James Hansen in Newsweek: Power Failure

[GliderGuider]

Power Failure

Planet Earth is in imminent peril. We now have clear evidence of the crisis, provided by increasingly detailed information about how Earth responded to perturbing forces during its history and by observations of changes that are beginning to occur around the globe. The startling conclusion is that continued exploitation of all fossil fuels on Earth threatens not only the other millions of species on the planet but also the survival of humanity itself—and the timetable is shorter than we thought.

I believe the biggest obstacle to solving global warming is the role of money in politics, the undue sway of special interests. "But the influence of special interests is impossible to stop," you say. It had better not be. But the public, and young people in particular, will need to get involved in a major way.

"What?" you say. You already did get involved by working your tail off to help elect President Barack Obama. Sure, I (a registered independent who has voted for both Republicans and Democrats over the years) voted for change too, and I had moist eyes during his Election Day speech in Chicago. That was and always will be a great day for America. But let me tell you: President Obama does not get it. He and his key advisers are subject to heavy pressures, and so far the approach has been "Let's compromise." So you still have a hell of a lot of work ahead of you. You do not have any choice. Your attitude must be "Yes, we can."

I am sorry to say that most of what politicians are doing on the climate front is greenwashing—their proposals sound good, but they are deceiving you and themselves at the same time. Politicians think that if matters look difficult, compromise is a good approach. Unfortunately, nature and the laws of physics cannot compromise—they are what they are.

Our planet, with its remarkable array of life, is in imminent danger of crashing. Yet our politicians are not dashing forward. They hesitate; they hang back.

Therefore it is up to you. As in other struggles for justice against powerful forces, it may be necessary to take to the streets to draw attention to injustice. Civil resistance may be our best hope. It is crucial for all of us, especially young people, to get involved. This will be the most urgent fight of our lives.

More in the article.

[kristopher]

1. It isn't just the influence of money in politics

It is the influence of all forms of power possessed by those standing to be losers in a carbon free energy world.

The good news is that there is a tipping point being reached where the limits of that power base are receding and the power of those standing to benefit from the change is ascendant.

This shift in the balance of real power, which is related to the difference energy return by the competing technologies, can only be delayed, not thwarted.

[joshcryer]

3. Is this "shift" you're talking about capable of keeping us from hitting 2.0C?

No.

[kristopher]

4. You miss the point

The description I gave you is a fundamental description of how any cultural system operates. It is independent of the nature of the change and the specific players.

You are reading it in too narrow of a sense, and are forming the concept around too narrow a set of actors. It doesn't predict a specific mechanism (eg whether it is 100% publicly funded endeavor or a 100% privately funded endeavor); only that the movement for change is going to inevitably successful because the surplus wealth generated by the emerging technologies exceeds the surplus wealth generated by the declining technologies.

This fact of greater yields of wealth, when applied across the global scale, will inevitably create more winners for the emerging technologies than for the technologies that offer declining yields.

This energy wealth translates into power within all cultures.

So if we are successful at stopping before 2C, that will be evidence that the shift in the balance of power has occurred - again, no matter the particular economic path that leads to change.

[joshcryer]

7. See, Hansen understands that a runaway mechanism is increasingly difficult to stop.

The belief is that we can hit 2.0C, and then "forces" will bring it back to 0.0C (or 350+/- ppm). It doesn't work that way. Runaway mechanisms mean that CO2 (and methane) which is naturally sequestered is set loose. Then our "contribution" is a joke compared to the hell fire that nature would set loose.

We're already seeing that our projections are faulty and that indeed, what is happening is at the highest end of anyones predictions. There's no time to waste to fix the problem.

There simply is no evidence that "movement for change is going to (sic) inevitably successful". On the contrary, "political realism" is setting us back, and pushing us over limits that we know are scientifically sound (if too conservative).

Change is coming, alright.

[kristopher]

8. You are incapable of objectivity, aren't you?

It is possible to be able to objectively analyze a problem and still be passionate about finding a solution. Relying on blind zeal over analysis will accomplish little. It is like going into war with the belief that god and right is on your side so strategy and logistics are irrelevant.

Your attitude and perspective is what creates the vulnerability that is being exploited with the bogus hacked email crap. People like you are running around in wild eyed panic, and that isn't a way to accomplish anything except turn people against you.

[joshcryer]

10. What about my statement goes against the objective reality?

We need to get rid of coal in a very short time frame (20 years) to be able to achieve it. Do you project that we are doing that? Every bit of evidence is to the contrary.

Note, this assumes that we start getting rid of coal tomorrow. Every year that we emit CO2 in large quantities makes the time frame shorter.

Comprehend, please, that 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is a shitload, a magnificant shitload of pollution, and we have about 15 years before we guarantee ourselves 2.0C.

There are no emissions reductions in any projections, and what we know of the various countries projections on CO2 emissions is underwhelming at best.

It's obvious to me that you don't understand the physics of climate change, nor how close we are to the tipping point. Your "shift" is really just "shit."

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-10-we-have-met-the-deniers-and-they-are-us

[kristopher]

15. Not being objective doesn't necesssarily mean conflict with existing reality.

In one sense it means that you can't set aside your biases (and in your case hysteria) long enough to understand points that don't fit perfectly into a world view you've locked yourself into. It demonstrates a rigidity in thinking that reveals a lot about you.

So all in all the best response is to say once again, you still miss the point.

The description I gave you is a fundamental description of how any cultural system operates. It is independent of the nature of the change and the specific players.

You are reading it in too narrow of a sense, and are forming the concept around too narrow a set of actors. It doesn't predict a specific mechanism (eg whether it is 100% publicly funded endeavor or a 100% privately funded endeavor); only that the movement for change is going to inevitably successful because the surplus wealth generated by the emerging technologies exceeds the surplus wealth generated by the declining technologies.

This fact of greater yields of wealth, when applied across the global scale, will inevitably create more winners for the emerging technologies than for the technologies that offer declining yields.

This energy wealth translates into power within all cultures.

So *if* we are successful at stopping before 2C, that will be evidence that the shift in the balance of power has occurred - again, no matter the particular economic path that leads to change.

[joshcryer]

17. Anyone reading your response would see that you're doging the question.

I am in agreement with you about cultural shifts, but the cultural shift that is necessary is one that doesn't exist, and cannot exist via any mechanism that fails to mandates it across the board. It's like the civil rights movement. There was a cultural shift there, sure, but it took government interaction to mandate the respect and equal position of black people. What we have here is people 1) pretending it's no big deal (a good deal of our population, even), and 2) people recognizing the problem and then pretending as if we're on track to fix it, or even worse, knowing that we are not but accepting compromises because it's "better than nothing." Every time the numbers are done, however, it is clear that we are not "shifting."

Feel free to actually answer the question.

[kristopher]

20. You have no idea of the meaning of what I wrote.

"I am in agreement with you about cultural shifts, but the cultural shift that is necessary is one that doesn't exist, and cannot exist via any mechanism that fails to mandates it across the board. It's like the civil rights movement. There was a cultural shift there, sure, but it took government interaction to mandate the respect and equal position of black people. What we have here is people 1) pretending it's no big deal (a good deal of our population, even), and 2) people recognizing the problem and then pretending as if we're on track to fix it, or even worse, knowing that we are not but accepting compromises because it's "better than nothing." Every time the numbers are done, however, it is clear that we are not "shifting."

This demonstrates that you still are unable to step away from your narrow perspective. For about the 4th time, what I wrote isn't related to a narrow ideological perspective such as you can't escape focusing on, it is a perspective that sees such things as ideology as elements of a cultural "infrastructure" where two elements drive an extremely complex web of action, values and beliefs.

It is obviously too much for you so, until you study in detail the book "Cultural Materialism" by Marvin Harris and have the ability to produce something on point, you are on your own.

[joshcryer]

21. You turn things into personal attacks rather than discussing relevant facts.

I understood your little divergence, that attempted to downplay and dismiss the assertions I have made. That's OK. Everyone can see what game you're playing.

Your shift is incapable of *preventing* massive climate change, because of basic fucking math. Of course we'll act after the fact, but by then the effects will be well under way.

[kristopher]

23. Ok then...

1) I said you don't understand what I wrote because it is clear that you don't.

2) My "shift" is unrelated to preventing massive climate change per se; that is the point you can't muster enough objectivity to grasp. It is an observation of the forces that are at play in the world regarding the shift away from carbon based fuels.

3) Lack of understanding about those forces is what has reduced you to impotent rage.

4) You really aren't very bright or well educated.

Yes, #4 is an "attack" on you the person. But since the conversation is about your failure to understand a fairly simple concept that has been repeatedly explained to you, it is not in the category of a logical fallacy; it is a valid statement of explanation regarding your inability to grasp a simple point about a complex issue.

[joshcryer]

24. "It is an observation of the forces that are at play in the world regarding the shift away...

...from carbon based fuels."

Golly gee. Since you clearly are incapable of attaching two relevant concepts, then I will rephrase the fucking question so your tiny little brain can grasp it.

Will the shift away from carbon based fuels be enough to keep the emissions in our atmosphere below 450 ppm?

You are the one claiming that a movement for change is "going to (sic) inevitably successful." That's basic fucking logic because *fossil fuels will run the fuck out eventually.*

You are fucking dodging the question and you know it.

And what you interpret as rage is mere frustration with a complete simpleton.

[kristopher]

26. So you think I should reinterpret what I wrote to suit your desired meaning?

As I said, you've applied your own narrow perspective, in spite of my repeated statements that your perspective is inappropriate. I answered your question when I wrote that your question isn't part of the meaning of my statement. Got that? It isn't part of the meaning. Is that clear enough for that itty bitty pea brain?

There exists a balance of power between people in the world who derive their power from fossil fuels and a separate group that stand to increase their power by diminishing the power of the fossil fuel interests. The change in the energy infrastructure will not happen until and unless the balance of power held new winners outweighs those who stand to lose.

IF that occurs in time to prevent any given goal is not a part of the observation and I refuse to speculate just because you are too stupid to understand the point.

You are like a fool who is trying to drive cross country without a map, compass or directions. All you know is that you want to get to the other side of the continent and that there must be a road leading there. Any attempts to help you learn the lay of the land or to draw you a map are met with obtuse reasoning about why you absolutely have to get there "RIGHT NOW" and hysterical screams to "JUST DRIVE THE FUCKING CAR!!!"

You don't know where you're going or how to get there, but that isn't going to stop you from spinning wheels.

Here, go argue in a venue which suits you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7163441

[joshcryer]

27. Indeed, your "shift" is "shit." It contributes nothing to the discussion.

Really, nothing, not one iota of information.

Simplified characterization:

Hansen: We need to move quickly.
kristopher: Shifts happen.
Me: Is there evidence of a shift capable of saving us?
kristopher: Nonsensical banter about shifts and a refusal to 'speculate.'

[kristopher]

28. Poor little feller just aint right in the head...

I mean, of what value could a map and compass possibly be when as an alternative you can just yell and scream in hysterical impotence?

As I said, you've applied your own narrow perspective, in spite of my repeated statements that your perspective is inappropriate. I answered your question when I wrote that your question isn't part of the meaning of my statement. Got that? It isn't part of the meaning. Is that clear enough for that itty bitty pea brain?

There exists a balance of power between people in the world who derive their power from fossil fuels and a separate group that stand to increase their power by diminishing the power of the fossil fuel interests. The change in the energy infrastructure will not happen until and unless the balance of power held new winners outweighs those who stand to lose.

IF that occurs in time to prevent any given goal is not a part of the observation and I refuse to speculate just because you are too stupid to understand the point.

You are like a fool who is trying to drive cross country without a map, compass or directions. All you know is that you want to get to the other side of the continent and that there must be a road leading there. Any attempts to help you learn the lay of the land or to draw you a map are met with obtuse reasoning about why you absolutely have to get there "RIGHT NOW" and hysterical screams to "JUST DRIVE THE FUCKING CAR!!!"

You don't know where you're going or how to get there, but that isn't going to stop you from spinning wheels.

[joshcryer]

29. Well, since you aren't going to answer the question, I have no more interest in your vile comments.

:hi:

[kristopher]

30. Poor little feller just aint right in the head...

I mean, of what value could a map and compass possibly be when as an alternative you can just yell and scream in hysterical impotence?

As I said, you've applied your own narrow perspective, in spite of my repeated statements that your perspective is inappropriate. I answered your question when I wrote that your question isn't part of the meaning of my statement. Got that? It isn't part of the meaning. Is that clear enough for that itty bitty pea brain?

There exists a balance of power between people in the world who derive their power from fossil fuels and a separate group that stand to increase their power by diminishing the power of the fossil fuel interests. The change in the energy infrastructure will not happen until and unless the balance of power held new winners outweighs those who stand to lose.

IF that occurs in time to prevent any given goal is not a part of the observation and I refuse to speculate just because you are too stupid to understand the point.

You are like a fool who is trying to drive cross country without a map, compass or directions. All you know is that you want to get to the other side of the continent and that there must be a road leading there. Any attempts to help you learn the lay of the land or to draw you a map are met with obtuse reasoning about why you absolutely have to get there "RIGHT NOW" and hysterical screams to "JUST DRIVE THE FUCKING CAR!!!"

You don't know where you're going or how to get there, but that isn't going to stop you from spinning wheels.

[joshcryer]

31. Posting more irrelevant copy-paste garbage. Intending to get the thread locked and bury Hansen's...

...essay. What a vile creature you are.

[kristopher]

32. Projecting again?

Poor little feller just ain't right in the head...

I mean, of what value could a map and compass possibly be when as an alternative you can just yell and scream in hysterical impotence?

As I said, you've applied your own narrow perspective, in spite of my repeated statements that your perspective is inappropriate. I answered your question when I wrote that your question isn't part of the meaning of my statement. Got that? It isn't part of the meaning. Is that clear enough for that itty bitty pea brain?

There exists a balance of power between people in the world who derive their power from fossil fuels and a separate group that stand to increase their power by diminishing the power of the fossil fuel interests. The change in the energy infrastructure will not happen until and unless the balance of power held new winners outweighs those who stand to lose.

IF that occurs in time to prevent any given goal is not a part of the observation and I refuse to speculate just because you are too stupid to understand the point.

You are like a fool who is trying to drive cross country without a map, compass or directions. All you know is that you want to get to the other side of the continent and that there must be a road leading there. Any attempts to help you learn the lay of the land or to draw you a map are met with obtuse reasoning about why you absolutely have to get there "RIGHT NOW" and hysterical screams to "JUST DRIVE THE FUCKING CAR!!!"

You don't know where you're going or how to get there, but that isn't going to stop you from spinning wheels.

[joshcryer]

33. My last response (to you in this thread):

Why you do this when it's clear that I never interpreted any time frame with what you stated, indeed, I was asking you what you thought a time frame would be with your little shift. Instead of simply answering the question you dodged, and played rhetorical games, contributing nothing to the discussion.

Later dude.

[kristopher]

34. To which I responded

You miss the point.

The description I gave you is a fundamental description of how any cultural system operates. It is independent of the nature of the change and the specific players.

You are reading it in too narrow of a sense, and are forming the concept around too narrow a set of actors. It doesn't predict a specific mechanism (eg whether it is 100% publicly funded endeavor or a 100% privately funded endeavor); only that the movement for change is going to inevitably successful because the surplus wealth generated by the emerging technologies exceeds the surplus wealth generated by the declining technologies.

This fact of greater yields of wealth, when applied across the global scale, will inevitably create more winners for the emerging technologies than for the technologies that offer declining yields.

This energy wealth translates into power within all cultures.

So if we are successful at stopping before 2C, that will be evidence that the shift in the balance of power has occurred - again, no matter the particular economic path that leads to change.




But that wasn't good enough for your psychotic little self, you have to start your pathetic, hysterical ranting.

[pscot]

16. Where did you find evidence

that we have 15 years before a 2C rise becomes inevitable? Everything I've read lately suggests that 2C is already baked in the cake, so to speak. Whereas through prompt action we may avoid a catastrophic rise of 7C or more. Also, with regard to tipping point; no one knows how close we are, or wether we have, in fact, already passed it.

[joshcryer]

18. 30 gt/y + 1.5% growth = doubling in approx 15 years.

One doubling = 1C added. So we know, just by basic, simple, extraordinarily quick math that it happens in around 15 years, if we're lucky. Given that our models are the grimmest that they can be, it isn't wrong to say dramatic action must be done immediately.

Check this out for the numbers: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3940

2.0C is an inevitability without intervention.

[pscot]

19. That article is sort of typical

of many of the conversations that go on around here. He says that to prevent a 2C rise, CO2 has to be kept below 380-390, then admits that we're at 390 already. He goes on to speculate about extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, then acknowledges, that's beyond our capability. He ends up conceding, best case, we will likely reach 600ppm by 2100. Worst case, 800 to 900ppm.

The escape scenarios are speculative bullshit that mask the dire reality we face. We're standing on the tracks and the Panama Limited is bearing down on us. Instead of stepping off the tracks, we wonder if we can leap high enough to avoid the cow catcher, or maybe build a wall strong enough to withstand the impact. No, wait. We'll lay a new set of rails and install a switch. Only problem is, the train is just six minutes away.

In fact, I think it's even closer than that. Given the speed at which the ice is melting and the obvious drift northward of plants and animals, my guess is that the scientific consensus is still too timid. Add to that the fact that no meaningful effort is being made to stop the swelling tide of carbon being poured into the air, and I would submit we've about run out our string. In any event, I don't think we'll have to speculate much longer. Even the Inhofe's ov the world will be getting the message.

[joshcryer]

22. Wish I could rec a post.

:hi:

Excellent analogy.

[pscot]

25. Since I know nothing about science

Í have to fall back on rhetorical flourishes. :P

[joshcryer]

35. Ahh, but knowledge of global warming doesn't require a big scientific background. You do great.

What we have are people trying to dumb down the near term effects of global warming, why they insist on doing this is anyones guess, I certainly am not prepared to judge them. But the in the end it doesn't bode well for public knowledge of the matter.

As far as I can tell you're ahead of the curve in that regard. It is a big deal.

[pscot]

36. Mene, mene, Tekel upharsin

You don't need a physics degree to read the writing on the wall.

[wuvuj]

13. Except for those that know they can PROFIT from...

...any scenario....so whether anything is done about global warming is not that important...WHEN they can profit either way.

The oil producers KNOW that oil prices are going to be going UP....the MIC KNOWS that their "services" will be needed as populations migrate and disasters occur. Wall St can bet either long or short...and can make some exotic bets using unregulated derivatives...as in betting to DESTRUCTION and DEATH.

And....regardless of how things go...the top 10% will have the best of everything...and can hire the mercenaries (Blackwater...et al) to defend what they have?

The only thing they don't seem to factor in is the rest of the population...which might become more difficult to "handle" over time...but then we have our BRAND NEW POLICE STATE for that....the NSA data centers....the fusion centers...and the controlled media.

[joshcryer]

2. So Hansen didn't support McCain after all?

:shrug:

Don't worry, we'll stick with political reality.

[kristopher]

5. Still trying to wrap your head around that, eh?

Does having a rigid and unyielding world view fit your self image?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=219815&mesg_id=219851

Posted by bananas:
Registered independent, but he considers himself "moderately conservative" and wanted to vote for McCain in 2004.
I'll see if I can find anything more...

Links at post.

[joshcryer]

6. *shrug*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=219815&mesg_id=219859

[kristopher]

9. So which story about Hansen is true?

Hansen, according to Nick479 on 11/8/08 said on NPR that "he supports John McCain for president"; and in the OP he said he supported Obama.

[joshcryer]

11. Could have been playing sides. We do know, however, he is progressive on climate.

So... I'm glad he voted for Obama even if Obama is too much of a compromiser.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Perhaps he did support McCain on 11th August; then Sarah Palin came along

Adding Palin to the ticket would be enough to convince any environmentalist or scientist that McCain wasn't completely serious about climate change.

[kristopher]

14. That makes perfect sense. nt