Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 06:47am PT
|
The Rude Pundit gets it...
Climate March: If All the Trees Fell in the Forest...
So 310,000 or so people marched in New York City yesterday, calling for action of some kind to address climate change. It was an officially sanctioned, widely-advertised, well-funded protest. To all who participated, awesome. If you've never been to a giant march before, it's bracing in a way that few things are. You are surrounded by people who believe the same as you, you learn that you are not alone, and you discover a few new things, like how to argue your views and that, however radical you thought you were, drum circles are f%%king idiotic and put the f%%kin' things away already. Tolerance only goes so far, and someone's gonna end up with a giant puppet up his ass.
Of course, the people who were there felt amazing about it. How could you not? And, of course, it was barely covered by the news networks. Maybe if a dozen f&&knuts wearing colonial drag and open-carrying machine guns while riding on their Rascal scooters had been part of it, it would have been 24/7, motherf%%kers, 24/7, with a gddamned countdown clock leading up to it. The most extensive coverage was from Al-Jazeera America, The Guardian, and Democracy Now, and two of those aren't even from this country originally.
The Rude Pundit will admit feeling more than a little cynical about the march. If it's the start of some sustained action, groovy. Certainly, today's "Flood Wall Street" protest and semi-occupation are a good deal more radical but those are still getting all the attention of a flea fart in a hurricane.
And that's because why bother, huh? Especially when the march is endorsed by, for example, the Climate Group, which counts as its members Duke Energy, known for coal ash and pollution, and, for everyone flooding Wall Street right now, Goldman Sachs. Yes, it does do some good for the environment, but it does so with the tacit approval of those it should be dismantling. It's like if Batman asked the Joker if it's ok if he takes down Mr. Freeze.
The other problem is that, for the most part, Americans fall into two camps: Don't give a fat monkey f**k about climate change or don't understand it, don't believe it, and won't lift a f##king finger to help. Change a chunk of minds there and we've got a chance. The Rude Pundit couldn't help but think that if everyone who spent money on signs and plane and bus tickets and more had pooled that for ads in congressional campaigns across the country, the effect might have been even greater.
You wanna do something about climate change other than take a nice walk on a pretty nice, if a bit humid, day? You better make sure that the House turns Democratic and then you better make sure that the Senate doesn't have more than 40 dumbf*#ks on global warming. If you don't vote climate denialists out, then f%%k it, we're done here.
To go further, frankly, Chris Hedges is right when he said, as he did in August, "Play by the rules and we lose." Or as he said this past Saturday, "We will have to speak in the language of ... revolution. We will have to carry out acts of civil disobedience that seek to cripple the mechanisms of corporate power. The corporate elites, blinded by their lust for profit and foolish enough to believe they can protect themselves from climate change, will not veer from our path towards ecocide unless they are forced from power. And this means the beginning of a titanic clash between our corporate masters and ourselves."
But even that is dreaming. Right now, the corporate/government state is so entrenched in silencing real dissent, real revolutionary voices, that anyone who tried genuine radical action would immediately be punished. And everyone else will get so distracted when the iPhone 7, 8, 9, infinity comes out that they won't notice that they are wading through water or walking in deserts that used to be our cities to get to the Apple store first.
Frankly, the bigger news might be that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund plans to divest itself of anything fossil fuel-related, to the tune of $50 billion. That's real money, even by oil company standards, and it might be a sign that the way to attack the climate change problem is, as ever, to follow the (heaps of) money.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2014 - 08:12am PT
|
Wow....
2014 GLOBAL INVESTOR STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
This statement is signed by 347 investors representing more than US $24 trillion in assets.
We, the institutional investors that are signatories to this Statement, are acutely aware of the risks climate change presents to our investments. In addition, we recognize that significant capital will be needed to finance the transition to a low carbon economy and to enable society to adapt to the physical impacts of climate change.
...
Thanks Mal for posting that up.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 11:12am PT
|
For the record Brucie I must correct a few illusions on your part.On the stephanie lane remo of a year ago I had Ron doing general labor. The old plumbing was in the exterior walls, we removed all of that in demo and had the licensed plumber run all new supply and waste, all within the envelope and none in exterior walls other than venting.I've never left town and enjoy a fine professional reputation in Alaska and to the lesser extent of work performed, in nevada. Intuition is a complete bullshet interpretation by you, who is too biased by socialist utopian ideals to dispassionately examine the evidence. Your severe alchoholism, although an impediment to you being able to grace these pages with the little potential remaing within you, is your personal problem. Our problem is your constant insertion here with repetitive psycho babble as delusional as your utopian ideals. As obnoxious as you are, you are still not as far gone as fortmental and his various additional avatars, all jerking off over multiple computer screens on the company dime.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
|
Are you going to provide the years for your 47% (or maybe 49%) Arctic sea ice loss claim?
Yes, as soon as you answer my question about relevance of the graphs you posted (I asked it about a week or 9 days ago, you never did directly answer the question).
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
|
Jon Stewart's ice demonstration, linked by Mono above, is priceless.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 03:00pm PT
|
You've got to be retarded to watch John Stewart.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 03:43pm PT
|
You've got to be retarded to watch John Stewart.
yes, millions of Americans watch his show
therefore, they are retarded
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 03:44pm PT
|
C'mon, far-right extremists, watch the Stewart vid and have a little fun...ya'all are always so dreary.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 03:47pm PT
|
You've got to be retarded to watch John Stewart.
Thanks for the expose. I now know exactly who you are and what you stand for.
:(
I haven't followed the thread or the recent context. But J Stewart a couple nights ago, pointing out the problems regarding the Congressional Committee on Science and Technology (what a joke), was... PERFECT!!!
Or was it last night?
At my age, all time melds together into one mass.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 03:53pm PT
|
"He's that good"
Laughing Hardly.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
|
And a lot more millions watch the O'Reilly Factor or the Dr. Phil Show or The Oprah Show or... Norton.. thus they too are NOT retarded according to your philosophy
you are wrong, chief
you missed both the irony and sarcasm
good try though.....
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2014 - 04:17pm PT
|
If you're referring to those graphs from last week, they support the no warming position.
OK, I suppose that is an answer. But you fail in explaining how they "support the no warming position."
I've also explained how your effort to invalidate my trendline was BS.
Did you really? Got a link?
Your theory of what the graphs represent seems to have been thoroughly debunked. In fact, you still say that they "support the no warming position." Can you explain how they do that? So far, you've been mimicing a car company, Dodge, Dodge, Dodge.
When you begin to answer my questions about your posts, I'll begin to answer yours about my posts.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 04:55pm PT
|
How about a link to The Cowtan & Way Index you mentioned the other day?
How about you look it up yourself? It's now updated through July 2014 but is kept in a secret location where only people with an Al Gore decoder ring, or a brain of their own, can find it.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 05:14pm PT
|
Surely you wouldn't dream of cherry-picking that article from climate.gov
It says
1) surface temperatures paused due to natural limited variations
2) rate of GHG emissions has not slowed
3) rising GHGs mean More warming
4) the excess heat imbalance has continued
5) the excess heat has mainly gone into the oceans.
6) that heat can not just continue to "hide" in the depths.
7) other indications of warmoing have continued: rising sea level + melting ice.
It's just that simple. Even Leo and Al can understand the basics.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2014 - 05:27pm PT
|
I answered your question.
Actually, I don't believe you did.
But, if a vague answer is good enough for you, then you should be happy with the answer that I already gave to your question.
So, if you want more details, then offer details to my question--how is your graphs relevant? You say they support the no warming scenario, can you be more expressive? I don't see how they do.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
|
And what part of "Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero. " did you not understand, SPLATER!
Actually, the rest of the paragraph reads like this:
Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero. Yet despite the halt in acceleration, each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.
Why did you cut off the end of the paragraph, The Chief?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!