Things that really need to be done

[MorkandMindy]

1. Avert nuclear war

The immediate need is to stop threatening Russia and to work with rather than against Russia in both Afghanistan and Syria.

The next would be to stop rewarding friends with nuclear technology, and another would be to stop telling nations that we will 'cause regime change'. Under the UN charter a credible serious threat is actually an act of war. N Korea stopped the threatened US invasion in it's tracks by testing a nuke. Either you develop a nuke or the US will run your country one way or another, the example for other nations is unequivocal.

Libya had no nuclear deterrent and the President was rewarded with a bayonet insertion which Mrs. Clinton felt was worth a giggle.

With an aggressive US no nation can feel it is an important sovereign nation without a credible nuclear detergent.

I'm not sure what percentage of the electorate were scared off voting for Hillary by her aggressive approach to Russia over Syria, but I've encountered some. The problem is the US 'Deep State' is always for war and it is what needs to be opposed, not encouraged.

 

[MorkandMindy]

2. Global Warming

This is a complex and not totally predictable problem and of course like everything else in our neoliberal planet one that plenty of people are already using to bilk many people and governments out of lots of money.

I'll try to sum it up to show why it could be a big concern, but first why the ecological alarmists are wasting their time.


Ineffective 1
Buy an eco-friendly car.
It generally takes about as much energy to build a car as the car consumes in fuel in it's useful life, so even if you cut fuel consumption in half you aren't helping the environment.

There is a lot involved in making this assessment but if you do get into it you will see how counterproductive most environmental action is if we retain the same economic structure.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Ineffective 2
Raising Climate Change awareness by talking about this or that emits this or that amount of CO2.
Money is spent and most of it one way or another ends up burning fossil fuels. The control point has to be keeping fossil fuels in the ground and biomass in the trees or soil.


Ineffective 3
Wanting to grow the economy while cutting greenhouse emissions.

It is possible, but poverty is the quickest way to cut CO2 output.
Consider England, always a bit less wealthy than the US, most cars there do twice the miles per gallon they do here. And people there scorn the big engine things over here. Less money is reality and consumption is adjusted to fit.

Old people with big pensions or big boons from rising house prices go out on cruises. Those ships use vast amounts of fuel. Money in the present system means the right to burn fossil fuels. If you don't do it then who ever gets your money next most likely will.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The Global Warming Myth, that is to say the thoughts about it rather than the actual Global Warming Threat,

is being used to justify all sorts of things people make money by doing but which in the long run make little difference to anything.

Hillary and Global Warming
Meant basically to further cut manufacturing in the US, close coal mines and import more goods. That is just shifting the problem so rather than us making the CO2 emissions then China or some other country does it for us.

I'll agree she might have wanted something done about solar panels, but first priority seemed to be to start yet another war. In the end though it is talk, I don't think either President would have made any difference, the Deep State has run the US for some time now.

Even succeeding in produce less CO2 emission really amounts to pushing the time frame for a given amount of burnt fossil fuel a few months into the future.

 

[MorkandMindy]

DATA ISSUES

Looking at temperature records from 100 years ago is hampered by the fact they weren't all that concerned about Global Warming back then. Thermometers have been left in the same locations which in many cases are now in urban environments and are therefore warmer due to lack of foliage transpiration now than back then.

There is a reasonable consensus that the Northern Hemisphere has been warming a bit while the Southern one has been cooling a bit. But there are fewer weather stations in the South than the North so just averaging out all weather stations will produce an overall warming which is due to the paucity of stations rather than anything real but there could be a problem...

 

[hislegacy]

Stated better than all the talking points put together.

 

[MorkandMindy]

THE SCARY BIT
If the North warms while the South cools and overall global temperatures stay the same, that isn't safe

Sure ice will collect at Antarctica so that will help with rising ocean levels, either a lot or a bit.

But the problem is rising temperatures in the North could spell big trouble because there is far more permafrost in the North.

Melt the permafrost and out comes lots of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

We only need to increase temperatures by a degree celsius to trigger a run away feed back loop on permafrost methane emissions.

 

[MorkandMindy]

If we get into that then there are two things to do.

1. Rocket into space near us a fine white dust to reflect sunlight.

2. Dam the Bering Straight across where St Lawrence Island is, so the Yukon River flows into the Arctic Sea.

The fresh water will float on the Arctic Sea, and without the flow of warm water into the Arctic Sea, will form an ice cap which is very good at reflecting Sunlight.