Changes in attitudes towards global warming

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.

In the past 5 years I have become...

More concerned about man-made climate change
18
47%
Equally concerned about man-made climate change
7
18%
Less concerned about man-made climate change
5
13%
Never believed in it, still don't
5
13%
Climate change? Global warming? Bring it on!
3
8%
 
Total votes: 38

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by robertk » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:43 am

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/o ... 2c0ccf57f5
According to the media-­political complex, Tony Abbott’s excellent London speech on climate change madness was “from the fringe”, “bonkers” and “against the science”.

Labor leader Bill Shorten claimed “Australians were appalled to see Tony Abbott just lose the plot on energy prices and climate change”. His deputy, Tanya Plibersek, said: “Tony Abbott’s left the realm of the merely destructive and entered the realm of the loopy.”

Besides the expected dumb abuse, there were also various attempts to debunk many of Abbott’s ­assertions and to spread panic about the planet’s fate should Australia ­follow the former prime minister’s sensible prescriptions.
“The priorities are now clear. Energy prices and reliability are now paramount,” the ABC’s ­Insiders host Barrie Cassidy warned on Sunday morning, as though prices and reliability shouldn’t be primary issues.

“Emissions, not so much,” Cassidy continued. “And if that means warmer temperatures, well …”

Talk about your science denialism. Right there, in Cassidy’s loopy, bonky connection of Australian electricity use to any global temperature increase, is the central deluded conceit of our entire local climate change industry — that somehow Australia, with our tiny 1.3 per cent contribution to the planet’s human-generated carbon dioxide output, is able to influence the world’s climate.
Australia isn’t able to do so and cannot do so under any imaginable circumstances.
Even if it’s the case that CO2 emissions are dicking around with the Earth’s thermostat, our minuscule output means we’re not a factor. We’re as able to change the temperature as we’re able to adjust gravity.
Abbott pre-emptively dealt with this in his London speech.
“Even if reducing emissions really is necessary to save the planet, our effort, however herculean, is barely better than futile,” he pointed out, “because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s.”
This awkward fact is why our warming alarmists for so long pushed the meaningless but ominous-sounding line that Australia produces more carbon dioxide per capita than any other nation.

When it emerged that other nations actually had higher outputs, they added a qualification: we were the worst per capita of any developed nation.
That, too, proved false. They’ll soon be claiming we’re the biggest C02 generator among cricket-playing nations beginning with A and led by someone who is a handful of Newspolls away from oblivion.
“Environmentalism has managed to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices,” Abbott continued.

“People once killed goats to appease the volcano gods. We’re more sophisticated but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect.

“So far, climate change policy has generated new taxes, new subsidies and new restrictions in rich ­countries and new demands for more aid from poor countries.
Piers Akerman: Climate change is being served up to unsuspecting Australians

“But for the really big emitters, China and India, it’s a First World problem. Between them, they’re building or planning more than 800 new coal-fired power stations — often using Australian coal.”

Alarmists sometimes claim Australia’s tiny output is of no concern, because by reducing our emissions even further we can set a planet-saving example for bigger emitters. Yeah, right. Picture the scene inside China’s presidential office building:

Loyal adviser: “Boss, have you seen how Australia is crippling its industries, sending pensioners into poverty and wrecking its economy?”

President Xi Jinping: “Yep. What about it?”

Loyal adviser: “I think it would be really cool if we did the same thing.”

Three days later the loyal adviser’s wife receives a bill for the bullet used in her husband’s execution.

But surely, our alarmists plead, it is still worthwhile to take even small steps towards reducing emissions in the name of planetary survival. After all, picking up a single discarded chip packet at the beach may not cause much difference in the larger scheme of things, but it does make our world a marginally nicer place.
That’s true, but picking up a chip packet costs nothing beyond a few joules of energy. If it required a $50,000 payment and hundreds of people losing their jobs, even your most vigilant beachcomber might have second thoughts.
As Abbott noted, the climate change alarmism industry is basically set up to transfer money from taxpayers to holy warming believers.
“Unsurprisingly, the recipients of climate change subsidies and climate change research grants think action is very urgent indeed,” he said. “As for the general public, of course saving the planet counts — until the bills come in.

“That’s the reality no one has wanted to face for a long time: that we couldn’t reduce emissions without also hurting the economy. That’s the inconvenient truth that can now no longer be avoided.”

The bills are coming for our idiotic pursuit of what Kevin Rudd once claimed was “the great moral challenge of our time”.
The greater challenge now for average wage earners is to pay their power charges.
For millions of Australians, energy prices and reliability are absolutely paramount.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:08 am

:rolleye:
Robert, I really really hope that all that text was quoted from the Daily Telegraph but I can't check because it's paywalled.
Hint: the "quote" tags are fourth from the left in the toolbar and look like 66 in a box. :tongue:

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:42 am

Double your dana - https://www.climaterealityproject.org/f ... e-impact-6
Donate today and your gift will be matched – dollar-for-dollar – by a generous Climate Reality supporter, up to $25,000. That means your gift will go twice as far to fight the climate crisis and stand up for clean energy solutions like the Clean Power Plan.

The Trump Administration continues to deny the reality of the climate crisis and spread false information. That's why we must take action now to fight back against an administration that prioritizes corporate interests over the health of our planet.

Today’s your chance to do your part. Donate today and have twice the impact with just one gift.
:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:54 pm

This is five years old but is still very topical.
Beyond environment: falling back in love with Mother Earth

Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh explains why mindfulness and a spiritual revolution rather than economics is needed to protect nature and limit climate change

While many experts point to the enormous complexity and difficulty in addressing issues ranging from the destruction of ecosystems to the loss of millions of species, Thay sees a Gordian Knot that needs slicing through with a single strike of a sharp blade.
Move beyond concept of the "environment"

He believes we need to move beyond talking about the environment, as this leads people to experience themselves and Earth as two separate entities and to see the planet in terms only of what it can do for them.

Change is possible only if there is a recognition that people and planet are ultimately one and the same.

"You carry Mother Earth within you," says Thay. "She is not outside of you. Mother Earth is not just your environment. ...
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... ess-values

:meditate:
Kim

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:53 pm

There is no way to prove man-made climate change, because there can be no control experiment where we remove humans from an identical biosphere so as to determine whether humans are the factor causing climate change.

As such, there can be no 'scientific proof' of man-made climate change (this is merely a feature of the constitution of scientific knowledge).


But we actually don't need such proof:

The future is a set of outcomes
Some of those outcomes are so destructive that we could not recover from them (as a species, civilisation, etc)
Some of those non-recoverable outcomes could be caused by climate change
Some of that climate change could be man-made

Therefore, there is a subset of outcomes (future states), which we could not recover from, which could be caused by man-made climate change.

Therefore, we need to avoid, at all costs, putting ourselves into a position where we might be contributing to our own destruction.

The point is that we need not 'prove' man-made climate change (it isn't possible) in order to act against a small, but very real, probability of complete annihilation.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:43 am

IMF chief sounds climate change warning

The world will be in deep trouble if it fails to tackle climate change and inequality, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde has warned.
“If we don’t address these issues... we will be moving to a dark future” in 50 years, she told a major economic conference in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Tuesday. ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ge-warning

IMO, her only error is her time-frame. She is one of many, many people underestimating the speed of changes in both climate and technology.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:42 am

On November 9th, the climate change denying Heartland Institute is holding an energy conference in Houston to applaud the Trump Administration’s repeal of environmental protections and clean energy policy. According to its website, the conference will celebrate “this remarkable moment in history” referring to the statement that “Trump has already turned back years of Obama’s anti-energy policies”.

According to Heartland, the “country’s best energy policy experts” will be speaking at the event. In reality, there are rather few “energy policy experts” on the agenda. The lineup includes career climate change deniers such as Myron Ebell, Steve Milloy, H. Sterling Burnett, Paul Driessen, Craig Idso, and Fred Palmer.

Our spoof of Heartland’s America First Energy conference exposes the illegitimacy of these “experts”, who range from hard line climate deniers to fossil fuel industry apologists. ...

Many speakers have deep ties to the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC), a group of organizations that deny climate change and oppose policies to address it. From 1997-2015, the combined grants from ExxonMobil to CHC members top $11 million dollars. Since its inception, the coalition has used a variety of tactics to distort public opinion on climate change and influence decision making in Washington. For decades the coalition has authored biased reports, held briefings on Capitol Hill, and released weekly newsletters attacking “climate change alarmists”.

As reported Friday by the Houston Chronicle, two Trump Administration officials are slated to speak at the Heartland conference this week ...
Visit the site for more, and for many inline links to more detail.
:reading: https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/06/h ... -deniers-0

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:26 pm


A new, dire "warning to humanity" about the dangers to all of us has been written by 15,000 scientists from around the world.

The message updates an original warning sent from the Union of Concerned Scientists that was backed by 1,700 signatures 25 years ago. But the experts say the picture is far, far worse than it was in 1992, and that almost all of the problems identified then have simply been exacerbated.

Mankind is still facing the existential threat of runaway consumption of limited resources by a rapidly growing population, they warn. And "scientists, media influencers and lay citizens" aren't doing enough to fight against it, according to the letter.

If the world doesn't act soon, there be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 52481.html

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by polarbear101 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:24 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:26 pm

A new, dire "warning to humanity" about the dangers to all of us has been written by 15,000 scientists from around the world.

The message updates an original warning sent from the Union of Concerned Scientists that was backed by 1,700 signatures 25 years ago. But the experts say the picture is far, far worse than it was in 1992, and that almost all of the problems identified then have simply been exacerbated.

Mankind is still facing the existential threat of runaway consumption of limited resources by a rapidly growing population, they warn. And "scientists, media influencers and lay citizens" aren't doing enough to fight against it, according to the letter.

If the world doesn't act soon, there be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 52481.html

:namaste:
Kim
Here is a link to the article: World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:10 am


User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:19 pm

Religious Responses to Climate Change -
COP23: With Trump absent at UN climate talks, Pope Francis blames 'short-sighted' humans for global warming

Pope Francis has denounced "short-sighted human activity" for causing global warming and rising sea levels, and urged world leaders at climate talks in Germany to act in tackling heat-trapping emissions.

The pontiff spoke out as he met a delegation of Pacific leaders in the Vatican and told them he shares their concerns about rising sea levels and increasingly intense weather systems that are threatening their small islands.

He decried in particular the state of oceans, where overfishing and pollution by plastics and micro-plastics are killing fish stocks and sea life that are critical to Pacific island livelihoods.

While several causes are to blame, "sadly, many of them are due to short-sighted human activity connected with certain ways of exploiting natural and human resources, the impact of which ultimately reaches the ocean bed itself," the pontiff warned. ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 50506.html

:thumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2285
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by manas » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:46 pm

https://climatechangedispatch.com/has-p ... te-change/ Magnetic North has actually been SHIFTING, worth considering as a possible cause of climatic disruption, surely?
"To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified."
- from the Desanaa Sutta

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:07 pm

manas wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:46 pm
https://climatechangedispatch.com/has-p ... te-change/ Magnetic North has actually been SHIFTING, worth considering as a possible cause of climatic disruption, surely?
:jawdrop:
New to me, so I looked it up.

In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift.
Global warming is changing the location of Earth’s geographic poles, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters.
Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, report that increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet — and to a lesser degree, ice loss in other parts of the globe — helped to shift the North Pole several centimeters east each year since 2005.
See https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... uth-poles/ for the whole story.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:22 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:07 pm

In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift.
It is A cause, not THE cause. Evidently it has an effect (news to me) but I imagine it is very small. The N mag pole is always moving around.....always....never sits still....
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:57 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:22 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:07 pm

In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift.
It is A cause, not THE cause. Evidently it has an effect (news to me) but I imagine it is very small. The N mag pole is always moving around.....always....never sits still....
chownah
As my parents used to say, "More haste, less speed." I don't think you can have clicked on the link. I will quote from it, with added emphasis: "Global warming is changing the location of Earth’s geographic poles, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters."
Even so, you are partly right. The magnetic poles do always drift around, and so (independently) do the geographic poles:
"Scientists have long known that the locations of Earth’s geographic poles aren’t fixed. Over the course of the year, they shift seasonally as the Earth’s distributions of snow, rain, and humidity change. “Usually [the shift] is circular, with a wobble,” says Chen.
But underlying the seasonal motion is a yearly motion that is thought to be driven in part by continental drift. It was the change in that motion that caught the attention of Chen and his colleagues..." (emphasis added)
Read it all - it's not long.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by chownah » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:03 am

I'm not sure about the point you are making. To recap:

A comment was made that the magnetic pole was shifting around....and that might be effecting climate change.

You replied that "In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift."

You then presented an article which did not address the issue of the magnetic pole shifting but which instead dealth with the geographic pole shifting.

I replied, "It is A cause, not THE cause. Evidently it has an effect (news to me) but I imagine it is very small. The N mag pole is always moving around.....always....never sits still...."

I think that my reply to the movement of the N mag pole is accurate.....you then brought up the article about the geographic pole and I'm not sure why.....because the article does not even mention the magnetic pole.

Concerning the geographic pole: The article you brought mentions that climate change is not the only thing which causes the pole to drift when it said, "But underlying the seasonal motion is a yearly motion that is thought to be driven in part by continental drift." I think that since there seems to be more than one thing which causes the geographic pole to drift one can not say that climate change is "the" cause but rather one should say that it is "a" cause of the pole drifting.

Just wanting to keep the science clear on these issues.

The most important point, though, in my mind is that the shifting of the poles do not seem in anyway to be a cause of climate change. With respect to the geographic poles it seems that the pole shift is effected by climate change and there has been no evidence shown or even postulated which would indicate that the pole shift then in return effects climate change in any meaningful way. With respect to the magnetic poles there is no evidence that the pole drift and climate change are related in any meaningful way.....just questions.

chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:56 am

chownah wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:03 am
I'm not sure about the point you are making. To recap:

A comment was made that the magnetic pole was shifting around....and that might be effecting climate change.

You replied that "In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift."

You then presented an article which did not address the issue of the magnetic pole shifting but which instead dealth with the geographic pole shifting.

I replied, "It is A cause, not THE cause. Evidently it has an effect (news to me) but I imagine it is very small. The N mag pole is always moving around.....always....never sits still...."

I think that my reply to the movement of the N mag pole is accurate.....you then brought up the article about the geographic pole and I'm not sure why.....because the article does not even mention the magnetic pole.

Concerning the geographic pole: The article you brought mentions that climate change is not the only thing which causes the pole to drift when it said, "But underlying the seasonal motion is a yearly motion that is thought to be driven in part by continental drift." I think that since there seems to be more than one thing which causes the geographic pole to drift one can not say that climate change is "the" cause but rather one should say that it is "a" cause of the pole drifting.

Just wanting to keep the science clear on these issues.

The most important point, though, in my mind is that the shifting of the poles do not seem in anyway to be a cause of climate change. With respect to the geographic poles it seems that the pole shift is effected by climate change and there has been no evidence shown or even postulated which would indicate that the pole shift then in return effects climate change in any meaningful way. With respect to the magnetic poles there is no evidence that the pole drift and climate change are related in any meaningful way.....just questions.

chownah
Thanks, chownah. There has been some lazy reading and paraphrasing on all sides (including mine - sorry) and I'm not really sure it's worth trying to untangle but I will give it a go.
It starts with this:
Kim OHara wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:07 pm
manas wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:46 pm
https://climatechangedispatch.com/has-p ... te-change/ Magnetic North has actually been SHIFTING, worth considering as a possible cause of climatic disruption, surely?
:jawdrop:
New to me, so I looked it up.

In a word, no. It's the other way round - climate change is the cause of the polar shift.
Global warming is changing the location of Earth’s geographic poles, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters.
Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, report that increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet — and to a lesser degree, ice loss in other parts of the globe — helped to shift the North Pole several centimeters east each year since 2005.
See https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... uth-poles/ for the whole story.

:namaste:
Kim
So ... manas said "Magnetic North has actually been SHIFTING" after reading "Has Polar Shift caused Global Warming and Climate Change?", the text of which doesn't mention Magnetic North at all, although its first image is labelled "400 years of Magnetic North Pole Shift".
I, however, read the first sentence, "Were the Inuits right when they suggested polar shift has caused global warming and climate change through watching the stars over hundreds of years?" and relied on the fact that star observations would only tell anyone about the movement of geographic north. Proceeding on that basis, I found the article I quoted.

I probably shouldn't have bothered, since manas' linked article is incredibly shoddy even by the normal standards of pseudo-scientific climate change denial. I don't know if anyone has created a plausibility index for this sort of thing (e.g. divide the total word count by the number of instances of 'might', 'may', 'probably' and 'likely', then deduct 10% for every irrelevant or unlabelled chart, and divide the result by the number of non sequiturs) but if they have, here's a wonderful example to test it on.

:toilet:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4539
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:56 am

Back to the main game ... here's a longish piece by Bill McKibben, veteran of the climate wars and always capable of putting the issues in perspective.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... ng-w512967
Winning Slowly Is the Same as Losing
His headline says it all, really, but he explains why this is so and then goes on to say that we still - just - have time to act fast enough to avoid disaster.
... By 2075 the world will be powered by solar panels and windmills – free energy is a hard business proposition to beat. But on current trajectories, they'll light up a busted planet. The decisions we make in 2075 won't matter; indeed, the decisions we make in 2025 will matter much less than the ones we make in the next few years. The leverage is now. ..

And so the only real question is, how do we suddenly make it happen fast? That's where politics comes in. I said earlier that Trump wasn't the whole problem – in fact, it's just possible that in his know-nothing recklessness, he has upset the ever-so-patient apple cart. You could almost see the oil companies wincing when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement – for them, the agreement was a pathway to slow and managed change. The promises it contained didn't keep the planet from overheating – indeed, even if everyone had kept them, the Earth would still have gotten 3.5 degrees Celsius hotter, enough to collapse every ecosystem you'd like to name. The accords did ensure that we'd still be burning significant amounts of hydrocarbons by 2050, and that the Exxons of the world would be able to recover most of the reserves they've so carefully mapped and explored.

But now some of those bets are off. Around the rest of the world, most nations rejected Trump's pullout with diplomatically expressed rage. ...


Martin Luther King Jr. used to regularly end his speeches with the phrase "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." The line was a favorite of Obama's too, and for all three men it meant the same thing: "This may take a while, but we're going to win." For most political fights, it is the simultaneously frustrating and inspiring truth. But not for climate change. The arc of the physical universe appears to be short, and it bends toward heat. Win soon or suffer the consequences.
:jedi:
Kim

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], retrofuturist and 13 guests