Turn Left for Earth

I appreciate that there’s more happening than just a march for the climate today on the International Day of Peace, and I get the idea that keeping the safe and obedient march-to-nowhere separate from protests actually at the United Nations where our corporate overlords are determining the rate of the earth’s demise is intended to please all of the people some of the time, but I can’t help wishing that the march would just turn left instead of right when it reaches 42nd Street, in order to march to the United Nations rather than to nowhere.

This is not a radical idea. A nonviolent protest march expressing popular opinion should be allowed to march to the place it is protesting. The idea that insisting on that constitutes something radical or extremist bewilders me. The New York Times refers to “protest or terror groups” as a category of people, but has a protest group ever engaged in terrorizing and has a terrorist ever joined a protest? Would protesting the United Nations at the United Nations somehow be an act of violence, perhaps purely because it would be an act of disobedience? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I’m in favor of mixed-use protests, not just urban developments. Don’t just let the conservative marchers know about opportunities for more direct protest, but get them involved. Take a safe march to a resistance action, where its size will keep it safe and its members will be energized. Let the crowd demonstrate within sight and sound of the people it is petitioning for a redress of grievances, and let those who are ready join in disruptive protest actions.

Of course turning left in order to go where needed makes a nice metaphor for what our whole culture must do if it is to cease destroying the earth’s climate. Paul Krugman figured out this week that green energy pays for itself, but he seems to imagine that therefore it will be created, as if the corrupting influence of the fossil fuel profiteers just doesn’t exist. We need to turn so far left that we abandon such naiveté, stop yammering about transition fuels, abandon all talk of “peak oil” as if existing oil isn’t sufficient to kill us all, and forswear all pointless pursuit of the political “center.”

Naomi Klein’s new book does a much better job of identifying the corrupting influence of profiteers. She also points out that the sooner we act to slow down climate change the less radical our actions will need to be. The longer we wait to take meaningful action, the more drastic our actions will have to be when we finally do something. Green energy, Klein’s book makes clear for anyone who was unaware, is not failing in a marketplace. It is being killed by political corruption, loan conditions, corporate trade agreements, penalties and disincentives, and the subsidies given to the fossil fuel corporations.

Klein notes that activist movements around trade and climate have, oddly, progressed while virtually ignoring each other. Klein comes closer than most environmentalists to not ignoring another big question, that of war. The military is the elephant in the room in terms of both economics and climate destruction, but is largely ignored by activists and the broader public.

In a common delusion, the government tells the truth about war, and war is worth giving up freedoms for, but scientists lie about the climate and do so in order to (somehow) attack our freedoms. In other words, the fears of bureaucrats and of limits to plutocracy are strong but perhaps not as strong as the fear of terrorists. And the fear of bureaucrats is augmented by a fear of being insignificant, because when nuclear energy or geo-engineering is proposed as a solution, those who like those ideas also see their recognition of the climate crisis increase.

When Klein mentions the military, she first proposes that the weapons companies pay their fair share toward climate protection, and then proposes (along with a bunch of other good ideas) cutting the military by 25% — while calling that proposal “the toughest sell.” The U.S. military budget has doubled in the past decade. The idea that it can’t be seriously cut is ridiculous. It is not a question of selling the idea to the public. Go back and look at the public’s preferred solutions to the supposed financial crisis in Congress a few years back. The problem is in the corruption of the U.S. government.

Elsewhere Klein says that large public sector expenditures will be needed to save the climate, but surely not as large as the military. So why talk about increasing, rather than changing, expenditures? And then again, elsewhere, Klein says what we need is “wartime levels of spending,” even though base military spending is about 10 times as much as war spending. Klein also cites a study suggesting that $1.9 trillion a year, or exactly what the planet now spends on war preparations, would solve the climate and various other crises and human needs.

Congress members have skipped town in order to avoid voting on war. You can find them in their districts. November 6th will be the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. The two movements named in this holiday should be combined and our actions should escalate. A slight left turn won’t be enough to save us.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    if you accept that the government lies about war, why is it so difficult to imagine that it is lying about carbon emissions and rising temperatures? it’s government agencies which are ‘homogenizing’ temperature data, not the scientists making the measurements.

    more importantly, peak oil is either real or not, dismissing it isn’t backed by any publicly available data.

    if it is real, then the climate models are bogus. they ALL use increasing fossil fuel burn rates, which is not going to happen.

    thus: climate models are not suitable for use in setting public policy.

    ps: you have to ignore a lot of current history to end up expecting that a march or phone call campaign will have any effect on congress or the un. you could deliver five months of five million person marches and you’d still only get soundbites at best. no one is going to walk home thinking ‘wow, that really worked!’. a different approach is required.

    • SaraJBibeau

      my buddy’s sister makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her pay check was $12435 just working on the internet for a few hours. Visit Website ,.. ,,,,,..,,,.

      http://aim2earn.com/new/home/…. <<(go on Home tab of this page)

    • erschroedinger

      Because tens of thousands of scientists the world over would also have to be lying. And if you think that, you belong in a rubber room.

      • kimyo

        are tens of thousands of doctors lying when they tell you to avoid salt and animal fats? or are they just mis-informed? when they tell you to get a flu vaccine – lying or mis-informed?

        when tens of thousands of scientists advise us on global warming, yet only a few understand that it stopped 15+ years ago, are they lying? or mis-informed?

        you seem to have very little understanding of how the machine works.

        Global warming ‘hiatus’ puts climate change scientists on the spot

        Theories as to why Earth’s average surface temperature hasn’t risen in recent years include an idea that the Pacific Ocean goes through decades-long cycles of absorbing heat.

        Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.

        • Andrew Gora

          greenhouse gases from volcanic eruptions have been the primary mechanic for long term temperature changes since the beginning of the planet -_- what on earth would make you think greenhouse gases formed from human activity would work any differently?

          • kimyo

            are volcanic eruptions tied to solar activity? if so, then you’ve got the cart in front of the horse. if you don’t know, then how can we trust your predictions?

            increased carbon dioxide levels follow increased global temps. they are the result, not the cause.

            you’d have us prepare for the wrong future. dealing with an oncoming ice age will be challenging enough without the added burden of peak cheap oil. add on top dozens of governments wasting billions of dollars on nonsensical and completely ineffective carbon capture / taxation schemes and you waste our only opportunity to move forward into the actual future instead of the hellfire you imagine and embrace with religious fervor.

        • erschroedinger

          It didn’t stop in 1999. The 2 hottest years on record are after 1999 (and 2014 promises to be the third); 9 of the 10 hottest are after 1999. “No warming for xx years” is a flat-out lie.

          • kimyo

            i suggest you bring up your beef with the l.a. times editors. it doesn’t get clearer than this:

            Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise.

            just before the start = 1999. today = 2015. that’s 15+ years of NO warming, my friend.

            post the retraction here once the l.a. times accommodates you.

          • erschroedinger

            That’s a flat out lie. 14 of the 15 hottest years have been after 1999.

          • kimyo

            good. let the denialism flow through you. embrace the dark side. i can hear it welling within you.

            evidently, when you find the truth to be inconvenient, your approach is to put your fingers in your ears and continue to chant, but with ever increasing fervor.

            better add the guardian to your list, they’ll be needing at least a few letters demanding retraction:
            Global warming ‘pause’ due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds
            Research shows surprise global warming ‘hiatus’ could have been forecast
            Research explains why changes in tropical waters could be responsible for recent ‘pause’ in rising temperatures

            (graphic shown in that last link clearly indicates the hiatus starting in 1999. and, funny enough, it’s marked ‘hiatus period’. must be some kind of typo.)

          • erschroedinger

            1. The Guardian is not a scientific publication.
            2. If you’d read some scientific sites or journals, you’d know the “pause” refers to a pause in the previously rapid RATE of warming, not the warming itself.

            Trying to discuss science with a labradoodle like you is pointless.

          • kimyo

            so, we agree that there is a pause, yes?

            do we also agree that this is highly unusual, given the non-stop increase in co2 emissions during this time?

            where is the missing heat? in the ocean? or is it being masked by volcanic activity?

            The relatively muted warming of the surface and lower troposphere since
            1998 has attracted considerable attention. One contributory factor to
            this “warming hiatus” is an increase in volcanically-induced cooling over
            the early 21st century.

            it seems to me that no one knows. we have insufficient ocean temp data to prove/disprove the theory that the missing heat is there. if it is volcanic activity then the climate models are going to need a serious rework before they become suitable for use in setting public policy.

            also, consider our politician’s long standing record of failure every time they declare war on X. gun control legislation triggers increased gun sales. fda-recommended ‘heart-healthy’ low-fat/diet products result in higher levels of diabetes and obesity. no one is going to argue that we’ve won the war on drugs, or terrorism or poverty.

            the likelihood is that carbon legislation will increase carbon emissions. (for instance, by building up nuclear, or tearing down perfectly functional railways in order to build nonsensical never delivered ‘high-speed’ rail)

          • erschroedinger

            As scientists would tell you, if you’d listen to them, the pause refers to a pause in the RAPID RATE of warming, not in warming itself. The global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximately 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade (Cowtan and Way, 2013).

          • kimyo

            Missing Data from Arctic One Cause of Pause in Temperature Rise

            The data series Cowtan examined is put out by the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Centre and referred to as HadCRUT4. At first glance, a graph of HadCRUT4 temperature anomalies over the past 130 years or so seems to show a clear trend.

            From about 1910 onward, the Earth gets warmer. And warmer. And warmer.

            Then, right around 2000, the steadily marching black line of temperature
            anomalies reaches a plateau. It’s stayed there until now, sometimes
            even appearing to trend in a negative direction.

            forgive me, i’m just a labradoodle posting on the interwebs, but, doesn’t ‘trend in a negative direction’ = cooling?

            if sci am isn’t on your approved list then how ’bout nature climate change?:Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

            The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08°C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade.

            lastly, aside from their failure to predict the pause, the models also suffer from a bad input: they’re all based on ever-increasing fossil fuel use. if you’ve been paying attention, the collapse in crude has been mentioned in the news and on these pages. rigs shutting down = decreased production.

            the models must be re-done, with scenarios depicting declining fossil fuel use. as is, the models do not accurately represent the state of the planet today, and they don’t provide any useful information about tomorrow.

          • erschroedinger

            Look at their table 3. Every temp trend is positive; average around 0.12 C/decade.

  • jim_robert

    Really? People still actually believe in the fraud of faux global warming? Really??

    There has been no warming for 10 to 19 years, depending on which measurement methodology is used. More CO2 in the air “greens” the Earth and is good news because it increases the food supply (CO2 is airborne fertilizer) while simultaneously reducing water requirements for green plants, and with no obvious negative effects.

    The claim that CO2 warms the Earth is not scientifically proven and is nonsense: In 4.5 billion years of history, there has only been one short 22 year period, from 1976 to 1998, when both manmade CO2 and average temperature significantly increased at the same time (and that fact does not prove one
    variable caused the other to rise). In the era of rising manmade CO2, since 1940, average temperature has beendeclining most of the time..

    As sea ice extent around Antarctica reaches new records in 2014, and sea ice in the Arctic has grown 63% in the two years from August 25, 2012 to August 25, 2104 measurement (data based on 30% or more ice coverage), we should be concerned about global cooling, not global warming..

    Data from ice core samples from Volstok, Antarctic, and from Greenland have been used to determine atmospheric CO2 concentrations and atmospheric temperatures going back 400,000 years or more. Repeatedly atmospheric warming occurred about 800 years BEFORE atmospheric CO2 levels started to rise. If CO2 is causing warming, than this has a cause following an effect! It appears atmospheric warming made CO2 degass from ocean water. The highest CO2 concentrations in past geological eras was around 2800 ppm. Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas now yet climate models leave water vapor, clouds, types of clouds, and cloud altitude out of their climate models. These also have largely ignored solar storms which is incomprehensible unless
    you realize the pseudoscientists have a political agenda, convincing people man
    made CO2 is the primary cause of global warming (which has inconveniently not
    been happening for 16-19 years, despite CO2 reaching 400 ppm). CO2 and methane
    are more potent than water vapor but they are in miniscule amounts compared to
    water vapor.

    All the freaking TRILLIONS of SCAM BIG GREEN MONEY being diverted? Millions of children under five die every yeardue to toxic germ-infested unsafe drinking water. This means that almost four babies a minute die from a lack of water according to UN-Water’s estimations. In the 2014 World Water Report released on the eve of World Water Day, the UN said that 768 million people do not have adequate access to water, 2.5 billion do not have access to improved sanitation.

    I am a Canadian who hikes a lot in the Canadian Rockies. Early pictures from the
    area vs. today show much glacier recession, at least for some glaciers, such as
    Bow Glacier, which is the source of the Bow River. The hiking book Classic
    Hikes in the Canadian Rockies shows this glacier around 1900. If you go theretoday, the same glacier is much, much receded. But here is the rub. The same anti-science types, who think science is determined by “consensus” (of which there is none, not even close) rather than
    **experimentation and hypothesis testing**, unthinkingly look at this and make utterly unwarranted conclusions. The fact of the matter is that there was something called the Little Ice Age (LIA)
    the nadir of which was the early 1800s. The simple fact is that this was one of
    the coldest periods since the Ice Age, and we are still emerging from this. THAT, mon ami, is why the Bow Glacier – and its sisters – have receded: we are still emerging from that LIA. This is why, according to the Archeological Survey of Canada, the tree line was 100 km. NORTH of where it is today during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period, which was preceded by the similar Roman Warm
    Period. Incidentally, that emergence from the Little Ice Age has stopped over the past dozen years – there has been ZERO global warming since 1998, which now even the co-opted IPCC admits, as did
    Phil Jones at Hadley , the lead global warmer – until ClimateGate forced him to
    resign (and you’ll notice the leftists and Agenda 21 scamsters hope you’ll
    forget Climategate… along with Lois LernerGate

    More evidence. Kegwins’ study in Nature on marine radioistopes shows that we are,
    today, still BELOW the 3,000 year average. If you google “Dr. Tim Ball+picea glauca” you will find a white sprucestump on the coast Canada’s Arctic Ocean, dated about 5,000 years ago, and
    NOWHERE near today’s treeline. Of course, no one on the left has the
    intellectual honesty to address any of this.

    The reality is that the left, the BIG GREEN MONEY, and the Agenda 21 types want to
    control energy, which allows them to control everything that touches, which is… well, everything


    Last Oct. –
    March period was the THE coldest in N. America in over 100 years. China and
    Thailand lost rice crop – and people died of the cold – during the same period.
    NASA just reported THE coldest temp EVER in Antarctica, of -135.8F, and
    Antarctic ice is at an all time EVER record extent (same Antarctic the self
    proclaimed “science guy” Bill Nye thought was the Arctic during one debate).
    Arctic ice up somewhere around 50% or so as well.

    More for
    ignorant global warmers: Since when has “consensus,” rather than experimentation
    and hypothesis testing defined science? Since Galileo? Copernicus? Columbus?
    Since Hitler had published “100 Scientists Against Einstein?” Since Ignaz
    Semmelweis was drummed out of the medical biz in the 1800s for insisting his
    doctors wash their hands between operations? Oh, and that consensus

    Al Gore, the
    same man who flunked out of graduate school (in a non-scientific area no less)
    has stated about global warming “The debate in the scientific community is
    over.” In contrast, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, professor of atmospheric
    science has stated “Al Gore is wrong. There is no consensus on global
    warming.” and the frantic alarmism all
    over the media has, in Dr. Lindzen’s own words, “nothing to do with
    science.” Meanwhile, Colorado State
    University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray says about global
    warming: “It’s a big scam.” Frederick Seitz Past President of the National
    Academy of Sciences sponsored a petition
    against the whole global warming façade, which over 19,000 scientist signed
    this petition… as opposed to the 600 the U.N. could scrounge up, and some of
    these 600 have since reconsidered their past agreement, such as Nobel Prize
    winning physicist Ivar Glaever who stated in an update to the U.S. Senate Minority
    report for 2007 that “Global warming has become a new religion” and “I am a
    skeptic,”.Japanese scientist Kiniori Itoh, another former IPCC member who has
    called Gorian warming a “scientific scandal,” while noting that people “will
    feel deceived by science and scientists” when they learn the truth. For a complete list of signees to the OISM
    petition – which includes a simply staggering number of Ph.Ds go to the .oism
    (dot) org/pproject/ site, where they are arranged in alphabetical order.
    Meanwhile a similar petition www (dot) petitionproject – as of Aug., 2008 – had
    31,072 scientist signatures, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds disagreeing with
    anthropogenic global warming.

    • erschroedinger

      That’s incredibly stupid. The earth has not warmed since 1994? How come all 15 of the hottest years are after 1994?

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas — that was proven 130 years ago. By definition, that means it warms the earth.

      The earth is losing over 1 trillion tons of ice a year.

      Learn some science and stop lying.

  • ttt-thetruthisalwaysthere

    really? you have never heard of a protest being infiltrated by terrorists? or of a protest group turning violent / making terrorist attacks? arent you protesting because of your concern for political affairs? havent you learned about political affairs/ events to determine your reason to protest/ goals to achieve? how did you miss this completely in your education about political affairs/ events?

  • Franklin Beenz

    The bulk of the climate problem rests in the overpopulation of the planet and the adding of 100 million additional humans every single year, iow, 1 billion every 10 years. Until a global birth reduction is established, the climate will continue to rebel against its inhabitants. And for that to happen, organized religion will have to revise its falsification ‘go forth and multiply, like vermin’. Sectarianism is at the root of the climate issue, iow the overpopulation problem.

  • June 24, 2014 The Scandal Of Fiddled Global Warming Data

    When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).