Not to be a doomsayer, but what happens if a PETM happens in line with our burning of fossil fuels? Then we are done for. Population reduction, the end of war, and figuing out how to live lightly on this finite planet of ours is necessary. In the long term, if we do survive for millennia we will need to figure out how to terraform or at least how to produce land, water and sunshine in the confines of deep space.
6
I tire of the pleas to think about future generations. When it comes to the environment - the earth - my actions and concerns are not informed by what impact they will have on future generations. In a way, I don't care about future generations. That said, I care about the here and now and the much shorter term: what impact will my actions have for today, next week, next year. And if there's any hope to replace our strident, religion (read: mythology) driven ideologies with enlightened adults who will stop amoral corporations from committing environmental suicide in the name of profits. Let's take care of our world now and the future will fall into place.
10
The usual estimate of the lifetime of atmospheric carbon dioxide is several hundred or a thousand years, not tens of thousands as asserted here. It is captured by photosynthesis and buried in humus (the organic component of soil) or dissolves in the ocean.
The lifetime of the secondary greenhouse gas, methane, is a few decades. It is photochemically oxidized to carbon dioxide and water vapor.
The climate is warming, but change is not necessarily or automatically bad.
The lifetime of the secondary greenhouse gas, methane, is a few decades. It is photochemically oxidized to carbon dioxide and water vapor.
The climate is warming, but change is not necessarily or automatically bad.
6
Like nearly all scientists and other advocates of the global warning construct, the professor fails to reference the single largest consumers of fossil products and the single largest emitters of carbon: the world's militaries. They are also exempt from climate agreements. One may cheer lead for electric cars, turning off light bulbs and lowering one's "carbon footprint" but the military and its suppliers are laughing with a most pungent, contemptuous roar at civilian environmental sentiment. Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is otherwise perhaps the most coherent analyst of this larger issue and thinks constructively about the investment demands. Last, the author-professor here, as nearly all others, also tends to focus only on burning fossil products; but a very large percentage is used in manufacturing, from housing materials, to road construction, to pharmaceuticals to cosmetics. Cheers.
11
If we want to implement what is scientifically true and do what is morally right we have to start thinking of developing a low-carbon, climate-resilient global governance system. Such integrative, value-based vision is presently lacking, though much reformist, though morally superficial, thinking and action in economics, banking, finances and commerce is taking place. Needed therefore is transformational, morally robust thinking to bring such integrative vision into focus and fruition.
One such system has been proposed by Dutch-born sustainability sociologist Verhagen with his background in divinity and international affairs in his 2012 book “The Tierra Solution: Resolving climate change through monetary transformation” with its value framework of contextual sustainability. In it he proposes the transformations in the banking, financial, economic and commercial systems that are needed for the emergence of a transformative carbon-based international monetary system that as glue binds them together and in unique way integrates the challenges of climate and development and their financing needs. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and social dimensions of these transformations, particularly the monetary one, are discussed and updated at www.timun.net.
One such system has been proposed by Dutch-born sustainability sociologist Verhagen with his background in divinity and international affairs in his 2012 book “The Tierra Solution: Resolving climate change through monetary transformation” with its value framework of contextual sustainability. In it he proposes the transformations in the banking, financial, economic and commercial systems that are needed for the emergence of a transformative carbon-based international monetary system that as glue binds them together and in unique way integrates the challenges of climate and development and their financing needs. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and social dimensions of these transformations, particularly the monetary one, are discussed and updated at www.timun.net.
7
In Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, written in the latter part of the 1700s, he briefly talks about what we now call climate change--the warming of the earth over the centuries of human exploitation. He talks about the destruction of the vast European forests, mentions the then present vast forests in North America and South America, and attributes the warming climate of his day to the loss of forests.
Even more than the burning of fossil fuels, it seems to me that the ongoing deforestation of the planet in the past two millennia should be part of the discussion and the remedy for what ails our planet.
Even more than the burning of fossil fuels, it seems to me that the ongoing deforestation of the planet in the past two millennia should be part of the discussion and the remedy for what ails our planet.
53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L19JBY0kNmo
Remember these two things: METHANE and "The hotter it gets, the faster it gets hotter."
Paris is meaningless and those in-the-know know it.
Remember these two things: METHANE and "The hotter it gets, the faster it gets hotter."
Paris is meaningless and those in-the-know know it.
3
Climate on Earth is driven by the Sun. CO2 as a driver of climate is a crazy theory with no basis in reality. There were times when CO2 was 10 times what it is today and the Earth was very cold. 10,000 years ago Ice sheets extended down to New York and were 1 mile deep. CO2 is less than 2% of the atmosphere and we contribute only a very small part of this percent. For over 100 years the NY Times has alternated between claiming we are entering and Ice Age and we are causing global warming. the chart below clearly shows this.
http://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/d6/1895_cvr1_0.png
For the NY Times to publish these pieces is beyond ridiculousness. See Amy's Vegan post below to see how non-scientists react to these articles. From 1645-1715 the world entered the little ice age because of low Sun activity. About 175 years ago we entered another low Sun activity stage. This will happen again. To say that mankind is responsible for climate on Earth is the most crazy theory ever embraced by out elite.
http://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/d6/1895_cvr1_0.png
For the NY Times to publish these pieces is beyond ridiculousness. See Amy's Vegan post below to see how non-scientists react to these articles. From 1645-1715 the world entered the little ice age because of low Sun activity. About 175 years ago we entered another low Sun activity stage. This will happen again. To say that mankind is responsible for climate on Earth is the most crazy theory ever embraced by out elite.
12
Most of the comments here -- rightly -- agree that we have a problem. Yet, many of the commentariat here, judging by past responses, will see no place for 4th generation nuclear or thorium power as being the clean, 24/7 solution. (The author himself refers to "clean, renewable" not just "renewable" energy).
People betting on solar and wind -- the only two viable forms of renewable energy today -- completely ignore four elephants in the room that will result in all sorts of unintended consequences if either is adopted in the scale that will be required to move the needle given the globe's energy needs: the utterly filthy and polluting production process that gives us solar panels and wind turbines, the utterly filthy, expensive and polluting storage technologies that will be needed to make solar and wind a 24/7 source of energy, their massive land use implications, and the need for massive large new grids if we want to create utility-scale wind and solar, i.e., install it in places where the sun shines and the wind blows in abundance, and bring it to places where the energy is needed.
People betting on solar and wind -- the only two viable forms of renewable energy today -- completely ignore four elephants in the room that will result in all sorts of unintended consequences if either is adopted in the scale that will be required to move the needle given the globe's energy needs: the utterly filthy and polluting production process that gives us solar panels and wind turbines, the utterly filthy, expensive and polluting storage technologies that will be needed to make solar and wind a 24/7 source of energy, their massive land use implications, and the need for massive large new grids if we want to create utility-scale wind and solar, i.e., install it in places where the sun shines and the wind blows in abundance, and bring it to places where the energy is needed.
10
Curt, well done! It's a nice concise and clear summary, particularly for those who have yet to read your book. Great that the NYT published this.
Richard
Richard
15
A poem about a post-human environment: https://www.reverbnation.com/rantcaster/song/24510978-the-elephant-is-wa...
Since the Earth wobbles and whirls around the Sun subject in a gravitational dance with the Moon climate has been changing on the planet on a regular basis for billions of years. Those organisms that can adapt to changing ecology by DNA genetic biological evolutionary natural fit selection survive and thrive. Most become e extinct. The most devastating far reaching mass extinction event occured 250 miluon years ago during the Persian Triassic transition period and like the most recent event recounted here had nothing to do with human activity. The nature and extent of any human agency pales in comparison to natural physical, chemical and biological forces. Chemosynthesis and photosynthesis by living things had and has enormous impact on climate. The relative climate impact for good and evil of humans is not clear. Climate is dynamic and complicated.
8
Your comment that the impact of climate change is not clear is like arguing from the back seat that the Toyota Corolla we are driving in around curvaceous mountain cliffs should not have to slow down below 90 MPH because the precise impact of any crash is unknown. After all major trauma to the human body is "dynamic and complicated".
14
Earth is currently in a 5,400-year-long cooling phase; if humans had not produced atmospheric CO2, Earth could still be cooling. Under the "business as usual" projection, the world's oceans will not be able to sequester atmospheric CO2 fast enough to move that carbon to the ocean floors. That means ocean acidification is a much worse threat to life (human and all else) than greater temperatures, bigger storms, longer droughts, and other extreme weather events. Seems like a bloody stupid way for humanity to die.
28
Curt should consider turning this piece into a movie. It has all the authenticity of the latest Star Wars episode.
9
Beyond silly. Who knows what will happen 100 years from now, or 1000 or 10,000 or 50,000?
This article clearly shows that belief in global warming is simply that -- a belief system, and a very strident one. Do we read writers from other disciplines describing what the future will be like? Rarely, if ever.
This article clearly shows that belief in global warming is simply that -- a belief system, and a very strident one. Do we read writers from other disciplines describing what the future will be like? Rarely, if ever.
21
Perhaps the precise details will be incorrect, but we can say in 50K years that the Earth will still revolve around the sun, and we would *like* things to be the same as they are now in terms of climate cycles. What the AGW hypothesis does is challenge that and state that there will be perturbations to the cycles of the planet and that based on the past, we can reasonably say what will happen in the future. Nothing is set in stone, but it's far more reasonable than the assumption that the cycles will remain unchanged.
A lot of other disciplines talk about the future effects. Physical "laws" are all based on the assumption that the laws will continue to hold in perpetuity. Evolutionary biologists make statements and assumptions about the future as much as about the past. Economic forecasts are also about the future. A lot of human endeavour is looking at the short term future and some are about examining our long term futures.
A lot of other disciplines talk about the future effects. Physical "laws" are all based on the assumption that the laws will continue to hold in perpetuity. Evolutionary biologists make statements and assumptions about the future as much as about the past. Economic forecasts are also about the future. A lot of human endeavour is looking at the short term future and some are about examining our long term futures.
12
I guess I interpreted the article differently. The author is using historical geology to describe what a warmer planet would be like. It has been warmer in the distant past, so I believe learning from that fact is critical.
37
He's reciting known temperatures and CO2 levels pulled from ice cores, and the corresponding effects on animals and plants depicted in the fossil record....
If you compare this geological science to physics, we predict what will happen in the future all the time. Due to gravity, we can project where planets will be in their orbits thousands of years into the future. That's how science works.
If you compare this geological science to physics, we predict what will happen in the future all the time. Due to gravity, we can project where planets will be in their orbits thousands of years into the future. That's how science works.
21
There are two simple things every 1st world person can do. 1. Read up on the environmental impact of animal agriculture..and 2. Go vegan. Vegan is the only compassionate, lower-resource, lower-polluting, lower-ecoystem-damaging diet.
17
Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar are ONLY able to provide intermittent “electricity” to the grid. Neither wind nor solar renewable alternatives can produce the chemicals and chemical by-products from crude oil that are required to manufacture the components required of all the industries and infrastructures.
The increasing use of fossil fuel energy has been the foundation of the industrialization of civilization from the development of machinery and products for: transportation systems, sewage treatment, sanitation systems, water purification systems, agricultural productivity, vaccinations, pharmaceuticals, medications, eradication of most diseases, electronics, communication systems, and so on.
Eliminating fossil fuels use in transportation and the infrastructures that support life as we know it would mean going back to horses, bicycles and walking or woefully inadequate, impractical mass transit, and taking freight movement back to the nineteenth century.
The next big challenge for humanity is mitigating climate change responsibly and cost-effectively. Achieving this must involve an international strategy that realistically includes conserving fossil fuels as a precious resource for all of mankind while diversifying our global energy portfolio to take advantage of evolving technologies and alternative sources. Let’s hope that future generations will be up to the challenge facing humanity to mitigate climate change responsibly and cost-effectively.
The increasing use of fossil fuel energy has been the foundation of the industrialization of civilization from the development of machinery and products for: transportation systems, sewage treatment, sanitation systems, water purification systems, agricultural productivity, vaccinations, pharmaceuticals, medications, eradication of most diseases, electronics, communication systems, and so on.
Eliminating fossil fuels use in transportation and the infrastructures that support life as we know it would mean going back to horses, bicycles and walking or woefully inadequate, impractical mass transit, and taking freight movement back to the nineteenth century.
The next big challenge for humanity is mitigating climate change responsibly and cost-effectively. Achieving this must involve an international strategy that realistically includes conserving fossil fuels as a precious resource for all of mankind while diversifying our global energy portfolio to take advantage of evolving technologies and alternative sources. Let’s hope that future generations will be up to the challenge facing humanity to mitigate climate change responsibly and cost-effectively.
20
"The next big challenge for humanity is mitigating climate change responsibly and cost-effectively. Achieving this must involve an international strategy that realistically includes conserving fossil fuels as a precious resource for all of mankind while diversifying our global energy portfolio to take advantage of evolving technologies and alternative sources. Let's hope that future generations will be up to the challenge ... ."
... future generations? The United States should have started a generation ago, back in 1992 when it was the world's largest energy user by far, and the first international conference on climate change occurred. We could have led the field on clean energy that preserved our standard of living and all the benefits of modernity. Instead, thanks to a generation of deliberate ignorance, recklessness, and irresponsibility, and casting all responsibility off onto the shoulders of our own children and grandchildren, it's too late, and chances are they will know very little of this precious modernity the Republican party sacrificed, and still sacrifices, for the sole benefit of colossally selfish and short-sighted fossil-fuel industrialists.
... future generations? The United States should have started a generation ago, back in 1992 when it was the world's largest energy user by far, and the first international conference on climate change occurred. We could have led the field on clean energy that preserved our standard of living and all the benefits of modernity. Instead, thanks to a generation of deliberate ignorance, recklessness, and irresponsibility, and casting all responsibility off onto the shoulders of our own children and grandchildren, it's too late, and chances are they will know very little of this precious modernity the Republican party sacrificed, and still sacrifices, for the sole benefit of colossally selfish and short-sighted fossil-fuel industrialists.
23
A ton of plastic has zero affect on atmospheric carbon. Of course, that is not true of the ton of oil needed to produce the ton of plastic (in addition to the ton that was changed into plastic). That "extra" ton, the ton of oil needed to produce the plastic *can* be (largely) replaced by electricity.
Burning oil is not much different than burning $100 bills to light a cigarette. It works but it is not the most intelligent way to use it.
Much better to turn it into (as you mentioned) pharmaceuticals, infrastructure, etc.
But - we do NOT need to burn oil to have modern transportation - think maglev trains or Tesla cars. Both run quite well on electricity and do not care how it is generated.
In the end there will be little alternative to nuclear (fission or fusion). Unfortunately, we will probably have more Chernobyls and Fukoshimas because we prefer privatization of government and no matter how much they earn, companies want to make it cheaper and let somebody else pick up the pieces down the line. Take the quarterly bonus and run, as it were.
We will have to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. Or suffocate.
One million refugees are invading Europe now. Wait. Wait till the equatorial regions and tropics are too hot. Wait till tens of millions start migrating out.
"You ain't seen nothin yet."
Burning oil is not much different than burning $100 bills to light a cigarette. It works but it is not the most intelligent way to use it.
Much better to turn it into (as you mentioned) pharmaceuticals, infrastructure, etc.
But - we do NOT need to burn oil to have modern transportation - think maglev trains or Tesla cars. Both run quite well on electricity and do not care how it is generated.
In the end there will be little alternative to nuclear (fission or fusion). Unfortunately, we will probably have more Chernobyls and Fukoshimas because we prefer privatization of government and no matter how much they earn, companies want to make it cheaper and let somebody else pick up the pieces down the line. Take the quarterly bonus and run, as it were.
We will have to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. Or suffocate.
One million refugees are invading Europe now. Wait. Wait till the equatorial regions and tropics are too hot. Wait till tens of millions start migrating out.
"You ain't seen nothin yet."
18
So -- you are saying that the sky is falling, right?
6
As this excellent piece makes vividly clear, Senator Bernie Sanders is right in declaring climate change “the biggest national security threat facing the United States.”
53
So eloquently and admirably written, and with a force of truth and realism on not just beliefs and subjectivity...but absolute in no denial....its too late, we need to save the earth because minimizing our pollutiive efforts is TOO late....we can save through immediate stoppage of industrial farms, the BIGGEST pollutants on the planet, then china and india with its growing coal use...am still a fan of modular-designed prototypes of Nuke reacters as well..without all the details...they can handle the waste of plutuoniam as well...
5
A big missing piece of the story: warming caused by humans is MUCH faster than any previous warming that's known. Species can't adapt in a hundred years.
52
Isn't this how the earth fights back?
3
Also read the book 'High Tide' on Kindle for free. it will chill your enthusiasm for our future. Especially if you live in Florida.
6
Odd to hear the carbon cycle being described as a poison, as though carbon-based life ought not to have carbon in it. We are tilting the equations of the carbon cycle, but these had, for millions of years, been tilted in favor of ever-lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The earth that brought forth life was far higher in CO2.
6
What we should have done was everything possible to keep our jobs in this country, where we can at least regulate the emissions that are allegedly causing "problems." Instead, we are severely penalizing our own manufacturers so that they relocate to countries which have steadfastly failed to regulate anything other than political dissent. Brilliant!
3
More drivel about AGW. The models are broken, the only truth is that by limiting use of cheap energy you are making poor people poorer.
Spend money on controlling fusion and you won't have to worry about other sources of energy.
A little increase in CO2 is probably good for the planet and humans.
Spend money on controlling fusion and you won't have to worry about other sources of energy.
A little increase in CO2 is probably good for the planet and humans.
7
The greatest issue we face is not global warming rather it is the widespread and profound scientific illiteracy of the American public and how easily duped they are by those in power. Global warming or whatever you want to call it is a huge scam perpetrated upon the world by politicians who are looking for a way to have the public approve of policies and actions that would otherwise never be condoned.
>
Did you know that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, contributes only about 3-4% of all the global warming? Water vapor contributes over 95% and yet water vapor is either largely ignored in models or is assumed to increase in the atmosphere as CO2 increases the heating. This is a case of the tail wagging the fog. The truth of the matter is that water vapor is decreasing over time, not increasing. https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-sci...
>
Another fact is how the peer review system in science has been corrupted and how the granting process has been altered. Peer review has become pal review. For example, Michael Mann's original article containing the "hockey stick" graph violates several absolute scientific principles and never should have been published but is instead not only published, but treated as some sort of divine truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w
>
Open up your eyes people and start questioning that you are being told.
>
Did you know that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, contributes only about 3-4% of all the global warming? Water vapor contributes over 95% and yet water vapor is either largely ignored in models or is assumed to increase in the atmosphere as CO2 increases the heating. This is a case of the tail wagging the fog. The truth of the matter is that water vapor is decreasing over time, not increasing. https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-sci...
>
Another fact is how the peer review system in science has been corrupted and how the granting process has been altered. Peer review has become pal review. For example, Michael Mann's original article containing the "hockey stick" graph violates several absolute scientific principles and never should have been published but is instead not only published, but treated as some sort of divine truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqVE-uiHs7w
>
Open up your eyes people and start questioning that you are being told.
10
If practical nuclear fusion power were invented tomorrow, it would probably only facilitate other human excesses leading to extinction over the same period of time.
16
A GRIM FUTURE According to Curt Stager, future generations are in for extreme global warming for many millenia, followed by a global winter for even longer.
So this is the legacy we've left for future generations? Yes, some of the human species will survive. But will anything look familiar? I think very little will. Also, the erosion of culture and society as we know it may take us back to the stone age.
So, Fred Flintsone, here we come! Just don't hold your breath. For we'll be comin' 'round the mountain when we come.
Yee hah!
So this is the legacy we've left for future generations? Yes, some of the human species will survive. But will anything look familiar? I think very little will. Also, the erosion of culture and society as we know it may take us back to the stone age.
So, Fred Flintsone, here we come! Just don't hold your breath. For we'll be comin' 'round the mountain when we come.
Yee hah!
4
I don't take lectures from popes and after years of studying chemistry and physics for myself, I am convinced that the future will find its own way, or not. The planet's atmosphere has cycled for centuries, even before humans learned to control fire.<br/><br/>As a child of the 60's, I heard that overpopulation would destroy the Earth by now. I won't be fooled again.
9
Yep. I am going to build my own power supply. Not just for my house but also for all the things I use. I am not going to use an Intel processor - I am going to build my own (non polluting of course). Ditto the paint on my house (easy for somebody who has spent years studying chemistry and physics), plastics and pharmaceuticals, the beef I eat and the wool and synthetics I wear, etc.
Come on - your so called "hypocrites" are no more able to do that that are you. They however realize it and try to use the power of the vote. You just sneer.
Come on - your so called "hypocrites" are no more able to do that that are you. They however realize it and try to use the power of the vote. You just sneer.
9
In North America there are two groups, the climate change deniers and the climate change hypocrites. If the hypocrites acted in accordance with their stated beliefs the deniers would become believers. Meanwhile, science has tossed us a new political football. It is fun to kick back and forth but don't expect any meaningful policy response until there is much more hard evidence.
3
And some people even advocate that we should commercialize and build out Thorium reactor technology over the next 20 years, aiming to commercialize that non-polluting, non-threatening nuclear power source. How bizarre, when wind and solar are "free"! The energy revolution would have more credibility among voters if advocates of hair shirt decarbonization actually practised what they preach by halving their own carbon footprint...you first Algore!
2
I suppose, as the writer says, most of the actions done by humans to create the mess were are in was unintentional. But to know what we know now and not do anything at all is moronic, though I understand the difficulties in changing entire ways of doing things. We just can't un-know the truth, even though there are many who would like to pretend or deny that the truth doesn't exist. I imagine the change back to a sane way of using energy will be slow and difficult.
7
Entirely too much ink, weak empiricism, and artifice surround this very simple issue. The better tack would have been to inform on the truth from the outset.
This is a small, insignificant planet inhabited by a quarrelsome, insignificant species that is simply incapable of evolving. Everything is fractured and hostile. At some point, order needed be created. And so, the decisions were that the first three steps would include a reduction of global economic disparity, elimination of the fiction of nations, and a blurring of cultural, political, and religious tribalism.
Climate Change is not now, nor has it ever been, about our planet's climate. The matter is instead about the orderly management of the species. That end - which now sees global leaders sitting at the same table for a purpose other than warfare - will eventually be seen as justifying the means.
This is a small, insignificant planet inhabited by a quarrelsome, insignificant species that is simply incapable of evolving. Everything is fractured and hostile. At some point, order needed be created. And so, the decisions were that the first three steps would include a reduction of global economic disparity, elimination of the fiction of nations, and a blurring of cultural, political, and religious tribalism.
Climate Change is not now, nor has it ever been, about our planet's climate. The matter is instead about the orderly management of the species. That end - which now sees global leaders sitting at the same table for a purpose other than warfare - will eventually be seen as justifying the means.
4
S.P,
So, your solution is that "New World Order"? Is it the one Marx or Orwell wrote "glowingly" about?
What say we limit or even try to reduce the number of humans rather than turn everyone into a subsistence farmer?
So, your solution is that "New World Order"? Is it the one Marx or Orwell wrote "glowingly" about?
What say we limit or even try to reduce the number of humans rather than turn everyone into a subsistence farmer?
3
If you think nations are a fiction, try crossing a national border without (or with) a passport.
3
Much of this is speculation about possible scenarios, but the basic reality that CO2 is a potent and very long lived greenhouse gas with the capability to radically alter the global climate for many centuries to come has been rock solid science for decades now, and we -OUR generation- has knowingly done effectively almost nothing to set a new course away from fossil fuels. That is why our generation is likely to be remembered as the most irresponsible of all time, and why the many politicians, whom we have elected, who have been massively lying and deceiving the public about basic science, and who have been repeatedly voting against humanity and for the greed of the fossil fuel industry, will be remembered as some of the most outrageous criminals ever.
67
>
Great article!
But I'm sorry to notify you that science and facts bounce off the GOP's Zeitgeist Zeppelin like bb's off a battleship. These proportions are accurate.
I'm unsure why very intelligent people fail to understand this obvious fact; Hope I suspect, maybe some kind of sublimation process
The greatest 21st Century Philosopher Rust Cohle sums up the situation concisely and correctly:
"I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight - brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."
And make no mistake, human consciousness is the fundamental problem here.
"The absurdity of the present system of rule is so transparent to healthy consciousness that it needs sick consciousness to keep it alive."
Horkheimer and Adorno
Dialectic of Enlightenment
Moreover, this ubiquitous, feel good idea or belief that humans have always solved their problems before, and therefore, this problem's solution is just around the corner is a concept taken apart by David Hume ~225 yrs ago.
Great article!
But I'm sorry to notify you that science and facts bounce off the GOP's Zeitgeist Zeppelin like bb's off a battleship. These proportions are accurate.
I'm unsure why very intelligent people fail to understand this obvious fact; Hope I suspect, maybe some kind of sublimation process
The greatest 21st Century Philosopher Rust Cohle sums up the situation concisely and correctly:
"I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight - brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."
And make no mistake, human consciousness is the fundamental problem here.
"The absurdity of the present system of rule is so transparent to healthy consciousness that it needs sick consciousness to keep it alive."
Horkheimer and Adorno
Dialectic of Enlightenment
Moreover, this ubiquitous, feel good idea or belief that humans have always solved their problems before, and therefore, this problem's solution is just around the corner is a concept taken apart by David Hume ~225 yrs ago.
52
I agree with Prometheous and Rust Cohle. It is human nature itself that is leading us to the ruin of our world and ourselves. This is not an optimistic view, but I think it is accurate.
For instance, how many of you would be willing to give up your cars and to stop flying in airliners? To refrain from buying anything but what is necessary for you to live, and no more than that? To stop having children? I doubt that there are many who can live lives of austere self-abnegation.
For instance, how many of you would be willing to give up your cars and to stop flying in airliners? To refrain from buying anything but what is necessary for you to live, and no more than that? To stop having children? I doubt that there are many who can live lives of austere self-abnegation.
7
In looking at the distant future, the effects of carbon emissions are only half understood. Obviously these emissions have a history. What this history shows is that, absent such emissions, there would have been no Industrial Revolution and we would probably still be living in the Middle Ages. Also, it is well-established that those responsible for the emissions are generally upper middle class and wealthy. So those most responsible are among those leading the way on change. Studies show that the consensus for change is greatest among American Democrats more than $200,000 per year. It is lowest among poor American Democrats and middle class American Republicans. Somehow, those wealthier folks have not been able to do much to reduce emissions while their forebears masterfully increased emissions dating back to the 1800's. The fact that emissions created wealth but reducing them will likely cost a great deal is certainly relevant. Clearly, the wealthy mobilize their forces better to profit rather than to sacrifice. They talk a good game. But it is time for action and the claim that change deniers -- who number less than 40% -- are the problem is pretty darn suspect.
3
Great! But would future human not be able to moderate the "whiplash" by introducing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that were less persistent than CO2?
1
Nobody is switching any time soon. For example here in the US we have millions of cars and trucks that run on carbon fuel, they are not be replaced for decades and more new ones are purchased each year. For electric generation we have brand new carbon based units that will last 40 or more years. Around the world they have coal based generation that will last as long. Nothing much is happening for 100 years. Adapt is the only answer.
2
I have always found it surprising that the most widely publicized climate projections stress impacts for the remainder of this century. Sadly, we seem to be thinking exclusively in the short term; which suggests a possibly short future for our species.
It is clear that the climate deniers have run out the clock. Now it is time for those among us who can comprehend the gravity of the long view to begin the process of adapting for the sake of the survival their descendants.
It is clear that the climate deniers have run out the clock. Now it is time for those among us who can comprehend the gravity of the long view to begin the process of adapting for the sake of the survival their descendants.
29
This article is excellent and Stager's book is good as well. I am personally convinced of the seriousness of climate change by such scientists as Stager and the 97% of climate scientists who are equally concerned. I am swayed too by the IPCC report written by ~200 of the most preeminent scientists in the world and peer reviewed by an equally illustrious group of 600 experts in pertinent fields and populations. NOAA's annual average temperature maps for regions across the globe year after year are predominantly pink and red for "above average" and "record warmest," offering further evidence. Exactly what evidence do climate change deniers offer that is more credible than these sources of information? We must do what we each can do both personally and as voters.
18
It all could have been avoided by resisting the emotional response that killed nuclear energy 40 years ago, which also killed a vastly improved and sustainable follow-on (Integral Fast Reactor, the reactor and fuel cycle systems of which were proved in hardware by 1994) that would have rectified the shortcomings of the first generation. Millions of fossil-fuel-pollution caused deaths would have been avoided as well. But apparently nuclear energy is still scarier than climate change's worst possible outcomes. Now we have to hope that emotionally-driven errors about the reality of climate change can be overcome and renewable energy supply systems made to supplant fossil systems in time.
5
Enron owned nuclear reactors. Rationally, we need a system of governance that prevents nuclear power plants from being run by pathological cheats and liars. Emotion has nothing to do with it.
4
Crucial insight from my professor and friend
"Unfortunately, our Anthropocene cities, roads, farms and fences now block future migration routes..." Wow, tha really puts our reach into perspective. People care about themselves, their family, their friends, even their state and country to a degree. What about our world, our planet, and our species as a whole and in the future? Can one say that the continuation and development of our species over time proves that we "care" about the perpetuation of our human species, or is the fact that we continue a result of a more-or-less selfish approach that promotes our individual/tribal survival thus leading to overall continuation of the species? I guess I'm wondering how far altruism extends up the chain. I know it exists in wonderful, beautiful people like Curt and many others--this concept of caring about people of the future, people who are not you or your living loved ones. But I don't believe pieces such as this one are at all about convincing the choir what they already know. Perhaps in an attempt to garner support in helping to spread the word, or for raising money for a specific cause. What about the masses, which include the deniers, the skeptics, the apathetic, and the distracted? There are many billions of these types of human beings on planet Earth and it is these people who will determine the fate of the human species and the only worldly home we've ever known.
"Unfortunately, our Anthropocene cities, roads, farms and fences now block future migration routes..." Wow, tha really puts our reach into perspective. People care about themselves, their family, their friends, even their state and country to a degree. What about our world, our planet, and our species as a whole and in the future? Can one say that the continuation and development of our species over time proves that we "care" about the perpetuation of our human species, or is the fact that we continue a result of a more-or-less selfish approach that promotes our individual/tribal survival thus leading to overall continuation of the species? I guess I'm wondering how far altruism extends up the chain. I know it exists in wonderful, beautiful people like Curt and many others--this concept of caring about people of the future, people who are not you or your living loved ones. But I don't believe pieces such as this one are at all about convincing the choir what they already know. Perhaps in an attempt to garner support in helping to spread the word, or for raising money for a specific cause. What about the masses, which include the deniers, the skeptics, the apathetic, and the distracted? There are many billions of these types of human beings on planet Earth and it is these people who will determine the fate of the human species and the only worldly home we've ever known.
6
If god wanted the climate to stay the same he would never have put that talking snake in the apple tree. I blame it all on women. Men are perfectly happy to sit around drinking and naming things. But women wanted a place to shop, and that's what got this whole business on the wrong track = civilization = cutting down trees to raise livestock so they can have leather for shoes... lots and lots of shoes. I'm talking about the industrial revolution = coal for steam-powered knitting mills so women can buy a new outfit to go with her shoes. Then she needs a bigger closet .... and so on. Before you know it you have an up-scale mall that's so far out of town you need a car to get there, and jets to fly the shoes in from Italy.
If we stop thinking of humans as important, there really isn't any cause for worry, or pressing need to do anything at all. Perhaps we should just relax over drinks and try to come up with a name for what we've done.
I'm glad you made the important point: climate change is normal for this part of the solar system, and mass extinctions are normal for planet earth.
If we stop thinking of humans as important, there really isn't any cause for worry, or pressing need to do anything at all. Perhaps we should just relax over drinks and try to come up with a name for what we've done.
I'm glad you made the important point: climate change is normal for this part of the solar system, and mass extinctions are normal for planet earth.
14
Brilliant! What we really need is a conference on "Global Shopping".
3
Despite the horror of its descriptions, this is a refreshing essay. Too many of the scientific predictions end at 2100, 85 years from now. I suspect this is partly due to the limitations of reasonably accurate predictions of global climate models, but perhaps also to the scientists’ worry of scaring the public and its leaders. But the effects in centuries that follow can be awful … and this should not escape the public discussions of climate change, particularly at the forthcoming Paris talks. The need for carbon dioxide control is strong for our lifetimes, but absolutely essential for our descendants in centuries and millennia to come.
8
Truly great piece. Why is it that the media is not covering this cataclysmic issue as they should? Why do we not see alarm bells ringing in every newspaper, from every television, from every radio? Why do we not have people marching in the streets, demanding change? When are we going to wake up? I fear never, or until it is way too late. Take to the streets tomorrow, with your local 350.org.
27
*When far to many can't accept Science as valid; after all they're "not Scientist". *Combine that with a level of greed that has kidnapped Democracy.
* And just for the heck of it dismantle education into further degrees of the haves and have not.
EQUALS: Continuing on the path of being too simple minded to comprehend long term impacts.
FINAL OUTCOME: Crimes against the Earth and all living beings.
* And just for the heck of it dismantle education into further degrees of the haves and have not.
EQUALS: Continuing on the path of being too simple minded to comprehend long term impacts.
FINAL OUTCOME: Crimes against the Earth and all living beings.
5
Why so little media coverage? Well, for one thing, the NYT in its infinite wisdom dismantled its environmental reporting team. Funny, there are still beaucoup absurd front-page articles on "fashion."
32
What prevents us from doing something sensible about human effects on climate?
The answer seems to be, the Republicans. Why are they in power, a majority in Congress, if they are a minority of voters? Because the Democrats are packed into cities where they win overwhelming victories, leaving thin Republican majorities in the many rural districts. Try this example, four districts, one with 9 blue and one red voter, the other three with six red and four blue. There will be 3 red and one blue representatives but the total number of blue voters is 21 vs 19 red.
The solution is pie slice districts with red and blue matching the regional total. If we do not do this, the Republican minority will continue to run the country into the ground.
For more great ideas go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
The answer seems to be, the Republicans. Why are they in power, a majority in Congress, if they are a minority of voters? Because the Democrats are packed into cities where they win overwhelming victories, leaving thin Republican majorities in the many rural districts. Try this example, four districts, one with 9 blue and one red voter, the other three with six red and four blue. There will be 3 red and one blue representatives but the total number of blue voters is 21 vs 19 red.
The solution is pie slice districts with red and blue matching the regional total. If we do not do this, the Republican minority will continue to run the country into the ground.
For more great ideas go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
9
If you have any respect for science, you ought to respect the scientific consensus that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning, of at least 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
If you respect the Bible, it says "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1), and you ought to respect God's commands to steward the Earth.
If you just don't care, then perhaps humanity is just not for you.
If you respect the Bible, it says "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1), and you ought to respect God's commands to steward the Earth.
If you just don't care, then perhaps humanity is just not for you.
111
Socrates,
Well, we do agree on the source of part of the problem!
Humans, there are too many of them with more each day. That said Paris isn't about stoping or even slowing down "Human Pollution". Paris is about punishing the "Haves" and gaining control (money) for the Statists.
I won't take any of you here seriously about reversing or even slowing down climate change until you all get serious about dealing with the real problem. TOO Many People! The "good news" is Nature will deal with the real problem eventually as it always has in the past.
Not only actions have consequences, inactions do as well!
Well, we do agree on the source of part of the problem!
Humans, there are too many of them with more each day. That said Paris isn't about stoping or even slowing down "Human Pollution". Paris is about punishing the "Haves" and gaining control (money) for the Statists.
I won't take any of you here seriously about reversing or even slowing down climate change until you all get serious about dealing with the real problem. TOO Many People! The "good news" is Nature will deal with the real problem eventually as it always has in the past.
Not only actions have consequences, inactions do as well!
5
I refuse to take seriously anyone who claims AGW is a material threat to humanity unless that person is also demanding the construction of hundreds of new nuclear power plants worldwide. Only the rapid expansion of nuclear power to replace baseload coal-fired power plants has any hope of making any material difference in the amount of industrial CO2. If those crying wolf about climate change won't take their cause seriously, why should I?
9
why not clean energy?
7
Lots of people are taking it seriously, that is why fusion research is booming globally and making considerable practical advancement. Unfortunately this research is expensive and they benefits still far off in the future making it very difficult to finance via typical capitalist methods. That is where government enters, it is the only source of capital that, if committed, has the staying power to reach the goals of long term development. Sadly, especially in the U.S., government has not yet recognized the environmental necessity of the fusion solution and the guts to do anything about it. Mankind will pay a huge price for our inaction.
2
I am not sure it is crying wolf. Yet, support of carbon reduction and opposition to nuclear energy generation are conflicting view points. Nuclear power generation is not the same as nuclear war. We need a more informed and less emotional approach to nuclear energy generation. This is especially true of those of us who accept and are concerned about global warming.
2
Mr. Stager does not even mention the most frightening fact of all, the explosive growth of earth's human population.
Demographers tell us this rapid growth would continue for decades even if every nation were to go to a one-child policy today.
Those additional humans will need additional land to house and feed them at the very same time rising seas will shrink the amount of land actually available.
Demographers tell us this rapid growth would continue for decades even if every nation were to go to a one-child policy today.
Those additional humans will need additional land to house and feed them at the very same time rising seas will shrink the amount of land actually available.
71
I don't know which demographers you are referring to, but the ones I talk to seem to think the world's population is more likely to decrease in this century than to grow. Most of the people in the world live in countries that have birth rates that are below replacement. Even China is realizing the danger of falling population and has revoked its one child policy. I suggest you stop worrying about too many young mouths to feed and start worrying about about the problem of aging populations with insufficient youth to support them.
5
As a species, we are given to folly, since our actions affect thousands of generations, but our motivations cover only the current few minutes or hours. When we imagine we are thinking long term, we are usually only thinking about our own circumstances on an imaginary day a few years or decades in the future.
29
This is why we need to slam on the brakes, stat, and the ONLY force that can do that is the economy itself, the most powerful machine on the planet outside of nature. A steeply rising carbon tax will harness this powerful force to bend emission curves downward as fast as humanly possible. Anything else is weakness, a fantasy, part of our denial. This includes Obama's clean power rules and the illusion of cap and trade. We've missed our chance to avoid serious damage but might have a chance to avoid complete collapse if we act NOW. Citizens' Climate Lobby is trying.
8
"experts speculate". These are ominous words for the "we're all going to die in two thousand years" crowd. The "deniers" are increasing due to the uncovering of the "environmentally correct" industry. If one were to suspend one's disbelief for just an ice age or two, consider what is now known as the "pause" in global warming. Among other scientifically skeptical educators, there are more non-believers than ever before. The reinforcement of your faith is like watching the Bible thumping in the Scopes Trial. You believe, so it is so.
9
The great thing about science is that it doesn't require belief. Science is a method, not a worldview.
33
The stunning pessimism of this piece overwhelms any temptation to play the blame game. Pogo was more right than he knew. We have met the enemy and he is us, all of us. In the face of our criminally negligent stewardship of the earth, all other issues that obsess us, even those of genuine importance, like racism and economic inequality, appear in a different light. In the brave new world foreseen by Professor Stager, in which the battle for resources truly becomes a zero/sum game, those problems will assume even more daunting proportions than at present.
All the achievements of our civilization, from art to revolutionary advances in medicine, from the growth of democracy to the evolution of more humane ways of relating to each other, will confront survival odds that even our ingenuity may not be able to overcome. The irony that the technology which facilitated these achievements also eventually threatened them will presumably appeal to the relatively few people left with sufficient education to appreciate that literary concept.
The danger of this piece, however, stems from the pessimism which informs it. Steger implies that, under the most favorable circumstances, purgatory rather than hell will be our final destination. I don't fault his honesty or his urgent appeal for a switch to alternate forms of energy. But why implicitly discourage the parallel search for a technological 'fix'? The future might be at least somewhat brighter than Stager prophecies.
All the achievements of our civilization, from art to revolutionary advances in medicine, from the growth of democracy to the evolution of more humane ways of relating to each other, will confront survival odds that even our ingenuity may not be able to overcome. The irony that the technology which facilitated these achievements also eventually threatened them will presumably appeal to the relatively few people left with sufficient education to appreciate that literary concept.
The danger of this piece, however, stems from the pessimism which informs it. Steger implies that, under the most favorable circumstances, purgatory rather than hell will be our final destination. I don't fault his honesty or his urgent appeal for a switch to alternate forms of energy. But why implicitly discourage the parallel search for a technological 'fix'? The future might be at least somewhat brighter than Stager prophecies.
6
Mr. Stager describes two possible scenarios from Earth's history; they are not prophecies, and they are not "pessimistic." They're simply extrapolations of two paths: one where we limit GHG emissions, however inadequately, and one where we do what Exxon et al. want us to do - burn every last deposit of fossil fuels, before we inevitably make the switch to renewables.
Anyone who's paying attention knows we have to do so (and by the way, renewables ARE a "technological fix").
Anyone who's paying attention knows we have to do so (and by the way, renewables ARE a "technological fix").
13
Just as the picture indicates, a great portion of the ominous predictions, are just as the title portends: "Tales" There are enough informed, educated, scientifically supported "deniers" to talk you back from the edge. Your imagination is not strong enough to defeat what nature will do with our planet. The "pause" in global warming tells us so. More science, not less, reveals such as the author here opines with "experts speculate."
5
This is a very useful article. We don't usually hear about the deep future, so thank you, Prof. Stager.
24
I respect Professor Stager's expertise and accept his predictions. Therefore, I solemnly swear to: stop driving my car, stop flying in jets, turn off the electricity and the gas jets, stop buying products made from petroleum or with petroleum energy, and of course, divest myself of all petroleum stocks and those that rely on petroleum. Now I just have to get 322 million other Americans to join me. Ooops! I forgot 3 billion Chinese and Indians and Europeans! And I'll also have to ask those Amazonian Brazilians to stop burning the rain forest! Am I kidding? You bet I am. I'm just lucky I won't live long enough to see too much of Professor Stager's inevitable future.
9
This piece demonstrates how hard it is to predict what might happen from run away global warming. Much of this is right or in the ballpark but it errs in the assumption that all we need to do or that we can do is to quit using fossil fuels. That's a good start but far from enough. Unsaid is the reality that all of the carbon we ever burned was once part of a living thing that died and under the right conditions was preserved--that's where the idea of fossils comes from. The biological processes that made today's fossil fuels are still active and could do much to mitigate global warming if given a nudge. Carbon absorbed by sea water doesn't simply stay in solution to be absorbed by inorganic processes as described here. Carbon from the seas and the atmosphere is also absorbed by living things like phytoplankton and when these tiny plants are eaten they join the living biosphere. Alternatively their bodies sink to the a anaerobic bottom of the ocean to begin again the process of petroleum formation. We need to embrace ideas like this to avoid an environmental catastrophe. When and if we do we can come to understand that such doomsday scenarios as this only happen if we all look away.
9
A lot of people dismiss the impact of climate change, even for the next generation or two, as revealed by comments like "what's the big deal about a couple of degrees".
They can hardly imagine their grandkids, who are most precious to them, coping with violent storms, disappearing coastline, temperatures 10 or 20 degrees hotter during summer extremes. Or living with the global pressure of 250 million climate refugees, widespread drought and famine, all contributing to resentment driven chaos and violence.
But then, I wonder what the "deniers" of previous generations, like those who labored against curbs on tobacco, acid rain, lead in gasoline, DDT, mercury and other devastating toxins, think about today?
Based in my own small sample, for most there is never any reconciliation of belief and reality. The more pervasive the danger, the easier to attribute random causation.
"Once a denier, always a denier."
They can hardly imagine their grandkids, who are most precious to them, coping with violent storms, disappearing coastline, temperatures 10 or 20 degrees hotter during summer extremes. Or living with the global pressure of 250 million climate refugees, widespread drought and famine, all contributing to resentment driven chaos and violence.
But then, I wonder what the "deniers" of previous generations, like those who labored against curbs on tobacco, acid rain, lead in gasoline, DDT, mercury and other devastating toxins, think about today?
Based in my own small sample, for most there is never any reconciliation of belief and reality. The more pervasive the danger, the easier to attribute random causation.
"Once a denier, always a denier."
88
We don't so much dismiss the "impact of climate change" as much as, is there a sustained global warming actually taking place. A little more research brings into question many of your dire predictions. Try "pause in global warming" in your search.
4
There was and is no "pause." The only thing deniers know about science & statistics is that they can get whatever result they want by cherry picking the start date for a data sequence.
Really, you need to get with the talking-point program; the "pause" has been debunked so many times and so thoroughly that even the Exxon-funded loonies have stopped citing it. Don't you know that the latest meme is "why should we do anything when China isn't?" (Which, as usual for GOP/corporate/denier parade of talking points, is also bushwa - China's far out in front on investment in renewables.)
Really, you need to get with the talking-point program; the "pause" has been debunked so many times and so thoroughly that even the Exxon-funded loonies have stopped citing it. Don't you know that the latest meme is "why should we do anything when China isn't?" (Which, as usual for GOP/corporate/denier parade of talking points, is also bushwa - China's far out in front on investment in renewables.)
27
There is no "pause" unless you cherry pick surface temperatures which make up 2% ot the total temperature rise and omit oceanic and atmospheric temperature rise which include the balance, a common Denier tactic.
Total Global temperatures includes surface, oceanic and atmospheric temperatures and the combination shows continued warming without hiatus. The following reconstructions are total global surveys:
April 4, 2013, Conclusions
The well-known and widely-cited reconstructions of global temperature, produced by NASA GISS, UEA CRU, and NOAA NCDC, are replicable.
Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results.
The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions, and is also a feature found in reconstructions from natural temperature proxy measurements. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors.
Sources
GISTEMP
CRUTEM
NCDC global temperature series
RSS
UAH
Total Global temperatures includes surface, oceanic and atmospheric temperatures and the combination shows continued warming without hiatus. The following reconstructions are total global surveys:
April 4, 2013, Conclusions
The well-known and widely-cited reconstructions of global temperature, produced by NASA GISS, UEA CRU, and NOAA NCDC, are replicable.
Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results.
The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions, and is also a feature found in reconstructions from natural temperature proxy measurements. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors.
Sources
GISTEMP
CRUTEM
NCDC global temperature series
RSS
UAH
17
Terrific writing thanks.
I am glad to see this overview from a longer perspective, and original ways of describing our predicament. I will return and reread; the best compliment I can offer is that imho there is nothing to add to its clarity, openness, and generosity of spirit.
I am glad to see this overview from a longer perspective, and original ways of describing our predicament. I will return and reread; the best compliment I can offer is that imho there is nothing to add to its clarity, openness, and generosity of spirit.
91
What Susan wrote.
12
Until human greed stops being the driving force of human endeavours nothing will change. As it is now nothing can approach the ferocity of having the biggest pile of dollars possible , the love of money is the destruction of our environment, and the possible end of a dream of a peaceful society
13
@ Susan Anderson - Susan, yes, sometimes when only 10 Verifieds have commented I suggest just stop and read, there is more than enough for you to think about.
The same applies today but this time as concerns the column. Anyone who can take the time might better do as you are planning to do, read it over and more carefully. David B. Benson seems to be of the same mind.
Larry
The same applies today but this time as concerns the column. Anyone who can take the time might better do as you are planning to do, read it over and more carefully. David B. Benson seems to be of the same mind.
Larry
2
He errs in suggesting that the sea level has only risen 20 feet in the last 15,000 years , whereas as the available data proves it's closer to 400 feet. That's why the nomadic Siberians were able to cross into Alaska on the Aleutian land bridge and why the coast of Cape od was 60 miles further East only 15, 000 yrs ago.
The Paris climate conference is dangerous in that bloviating politicians , united with fuzzy data minded climatologists , will try to impose regressive and incredibly costly "cures" for natural phenomena we have no control over.