Home | About | Donate

Warning of 'Untold Human Suffering,' Over 11,000 Scientists From Around the World Declare Climate Emergency

Please stop telling me and other how to react (your tone is no better than mine). That’s all I’m asking.

I don’t think that was your premise. In any case there seems to be some confusion about what level of thing you’re dealing with; you seem to be using a national excuse for a global phenomenon, and forgetting one of my main premises, that it shouldn’t be on the list because it’s not much of a solution at all, because it can’t accomplish much of anything in the time we have to solve the ecological crisis. In fact, your “linkage” shows it’s not about growth in numbers, it’s about inequality, that as long as that exists it will cause continual crises like and unlike the climate one. (Assuming we survive this one.)

And though yes a single solution is exactly what it is, I think what you mean is it’s not the only solution, which I agree with, since it’s not really a solution at all.

So why don’t we avoid all the confusions and agree that inequality and the rich cause the climate crisis, that changing the lives of the rich is how to fix it, and that calling it any other kind of problem leads people who are unconscious of their associations and motivations and don’t understand what the problem really is, to act in counterproductive ways?

The reason I say that is because like all those who say this thing you’re saying, you’re unable or unwilling to answer the questions, which means you understand on some level that our numbers really aren’t the problem.

My two previous replies have been deleted. Sorry I didn’t request it myself. Long threads like this one, especially with this format for viewing replies to a particular post, deteriorate into chaotic nonsense even if everyone posting is consummately knowledgeable, a clear and concise writer, and a model of patient civility. I see some bilateral conversations that make pretty good sense, but also a lot of what my high school government and economics teacher called “an arrogant airing of ignorant opinions.”

I am posting one more reply, as you are NOT one of the above and are the only person to whom I have replied in this thread. The report as described by the BBC is indeed excellent, a point which I did not question. Neither did I question any of the six points in any way.

This MAY be the first time a study of these particular threats has been published–or it may not. ALL of they have been recognized and studied, singularly and in groups, for decades. I can cite specific sources for several off the top of my head (e.g., population, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, 1968; steady state economy, Herman Daly, 1973 (had to look up that date)). They are not the only threats. Chomsky and others place militarism/nuclear matters at the top of the list along with the climate crisis. Emerging diseases (Richard Preston and others) are another, along with the rapidly sinking effectiveness of antibiotics due to their profligate use in factory farming. Factory farming is a threat in itself because it relentlessly destroys the fertility of soil while saturating the environment with poisons of many sorts. Destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of millions of species is another Genetic manipulation, especially of food crops (though not because they are toxic to humans), is another because sufficient understanding of its long-term effects will not be available for at least a couple more decades. And of course there is education, at the very heart of each and all of the others.

None of this should be interpreted as despair or nihilism, nor does it in any way downplay the critical importance of the six threats mentioned in the report. My point is that the crisis facing humankind is much greater and much more many-faceted than most people recognize. Until recently many scientists were themselves thinking solely in terms of their own disciplines and their deleterious effects. If humankind is to survive along with anything faintly resembling the current level of technology and the comforts it affords, we must address ALL of these issues and others, aggressively and immediately. We must address them at all levels from individuals to households to towns and countries to the world as a whole.

To achieve that will require a global mobilization on a scale larger than that for “World War II” including the Manhattan Project (and also the New Deal that made it possible for the US to do its share), plus the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan, plus the Apollo program and the two decades of research and experimentation that led up to it. We have attempted and completed such projects numerous times, starting perhaps with the railroads followed by the shift to air travel, the virtual elimination of smallpox and polio, the “car-ification” of the US and most of the developed world, and on, and on. A Green New Deal would be an excellent starting point, but only a starting point.

The primary obstacle is the conventional wisdom, that tomorrow must and will be like today. It won’t. The Zuckerbergs and the Bozos, most politicians, and much of the One Percent along with a fairly dense scattering all the way down to the bottom of the ladder, seem to be like deer caught in the headlights. The mobilization we know how to do. The persuasion of minds and hearts, and the disillusionment of those who profit for yet a few more moments from the status quo: Those are the challenges that must be met before the mobilization can even begin in earnest.

J4Zonian, I finally figured out an analogy that fits you. It came into my mind like a flash of light this morning.

There was once a very smart and curious dinosaur that was always looking up at the sky.The other dinosaurs considered him a little odd since dinosaurs are concerned with only a single thought which is eating. And that requires looking down.

One sunny afternoon he saw this pinpoint of burning light coming across the sky which frightened him but also grabbed his curiosity, so he continued to study it as the burning light grew closer and larger. And he started telling others of what he was seeing and how it moved across the sky as it got bigger and closer. Some of those other dinosaurs started to study the burning light, too, and drew similar conclusions which scared the hell out of them.

This caused all the other dinosaurs to tell him to quit being such a weirdo and let them get on with eating.

But then 11,000 of the most intelligent dinosaurs said they have seen the same thing. That was disturbing since they aligned alongside an earlier group of ‘alarmist’ dinosaurs that everyone was told to pay no attention to by the leaders of the dinosaurs. Just…keep looking down and eating and everything will be fine. Go shopping and keep the dino economy going! Nothing to see here, and hell there ain’t no such thing as flying burning rocks in the sky anyway!

One of those dinos overheard some of the dinos that were talking about what those 11,000 said, and HE said that they needed to go to dino-therapy because they were obviously deranged and needed help to realize that everything, like the asteroid slamming into the planet at 22,000 mph, was going to happen. As long as they had a positive attitude that the dino-therapy would teach them, they would be able to stop it.

Of course that dinosaur didn’t really understand science, and not having the technology; rocket ships, nuclear bombs, and Bruce Willis to lead them, they all freaking DIED.

J4Z, have you figured out which dinosaur you are?

You do NOT understand the science and just how far off the freaking cliff this oil-run worldwide empire actually is and you are telling people WHO DO understand the science to go to therapy for their depressing summations about how far off the cliff we are?

You are so full of hubris that it smells like I just stepped in a BIG pile of it reading through your replies.

We do NOT have the technology to re-freeze the Arctic nor to get completely off the burning of fossil fuel, de-acidify the freaking ocean, and suck all the GHGs out of the atmosphere with a giant Spaceballs vacuum cleaner…much less the absolute destruction 9,000 years of empires has done to the planet. The last 200 has been amazing, and the last 30 has been astounding…worse.

I suggest you go to arctic.blogspot.com and read back through, oh say maybe the last year of articles on what the combined 32 scientists have been saying for years about this, some of which used to be part of AEMG in a previous incarnation.

You REALLY need to get a grip on that hubris thing, dude/dudette. And try to understand what the word ‘exponential’ actually means. Hint: it ain’t good in this frame of reference.

sealintheSelkirks

Sorry, Seal, but like the other despairing people here you’re despairing for your own personal reasons that have little to do with the reality of the situation. You’re projecting.

A projection requires what’s often called a hook, some aspect that’s true, and usually similar to something in the past, that makes it seem like people are seeing the situation as it is. But they’re not. They’re only seeing what’s in their own minds and past, and imagining it’s happening in the outside world now.

I’m listening to the scientists, and reading the science. They’re saying it’s very bad, and an accurate assessment of all the information says that it’s worse than almost anyone is saying. Humanity is in for the worst time of its existence. and may not survive.

But that last part isn’t certain yet. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, we still have a chance to save some of what we love, although since we’ve allowed the bifurcated denying delayalists to delay us so long, a lot of it will be gone soon no matter what we do now. I tell people about how serious it is all the time; it’s most of what I’ve been saying for more than a decade. And even as the science has gotten more and more certain about it, most people have refused to see it. Over and over and over they use the same rhetorical and psychological techniques to avoid understanding or admitting the truth.

Despairers—like the King of D’s, Guy McPherson—use the same rhetorical tactics as the denying delayalists, and whether they’re conscious of it or not, it accomplishes the same thing—putting off rational action to save what we can. Both kinds of denial have been going on longer than I’ve been doing this, and while the details of the arguments change, the techniques and function don’t. Outright climate denial has become anti-renewablism, “it’s too expensive”-ism, nuclear technological optimism aka bigmanlymachine bias, the carbon price molasses trap, and other lies. Despair has stayed about the same. For one thing, it conflates people saying “it’s bad” with people saying “it’s hopeless”, which almost none of the scientists are. (The few who are are also reacting to their own stuff, and their interpretations of the science are not confirmed by others.) One indicator that this is going on is that no matter how often or in what ways realists point out the difference between “bad” and “hopeless”, it gets ignored.

I have a better metaphor for you. The Iliad should have been Cassandra’s story, because some important parts got left out. This part, for example, where over-agreeing with Cassandra serves the same function as disagreeing with her. Who woulda guessed?

For the practical way to carry out humility, recognize that you may be wrong, and stop trying to spread despair. Call it the Pascal’s Wager of climate expression in which inaction is inaction, whatever the intellectual justification. Which kind of error is worse? Please deal with this problem where it can be fixed so you can help with what needs to be done.

Now let’s deal with the other part of what you may be saying.

What does exponential have to do with this?

Since we are NOT growing exponentially, I can’t imagine what you’re talking about. Well, yes, of course I know exactly what you’re talking about, it’s just that since we’re NOT growing exponentially, you’re wrong.

And yes, btw, we do have the technology to completely stop burning fossil fuels. That’s one of the lies being told by denying delayalists at both ends of the spectrum.

Oh my, despairing people, personal reasons, little to do with reality, and of course the ‘hook’ YOU are using is by saying that the damage is not growing by exponential increments and Guy McPerson is a kook. He is rather dramatic, isn’t he?

So let’s look at it from a reality angle, shall we?

From a high of 280ppm CO2 over the last 400,000 years with a low of 180ppm, to the current reading at Moana Loa observatory of 413ppm (and rising quickly I might add). All in the last 200 years now at levels equaling the Pleistocene Era of 3.5 to 5.5 million years ago. Oops. Maybe this is an example of reversed exponential.

And we are only in the early 1970s for GHGs released that are currently affecting the climate.

Oh, did I forget that the estimated time for the current load of CO2 to quit heating the atmosphere was 1,000 years…that info was released years ago. Hmmm. Add in how much of an increase of GHGs yearly and stir briskly.

From a population of modern humans 0 to 1 billion in 200,000 years, to a population of 7.8 billion in the last 100 years? Plus 1 million more mouths to feed roughly every three days. That’s not exponential?

Can’t forget that we are now breathing an atmospheric mix of gasses we didn’t evolve to breath. Hmmm again.

How much nearly exhausted topsoil is left on the degraded surface of this planet to feed all these new mouths by the way? I’ve read that science, too. But don’t worry, the petroleum-based chemical ‘fertilizers’ will certainly keep producing the pesticide-infected GMO mono-crops that exhausted the soil in the first place…until we use up the oil.

Which is already so used up already that corporations are FRACKING for it while poisoning aquifers we need to drink and water crops with; and drilling a mile down in the rapidly acidifying oceans with for-profit (means cheap in real talk) oil rigs, Deep Water I’m thinking about of course, and we know how that has turned out now don’t we? An ocean death well pretty much describes that sucker.

And since the Arctic is well on its way to melting completely off and we are soon to see Blue Water Events, in summer at least, the wealthy are gearing up to drill to keep Empire going. Because at this point we are not going to be an Empire if we don’t have oil to keep the military in the business of taking more resources from ‘lesser’ countries. The US military of course being the largest single source user of oil in the world…can’t have them run out!

Oh, can’t forget that those corporations spent enough bribes on the politicians that run the government that they passed a law that REQUIRES food crops from those degrading topsoil fields to be turned into 10% of the gallon you buy at the pump. Isn’t that hilarious?

Having 75% of the Arctic Ice Cap melt away since 1970 isn’t exponential? Are you kidding me, making a funny?

From a species loss of an estimated 200 fellow travelers on this planet a DAY? Worse than the Permian Extinction though probably not the comet/asteroid 65 million years ago which was instantaneous rather than drawn out…isn’t exponential?

I read the science. Have since the 1960s when I was handed Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring as a teenager. Limits to Growth in the early 70s along with Schneider’s Genesis Strategy, Climate and Global Survival in the mid-1970s sometime. I’ve read and studied climate for a damn long time. My closest friend of the last 4+ decades was a biology teacher and by chance my neighbor on the next property north is a retired biology teacher and still arguing with the clear-cutting and the Forest Service timber sales.

And, as a matter of fact, the Bachelor Degree I earned in my late 30s has ‘and Sciences’ on it. A sub-section of what I worked on so I’m a generalist, I correlate information well.

Go look this up:

“Large abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the earth, locally reaching as much as 10°C change in 10 years.” (Source: Alley, Richard B. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, Washington D.C. National Academy Press, 2002)

That description of abrupt climate change (10°C in 10 years) by Richard B. Alley, Evan Pugh Professor, Penn State University, is based upon paleoclimate data. However, that same risk is not considered by the IPCC or included in scientists’ models, thus it qualifies as one of the least expected climate events. But, it has happened in the past… more than once…"


If you read that you should also look up an earth sciences publication to read about what the CO2 was during those events.

Despairing? Nah, not me. I’m waiting for snow to fall and have an old husky girl sleeping by my feet. Keeps my feet solidly grounded in reality.

Ever sat with someone dying of cancer until they died? There is a point where it bothers the watcher more than them. I’m part of this planet’s ecosystem, a bitty bit of this world’s body, and I’m watching my planetary ecosystem collapse in a thousand different ways and all at once. But being a tiny part of the earth’s body, one piece of a species evolved on the planet that is being subjected to ecocide…is a rather uncomfortable realization I must admit.

How about using appalled? Disgusted. Sickened. Frustrated. Seriously not amused! There are so many far more accurate words to use for my state of mind. Not knowing the other people you sanctimoniously told to go for therapy I can’t answer as to how they think and feel. But for me nothing has changed except for the worst since the ‘report for physical’ notice showed up from the draft board in the early 70s. I practiced Duck & Cover under my elementary school desk at the start of the 1960s, and we really were scared during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I’ve had enough years of paying attention, so Exponential and Existential are two words my generation understands quite well.

sealintheSelkirks

“the damage is not growing by exponential increments and Guy McPerson is a kook.”

Not what I said. And, not what I said. And again, you’re using the same kind of rhetorical manipulations and logical fallacies that the climate-denying delayalists use–distortions, straw people, outright falsehoods, and others.

You obviously have no idea at all what I’m saying, what I think or believe, or what I know. You obviously are either not reading what I’m writing or are not comprehending it if you are reading it. IOW, You have me confused with someone else and are obviously responding irrationally—reading things into my words that aren’t there, ignoring completely what is there, making up a completely off-the-wall fantasy about what I’m saying… IOW, projecting, and in a worse way than even most denying delayalists. Once you calm down read my posts here on CD and elsewhere. I’ve linked to some here. And please, please consider getting into psychotherapy.

I’m stopping now, as I don’t argue about reality with insane people any more. Goodbye.

What a putz. Guess you don’t like science facts. Good riddance.

sealintheSelkirks