–What global warming?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the gap.
======================================================================================================================================================================================

TPM NEWS
Obama Admin to Propose Cutting Power Plant Emissions by 30%
DINA CAPPIELLO – JUNE 1, 2014

The Obama administration on Monday will unveil a plan to cut earth-warming pollution from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, setting in motion one of the most significant actions to address global warming in U.S. history.

Global warming? What global warming?

The Washington Post recently ran the following article:

Experts tell House panel climate change science isn’t settled

Liberals have been piling on Rep. Lamar Smith and his fellow House Republicans for failing to hold more committee hearings on climate change, but Thursday’s often-heated testimony probably wasn’t what the movement had in mind.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee heard from scientists who poked holes in the prevailing catastrophic theory of man-made climate change and said researchers are under pressure to support more alarming scenarios.

So “holes” were poked in the theory of man-made climate change? And liberals are pressuring researchers to support more alarming scenarios?

Let’s see what those “holes” were:

“The science is not settled, no,” said Roger Pielke Sr., professor emeritus in meteorology at Colorado State University. University of Sussex economist Richard Tol told the lawmakers, “Science is, of course, never settled.”

Get it? The science that says global warming is being at least partly caused by man and could create “alarming scenarios,” really isn’t settled, because . . . well . . . “science is, of course, never settled.”

In other words, no matter how much proof is offered, you don’t have to believe it, because in science, there always could be some doubt, no matter how remote.

Did dinosaurs live millions of years ago ? Most scientists say so, but science is, of course, never settled. So you don’t have to believe it.

Is the universe billions of years old? Most scientists say so, but of course . . . science never is settled.

So you are free to believe whatever you please, no matter what science says. Great, huh?

“Some things are more or less settled, some things are not,” said Princeton University geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer. “The question of whether carbon dioxide is 30 to 40 percent above pre-industrial times, that’s settled. The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result, that’s not.”

Note that weasel word, “exactly”? Yes, we know that carbon dioxide is 30 to 40 percent above pre-industrial times. And yes, we also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that holds in heat. And yes, we also know the earth is getting warmer as a result of increased carbon dioxide.

But aha, we don’t know EXACTLY how warm the earth will get as a result. So why worry?

Rep. Paul C. Broun, Georgia Republican, said he objected to the Democrats’ use of the term “settled science” to describe the climate change debate.

“Climate changes all the time, of course,” he said. “It’s called ‘weather.’”

Er, ah, excuse me Scientific Expert Brown. Climate change is not called “weather.” Weather is what happens today, this month or even this year. Climate is what happens over decades.

At this point, you have read all the Washington Post’s so-called “holes that were poked in the prevailing catastrophic theory of man-made climate change.”

Now, let’s get to the real motive here. It’s not about legitimate doubt. It’s not about the science, the data and the interpretation, thereof.

It’s about MONEY.

Wealthy industrialists do not want to spend money reducing carbon emissions. Period.

The conservatives, to a greater extent than the liberals, are bribed by wealthy industrialists, to spread climate change doubt among the populace. And spreading doubt is a fairly simple process.

The quasi-logic goes like this:

1. Scientists often disagree. (You can see this in any trial in which the prosecutors and the defense team, each bring in an “expert” to rebut the other side’s “expert.”)

2. Scientists often are wrong. (At one time, most scientists wrongly thought stomach ulcers were caused by stress. Now we know they mostly are caused by a bacterium called helicobacter pylori.)

3. Obama is a liar and a liberal. (This is central to every right-wing argument.)

4. Therefore, global warming is not man-made, despite what the vast majority of scientists says.

[Additionally, the earth is only 5,000 years old, guns don’t kill and being gay is a choice. But those are arguments for another day.]

Bottom line, the addition of CO2 is warming the world, and this additional CO2 is man-made, despite all the misleading, purchased propaganda of the right wing.

That said, I will allow for one important caveat. Long term, we can’t be absolutely certain whether this will be more harmful than beneficial.

Some areas, plants, animals and peoples will be harmed by global warming; some will benefit. Canada and Russia might benefit; polar bears might disappear; islands may sink. Some areas might desertify; some deserts might become lush.

Global warming might prevent another catastrophic ice age, but new warm-temperature pathogens could emerge to decimate the human population.

We just don’t know.

And, when you don’t know for sure, whether change will help or hurt, and you already see many signs change will hurt, and not many it will help, what is the wisest course of action?

Don’t burn your house unless you have someplace to move. And maybe not even then.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

====================================================================================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

10. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with much higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

32 thoughts on “–What global warming?

  1. The case for Climate Change was laid out clearly on last night’s Cosmos episode. It’s sad that people doubt it.

    Like

  2. Rodger writes, “It’s about MONEY. Wealthy industrialists do not want to spend money reducing carbon emissions. Period.”

    I think that denial of climate change takes three forms, corresponding to three groups of people.

    The first group of deniers are the rich, as Rodger notes above. For them, it’s all about money.

    The second group are Tea Party-types, which come in many forms. For them, it’s all about hate and racism. They think that evolution science and climate change are scams to give more money to brown people and poor people. They use the word “liberal” as code for anyone who is not a hate-filled, right-wing, bible thumping bigot. Their denial of climate change is only exceeded by their denial that they are hate-filled, right-wing, bible thumping bigots. (“I’m not a racist !!!!”)

    Actually the rich fall into this second group too. They may or may not be bigots, but they are just as full of hate. They have a burning hatred of anything that might reduce inequality, or might question their sense of entitlement. Climate change? How DARE the rats on the ship ask the captain to stop sinking the ship? Rats have no rights! It is a “moral outrage” for them to make any request!

    The third group of deniers are intellectually smug cynics. For them, it’s all about their “brilliance.” This group is the most rigid of the three. These people seem progressive on most issues, but they regard climate change as a lie perpetrated by rich globalists against the masses. They correspond to people who learn only enough about banking and government finances to become self-styled “experts” in denying the facts of Monetary Sovereignty. In their “brilliance” they believe that all money consists of bank loans. There is no such thing as foreign trade or government spending. They will not budge from this delusion, since they are “brilliant.” Nor will the cynical deniers of climate change budge, since they too are “brilliant.”

    Secretly everyone knows that climate change is real. Where I live, the climate has definitely changed over the last thirty years. No one denies this in my city. No one. The winters are warmer, the summers a bit cooler, and drought is permanent. Last winter was the warmest on record, by far.

    But even though everyone secretly agrees that climate change is real, they react to the words “climate change.” If you mention those words, then people will calmly agree with you, or else they will join one of the groups above, and go into denial mode.

    Like

  3. Why are you whining? With your economic understanding you should be advocating that government provide industry all the funding necessary to make the changes. Why should industry be forced to pay?

    Like

  4. The so-called global warming/climate change issue is neither a logical nor a scientific issue as you seem to believe. It is purely a political issue under “scientific” cover. There is no scientific evidence that any specific degree of global warming causes any defined climate change, good or bad. There is plenty of speculation but there is no science. What we do know (not as scientists but as rational and informed human beings) is that the global warming/climate change issue is a false flag Agenda 21 political issue.

    On the other hand it is a scientifically observed fact that manmade global warming is caused by the burning of abiotic fuel which also pollutes the environment. The pollution of the environment is reason enough to stop the burning of “fossil” fuel. (Calling abiotic fuel a “fossil” fuel is another scientific absurdity).

    It is bad enough that you seem to think that under a people-oriented, credit-based, sovereign, national monetary system there would be no need to limit the printing of fiat currency.

    Under the present “sovereign”, debt-based, privately-owned, for profit, fractional reserve monetary system we will know soon enough that the limit has been reached when the dollar’s value approaches zero and we wake up one morning with the financial system wrapped around our ears as almost happened in 2007-8.

    Like

  5. You said, ” . . . no scientific evidence that any specific degree of global warming causes any defined climate change”

    That’s pretty much what Oppenheimer meant when he said, “The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result.”

    You seem to believe that because scientists can’t say that a 2.07 degree Fahrenheit increase in average (however “average” is measured) global warming (rather than a 2.08 F increase) will cause oceans to rise an average (however “average” is measured) of 1.3 feet (rather than 1.2 feet), the entire global warming issue is “neither logical nor scientific.”

    Do you believe driving fast on an icy road will lead to an accident? Exactly how fast, how icy and how crowded must the road be, for you to have an accident? If you don’t know the specifics, then clearly feel free to drive fast on an icy road.

    But wait, To paraphrase you, there is no scientific evidence that any specific degree of fossil fuel burning causes any defined amount of global pollution, so I guess that too is “neither a logical nor a scientific issue.”

    We need those specifics, man!

    As for the so-called “printing” (money isn’t printed) of fiat currency, not only has the U.S. been doing it for almost 240 years, but you still use dollars, don’t you. Why?

    And I pray you live long enough to see the dollar worthless (i.e. I’m wishing you a very, very long life.)

    Every form of money, used by every nation in history, has been fiat money, i.e. determined by the fiat of the issuer.

    Sadly, gold bugs never have learned that even gold is fiat when it is used as collateral for money, and of course today, by fiat, gold no longer is collateral for the dollar (and has been a dead loser for the past 5 years).

    Like

    1. Rodger writes, “Even gold is fiat when it is used as collateral for money.”
      Yes. Gold has ZERO intrinsic monetary value. Never has. Never will. Maybe some minor utilitarian value, but no monetary value. The value of gold is measured in monetary units (e.g. dollars), whose value is determined by fiat, and by the “full faith and credit” of all who use that unit. Therefore, gold itself is fiat. Period. Always has been. Always will be.

      Many people think that gold is what gives value to monetary systems. The truth is the reverse. If a meteor wiped out most of mankind, then the survivors would place high value on things like food, medical supplies, housing materials, and so on, but zero value on gold, which they could not eat, wear, sleep under, or use as a weapon to hunt with, or defend themselves with.

      As for the “dollar’s value approaching zero,” that’s comical, given that people are increasingly desperate for dollars. Drug gangs slaughter each other for dollars. Wall Street runs on dollars. The demand for dollars (and thus the value of dollars) is as high as it’s ever been. Indeed, I say the value of dollars is too high, meaning that humans base everything on money, money, money.

      Like

  6. Collateral for money? Fiat money as a medium of exchange needs no collateral. It only needs limited and targeted issuance reflecting the national increase in productivity. Gold has intrinsic value as jewelry and some industrial value and when silver which is already scarcer than gold becomes as pricey as gold, gold will have much greater industrial value.

    That China and Russia (and others) are accumulating gold as if were “going out of style” only reflects the current near barbaric stage of mankind (look up Libya and Ukraine and Israel in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and the care and welfare of veterans and the elderly poor in Amerika for illustrations of the barbarism that I speak of). An evolved mankind will have no need for “collateral” for its fiat money. But gold and silver as jewelry and for industrial uses will still have value.

    You persist in your facile and irrational equation of global warming with climate change. That’s like comparing apples with oranges or orangutans with hominoids. What’s with you, man?

    I suggest that you stick with your false-to-fact definition of the present monetary system as “sovereign”. It does have the merit of giving your GAP thesis legs. And your GAP thesis may have heuristic value just don’t ask me to quantify that value in dollars and cents. I prefer grams of 99.9999 pure gold. And by the way dollars ARE “printed” and out of “thin air” at that. And that ain’t no atmospheric weather phenomenon much less a “climate change”.

    Like

    1. Climate – typical weather in region: the average weather or the regular variations in weather in a region over a period of years

      Weather – state of atmosphere: the state of the atmosphere with regard to temperature, cloudiness, rainfall, wind, and other meteorological conditions

      Like

    2. “Fiat money as a medium of exchange needs no collateral.”

      Then what gives money its value, if there is no collateral?>

      Hint: Every form of money is debt, and the collateral for the U.S. dollar is the full faith and credit of the United States government

      I continually am amazed at the self-assured nonsense that fills the comments sections of economics blogs.

      People who know nothing about quantum mechanics don’t argue with the writers of QM blogs. These people want to learn.

      People who know nothing about medicine seldom argue with the writers of medical blogs. These people want to learn.

      But people who know nothing about economics feel free to make complete asses of themselves by arguing with the writers of economics blogs. These people don’t want to learn, but instead want to present ridiculous arguments, so divergent from fact, it’s comical.

      Can you explain that without making an ass of yourself, futher?

      Like

      1. Intentional switching from physical context (gold and silver) to metaphysical context (faith and credit) is neoliberal logic and a misuse of the dialectic. A higher function of language is the search for truth not the sowing of confusion.

        Like

  7. A reader above claims that climate change does not exist, and that it is “Purely a political issue under ‘scientific’ cover.”

    Oh? A political issue sustained by whom against whom, and for what purpose? Who benefits, and how? Do warnings about climate change serve to widen the gap between the rich and the rest? No, but denial does. In fact, denial of climate change is one of the ways that people use to widen the gap between themselves and those they deem inferior on the social ladder.

    That reader comes from the third of the three groups of deniers I described above. The cynical “geniuses.” People who learn a tiny bit, and suddenly become too “brilliant” to learn anything more. For example, the reader hears about something like Agenda 21, and uses it to deny climate change. This despite the fact that Agenda 21 is a non-binding and non-compulsory memorandum of understanding, nothing more. It is simply a UN proposal for sustainable development, and is therefore opposed by rich people and their Republican servants, plus the cynical “geniuses” like the one above, who claims that all money consists of bank loans, and that fractional reserve banking actually exists. Since Agenda 21 is meaningless and non-enforceable, the cynical “geniuses” prattle on about it, while they ignore horrendous things like the Trans Pacific Partnership. In this way they help to widen the gap.

    Also, just once I’d like to see people actually read Rodger’s comments before condemning them. That would be quite a novelty. Rodger discusses how the deniers of climate change say, “If you can’t give me an exact figure in millimeters about how high the oceans will rise, then climate change does not exist.” But this is ignored. The cynical “geniuses” MUST ignore it, or else they will have nothing to jabber about.

    Like

    1. Climate change is the rising of the sea level? That’s a plagiarized definition of “climate change”. Why can’t you be more original? Lets see. Global warming causes a rise in the sea level and thereby widens the gap between the poor and the rich. Hmmm. Would you please explain the science, the cause and effect, behind that brilliant conclusion?

      As for “sustainable development”. That is for the neoliberal sheeple. Protecting and cleaning up the environment is a separate issue as is the ending of human material poverty.

      Increased production is the goal. Money as a medium of exchange facilitates the exchange of goods and services and encourages specialization and increased production.

      But you want to give me free money? Hmmm. Who shall produce? If I am going to get free money to buy what you produce why should I bother to produce? I will just wait for more free money.

      And by blogging here am I asking for more asinine opinions, “creative” answers and logical imbecilities? It would seem so.

      Like

      1. The fight against climate change science is led by wealthy industrialists, because anti-CO2 steps require spending money. which industrialists do not wish to do.

        Read the reaction to Obama’s declaration that power plants must reduce carbon emissions.

        Apparently, you are assuming some vast amount of that “free money” to which you refer. But, are you saying that if the government gave you, say $5,000 every year in “free money,” you’d stop working? If not, how much free money would cause you to quit producing?

        Like

  8. A reader above says, “Dollars are printed, and out of thin air at that.”

    No. Wrong again. Dollars are not printed. Currency bills are printed. Nor do currency bills come from “thin air.” They are physical things that are physically manufactured. They represent dollars, but they are not dollars. They are currency notes. Currency bills can be traded like money, but they are not actually money.

    By contrast, actual money (actual dollars) is not printed, since money is not physical. Dollars are abstract accounting units that exist only in accounting ledgers such as bank accounts. As such, they are created out of thin air.

    The US government has bailed out Wall Street with trillions of dollars. Ten trillion dollars in hundred-dollar bills would weigh 110,000 tons. Does anyone seriously think the US government moves hundreds of thousands of tons of hundred-dollar bills around?

    The US government will send out about $700 billion in Social Security benefits this fiscal year. Does anyone think the government will mail out 7,700 tons in hundred-dollar bills to SS recipients?

    Money
    Isn’t
    Physical

    Like

    1. Well, that fixes all our problems – doesn’t it. I take it that means that any amount of dollars can be emitted without causing inflation.

      Credit? Isn’t that a short on the dollar? Borrow to pay tomorrow?

      Isn’t that the reason there is no “inflation” – because we are borrowing from the future? What happens when the future arrives and there isn’t enough dollars to pay back what needs to be paid back today?

      There I go again, I seriously have a learning disability.

      Like

      1. “What happens when the future arrives and there isn’t enough dollars to pay back what needs to be paid back today?”

        According to Mr. Bernanke,” as long as we can find enough electrons we can find the money. ” It doesn’t have to come from another account. It’s out of “thin electrons” and has nothing to do with being paid back. The USA can purchase its own debt without making the “future” cough it up.

        We can find the illions and ill-ions for war and bailouts, we can find it for paying any bill. But the knee jerk automatic response is inflation; fall back on inflation as the retort of last resort. Have faith in human nature. If you peg Rodgers 10 steps to Prosperity to inflation, dispersed gradually, you will control inflation. I.e., If no inflation, then the 10 steps keep rolling. But inflation, monthly or quarterly measured, stops the goodies from being electronically transferred to Mr. & Mrs. American Citizen. What do you want to bet that would end inflation, not including food/energy cost increases too volatile to bring into the equation. Pegging would work cuz it’s connected to natural human motivation to succeed. Once it gets out as viable, other sovereigns will follow.

        Like

        1. And of course, if he is talking about paying back “debt,” (i.e. T-securities), that doesn’t even require new electrons.

          All that’s needed is to transfer dollars from holders’ T-security accounts to holders’ checking accounts — like transferring dollars from savings accounts to checking accounts.

          But, he doesn’t understand Monetary Sovereignty, so all this seems to him like some strange magic.

          Like

    2. You are right, sir. Money as “meaning something” was very physically formed and designed in the good old days to give an air of respectfulness and heft in the form gold and other metals. Then came paper and finally electrons. It’s called ephemeralization (spelling?). The same thing happens just about everywhere: vacuum tube to transistor to chips, bulky tv to flat screen, etc. We are now at the point where money is computerized, storable and movable at light speed.

      As to the issue of “free money and who shall produce” the answer seems to be coming in the form of automation. The future of physical work will go to the robots and the future the human brain and mind–metaphysical work– will go to education to maintain and improve life and awareness (and the computers and robots) and seeing to it no one is allowed to suffer- if at all possible. Free money in the future will come I think with responsibility attached. It will only be “free” if we pass the test of personal responsibility. But of course this all hinges on whether we make the right or wrong turn just ahead at the crossroads of critical path choices. The right turn will be integrity and accountability; the wrong turn will be to stay on the same road.

      Like

      1. Currency is physical, but money is not physical, and never has been. Throughout human history, money has only existed on ledgers of one kind or another. This is the only way that money can exist. Without ledgers, there can be trade and barter, but no money. Without ledgers, gold coins are commodities, but not money. It is ledgers that give monetary value to gold, not the reverse.

        Since currency can be used to buy things, most people reject the difference between physical currency and non-physical money. Therefore most people remain slaves. Whoever controls a society’s ledger system (that is, whoever controls the money scoreboard) controls the society. The Medici family gained supreme power by controlling the ledger system of 1300s Florence, which was then a country. Ledger systems go back to at least ancient Sumer (5500 BC).

        It’s all unfair and insane, but it’s what the slaves want. If you explain the facts to the slaves, they defend their misery and their stupidity by parroting the word “inflation,” as one moron did here on this thread of comments. (Not you, Tetrahedron; someone else.)

        The money masters are the most useless, untalented, pompous, worthless class of malingerers of all. Yet they call themselves “makers,” and their victims “takers.” They add cost but no value to whatever they touch. They create nothing positive. They contribute only negatives. Yet they own all.

        And now with globalization, mankind has reached an impasse in which everything and everyone exists to serve the money masters, who are so obsessed with widening the gap that they are destroying the planet to do so.

        And the slaves cheer their own doom (like that one ignoramus above).

        Like

  9. Are there alligators in the river? I can’t be sure. No science one way or the other. Should I go wading with or without a weapon for protection? Should I take a chance with my life? Somebody said, “Go ahead, there’s no need to worry; leave your weapon on shore.” Should I take that chance or should I do everything I can to protect myself just in case there are alligators?

    Like

  10. And who will stop China, India and the other nations from emitting CO2?

    Isn’t this also a competitive advantage for those nations versus the US?

    Shish, I really can’t learn – can I?

    Like

      1. I don’t think I’m the one that’s not worried.

        Is it only me that purchases all those Chinese goods?

        My opinion is that CO2 does not harm the atmosphere, so I’m not as concerned as you about the environment. If I did believe it, there is nothing I or you can do about it. Why?

        If we stopped producing carbons, say we reduce the total output by 10%. How good is that if China cranks (and they will) up production and emits double what we just reduced?

        There is no solution to this problem because unfortunately there is no single world government to enforce it.

        Like

        1. I agree there’s no single OFFICIAL authority to enforce good behavior. But people are basically the same everywhere. Technology can proliferate. Have faith that the Chinese population will demand technical changes when they realize they’re all choking to death. Pollution cannot hide. Everyone suffers and big fossil fuel polluters are obvious as the noon day sun. People are the same everywhere when it comes to survival. The only question is if we’ll hit the point of no return before we can save ourselves. It may already be too late but we just don’t know it.

          This whole mess that we’re in is all related to money. We have the technology. We don’t have the political will because the will is being bought out by the .01%. If I was guaranteed the presidency of the world I would run for the hills as fast as I could. There is no political solution and I’d be assassinated by the .01%.

          It’s all coming down to whether we want science to solve problems or if we want the puppeted politicians to lead the way according to the dictates of their puppet masters. Yes, there are strings attached to all political decisions— puppet strings!

          Like

  11. TO RODGER

    In Los Angeles where I grew up, everyone used to burn all his trash in a back yard incinerator. There were countless incinerators everywhere. Moreover, Los Angeles has always had the most cars per capita of any American city. The infamous L.A. bumper-to-bumper traffic jams have been routine since the late 1940s.

    The result was severe air pollution. Everything had a reddish pallor from nitrogen oxide. Some days were so bad that students had to stay home from school. Air raid sirens throughout the city announced pollution alerts.

    And yet, many people were in denial. They said the smog was not smog, but “fog” or “haze.” They said that air pollution was a myth, a “purely political issue under scientific cover.”

    This denial occurred in all cities. From 1850 to 1950, London had severe air pollution from the burning of coal. And yet the people, in denial, called it “pea soup fog.”

    It was only when breathing became physically difficult in Los Angeles that laws were finally passed to control the “fog.” Today the air quality there is still bad, but it’s far better than it used to be. China now has by far the worst air pollution in the world, but its people still seem to be in the denial phase. (“It’s not smog; it’s fog.”)

    My point?

    [1] Climate change can be controlled by laws and regulations, just as smog was brought under control in many countries.

    [2] Most people tend to stay in denial regarding environmental issues until they are personally affected by the problems. Even then, some people remain in denial. China’s air pollution is so bad that it’s difficult to breathe. (Please Google-image the words “smog + China.”) Despite this assault on Chinese lungs, National Tobacco Corp. (China’s cigarette monopoly) is larger by annual profit than HSBC Holdings and Wal-Mart Stores. A third of all the world’s smokers live in China, and about a million Chinese die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. And yet, cigarette smoking in China continues to increase by 14% per year. That, folks, is denial.

    (“It’s not cigarette smoke; it’s fog. The dangers of tobacco are a purely political issue under scientific cover.”)

    [3] Once the tide is genuinely turned, change can happen quite rapidly. For example, I smoked cigarettes for 12 years. As a result, I suffer from what I call “ex-smoker’s disease,” which consists of a stern opposition to all tobacco products.

    Across the USA, cities continue to pass more ordinances against smoking in or near public buildings. I think the reason for this is that millions of people have “ex-smoker’s disease.” In my case, even outdoors, unless there is a strong wind, I can literally smell a person smoking from 60 yards away.

    The same war on smoking could happen with pollutants that cause climate change.

    Once the tide is genuinely turned, the masses will police themselves.

    Like

  12. GLOBAL WARMING A MYTH?

    Skeletons of World War II soldiers are being washed from their graves by the rising Pacific Ocean as global warming leads to inundation of islands.

    Tony de Brum, minister of foreign affairs for the Marshall Islands, says the remains of 26 soldiers have been recovered so far on the isle of Santo. “There are coffins and dead people being washed away from graves. Tides have caused not just inundation and flooding of communities where people live, but have also done severe damage in undermining regular land so that even the dead are affected.”

    The future is grim for low-lying island nations as the planet warms, causing sea levels to rise.

    The Marshall Islands, a string of more than 1,000 such isles with a population of about 70,000, is about 2 meters at its highest point.

    The world’s oceans are rising by an average of 3.2 millimeters a year, but the rate is 12 millimeters a year in the tropical western Pacific region. The UN projects the global average sea level may increase up to 98 centimeters (3.2 feet) by the end of the century. When the tide comes in farther and farther, salt kills an island’s vegetation, making the island more susceptible to wind and tides. Already several islands in the Marshall Islands have disappeared beneath the waves, such as Boken Island.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/wwii-skeletons-washed-from-graves-by-rising-pacific-ocean-as-world-warms-20140607-zs0iu.html

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s