What is the real problem mitigating climate change?
Of the 265,000 square miles of the Columbia River drainage (size of France) none of its tributaries flow free to the ocean, trapping all particulate matter as well as co2, methane, and sediments behind its dams, effectively halting the natural processes the earth performs to maintain equilibrium.
The Columbia is only one system. Over 70% of the worlds rivers no longer flow free, to irrigate crops and produce hydroelectric power. The natural ecocycles of planet earth are effectively ruined.
And it appears now that hydroelectric power has a greater impact on the worlds carbon cycle than fuel powered generators. (1)
Irrigation traps the particulate matter in a never ending cycle, re-spreading it on the land over and over what should be washed out to sea and cycled.
There are 70,000 large dams worldwide and another 3700 planned. These are huge carbon sinks, whose impact has been dismissed as “renewable” and “clean” for a hundred years or more. Over the next 15 years 90% of the worlds rivers will be dammed, and along with it so will we.
Whatever we do to mitigate climate change will most likely be a bust, as long as our rivers and dams are used as they are.
“Dams are a major driver of global environmental change”(2) But as usual, humankind will continue to address the wrong problem having no idea that their fixes are only going to make the problem worse.
It is really no wonder why climate change has accelerated with the building of dams. Electric cars will not solve anything at all.
Ask any scientist if climate change is man made, what should be the non-pressurized, non-politicized correct response “I don’t know”—because they don’t. Though it’s 97% popular to say so, the pressure to fall in line with this ideology shuts the door on authentic scientific inquiry.
“Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.”NASA. This is the tag line but is it true? Would NASA ever publish findings outside this narrative?
To know makes science a religion. Should I be wary of such religious claims, when those who claim to know, deny the basic premise of scientific inquiry? Is climate change no longer falsifiable? Theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false.
Is any “legitimate” climate scientist trying to falsify this premise? So what is the agenda? Is the great resetfunded propagated by SARS cov2 and climate change more political than evidentiary?
According to a May 15, 2020 WEF article, COVID-19 offers an opportunity to “reset and reshape” the world in a way that is more aligned with the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), as climate change, inequality and poverty gained even greater urgency during the pandemic. HERE
Man made climate change is no longer falsifiable, but a religion coupled with shaming and withholding any contrary evidence.
What kind of world do you want, one without the other?
Another beautiful day of choosing sides based on a propaganda and belief. Seems Americans (the whole world) just can’t get enough of each other, but in the realms of endless polarity, should we expect anything different? If you want to know peace you must have discord—and if you cling to belief without understanding the nature of truth vs human cognition? My respects to the whole world—we’ve done it. What is the best way to confront nature, anyway?
This HERE from a front-line climate activist. (5min read)
There is no 12 step program to decontaminate the dialogue, but one bold one. Has it ever occurred to anyone, that the president is fighting because you are? Has it ever occurred to anyone that everyone is wrong because the questions are?
In christianity there is a principle (although they don’t know it) that confessing they are a sinner, whether it’s even “sin” or not, is exhilarating because in this one moment of life they know with absolute surety they are right about being wrong—and now have a benchmark to measure any success because of the failure. And realizing one is completely wrong is about as accurate a statement as can be mustered.
In order to be effective, a doctrine must not be understood, but has rather to be believed in. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength—If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague. If neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable—Eric Hoffer
How green energy production bolsters climate change, spawns creative, new ways to destroy the earth.
Hunters of great big bears simultaneously support saving the bears. Why? So they can kill more bears—perpetual cash flow.
SWEEPSTAKES: Take advantage of this chance to win a once in a lifetime opportunity to hunt on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula for some of the world’s largest brown bears with renown outfitter Link’s Wild Safaris (here’s the human arrogance part) while supporting SCI Foundation’s wildlife conservation and outdoor education programs (saving nature by killing it) For more information click HERE
Live simply, consume less, and yes, there are too many people. I know nothing is going to change—humans simply have no herd immunity to the gadgets and consumption. Gluttonry is now global—it’s the new norm. Who can resist it?
If you believe progress can save us, watch Michael Moore’s “planet of humans”
The example is set—intermittent millennia’s of silence, mixed with an occasional oddball, prophetic utterance of ambiguity, god has spoken by not speaking. The last few prophets, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, and Joseph Smith, met their fate and still—the absence of gods will being done on earth as it is in heaven; or maybe this is it.
We are on our own here—and no amount of prayer or belief is going to change that. If there is a god who is a wise father, we would sleep in the beds we have made until every last human is wrung out with foul starvation and exhaustion. Extinction is after all, the final tally as the earth is “rolled together like a scroll” and the lights shut off.
If we are to survive (whether man made warming or not) when she starts to burn you better have a plan B. Where do we go, underground, underwater, or leave this rock for another?
This will be different than the ice age survival. Cave paintings from the period show hands with missing and shortened fingers suggestive of frostbite. This time it will be drawings of desertification, cracked soil, flames on already scorched earth scratched into the walls with animal rib cages, carcasses, and withered corn.
This is what the Christians pray for—thinking they’ll escape the trials through another man-made disaster (the rapture) while the heathens burn on the hell they’ve helped create with overuse and carelessness. There is no reason for an omnipotent rescue. None. His total power is never wielded for our benefit, only for his pleasure, or our demise, “if” there was such a thing as a god he’s liking what he sees. It is good…very good.
What shall we eat or drink when the flies and carcasses litter the parched earth? How will we grow food for 8 billion people on a The new Sahara’s of our world. The arctic region is having record fires. Billions of pounds of stored carbon being released from the massive peat bogs and forests on fire! Is this not a concern?
How the least amount of truth, may turn out to be the most accurate statement in all of scripture.
The story of Noah’s Ark, thoroughly debunked as fable from days past is now considered a parable. A myth written to our time? A lesson to be learned? A prophecy? Possibly. If it is from god, there are two choices (maybe more) about the significance of the story. What is the lesson to be learned?
All flesh had become corrupt. But Noah was perfect in his generations. (his genealogy was not corrupt) Genesis-6 Genetic engineering of plants and people could possibly change the world as we know it. All flesh has the potential to become corrupted, but who will resist it? Genetic modifications outside of natural selection is an unknown consequence waiting to happen. Alleviating human suffering may just cause the greatest suffering ever told. Who will remain perfect in their generations through natural selection?
The earth had been corrupted. Boy isn’t this the truth? Why is it the very people that believe these scriptures hold the most contempt for our planet and it’s limited resources?
All the animals needed saving from extinction. Species are dying off at an unprecedented rate since recorded history. Disregard for the sanctity of all life is a religious problem, not a people problem
Global flooding was immanent. Climate deniers wake up. Even if just a metaphorical sense of the story of Noah is true, the flooding is future, not past. The story of Noah is prophecy, because we know it’s not history.
The two choices; continue the way we are headed, or stop this nonsense. Interesting turn of events; Now it is the Humanist and scientist calling out the warnings, while the religious right fights for destruction of our world as an inherent right. In the end, the story that had the least amount of truth, may turn out to be the most accurate in all of scripture.