Global Warming

"Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)" was posted on May 12, 2014.  While I received no further comments or discussion directly relating thereto, one of my readers, Leonard Levenson, of Manhattan, NY, raised question regarding a related subject, namely, global warming.

He asked:

Although it is politically correct to oppose the increase in greenhouse gasses and indeed it is clear that considerable harm results, there are some questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction.  Perhaps you can help.

     

1. The earth is clearly warming causing sea levels to rise and possibly diverting the Gulf Stream all of which could have devastating consequences to Mankind.  However, doesn't this very warming also increase the growing season for crops in places such as Canada, Russia, Alaska, Patagonia and Greenland?  Does this not benefit large segments of mankind?

      

2.  Doesn't the melting of ice in the Arctic open up the long dreamed of Northwest passage of shipping from the US and Canada to Russia and Japan? 

      

3.  The Greenhouse effect results in inordinate amounts of rainfall, at least in the NE US.  Isn't this beneficial to agriculture, hydroelectric power and the environment?

I responded after doing research on the subject and I set forth below my response based on that research.

In setting forth my response, I must caution my readers that if they read only my text they will have missed a great many facts relating thereto, since I did not want to quote from my sources at length. Therefor, I urge my readers to take the time to access the links and to read, at least large portions, of the source material. My full response follows.

Politically correct or PC has nothing to do with the science of Global Warming, any more than the question of whether the earth is round (and yes there is a Flat Earth Society) or whether the earth is the center of the universe.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, and the fact that certain ignorant people, or shortsighted billionaires, and politicians who cater to them, prefer to pretend is doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it a political or controversial issue.

Nor is PC a way of censoring ideas that are not liberal, as our right wing blogosphere would have people believe, though there have been instances where misguided college students have used it that way.

Without doubt there may be some areas that benefit from Global Warming, such as the Northwest Passage, but they are few. You mention an increase in the growing season in a number of countries, assuming that cold climates would benefit from warmer weather. Alas that is very simplistic. See for example the following which has the sub-headline: 

"Insect infestations, forest fires, floods and drought reflect the devastating impact global warming is already having on the vast Canadian landscape, according to experts from all 10 provinces and two territories."

BY THE GAZETTE (MONTREAL) NOVEMBER 30, 2005

Please note that this was almost a decade ago. A more recent assessment for Canada can be found here. 

As for Russia, see here but you are right it would have some beneficial effects, See here.

As for more rainfall, Hurricane Katrina is an example: See here and don’t forget Hurricane Sandy which devastated the Northeast and we still have nowhere near recovered. But we know that the next one will be worse and we are being forced to spend billions on raising coastline infrastructure and getting ready for next time, which is inevitable.

But it isn’t just more rainfall. It is also less. See this New York Times article where the lede is:

"LOS ANGELES — The fire season here in the hot, dry West now lasts roughly 75 days longer than it did a decade ago, and nearly three dozen fires have been burning up and down California in the last two days, weeks before a normal season begins."

You think of it as more rainfall. But that isn’t it. It is the rise of the sea level that will wipe away huge swath of land. How will it effect the Mid-Atlantic region? See an EPA report here.

See how it is effecting our nations’ capital. Here is today’s (May 16, 2014) weather forecast.

As for Florida (Marco Rubio’s state) See here and allow me to quote from the assessment: 

"The map clearly shows that a sea level rise of only a few meters would inundate thousands of acres of highly developed land and beach communities along Florida's Atlantic Coast, the Florida Keys, and the Florida Gulf Coast. Significant flooding and environmental change would also be experienced in the Everglades. Zoom in on Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor or another area to see the impact of sea level rise in more detail. Florida is a low-elevation state and would feel the impact of sea level rise associated with global climate change much more strongly than other areas.”

In the Pacific whole islands will become uninhabitable: See this headline in Business Insider (not a “liberal source or a PC source) "Sea Level Rise Will Make Several Islands Uninhabitable Within A Decade."

See here and here.

And finally, here is a summary for the United States, which to be sure takes us quite far out. 

But maybe the worst part would be the endless migration of people from negatively effected area to less effected areas - a migration that would make the present immigration problems look puny. The result would likely be war and the killing of immigrants to protect the interest of the haves from the impinging hordes trying to find shelter where they are not wanted.

I pity my grandchild and even more the generation after that. My advise to my grandchild would be “Don’t have children. They will be born into Hell on Earth.”

If it isn’t already too late - it is certainly very close to that.

As usual, comments or questions are welcome!

We are Americans!

In my post I entitled "The Media in General and the New York Times in Particular" I decried the tendency on the part of the media and in that case PBS to “create an artificial or false equivalence…”

That is even truer as between the parties. As I watch the present campaign rhetoric and compare it to history I am struck by the fact that Democrats, as a group tend to be more American first and Democrats second, while the reverse is true about Republicans.

This came to me quite by accident as I was reviewing some old material on my computer. I found the following first person description of one who was in the World Trade Center on 9/11. It is very dramatic and I urge the reader to read it here. 

But the point that struck me most of all was the ending of that piece. Allow me to quote it here:

Today the images that people around the world equate with power and democracy are gone but “America” is not an image it is a concept. That concept is only strengthened by our pulling together as a team. If you want to kill us, leave us alone because we will do it by ourselves. If you want to make us stronger, attack and we unite. This is the ultimate failure of terrorism against The United States and the ultimate price we pay to be free, to decide where we want to work, what we want to eat, and when & where we want to go on vacation. The very moment the first plane was hijacked, democracy won.

Compare that to the long running smears against Democrats that I related in my post: "The Election (Discussion)" Allow me to quote:

… for some reason Democrats have always been held to a much higher standard than Republicans. You will remember Joe McCarthy's charge during the Truman Administration of "twenty years of treason." What was worse is that when the Democratic led Tydings Committee "concluded that the individuals on McCarthy's list were neither Communists nor pro-communist, and said the State Department had an effective security program" and "labeled McCarthy's charges a "fraud and a hoax". Republicans responded in kind, with William E. Jenner stating that Tydings was guilty of "the most brazen whitewash of treasonable conspiracy in our history.” The full Senate voted three times on whether to accept the report, and each time the voting was precisely divided along party lines.”

But that is not even ancient history. Ann Coulter, a darling of Republicans recently, wrote: "Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." and charged "50 years of treason.” 

Now compare that to the reaction as shown in the quote above. In response to 9/11 Democrats rallied around the President. They did so even though there were many questions about Bush’s negligence in not stopping the attack. The outgoing Clinton Administration had warned the President that a major attack on the US was a serious threat. It was ignored.

The hijackers were training for the attack in American flight schools, and agencies of the Bush Administration knew about it, but they did not “connect the dots.” The Bush Administration was clearly negligent in a major and dangerous way. But this was not the time for recriminations. Democrats held their fire. The said we are Americans first and partisans second. This was a time for unity.

Contrast that with the way Republicans are treating the attack in Ben Gazi, Libya, (Which by the way is not the capital of Libya and is not where our Embassy is located. What was attacked was a Consulate. The Embassy is in Tripoli.) Again we have been attacked. A time for unity? Not for Republicans! It is, as it has always been, a chance for divisiveness. Not for patriotism. Not for unity. A chance to divide the country on National Security.

Have they, or we, already forgotten how even after 9/11 Al Qaeda continued its terrorist attacks, if not on our territory on the territory of our allies. Have we forgotten the bombing of the London subway, or the attacks on our allies in other parts of the world? Obama put a stop to it even before he tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden. A decimated Al Qaeda staged they Libyan attack in order to seem relevant again. And Republicans, led by Romney and Ryan are giving them the stage they were, and are, seeking.

For shame! For shame!

They wave the flag! They wear flag pins! And they don’t know the meaning of patriotism. Only how to advance their agenda.

And what is their agenda? They accuse the President, “No Drama Obama” of being soft. He may have been in the first debate, but he sure isn’t when it comes to being what he was elected to do. He isn’t the best at blowing his own horn, or exposing the hypocrisy of his opponent, but as President, as Commander in Chief, he is always there.

Ryan during his Debate with the VP criticized Obama on Iran. He claimed that it took Republicans in Congress to toughen sanctions. Wow, we got a bipartisan bill through Congress 421-6 in the House and by voice vote in the Senate and it is promptly signed into law by “No Drama Obama” and Ryan claims this somehow reflects badly on the President and/or Democrats.

But of course no unilateral sanctions by the US has any meaning unless such sanction are imposed by a multiplicity of countries. That has been the genius of this Administration. They got something, that none of these unilateralist could have gotten! They got effective international sanctions against Iran.

Bloomberg news reports: 

Iran’s freefalling currency is turning meat into a luxury, sparking overnight price surges and spurring shoppers to stockpile goods…. Iran’s rial is in a tailspin, having lost more than half of its value against the dollar in street trading in the past two months as U.S. and European sanctions aimed at curbing the country’s nuclear program bite. Riot police yesterday fired tear gas and sealed off parts of downtown Tehran after the currency’s plunge triggered street protests.

Short of military action, whose effectiveness is problematic, and which Romney/Ryan do not advocate, (or maybe they do ---who knows, they make statement all over the map) what more could have been done. It has now been effective beyond any expectation or hope. It might end up bringing the regime down.

But how did we get here in the first place? 

It was Republican Secretary of State, Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles head of the CIA, in the Eisenhower administration who overthrew an Iranian Democratically elected government and installed the hated Shah, which in turn led directly to the Shah’s overthrow by the Ayatollah.

It isn’t just people. Parties matter. And while Democrats are not angels, (the system will not allow it) the differences between them are like night and day.

They (Republcians – Romney – Ryan) say Obama has not created enough jobs since he took office in January. They do this by counting the job losses the country sustained on the day the President took office. This is an absurd approach. Presidents don’t control events on the day and in the months immediately after they are sworn in. Obama acted fast! He got the stimulus bill signed into law on February 17, 2009 less than a month after being sworn in. It took until the end of March to have an effect. Look at the graph below: 

By April job losses had gone from 850,000 the day he took office to only 200,000 by May and except for a small spike in the middle of summer, the trend has been for the better every year. Republicans have been touting “Unemployment is still over 8%.” Well, it isn’t any more. This is a party that celebrates unemployment. It may not be good for the country, but it is good for the party.

But say Republicans through the mouth of Romney and Ryan does he (Obama) have any other plans. Well yes! On August 2, 2011 Business Insider had the headline “Congress AWOL ON Jobs.” They hold the country hostage and then blame our President. That is their patriotism.

And what of their nominee? He is the Invisible man*! Well, he may not be invisible, but his plans for the American people are top secret. He will cut $5 trillion in taxes, mostly for the rich, and make it up with ------ “it’s a secret.” He will find it in tax expenditures, but not of the most important kind, not the advantaged (for the rich) capital gains tax – that’s off limits. Dividends mostly earned by the rich – that’s off limits. Inheritance taxes, the means by which inherited aristocracies are built – that’s off limits. What’s left –it’s a secret.

           

What nefarious secrets are contained in his tax returns? We don’t know. It’s a secret.

This shouldn’t be a close election. Obama ought to win by a landslide and get a Congress that will work with him. But the American people, or about half of them, are deluded and deceived.

I pray for the future of my country, for I AM AN AMERICAN.

----------------------------------------------------------

*Borrowed from the book by that name by H.G. Wells