The conscious vs the unconscious:
WASHINGTONâ€”According to a report released this week by the Center for Global Development, climate change, the popular mid-2000s issue that raised awareness of the fact that the earth’s continuous rise in temperature will have catastrophic ecological effects, has apparently not been resolved, and may still be a problem.
“Global warming, if you remember correctly, was the single greatest problem of our lifetime back in 2007 and the early part of 2008,” CGD president Nancy Birdsall said.
“But then the debates over Social Security reform and the World Trade Center mosque came up, and the government had to shift its focus away from the dramatic rise in sea levels, the rapid spread of deadly infectious diseases, and the imminent destruction of our entire planet.”
“Climate change is real, and we are killing our planet more every day,” said climatologist Helen Marcus, who has made similar statements in interviews in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
“We need to make a serious effort to stop it, or, you know, we’ll all die.
There really isn’t much else to say.”
–Â The Onion
Hahahaha, funny, huh? Not!
Climate change denial is beyond understanding, as all any dumb-ass has to do is look out the window — earth’s environment is in an accelerating break-down and yet there’s really no defense.
Even as the crazed Mississippi River continues its unprecedented roar to the Gulf: “It is very difficult to grasp the idea of the possibility of our communities flooding,” said Mary Beth Hanks, who has a home in New Roads and a fishing camp in Batchelor, Louisiana. “What would we do? Where do we go?”
The problems might be too far along, the remedies not enough to counter the sweeping, quickly-enhancing changes in the earth’s climate to do anything constructive — we hope not.
Despite a recent report from National Academy of Sciences that all these “extreme events” in our weather is due to climate change: This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun.”
Yet, there’s a few assholes that will deny anything.
The two biggest assholes (from the Skeptical Science link above):
Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX): â€œI see nothing substantive in this report that adds to the knowledge base necessary to make an informed decision about what steps â€” if any â€” should be taken to address climate changeâ€
And Senator James Inhofe (R-OK): “What is clear and irrefutable is that the [academy’s] proposals to address climate change would impose massive costs without meaningful benefits.”
In the near future, any living kin of these two shitheads are gonna hate their living/or dead guts.
Barton was one of those clowns who commissioned a 2006 report which was to give credibility to climate change denial, but now that same report has come under fire itself for denying the truth.
From Climate Progress:
A cornerstone of the disinformerâ€™s ultimately self-destructive attack on climate science is a 2006 report, commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, who is now himself under investigation by GMU (see Experts find â€œshockingâ€ plagiarism in 2006 climate report).
You can find all the details you could want about the shoddy analysis of the report at Deep Climate â€” including his â€œmethodical demolishing of any hint of statisticsâ€ in the report, as John Mashey puts it in the comments.
The deniers have been denied.
Even the very foundation of our planet, the earth, rock and stone has been changed by man’s greedy, consuming footprint.
From AFP (via Raw Story):
Will homo sapiens, in other words, define a geological period in the way dinosaurs — and their vanishing act — helped mark the Jurassic and the Cretaceous?
A growing number of scientists, some gathered at a one-day symposium this week at the British Geological Society in London, say “yes”.
One among them, chemistry Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, has even suggested a new name: the Anthropocene.
Whether this “age of man” will be short or long is unknown, says Crutzen, who shared his Nobel for unmasking the man-made chemicals eating away at the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer.
“We broke it, we bought it, we own it,” is how Erle Ellis, a professor of geography and ecology at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, put it.
“We don’t know what is going to happen in the Anthropocene — it could be good, even better,” he said. “But we need to think differently and globally, to take ownership of the planet.”
By one key measure, at least, we already have: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere — measured in parts per million — remained in a narrow range of 260 to 285 for nearly 12,000 years.
Today is stands at 390 ppm, and is sure to rise considerably higher in coming decades.
If the hugely complex web of chemical and biological interactions that sustains most life does tip seriously out of kilter, the planet will find a new equilibrium, as it has in the past.
Earth, in other words, will do fine. Humans, on the other hand, may find the transition more than difficult.
“It is a planet that will be much warmer, much stormier, much less biodiverse,” said Steffen (Will Steffen, head of Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute).
“We will need to be very resilient as a species.”
And then there’s so-called hockey stick — see it and weep as one can see that “narrow range” mentioned above until mankind became too big for its coal-burning, oil-sucking britches.
Ha, ha, ha — aaaaaah!