Pages

▼

Friday, May 6, 2016

Symbolic Racism: A Look At The Science - 12

Video by Tim Wise:


Symbolic Art

Previous posts in this series:
Symbolic Racism: A Look At The Science, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

at 1 comment:

Thursday, May 5, 2016

The Peak of Sanity - 11

Corporate Media Climate Change Reporters
This series primarily concerns the sanity of groups, cultures, and civilizations (The Peak of Sanity, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

A story related to the subject matter of this series, but narrower in scope because it concerns political group sanity, caught my eye (Majority Of Trump Voters Believe Global Warming Is Real, Poll Finds).

So, in this episode of this series, I want to focus on the current U.S. Election, since I have not explicitly focused on it as a whole.

I did some consideration of limited aspects of the ongoing election in a related post (The Donald University vs. The Lord GOP University).

In today's post, I want to focus on public perception of fossil fuel use caused global warming, and the resulting Damaged Global Climate System (The Damaged Global Climate System, 2, 3, 4, 5).

And, I want to do that in the context of the knowledge, or lack of knowledge, that likely voters have of the scientific consensus on that scientific issue.

A NASA post points out that the consensus is monumental:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
    "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
  • American Chemical Society
    "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
  • American Geophysical Union
    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
  • American Medical Association
    "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
  • American Meteorological Society
    "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
  • American Physical Society
    "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
  • The Geological Society of America
    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
  • U.S. National Academy of Sciences
    "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

  • U.S. Global Change Research Program
    "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

    “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
[List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations]

U.S. agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
[List of Agencies, PDF]
(Scientific Consensus: Earth's climate is warming, emphasis added). The evidence for the professional opinions of some 97% of scientists is unequivocal.

In contrast to that monumental consensus of professional opinion, the ignorance of the voting public as to the aforesaid understanding that the scientific community has, is also monumental:
  • With the exception of Ted Cruz  voters, most supporters of the Democratic and Republican candidates think global warming is happening (Sanders: 93%, Clinton: 92%, Kasich [no longer a candidate]: 71%, Trump: 56%). By contrast, fewer than half of Ted Cruz supporters—38%—think global warming is happening.
  • Supporters of the Democratic candidates are much more likely to think global warming is caused mostly by human activities (79% of Sanders supporters and 76% of Clinton supporters). Supporters of the Republican candidates are more likely to think it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment (60% of Cruz supporters and 55% of Trump supporters), or are divided on the issue — 49% of Kasich supporters think global warming is mostly caused by humans, 46% think it is mostly caused by natural changes.
  • Fewer than half of any candidate’s supporters are aware that virtually all climate scientists have concluded human-caused global warming is happening. However, supporters of the Democratic candidates are the most likely to think at least 90% of climate scientists are convinced (Sanders: 38%, Clinton: 27%). Far fewer supporters of the Republican candidates understand the scientific consensus (Kasich: 11%, Trump: 3%, Cruz: 2%).
  • When asked how worried they are about global warming, a majority of Clinton (83%) and Sanders supporters (80%) say they are very or somewhat worried about it. Fewer than half of the Republican candidates’ supporters are very or somewhat worried about global warming. Kasich supporters are the most likely to say they are worried (nearly half—44%), followed by about one in three Trump supporters (35%) and about one in six Cruz supporters (17%).
  • Supporters of all Democratic and Republican candidates—except Cruz—are more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who strongly supports taking action to reduce global warming.
  • Conversely, supporters of all Democratic and Republican candidates—except Cruz—are less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who strongly opposes taking action to reduce global warming.
  • While very few voters say global warming will be the most important issue to them when picking a candidate to vote for this year (2%), about half (49%) say it will be among several important issues. Supporters of the Democratic candidates are most likely to say it will be among several important issues (Sanders: 74%, Clinton: 70%). By contrast, fewer than half of the Republican candidate supporters say the same (Kasich: 42%, Cruz: 33%, Trump: 30%).
  • Among the issues voters say will influence their vote for President in 2016, global warming ranked 5th in importance of the 23 issues asked about among Sanders voters (59% say it is “very important”) and 11th highest for Clinton supporters (51% say it is “very important”).
  • By contrast, supporters of the Republican candidates are least likely to say global warming is very important to them among the 23 issues (Trump: 18%, Kasich: 13%, Cruz: 13%).
  • About half of Sanders and Clinton supporters would be willing to join – or are currently participating in – a campaign to convince elected officials to take action to reduce global warming (51% and 47%, respectively). By contrast, fewer than one in five supporters of the Republican candidates would be willing to do so (Kasich: 17%, Trump: 16%, Cruz: 11%).
  • Registered voters support a broad array of energy policies, including many designed to reduce carbon pollution and dependence on fossil fuels, and to promote clean energy. The Democratic candidates’ supporters are the most likely to strongly or somewhat support such policies, but supporters of the Republican candidates do as well, including: Funding more research into renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power (Sanders: 93%, Clinton: 91%, Kasich: 86%, Trump: 76%, Cruz: 64%); providing tax rebates to people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels (Sanders: 94%, Clinton: 92%, Kasich: 80%, Trump: 70%, Cruz: 59%).
  • At least half of supporters of all candidates except Cruz also would support: Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (Clinton: 91%, Sanders: 87%, Kasich: 74%, Trump: 62%, Cruz: 47%); requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes such as income taxes by an equal amount (Sanders: 88%, Clinton: 85%, Kasich: 53%, Trump: 51%, Cruz: 27%).
  • Most Sanders and Clinton supporters (90% and 87%, respectively) and over half of Kasich voters (61%) support setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health, even if the cost of electricity to consumers and companies would likely increase. Half of Trump supporters do as well (50%). By contrast, only 36% of Cruz supporters agree.
  • Most Sanders and Clinton supporters (90% and 76%, respectively) and over half of Kasich voters (61%) think the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do. About half of Trump supporters agree (49%), but only four in 10 Cruz supporters (40%) do.
  • [Note: Cruz and Kasich are no longer candidates]
(Global Warming and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, emphasis added). The ignorance of the voting public as to the scientific consensus is dangerous.

Regular readers know that I put the blame for this ignorance on the mass media propaganda, funded by Oil-Qaeda (The Authoritarianism of Climate Change, cf. Dredd Blog Series Page, under "OIL" and "OIL-QAEDA").

IMO they are dementia generators (Etiology of Social Dementia, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13), and are also the prime subjects of Agnotology (Agnotology: The Surge, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17).

In closing, let's look beyond our noses and consider a kind, albeit ominous warning:
“Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people." - Thomas Jefferson

The previous post in this series is here.


"Progress" is not "forgetting and repeating" ...


at 1 comment:

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Is War An Art or Is War A Disease? - 3

War
(by A. Rimbaud)

When a child,
certain skies sharpened my vision:
all their characters were reflected in my face.
The Phenomena were roused.—
At present,
the eternal inflection of moments
and the infinity of mathematics
drives me through this world where
I meet with every civil honor,
respected by strange children
and prodigious affections.—
I dream of a War
of right and of might,
of unlooked-for logic.
It is as simple as a musical phrase.

(FRENCH Version)

Guerre

Enfant,
certains ciels ont affiné mon optique:
tous les caractères nuancèrent ma physionomie.
Les Phénomènes s'émurent. -
À présent,
l'inflexion éternelle des moments
et l'infini des mathématiques
me chassent par ce monde
où je subis tous les succès civils,
respecté de l'enfance étrange
et des affections énormes. -
Je songe à une Guerre
de droit ou de force,
de logique bien imprévue.
C'est aussi simple qu'une phrase musicale.

Life During War


The previous post in this series is here.
at 2 comments:

Monday, May 2, 2016

The 1.14% 1% vs. The 100% - 3

Fig. 1 "Worse Than Previously Thought"
I. Background

If you are wondering why the title has changed from 1.14% to 1% ... it is because that is the direction the science is going as the potential increases (The Ghost-Water Constant - 4, @ "III. Deeper Ghost Water Discovery").

It is also because water already in the ocean, but not yet considered by the massless media, is being relocated from polar regions toward equatorial regions as the ice sheets and mountain glaciers melt.

Yes, I am talking about ocean water that Dredd Blog calls "the ghost-water," which they have not told you about.

Because they haven't figured it out yet:
The description of the phenomenon was "ghost-water" because an additional amount of SLR will take place without any additional calving or melting of ice sheets.

It is totally the result of losing something that can't be seen, ghostly gravity.

The ghost-water is water initially pulled up against the land mass (Greenland) all along the coastline, by the power of the Greenland ice sheet's gravity.

That ghost-water is released to flow elsewhere as the "ghost-gravity" is lost incrementally when the ice sheet mass decreases due to either ice melt or glaciers calving (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

The gravity is redistributed along with the melt water, along with the calving ice bergs, and along with the ghost-water. 
(The Ghost-Water Constant, cf. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). But it is also the acceleration of SLC and the Johnny come lately, or should I say Johnny come way too-lately, realizations of some of the warming commentariat (The Warming Science Commentariat).

The motto of McTell News, shown in Fig. 1, (a.k.a. Perpetually Clueless Anonymous) is "worse than previously thought" (Blind Willie McTell News, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

II. Political Saviors NOT

Placing hope in: 1) those who won't be nominated (a.k.a. "the also rans"), 2) The Clinton (a.k.a. "the greatest World Fracker"), or 3) The Donald (a.k.a. "China made up the global warming hoax to sell fortune cookies"), is as useless as putting faith in McTell News to get it.

"If You Don’t Think Paul Manafort Can Get Trump Elected, You Don’t Know Paul Manafort":
"Paul Manafort made a career out of stealthily reinventing the world’s nastiest tyrants as noble defenders of freedom. Getting Donald Trump elected will be a cinch."
(The Quiet American). The champions of climate change deniers will have a rough go of it competing with the "we are not deniers we are do nothings about it" in crowd (e.g. senate, house democrats, EPA, etc.).

Why is that?

III. Ghost Truth

Lest I give the impression that the ghost truth is not available anywhere in the current media configuration, let me point out that there are some pieces in some of the media organs that are spot on useful.

Consider, for example, this one:
"The Atlantic is an American magazine, founded in 1857 as The Atlantic Monthly in Boston, Massachusetts. As of 2016 the magazine is based in Washington, D.C. It was created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine, growing to achieve a national reputation as a high-quality review with a moderate worldview. The magazine has notably recognized and published new writers and poets, as well as encouraged major careers. It has published leading writers' commentary on abolition, education, and other major issues in contemporary political affairs. The magazine has won more National Magazine Awards than any other monthly magazine."
(The Atlantic, Wikipedia, emphasis added). Ok, Dredd, so what do they have to say about the subject of this post?

Hang on to something, because this will destabilize some of us:
“A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,” ["you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist" - see this and , cf. ISIS @ third video]
(The Atlantic). Hence, you are 9,520 times (1,904 x 5) more likely to die from a human extinction event than by a terrorist (why, then, the 24/7 coverage of "turrist dangers" than coverage of the danger of human extinction? see In the Fog of The Presstitutes - 4).

Do you think that this example of "giving new meaning to 'get real'" may become a main stream media thing, in time to have any real meaning?

If so, snap out of it (Choose Your Trances Carefully, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

Anyway, regular readers know that Dredd Blog is not far behind The Atlantic in surmising that human extinction is not that unlikely (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

IV. Results of Oil-Qaeda's Global Fossil Fuel Cells

Your extinction, my extinction, and everyone else's is brought to us by Oil-Qaeda, but of course with the help of our tax dollars.

Tax dollars which subsidize the richest 1% on Earth (The Peak of Sanity, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

Are you still stuck on Oil-Qaeda anyway (Oil-Qaeda: The Indictment, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; The Peak of the Oil Lies, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Oil-Qaeda: The Deadliest Parasite Of Civilization, 2; MOMCOM's Mass Suicide & Murder Pact, 2, 3, 4, 5) ?

V. Conclusion: Trouble in Paradise Pretendadise

Locals in paradise Pretendadise are pretending that reality is somewhere else besides what The Atlantic indicated (You Are Here, Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms, PDF).

But, that is "sitting on the fence" or saying "I'm not a scientist", which, as Dire Straits sings, "that's a dangerous course, you could even get a bullet from the peace keeping force" (Once Upon A Time In The West, see video 1 below).

"Waiting for the world to change" is also sitting on the fence (video 2 below), but it likely attracts fewer "peace keeping force" bullets.

Warn somebody anyway, because its the law (The 1.14% vs. The 100%).

The previous post in this series is here.


The media loves to talk about ISIS, as if mated metaphorically to it. But does not talk much about the real threat Oil-Qaeda. Why? (ISIS lyrics here).


at 4 comments: