Home | About | Donate

As Study Ties 'Great Dying' of 252 Million Years Ago to Current Climate Crisis, Experts Say Still Time for 'Different Path'


#1

As Study Ties 'Great Dying' of 252 Million Years Ago to Current Climate Crisis, Experts Say Still Time for 'Different Path'

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

For the first time ever, researchers have tied "climate change triggered by volcanic greenhouse gases" to the largest extinction in Earth's history, often called the "Great Dying," 252 million years ago—and their findings, published Thursday by Science, are just the latest fuel added to the burning concern about the world's current extinction crisis.


#2

Yes, the “experts”, the scientists, say there may still be time to chose a different path into the future…that may or may not be accurate, but the problem is our Earth…our Mother, Gaia, is ruled by a system of greed and domination of “wealth” that is defined by the paper and ephemeral “profit” of the capitalist system, and those rulers who dominate that system, and all life on earth, will never relinquish their power…will never admit there is a different path that measures gain and wealth and profit by a whole different scale…the powers that be will never admit their way is a short-term con game that enriches the few as it robs the many, and despoils the very planet and natural systems that makes all life possible…we have become slaves to the ghosts of religion and greed…of male dominance and racist extermination…a planet of obscene wealth and ease of living and the starvation, want, and suffering of those who are expendable under the mechanisms that rule the Earth, the lives of humans, and the ability to just survive of the myriad of creatures that also live on this earth…


#3

What can be expected from governments dominated by oligarchs, businessmen, financiers, religionists, lawyers, economists, militarists, jingoists, politicians, conservatives and other bullshitters, but no scientists.

Its a bullshit world.


#4

We measured the cliff.

Why does big science perpetually keep measuring the cliff? Why does big science never seem to formulate a best plan of action, saying, “Here’s the money that we might realistically bring to bear on the problem, here’s an optimum case, here’s a far less than optimum case, and here’s the best way to spend that cash”?

Why?

Worst case #1: mass stupidity?

Worst case #2: Abject job-related moral cowardice in the face of the Koch brothers’ $900 million per year in lobbying money?

Another possibility: It’s nobody’s particular responsibility. Inhibiting climate change is a brand new idea. That’s why modern ultraconservative climatologists do what climatologists 50 years were doing – studying the climate of 10,000 years ago. Hey, it’s a steady job and a good living. (well, it’s living until the Great Starvation sets in).


#5

Welcome to the world of predatory capitalism where there have been so many generations of people advertised and marketed to center their lives on a system that could not survive without pretending it is possible to change the word for ‘deny’ into economist jargon of ‘externalize’. Chomsky and Deleuze and Guattari (A Thousand Plateaus) are right capitalism cannot be separated from schizophrenia. Consequences??? What consequences??

We’re not ‘stupid’, we are certifiably, clinically, suffering from a societal mental illness.

And by the way… that’s not hyperbole


#6

Our predicament is very similar to smoking and lung cancer. Once the cancer reaches a certain stage there is no cure. Quitting smoking wont help, even treatment will give the patient a slim chance. It’s hard to predict what stage we’re at, but we haven’t even got serious about quitting, much less applying a cure. The RATE of global warming is increasing, meaning things are getting warmer faster. Also, the full effect of the CO2 hasn’t been realized since there is a time lag. I wish scientists didn’t have to pad things with false optimism, and would give us the prognosis, as the evidence dictates.


#7

While it’s nice to see that scientists are still putting on a brave face and painting as optimistic picture of the future as possible, there comes a time when their cups half full ideals do all of us a disservice.
Up until now, every estimation of the climate crisis has been low balled and missed the mark by a considerable margin. The time has come for the naked unvarnished truth.
There is nothing we can do now to stop it. All of the best intentions do us no good at this juncture. We must admit that we fucked up the earth. It will warm beyond our control for most likely the next thousand years. The best we can do now is concentrate all of our efforts to save as much as we can.
And even then, it may not be enough. While we’re hanging solar panels and building turbines we may just as well work on light speed travel and interstellar vehicles, filled with the best of humanity to maybe find another home.
“I dreamed I saw the silver spaceships
Flying through the yellow haze of the sun.
Children crying and colors flying
All around the chosen ones.
All in a dream all In a dream
The loading had begun
Flying mother natures silver seed
To a new home in the sun…”
Maybe Neil young had it right.


#8

Do The Scientisrs need to get their story straight on whether we’ve passed the point of no return or are we one Month or 5 decades from it? I read a different Climate Report every day. Either scenario would mean every Polluter Country in the World would have to stop polluting tomorrow! I don’t see that happening now or 20 years from now. So what’s the point of Any Tme frame? There is none! We are cooked no matter what temp you set the oven at.


#9

We the People are to blame for the stupidity you mention. We are All Polluters in our own way. The Rich know there are too many people on this planet and have had a plan for decades to fix the situation. Problem is, they are as stupid as we are and they will die in their own filth. So will their kids. The Rich are money drug addictts and that’s all they see. They can live, breed and destroy each other in their underground bunkers and cities like Moles. That… is the future of what’s to come.


#10

It’s interesting how people here so often blame “capitalism” for pollution and environmental problems, when historically over the past 100 years, the countries that tend to have the worst environmental records are the communist ones. Look at the record of the USSR, compare the environmental records of Poland and East Germany with those of the West. Look at Communist China.

Countries develop environmental consciences as they grow rich - pollution is a “first world” problem of countries that have moved beyond subsisting.

The solution is not socialism - it is lower populations.


#11

Note that at the P-Tr boundary, the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase and rate of warming were probably an order of magnitude slower, at least, than that being produced by humans. Consequently, the maximum levels of ocean acidification and depletion of atmospheric oxygen was probably somewhat less than humans will cause.

No “dumb” natural geological process can come close to the way humans, through their complex thinking and tool-making faculties, are obsessively and aggressively locating, then extracting and moving into the atmosphere, and thence carbonating and acidifying the ocean waters, virtually all of the the largest storehouses of carbon in almost all of the upper 10 km of entire earths crust.

Consequently, the maximum levels of ocean acidification and depletion of atmospheric oxygen was probably less in that event 252 my ago than now.

The mass extinction this time may be even worse - maybe the end of complex life altogether for a long time - perhaps forever.


#12

Capitalism relies of perpetual expansion of economic activity and the need to create value through the process of commodity fetishism (look it up) as Marx first observed. This is inevitable and requires ever increasing energy resource extraction. Population has nothing to do with this process - capitalism will do this even if the earth’s population were only a few million. The only difference you might see is that produced goods for the bourgeois classes of this smaller population would be proportionally much larger and more resource consuming - for example in such a depopulated but still-capitalist world, the family car would be the size of large house, and houses would be the size of a large industrial building.


#13

I feel compelled to correct you on one matter becasue it is a major misconception that stigmatizes those suffering from lung cancer - and inhibits funding on treatments.

Lung cancer is also one of the more common cancers among non-smokers and never-smokers - among the top 10 causes of cancer death among non smokers. Lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer does! My wife got lung cancer and she ate the perfect vegan organic diet and never smoked. It was detected early - through a virtual miracle - her involvement in a car crash - and she has a good chance - but even stage 1 lung cancer and the best state-of-the-art treatments (removing half the lung - followed in some cases by chemo. has about a 10 to 35 percent chance of re-appearing and spreading.

Other major risk factors for lung cancer is natural radon in dwellings, air pollution, and asbestos - and random cell mutations.


#14

What drivel. Markets themselves are key drivers in the environmental crisis, since markets are missing massive amounts of information and horribly miscalculate resources. Capitalism, which proudly relies on markets and market information, is doomed by that alone. Even if you could put a price tag on all of these non-market impacts, that would cause everything to explode in price, which by itself would necessitate moving beyond capitalism. Capitalism became the dominant worldwide system centuries ago, and it is a system based on endless growth, in a planet of finite resources. The data on consumption shows that the richest 20% or so of worldwide population consumes well over 80% of resources and generates the overwhelming majority of pollutants. To pretend that capitalism is anything other than environmental destructive is absurd, forget things like the commodification of nature and how institutions like the WTO and deals like NAFTA (drawn up entirely by greedy, short-sighted capitalists) treat environmental issues and deals.

More nonsense. For one, China is still an incredibility poor country, and it is being destroyed by environmental degradation. The World Bank long ago estimated that about 10% of China’s GDP is destroyed by environmental damage, but that is a vast underestimate, since most negative environmental impacts cannot be priced. I saw this myself with my own eyes. And consult the damn IPAT formula. An environmental impact is equal to population, along with per capital consumption and improvements in efficiency. While population is an issue, you have to be a right wing reactionary to ignore the inequitable consumption of resources. If the poorest 40% of the world’s population went away tomorrow, we would still have an environmental crisis. If the richest 20% went away, we wouldn’t. It isn’t to say that population isn’t or can’t be an issue, but you don’t address the affluence and the consumption habits of the West, and you don’t address that for ideological reasons and because you probably benefit from the system.

But tell me, if we were to just focus on population, who would we focus on? Cause the average American will consume and pollute tons more than a Vietnamese peasant. So, if we were to decrease population, you trying to pretend we wouldn’t focus on anyone? Who would a right winger like you focus on? Surely not people that consume and pollute far more than the poor the world over, right?


#15

Somewhat optimist scientists predict possibilities.
Those same highest of hi-techies imprudently preach self-driving EV BS,
Robotaxi cell phone rides, pretentious safety amidst the unconverted unruly.
We drive too much.
We fly too much.
We truck and ship goods
around the world too much.
Our RVs, motorboats, gas hogs and muscle cars are killing our world and us.
What’s good for GM is fucking NOT what’s good for the US fucking A!


#16

Chessgames73 wrote about one type of lung cancer to make his point. He was not and had no obligation to write a treatise on lung cancer.


#17

Kali Yuga?


#18

“Act Now! There’s still time! This offer won’t last!” Marketing noobs over at Climate Scare Central.


#19

Nothing Humans Do is Sustainable, Ecologically Speaking.

That’s not going to change fast enough to stave off extinction of all mammals, by 2100AD or sooner.

My advice, be a “Volunteer” and, don’t have children. ( v h e m t . o r g )

(One can hope we can mend our ways, but how are we going to get the insects back? We’ve disrupted 50% of the Earth’s surface, removed 50% of wild and sea life, and are polluting our air at ever increasing levels over the past 50 years. Now, there are more of us, and, we have higher expectations, worldwide, and more disposable income. Eat insects instead of meat, you’ve already seen that being promoted as a way to save the planet, from us. It is not good when the apex predator on the planet outweighs all our wild prey, by orders of magnitude…Not Sustainable.)


#20

Humans both the bane and blessing of the universe .

To choose or not to choose ,”to be or not to be “ as the Bard said.

The solutions are Spiritual .

We Are All One

We have become separated by false Cultural Myths ,stories passed down through the millenia to each new geaneration that are actually fallacies .
Life doesn’t have to be this way on this planet but it does have to follow our beliefs about what we think life is about and it’s purpose !

Beliefs create Behaviours and produce our on the ground reality.
If we wish to see another more positive world without War ,Famine and massive Inequality,s with a habitable planet for humans to thrive in the future the fastest way to do this is by changing our beliefs .

Who are We
Why Are We Here
What Are We Going To Do About It ?