Home | About | Donate

'The Changes Are Really Accelerating': Alaska at Record Warm While Greenland Sees Major Ice Melt

Your free market fixes all crap is tiresome bullshit. No one here buys into it, so why waste your time.


Are you having doubts about your beloved free market and you need reassurance? Well I can tell ya’ pal, you sure ain’t gonna find it here.

1 Like

LOL, triggered are ya’? Whats the point of a diehard socialist trying to convince a diehard capitalist which is the better system?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndD23MCDF_k&ytbChannel=null. Bernie can tell you better than I can but I’ll bet you already made your mind up about him.

I feel the IPCC provides a fairly regular nice broad overall review of the science. Because they provide such an extensive review - they give the whole range of climate science predictions - including some that will prove to be pessimistic and some that will prove to be optimistic. If you look back at their first report(s) you will find that the distribution of predictions they provided were pretty much on target.
Good public policy should plan as if the somewhat pessimistic predictions are true and hope that the more optimistic ones come about.
The Powers that be are able to do this with short term planning for events like hurricanes. For example, if there’s even a 10% chance of a hurricane wiping out an area - they will call for a strong mobilization of resources, mandatory evacuations and other measures. If the hurricane does less damage than predicted, fine - they would have felt little pain themselves in being cautious. But if it does end up causing the type of damage predicted by the more pessimistic predictions, they are happy to take credit for saving the day.
With long term planning, as was/is needed for the climate crisis, the ruling class cannot muster the same philosophy, as they are too enamored with the attraction of their short term exploitations of the planet. This leaves us with some planning as if the most optimistic predictions are correct (Paris climate agreements and the like) and the others simply ignoring the mountains of evidence.

1 Like

Didn’t you guys hear Sec’y Pompeo enthusing about future profits from the coming banana and pineapple plantations in Alaska? Think of all the ag jobs created for the poor natives up there accustomed to mushing to work and school through frozen dog poop!
A future paradise on earth thanks to the Trump admin.


I have never heard about this in Colorado…thanks.

1 Like

OHANCAP: You asked for any example of Capitalism that shows an objection, and any ‘assertions’ of Socialism.

Socialism. Which, by the way, Bernie Sanders is definitely NOT. He’s an old school FDR ‘New Deal’ capitalist with a foreign policy rivaling corporate-owned ‘Killer Tuesdays’ Obama but with a much better national social policy who got completely cheated out of the DNC primary and then licked the toes of corrupt corporate Capitalist Hillary instead of blasting the vicious b**ch. When Wikileaks published the DNC insider-released emails personally handed to ex-British Ambassador Craig Murray in a DC park proving what they had done; it was amazing just how quickly they hid the truth by blowing dog whistles about ‘russia hack’ instead of actually facing their own words and deeds.

I will NEVER vote for Bernie. End of rant.

Well, okay, no problem about showing you evidence. It is VERY easy to prove just how disastrous the end result of Capitalism is.

Ever play Monopoly all the way to the end of the game? I mean to the last dollar, the last piece of property? Tell me in your own words what it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. No? Okay, I’ll tell you then.

One person owning everything, everyone else living in cardboard boxes in on the street without a Monopoly dollar to their name…starving in the streets.

Whoopsie! Sounds like what we’ve got going on all over the country doesn’t it? Do you look at the homeless you walk by? Make eye contact? Ever take a homeless person to lunch or dinner and TALK with them? You might learn something (though some are pretty spacey I must admit).

Since Monopoly the game was invented by a woman trying to teach the ignorant in this country (like you) about the dangers facing them from this insidious form of slavery (total economic control by the wealthy), it somehow turned into ‘fun for the whole family’ as one person impoverishes the rest. Never noticed it was much fun for all the losers, though. Kids cry when they get ripped off.

To really play it the way Capitalism is being run today, use loaded dice and only allow one person to control the rolls. And make up new rules when needed (like buying politicians who are supposed to regulate).

Oh, and make sure that one person starts off with a million dollars while the rest of you just get the usual $2,500. It’ll make the game SO MUCH more realistic and it won’t take half the night to finish the game. There is only one end result.

Then there is this about the Capitalists that run this country:

US Government Knew Climate Risks in 1970s, National Petroleum Council Documents Show


As for Socialism, try the game called Anti-Monopoly. Very different outcome. But then you probably won’t like it because…people end up working together for common causes which you obviously don’t understand too well. Cooperative behavior seems to be out of your range of experience.

Now OHANCAP, go play Monopoly and don’t you get to be the millionaire. See what it feels like to be on the other end of the stick. I dare ya! Then buy the Anti-Monopoly game and see how that makes you feel.

Enough said.

dpearl: The IPCC has been years behind the latest science forever, refuses to add in very important information like Arctic Methane releases, hands their watered down info to ECONOMISTS to edit before releasing!!!

Totally corrupted by politicians most (nearly all?) of whom are either Capitalists and/or owned by corporate Oligarchs.Your use of "somewhat pessimistic predictions’ has become sadly somewhat of a joke because we’ve gone so far past pessimistic… Please, go read my Arctic-news link in a previous posting here. Read back into the postings of the scientists who jointly publish under the name ‘Sam Carena.’

Shantiananda: I just drove from my place here in the Selkirks that is looking like a gap-toothed old dog from all the clearcut logging (in every direction I look) across the Panhandle of Idaho and through Missoula to Butte Montana. First trip that far in 15 years. The dead trees and ‘salvage logging’ and the incredible number of mountains with the logging ops cute use of a few scraggly trees across the tops of the ridges to make it look not-so-bad was mind boggling. It’s everywhere up here.

I read recently that it’s been calculated that the remaining trees on the planet are not enough to absorb the amount of CO2 being released from the clearcuts going on in the Amazon. And, just for information, we are up to 84 football fields a minute being clearcut on the planet 24/7/365.

We are breathing more CO2 than our bodies were evolved to or ever have in our existence on this planet. Studies show that there is a point where CO2 makes our primate species DUMBER, unable to think as well. Cognitive degeneration starts to happen. That’s all we need, eh?

Oh, and we’re now over 500 tornadoes so far in the Midwest this Spring and I understand today is another ho-hum day full of the same. Nope, nothing to see here!!!

Here’s one for the anti-science crowd:


Folks, Here’s a fun way to learn why OHANCAP cannot learn:

Do something fun every day, people.


No, I’m looking out the window at the mountains I live in and seeing the direct effects of climate destabilization for the last 40 years. I don’t have to read the science when the loss of species, weather shifts, massive fires, forest loss, etc etc is obviously happening all around me.

Go to the oatmeal link and read the test, dude. See if you can catch your own ‘backfire effect’ and maybe find the base cause of your own delusions and inability to absorb new information through the wall in your mind. It’s not your fault and I understand that; it is evolutionary biology at work and you are a prime example. Unfortunate but true…but there is always a chance you could break through that wall if you really want to try.


1 Like

Thanks for the link. Why is the disaster of Alaska forests never mentioned?

Just did a quick ducducgo search…couldn’t find an answer to your question.
Maybe colorado’s problem is worse?

1 Like

No, I think it’s deliberate suppression of information. Six extremely ‘conservative’ (and I use that term inappropriately because they certainly do NOT conserve anything!) wealthy leisure class owners of 6 mega-corporations own and operate just about all the ‘news’ in this country. One has to dig down into the sub-levels of subsidiary companies to find that out but it’s true.

We are under censorship. Just like when Obama signed off on more pipelines than any other president before him was not reported in corporate MSM, only that he didn’t sign the XL one…

Tree death is pretty bad in these mountains of NE Washington State, both heat and bugs (now a Douglas Fir beetle has shown up), but the logging is if anything increasing dramatically. I wasn’t kidding about the punched-out teeth look to the mountans around me.

Big sigh. My little property of 8 acres is backed up against timber company (read: East Coast investment hedge fund firm) land, and directly behind and above me has been logged off three times in the last 15 years. Now known locally as ‘The Bald Knob’ and yes I coined that one! Mine continues to flourish however, no chemicals but have used bio-control (Chinese Knapweed flying weevils). How long the positive change will continue I have no idea. But it’s what I have to work with my hands on, so I will continue trying to make it healthier until either it dies or I do.

By the way, that pic of gray dead trees on the link you sent Shantiananda? I saw the same thing on the trip to Montana last week everywhere. And that was just from the perspective of I-90.


It’s clear you’ve never done homework.

Not sure why you say this - The IPCCC reports have covered Arctic Methane releases since their 2001 report. Also, economists do not edit the scientific findings.

1 Like

Incorrect, dpearl. Here’s today’s link you should read where Hunziker mentions that the IPCC does NOT include Arctic methane:


I have many (too many) other sources in my document files that explicitly describes the process all IPCC reports go through before they are allowed to be published, but you can look that up for yourself. I’ve read 'em, most people don’t take the time, and those ‘processes’ are a very worrying read. All the governments have their economists review, and ALL reports are vetted as to economic impact, and ALL of them have to agree to each and every line in those reports. Money talks, right?

Screw the planet in other words. Capitalism rules!

Please go to the arctic.blogspot.com site and read the science published by a combined group of 15 scientists directly involved with climate, methane, etc that you really need to read backwards in time on to get a grasp of the entire pictures that is building. This is years worth of work, decades, and some involved used to be in the ‘Arctic Methane Emergency Group’ that no longer exists.

You might also want to look up the work of the scientists noted in Hunziker’s piece like Shakova (International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska/Fairbanks) and others. Broaden your range of information sources but if you do, I guarantee you aren’t going to like the resulting flood of scary info.

Stay completely off television propaganda. It’s infotainment not information. Talk about bad drugs, tv news is horrible!!


Sorry, but I was not wrong - I was just pointing to the fact that the IPCC reports have discussed Arctic Methane releases going back through several of the assessment reports. For example, see FAQ6.1 in the Fifth Assessment (pages 530 and 531) on the rapid release of methane from permafrost erosion and section on longterm methane releases due to permafrost erosion (pages 541 and 542).
Now, when I said that they covered the issue - that is different from what you are pointing to - the fact that it has previously been considered a secondary effect and not put into any of the the final models whose predictions they published.

There’s no need to go to third party reports, the process used for creating the IPCC reports is completely transparent and described fully in their reports and on their website. It is one of the outstanding features of the reports that makes them the tour de force of climate science when they come out.
Regarding political influences on the report - you might be confusing the reports on the physical science that they issue and their reports on mitigation and public policies. Economists and government sign offs have a ton of influence on the latter - not on the former.

This is simply not true. Line-by-line discussions only occur for a small part of the reports. In fact IPCC working groups label parts of their reports in one of three categories: “approval” (this means line-by-line discussion has taken place); “adoption” (this means overall themes of sections have been endorsed but not line-by-line); and “acceptance” (this means the science is accepted as a balanced presentation of evidence but may or may not be endorsed by some of the approving bodies)

I have looked at arctic-news.blogspot.com a few times in the past and don’t find it very compelling. I prefer the climate science discussions at skepticalscience.com which is more rooted in the scientific literature. Now, I have read a few of the papers you pointed to by Natalia Shakhova who is a solid climate scientist. Her work has become much more compelling recently as her data stream matures with time. By my read, it points to a good chance of Arctic methane becoming a problem on the same order as animal agriculture by mid- to late-century. That is a big enough problem to make it into mainstream climate models and I’ll bet that the IPCC sixth assessment coming up in a couple of years will include it in their predictions.

But Natalia Shakhova is very different from people like Sam Carana and Guy McPherson with their predictions of human extinction in the next decade who have no real standing in the climate science community. I think they probably do more harm than good in moving public policy forward to address the human caused climate crisis.

Wondering if you are aware of this?

In California, we are adopting new traffic analysis metrics to reduce emissions related to transportation. I won’t go into the details, but it’s so the state can meet its climate goals. Transportation is a huge reason why it may not meet them. The catch is the FHWA and whether or not it will approve of the state’s new approach. I fear we know the answer.

1 Like

The administration’s killing of the Clean Power Plan is a real disaster (it further illustrates the need to actually get laws passed to address the climate crisis and not just do everything on the regulatory side).

I was unaware of the proposed California traffic rules and why they need FHWA approval - I’ll have to read up on that.

It’s a new thing that came out of a bill passed a few years ago, SB 743. There is uncertainty to elements of implementation of course, but I gave a quick rundown of the basics here. A big catch is the flexibility of the FHWA. Whereas previous administrations, including Republican ones, might be more flexible on certain local topics, this administration is adamantly opposed to environmental protection efforts, past and present.