Let’s be Very Clear — 100 Percent (or More) of Recent Warming was Caused By Humans

“We actually have high confidence that the warming that is happening now is not natural cycle. If anything, over the past few decades, nature has tried to cool us off a little bit… The sun has dimmed just a little bit. We have blocked the sun with particles from our smokestacks just a little bit. And yet it has warmed. If you were to ask how much of the warming that we see recently has been caused by our greenhouse gasses, it’s a little more than all of it (emphasis added).” — Dr Richard Alley

*****

To say that scientists, as a group, tend to be cautious is probably the understatement of the Century. In most cases, this caution is beneficial — preventing outrageous assertions regarding key issues and providing a stable basis for developing rational policy.

(Dr. Richard Alley, Dr Michael Mann, and Dr Johnathan Brockopp discuss the extent of the global warming crisis without false equivalency given to climate change deniers. Video source: Conversations — Live Climate Change.)

But when it comes to confronting climate change deniers, such caution and reticence has often been exploited by the fossil fuel interests and their political backers who tend to make intentionally deceptive arguments aimed at casting doubt on scientific findings. Just as Scott Pruitt, a man who has fought helpful emissions regulations by EPA at the behest of the fossil fuel industry for most of his legal career, did last week on CNBC’s Squawk Box when he said:

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s [CO2] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

Playing Disingenuous and Intentionally Deceptive Word Games

Pruitt’s statement was made with a pretty obvious intent to cast fallacious doubt on established scientific findings. It was deceptive. And it aimed at highlighting perceived, but not actual, uncertainties in the science. It ultimately perpetrated a logical fallacy of consistency (argument based on false equivalency). Such fallacies tend to exploit seeming gray areas in established understanding in order to cast doubt on solid evidence. In this case, to create a false sense that counter arguments against the scientific basis for CO2 as a heat trapping gas have equal weight to the actual science.

In the end, the perception of uncertainty is what false and fallacious arguments like Pruitt’s seek to generate. And these arguments often aim to exploit the fact that overarching scientific consensus statements seldom claim 100 percent certainty, even though findings, especially in the case of climate change, are highly accurate.

In one example, more than 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans. This consensus is among the strongest for any scientific finding. However, the most recent IPCC report found that:

“It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

This statement, at its face value is a strong validation for the human warming consensus. However, it provides a bit of a linguistic loop-hole in the phrase — ‘more than half’ — which seems to imply that almost half of the warming Earth has experienced was caused by something other than human activity. This apparent but false uncertainty is the kind of statement that people like Pruitt, who use deceptive argumentation, tend to latch onto. And if a person were to make the conclusion that nearly 50 percent of warming was not caused by humans and that the ultimate cause of warming is therefore in doubt, then it would be a false one.

More Than 100 Percent of Recent Warming Caused By Humans, CO2 Earth’s Primary Temperature Control Knob

(Most recent warming attribution studies find that more than 100 percent of the atmospheric heat gain we’ve seen during the past 50-65 years was caused by human activity such as fossil fuel burning. Image source: Skeptical Science.)

The truth is that IPCC made a very cautious statement. It has 95 to 100 percent confidence that more than 50 percent of warming has been caused by human activity. And the basis for this statement is that most studies find that while natural factors like solar activity are pushing the world to cool, the human forcing is strong enough to overcome that natural cooling trend and to set in place a very strong and unnatural warming trend instead. The science finds that without the greenhouse gas emissions coming chiefly from fossil fuel burning, the Earth would have seen slowly falling temperatures over the past 50-150 years.

Moreover, studies for the past 50-65 years almost universally attribute 100 percent or more of warming to human produced heat forcing. The above graphic, by Skeptical Science, shows a sample of new studies in which 99 to 170 percent of recent warming was attributed to human causes.

(According to IPCC, carbon dioxide is the primary heat trapping gas emitted by humans and is responsible for the majority of atmospheric warming. Meanwhile, NASA scientists find that this gas is the chief control knob governing Earth’s temperature.)

In addition, the lion’s share of the heat trapping, according to the science, can be attributed to one greenhouse gas — CO2. For NASA, along with pretty much every other major scientific body studying climate, finds that CO2 is Earth’s primary temperature control knob.

So when Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier and Trump’s pick for head of the EPA says that there’s a lot of uncertainty about CO2 and it’s not the primary source of warming and that it’s uncertain whether humans are a factor — he’s telling a lie. The science is very clear that warming is human caused, that probably more than 100 percent of warming has been driven by human activity, and that CO2 from fossil fuel emissions has been the cause of the majority of that warming.

But in addition to telling a lie Pruitt, as head of EPA, is committing malfeasance. For he is the head of the agency responsible for regulating harmful gasses like CO2 and for preventing the severe damage that will surely be inflicted upon the American public if these gasses continue to be released into Earth’s atmosphere.

Links:

CNBC’s Squawk Box

Skeptical Science

IPCC Fifth Assessment

CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Hat tip to Erik

Hat tip to Cate

 

Leave a comment

101 Comments

  1. climatehawk1

     /  March 14, 2017

    Tweet scheduled.

    Reply
  2. Oh, also, “Knob” misspelled in last link at the end.

    Reply
  3. Erik Frederiksen

     /  March 14, 2017

    As Richard Alley said recently, since the Earth was gradually cooling for the 6000 years leading up to the Industrial Revolution it is easy to say how much of the current rapid warming is due to human activity.

    More than all of it.

    Reply
    • +1

      Now I need to find that quote.

      Reply
      • Erik Frederiksen

         /  March 14, 2017

        He said it on one of the many presentations he has on YouTube, wish I could remember which one.

        Reply
        • Yeah. Digging through them now. Found a related one that’s almost as good. But now I want that 6000 year quote.

        • Erik

           /  March 14, 2017

          It’s possible he said thousands of years rather than 6000 years, going off a fading memory.

        • Didn’t find it yet. Subbing this entirely pertinent video for now.

    • Cate

       /  March 14, 2017

      I think it’s here. Watched this one last week—the quote about “more than 100” is in the latter half, iirc—sorry, no time to check it out at the moment.

      Reply
      • Erik

         /  March 14, 2017

        Excellent conversation you’ve linked to. At one point in it Richard Alley says that if we don’t change our ways we expect 3 feet of sea level rise this century. But it could be be 2 or 4 or 20. Uncertainty probabilities for any global warming impact are generally on the bad side.

        Could be a little better or a little worse, or a lot worse.

        Reply
        • After this past summer, there aren’t too many left in the 3 foot this Century camp. Shifting to 6 foot consensus with 9 foot or more highly plausible.

        • Erik

           /  March 14, 2017

          Indeed Robert. I’d not be one to argue with Alley. The WAIS is the issue because when Thwaites gets off its stabilizing sill there it could take the whole ice sheet in decades or less according to Alley.

        • Fair enough. But it’s pretty clear that the shift in understanding, overall, is for more SLR potential this Century than previously indicated.

      • Thanks for this, Cate. Checking now.

        Reply
      • Also want to say that this is a fantastic discussion. Spot-on. This is the kind of things candidates should be talking about on the campaign trail. We should do this conversation at the next democratic primary debate.

        Michael Mann for governor 🙂

        Reply
  4. Cate

     /  March 14, 2017

    http://grist.org/science/no-big-snowstorms-like-this-arent-normal/

    Eric Holthaus:

    “The calendar might say March, but winter isn’t done yet on the East Coast. And in a year where traditional signs of spring have arrived nearly a month early, it’s looking like this year’s winter season will be compressed into a single day, with an impending blizzard on par with historical greats…..
    Basically, we’ve become accustomed to something that used to be very rare.”

    In my view (not Holthaus’), one implication of this is that children now growing up with this “rare” or “extreme” weather will see it as perfectly normal, as they will have known nothing else and will have nothing to compare it to. This habituation may make them more adaptable to climate change—or at least more amenable to adapting to it, but it will definitely make them more blasé than their grandparents about extreme weather events. That may not be a good thing for ongoing future climate action.

    Reply
    • Ryan in New England

       /  March 15, 2017

      I’ve noticed this myself. Was born in 1981 and my elders and family members always used to mention the blizzard of ’78. It was the storm against which all others were measured…until recent years. Now all of the top 5 biggest snowfalls have occurred since I was born, with the biggest ones of all happening in the past few years. This is a direct result of a warming world, warmer oceans of the coast provide more moisture for these powerful storms and the warmer atmosphere is able to hold more of that water vapor. The clearest sign I’ve seen was in 2013, we had the blizzard that dumped between 30 and 40 inches across the state. That storm was nearly DOUBLE the previous record snowfall, which had been a meager 22 inches. Just yesterday we saw some parts of the state receive over two feet of snow. And this comes after a “Winter” where we saw many days above 60 degrees and even reached 70+ a couple times. The seasons are out of wack and not reliable like they used to be. Crazy warm during January and February, then a two foot snow storm in late March with sub zero temps. We basically can get any type of weather at any time of year now.

      Reply
  5. Ailsa

     /  March 14, 2017

    Go Robert – you tell ’em! The facts are in. We’ve gotta get passionate about this!

    Reply
  6. Cate

     /  March 14, 2017

    More cheery news for the Arctic: it’s going to rain. A lot.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124366-forget-snow-rain-will-become-main-precipitation-in-the-arctic/

    As the planet warms, “……the Arctic will receive downpours of rain. The cycle feeds itself – warming temperatures lead to more rain and more melting ice, which leads to more open water and even more rain….The rise in rainfall will cause a cascade of effects, he says. Rain can melt snow that usually reflects light, leaving the land to absorb more heat from the sun. The run-off from melting snow can alter the salinity of the Arctic Ocean, which can harm marine species.”

    Reply
  7. Erik

     /  March 14, 2017

    There’s a 2013 PNAS study which quantified the loss of albedo from Arctic sea ice melt and found that averaged globally over the last several decades it was equivalent to 25 percent of the forcing from increased atmospheric CO2.

    Reduced snow cover adds an additional substantial loss of albedo.

    Both those already powerful amplifying feedbacks will strengthen significantly over the next several decades.

    And those are just two of many amplifying feedbacks such as permafrost melt, increased wildfire and changes in ocean circulation and temperature slowing its uptake of CO2.

    I wonder where the brakes are at this point.

    Reply
    • Erik

       /  March 14, 2017

      And I see no sign of the extreme virtually universal policies which Nordhaus recently said were needed to hit a target of 2.5 C.

      That pretty much dooms Greenland along with West Antarctica and big chunks of East Antarctica.

      Reply
    • Brakes ?? – If only we would take our foot off the accelerator!

      Reply
  8. Pruitt is also trying to protect his investments in the petroleum industry, like many others who attempt to cast a doubtful eye on the effects of climate change. He is not the first to manipulate legislation and policy to fit his pocketbook.

    Reply
    • Political insider trading…

      Reply
    • mulga mumblebrain

       /  March 17, 2017

      When required to choose between their ‘wealth’ and the lives of our children, including their own, they instinctively choose to destroy the children. How do creatures like this gain power? Capitalism.

      Reply
      • sampsonbee

         /  March 18, 2017

        Attributing the act of sacrificing our children and our future to capitalism is putting to fine a point in it. Although there are many fine humans, the general trend is might is right and cash is king. We’ve been clubbing each other , as a way to gain power, since we were living in caves. I attribute such behavior to being human, capitalism is just a human trait . Unfortunately the guys with the clubs have usually won out and remain in power today.

        Reply
        • So the problem is less one of a more rational capitalism — which can be held in check with an appropriate measure of balancing socialism — but with the present free market ideology which has aligned itself with fossil fuel interests and seeks to sabotage any helpful or responsible government action. With a world view that elevates the individual above all else and seeks to elevate the powers of essentially dictatorial and authoritarian corporations and individuals above legitimate government.

          We should be clear that this is what happens in dictatorships. That might rules. That the dictator is just an anarchist who has grasped the reigns of powers for himself. The mechanism that leads to dictatorship may not well be as important as the abuse of power by bad actors itself. But in the present day it is free market ideology and the cult of the individual that is the most available pathway to power for authoritarians.

  9. Erik

     /  March 14, 2017

    Yes we are warming the planet as scientists have warned for decades.

    James Hansen is a good example. Regarding sea level rise, as the glaciologist John Mercer did before him, he warned, in a 1981 paper that hit the front page of The NY Times at the time, that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could deliver multi-meter sea level rise in less than a century.

    Modern glaciologists estimates keep encroaching on Hansen’s from ’81.

    “The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ”almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ”flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world” within a century or less.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html

    Reply
    • Hansen has been concerned about this range of sea level rise for some time, clearly. And his present work continues to incorporate it.

      Reply
      • Erik

         /  March 14, 2017

        And the worrisome thing for all of us is that Hansen has a long track record of being right.

        Reply
        • So it’s worth noting that NOAA is predicting 6 feet of SLR for the most of the U.S. East Coast by 2100. My general opinion for some time has been that the more likely range is 6-9 feet. The 3 feet prediction doesn’t include much in the way of glacier loss. Tough to see warming in the range of 2 C+ without large glacial discharge.

        • To point — present CO2e forcing hints at approx 2 C warming this Century, 4 C warming long term. We basically have to draw down to avoid those thresholds.

          Context: 2016 was 1.2 C hotter than 1880s. 2017 not likely to dip that far below that threshold.

        • Erik

           /  March 15, 2017

          Regarding 4C Robert, Eric Rignot said last year that if we warm the planet 2-3 degrees C Greenland’s ice is gone. And 5C? He said no way Antarctica keeps its ice.

        • We’re at 493 ppm CO2e by the end of this year. Long term, that’s 4 C. That’s enough to melt all of Greenland, most if not all of West Antarctica, and a chunk of East Antarctica.

          At 550 ppm CO2e, we’re on a path to 5 C long term which might leave a little ice in East Antarctica. We hit that threshold in about 19 years on the current path.

          If we can stop producing atmospheric methane, there’s hope that about 30-50 ppm CO2e could fall out in a relatively short period, which would help. But we need to get to net zero carbon and net negative carbon hitting the atmosphere as soon as possible if we’re going to have a chance in hell of managing this problem.

          Earth System carbon feedbacks will make this problem less manageable. So we don’t have time for fooling around.

          And if we get to 800 to 1000 ppm+ from humans (which would happen under BAU burning), we’re probably on a path to a very major mass extinction, an anoxic ocean which could return to Canfield states, and an Earth that is very hostile to the kinds of advanced life, including humans, that evolved during glaciation.

  10. Cate

     /  March 14, 2017

    AGU reports on a new SLR study today:

    http://news.agu.org/press-release/increase-extreme-sea-levels-endanger-european-coastal-communities/

    “New projections considering changes in sea level rise, tides, waves and storm surge over the 21st century find global warming could cause extreme sea levels to increase significantly along Europe’s coasts by 2100…..The increase in frequency of these events that are today considered exceptional will likely push existing coastal protection structures beyond their design limits, leaving a large part of Europe’s coastal zones exposed to flooding, according to the study’s authors…..
    Northern Europe will see the strongest increase in extreme sea levels. Areas along the Mediterranean and the Black Sea could see these 100-year extreme sea level events several times a year. In the North Sea region, extreme sea levels could increase by nearly 1 meter (3 feet) under the worst-case scenario. The Atlantic coasts of the United Kingdom and Ireland could see similar increases in extreme sea levels, while lower but still considerable increases in extreme sea levels are projected for the Norwegian and Baltic seas….
    5 million Europeans who are currently under threat of flooding from extreme sea level events that occur every 100 years could face that same risk annually….”

    Reply
  11. Robert E Prue

     /  March 15, 2017

    Winter is different for sure! There’s a lot of natural variability here in Kansas. However, the past two winter’s have been really different. December 2015 we had a tornado warning here in Coldwater! In December. Not our typical time of year for that. April, May or June, that’s normal. Last December, thunderstorms. Ya don’t have twisters and thunderstorms in December. That’s not normal. That’s different…

    Reply
  12. Robert E Prue

     /  March 15, 2017

    What I’m saying is the climate is obviously changing not just in Kansas but all over the planet. Does it have anything to do with the 30% increase in atmospheric co2 in my lifetime? Of course it does, and it’s just getting started. There’s natural variability with a background warming trend. Arctic sea ice is fading away but doesn’t get lower every year. It goes up and down a lot,but the trend is down. I sure hope it rains here,soon.

    Reply
  13. Robert E Prue

     /  March 15, 2017

    Sometimes, I feel like I’m not in Kansas anymore. (Just had to say that)

    Reply
  14. redskylite

     /  March 15, 2017

    What a great and interesting conversation, without the typical false balance naysayer, and Prof R. Alley an amazing personality to liven it all up. Thanks for posting this. There should be no doubt.

    Today The Japanese Meteorological Agency posted the reading for February 2017, and it was the second warmest temperature since records began. This is an ENSO neutral period, so the high global temperature does not bode well at all. I understand NASA have more coverage and include more of the Arctic – so waiting for the GISS monthly temperatures figures from NASA for final confirmation.

    Japan Meteorological Agency (気象庁)

    Monthly Anomalies of Global Average Surface Temperature in February (1891 – 2017, preliminary value)

    With the El Niño well over I expected it to return to lower values.

    The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in February 2017 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.44°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.86°C above the 20th century average), and was the 2nd warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.80°C per century.

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/feb_wld.html

    Reply
  15. Vic

     /  March 15, 2017


    A bloom of Noctiluca scintillans (AKA sea sparkle) seen on the north west coast of Tasmania over recent days.

    Gustaff Hallegraeff, a professor in aquatic botany at the University of Tasmania, said the phenomenon was first reported in Sydney Harbour in 1860 but it has expanded a great deal since then.
    “In the 2000s we saw it really move southwards and now it’s here permanently in Tasmania,” he said.
    “We have some evidence that ocean currents and the warming of the oceans have contributed to it — it’s definitely a species that is showing a spectacular range expansion in the last 20 years.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/bioluminescence-event-lights-up-northern-tasmanian-beach/8355912

    Reply
  16. redskylite

     /  March 15, 2017

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology continue their cautious El Niño watch, and have 6 out of 8 computers predicting an El Niño onset around July 2017. NOAA are more cautious, interesting to see if El Niño emerges once more. (and if the PDO index stays positive).

    All eight international models surveyed by the Bureau show steady warming of the central tropical Pacific Ocean over the next six months. Six models suggest El Niño thresholds may be reached by July 2017. However, some caution must be taken, as models have lower accuracy when forecasting through the autumn months than at other times of the year.

    El Niño is often, but not always, associated with below average winter–spring rainfall over eastern Australia and warmer than average winter–spring maximum temperatures over the southern half of Australia.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    Reply
  17. redskylite

     /  March 15, 2017

    And it’s got NASA wondering if it’s the left over heat from the 2016 El Niño encouraging a return to that state.

    Could leftover heat from last El Niño fuel a new one?

    From NASA
    Some climate models are suggesting that El Niño may return later this year, but for now, the Pacific Ocean lingers in a neutral “La Nada” state, according to climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. The latest map of sea level height data from the U.S./European Jason-3 satellite mission shows most of the ocean at neutral heights (green), except for a bulge of high sea level (red) centered along 20 degrees north latitude in the central and eastern Northern Hemisphere tropics, around Hawaii. This high sea level is caused by warm water.

    Whether or not El Niño returns will be determined by a number of factors, one of which is the larger stage on which El Niño and La Niña play, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO is a large-scale, long-term pattern of ocean temperature and other changes in the Pacific Ocean. It alternates between two phases, warm (called positive) and cool (negative), at irregular intervals of 5 to 20 years.

    The phases of the PDO are known to affect the size and frequency of the shorter-term El Niño and La Niña events. In its positive phase, the PDO encourages and intensifies El Niños. In its negative phase, it does the same for La Niñas. The last PDO phase shift was in 2014, when it turned strongly positive and has remained that way for 37 months.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2562/could-leftover-heat-from-last-el-nino-fuel-a-new-one/

    Reply
    • mulga mumblebrain

       /  March 15, 2017

      red, I can’t see how relatively recently described cycles like ENSO and the PDO etc, are still relevant when the oceans have absorbed so much heat in recent decades. The entire climate regime and all its cycles have surely been rendered null.

      Reply
  18. Abel Adamski

     /  March 15, 2017

    A tad OT.
    But in the current clime rather relevant

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-defense-chief-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge

    Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge

    James Mattis’ unpublished testimony before a Senate panel recognizes a threat others in the administration reject or minimize.

    by Andrew Revkin
    ProPublica, March 14, 2017, 11:17 a.m.

    Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

    In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

    “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

    Reply
    • Genomik

       /  March 15, 2017

      Glad he’s stepping up. The Middle East in particular is on the tipping point. With tensions increasing with erdogan of turkey he may not close his borders allowing millions of Muslims to flee Northward further destabilizing Europe. In this wacky world we live in it’s possible some right wing leaders even want that to push us into a war faster and to increase polarization. Trump included.

      The military is often more reasonable. Many military folks are rational and have seen their friends die for no good reason. Climate change is no good reason. If I was a military planner I would say climate change would be 100% bad for all militaries.

      I have some military friends and I debate them all the time. I’m always suggesting this kind of thing so it’s great Mattis is saying this as these war fighters have a hard time dismissing somebody whose nickname is “Mad Dog”

      Reply
      • Went to Sand Hill at Ft Benning GA for basic and advanced infantry training back in the early 90s. Funny thing, our training platoon’s name was Mad Dogs…

        Mattis, at least, gets it. The military looks at the world through the lens of potential threats. Things that can eat your lunch. And anyone with half a brain knows that climate change can do that by rapidly destabilizing whole parts of the world. The military now operates primarily in destabilized regions that subsequently became breeding grounds for violent extremists. How do you get violent extremists? Well, turn up the temperature, take away people’s food and water, and force them out of their homes because their lands became unliveable or the seas swallowed their coasts or islands or river delta. Yeah. The military knows all to well what that can do to people. And what kinds of bad actors can tend to exploit the resulting desperation.

        Reply
        • Genomik

           /  March 15, 2017

          Trump/Bannon will probably put a very short leash on Mad Dog Mattis now like he’s doing with Tillerson.
          I hope the military starts to voice these opinions more. They carry great weight with Trump supporters.

  19. Ryan in New England

     /  March 15, 2017

    This letter reminds me of why I have chosen to never have children (I’m open to adoption). A parent apologizes to his daughter for the future she did not create, but will no doubt be forced to endure.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/mar/14/trump-and-climate-chaos-a-letter-to-my-daughter

    I consider myself lucky to have followed climate change science closely enough to be aware of the challenges and dangers that lie ahead. I’m lucky I didn’t have children at a “young” age like so many of my peers, back when climate change was a far off threat reserved for future generations. I don’t know how I would deal with the guilt of knowing my progeny is sentenced to a future of hardship and suffering, with the potential for devastating effects that I am powerless to prevent. How could I look them in the eye and say yes, we all knew you would likely have a miserable future, but we always wanted to start a family? How could my own selfishness and desire for children justify the pain and suffering that those children will certainly face? And since we’ve done nothing but accelerate the destruction of this planet and increase emissions, how can I ask my children to solve a problem placed upon their shoulders? Not to mention the guilt I would feel for the part my children would play in worsening the problem of climate change, simply by their act of existing in a world currently dependent upon fossil fuels.

    Please don’t think I disapprove of/judge anyone who has/wants to have children. The choice of whether or not to have kids is one of the biggest decisions a person can make, with consequences that long outlive the decision maker. And every one of us has a different situation with countless variables and circumstances that are unknown to others.

    Reply
    • John McCormick

       /  March 15, 2017

      Ryan, you touched on the most painful dynamic as we witness the destruction of earth’s climate system.

      A child born today could become a parent in 20 years and a grandparent in 40 years. As CO2e atmospheric concentration steadily increases, at a rate of 3 ppm/yr. the accumulation shoots past 500 ppm. Dr.Peter Ward, University of Washington studied the First Extinction that occurred about 250 million years ago. In his classic “Under a Green Sky” he catalogued the end of all life forms when atmospheric CO2 exceeded 1000 ppm. In a run away climate world, that new grandchild will not survive to have a family, food or a habitable environment.

      It is the responsibility of parents to prepare our children for their future. We will come upon a time when the discussion will shift towards urging a generation of youth to accept they would bring a child into that world with little hope for survival.

      I am a parent and my son understands his future has been foreclosed by my generation.

      Reply
  20. Dreamer

     /  March 15, 2017

    Here in Alberta, Canada, I used to listen to people flat out deny that warming was even happening … while my perennials were poking up shoots in mid February. People would correct me and inform me that, no, we’re actually heading into an ice age, and the world is cooling (didn’t I know that ???) It clearly defied the observable reality that was becoming visible to even the non scientific layman by then.

    Nowadays, surrounded now by an obviously warmer climate (and all the crisis that brings with it) these very same people have now just changed their tune and say, well yes, it is warming, and it is a catastrophe, but mankind didn’t cause it you know, it’s just a natural cycle that the earth has gone through before (duh, don’t I know that ???) End of discussion. So, now it’s that we’re coming OUT of an ice age, instead of heading into one (?). That’s become the latest ‘in the know’ intellectual rhetoric up here in oil-land Alberta.

    I sometimes think these people will go to their graves convinced that nature did this ‘to them’ and that humans played no role in it whatsoever. That’s the guilt free answer people appear to be choosing all around me in Alberta.

    So, after finally being convinced something’s actually really happening (now that they can physically experience these changes for themselves) how will people ever become convinced it was anthropogenic? It wasn’t ever because they ‘believed’ what the scientists were telling them. They only finally agreed there was even warming happening once it became just too foolish to stand there and deny what was plain observable reality to even themselves. So, then they merely adapted their beliefs (only slightly) just enough to accommodate these new sensations. However, this didn’t happen because they suddenly started believing the scientists, it was because they could observe the warming for themselves.

    So, how are we now going to convince them this is caused by human activity? How will they ever ‘experience’ that for themselves and come to their OWN conclusion about that in a world based on convenient beliefs rather than on intellectual knowledge?

    We understand how the science works, but do we understand how people work? I found this article insightful, although not entirely helpful.

    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/rural-america-understanding-isnt-problem

    Reply
    • mulga mumblebrain

       /  March 15, 2017

      Dreamer, I’ve noticed a good deal of rank denialism (I mean ABSOLUTE rejection of the science and the observations), recently, by those claiming to be ‘Leftists’. They start their drivelous diatribes with denunciations of Al Gore and financial interests who, allegedly, will make ‘Trillions’ out of ‘carbon trading’, hence the whole thing is a ‘capitalist plot’. Then they proceed seamlessly to the worst lunacies, such as climate science is ‘Groupthink’, and ‘real scientists’ reject it. I suspect that these may be fake ‘Leftists’, just a new species of denialist troll, given their reliance on the stupidest denialist memes, but it does show, as I always expected, that with tens of trillions in fossil fuel assets at risk, that the denialist industry will NEVER, EVER, give up, and just grow more fervid. The fake-stream media here, too, is obviously under the ideological cosh, as the plain and rapid climate destabilisation under way (record heat, record floods, the Great Barrier Reef bleaching yet again)is either totally ignored, down-played, or in the evil asylum of the Murdoch machine, actively denied.

      Reply
      • Dreamer

         /  March 15, 2017

        Yes, you speak my own thoughts well mulga, your words certainly aren’t mumble to me. You peg the inspiration for both of my musings today quite well, as it’s been watching a few of my leftist friends succumb to the denialist mantra that has got me to thinking again about psychology, rather than reason, as to what’s the driving force behind these people’s attitudes. I live in a place where you can lose social contacts and your entire social standing unless you roll your eyes and denounce the greenies along with the rest of the mainstream citizens. That’s some pretty powerful social pressure.

        Below, you said, “As with all such fanatic cults, as the failures become apparent the cultists grow ever more fanatical, and scape-goats are sought.”

        I think this also applies to people’s overall beliefs about our western culture in general, and maybe that’s part of what drives the psychology of denial with even the left leaning folk. I guess it’s just too hard for them to imagine the ‘achievements’ of humanity being anything less than amazing and perfect, and to accept what we have become would lead them to a nervous breakdown of sorts. I suppose they would call that hubris.

        It makes me curious as to what allows some of the rest of us to see things as they really are? Is it that we already broke down sometime previously, and so observe our system from somewhere outside of the psychological grips of it? For most of my liberal friends, siding with the koch’s list of denial points seems to be mostly motivated by their not being able to imagine life without their paychecks, and so now they just spout the mantra and take the easy way out so they can have a job and continue to pay their mortgage.

        I’ll say it again, this seems to be more about psychology than it is about logic and evidence. The denialist machine seems to be providing my wiser friends with a convenient list of excuses to use to avoid making some hard choices and changes. I’ll repeat, I live in oil country, even though I myself refuse to work for their blood money. Most others gladly will though, so they tow the company line like a religion of sorts.

        I guess I’ll keep trying to sort out the pieces of this psychological puzzle for myself. I suppose it probably comes down to economics. If we could pay people to not destroy the biosphere, I’m sure there wouldn’t be any problem, would there? That seems to be the ‘bottom line’ for most of the people I know. They can’t imagine any alternative to our current system as it is, so they choose to double down and defend it. They defiantly call it “our way of life,” like petulant children, and to threaten that makes you a terrorist to them.

        So much fear. And yet these companies don’t even treat them well, and continually cast them off whenever energy prices shift with the blowing wind. But still people here will defend them to the core. I guess it’s pride … or, hubris … or something. Fear maybe.

        Hrmmmph. Thanks mulga for reading my ramblings. I try to refrain … most of the time. Love the current updates though. Keep up the great work folks.

        Reply
        • mulga mumblebrain

           /  March 17, 2017

          Thanks, Dreamer-very cogent observations. It is down to psychology, individual and group I am sure. I escaped because I never went along with the mob, for reasons that I cannot fully discern, but which might be hereditary, as most of my forebears that I know of were similar types. And once you take a lively interest in affairs, which I did from an early age, you soon see that those in power are lying fools.
          My great awakening came in High School. I was sent to an elite private school as a result of the unlucky accident of winning a scholarship. I soon saw that the boys and teachers, mostly from not the top elite, but the elite subaltern class, were in the main ignorant, arrogant, racist, misogynist fools. I hid out with the non-conformists, the best of whom were one year ahead of me. There was a smattering of sane teachers, too. Then my final year coincided with the victory of Whitlam in a Federal election, and my real education began thereafter.
          I went to University in Canberra and spent the Whitlam years pissing my opportunities up against the wall in an alcoholic daze. Meanwhile, the great promise and, despite the vicious opposition of the Right, achievements of Whitlam, were destroyed by a ferocious campaign of sabotage by the Right and the fake-stream media led by Murdoch, that culminated in the CIA coup of November 11, 1975.
          That set my ideological parameters forever. The forty years since have been an intellectual, moral and spiritual disaster for the country (and the world)as greedy materialism, indifference to the fate of others and open hostility to many has become the country’s ethos, culminating in the Evil Abbott/Trumble regime, replete with ferocious denialists, coal-worshippers, homophobes, misogynists, liars, hypocrites and money-grubbers. I know from history that many others have lived through ages when their societies have gone mad, bad and dangerous to know, but this debacle is unique. For the first time we can, and possibly may already have, create the circumstances where our civilization, globally, will collapse, then our species die out. That realisation stretches your guts tight when you wake in the dead of night.

  21. Abel Adamski

     /  March 15, 2017

    Again slightly OT, sorry RS
    But very interesting article about the Gas Glut that is worsening, yet Fossil Fuel cartels in collusion with corrupt governments and media are allowing these cartels to charge exorbitant prices for gas due to “a shortage of gas”

    As renewables bite into the market.

    Fascinating read

    http://johnmenadue.com/?p=9748

    Turnbull will be fervently advised to avoid a domestic reservation policy to earmark gas supplies for Australian consumers and businesses, though Western Australia has one. He will be implored not to tamper with the “market”.

    There is no market though, only a cartel of six big players who control the price: Santos, Exxon, BHP, Origin, Arrow Energy and Shell. Markets have visible prices and quantities on the bid and offer. The cartel even hides information about its gas reserves from government.

    As the price of gas has shot up threefold, as high prices exact a drag on the entire economy, and as the government confronts its challenge of energy security, it is worth considering the global gas glut.

    Tonight, at the Columbia Law School in New York, Bruce Robertson, an analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), will hand down a paper describing how this gas glut will only get worse, and how excess supply and faltering demand are leading to a breakdown of the contract pricing mechanism.

    The global gas industry closed out 2015 already in glut with total nameplate liquefaction capacity of 308 million tonnes (mt) surpassing demand for LNG imports of 245mt, by 26%.

    While demand recedes across the world, the supply side looks ominous. By 2020, says Robertson, global LNG capacity is tipped to reach 400mt a year, up 30% on 2015. Some 92mtpa (million tonnes per annum) of new capacity will hit the global market between 2015 and 2020.

    It seems that, in gas as in electricity, over-cooked forecasts for demand have justified excessive spending and therefore ensured higher prices. This is precisely what the gas cartel wants: the spectre of shortages whipping up prices. They have been doing it for years.

    While AGL was earnestly talking up gas shortages in 2014, BHP Petroleum chief Mike Yeager told journalists:

    We want to make sure that the market knows that the Bass Strait field still has a large amount of gas that’s undeveloped … We have a lot of gas in eastern Australia that’s available. It’s more important to let the citizens of Victoria and New South Wales, and to some degree, you know, even Queensland … there’s plenty of gas to supply those provinces for – you know, indefinitely.

    AGL later quietly issued a release to the ASX conceding it had plenty of gas supply.

    Last September, Japan’s energy minister said imports of LNG would continue to fall. They fell by 4.7% in 2015 and another 2% in 2016 amid a rising commitment to renewables and the rebooting of nuclear reactors that were shut down after the Fukushima disaster.

    They have also been falling in other parts of North Asia, down 9% year on year in the world’s second-largest import market, Korea.

    Just crooks and bandits fleecing the gullible with the connivance of obviously corrupt or incompetent polliticians and a corrupt media

    Reply
    • mulga mumblebrain

       /  March 15, 2017

      Abel, Australia is one of the countries most devastated, (willingly and not imposed from outside)by the ‘Free Market’ death-cult. The fake-stream media is uniformly Rightwing and Market Fundamentalist, academia, and economic faculties in particular, were purged of all but Market cultists thirty years ago, and the political stooges endlessly gibber about ‘Market efficiency’ or infallibility if you prefer. This all happens despite repeated and almost universal market failures, once considered ‘impossible’. The Market was always right-even when it was wrong. As with all such fanatic cults, as the failures become apparent the cultists grow ever more fanatical, and scape-goats are sought. The Murdoch machine leads in vilification of the latest ‘Enemy Within’, and unions, welfare recipients, teachers, the poor, China, Russia, ‘do-gooders’, ‘the politically correct’ etc are all regularly pilloried (the rich, in contrast, are idolised), but the current favourite hate figures are the detested ‘Greenies’, who lie about everything and get in the way of ‘Growth’, that Holy neoplastic ambition. Adam Smith observed that ‘There’s a deal of ruin in a country’, but I suspect we are about to get our comeuppance after forty years of rule by psychopathic imbeciles, who reduce existence to a calculus of greed.

      Reply
  22. Abel Adamski

     /  March 15, 2017

    Another a little OT.
    But a pleasure to read the work of a master.
    Alan Kohler built a premier financial online presence with Business Spectator as a highly regarded economist and Financial Guru, he added to the Spactator Stable and added Climate Spectator headed up by Tristan Edis, very highly regarded – due to link limitations look up Murdoch strikes again: “The sad demise of Climate Spectator”
    Murdoch had bought out the Spectator group and shut down Climate Spectator.
    Alan was always pro Renewables and action on Climate Change .

    So for his take on South Australia, Power , batteries and Elon Musk and Turnbull

    http://johnmenadue.com/?p=9739

    ALAN KOHLER. Hell, Elon? It’s Malcolm.
    Posted on 14 March 2017 by John Menadue

    “Cannon-Brookes! That man’s an absolute nuisance. He’s been causing Arthur problems with our 457 visa plans, and now he’s trying to mess up the nice little wedge we’ve got going with Shorten and Weatherill over renewables and blackouts in Adelaide.”

    Saturday

    “Hey, it says here that Jay Weatherill has been talking to Elon Musk about sticking a whole lot of batteries in South Australia so they don’t have blackouts any more. Is that true?”

    “Yes, Prime Minister. Apparently Mr Musk made an offer on the Twitter that he would solve the state’s energy problems in 100 days or it would be free. So Mr Weatherill rang him up.”

    “Good grief. How does Elon Musk even know that South Australia exists? Let alone that it’s been having blackouts! Who told him?”

    “It seems to have been that young Michael Cannon-Brookes sir.”

    “Cannon-Brookes! That man’s an absolute nuisance. He’s been causing Arthur problems with our 457 visa plans, and now he’s trying to mess up the nice little wedge we’ve got going with Shorten and Weatherill over renewables and blackouts in Adelaide.”

    “Yes Prime Minister”.

    “Get that Elon Musk on the phone! I can’t let Weatherill have this to himself — he and Shorten will be insufferable.”

    “Er it’s the middle of the night in California, Prime Minister.”

    “Wake him up! Doesn’t he know who I am? Bloody Jay Weatherill, getting in first. Bloody Cannon-Brookes.”

    “I really think we should wait till tomorrow sir. Mr Musk is richer than you. It might not be a constructive conversation if you wake him up.”

    Reply
  23. A person would never say “I have a high degree of confidence that my house burned down”so scientist are not speaking to non scientists when they use that phrase “high degree of confidence”..per my opinion..

    Reply
  24. Dreamer

     /  March 15, 2017

    I guess what I’m trying to tease out by posting the article I did a few posts back, which I believe ties somewhat into Roberts current posting, is that we are maybe going have to start incorporating psychology into our understanding of why people aren’t getting this climate change thing. In fact, in my area, people are moving away from the direction of ‘getting it.’ You used to be able to pick up garbage where I live without getting labeled a subversive nut, and now you can’t even do that, or you’re a pariah enviro-freak, a libtard … there is a clear psychological backlash arising out of all of this. People are simply digging in their heels it seems.

    Science types keep thinking that if people look at more and more evidence, that they will suddenly have an epiphany of their own, shout eureka, and climb on board with saving our biosphere. But, that’s thinking like a scientist, who is someone swayed by evidence, and not thinking like a person who is swayed by, say, social inclusion and agreement with the pack (like my article touched upon.) Not all people’s minds operate like a scientist’s mind, and people often even have strange, inverse psychological reactions to this scary phenomenon called ‘clear and compelling evidence.’

    I’m just suggesting, as I have done before on other blogs (because it’s sort of my area of interest), that rather than banging our heads against the same wall and expecting a different result (which Einstein described as insanity) that we might also want to start looking into human psychology to help us in reaching the masses better, rather than just assuming everyone is convinced by reasoned evidence alone, like the science minded person is. Sometimes, psychologically, more ‘facts’ just serve to further piss people off. So, how will you reach these sorts of people, the ones who’s minds function differently from yours? Put yourself in their shoes maybe, because you have to understand your enemy, at least a little bit, if you’re going to win any battle with them.

    Many people don’t think scientifically at all, and don’t respond well to evidence, and I think this idea has possibly eluded many of the science minded types (of which I am one myself, evidence works for me, but not for most of my neighbors, who seem to like to go along with ‘popular’ and ‘happy’ ideas. They listen to their geriatric dad, not the science community.) Maybe we need to start figuring out other ways to reach people other than just inundating them with more and more evidence, which generally only works for science minded types, the people who don’t really need converting anymore anyway. Don’t make the mistake of thinking all minds operate in the same manner, because they don’t. Sometimes I watch more piling on of evidence, realizing that many people long ago shut their ears and closed their eyes to it anyway … on purpose. So, how else could these people be reached? It’s worth thinking about.

    Maybe it’s time to start thinking like psychologists as well as physicists. You can blame this all on the information and the media alone, but I think the hangup and the denial stems from behaviors rooted much deeper than that. Maybe we need some other tools to use in addition to the raw scientific information regarding climate change. I think looking deeper into human psychology warrants some brain storming here in this battle. Just some food for thought.

    Reply
    • JPL

       /  March 15, 2017

      I think its generally accepted that our species is not wired to deal effectively with problems that are this large, with so much uncertainty and with such a (relatively) long time horizon, relative to one’s lifetime. You’re right, our collective response to climate change is the large psych experiment ever. I think I know how it’s going to end.

      Reply
  25. Robert E Prue

     /  March 15, 2017

    Dreamer: they are the same here in Kansas. It’s all just part of a natural cycle. The Earth is too big,we have little effect on it. I’ve given up. Here in Comanche county 85% of those who voted, voted for Trump. Oh, and the Earth was a lot warmer in the past, so if it warms a bit it won’t hurt nothin.

    Reply
  26. coloradobob

     /  March 15, 2017

    BANDAR AL-ROWDAH, Oman — The Gulf of Oman turns green twice a year, when an algae bloom the size of Mexico spreads across the Arabian Sea all the way to India.

    Scientists who study the algae say the microscopic organisms are thriving in new conditions brought about by climate change, and displacing the zooplankton that underpin the local food chain, threatening the entire marine ecosystem.

    Link

    Reply
    • Ed

       /  March 16, 2017

      Excellent article, thanks.

      Not to poo-poo heatwaves, SLR and storms and all that, but at a civilization level; those risks are ones that humans should be able to adapt to in a few generations, even if the financial costs turn out to be extreme. The changes in ocean chemistry are the climate changes that most keep me up at night: algae blooms that starve current life of oxygen; changes to ocean carbon absorption; ocean acidification resulting in habitat loss; and last and the worst, a heightened risk of food chain collapse in the oceans that could starve billions. I know that there is a uncertainty of the timing and extent of these changes, but these risks are the ones that put survival of the species homo sapiens at risk.

      Reply
  27. coloradobob

     /  March 15, 2017


    Pine beetles could devastate Alabama’s $11B forest industry this year

    “Normally in the winter you don’t see a lot of dying pines and beetle activity, but we’re seeing that a lot more this year,” said Tim Albritton, staff forester with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service in Alabama. “We can tell this year is building up to be a pretty bad year for beetles.” ……….. The AFC usually doesn’t start logging flights to look for beetle damage until May or June, but started early this year, in part due to the large number of calls the commission is getting from landowners to report possible infestations.

    “Our phones are blowing up,” said Mark Martin, assistant forest health coordinator for AFC. “We’re getting calls left and right, every day.”

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/alabama_foresters_fear_major_b.html

    Reply
  28. coloradobob

     /  March 15, 2017

    Reply
  29. redskylite

     /  March 15, 2017

    NASA concur with the Japanese Global Temperature Anomaly for February. Truly astonishing figures for a ENSO/La Nada year.

    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center – Global and Hemispheric Monthly Means (Temperature anomaly) for February 2017

    Global Means (Land/Sea Surface). . . . . +1.10°C (2nd Warmest on record)
    Northern Hemisphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +1.45°C (2nd Warmest on record)
    Southern Hemisphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+0.75°C (Joint 1st Warmest on record)

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Reply
    • danabanana

       /  March 16, 2017

      Amusing factoid. In the Neverending Story The Nothing (La Nada ) was what destroyed Fantasia. La Nada came about because people stopped caring and started forgetting about the fantasy worlds that originated from people’s imaginations and stories.

      Reply
  30. coloradobob

     /  March 15, 2017

    Large Sections of Australia’s Great Reef Are Now Dead, Scientists Find

    “We didn’t expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years,” said Terry P. Hughes, director of a government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia and the lead author of a paper on the reef that is being published Thursday as the cover article of the journal Nature. “In the north, I saw hundreds of reefs — literally two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead.”

    NY Timres

    Reply
  31. coloradobob

     /  March 15, 2017

    WASHINGTON — President Trump’s budget blueprint for the coming fiscal year would slash the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent and cut State Department spending by a similar amount in a brash gesture of disdain for big government, according to congressional staff members familiar with the plan.

    Link

    Reply
    • mulga mumblebrain

       /  March 15, 2017

      A ‘brash gesture of disdain’ for Life on Earth, actually. And the thug has a young son.

      Reply
  32. coloradobob

     /  March 15, 2017

    More strange coming from the oceans –

    Humpback whales are gathering in huge groups, and nobody knows why
    by Chuck Bednar
    Although humpback whales are not typically known to be social creatures, preferring to swim alone or in small groups most of the time, experts have spotted so-called “super-groups” of the aquatic mammals during three recent research cruises, according to a new study.

    Writing in the journal PLOS One, Ken Findlay of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) and his colleagues said that they had found 22 separate instances of between 20 and 200 whales gathering off the coast of South Africa during voyages in 2011, 2014 and 2015.

    Read more at Link

    Reply
    • mulga mumblebrain

       /  March 17, 2017

      Bob, the whales are gathering to sing in unison, and by harmonically projecting that song into the cosmos, appeal to some advanced species to come to Earth and rescue Life on Earth from the psychotic apes who are destroying it.

      Reply
  33. coloradobob

     /  March 15, 2017

    I find it rather ironic that the maple tree farmers, and the peach farmers are getting creamed by the start of this growing season. This false Spring.

    The salad bowl of Europe got hit again ,

    The rain in Spain falls mainly in one day! Popular tourist spot Alicante is hit by worst floods in 20 years after six months’ of rain falls in 24 HOURS

    Just an hour away, in Murica, freak weather early in the agricultural year has ruined crops.
    The southern region of Murcia, where most Spanish lettuce grown for export is cultivated, suffered the worst floods in two decades followed by its first snow storm in over 30 years in December and January.

    Read more: The Daily Fail

    Half of the average annual rainfall fell in Alicante in just one day as more than 150litres of water per square metre hit the area.

    I love this way of measuring rainfall , I have no clue what it means . But it sounds good.

    Reply
  34. To redskyelite, thanks for the nasa/giss link, I wondered why they were late with the Feb information, seemz like its always up for the month previous by the 10th of the present month.

    Reply
  35. coloradobob

     /  March 16, 2017

    Air pollution has legs , the carbon from James Watt’s little experiment still has a few Co2 molecules floating around. We all understand this . His soot fell out on England a long time ago. But those little Co2 molecules. Their up there with the Beach Boys exhaust pipes, Hitler’s invasion of Poland. And my trip to the supermarket.

    All of which is rather interesting. We are introducing a huge range of stored carbon atoms, over hundreds of millions of years , in the blink of an eye. So chain saws can cut the last great forests.

    While the very rich , demand ever lower taxes.

    If we make “America Great Again
    , it will last for about 20 min. Don’t blink, you’ll miss it.

    Reply
  36. coloradobob

     /  March 16, 2017

    I’m going trade in my car to buy an electric bicycle. The math says I’ll save 50 dollars a month on gas and insurance. Tags and inspection drive the number near 60 dollars a month. The irony is, it may be worth less than bike.

    Reply
    • danabanana

       /  March 16, 2017

      Bob, sold my wheels 5 years ago and never looked back. I can still walk or if too far I use public transport. I can tell you one thing, I don’t miss that killing device one bit. Next wheels will be electric powered but I will get to that when my legs are too tired to carry me about. 🙂

      Reply
  37. coloradobob

     /  March 16, 2017

    I went and looked …………

    The March for Science

    SATELLITE MARCHES
    https://www.marchforscience.com/satellite-marches/

    Reply
  38. coloradobob

     /  March 16, 2017

    April 22 will be the largest turn out we have ever seen.

    Reply
  39. coloradobob

     /  March 16, 2017

    My poem .

    Let no one yield Let on one feel .
    That we are a just a flake
    There are certain people now
    We just will not take

    This is no why , I have little reason why

    We are about to build a 30 foot concrete wall .

    Reply
  40. coloradobob

     /  March 16, 2017

    If Trump calls for a 30 foot wall , he’ll be the tallest fool. the world has ever seen. Our enemies will go to Canada.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: