Aug 21, 2016



Let us parse this incredible statement by Donald Trump in answer to a softball question from Hugh Hewitt – Conservative talk show host and Trump supporter.

Hewitt’s inquiry concerning the Nuclear Triad of course refers to the 3 “legs” or elements of the US nuclear arsenal – 1) Land based ICBMs  2) Our Nuclear Submarine Missile Fleet and 3) Our B1 Stealth Long Range Bombers equipped with Nuclear bombs. Hewitt evidently wants to allow Trump to expound on his toughness and Commander in Chief capacity by indicating which element of our nuclear capacity Trump would make a priority.

Trump evidently has no clue what Hewitt is talking about. 

So Trump launches into a strange monologue first touting that he is 1) Trustworthy 2) Responsible and 3) Knows what he is doing. 
Then he gives his “proudest” proof of his quality:  He was “totally against going into Iraq in 2003 – 04 because it would destabilize the Middle East. He “called it VERY STRONGLY” and “IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT”

FACT:  The invasion of Iraq began on March 20 2003 and according to FACT CHECKER (non partisan FACT CHECK site) 
The record of TRUMP’s pre-Iraq invasion statements 

In short:
Sept 11, 2002 Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports the invasion:

DONALD TRUMP “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.” 

TRUMP stated his opposition was so well known and vocal that representatives from the Bush Whitehouse came to Trump Tower in attempt to silence him, because, he said, he was getting “a disproportionate amount of publicity” for his opposition to the war.

There is no evidence this happened and given his claim of “disproportionate publicity” it seems that someone somewhere would have a record of it.

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump  on Fox “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion.
Cavuto: If you had to sort of breakdown for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy,
Trump: We have to — you know, it’s sort like either do it or don’t do it.
Trump: Either you attack or you don’t attack. -the point is either you do it or you don’t do it, or you — but I just — or if you don’t do it, just don’t talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it.
March 21, 2003: Neil Cavuto of Fox interviews Trump
Trump the war “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint,” and he predicts the market will “go up like a rocket” after the war.
March 25, 2003: Donald Trump, “If they keep fighting it the way they did today, they’re going to have a real problem.” “The war’s a mess,”. WaPo interview.
July 1, 2003: HARDBALL – TRUMP “. I think the president is doing a very good job. I would love to see New York City and some of the cities and some of the states get some of the money that`s going toward Iraq”
Sept. 11, 2003: SCARBROUGH COUNTRY  TRUMP “It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq.”
Nov. 4, 2003: HARDBALL Trump “the economy is doing well,” but predicts “his bigger problem is going to be what’s happening in Iraq.”
Trump:. The question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place. I don’t think that this president can do anything about that. He is really — he is on a course that has to stay.
Dec. 15, 2003: Neil Cavuto  TRUMP “a lot of people [are] questioning” the wisdom of going to war with Iraq in the first place. But ultimately, over the next year, two years, 10 years and 20 years, this is just a great thing for the free world.



 “But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes
to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ballgame. Frankly, I would have said
get out of Syria; get out- if we didn’t have the power of weaponry today.
The power is so massive that we can’t just leave areas that 50 or 75 years ago
we wouldn’t care. It was hand-to-hand combat.“
TRUMP “Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out” 

TRUMP “The power is so massive that we just can’t leave areas that 50 or 75 years ago we wouldn’t care. It was hand to hand combat”

It was Aug 6 1945 when Hiroshima was destroyed by an Atomic Bomb. That is 71 years ago. Is Donald Trump unaware of that date? 

TRUMP “It was hand-to-hand combat”
This is a remarkable statement. Somehow Trump has the idea that 50 to 75 years ago the “Massive power” of Nuclear Weapons did not exist and that “hand-to-hand” combat was how war was fought.

We are now so used to TRUMPS prevarication that out right lies in a debate does not even register. Trump seems to think we should take his word that he was against the Iraq invasion prior to it’s launch. In fact he was so vocal about it- got such disproportionate publicity the President or the White House sent people to see him about it.

The record is clear – Trump had a half-dozen chances to voice opposition to the invasion some prior and several just after – and AT NO TIME did he say as he claims “It will destabilize the Middle East”.

But that kind of self promoting fiction is normal for Trump.

This test for Commander In Chief is the cause for much greater concern.
The US has not been in Syria
The US has had nuclear weapons for over 70 years now
And ‘hand-to-hand” combat? Does he think we were in the Civil War back 75 years ago?
Or the Middle Ages? 

Aug 16, 2016

War Has Already Begun - Will We Fight Back?

We must elect Hillary Clinton in the first battle against Climate Change — and we must demand that she does these things ASAP:  READ McKIBBEN’S ARTICLE IN FULL HERE 
The next president doesn’t have to wait for a climate equivalent of Pearl Harbor to galvanize Congress. Much of what we need to do can—and must—be accomplished immediately, through the same use of executive action that FDR relied on to lay the groundwork for a wider mobilization. The president could immediately put a halt to drilling and mining on public lands and waters, which contain at least half of all the untapped carbon left in America. She could slow the build-out of the natural gas system simply by correcting the outmoded way the EPA calculates the warming effect of methane, just as Obama reined in coal-fired power plants. She could tell her various commissioners to put a stop to the federal practice of rubber-stamping new fossil fuel projects, rejecting those that would “significantly exacerbate” global warming. She could instruct every federal agency to buy all their power from green sources and rely exclusively on plug-in cars, creating new markets overnight. She could set a price on carbon for her agencies to follow internally, even without the congressional action that probably won’t be forthcoming. And just as FDR brought in experts from the private sector to plan for the defense build-out, she could get the blueprints for a full-scale climate mobilization in place even as she rallies the political will to make them plausible. Without the same urgency and foresight displayed by FDR—without immediate executive action—we will lose this war.
Bill McKibben lays down the gauntlet — WWIII has already begun and we must heed the call to arms before it is too late. We may not be able to stop the carbon assault short of losing our coastal cities much as the Allies were unable to stop Hitler until after he absorbed continental Europe and bombed London into rubble. 
For years, our leaders chose to ignore the warnings of our best scientists and top military strategists. Global warming, they told us, was beginning a stealth campaign that would lay waste to vast stretches of the planet, uprooting and killing millions of innocent civilians. But instead of paying heed and taking obvious precautions, we chose to strengthen the enemy with our endless combustion; a billion explosions of a billion pistons inside a billion cylinders have fueled a global threat as lethal as the mushroom-shaped nuclear explosions we long feared. Carbon and methane now represent the deadliest enemy of all time, the first force fully capable of harrying, scattering, and impoverishing our entire civilization.
It's not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. And we are losing. Our Climate Change aware leaders are not unlike Neville Chamberlain attempting to piecemeal appease the world’s largest weapon supplier to the carbon warming enemy — The Fossil Fuel Industry. Make no mistake these War Criminals and their owned sycophants in Congress are traitors to humanity.  Their greed is unimpeded by all the considerable evidence of science outlined in my previous: SLEEPWALKING TOWARD OBLIVION diary this week 

We're used to war as metaphor: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on cancer. Usually this is just a rhetorical device, a way of saying, "We need to focus our attention and marshal our forces to fix something we don't like." But this is no metaphor. By most of the ways we measure wars, climate change is the real deal: Carbon and methane are seizing physical territory, sowing havoc and panic, racking up casualties, and even destabilizing governments. (Over the past few years, record-setting droughts have helped undermine the brutal strongman of Syria and fuel the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria.) It's not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. Its first victims, ironically, are those who have done the least to cause the crisis. But it's a world war aimed at us all. And if we lose, we will be as decimated and helpless as the losers in every conflict--except that this time, there will be no winners, and no end to the planetwide occupation that follows.
The mobilization required to defeat the enemy in the war on carbon emissions would be great for Americans on many fronts including better job creation: 
For starters, it’s important to remember that a truly global mobilization to defeat climate change wouldn’t wreck our economy or throw coal miners out of work. Quite the contrary: Gearing up to stop global warming would provide a host of social and economic benefits, just as World War II did. It would save lives. (A worldwide switch to renewable energy would cut air pollution deaths by 4 to 7 million a year, according to the Stanford data.) It would produce an awful lot of jobs. (An estimated net gain of roughly two million in the United States alone.) It would provide safer, better-paying employment to energy workers. (A new study by Michigan Technological University found that we could retrain everyone in the coal fields to work in solar power for as little as $181 million, and the guy installing solar panels on a roof averages about $4,000 more a year than the guy risking his life down in the hole.)
and on a global level the economic benefits are staggering taking into account the economic impacts if we continue to allow the Fossil Fuel industry to win: 
It would rescue the world’s struggling economies. (British economist Nicholas Stern calculates that the economic impacts of unchecked global warming could far exceed those of the world wars or the Great Depression.) And fighting this war would be socially transformative. (Just as World War II sped up the push for racial and gender equality, a climate campaign should focus its first efforts on the frontline communities most poisoned by the fossil fuel era. It would help ease income inequality with higher employment, revive our hollowed-out rural states with wind farms, and transform our decaying suburbs with real investments in public transit.)
For those of you who hate War metaphor what should we call it? The greenhouse gas emissions are killing our marine life and driving millions of species to extinction — is that not war? The displacement of millions of people from coastal areas where they have lived for generations is rapidly on the way. Is this displacement not war?  
I urge everyone to read this Bill McKibben article in full — the case he makes is flawless and we have no time to waste. It’s is pertinent to this election and to what we must do with our Clinton support to ensure she does what must be done. 

Aug 14, 2016



When a frog is placed in a pot of cold water heated slowly on a stove, the frog will die as it adapts to the increased heat. We are the frog. Key scientific groups with dedicated and knowledgeable climate scientists have slowly been raising the temperature with their diligent research and peer reviewed reports. These scientists consistently err on the side of the most conservative assessment. The peer review process waters down the language to the lowest common denominator. The process adds 2 to 5 years from data collection to final publication. Scientific language is notoriously dull and dense -a sleep inducing description of the coming apocalypse. We are unconcerned.

The well funded denier machine paid millions by fossil fuel interests is staffed by the same people who successfully added decades to effort to tie tobacco to cancer. "Think tanks" and "conservative" Foundations like The Heritage Foundation successfully allow Senator Jim Inhof of Oklahoma cover for his claim that the Bible proves man-made Climate Change is The Greatest Hoax. This senator from Exxon backed by Koch Industries may be more extreme but he and his party are all on board with their financial backers. After all the fossil fuel industry is the most powerful and wealthy in world history.

The task of deniers is simple - DO NOTHING. A slow moving apocalypse revealed by scientific methods is difficult to identify, more difficult to prove, and almost impossible to sell when the last thing scientists want to do is to market and sell. Most scientists are notoriously bad speakers and presenters.when it comes to promoting an idea. They speak in a foreign language using technical terms while laboring under a false illusion. Held to the same standard as politicians they insist on presenting all the facts without providing a vivid 45 second sound byte to fit the 24 hour news cycle and they are losing the battle to save our planet.

Al Gore managed to grab our attention prior to falling victim to a bogus manufactured attack on a tiny portion of the data in his Inconvenient Truth. Deniers took some email text out of context to cast doubt on the CO2 numbers and got to play their card in network "equal time". The media gives equal time to "balance" reports but there is no way to balance 95% of Climate Scientist vs the paid shills of Fossil Fuels with a 50/50 time allocation. Never mind trying to balance scientific fact vs total bullshit. In a country where "government is the problem lawmakers" are granted unlimited funds - the chance to fix problems caused by the fossil fuel industry approaches zero. We are the bad guys in this fight - the country where the carbon footprint of citizens is the largest in the world. We are losing our planet and the future for our grand children to greedy lying bastards.


Amazing grid of fracking sites in Utah
Using Google Earth it is a simple task to see examples of man's impact on the Earth. This image of the vast coverage of fracking sites in Utah is one example. These fracking sites release measurable amount of methane - more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas

Even when we can actually see serious evidence that should shock us into action, we will either gasp or yawn, but either way we soon forget and move on. Our attention span is limited and the things we find to distract ourselves are limitless.

The problem isn't just limited to small island nations like the Maldives that could be almost completely underwater by 2100., A recent paper by James Hansen and 16 other scientists warned that even if countries worldwide are able to slow global warming to the ambitious level of two degrees Celsius above pre-1900 levels, we could still be in for disaster. Hitting that target could still leave places like New York City, London and Bangladesh completely uninhabitable. 
The paper by James Hansen et al was first submitted in June 2014. The typical peer reviewing system used by most reputable scientific groups takes over 9 months so the final draft was released in late March 2015  A research article for ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS titled Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous is not going to attract the rapt attention of news consumers. The name James Hansen should be burned into the public consciousness since this former NASA Climate Scientist is the most accomplished person in his field of work and study. Here from the abstract are the highlights:


Received: 11 Jun 2015  Published in Atmospheric. Chem. & Phys. Discuss.: 23 Jul 2015
Revised: 17 Feb 2016  Accepted: 18 Feb 2016  Published: 22 Mar 2016  NOTE the 11 June to 22 March delay imposed by peer review process that makes the "news" somewhat obsolete. Add the time required to acquire, model, parse, combine, and collate the data and this most recent news concerning warming and melt runs approximately 4 to 5 years behind data collection in a science that is seeing rapid acceleration. 
Abstract. Southern Ocean surface cooling, while lower latitudes are warming, increases precipitation on the Southern Ocean, increasing ocean stratification, slowing deepwater formation, and increasing ice sheet mass loss. These feedbacks make ice sheets in contact with the ocean vulnerable to accelerating disintegration. We hypothesize that ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years. Recent ice melt doubling times are near the lower end of the 10–40-year range, but the record is too short to confirm the nature of the response
The feedbacks including subsurface ocean warming help explain paleoclimate data and point to a dominant Southern Ocean role in controlling atmospheric CO2, which in turn exercised tight control on global temperature and sea level. The millennial (500–2000-year) timescale of deep-ocean ventilation affects the timescale for natural CO2 change and thus the timescale for paleo-global climate, ice sheet, and sea level changes, but this paleo-millennial timescale should not be misinterpreted as the timescale for ice sheet response to a rapid, large, human-made climate forcing. These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1 °C warmer than today. 
Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous
Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield: 
(1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; 
(2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; 
(3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; 
(4) increasingly powerful storms; and 
(5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. 
These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions.
When reading the final sentence the "reduced warming or even cooling in Europe differ fundamentally from existing climate-change assessments" could lead some to relax, thinking things are better than expected. But that would be wrong

The entire article is available in Pdf  form HERE and is filled with the charts and data that support the predictions and conclusions. Hansen's team is saying that 1%C temp rise we are approaching will be enough to push the precarious West Antarctic Ice Sheet into accelerated meltdown. His 50 - 150 year timetable could already be too conservative given the feedbacks, rate of acceleration, and:


                       A few years ago the images of glaciers in retreat or completely vanishing were a graphic reminder of the results of warming. We woke up for a month or two and bought some florescent bulbs.
 We continue to rape the Earth with abandon in search of coal, gas and oil as we can see for ourselves. There’s nothing quite like  historical photos of glaciers to show what a dynamic planet we live on. Alaska’s Muir Glacier, like many Alaskan glaciers, has retreated and thinned dramatically since the 19th century.
This pair of images shows the glacier’s retreat and thinning from 1941 to 2004, the front of the glacier moved back about seven miles while its thickness decreased by more than 2,625 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Next image shows 26 miles of retreat.
While historical photos like these show change over many decades, satellites are giving us a better understanding of how Earth’s ice cover has changed in the more recent past. The satellite era, beginning in the 1970s, has given us a picture of accelerating ice changes in places like Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica, where the loss of land-based ice is contributing to global sea level rise.
Forty-six gigatons of ice from Alaskan glaciers was lost on average each year from 2003 to 2010. That’s according to data from NASA’s GRACE satellite, as analyzed by a team of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder. This information is now so common it is ignored by mainstream media. 

Deniers said the glaciers would return — that the retreat was part of a normal cycle. Regrettably the Climate Scientists were correct once again. But right or wrong the Republican sheep follow the lead of the Fossils in control of the wealthiest most damaging industry on our planet. They would see their grandchildren dead before yielding a dollar of their buried carbon profit. 


West Virginia Mountaintop Removal 
Take Google Earth and fly over the areas around Appalachia, Va, and  Carbon W Va to see mountaintop removal from space. Or the area around Montrose and Pittsburg, PA for 7,788 wells. Then west of the Cascades from CA to the NW Territories to see the vast array of clear cut forests. These areas lay waste to the Inhof  "hoax" claim "that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful, they can change climate."

Virginia Coal Mining from Space
     But man is obviously changing the face of the planet so dramatically it can be seen from space From the Amazon forest to the vast pit mines of Africa and Canada we can see areas so vast and ugly it boggles the mind. The outrageous worst examples of the tar sands in Alberta and the BP Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are not aberrant outliers in the grand scheme of man's impact on the planet and thus climate change - they are simply the prime examples. We build massive machines and rape the land for coal, gas, lumber, ore and oil without any cost or penalty for companies who profit without regard for the Earth or our grandchildren.
Are we powerless to stop this insanity? At what point will we figure out that the lives and well being of our children and grand children outweighs the profit and false economic arguments of the Fossil Fuel killers who are going to doom our offspring to a disaster?  What is worth fighting for if not a future for those we brought into this world?  We have to stop this NOW.  We have to get mad. We have to get active. We have to stand up and demand an accounting. Those who speak of personal responsibility have to start taking responsibility for the damage they are causing. 




 Perhaps the most dramatic images of man's impact on the Earth is the hideous scar in Alberta Canada You can see the Tar Sands spreading like a Cancer from Space. It is VERY destructive.
Tar sands,” located north of Edmonton, releases at least three times the CO2 emissions as regular oil production procedures and will likely become North America’s single largest industrial contributor to climate change.
 In the Athabasca Valley. To extract each barrel of oil, the industry first cuts down the forest, then removes an average of two tons of peat and dirt that lie above the oil sands layer, then two tons of the sand itself. It must heat several barrels of water to strip the bitumen from the sand and upgrade it, and afterwards discharge contaminated water into tailings ponds that cover around 50 square miles.Last April some 500 migrating ducks mistook one of those ponds, at a Syncrude mine for a hospitable stopover, landed on its oily surface, and died. 
 Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed one million barrels per day; by 2015, oil sands production is expected to more than double to about 2.2 million barrels per day. To illustrate, a Honda Accord burning tar sands gasoline has the same climate impact as a Chevy Suburban using conventional gasoline.

When we can observe the impact of man on the Earth from space it is easy to understand how man can cause Climate Change. These images have more impact than the dry numbers of statistical analysis or even the dramatic charts that show the stats in graphic style. The 400ppm count of CO2 has been breached despite dire warnings. And the average temperature measurements across the globe is clear irrefutable evidence of the influence. Still the deniers linked with Republicans and for some unfathomable reason the "Christians" are dead set on their tragic course to make the Earth a very scary place to be sometime this century. 
Part of it comes from the 50 to 100 years estimates of sea level rise that will submerge most of Florida and coastal cities like New York, Boston, and Washington D.C. As rising waters flood the coast the inhabitants will already be migrating to higher ground stressing the ever diminishing food supplies. Look at that newborn grandson or daughter and know when they reach 50 their world will be a dark and dangerous place. But evidently that does not cause consternation enough - so here's news flash for you. That 50 year point may be way too conservative. 




You've seen the news.  California has been in unprecedented drought for five years - unless you are Donald Trump. The vast food producing area of the central valley is faced with record shortages of water as the aquifer subsides.    
A recent study from NASA satellite data shows that of Earth's 37 largest underground aquifers, 21 have been depleted beyond their point of sustainability. That stress could leave millions with diminishing access to fresh water. Of course the AMERICAN THINKER jumps through hoops to try to support Trumps "no drought" claim and Trump is quick to deny all claims of climate change. Except when he wants to build a wall  in ScotlandRepublicans are suddenly very worried about our jobs. They claim any concerted effort to covert to renewable energy like Solar or wind will cost jobs - despite the FACT that a WWII type full blown build and install solar panels and wind turbines effort could employ millions of Americans. We can afford Trillions for a failed war on drugs and more trillions to attack Iraq in a failed anti-terrorist effort. But we cannot afford to save the planet from climate change?   

This apocalyptic scenario illustrates why the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius is not the safe “guardrail” most politicians and media coverage imply it is, argue Hansen and 16 colleagues in a blockbuster study they are publishing this week in the peer-reviewed journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. On the contrary, a 2 C future would be “highly dangerous.”
If Hansen is right—and he has been right, sooner, about the big issues in climate science longer than anyone—the implications are vast and profound.
Physically, Hansen’s findings mean that Earth’s ice is melting and its seas are rising much faster than expected. For half a century, climate scientists have seen the West Antarctic ice sheet as a sword of Damocles hanging over human civilization. The great ice sheet, larger than Mexico, is vulnerable to disintegration from a relatively small amount of global warming, and capable of raising the sea level by 12 feet or more should it break up.
 Researchers long assumed the worst effects would take hundreds of years to occur. Now, new research suggests the disaster scenario could play out much sooner.
 Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet.
 With ice melting in other regions, too, the total rise of the sea could reach five or six feet this century, the researchers found. That is roughly twice the increase reported as a plausible worst-case scenario by a United Nations panel just three years ago, and so high it would likely provoke a profound crisis within the lifetimes of children being born today.
So the worst case scenario 3 years ago is now doubled and the time frame is now seen within this century. And here's the real scary thing: that assessment is based on data collected back in 2000 - 2013, modeled in 2014, presented June 2015 and finalized for report Mar 22, 2016.  So given the rapid acceleration in the estimate from the 2012 IPCC findings to this current report — it is valid to predict a similar acceleration in the 4 years since the data in this report was collected. 
What if we are now looking at a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet discussed here in 2030 - 2050 instead of closer to the end of the century? Would that be enough to get us to focus? 

This Is What a Holy Shit Moment for Global Warming Looks Like

West Antarctica is just the beginning. According to glaciologist and Greenland expert Jason Box, when you compare where we are now to where atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean levels stood in past warm periods of Earth's history, you can infer that human beings have already set in motion 69 feet of sea level rise.

Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revolt

Back in 2013 Naomi Klein wrote: 
Serious scientific gatherings don’t usually feature calls for mass political resistance, much less direct action and sabotage. But then again, Werner wasn’t exactly calling for those things. He was merely observing that mass uprisings of people – along the lines of the abolition movement, the civil rights movement or Occupy Wall Street – represent the likeliest source of “friction” to slow down an economic machine that is careening out of control  Werner's presentation was titled: Are We F**ked. 

Hansen and a group of colleagues make the case for why radical action is needed. The now commonly embraced international target of keeping global warming at a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial levels—a hard-won, but politically negotiated goal—is actually much too high, Hansen says, and we should instead aim for 1°C the highest level ever experienced over the 10,000-year course of human civilization.

Why 1°C is the danger level 
Hansen’s main point is simple: If the Earth hasn’t experienced temperatures warmer than 1°C as a result of natural climate variability for at least the last 100,000 years, Beyond that point, things start to unravel pretty quickly. Environmentalists have dubbed this acceleration of warming “the wheelchair curve“:

As warming crosses 1°C, Hansen and his colleagues’ research shows that additional heat is stored mostly in the deep ocean, That essentially locks in further climate change, even if emissions are drastically reduced later on,  Additional warming will also begin to trigger feedbacks (melting permafrost, thawing methane) that will unleash additional greenhouse gases and drive further warming.

As warming approaches 2°C, it locks in an additional 10-20 meters of sea level rise over the next few hundred years—enough to flood every coastal city in the world. Ecosystem collapse would be virtually assured, as plants and animals that have evolved into precise niches over hundreds of thousands of years are forced to adapt to new conditions in just a decade or two.

The problem with all of these last articles is their age (2013) and the data that induced them from 2000. The thing that seems to be reliable are the accelerating effects we have noted over time. As things move faster the time required to acquire data - model it - write it up - place it for peer review - finalize it with changes - and present it leaves us in a loop where we are always behind. The events that make us notice something outside our boiling pot come and go. We offer some lip service - listen to deniers blunt action - and go back to business as usual 

Get ready for a few million new neighbors if you live away from the coastal areas 

Aug 8, 2016




Is Donald J. Trump the Peerless Deal-maker and Ardent Philanthropist he professes to be? Many Trump supporters express admiration for a "self-made" billionaire" who's wealth resulted in a lavish lifestyle and selfless charity. Trump expertise in business is required to show he "knows the system better than anyone" by parlaying a small 1 million dollar loan from his father into a 10 Billion Dollar Empire.

Trump asks voters to choose between Competent Business Trump and "Liar" Hillary Clinton. But what if Trump is nothing like what he professes to be? Would they vote for incompetent Trump who escaped almost certain personal bankruptcy using some $40 million dollars from his family including a $30 million dollar inheritance and forced liquidation of yachts, mansions, Trump Shuttle, and casinos?. Would the deception alter their support? Would the Truth  make a difference?

Truth is Donald Trump is perpetrating a serious con job on his supporters. He thinks YOU are too dumb to wade through the details to get to the Truth. He believes you will be unable to separate the lies from Truth because you will accept his version that any negative information about him is part of some conspiracy to eliminate or smear him and "rig" the election. How cool is that?

First is the available information concerning Trump philanthropy - or lack thereof.  He may well be the most stingy billionaire in history.  Since Trump refuses to release his tax returns we are forced to speculate that his worth is a tiny fraction of his claim supported by his paltry philanthropy.     444444

David A. Fahrenthold - Washington Post says he spent the past few months trying to prove Donald Trump right about something important.   So far, I've failed.

Trump promised to give millions of his own money to charity. Trying to find evidence I first looked at Donald J. Trump Foundation. Dead end. Tax records show no gifts from Trump to his foundation since 2008. The Trump campaign's official list of his donations. Dead end. Thousands of free rounds of golf, given away by Trump's golf courses. But no gifts of cash from Trump's own pocket..
 So I kept looking, starting with the individual charities that Trump seemed closest to. He'd attended their galas. Praised them on Twitter. Given them cash from the Trump Foundation's dwindling pot of money. I've tried 259 of those charities so far.
 I've found one gift, out of Trump's own pocket, between 2008 and this May. In 2009, he gifted less than $10,000 to the Police Athletic League

1.) Trump sees charity- or rather the appearance of it - as a Yuuge part of his image
The 1980 national star of "The Art of the Deal." had two sides. On one hand, a walking avatar of wealth, so rich he didn't need more money. On the other asking for your money, trying to sell a book promising to give the proceeds to charity.
 By 2000, returning to the national spotlight following his failures in Atlantic City, loss of the Trump Shuttle and forced sale of mansions and yachts he picked up the habit again promising to donate proceeds of "The Apprentice," "Trump University" and a real-estate rental to Moammar Gaddafi. He cultivated the image of "peerless deal-maker and ardent philanthropist." 
2.) Trump wants a rep for charity as cheaply as possible, with other people's money.
He gave $7.8 million to charity since 1984. A paltry sum for a self-identified $10 billionaire equal to 0.018 percent of his Forbes 4.3 billion net worth. Forbes 5 billionaire George Lucas gave $925 million to charity in a single recent year.



Trump strategies make his charitable impact seem more impressive.
Frequent attendance at charity galas and events imply donations to the cause. Even titles like "honorary chairman" - imply bigger gifts --he actually gave nothing. In fact, Trump often *made* money on these galas, held at his Florida clubs.
 The assumption that money in the Trump Foundation came from him is exploited.. It doesn't, and hasn't for years. The biggest recent gifts came from wrestling moguls Vince and Linda McMahon, who gave $5 million (and won't comment about why). Trump gives away their money and recipients give Trump credit.
3.) Trump's 7.8 million charitable legacy is small with little sustained commitment 
The two biggest gifts to veterans' groups: $1 million for the NYC Vietnam Vets Memorial in 1984, and $1 million to veterans' charities this May.
 The largest gifts from the Trump Foundation have been split among local New York charities, Palm Beach galas, conservative political groups -- and one-off gifts, like one Trump paid to settle a lawsuit at one of his golf courses.
The result is despite the Trump name on commercial ventures from steaks to books to casinos -- he few monuments to himself in the world of philanthropy. There's a bench in Central Park, and a single chair in a theater in New Jersey.

BIG BAD BUSINESS TRUMP. - Neil Barsky the New York Times 

 In late May 1990. Barsky was a 32-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter who had written dozens of articles about Donald J. Trump’s business affairs. I was closing in on the biggest one of all — Mr. Trump was on the brink of financial ruin. He was quietly trying to unload his assets. His Atlantic City casinos were underperforming, and prices for his casino bonds were plummeting, suggesting that he would have trouble making interest payments.

The next day, I called sources at four banks I knew had large Trump exposures. The first three calls yielded “no comment,” but the fourth hit pay dirt, and I was invited to visit the bank late that afternoon.

 The bank’s chief lending officer explained that all of the banks would have to agree to a huge restructuring of Mr. Trump’s loans or Mr. Trump would have to declare personal bankruptcy. Unknown to the banks when each had lent him money, Mr. Trump ended up personally guaranteeing a staggering $830 million of loans, which was reckless of him, but even more so for the banks
In a front-page Wall Street Journal article on June 4, 1990, Barsky wrote: “Donald J. Trump’s cash shortage has become critical. The developer is now in intense negotiations with his main bank creditors that could force him to give up big chunks of his empire.” One banker said, “He will have to trim the fat; get rid of the boat, the mansions, the helicopter.”
Amid all the self-made myths about Donald Trump, none is more fantastic than Trump the moneymaker, the New York tycoon who has enjoyed a remarkably successful business career. In reality, Mr. Trump was a walking disaster as a businessman for much of his life. This is not just my opinion. Warren Buffett said as much this past week.

Between 1985 and 1991, TRUMP was a glamorous New York City personality and an Olympic-level self-promoter who had persuaded banks and bondholders to extend him billions of dollars of credit to buy everything from a yacht to the Plaza Hotel to the Eastern Air Lines Shuttle.

“The issue isn’t that he’s crass,” I want to shout. “It’s that he’s a bad businessman!”
Hanging on my office wall is a letter written on gold-leaf stationery, dated March 22, 1990. “Dear Neil,” it reads. “From your first incorrect story on Merv Griffin — to your present Wall Street Journal article, you are a disgrace to your profession! Sincerely, Donald J. Trump.” (Mr. Griffin was a Trump rival.)

The article I had just written took a skeptical look at the ability of Mr. Trump’s newly opened Trump Taj Mahal Atlantic City casino to make the interest payments on its bonds. I quoted an analyst saying, “Once the cold winds blow from October to February, it won’t make it.” Mr. Trump complained to the man’s employer. Within days, the analyst was fired. But his prediction would prove prescient.

As I watched Trump's career soar in the 1980s and the inordinate amount of press attention he attracted, I was struck by two things: His real estate accomplishments were minuscule compared with those of more successful New York developers who garnered far less publicity, and he lied a lot. He made up the prices he was getting for his condominiums, the value of bids he had turned down for various properties and his prospects for luring corporate tenants to his buildings. And, of course, he lied about his wealth.

Then and now, we in the media helped enable the Trump myth. He made great copy. Early on, I noticed that any article I wrote about him — whether for the tabloid Daily News or the serious Wall Street Journal — would get great play. This invariably led me and others to dig deeper for Trump news.

Oddly, he seemed less interested in making money than in creating the perceptionthat he was wealthy. This is why, I believe, he continually floated plans to build the world’s tallest building. People would notice. His feuds with Forbes magazine over his net worth were legion.

This article is a detailed report that undermines the Trump as competent businessman meme. Those who want to know the truth will find it here and in the article above.

Kurt Eichenwald 8/2/2016

Trump’s many misrepresentations of his successes and his failures matter—a lot. As a man who has never held so much as a city council seat, there is little voters can examine to determine if he is competent to hold office. He has no voting record and presents few details about specific policies. Instead, he sells himself as qualified to run the country because he is a businessman who knows how to get things done, and his financial dealings are the only part of his background available to assess his competence to lead the country. And while Trump has had a few successes in business, most of his ventures have been disasters.

From the information contained herein and in statements by Mayor of New York true $40 billionaire Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffet  one of America's wealthiest 2 individuals who claim Trump is more con than competent, it is clear to anyone paying attention that the real Donald Trump is nothing like the Trump presented to his followers. It likely will not make much difference to cynical people who fail to see that fact is essential to Truth. We would elect an untruthful self-promoter at our peril   

Aug 7, 2016


Whoring Themselves Out for a Chance to have Trump's Ear 
Early on Sunday Aug 7 I posted a story NEVER A CHOICE SO CLEAR FOR FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST concerning personal experience, Jimmy Carter, and incredulity that Christians could choose TRUMP over HILLARY CLINTON 
So called small c "christian"  leaders support an arrogant, foul-mouthed, thrice-married, misogynistic businessman who made millions from the gambling industry, bragged repeatedly about his sexual encounters, threatens to kill the families of his enemies, and who would deport all followers of the second largest religious Faith over a woman who has championed children, the disabled, the afflicted and the poor for decades. How is this even in question? 
Today I was introduced to John Pavlovitz by a friend who read that piece and I found a Christian preacher who is not unknown by some here with “Stuff That Needs to be Said” (his blog name).  His most recent entry titled “LOVE IS OFFENSIVE” laments the sentiment that one can either be loving or political 
This is not a backhanded way to be hateful. It is not carefully concealed politics. This is a way to be openly and brazenly loving to those who are denied love, those who are marginalized, those whose voices are not heard.
Jesus said this was “loving the least” and he demanded we do it as a way of affirming our faith. 
Love doesn’t tolerate discrimination. It doesn’t abide bigotry. It doesn’t play nice with fear. It doesn’t wait in the corner for Politics to consent to it speaking.
John Pavlovitz is evidently having an effect that has raised the ire of some who are raising the cry of HERESY and HERETIC. He is under attack by some small c “christian” pastors like Gabe Hughes who demands “CHRISTIANS STOP SHARING JOHN PAVLOVITZ ARTICLES”  and who most recently declared Pavlovitz a heretic with “The Heresy of False Teacher John Pavlovitz”.  The latter concerned Pavlovitz article “10 Things This Christian Doesn’t Believe about the Bible” with entries like these items that common sense supports: 
2) I don’t believe the Bible explains the time and manner of earth’s creation and population accurately. The Creation accounts in Genesis are not scientific writings designed to instruct, as much as they are poetry and song meant to inspire. They should not be read as a literal explanation of the fashion or timetable of what Science clearly tells us were the far older and more gradual evolutions of life than a literal Biblical translation contends. Genesis 1 and 2 are a who story, not a how story.
3) I don’t believe the Bible accurately represents women for the times we in which we live. The Old and New Testaments were written predominantly, if not exclusively by men during a time when women were essentially marital property
And the rest that make for excellent reading and discussion that likely drive the literalists mad with righteous rage.  The heretic charge could lead one to ponder the insanity of another Spanish Inquisition but it’s more likely that Pavlovitz SLEEP WITH THE ENEMY piece naming James Dobson, Jerry Falwell Jr., and the Rest of the Christian Right will inspire more ire toward the author of Stuff that Needs to be Said. 
No, this about supposed representatives of Jesus whoring themselves out just to have what they hope will be the next President’s ear and pretending it’s the work of God. It’s about discarding faith to keep power in their party. It’s about a Christianity that no longer has need or use for Jesus. They themselves are the bloated golden calf they’re bowing down to and Trump is just a means to this end—and it’s exactly what is killing the Church.
WOW — strong words that cut to the core of the pretzel logic incorporated by these Evangelical small c “christians” who we might finally hope have made a leap of financial self-aggrandizing faith over a chasm so far wrong on it’s completely visible surface the true loving Christians who have tried to follow will refuse to jump. 
Every day people tell me that they’re finished with organized Christianity; that they’re walking away from the American Church for good, and it isn’t because of gays or cultural decay or materialism or lust or whatever these preachers like to lift while in the pulpit. These millions of honest, wise (and yes faithful) people are making their exodus because they see Dobson and Falwell and people like them and they realize the absolute absurdity of it all.
They see that to align oneself with Donald Trump in the name of “shared faith”, is the same as a vegan going into business with Burger King. They’ve run out of patience with a spirituality that’s for sale. They’re through with a Christianity that only needs to win.    And I’m right with them.
As John Pavlovitz indicates I am one who long ago finished with organized religion but I have not forgotten the 26 years of teachings that shaped my political conscience indicated by the verses below. I hope you might find the time to read the rest of it but for now we can be glad to know that there are many good Christian souls who can see the Truth  and we can support those like John Pavlovitz from the inquisitors and hate-mongers who don Christian appearance without the slightest regard for the teachings of Christ. Agnostic-schizophrenia is a reasonable label for my floating opinion concerning God’s existence and place in my life, but the Trump boosting small c “christian” leaders push me toward Dawkins and Hitchens with their insanity.  
In my earlier piece on the “CLEAR CHOICE FOR FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST” I post scriptural references from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and James representative of a multitude of verses concerned with Jesus most enduring and important message like these:
Matthew 25:31-46  Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,  I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Luke 12:33-34 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
1 John 3:17-18 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the candidate who passes the WWJD test while Donald Trump may well spell the end of the influence of the pseudo-christian power brokers who thought they could sell the false idol of the golden calf 
 TRUMPED UP OVAL OFFICE waits for Evangelical Advisers 

The GOLD STANDARD of the False Friend of Working Men