Climate Change: To laugh or cry?

The probability of global catastrophe is very high; did you hear the one about the polar bear who walked into a bar?

The Examiner presents two posts about the Climate:

doomsday clock

Updated since the graph; now at 3 minutes to Midnight

The probability of global catastrophe is very high!

The threat is serious, the time short. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists does not move the hands of the Doomsday Clock for light or transient reasons. The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty—ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization.

During the past several years, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board has grown increasingly concerned as world political leaders dithered, leaving an undeniable threat to the future of mankind—climate change—largely unaddressed. In 2014, leaders in the nuclear weapons countries have consented to a mad dash down an expensive and dangerous path toward “modernizing” their nuclear arsenals; in the process, they turned away from reasonable disarmament efforts and allowed an economic dispute between Ukraine and Russia to turn into an East-West confrontation that hinders cooperation on worldwide nuclear security, arms control, and nonproliferation.

These stunning governmental failures have imperiled civilization on a global scale, and so we, the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board, implore the citizens of the world to speak clearly, demanding that their leaders:

Take actions that would cap greenhouse gas emissions at levels sufficient to keep average global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The 2-degree target is consistent with consensus views on climate science and is eminently achievable and economically viable—if national leaders show more interest in protecting their citizens than in serving the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Dramatically reduce proposed spending on nuclear weapons modernization programs. The United States and Russia have hatched plans to essentially rebuild their entire nuclear triads in coming decades, and other nuclear weapons countries are following suit. The projected costs of these “improvements” to nuclear arsenals are indefensible, and they undermine the global disarmament regime.

Re-energize the disarmament process, with a focus on results. The United States and Russia, in particular, need to start negotiations on shrinking their strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals. The world can be more secure with much, much smaller nuclear arsenals than now exist—if political leaders are truly interested in protecting their citizens from harm.

Deal now with the commercial nuclear waste problem. Reasonable people can disagree on whether an expansion of nuclear-powered electricity generation should be a major component of the effort to limit climate change. Regardless of the future course of the worldwide nuclear power industry, there will be a need for safe and secure interim and permanent nuclear waste storage facilities.

Create institutions specifically assigned to explore and address potentially catastrophic misuses of new technologies. Scientific advance can provide society with great benefits, but the potential for misuse of potent new technologies is real, unless government, scientific, and business leaders take appropriate steps to explore and address possible devastating consequences of those technologies early in their development.

Last year, with the Doomsday Clock at five minutes to midnight, the members of the Science and Security Board concluded their assessment of the world security situation by writing: “We can manage our technology, or become victims of it. The choice is ours, and the Clock is ticking.”

In 2015, with the Clock hand moved forward to three minutes to midnight, the board feels compelled to add, with a sense of great urgency: “The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.”

polar bear

Did you hear the one about the climate policy analyst? Or the polar bear who walked into a bar?

Adam Corner The Guardian

Climate change is not generally considered a source of amusement: in terms of comedic material, the forecast is an ongoing cultural drought. But perhaps campaigners have missed a trick in overlooking the powerful role that satire and subversion can play in social change. Could humor cut through the malaise that has smothered the public discourse, activating our cultural antennae in a way that graphs, infographics and images of melting ice could never do?

This is the challenge that a panel of British comedians, including Marcus Brigstocke – a seasoned climate humorist, will take up at an event on Tuesday evening hosted by the RSA and the Climate Outreach and Information Network in London (the event is fully booked but it will be streamed live online). Maybe laughing about something as serious as climate change is just another form of denial. But perhaps its relative absence from the comedy realm is another warning sign: despite decades of awareness raising, the cultural footprint of climate change is faint, fragile and all-too-easily ignored.

The first example of a climate-policy parody was probably the ‘Cheat Neutral’ project: a slick spoof of the logic of carbon offsetting whereby people could pay someone else to be faithful, giving them the opportunity to cheat on their husband or wife. And there have other good video mockeries – including one warning that wind farms will blow the Earth off-orbit – which have captured the comedy potential of bizarre debates about energy policy.

This year, Greenpeace teamed up with the surreal comedian Reggie Watts to promote the idea of a 100% renewably powered internet. There have been sporadic examples of climate change ‘stand-up’. And the ever-reliable Simpsons has been occasionally willing to engage.

But these are the exceptions that prove the rule: for the most part, climate gags are notable by their absence.

An ongoing challenge is the polarized nature of the climate debate, with climate skepticism closely pegged to political ideology. According to Nick Comer-Calder, of the Climate Media Net, getting people laughing is a good first step to getting them talking – even across political divides. One analysis found that major US satirists, such as Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, have given more coverage to climate change than many of the news channels – although admittedly, this is a pretty low bar to clear.

But while online ridicule directed towards climate ‘deniers’ (generally portrayed as either too stupid to understand the science, or as conspiracy theorists) may appeal to the usual crowd, its hard to see how this kind of approach will breach the political divide. After all, the feeling of being laughed at by a sneering, left-leaning elite is not appealing. One notorious attempt by the 10:10 campaign and director Richard Curtis at ‘humorously’ marginalising opposition towards environmentalism backfired completely. It turns out that most people don’t find graphic depictions of children’s heads exploding all that hilarious after all…

What’s required is for climate change to seep into the fabric of satirical and humourous TV programming, in the same way that other ‘current affairs’ often provide the backdrop and context for creative output. Jokes ‘about’ climate change can in fact be ‘about’ any of the dozens of subjects – family disputes over energy bills, travel and tourism, or changing consumer habits – that are directly impacted by climate change.

It’s an interesting irony that while the ‘pro-climate’ discourse can often feel po-faced and pious, climate skeptics have wasted no time in parodying the climate community. The Heretic, a play by Richard Bean, built its dramatic tension around the conflict between a sceptical climate scientist and her cynical departmental head who is suppressing her data in order to keep his grants flowing. The characters are overdrawn and instantly recognizable. And, as a result, it works: it is good drama, entertaining, and laugh-out-loud funny.

While climate change itself is never going to be a barrel of laughs, we seem to be suffering from a collective lack of imagination in teasing out the tragi-comic narratives that climate change surely provides.

Thinking harder about how to plug climate change into our cultural circuits – not as ‘edutainment’ but simply as a target of satire in its own right – will be crucial in overcoming the social silence around the issue. The science-communicators don’t seem to be making much progress with the public: maybe its time to let the comedians have their turn.

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Climate Change: To laugh or cry?

  1. It takes alot to laugh…it takes a train to cry.

    The climate isn’t something to laugh or cry about. Wars are something to cry about. Poverty is something to cry about. Those are the true global catastrophies. As a progressive, with an advanced degree in the sciences mind you, I’ve never understood the hysteria. The world population has EXPLODED since man made warming has occured. Fact is, biological diversity increases with temperature.

    It’s really easy to sit and whine about the weather. It’s really hard to stand up for poor people and injustice. REAL progressives need to get thier priorities straight and start giving a fuck about real problems.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Poverty is bad. War is bad.

      Biological diversity may increase with temperature, I wouldn’t pretend to know. But evolution operates over eons, and temperature changes on the scale of centuries don’t allow enough time for evolution to track the changes, meaning humanity may be seriously damaging its food prospects, even if we don’t trigger a positive feedback warming loop by melting the permafrost and releasing their greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, or by changing the planet’s albedo.

      You may be able to gradually stretch a sheet by an inch or two, but if you try to instantly make it stretch that distance, a lot of the fibers that hold it together are likely to break. Timescale matters.

      That’s very bad. So I think it might be well not to ignore it while doing whatever you’re doing to solve the problems of poverty and war. When there’s less food for more people, it’s going to be harder to eliminate poverty and war.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Realitymonger:

      Gee. Make the world a better place to live for all… or get the climate under control.

      I didn’t know it was an either/or proposition.

      And it seems to me a lot of the “hysteria” concerns the fact that species are going extinct on almost a daily bases. A lot of that has to do with habitat changes which in turn are often caused by climate change.

      I think the bio-diversity you are talking about is going in the other directiion.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Warmer temps mean more food. Have you gardened much? We build greenhouses and grow plants under lights in order to maximize growth. Also, plants breathe co2. A slight increase in co2 and temp would only make it a greener planet.

    The world may be going to hell in a bucket, but it’s not because of weather. It’s because of unfair division of resources. People are greedy, tribal beings who only care about their own kind. People who are unenlightened and have stone age mentalies aren’t going to want to work together and make the world a better place.

    Like

    • Your statements are not backed up by the science. Biodiversity is in a free fall. I admit warming is not the main culprit, it’s man destroying habitat. Climate change is making the decline worse by compromising whats left.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Realitymonger:

      So you are implying that higher climate temperatures will make the deserts bloom? Seriously?

      My impression of the science is it will make more and bigger and drier deserts… not make them bloom.

      After all… the water figures in this stuff somewhere.

      Oh… I get it!

      We fry the planet then we build massive desalinization plants that warm the air more and get the water to bloom the growing deserts for us and warm the air some more with more desalinization plants and then the Earth turns into a big giant tomato! Wheeeee!!

      Oh well… at least I tried to inject some humor into the debate. I’m doing my part.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html#.VMLUXIFXeK0

    Reality, yours is a meme straight out of the “why worry” coal producers/ Senator Inohofe brand of climate science. The above is a but one artcle saying “not so fast”.

    TE- it’s fairly clear what we can do for local problems like police brutality, but I’d challenge you/us to think and write about what we can do about climate change.

    Personally, I think there are many reasons to believe we can do quite a bit here locally. I believe, even though cumulatively, we will not make a dent here in HumCo, I think, assuming we can get our act together, we can act as a beacon or blueprint for other rural areas.

    We know this, we are not going to get no help from the federal level, so we are going to have to pull up our bootstraps and channel our inner conservative and start doing stuff locally.

    What I’m wondering is what can we do?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. These predictions are an anachronism, a holdover from an earlier time. After 65 years, its time for this organization to stand down on predictions and move on to something else. No one is truly motivated any longer by their clock analogy any long. And making it look even more out of date, its a analog clock with hands.

    At one time, the prospect of nuclear war was credible and imminent and nuclear scientists had stature gained from WWII. Today, a nuclear scientist is likely to be working on power generation, not military weapons. Lets find a 21st century way to create angst over a coming Doomsday.

    Like

  5. Realitymonger,

    I know you have an advanced degree in Science, but so do the folks who put together this chapter of the fifth IPCC assessment.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FINAL.pdf

    I’d be interested in your explanation of what they got wrong, and why. It would help me understand the issue.

    For anyone who doesn’t want to download the whole chapter, here’s the executive summary (sorry, it’s two printed pages itself).

    Executive Summary
    The effects of climate change on crop and terrestrial food production are evident in several regions of the world (high confidence).
    Negative impacts of climate trends have been more common than positive ones. {Figures 7-2, 7-7} Positive trends are evident in some highlatitude
    regions (high confidence). Since AR4, there have been several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes
    in key producing regions, indicating a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes, among other factors. {Figure 7-3, Table 18-3} Several of
    these climate extremes were made more likely as the result of anthropogenic emissions (medium confidence). {Table 18-3}
    Climate trends are affecting the abundance and distribution of harvested aquatic species, both freshwater and marine, and
    aquaculture production systems in different parts of the world. {7.2.1.2, 7.3.2.4, 7.4.2} These are expected to continue with negative
    impacts on nutrition and food security for especially vulnerable people, particularly in some tropical developing countries {7.3.3.2}, but with
    benefits in other regions that become more favorable for aquatic food production (medium confidence). {7.5.1.1.2}
    Studies have documented a large negative sensitivity of crop yields to extreme daytime temperatures around 30°C. {WGII AR4
    Chapter 5, 7.3.2.1} These sensitivities have been identified for several crops and regions and exist throughout the growing season (high
    confidence). Several studies report that temperature trends are important for determining both past and future impacts of climate change on
    crop yields at sub-continental to global scales (medium confidence). {7.3.2, Box 7-1} At scales of individual countries or smaller, precipitation
    projections remain important but uncertain factors for assessing future impacts (high confidence). {7.3.2, Box 7-1}
    Evidence since AR4 confirms the stimulatory effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) in most cases and the damaging effects of elevated
    tropospheric ozone (O3) on crop yields (high confidence). Experimental and modeling evidence indicates that interactions between CO2
    and O3, mean temperature and extremes, water, and nitrogen are nonlinear and difficult to predict (medium confidence). {7.3.2.1, Figure 7-2}
    Changes in climate and CO2 concentration will enhance the distribution and increase the competitiveness of agronomically
    important and invasive weeds (medium confidence). Rising CO2 may reduce the effectiveness of some herbicides (low confidence). The
    effects of climate change on disease pressure on food crops are uncertain, with evidence pointing to changed geographical ranges of pests and
    diseases but less certain changes in disease intensity (low confidence). {7.3.2.3}
    All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change, including food access, utilization, and price stability (high
    confidence). {7.3.3.1, Table 7-1} There remains limited quantitative understanding of how non-production elements of food security will be
    affected, and of the adaptation possibilities in these domains. Nutritional quality of food and fodder, including protein and micronutrients, is
    negatively affected by elevated CO2, but these effects may be counteracted by effects of other aspects of climate change (medium confidence).
    {7.3.2.5}
    For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation will negatively
    impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations
    may benefit (medium confidence). {7.4, Figure 7-4} Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios,
    with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10% and about 10% of projections
    showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. {Figure 7-5} After 2050, the risk of more severe
    impacts increases. {Figure 7-5} Regional Chapters 22 (Africa), 23 (Europe), 24 (Asia), 27 (Central and South America), and Box 7-1
    show crop production to be consistently and negatively affected by climate change in the future in low-latitude countries, while
    climate change may have positive or negative effects in northern latitudes (high confidence). Climate change will increase
    progressively the inter-annual variability of crop yields in many regions (medium confidence). {Figure 7-6}

    On average, agronomic adaptation improves yields by the equivalent of ~15-18% of current yields {Figure 7-8, Table 7-2}, but the
    effectiveness of adaptation is highly variable (medium confidence) ranging from potential dis-benefits to negligible to very
    substantial (medium confidence). {7.5.1.1.1} Projected benefits of adaptation are greater for crops in temperate, rather than tropical, regions
    (medium confidence) {7.5.1.1.1, Figures 7-4, 7-7}, with wheat- and rice-based systems more adaptable than those of maize (low confidence).
    {Figure 7-4} Some adaptation options are more effective than others (medium confidence). {Table 7-2}
    Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more above late-20th-century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would
    pose large risks to food security globally and regionally (high confidence). Risks to food security are generally greater in lowlatitude
    areas. {Box 7-1, Table 7-3, Figures 7-4, 7-5, 7-7}
    Changes in temperature and precipitation, without considering effects of CO2, will contribute to increased global food prices by
    2050, with estimated increases ranging from 3 to 84% (medium confidence). Projections that include the effects of CO2 changes, but
    ignore O3 and pest and disease impacts, indicate that global price increases are about as likely as not, with a range of projected impacts from
    –30% to +45% by 2050. {7.4.4}
    Adaptation in fisheries, aquaculture, and livestock production will potentially be strengthened by adoption of multi-level adaptive
    strategies to minimize negative impacts. Key adaptations for fisheries and aquaculture include policy and management to maintain
    ecosystems in a state that is resilient to change, enabling occupational flexibility, and development of early warning systems for extreme
    events (medium confidence). {7.5.1.1.2} Adaptations for livestock systems center on adjusting management to the available resources, using
    breeds better adapted to the prevailing climate and removing barriers to adaptation such as improving credit access (medium confidence).
    {7.5.1.1.3}
    A range of potential adaptation options exist across all food system activities, not just in food production, but benefits from
    potential innovations in food processing, packaging, transport, storage, and trade are insufficiently researched. {7.1, 7.5, 7.6,
    Figures 7-1, 7-7, 7-8} More observational evidence is needed on the effectiveness of adaptations at all levels of the food system. {7.6}

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Pete. It is a widely accepted theory that biological diversity increases as one approaches the equator and decreases as one moves away. It’s in tons of publications, but here is a link to a Wikipedia page that sums it up better than I could.

    Wikipedia.org/latitudinal gradients

    I strongly suggest that people take multiple in depth college level science classes in order to prepare for debates such as these. Not to knock you, pete. Just society in general could use more real science. What we get now is sensationalized science in the news.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Realitymonger:

      Like the oceans… teaming with life in the tropics and barren of life the farther into the cold north you go….

      Damn, got it wrong; it’s the other way around.

      Well, it’s easier for you… you have your college education to fall back on.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I did pretty well in my good school upper division science classes (outside the esoteric quantum mechanics – which may explain why you are so much more qualified than me to discuss this issue no that I think about it).

      So the discussion is joined and, no, others, it does not require a college degree to understand the data or the politics of climate change. What would help is to understand, as always, where is the money coming from.

      (Hint: it’s not the college profs desperately seeking research grants)

      Liked by 1 person

  7. MOLA. Come on. Get serious. The research shows that there is vastly more BIOMASS the closer to the equator you go. That’s in addition to an increase in biological diversity. It can be seen from space, for God’s sake.

    Like

    • Realitymonger:

      I’m not saying the land masses are not chock full of stuff at the Equator (although you might look at what’s happening in Sub-Saharan Africa). I am calling into question your notion that heat is an universal godsend for life.

      The northern, cold, oceans support more plankton (that’s why when one dives the visibility is poor in northern waters while the tropical oceans are known for being like glass to see through).

      The additional plankton supports more critters that eat the plankton that support more critters that eat the critters that eat… I think you catch the drift.

      And by the way… by warming the oceans we are decreasing the carrying capacity for life in the oceans.

      In short… Life is a bit more complicated than you would have us believe.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. I would argue that I’m the one who is saying that life is a very complicated thing. So is the earth and it’s atmosphere. I clearly have more interest in it than you. That’s why I studied science in school and continue to read up on it. This isn’t a POLITICAL issue, it’s a science one. Its about discovery and curiousity,not about being right or wrong. Scientists are skeptics and you seem to have problems with people questioning the status quo.

    Now go back to watching tv, while I go read a book.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Realitymonger:

      I’ve already given you at least two important BIOLOGICAL facts you choose (in a most unscientific way) to ignore. So who’s the ignorant TV watcher and who is the wise book reader?

      In this case Science and Politics are closely bound… whether we like it or not. The science shows that the Earth is warming up… and it’s not looking like it is a good thing for us. The politics is behind taking rational action (or as in this case, NOT taking) to deal with the problem before it is too late.

      It’s happening now… and it is not pretty. Take a peak at Sub-Saharan Africa… if this situation goes on it’ll look like a picnic compared with what is in store for our children and their children.

      Evidently when they taught you your Science… they failed to teach you how to think.

      Liked by 3 people

    • How is it not a political issue? It’s arguably THE political issue of each and every generation now living. Science informs us of the issue. Assuming we think the issue is a problem, experts come up with solutions/policies. Politics is how you and I go about telling our government what the heck we want to do about it.

      It sounds like were we disagree is that climate change is necessarily something worth avoiding. Fine. But that in itself is political. Many people would be stoked for us to do nothing, including the real estate industry, the majority of local trade unions, property owners, fossil fuel industry shills. $2.50/ gallon gasoline fans, etc, etc, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Realitymonger,

      Don’t you want to engage with the authors of the IPCC’s chapter on climate change’s effect on food? Please, read their chapter, study their references, and let us all know what they got wrong.

      You’ve definitely got one fact correct, so read what they have to say and see whether maybe they are aware of other facts that make your one fact not as determinative as you seem to think it is.

      But, actually, you could save yourself some time and take the suggestions here to follow the money to understand the politics.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Here’s a frequently cited article on the topic. Please add the dots and slashes and look it over. I’d like to know what they got wrong.

      www ncbi nlm nih gov slash pmc slash articles slash PMC1569578/

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Real estate agents and trade unions are the problem? Are you kidding me? If this is such a cacatastophic problem, you would think that you at least have some sort of idea of what was causing the problem and then offer some real world solutions.

    You can’t honestly think that the worse thing that could happpen on this planet in the next hundred years is for sea levels to rise an inch and the temperature to increase a degree. While millions of people die of war, famine, disease and poverty, at least we will have those brave brave souls who faught the real estate agents and those nasty trade unions. How dare people want stable, well paid work?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Realitymonger:

      If LJ and I are such unwashed idiots and you are the pinnacle of reasoning you claim to be then you would know when you are wasting your time and say “to hell with them”.

      If you read over what you just wrote you might get an idea of how silly is your behavior. You are taking small parts of what has been said and going into extreme fits. That… I fear… usually indicates intellectual desperation.

      I begin to suspect that you really don’t have the scientific background you claim to have. If you were the real deal you’d have LJ and myself in sobbing intellectual shreds. I’ve seen little more than faux-science nonsense from you all day long.

      Like a lot of climate deniers you don’t really confront the issues presented by others… you simply say “I know what I am talking about and you don’t” (which you have to admit is a bit arrogant). And, of course, you completely ignore the points made against your arguments.

      You just have a different gimmick going than the usual climate denier I have seen in the blogs… you profess to being a true progressive and accuse your opponents of betraying our progressive principles.

      That, I have to admit, is new. But it’s still the same; arguing with you is no different than debating with LoCO’s “Bud” and friends.

      As I said before… it’s not a matter of “either/or”. It’s about doing ALL the things we need to do to make this planet as livable as possible for everyone in every circumstance possible. War, famine, disease and frying the planet’s atmosphere.

      All of it.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. You don’t need a degree in science to understand the warnings so many scientists are agreeing on. As MOLA pointed out, biodiversity is collapsing worldwide at an alarming rate. Habitat loss, pollution and climate change are intimately connected to the same frivolous (psychotic), over-consumption of limited resources.

    Too many people have self-worth confused with wealth. What they have is not as good as what they want, what they value is not what they have, and the “First World’s” unparalleled access to worldwide resources encourages consumption of mind-boggling quantities of jet fuel traveling to distant hills because they cannot sink roots in those on which they’re standing!

    The ubiquitous trillion dollar annual advertising message, “this is a world of plenty for the deserving” has no rivals on the effects on children since the Nazi Youth Movement in the intervention of child rearing for a solitary manipulative purpose, albeit, with far greater success, and consequences.

    It is a responsibility of every enlightened individual to go downtown, to publish, to speak-out as a friction against this machine and its agents.

    Imagine if the 6 o’clock news featured an environmental segment each night to remind viewers, for example, the critical importance of the last of the cheap fuel for future generations than dragging a ton of exploding steel to go shopping, or burning 2,000 pounds to dine-out and catch a museum in Paris for 10 days?

    Imagine if KEET TV aired Democracy Now.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. MOLA. Seriously? Climate deniers? It’s an awfully complicated issue to boil down to believers and deniers. Don’t follow the amurrican way and try to divide people. This isnt a contest about who is right or wrong. If this is a pissing match about who is more “eco-groovy”, im mostly likely going to win. I live off the grid. Have for over 25 years. I built my own home, with lumber from my own property. I’ve studied science my entire life and will continue to learn new things about the universe till i die. You may think that the world is collapsing because you are stuck in eureka(your blog seems to focus on eureka politics almost strictly, so I’m just assuming here), but it’s really not.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Realitymonger:

      This blog centers on Eureka… therefore what I have to say here centers on Eureka.

      Your reasoning skills are not improving.

      As for being “stuck” in Eureka… I live in Fortuna. But I would rather live in Eureka than in many places in the Bay Area where I have lived in the past. I was born and raised in Eureka.

      But that’s as far as I am going down that diversion (in debating circles known as “spreading”: i.e.: Spread enough Bull Poop around that the opponent foolishly tries to refute every Bull Poop point rather than point out that the “spreader” does not know anything about what is being debated).

      I still call you a fake and a Climate Denier. Your arguments are both classic and ignorant.

      Only once did you actually dispute what I had to say… and you didn’t make that mistake again.

      If you were for real you would have swam through Mitch’s first contribution like it was warm water. You ignored that too.

      You are nothing more than “Bud Lite” and unless you get back on topic and actually take me (or someone else) on rationally… point by point on the SCIENCE (not LJ’s semantics) then I don’t think we have anything more to say to each other.

      “Jim” on the LoCO loves going round and round in endless circles with Climate Deniers. I don’t.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Thank God there’s a media source focusing on Eureka in the public interest.

    Does your “eco-groovy” include advocating for water carrying capacity, and low-impact technology regulations for all remote developments?

    If so, you’d be the first I’ve ever seen in 4 decades of Planning Commission hearings despite the undeniable incremental cumulative impacts destroying worldwide habitats and sucking streams dry forever, for example, in rural SoCal where many Humb. Co. residents escaped from long ago.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. How exactly does climate change get real estate agents, ironworkers, and electricians “stoked”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You’re right JW, it doesn’t have to be this way, but right now, in HumCo, they (real estate agents, plumbers, construction workers, electricians) among many interest groups, are stuck in the mindset that the profits and jobs are to be found in new, un regulated, unplanned development.

      Check out campaign finance reports some day, from what I’m finding, real estate agents are one of the unsung defenders of the status quo as understood by conservatives/Republicans.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Fake progressives fight labor unions. Workers rights, workers pay and workers conditions are the halmark of the progressive movement.

    Like

    • Nope, the hallmark of the progressive movement is sustainability, doing the best that’s possible to ensuring a good life for children, and grandchildren and great grandchildren, etc.

      Yes, at one time sustainability and labor conditions were synonymous because food was scarce but water and air were clean. But its no longer that simple because affluence has resulted in food being plentiful but water and air are polluted. Labor for the sake of wages that creates more pollution comes at a cost of depriving future generations from existing at all. That’s not progressive.

      Another part of the progressive movement is to promote the ethic of restraint, moderation, and limited immediate consumption to create a resource reserve for the hard times that are always going to happen.Today, that part means reducing greenhouse emissions to preserve the Earth’s reserve capacity to support human life into the future..

      Liked by 3 people

  15. Very few Americans, or our unions, have the slightest idea of the jobs, prosperity and sustainability in building a green economy.

    We can’t expect U.S. media to sell its ads for big cars, big homes and the big financing they require, if they’re reporting on the successful alternatives.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s