Our Biggest Security Threat Is Global Warming-Induced Extreme Weather

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They are predicitng this to cover their @ss.

Send money

Good to know that our biggest threat is imaginary.

[웃 910]

They are predicitng this to cover their @ss.

Send money

Good to know that our biggest threat is imaginary.

You really think you and Rush Limbaugh's position is right? There is no debate about climate change. You and Rush are not scientists.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Ste 6]

You really think you and Rush Limbaugh's position is right? There is no debate about climate change. You and Rush are not scientists.

But, but... I heard one person on TV say that there was a blip on a single chart which may or may not have anything to do with the issue. Therefore it's all a hoax. No need to keep looking into the issue.

Bring on the Dark Ages 2.0

Edited August 5, 2011 by Ste

[Zero Sum 305]

Science is much more subjective than some people realize.

As is interpretation of some science by a sizable and unfortunately ignorant segment of the population here.

[bigdog 376]

Scientists have been predicting for years that global warming would produce record-breaking extremes on either side of the thermometer. This past winter, America survived its so-called snowpocalypse, and now that summer has arrived, we've got a heat dome.

If you're wondering what the hell that is -- it's just another obvious climate change assassin that we could see coming miles away, if some of us were paying better attention. If you're looking for a more technical definition, according to National Geographic a heat dome is a seasonal high-pressure system of dense hot air, albeit one with a highly unusual (for now) strength and size, stretching one million square miles from the Rocky Mountains to the East Coast. It's already killed a couple dozen people, adding to a swelling death toll resulting from recent tornadoes and floods that bedeviled the nation this year.

It conforms easily to the ravages of Kevin Borden and Susan Cutter's so-called Death Map -- academically known as "Spatial patterns of natural hazards mortality in the United States" -- which in 2008 peered into climate change's crystal ball and found intensifying natural disasters capable of regionally reshaping the nation with every catastrophe. According to University of South Carolina scholars Cutter and Borden, heat and drought were the main death-dealers, along with extreme summer and winter events. Borden now works for homeland security risk management specialist Digital Sandbox. If his post-academic career choice doesn't confirm it outright, then recent warnings from the United Nations Environment Program should: These global warming nightmares, not domestic or international terrorists, are the most dangerous threat to global security in existence.

In other words, the heat dome may be really bad news, but it's only part of a much bigger picture: We are facing extreme weather from climate change that is challenging life as we know it.

"I think we need absolutely realistic reporting on what's going on now, and what we can expect in the future," explained 350.org co-founder, author and environmentalist Bill McKibben, who in May connected the dots between climate change and the lethal tornadoes that leveled Missouri and Alabama in a popular article for the Washington Post. "I think the fact that the climate is coming unhinged already is starting to break through. How could it not with simultaneous Dust Bowl-scale drought in the Southwest, and Noah-scale flooding in the middle of the country?"

Scientists have been right in predicting that things are going to be bad, but just how bad is a more complicated scenario. Next time a report or study divulging the latest lethality of climate change surfaces, check for a quote from a well-intentioned scientist explaining that everything is happening faster than previously thought. It won't take long, whether you're reading about how nature is not as efficient in slowing global warming as once assumed, or that the North Pole is melting much faster than everyone thought it would. For all of its supposedly radical activism, if you ask the denialists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), along with most other scientists have all been extremely efficient at one thing: Underestimating the severity of global warming.

"Scientists are by nature conservative, so it doesn't surprise me that the earliest estimates of climate change's impact would be underestimates," McKibben told AlterNet. "But since the rapid melt of Arctic ice in the summer of 2007, scientists have been trying to send the message that things are happening faster and more violently than expected. The political community, including the United Nations bureaucracy administering the climate talks, hasn't caught up."

It could be too late for them to counteract that fatal mistake, according to writer James Howard Kunstler. They may have been better off striking while the iron was hot, especially given how little the American public wants to hear what they have to say. "The scientific community is demoralized by its realization that the public and our leaders are not sane and rational," he told AlterNet. "The so-called Climategate scandal of 2009, organized by right-wing denialists, pretty much did in the scientists' hopeful sense of activism. They're just stuck now with the awful results of the science, and nobody wants to hear about it."

Even the scientists are starting to crack under the pressure. University of Washington paleontologist Peter Ward, who is continuing his study of planetary mass extinction this summer by studying the 500-million-year-old living fossil Nautilus in the remote Pacific, is severely pained by his ability to be right on the data but wrong on people actually caring enough about it to awake from their mediated, medicated stupor.

"I wrote a book in 1994 called The End of Evolution: A Journey in Search of Clues to the Third Mass Extinction Facing Earth that said, within in a decade or two, we'd be seeing these monumental destructions, and people laughed at it," he told AlterNet. "I wrote just last year about sea-level rise in The Flooded Earth saying that things look pretty desperate for the next 60 to 80 years, and got almost no reviews. Luckily, I'm not going to be alive to see the worst of it. But the sad thing is that it's horrible to be right, just horrible. Somebody gave me the foresight to see what's coming, and I don't like it."

We're headed toward a great extinction, McKibben told AlterNet. "The only question is how great. That still remains within our ability to influence. Job one is to stop pouring more carbon into the air."

The other job? Stop pouring more people onto the planet.

"The single driver going on here is the increase in human population," added Ward. "Everything goes back to that. It explains every one of these phenomena: Global warming, marine extinction, changes in living patterns and even in the economies of the world. Way too many people, way too fast. And it's running away."

Perhaps, there are those who feel there is no connection between mass extinction and their evidently more important sociopolitical and economic troubles. But they would be much better off realizing that, like the Earth itself, all of these problems are interconnected. Our continuing economic recession was specifically built upon hyperreal stratagems designed to distract people from the fact that they were -- like pretty much everything we're doing these days -- wholly unsustainable, and would benefit only the filthy rich global elite who have disconnected from national interests altogether.

The fact that American politicians, who are mostly millionaires, are currently playing chicken with New Deal standouts like Social Security or, in the case of Republican senator Eric Cantor, actually shorting U.S. Treasuries, should be about as surprising as territories in Borden and Cutter's Death Map being torn apart by droughts, firestorms, floods and worse.

There is no difference between rapacious mortgage robosigners and what Kunstler calls climate change's "professional denialists." These are all callous cashouts of the American people, and their cities and states, by the powers-that-be. Losing that F-150 that you should never have bought or that mortgage contract you should never have signed is just a phase of the new nightmarish normal. Next comes losing your country to a global elite invested in its downfall, and after that comes losing the country to permanent droughts and extreme natural disasters.

And so here we sit in the barely new decade of our barely new century, quagmired in game theories above our head, governed by a global elite who have little care for our welfare or even our going-broke cities. To think they're not as invested, literally, in our ignorance of climate change's myriad massacres as they are in pulling the plug on our social safety net is suicide on a global scale. Drowning in debt, deceit, natural catastrophes -- what's the difference? If we don't start seriously sweating the existential crisis of climate change and ignoring the small-time drama of terrorism and partisan sellouts, then we're finished.

http://www.alternet....treme_weather_/

[Zero Sum 305]

The other posters who have actually been here awhile and have cred want me to repost all that proof again of the frauds and fakery and outright lies that have been proven that I posted the other day? Y'all remember right. The ones where every single agency has been proven fraudulent. The ones where every single major studies that have ever come out that was shown to be wrong. That stuff. Be done with work soon and be glad to repost a ton more AGAIN.

I'd always welcome a fair discussion. It is unfortunate you discredit your own position, though.

Not the best way to argue against the science IMO.

[bigdog 376]

lots of money all this type of stuff. Baloney

[Zero Sum 305]

here's the evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

you can claim it has nothing to do with the topic, yet it's an excellent example of how the scientific community led public opinion astray in the past....

They are unrelated topics. However, we can certainly discuss eugenics in a public opinion sort of way. At its time, the 'science' you have yet not described in support of this notion (nowhere have I actually read what this scientific 'support' of eugenics is here on this site) was tailored to suit the racism of its day.

Perhaps in opposite, the science of GW, climate change, ALGore, call it whatever you like, reflects an altogether different reality that is being consistently misrepresented by political dogma and the ignorance it feeds alike.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You really think you and Rush Limbaugh's position is right? There is no debate about climate change. You and Rush are not scientists.

if you honestly believe that man caused all of this, you are arrogant as hell.

*GASP* Record high temperatures.

*GASP* Consecutive days above 100!

*GASP* High Pressure!

Yeah, welcome to North Central Texas everyone. We've been dealing with it for longer than everyone.

*YAWN*

When the 'science' community gets its butt off of C02 and more on to solar activity, earth's tilt, etc... then we will talk about legit reasons for 'climate change.'

No one is denying that climate changes over time. People deny the idiocy behind "oh it's mans fault, so we must tax the ** out of everyone."

[Zero Sum 305]

More idiocy assessed by the resident expert in all.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

More idiocy assessed by the resident expert in all.

more idiocy from you in assessing a post instead of trying to argue against it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Science is much more subjective than some people realize.

How does that fit into the modern scientific theory? My hunch is that a lot of people are just plain ignorant about science and really have no clue what a scientific theory is or means. It is definitely not the same as the conventional, everyday conversational use of the word 'theory.'

[Zero Sum 305]

more idiocy from you in assessing a post instead of trying to argue against it.

There's nothing to argue much against you Paul. You whine once, you whine again. Nothing new here.

For actual scientific discussion, try the lucky approach. Even though his science 'evidence' actually argued against his position, he tried. You, otoh, still need to present substantial evidence to back up your whines.

So do feel free to substantiate why I am an idiot, as you just stated. Note the difference, champ.

[Ste 6]

if you honestly believe that man caused all of this, you are arrogant as hell.

*GASP* Record high temperatures.

*GASP* Consecutive days above 100!

*GASP* High Pressure!

Yeah, welcome to North Central Texas everyone. We've been dealing with it for longer than everyone.

*YAWN*

When the 'science' community gets its butt off of C02 and more on to solar activity, earth's tilt, etc... then we will talk about legit reasons for 'climate change.'

No one is denying that climate changes over time. People deny the idiocy behind "oh it's mans fault, so we must tax the ** out of everyone."

So many straw men is so little text.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You can totally dismantled the Global Warming denialist's argument with using just pure logic, it's that absurd.