Meanwhile no climate change debate for those Democrats
SAN FRANCISCO — A Democratic National Committee meeting erupted into a bitter battle Thursday morning over the question of holding a climate-specific presidential debate, with party officials stamping down a resolution calling for a such an event in the face of raucous opposition from activists.
Since January, the DNC has taken at least $60,750 from owners and executives of fossil fuel companies.
It helps to recognize who you're dealing with. At least, I guess, climate change is safely in the future. Yes?
(CNN)Fires are raging at a record rate in Brazil's Amazon rainforest, and scientists warn that it could strike a devastating blow to the fight against climate change.
When we say "the stupid, it burns," can we say that it's this stupid that's burning?
Greenland's Massive Ice Melt Wasn't Supposed To Happen Until 2070
So they interviewed this scientist who said:
"We're seeing changes in Greenland that – when you look at the climate models – are not forecast for, in many cases, for many years to come. We understand why in some cases – we understand that the models don't always capture some phenomena like clouds that are very important in the amount of energy that reaches the ice and therefore the amount of ice melt. There are things that the models don't do necessarily as well as we would like and so we understand that behavior and we understand why some quantum models are actually under-predicting, and I should say likely under-predicting the mass loss going forward," Mote says.
Gosh golly why are our models under-predicting? My hand shoots up! I know!
Actually, we've known about this for at least five years now. Here's the link:
Awareness of Both Type 1 and 2 Errors in Climate Science and Assessment
Let's be clear about it: the people writing the reports are being pressured by deniers to underestimate the severity of climate change. Chris Mooney ionterpreted those findings for us back then:
According to a number of scientific critics, the scientific consensus represented by the IPCC is a very conservative consensus. IPCC's reports, they say, often underestimate the severity of global warming, in a way that may actually confuse policymakers (or worse). The IPCC, one scientific group charged last year, has a tendency to "err on the side of least drama." And now, in a new study just out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, another group of researchers echoes that point.
So if you read a lot of stuff telling us "we're doomed," maybe that's because it's the filp side of "we're denying." Planet Earth is being wiped out by capitalism, oil capitalism but also meat capitalism. It's not happening in 2070, or 2050, or 2030. It's happening NOW. What's the deal? Take the money and hope against hope that they'll have something to spend it on, upon a planet where they can spend it?