the position that climate change is dire and accelerating due to many positive feedback processes. And yes, I believe the globalists are desperately pushing a world-wide hegemonic agenda.

However, I think that though the globalists are psychopathic control-freaks, they also know all about the threat of climate change and want to save their skins as much as anyone.

IMO, the globalists want to establish a NWO one-world government (Agenda 21/30) because that's the only way the world will be able to organize and marshal it's resources in a cohesive monumental effort to save humankind from the existential threat of climate change.

So, humankind is faced with two choices: Agenda 21/30 or near-term human extinction - pick your poison. The problem is the climate is warming faster than previously predicted by climate scientists. So, the timeline for implementing Agenda 21/30 is probably FUBAR and it's no longer a viable option. Isn't that a sobering thought.

Many native peoples have foretold this time. The rise of the black snake.

We know there is a better way, and the fact that alt-right aka Nazis, cannot wrap their mind around the need for global direct action is mind boggling.

Don't get me wrong, the neoliberal left is just as ass backwards in their rampant support of consumerism and endless war.

Neither party actually gives two ships about the people, and science is severely limited by FUNDING $treams. This has created a modern dark ages where acid rains cause crops to fail and agribusiness buys and sells legislators like dime bags of coke.

Only radical change can prevent the seas from boiling. But that's none of my business?