1 of 3
1
Experts misrepresenting to the point of lying about geophysical facts. Why isn’t it unlawful?
Posted: 08 September 2017 07:31 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC - 07 September 2017 07:28 PM

I’m looking forward to seeing the Sun again, life under catastrophic dirty brown smoke filled skies is disgusting, we need to start suing and criminally charging the people behind climate change denial, enough of this insanity.

Funny that, or not.
Just last night I heard Phil Klotzbach expert on hurricane prediction being interviewed on NPR All Things Consider,
His few paragraphs deserve some scrutiny for their utter disconnected nonsense and implied reassurances.

Knocked me right out of another project I was diligently working on - but In managed defined my complaint
in light of other dialogues here at CFI I think this is worth sharing
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/klotzbach-was-that-willful-misdirection.html

Some might find it interesting.
There ought to be a law.

Surely you’re joking Dr. Klotzbach, no hurricane global warming connection?

Or,  ‘Did Dr. Klotzbach willfully misrepresent geophysical facts?’

After finishing my previous post I sent Drs. Trenberth, Francis, Mann an email letting them know about my blog post. 

I appreciate that I have a bit of in-your-face about my writing and have offended where none was intended, so this morning I was surprised and gratified that all three responded with valuable thoughts and links to papers that would help round out my understanding of their disagreement.  I would have liked to reproduce the email string, but it was a private dialogue, though I was given permission to write about it.  I was able to spent much of the rest of day reading through their various links in preparation for writing that post.

But, then came the evening’s news and Phil Klotzbach blindsided me with a response to a question which sounded like it came straight from a Trump Administration talking head, rather than a serious scientist. 

His response goes way beyond the Map vs. Territory Problem, and raises questions about political bias coloring a trusted expert’s opinion to the point of willful deception.  Specifically his glib dismissal of global warming’s influence on hurricanes is in defiance of basic geophysical laws and the people’s need to know!

(At 2:30) NPR asks:” Does climate change have anything to do with either the intensity of the storms or the frequency of the storms as we are experiencing them this season?”

Phil Klotzbach: “You know I mean the Atlantic actually the last years was below normal for hurricane activity and actually September’s of 2013, 13, 15, 16 were all very quiet.  Obviously this is a far cry from that, this has been an incredibly active last few weeks, but historically September is the most active month of the season. 

“When it comes to climate changes impacts on the storms though, most theoretical models really don’t see any change in the frequency, perhaps even going down a little bit.  They say maybe the storms will get slightly more intense.  But I look at the observations, I don’t do much theoretical modeling and in the observations it’s just really too hard to say.”

Powerful Storms Raise Questions About The Science Of Hurricanes
Heard on All Things Considered -  September 7, 2017
NPR’s Robert Siegel talks with Phil Klotzbach, a research scientist at Colorado State University, about the science of hurricanes and what makes Hurricane Irma so unusual.
http://www.npr.org/2017/09/07/549250104/powerful-storms-raise-questions-about-the-science-of-hurricanes

At it’s most innocent we have an example of something I’ve already mentioned, a people desperately clinging to dreams of yesterday’s normal,
like a child desperately clinging to her mother as they’re being inexorably torn apart for all time. 
Unfortunately, what we refuse to comprehend will harm, nay destroy all we’ve come to love about this world.

Klotzbach’s first paragraph reveals a sadly one dimensional scorekeeper’s mentality that does nothing to help inform people about our situation.
Our global heat and moisture distribution engine has many cycles, last decade the oceans were absorbing great quantities of heat,
now some of that heat is being returned with a vengeance, so it goes.

Taking childish comfort in a few years of no landfall hurricanes not only shows a blind eye to our climate system’s oscillations -
but also human and society’s concerns which play out on decadal time scales. 
Then by focusing his answer purely on September and hurricane numbers he hides the real story from an audience
who have a right to know the unvarnished truth.  For an overview of why Klotzbach’s complacency is wrong and misleading:

Why the ‘major-hurricane drought’ is the most overblown statistic in meteorology
By Jason Samenow - Washington Post - October 24, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/10/24/why-the-major-hurricane-drought-is-the-most-overblown-statistic-in-meteorology

The science behind the U.S.’s strange hurricane ‘drought’ — and its sudden end
By Chris Mooney - Washington Post - September 7, 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/the-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hurricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end

Klotzbach’s second paragraph,

“When it comes to climate changes impacts on the storms though, most theoretical models really don’t see any change in the frequency, perhaps even going down a little bit.  They say maybe the storms will get slightly more intense.”


This is deception through misdirection though statistics and losing sight of the beast. 
Step back and please consider,
Earth is a global heat and moisture distribution engine, it is a virtually closed system powered by the sun. 
The atmosphere that encloses and seals in our climate engine also insulates Earth from frigid outer space. 

That insulation’s “R value” is regulated by so-called greenhouse gases, which humanity has been adding into our atmosphere at unimaginable rates, so much so that greenhouse gas levels have been significantly increased.  Inevitably resulting in our global climate engine and Earth’s surface warming up. Simple unavoidable physics!  As we are indeed witnessing. 

Hurricanes are fueled by ocean heat, atmospheric heat and moisture and all three of those components are increasing.  Their function is to distribute heat from the broiling equatorial zone to polar regions   Increase the heat of that virtually closed system and how in physic’s name can the hurricanes that spawn within this warmer moister environment not possess the increased available energy?

Klotzbach “But I look at the observations, I don’t do much theoretical modeling and in the observations it’s just really too hard to say.”

Okay time to call in some authorities:

“Fundamental physical principles and observed weather trends mean we already know some of the answers - and we have for a long time.

Hurricanes get their energy from warm ocean waters, and the ocean are warming because of the human-caused buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of coal, oil and gas.  The strongest hurricanes have gotten stronger because of global warming.  Over the past two years, we have witnessed the most intense hurricanes on record for the globe, both hemispheres, the Pacific and now, with Irma, the Atlantic.

We also know that warmer air holds more moisture, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased because of human-induced global warming.  We’ve measured this increase, and it has been unequivocally attributed to human-caused warming.  That extra moisture causes heavier rainfall, which has also been observed and attributed to our influence on climate.  We know that rainfall rate in hurricane are expected to increase in a warmer world, and now we’re living that reality. …”

Quoting from:
“Irma and Harvey should kill any doubt that climate change is real”
We can’t afford to keep pretending.  -  September 7, 2017

Michael E. Mann, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University

Susan J. Hassol, director of Climate Communication LLC.

Thomas C. Peterson, president of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization. He was formerly principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and National Centers for Environmental Information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/07/irma-and-harvey-should-kill-any-doubt-that-climate-change-is-real

___________________________________________________________________________________

As I did more research on Phil Klotzbach I found this . . .

Yeah, then it get’s interesting.

Food for thought.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

Hurricanes are powered by heat they pull up from the ocean surface, warmer oceans upper layers means the potential for much more powerful hurricanes.

Water vapour when it condenses releases 54 calories per gram, as all that water vapour that is pulled from the ocean surface by growing tropical storms rises into the atmosphere condenses and releases an incredible amount of heat which is then converted into wind velocity as the hurricane spirals up. It’s why a hurricane starts dying the moment it crosses over land.

It’s completely dishonest to claim that global warming with much warmer ocean temperatures are not linked to much stronger hurricanes.

What is already happening is that once in 100 year hurricanes are going to become once in 25 years, then once in 10, etc… exactly what the science has been saying for decades.

The people being paid by the fossil fuel industry must keep lying or their paychecks will dry up as those companies most responsible for this growing disaster are sued out of existence. The damage already done by fossil fuels is in the hundreds of billions of dollars… at least.

And we’re all picking up the bill, not the Koch brothers, not Exxon-Mobil, not Shell, not Chevron, not Standard, not Southern, Peabody, Western Fuels or any of these criminal organizations who’s products in the end will be far more deadly than all the cocaine, heroin, meth, etc… ever produced.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1558
Joined  2010-04-22
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 09:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

If it doesn’t work it isn’t science so it’s not the wrong stuff and peer-reviewed science actually works to the tiniest detail as I keep having to point out to those who don’t seem to have a clue what reality is.

You wouldn’t even be posting here if science didn’t work in the real world. All your political theory isn’t going to produce semi-conducting transistors, it took generations of scientists building a knowledge base that has reached a level of understanding that goes deeper than any other body of knowledge in history to make modern society possible and that includes the electronics that you must be using to post here. That same science informs us extensively on the risks of human forced climate change.

Climate change denial doesn’t work in the real world, it’s an intentional attack on valid science in any area that might affect the financial and political power of the “elite”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a “grassroots” movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight “overregulation”. It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one “unfounded fear” among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up “a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of ‘junk science’. Coalition will address credibility of government’s scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states.”

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens’ group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, “to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors”; to “link the tobacco issue with other more ‘politically correct’ products”; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with “broader questions about government research and regulations” - such as “global warming”, “nuclear waste disposal” and “biotechnology”. APCO would engage in the “intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science”.

So the people who I’m referring to that should be in prison for life aren’t engaging in any genuine research for the betterment of society and people everywhere, they are part of an intentional fraud that is intended to deny action that could ultimately save the lives of billions. Based on a previous campaign to deny science that resulted in the premature death of millions from tobacco products.

If you can’t tell the difference then there is no point at all in discussing with you anything based on ethics, morality, empathy, rationality or anything associated with the positive aspect of human nature.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 10:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
TromboneAndrew - 08 September 2017 09:48 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

In science if results are not reproducible then they are not included in the body of scientific knowledge, any scientists that “say the wrong stuff” are soon revealed. You just have to look at the cold fusion debacle to see how this process works constantly.

Or even how well established theory can be reformulated to fit the current best evidence. So while Newton’s theory of gravity worked fine for the several hundred years it was accepted as the best explanation of observable data, when more powerful tools to study nature were developed it was modified to fit the best data.

That’s what science is.

Climate change denial is the opposite of that. It starts with the premise that the are no large scale negative impacts to adding billions of tons a year of CO2 to the atmosphere and proceeds to attack the valid science by any means possible while producing no peer-reviewed science of its own. It’s the definition of confirmation bias.

It’s an intentional fraud that has cost people across Earth billions of dollars already and directly or indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the last 30 years.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public. 

The people behind this deadly fraud knew the facts decades ago, just as the people who funded the tobacco lobby denial of the deadly affects of their products knew for decades just how hazardous their products were.

Trying to equate science with climate change denial is just as dishonest as climate change denial and is probably being done by deniers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 September 2017 11:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

When your entire reality is based on the rejection of facts then you simply have no grounds to object when reality bites you in the ass.

Like with climate change deniers who are costing many people their homes, livelihoods and even their lives and if there is any justice in this world should face criminal prosecution for the vast destruction they are already responsible for.

People really need to wake up to the fact that if their lives are trashed by record catastrophic hurricanes, wildfires, floods, droughts, etc… there are people who are responsible for this. We all need to take action to stop those who if they aren’t stopped and brought to justice will destroy us all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10
TromboneAndrew - 08 September 2017 09:48 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

AFAIK corrupt scientists are fired from academia and their reputation is permanently ruined. Should their PhDs be revoked as well?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2016-10-10
DougC - 08 September 2017 09:57 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

If it doesn’t work it isn’t science so it’s not the wrong stuff and peer-reviewed science actually works to the tiniest detail as I keep having to point out to those who don’t seem to have a clue what reality is.

You wouldn’t even be posting here if science didn’t work in the real world. All your political theory isn’t going to produce semi-conducting transistors, it took generations of scientists building a knowledge base that has reached a level of understanding that goes deeper than any other body of knowledge in history to make modern society possible and that includes the electronics that you must be using to post here. That same science informs us extensively on the risks of human forced climate change.

Climate change denial doesn’t work in the real world, it’s an intentional attack on valid science in any area that might affect the financial and political power of the “elite”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a “grassroots” movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight “overregulation”. It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one “unfounded fear” among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up “a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of ‘junk science’. Coalition will address credibility of government’s scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states.”

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens’ group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, “to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors”; to “link the tobacco issue with other more ‘politically correct’ products”; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with “broader questions about government research and regulations” - such as “global warming”, “nuclear waste disposal” and “biotechnology”. APCO would engage in the “intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science”.

So the people who I’m referring to that should be in prison for life aren’t engaging in any genuine research for the betterment of society and people everywhere, they are part of an intentional fraud that is intended to deny action that could ultimately save the lives of billions. Based on a previous campaign to deny science that resulted in the premature death of millions from tobacco products.

If you can’t tell the difference then there is no point at all in discussing with you anything based on ethics, morality, empathy, rationality or anything associated with the positive aspect of human nature.

Typical emotional hysteria from you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
Beltane - 09 September 2017 12:07 PM

Typical emotional hysteria from you.

Typical resort to ad hominen by an empty viewpoint.

Either reply to the valid facts that I presented or don’t bother to reply at all, your empty opinions are meaningless.

They’re right up there with the psychopath Limbaugh telling anyone who would listen to ignore approaching death in the form of the worst recorded Atlantic storm. He also called reports of the danger hysteria… before fleeing for his life.

This issue is existential, it affects us all profoundly, if you have no concept of that then you don’t belong as part of this discussion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24

Actually, regarding my gripe with Dr. Klotzbach he responded, to my email letting him know about my blogpost, with a very civil detailed explanation for his reasoning.
For this reason we’re back at a Map vs. Territory Problem.  He has also given me permission to repost his email and I will have a chance to make my case in a constructive civil manner, unfortunately was stuck dealing with other things today, I sure hope I can get it done tomorrow.

I’ve been assured by no less than Michael Mann, no fan of Klotzbach, and Michael Tobis that I was over reaching in my assessment and that Klotzbach is a good scientist.  Still, there is the problem of what facts one will be present to and what’s overlooked. And of course the “Seepage” thing, with the brutal attacks from GOP forces on climate scientists and anyone daring to say global warming, it’s only human that some self-censor.  Although being a close protégée of Dr Gray, hurricane expert though he may have been, is a red flag.  Since Gray was one of the old guard Horsemen of the AGW Denial Apocalypse, slander and denial and evasion all the way down.

Whatever, it’s the Map vs. Territory Problem that I want to force onto their attention - when single-minded focus on statistical details, confusing minutiae, difficulty in measuring, enable a soothing interpretation that manages to ignore fundamental unavoidable geophysical facts.  Not seeing the forest for the tree.  It’s actually been a amazing couple days for me, substantive emails with a number of genuine recognized experts, very cool, the caliber of my debate mates has certainly improved.  Now comes my next test, can I present a persuasive rational readable response?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2017 11:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24
Beltane - 09 September 2017 12:07 PM

Typical emotional hysteria from you.

Not at all.  At least if we lived in a world where one’s punishment reflected the caliber of one’s crime against humanity (ah yeah, that would include future generations who have been robbed of this fantastic global cornucopia that we had, but were hell bent on sucking dry fast as feasible.).

But that’s a laughable hope.

So we’ll just continue marching along with the awareness of ants until a disaster visits us.  Don’t worry, either we die, or we will be experience a hell of a shit show these next couple decades.  Welcome to the new normal, which will become the old normal way too fast for us or most everything else to adapt.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 01:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4267
Joined  2014-06-20
TromboneAndrew - 08 September 2017 09:48 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

Depends on what the “wrong stuff” is. Give us some examples of “wrong stuff” scientists have said.

LL

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 01:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4267
Joined  2014-06-20
TromboneAndrew - 08 September 2017 09:48 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

Scientists lose their credentials, too, when they do something wrong. Making a mistake is not a reason to take away a scientists’s credentuals or fire him or her from a teaching post. Give some examples of what you mean that scientists have done that is so “wrong” they should lose their licenses.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 01:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4267
Joined  2014-06-20
Beltane - 09 September 2017 12:05 PM
TromboneAndrew - 08 September 2017 09:48 PM
Beltane - 08 September 2017 09:04 PM

What should happen to the scientists who say the wrong stuff? Prison?

In law, lawyers who violate their oaths get debarred. Doctors can lose their licenses to practice.

AFAIK corrupt scientists are fired from academia and their reputation is permanently ruined. Should their PhDs be revoked as well?

Doctors and lawyers or other professionals who commot crimes don’t have their degrees revoked.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2017 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 09 September 2017 11:10 PM
Beltane - 09 September 2017 12:07 PM

Typical emotional hysteria from you.

Not at all.  At least if we lived in a world where one’s punishment reflected the caliber of one’s crime against humanity (ah yeah, that would include future generations who have been robbed of this fantastic global cornucopia that we had, but were hell bent on sucking dry fast as feasible.).

But that’s a laughable hope.

So we’ll just continue marching along with the awareness of ants until a disaster visits us.  Don’t worry, either we die, or we will be experience a hell of a shit show these next couple decades.  Welcome to the new normal, which will become the old normal way too fast for us or most everything else to adapt.

It’s already here, we don’t have to wait for catastrophic climate change to arrive.

Whether it’s huge super-cell systems that spawn large numbers of very powerful tornadoes, “record” floods that just keep getting worse year after year, prolonged droughts that in many places also kick off massive wildfires, record hurricanes, cyclone and typhoons, etc…

All brought to us by the assholes who thought they knew better than the experts on planetary science because they figured greed trumped all. In their tiny little minds it does, for the rest of us we get to live in a world that is rapidly becoming unlivable.

The people who are doing this have the same mentality of the soulless functionaries that brought us insane programs like the Holocaust. Only this one is rapidly spanning the Earth, everybody is going to die when the natural systems we depend on for food, water and everything else collapse which they are in a rapid slide into.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150623-sixth-extinction-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/

In the last half-billion years, life on Earth has been nearly wiped out five times—by such things as climate change, an intense ice age, volcanoes, and that space rock that smashed into the Gulf of Mexico 65 million years ago, obliterating the dinosaurs and a bunch of other species. These events are known as the Big Five mass extinctions, and all signs suggest we are now on the precipice of a sixth.

Except this time, we have no one but ourselves to blame. According to a study published last week in Science Advances, the current extinction rate could be more than 100 times higher than normal—and that’s only taking into account the kinds of animals we know the most about. Earth’s oceans and forests host an untold number of species, many of which will probably disappear before we even get to know them.

How about we have a nice world court trial and start executing people like Fred Singer, the head of Exxon Mobil, the Kochs and anyone else who is enabling this growing catastrophe. After all people like Adolph Eichmann only enabled the murder of about 11 million, these psychopaths are enabling the murder of billions.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1