The experiential part has to do with a drumbeat of climate-related disasters around the world, all actively reported by the news media: hurricanes and tornadoes, droughts and wildfires, extreme heat waves and equally extreme cold, rising sea levels and floods. Even when people have doubts about the causal relationship of global warming to these episodes, they cannot help being psychologically affected. Of great importance is the growing recognition that the danger encompasses the entire earth and its inhabitants. We are all vulnerable.
All common weather related events are now “climate disasters”
Haven’t heard much from Andy Revkin lately. Has he finally seen the light or still spoon-feeding the old gray lady?
“All common weather related events are now “climate disasters””
It’s been in the 40’s or 50’s every night for the whole month of August where I live. Never in my life have I seen this before. The farmers have no corn this summer, it’s too cold. Are the climate geniuses saying all this cold is caused by heat?
Yes!
Globally warmed air rises replaced by cold air. At least that’s what #climate scientists say.
The New York Times was once a respected source of information, as were many other newspapers, public and national TV news media.
Our whole nation lost its moral compass as journalists, scientists, politicians, et al. joined with capitalists in putting our own selfish interest ahead of our responsibility to society.
We skeptics probably need to let go of the idea of blame and work together to get this once great nation back on track.
“…Our whole nation lost its moral compass as journalists, scientists, politicians, et al. joined with capitalists in putting our own selfish interest ahead of our responsibility to society….”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oliver,
The CEOs of large corporations are not Capitalists and never were. (SEE E. M. Smith’s very good explanation of why the corporate CEOs are socialists – the fascist variety.)
A simple definition of Capitalism:
Capitalism is the reinvestment of wealth (your labor and resources) to create more wealth. A mandatory precondition is all individuals must be free individuals with society’s recognition of individual rights, including property rights and the government’s protection of those rights. A second precondition is that wealth not be driven out of the market by fiat money, valueless paper printed on the spot. Adam Smith, whose “Wealth of Nations” had a great influence on the USA founding fathers, referred to what is now called capitalism as a “system of natural liberty.”
The third critical point of capitalism is incentive:
That article also brings up the fourth key point:
In a Socialist/Fascist society the government demands that the serf must buy the products of favored businesses. Think twisty light bulbs. seat belts, helmets, car, house and medical insurance. In a capitalist society the consumer is free to buy or not buy a product at a price agreeable to him.
Today an approximation to capitalism is seen in small business because Small Businesses are Self-Financed. Of course thanks to Red Tape they do not meet the first precondition of freedom. (Also see: COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: CAUGHT UP IN RED TAPE: THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES AND CONTRACTORS and the government – corporate revolving door.)
Once the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed, it allowed the looters to confiscate the wealth created by the productive members of society. The 1980’s leveraged buyout feeding frenzy turned well run debt free corporations into debt burdened walking corpses. Banker fiat monopoly money was used to buy up stock and transferred the REAL wealth accumulated over generations to the looters in return for worthless paper money.
You can also see the World Socialism Definition of “Capitalism” which as usual is a definition twisted to mean something entirely different.
Straight from the pen of Karl Marx:
As the pro-socialist and millionaire economics textbook author Robert Heilbroner finally admitted in The New Yorker in 1990, “Mises was right.”
(wwwdot)lewrockwell.com/north/north83.html
I’m in Montana this weekend and we woke up to snow on rooftops cars etc and it was still snowing I have devastating imagery as well. August 24 and winter has started. NYT is right, it’s getting colder.
omanual states: Our whole nation lost its moral compass as journalists, scientists, politicians, et al. joined with capitalists in putting our own selfish interest ahead of our responsibility to society.
Kinda wish you wouldn’t lump capitalists [capitalism] with those other characters.
Leap-frogging to “responsibility to society” …society, both individual and collectively, should be responsible for it’s own actions. Just because one, or a group within society, elects to not be responsible for their actions doesn’t mean the rest of us have to enable that action. If, during the era of the development of “Welfare”, we had let a few folks starve to death, the remainder would certainly have morphed into an more industrious entity. We would not have had generations who have grown to exist on the dirty word, “entitlements”.
Your third paragraph shoots your second one right in the butt. The nation will not work back toward greatness without capitalists. I infer from “our own selfish interest” that you feel profits are obscene and wrong. One has to look at the big picture to realize profits are like a bell curve, the hockey stick left side until others feel they can do the activity better, the roll-over as competition develops and the right side illustrates the activity’s slide back into averageness. New employment opportunities arise from that sense of “I can do that better!!”.
You are right.
Selfishness been shown to work for the welfare of society in capitalistic economics.
” Kinda wish you wouldn’t lump capitalists [capitalism] with those other characters.”
Yep. I’m sure you would. We all know how socially responsible capitalism is. I see no reason why you would infer that the writer sees profits as obscene or wrong except that that is your reflexive reaction to ANY criticism of capitalism.
There is Capitalism the idea and then there is capitalism as practiced by human beings. Humans are not perfect and therefore neither is capitalism, politicians, scientists or journalists.
Just quibbling here, but the NYT does not say that ‘weather is climate’. The NYT says nothing. The author (a psychiatrist not a climate scientist) says that weather is climate-related as in your quote. Please explain why you disagree with this statement. Are you saying that weather is not related to climate?
He provides zero evidence, and apparently believes that these things didn’t happen before. The article is pathetic, indefensible and SOP for progressives.
“Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.”
Pesky, your defense of NYT is trashy. The press’s selection of what they print is editorializing. Claiming “the NYT does not say that ‘weather is climate’” is a lie. They are responsible for what they choose to print.
How can you claim that a newspaper with layers & layers of fact-checkers & editors are somehow responsible for what appears in their pages? Hell, it’s not like such an august publication as the New York Times would simply uncritically regurgitate Soviet publicity pieces while actively covering up genocide.
120 years ago a new term was coined to describe American journalism. That term perfectly describes the editorializing that the MSM engages in today to support the idea of Global Warming. That term is “Yellow Journalism.” An example of Yellow Journalism is if the New York Times reported that Elvis showed up on the Mars rover cameras wearing a thong and strumming his guitar would any of you believe it? I mean it is the NYT the national newspaper of record, don’t you know!
Yellow Journalism has been used to encourage United States entry into two world wide wars. The Spanish American War is the first, and the second war is the so called “War to End All Wars” better known today as World War One. In Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and in North America with 911 we are still paying off our WWI reoperations in the dearest form of currency, blood.
Either way Bear, Pig, Dog, or Man Made Global Warming has just as much scientific proof today as reported sightings of Elvis has wolfing down fried nanner sam-ma-ges on the planet Mars.
It is more defensible scientifically to argue that “climate is weather” than that “weather is climate” and I do not joke here. Climate, classically – as in the Greek and Latin languages rather than physics – was understood to be the temperature plus the plants, animals, rainfall and general conditions that were supported by the weather that one experienced over a life time. It was understood to be a regional phenomenon. We quite literally have no data on “climate” that is relevant to time spans of less than an order of about 1,000 years if you argue convincingly that Daansgard-Oechger Events are climate events. Before we call something climate, it has to persist long enough that we can trace environmental adjustments – long term animal range shifts, changes in tree species distributions, movements of desert and steppe communities etc. Any time scale less than that is simply long term observations of weather.
Most of the short-term data that is battled over is weather data, collected as weather data, used for meteorological purposes and only secondarily forced into the roll of “revealing” patterns of climate change. Even when you consider tree rings you are simply looking at the record of the growing conditions on an annual basis, just weather. Coral data? The same. And ice-core data too, though over very long spans we actually can see patterns that no one argues are not real. If things are so subtle that folks can honestly debate about whether the weather has changed or not, it is not climate being discussed.
pesce9991 says: Yep. I’m sure you would. We all know how socially responsible capitalism is. I see no reason why you would infer that the writer sees profits as obscene or wrong except that that is your reflexive reaction to ANY criticism of capitalism.
The term “Social responsibility” seems to be akin to the term “Global warming”. Proponents have a tendency to attach whatever meaning to the terms they feel enhances their argument. Regarding capitalism, I’ll wager if there was no capitalism your standard of living would be in the dumper and you would be devoid of opportunity as would be the populace. I still contend you are off track as to where the responsibility for society really lies. If it makes you feel good giving to others donate to your favorite charity like the rest of us, don’t try to guilt-trip those who work to make a profit into feeling responsible for societies ills in total.
IPCC AR5’s glossary defines climate as weather averaged over thirty years. Should be millennial average +/- 10%. Global warming would be lost in that data cloud of uncertainty.
1. There’s a drumbeat all right, and this is one more beat.
2. I suppose if people can fantasize about the earth currently warming, they can fantasize about a “swerve” in public opinion toward acceptance of the idea.(They certainly don’t read many of the comments these days that accompany the beats.)
(Interestingly, it’s as if these guys are aware of a trend but reverse the direction. Is this a kind of mirror-image agnosia?) (More seriously, I’d say they have an extraordinary ability to filter out any discordant information – and this striking fact about much of our intellectual elite is being thrown into high relief by the AGW hysteria.)
Another way of practicing trauma based mind control?
Maybe the people that hate capitalism so much should move somewhere it is not practiced.
North Korea for instance.
Strangely, Bill Weir doesn’t seem to be swearing at the NYT over such willful ignorance. Almost as if Bill Weir was some sort of stinking hypocrite.
Prior to 1946, the cutting edge of science and spirituality were moving toward a common conclusion that included respect for the dignity of individuals.
That abruptly changed to antagonism between science and spirituality after 1945.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/The_FORCE.pdf
Post-1945 governments show little or no respect for the rights of individuals to control their government.