Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Hi! Bye!

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:08 (seven years ago) link

just starting to read it now, but it's by bill mckibben, so it's going to be a good read. the man is truly a hero.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:15 (seven years ago) link

i would say its scary but its way beyond that. kind of an r.i.p. earth dispatch really.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:19 (seven years ago) link

"In early June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled on a Norwegian research trawler to see firsthand the growing damage from climate change. "Many of the predictions about warming in the Arctic are being surpassed by the actual data," she said, describing the sight as "sobering." But the discussions she traveled to Scandinavia to have with other foreign ministers were mostly about how to make sure Western nations get their share of the estimated $9 trillion in oil (that's more than 90 billion barrels, or 37 gigatons of carbon) that will become accessible as the Arctic ice melts. Last month, the Obama administration indicated that it would give Shell permission to start drilling in sections of the Arctic."

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:21 (seven years ago) link

well that's good news, at least

frogbs, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:24 (seven years ago) link

we're fucked

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:26 (seven years ago) link

all that pesky arctic ice was hiding all the oil!

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:28 (seven years ago) link

it's why if you talk to people who work on climate change (people at environmental nonprofits, climate scientists, think tanks), everyone has this attitude that's beyond fatalistic. like, you almost have to laugh at the situation a little bit to keep yourself from going insane. i guess the article talks about that a bit:

We're in the same position we've been in for a quarter-century: scientific warning followed by political inaction. Among scientists speaking off the record, disgusted candor is the rule. One senior scientist told me, "You know those new cigarette packs, where governments make them put a picture of someone with a hole in their throats? Gas pumps should have something like that."

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:33 (seven years ago) link

but yeah, it's absurd. in 2010, my dad told me "you know who Obama should appoint for secretary of energy? Sarah Palin. i don't agree with her about a lot of stuff, but she has really good ideas about energy." my dad's kind of an outlier i guess, because he's a super fundamentalist who believes the earth is 8000 years old and doesn't believe that climate change could happen because god promised not to flood the earth again, and even if environmental catastrophe did occur, he'd be raptured out of it (the "pre-wrath rapture" theory") before the shit hit the fan. but man, there are a toooooooon of really ignorant people out there that don't want to hear anything that's bad news.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:36 (seven years ago) link

it really is up to the governments of the world. all of them. the average person is too far gone to really change things. i'm too far gone! he mentions that moral outrage over the loss of a city due to climate-related storms would change opinion, although there has already been mass devastation to cities due to super storms and it hasn't changed anyone's mind about anything. plus, for some reason people don't want to make the connection. major damage due to warming doesn't make people hate the oil companies.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:45 (seven years ago) link

this is increasingly all I think about and it leaves me in a heavy depression. I try to be fatalistic about it and tell myself that the universe will go on regardless, but that's not comfort since I guess one day it will be a dark grey cold mass of atoms.

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:45 (seven years ago) link

i find it near-impossible to imagine a government stepping in to take the necessary action against oil companies in liberal socialist Europe, there's absolutely no chance in hell it wd happen in the US or China

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:47 (seven years ago) link

all the news stories here about the drought are about how you might be paying more at the pump in the future! that is the number one concern. oh and food prices are gonna go up. that takes second place.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:47 (seven years ago) link

thats really the frustrating part; it really seems like as a planet we could buckle down and fix things, we just won't

frogbs, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:47 (seven years ago) link

whenever I hear the phrase "the price at the pump" it makes me insane. was looking at various political parties' platforms, and of course in the energy section for the democrats' paper there is little mention of climate change, and instead just talk about energy security, independence, and yes, the "price at the pump."

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:50 (seven years ago) link

It sounds like it may be coming to a head in the US soon if next year's corn harvest may be fucked.

I am curious what the thinking inside China is - I oddly expect more of them than the US, partly because I don't associate them with "Oh God won't let that happen".

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:51 (seven years ago) link

I remember having my huge bout of paralyzed fear about the environment in early 1992 -- still always associate the Church's stellar Priest = Aura with that, probably why that album has lingered with me for so long. I don't see myself returning to that state anymore because it's almost like...well, I went through it, and my fears never went away. I just became inured, and so I'll just live my life as low impact as possible and...wait.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:53 (seven years ago) link

xpost but it's up to people to force their governments to act.

what i'm dreading even more than the world that we'll have to live in for the rest of our lives - where the new normal is weeks on end of 100+ degrees, droughts, Katrinas, oceanic foodchains ruined by acidification, climate refugees struggling to move to the remaining pockets of the world where agriculture isn't wrecked - is the geoengineering "solutions" that will inevitably arise. it's so obvious that that's where we're headed. and no doubt, geoengineering efforts will probably be pushed by exxon-mobil and the like.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:54 (seven years ago) link

what is the true percentage of people in the US that believe god is protecting us though? I feel that there are many who just don't want to admit the truth because it is terrifying, or are just susceptible to listening to whichever account of events is least traumatizing. I figure it's quite a minority who really believe that God Himself will prevent any ecological disaster, even if a majority of Americans identify as religious.

xxpost

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:54 (seven years ago) link

like most Americans are religious, but not thaaaaat religious, right? I mean most people just like to say they believe in god and attend church once in a while. right guys??

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:56 (seven years ago) link

now I think I'm fooling myself maybe

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 13:57 (seven years ago) link

i need a drink after reading this

Spectrum, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:57 (seven years ago) link

I get the impression that it works on a lower/earlier level, like as long as there's FUD about climate change, people can react to it as "one story is this, and one story is that, but God would not put us in the situation where Story 1 happens so it must be Story 2"

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 20 July 2012 13:59 (seven years ago) link

I am curious what the thinking inside China is - I oddly expect more of them than the US, partly because I don't associate them with "Oh God won't let that happen".

also because their leadership would actually have the ability to unilaterally "force" action on the issue. don't know if they'd actually do it, but at least it's possible.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:00 (seven years ago) link

there was a nyer stat about 26% (iirc) of americans defining themselves as evangelicals, recently (xxxp)

hey Z S, sorry to use you as a lazy wikipedia substitute, BUT, is it correct that the limited action that was taken by governments after the discovery of the hole in the o-zone layer was actually effective? that stat always seemed slightly reassuring to me, because i couldn't believe that anyone did a lot, but the idea that some modest action was effective seemed promising.

, Blogger (schlump), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:02 (seven years ago) link

these are some of the people in power in the united states. just so we are clear:

In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending; the following year, more than 90 percent of the Chamber's cash went to GOP candidates, many of whom deny the existence of global warming. Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:02 (seven years ago) link

U.S. Chamber of Commerce is horrible for many reasons, not least of which is that they fool people into thinking they're an actual gov't agency!

lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:05 (seven years ago) link

Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.

as cynical as i am about the intelligence of our conservative political leaders, i think that many of them really do understand the implications of climate change. as time goes on and denying climate change becomes more and more absurd - think about the first warnings about cigarettes and cancer in the late 50s, the loooooooong conservative battle against those scientists who were trying to save lives, and then the gradual, quiet acceptance of the facts in the following decades - the rhetoric will quickly shift to geoengineering "solutions", since by then it will be too late to actually effectively mitigate climate change by reducing CO2 emissions. hell, it's probably already too late NOW, when you take into account tipping points/feedback loops. anyway, they'll be happy to move straight to geoengineering, because that's a pro-business attitude that doesn't involve changing your own lifestyle.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:08 (seven years ago) link

http://adsoftheworld.com/files/sony.start_.new_.tunnel20.jpg

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:15 (seven years ago) link

wait did ned just say that he made his peace with the destruction of the planet via an australian college rock band from the 80's?

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:22 (seven years ago) link

sounds about right

mississippi joan hart (crüt), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:23 (seven years ago) link

You gotta start somewhere.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:25 (seven years ago) link

hey Z S, sorry to use you as a lazy wikipedia substitute, BUT, is it correct that the limited action that was taken by governments after the discovery of the hole in the o-zone layer was actually effective? that stat always seemed slightly reassuring to me, because i couldn't believe that anyone did a lot, but the idea that some modest action was effective seemed promising.

yes, the actions taken were relatively effective! but the experience is - cue negative nancy alert - unfortunately not very applicable to the problem of climate change. ozone depletion is primarily caused by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Banning the use of CFCs in things like spray cans and refrigerators was relatively easy to accomplish, since there are chemical substitutes that could be used at a similar cost. and it was regulation that could be implemented quickly, from the top down, on industry.

climate change, on the other hand, is driven by the emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from burning coal and using oil. but the key is that the infrastructure required to deliver energy and car-centered transportation to the people is enormous. you can't change it overnight, and you can't do it in a way that consumers barely notice (like phasing out CFCs in spray cans). there are cleaner substitutes for coal and oil, of course, but the substitutes tend to be more expensive and will take a long time to replace to replace the existing infrastructure.

and also, there's just the sheer usefulness of fossil fuels. think about what a gallon of gasoline provides for you - it enables a weak, feeble human being to move a one ton automobile for 30 miles or so! imagine pushing that car! all from a gallon of fossilized ancient dead organisms! it's seriously amazing. and so incredibly cheap. $3 for access to superhuman powers. it's like playing videogames on god mode. people in underdeveloped countries understandably want access to oil and coal. again, all of this in contrast to CFCs, which could be eliminated without negatively impacting the prospects of a better life for anyone else.

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 14:26 (seven years ago) link

xpost -- Said album was more of a vehicle and a lens, in that it builds up to a pretty harrowing ending. I don't know whether it matched my mood or enabled it, but I find it pretty inextricable in reflecting back, and anytime I encounter stories or concerns like this it's part of the soundtrack in my head.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:27 (seven years ago) link

If global warming is real, then why is it cold in winter? Huh? Fuck you, science.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:29 (seven years ago) link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4MCRrsmzYU

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:29 (seven years ago) link

The first six months of 2012 were the hottest on record. Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, takes a look at record warm temperatures across the county and the world and their connections to global warming.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/jul/11/weather/

scott seward, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:47 (seven years ago) link

The 'Dark Knight' shootings are terrifying and ppl will rightly be appalled by them but somehow climate change lacks the immediacy that would rightly make it that much more terrifying.

sive gallus et mulier (Michael White), Friday, 20 July 2012 15:52 (seven years ago) link

it's because what's predicted to happen has never happened before in human memory and so people just ignore it.

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 20 July 2012 15:58 (seven years ago) link

if you can scarcely conceptualize a threat then it's hard to motivate yourself to give up deeply ingrained habits and privileges to stop it.

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 20 July 2012 15:59 (seven years ago) link

i do wonder what sort of world the rest of my life will be spent in. will my neighbors and myself experience widespread privation? or will life in america just become marginally more difficult, with our wealth and technology insulating ourselves from the worst of it? will my diet change thanks to rolling food shortages? will we all simply die of malnutrition in 40 years?

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:01 (seven years ago) link

3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

he sorta blows his math cred in the second sentence. that number is almost zero.

Thus Sang Freud, Friday, 20 July 2012 16:03 (seven years ago) link

odds are expressed as a fraction of 1 iirc

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:08 (seven years ago) link

agree. the odds are small, not large. an editor should have picked that up.

Thus Sang Freud, Friday, 20 July 2012 16:11 (seven years ago) link

Dodgy formatting imo, should it be 3.7 x 10^99:1? Or 3.7 x 10:99? Or what?

mod night at the oasis (NickB), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:12 (seven years ago) link

more proof that this is all a hoax

your friend, (Z S), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:16 (seven years ago) link

Sorry, I've got my stupid head on and didn't read the sentence properly. Yes, it makes no sense as he has written it.

mod night at the oasis (NickB), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:26 (seven years ago) link

it makes sense it's just inaccurate. he shd've used odds against if he wanted to draw the stars comparison.

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:27 (seven years ago) link

i mean, i knew what he meant, so it makes sense, and i squinted at the -99 index when i read it

Tartar Mouantcheoux (Noodle Vague), Friday, 20 July 2012 16:28 (seven years ago) link

oops, on 5) i was referring to the Extinction Rebellion spokesperson who seemed to have failed on live broadcast to answer a complicated question with scientific accuracy

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 3 December 2019 19:14 (four months ago) link

oh, and duh, here's the part at the end that, for some reason, longtime liars Watts Up With That have promoted on their website:

(Kerry) Emanuel and Wigley say the extreme rhetoric is making political agreement on climate change harder.

“You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” said Emanuel. “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”

MIDDLE GROUND WITH CLIMATE DENIERS WHO STILL ARGUE THAT IT IS A HOAX AND SIT THROUGH TALK RADIO INTERVIEW AFTER INTERVIEW 'YESSING' ALONG WITH WHATEVER THE DUMBFUCK HOST SAYS

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 3 December 2019 19:17 (four months ago) link

sorry, left my caps lock on

also the false dichotomy between mitigating climate change and improving living conditions

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 3 December 2019 19:18 (four months ago) link

great takedown KM, thanks for taking the time. the kind of post i love this site for.

Doctor Casino, Tuesday, 3 December 2019 22:16 (four months ago) link

https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-climate-changes-worsens-a-cascade-of-tipping-points-looms

Some of the most alarming science surrounding climate change is the discovery that it may not happen incrementally — as a steadily rising line on a graph — but in a series of lurches as various “tipping points” are passed. And now comes a new concern: These tipping points can form a cascade, with each one triggering others, creating an irreversible shift to a hotter world. A new study suggests that changes to ocean circulation could be the driver of such a cascade.

A group of researchers, led by Tim Lenton at Exeter University, England, first warned in a landmark paper 11 years ago about the risk of climate tipping points. Back then, they thought the dangers would only arise when global warming exceeded 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. But last week, Lenton and six co-authors argued in the journal Nature that the risks are now much more likely and much more imminent. Some tipping points, they said, may already have been breached at the current 1 degree C of warming.

The new warning is much starker than the forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which critics say has until now played down the risks of exceeding climate tipping points, in part because they are difficult to quantify.

The potential tipping points come in three forms: runaway loss of ice sheets that accelerate sea level rise; forests and other natural carbon stores such as permafrost releasing those stores into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), accelerating warming; and the disabling of the ocean circulation system.

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Friday, 6 December 2019 18:58 (three months ago) link

DUH

(not you, KM)

sleeve, Friday, 6 December 2019 19:29 (three months ago) link

just, whatever you do, let's be clear that this does not threaten the extinction of humanity, because that could worry some people

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Friday, 6 December 2019 19:36 (three months ago) link

feelin pretty doomy abt all the runaway effect stuff after reading New York 2140 a couple months back

Doctor Casino, Friday, 6 December 2019 19:52 (three months ago) link

And now comes a new concern: These tipping points can form a cascade, with each one triggering others, creating an irreversible shift to a hotter world.

I thought this has always been a concern?

💠 (crüt), Saturday, 7 December 2019 20:37 (three months ago) link

They have to pretend it is 'new' for it to be covered by the 'news'.

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 7 December 2019 20:48 (three months ago) link

'Always' since the 1970s or so.

Tipping points were the whole rationale behind the 2° C target (which we're going to accelerate past in my lifetime).

полезный инструмент (Sanpaku), Saturday, 7 December 2019 23:19 (three months ago) link

The Arctic may have just crossed a key threshold, per @NOAA - permafrost is melting and releasing more than a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. By @afreedma https://t.co/C5fclAw6gc

— Juliet Eilperin (@eilperin) December 10, 2019

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 10 December 2019 19:31 (three months ago) link

just so everyone knows: i believe this is a brand new problem that has never been mentioned

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 10 December 2019 19:31 (three months ago) link

About 50 mentions on this thread alone. But passing from sink to source is a milestone.

полезный инструмент (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 10 December 2019 21:43 (three months ago) link

you know, i just would have appreciated a warning on this happening, though. why didn't anyone look into this before? we could have stopped it from happening had we known!

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 10 December 2019 22:07 (three months ago) link

I thought the permafrost thing involved methane clathrates, not carbon?

Scorsese runs afoul of the Irishman (Leee), Tuesday, 10 December 2019 22:25 (three months ago) link

Clathrates are the seabed natural carbon source. Clathrates require higher pressure for stability.

Permafrost outgasses mostly CO2, some methane.

полезный инструмент (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 10 December 2019 23:35 (three months ago) link

Ah! Seabed different from permafrost, obviously. Nothing to see here (here being my brain).

Scorsese runs afoul of the Irishman (Leee), Tuesday, 10 December 2019 23:59 (three months ago) link

I mean, it's all coming out, we're all going to die hellishly

Tsar Bombadil (James Morrison), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 06:02 (three months ago) link

Calthrates are mostly held in oceanic sediment but there are clathrates in sedimentary rocks under permafrost too

Wee Bloabby (NickB), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 06:16 (three months ago) link

https://aceee.org/press/2019/12/trump-administration-defies-2007-0

WASHINGTON (Dec. 20, 2019) – The Trump administration announced today it will block energy-saving standards scheduled to go into effect January 1 for the hundreds of millions of everyday light bulbs sold in the United States every year, which defies a bipartisan 2007 law passed by Congress. The action will increase consumer utility bills and worsen the carbon pollution driving climate change.

In its quest to tie U.S. families and businesses to energy-wasting incandescent bulbs that usually burn out within a year, the Trump Department of Energy (DOE) issued notice that it will publish in the Federal Register a “final determination” saying it does not believe it needs to proceed with bulb energy efficiency improvements envisioned under the law signed by President Bush 12 years ago. The decision could cost U.S. consumers an extra $14 billion on annual energy bills and create the need to generate an additional 30 large (500 MW) power plants’ worth of electricity every year.

“The Trump administration just thumbed its nose at Congress, America’s families and businesses, and the environment,” said Noah Horowitz, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Center for Energy Efficiency Standards. “This law should have saved U.S. households more than $100 annually, on average, and avoided 38 million additional tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide pollution every year. NRDC will be exploring every option, including legal action, to fight this illegal rollback.”

which was the stronger influence here:

- desire to reverse anything that obama supported, even if it was passed under the bush administration in 2007
- compulsion to take any possible action to make climate change worse
- he doesn't like the color of LED lighting and doesn't know about the more "natural" tinted options

Peaceful Warrior I Poser (Karl Malone), Friday, 20 December 2019 20:27 (three months ago) link

We'll still have coal rollers and zealots for incandescent lighting at 3 and 4 °C.

raisin d'etre (Sanpaku), Friday, 20 December 2019 20:51 (three months ago) link

It's the necessity of doggedly maintaining the pretense that climate change is a hoax and non-existent, and taking every measure consistent with that view. It is imperative for Trump to project his complete confidence that wasting energy is of no consequence and consumers should never be asked to limit their choices in any way.

If it were in Trump's power to bring back leaded gasoline, he would try it.

A is for (Aimless), Friday, 20 December 2019 21:46 (three months ago) link

two weeks pass...

the necessity of doggedly maintaining the pretense that climate change is a hoax

Conservative acquaintance of mine posted today that we're being 'alarmist' about the fires in Australia, and offered as proof some bullshit from "cfact.org," which five seconds of googling will tell you is climate change denial funded by Koch Industries.

So there is a huge fear that they're being forced into a green new deal by people who might profit from it, but no concern that these blogs promoting 'a free-market approach to environmental issues' are oil company propaganda.

It's like: who should I believe about smoking, RJ Reynolds Corp. or the American Medical Association? Well, the AMA is probably just trying to sell me Nicorette gum, so I'll just stick to my two pack a day habit, thanks.

A perfect transcript of a routine post (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 9 January 2020 20:11 (two months ago) link

It's like: who should I believe about smoking, RJ Reynolds Corp. or the American Medical Association?

i'm a slow motion skipping record in this thread, but there is a really strong connection between the disinformation campaigns waged by tobacco and energy industries - similar tactics, and many of the very same people doing it. that was true at the very beginning, and even to this day: https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/02/19/how-tobacco-and-fossil-fuel-companies-fund-disinformation-campaigns-around-world

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Thursday, 9 January 2020 20:50 (two months ago) link

on the weekends, some of them also dispute that concussions are an actual problem in american football

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 January 2020 20:53 (two months ago) link

sorry to divert to a david berman thing but i always imagine (speculatively) his father to have held some sort of role in all that shit.

[10 seconds of googling later]

yep

Richard B. Berman (born 1942) is an American lawyer, public relations executive, and former lobbyist.[1] Through his public affairs firm, Berman and Company, he runs several industry-funded non-profit organizations such as the Center for Consumer Freedom,[2] the Center for Union Facts, and the Employment Policies Institute.[3] His organizations have run numerous media campaigns concerning obesity, soda taxation, smoking, cruelty to animals, mad cow disease, taxes, the national debt, drinking and driving, as well as the minimum wage. Through the courts and media campaigns, his company challenges regulations from consumer, safety and environmental groups.[4][5][6][7]

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Thursday, 9 January 2020 20:59 (two months ago) link

maybe that wasn't speculation, maybe that was just me forgetting that i used to knew that. anyway. it's bizarre that people fall for this bullshit, not in one particular info campaign but across so many different topics and generations of fools (and selfish bastards)! and that in the background there's these dipshits running the show in half empty best western conference rooms near every international airport. and yet they've already wildly succeeded! in order for oil companies to keep running iran for another 25 years, the CIA and MI6 had to instigate a coup and install a puppet. in order for oil companies to protect their industry from climate change regulation for 32 years (since 1988/hansen), all they had to do was shave off a cut of their profits to fund a disinformation industry, the discredited "research" and the distribution network (bullshit "journals" and scientific publications, conferences, think tanks, foundations) to give the whole thing a stage flat neighborhood feel convincing enough to pass on conservative television and radio (it helps to work with other actors). and again - examine any of this close up and you just keep running into the dumbest things possible, and yet no one knows what to do about it, and it keeps working

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Thursday, 9 January 2020 21:12 (two months ago) link

i mean, just imagine working on a hyper-conservative bloodsucking campaign to protect the alcohol's right to advertise to minors. then you name your organization "Center for Union Facts", because it doesn't even matter, does it. then some dude's out there listening to the radio and hears an ad by a serious sounding actor who says that you have to vote no on Prop 14 because it's going to destroy jobs in the biggest industry in the tri-state area, "paid for by the Center for Union Facts". doot doot doot, 2 months later in the voting booth, "hmm prop 14 is bad for jobs, right? a union said that i think", doot doot doot

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Thursday, 9 January 2020 21:25 (two months ago) link

bbbut the website is called CFact! It's got facts right in the name, don't you SEE?

A perfect transcript of a routine post (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 9 January 2020 21:28 (two months ago) link

They're National SOCIALISTS so Commies are Nazis do you see!!?

Camina Burana Drummer (Leee), Thursday, 9 January 2020 21:29 (two months ago) link

Bother me tomorrow, today I'll buy no sorrows
Doot, doot, doot, looking out my back door

vote no on prop 14

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Thursday, 9 January 2020 21:31 (two months ago) link

“I’m a big believer in that word, the environment,” he said. “I’m a big believer, but I want clean air and I want clean water, I also want jobs, though. I don’t want to close up our industry because somebody said, you know, ‘you have to go with wind’ or ‘you have to go with something else.’ It’s not going to be able to have the capacity to do what we have to do.”

greatest. president. EVER!

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 10 January 2020 03:14 (two months ago) link

truly, we did not get the president we needed, we got the president we deserved

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 10 January 2020 03:15 (two months ago) link

all they had to do was shave off a cut of their profits to fund a disinformation industry

bingo! this means they could fund a few hundred relatively talented Moral Monsters (tm) to come to work each day of their lives and figure out how to get millions of people to swallow whatever pack of lies were most useful to their employers, in exchange for a nice suburban home, benefits, good schools for their kids, and a clean, safe work environment.

A is for (Aimless), Friday, 10 January 2020 03:37 (two months ago) link

In a move that will resound across the world of energy investing, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, this week warned of a “fundamental reshaping of finance” as the impacts of climate change become better understood.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said in an open letter that his company will end support for thermal coal, screen fossil fuel investments more closely, and redesign its own investment approach to put sustainability at its core. As part of the shift, BlackRock will exit investments it decides have a high-sustainability-related risk.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/blackrock-sends-huge-warning-shot-at-companies-ignoring-climate-risk

The Squalls Of Hate (sleeve), Friday, 17 January 2020 18:01 (two months ago) link

how many new 'hottest years' have we had in the last 40? a lot

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/2019-was-2nd-hottest-year-record-nasa-and-noaa-say/604939/

mookieproof, Friday, 17 January 2020 18:04 (two months ago) link

Signing on to the Trillion Tree initiative was basically the cost of admission for the global elite at this year’s World Economic Forum (well, that plus tens of thousands of dollars for the badge). In fact, tree planting was the rare issue on which even Jane Goodall and Donald Trump could get on the same page at Davos.

Meanwhile, Axios revealed last week that Congressman Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican, is working on a bill dubbed the Trillion Trees Act that would set a national target for tree planting (although apparently it won’t be—and almost certainly couldn’t be—a literal trillion).

It’s great that trees are having a moment. Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many as possible—to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, provide habitat for animals, and restore fragile ecosystems.

“Trees are an important, very visible, and very socializable answer,” says Roger Aines, who leads Lawrence Livermore National Lab’s Carbon Initiative, a research program on carbon dioxide removal.

But it’s also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change. We have a terrible track record on carrying out reforestation efforts to date. We’d have to plant and protect a massive number of trees for decades to offset even a fraction of global emissions. And years of efforts can be nullified by droughts, wildfires, disease, or deforestation elsewhere.

Perhaps the biggest risk is that the appeal of natural-sounding solutions can delude us into thinking we’re taking more meaningful action than we really are. It “invites people to view tree planting as a substitute” for the sweeping changes required to prevent greenhouse-gas emissions from reaching the atmosphere in the first place, says Jane Flegal, a member of the adjunct faculty at Arizona State University’s School for the Future of Innovation in Society.

...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615102/tree-planting-is-a-great-idea-that-could-become-a-dangerous-climate-distraction/

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 28 January 2020 20:29 (two months ago) link

oops, i was trying to use those ellipses inside the quote to indicate there's more to the article. not to throw shade on it, as its use outside of the quote box signifies

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 28 January 2020 20:30 (two months ago) link

FP’d you for that. appalling

Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 28 January 2020 20:48 (two months ago) link

Throwing shade at trees, how could you.

Charlotte Brontesaurus (Leee), Tuesday, 28 January 2020 20:54 (two months ago) link

what have trees ever done for me?

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 28 January 2020 20:57 (two months ago) link

Antarctica just hit 65 F, its warmest temperature ever recorded

mookieproof, Friday, 7 February 2020 17:28 (one month ago) link

two weeks pass...

It's pretty remarkable that, since 1990, when the climate crisis became clear, federal energy R&D -- supposedly the bipartisan policy everyone agrees on -- is DOWN. That says more about US political will than all the far-off targets in the world. https://t.co/bYRaBpkP2q pic.twitter.com/2R1TYKvPtm

— David Roberts (@drvox) February 25, 2020

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 25 February 2020 19:19 (one month ago) link

This was maybe the most staggering thing I learned on my Shell trip. When these companies talk about going carbon neutral, that means selling off their oil wells, probably to gangsters https://t.co/UMVKbWd793 pic.twitter.com/32HlHaTiE3

— Malcolm Harris (@BigMeanInternet) March 3, 2020

mookieproof, Tuesday, 3 March 2020 19:02 (one month ago) link

mad max: the prequel

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 3 March 2020 19:16 (one month ago) link

two weeks pass...

starting to think that in a weird way, this might be our best (only?) opportunity to get back on a decent track for emissions reductions. i assume there will be a significant emissions dip this year. we're pouring trillions back into the economy, which is another way of saying we're re-building portions of the economy. i don't think there's a good chance in the United States, politically, but at least there is some chance that the priority would be making sure that the part of the economy that is rebuilt is far greener than before.

Karl Malone, Tuesday, 24 March 2020 21:06 (one week ago) link

unless global dimming turns out to be a real issue and lower emissions reduces it and then we’re even more fucked haha oh god i’m gonna lie down

a struggle to make meat-snacking fit (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 24 March 2020 21:11 (one week ago) link

McKibben, New Yorker (March 20)

One of the best chances to make some positive use of the coronavirus pandemic may be passing swiftly. As the economy craters, big corporations are in need of government assistance, and, on Capitol Hill, the sound of half a trillion dollars in relief money is bringing out the lobbyists. On Thursday afternoon, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, described the scene as a “trough” and mentioned a quote from a lobbyist in The Hill: “Everybody’s asking for something and those that aren’t asking for something only aren’t because they don’t know how.” Whitehouse added, “I fear that enviros don’t know how to ask, because, so far in this scrum, we haven’t heard much from them.”

Karl Malone, Saturday, 28 March 2020 01:34 (one week ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.