tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post1895864027260938878..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: “Geo-Engineering” As Right-Wing War and RevolutionDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-81851779005089601302012-03-18T14:23:18.760-07:002012-03-18T14:23:18.760-07:00The Agriculture Defense Coalition maintains a web ...The Agriculture Defense Coalition maintains a web site that includes annual weather modification reports of sites, dates, operators, sponsors, purpose and results at www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org. <br /> <br />Weather Modification Reports:<br />www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/?q=weather-modifications<br /> <br />Also, NASA is about to light up the night sky so they can study jet streams:<br />www.nasa.gov/missions_pages/sunearth/missions/atrex-nightlight.html<br /> <br />Terminology for "chemtrails" appears to have evolved into geo or climate engineering and climate remediation. Searches with those keywords may yield more current information. I too am interested in our environment and climate remediation. I hope you have time to browse the ADC web site and find it as interesting as I did.<br /> <br /> <br />Regards,<br /> <br />Teresa Frisch<br />www.aestheticimpact.comTeresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327561168518093470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-62347551870949586742012-03-17T11:45:20.108-07:002012-03-17T11:45:20.108-07:00So much more heat than light:
http://thinkprogres...So much more heat than light:<br /><br />http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/17/446621/blow-out-march-heat-wave-meteorologist-masters-this-is-not-the-atmosphere-i-grew-up-with/<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/why_am_i_not_surprised.phpjimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-38867489863215150972012-03-12T16:51:09.973-07:002012-03-12T16:51:09.973-07:00> Just to be clear, Jim, I wrote that comment a...> Just to be clear, Jim, I wrote that comment assuming<br />> you would sympathize with its thrust, not feel skewered by it!<br /><br />No, no, I didn't feel skewered. ;-><br /><br />As far as "didn't happen" -- I was thinking mostly of Erlich's<br />_Population Bomb_. (I remember calling up a friend one Saturday<br />afternoon in '69 or whenever, and, in dire tones, reading her excerpts from<br />the paperback over the phone.)<br /><br />**Mass** famines (maybe even in the US and other first world<br />countries, I can't remember) were supposed to have become common<br />by the 80s.<br />( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb#Predictions )<br /><br />By now it was supposed to be all over. I don't remember<br />if he said the human race was likely to be **completely** extinct,<br />but certainly we weren't, by now, supposed to be enjoying the luxury<br />of worrying about things like people talking on their<br />portable phones and while driving.<br />(Hm. There are some Earth Day Erlich quotes at<br />http://www.igreens.org.uk/paul_ehrlich.htm ).<br /><br />As a friend of mine is wont to say to me, the late sixties alarmists<br />may yet be right. We may yet have a global nuclear war, too.<br />(I sometimes have the nasty thought that the cure for global warming<br />might end up being Carl Sagan's "nuclear winter". :-/ ).jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-53463279265902030612012-03-12T15:47:49.795-07:002012-03-12T15:47:49.795-07:00Thought you might be interested in this "solu...Thought you might be interested in this "solution" as well: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-human-engineering-could-be-the-solution-to-climate-change/253981/Ian Alan Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02154905986438150043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-13011473318212073912012-03-12T15:29:22.467-07:002012-03-12T15:29:22.467-07:00Just to be clear, Jim, I wrote that comment assumi...Just to be clear, Jim, I wrote that comment assuming you would sympathize with its thrust, not feel skewered by it!Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-66410228372196283212012-03-12T15:26:27.530-07:002012-03-12T15:26:27.530-07:00I am always flummoxed by the "didn't happ...I am always flummoxed by the "didn't happen" riposte, inasmuch as it, kinda sorta, did/has. To an enormously important extent, the discovery of the North Atlantic undersea oilfield underwrote the Reagan/Thatcher repudiation of rising environmental consciousness, and fueled the whole generational deregulatory privatizing looting spree of neoliberalism. But it remains as true as ever that Carter's so called "malaise" speech and gesture of putting solar panels on the White House roof set the scene for what could have been an incomparably more sensible transition from an extractive-petrochemical society into a renewable one arriving right about now, when it needs to be happening, rather than just now beginning and beginning only if we can strong-arm a whole lot of denialist suicidal madness out of the way. When I teach my various environmental theory and politics courses (I teach it either at Berkeley or SFAI at least once a year) I always point out that those skeptics who derive reassurance from the fact that the world has not ended are always actually just expressing contempt for the people in overexploited regions in the world whose world has indeed ended in the drought, disruption, famine, and pandemics of catastrophic climate change. To say, with Edwina Monsoon, cheer up world it might not happen, is always essentially to say, it will always only happen to somebody else so laissez les bon temps rouler, my fellow rich white assholes!Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-35721637079916064922012-03-12T15:08:27.514-07:002012-03-12T15:08:27.514-07:00> I think Klein misses a key point when discuss...> I think Klein misses a key point when discussing the reasoning<br />> behind denial. The bulk of it stems from the same worldview<br />> that rejects evolution.<br /><br />Some of it is, maybe. Probably not the most important part.<br /><br />Putting aside the religious component of the political right wing,<br />the bulk of the resistance (and even some [most?] transhumanists<br />fall into this category) comes from anti-government-regulation,<br />pro-business (and techno-optimistic) types who would characterize<br />the global warming "panic" as simply the latest manifestation of<br />the political proclivities and/or biases that provided the audience<br />for Rachel Carson's _Silent Spring_, "Earth Day" 1970, Paul Erlich's<br />_The Population Bomb_, E. F. Schumacher's _Small Is Beautiful_,<br />the Green Party, the Club of Rome's _Limits To Growth_,<br />_Soylent Green_, John Brunner's _The Sheep Look Up_,<br />_Star Trek IV_ "Save The Whales!", Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi",<br />etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />In other words, the whole environmental **movement** thought of (with<br />some justification) as a left-wing, anti-corporation, anti-technology,<br />anti-progress, anti-rational political agenda (and propaganda machine).<br /><br />There is, as I say, some justification for this. For one thing, the dire<br />predictions of the 60s (Erlich's being the most notorious)<br />didn't happen. Not being an expert myself, and realizing that the<br />scientific data requires a good deal of statistical analysis<br />and **interpretation**, I (if I were responsible for formulating<br />policy based on these scientific opinions) would certainly at least<br />want to know if any of the global warming researchers had a discernible<br />extra-scientific agenda or an obvious political bias (just as I would want<br />to know if medical research was being paid for by a drug company or<br />a tobacco company).<br /><br />It is certainly true that there is enormous room for self-deception<br />on either side of the issue.<br /><br />In many ways, getting a clear, believable, and **believed** signal<br />from the science here is parallel to the situation with smoking and the<br />tobacco companies. Except it involves **all** business (not just<br />the tobacco business) and **all** consumers -- in the "developing"<br />as well as the rich countries (not just smokers), and the consequences<br />for future generations are much more severe. Also, while an<br />individual could (with extreme self discipline) quit smoking even<br />after decades and still reverse some of the damage fairly quickly,<br />the "hysteresis" involved in climate change will mean that by the<br />time the cause becomes incontrovertibly obvious to everybody,<br />it will be too late to avoid the consequences.<br /><br />**If** it's true. YMMV.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-51068392479645260342012-03-12T13:28:57.718-07:002012-03-12T13:28:57.718-07:00I was sucked in by the TED talk on Geoengineering ...I was sucked in by the TED talk on Geoengineering which sounded so impassioned and reasonable. He did neglect to mention that his research was being funded by companies involved in tarsands extraction.<br /><br />I think Klein misses a key point when discussing the reasoning behind denial. The bulk of it stems from the same worldview that rejects evolution. Remember these people think evolution is a conspiracy to undermine religion. <br /><br />I don't know if you heard about the Climate Change denier debating chatbot on twitter. It rebuts boilerplate denier arguments with links debunking them. According to it's author half the deniers throw up religious objections once all else fails. The chatbot can't overcome those objections.<br /><br />When I worked in sales we we'd call the denier talking points "false objections", essentially conversational chaff people throw up when you don't want someone to know your real motivations "not tonight honey I've got a headache" type stuff.<br /><br />You'll rarely hear a denier state that he rejects AGW because he thinks the world is 6,000 years old, god controls the weather and that the end of civiliation will be triggered by an evil other that instigates a war. The AGW hypothesis isn't compatible with that worldview. Only Infhoe and Santorum will say things that stupid in public and even then only rarely.<br /><br />Christians have a reflex to guard their believes from criticism which is why they use false objections. A lot of people who don't share their worldview take these objections literally and miss the point.jollyspaniardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999141103840765243noreply@blogger.com