Seismic activity linked to global warming

| 0 TrackBacks

Finally, human civilization is starting to get global warming events that it can FEEL.  

Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.   Something real, something hard, fast, and impossible to ignore.   Increasing evidence and statistical analysis links increased seismic activity to global warming.

This alarming notion was first discussed in 1998 and is now more widely mentioned in university studies and recent publications - from the Journal of Geodynamics to National Geographic, to blogs reporting opinions of scientists (below).

Some intuitive calculation may help understanding:   A cubic yard of ice weighs nearly a ton.   The Antarctic ice sheet is a few miles thick.  Earth adjusted to that immense weight over the millennia - now, as ice caps melt, this weight is slowly lifting..   


Today the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica is quickly melting downward from the surface - dropping in altitude at nearly 16 meters per year.   With an area over 5 thousand square kilometers, this glacier holds a lot of cubic meters of ice and means that a lot of weight is now getting shifted into the ocean.   Similarly, the melting of glaciers in Greenland and elsewhere will trigger seismically elastic reactions that should be noted for their frequency, intensity and novel locations.

“…relative to the time period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, Earth has been more active over the past 15 years or so.” — geophysicist Stephen S. Gao, Missouri University of Science and Technology.

This idea is consistent for our age:  The Anthropocene Epoch - a geological age where humans make a significant impact.   Who knew that human industrial CO2 emissions warming the atmosphere then melting the ice and then the shifting weight would  provoke such a rapid and palpable reaction.  Such a sudden, fast impact of global warming has so far been missing from this crisis. 

It is worth watching carefully and keeping score. 



Just how much does one of these ice sheets weigh?
1 cubic foot of water weighs 62.4 lbs./ft3
Ice (@ .9 specific gravity) = 56.16 lbs./ft3
1 square mile (5280’ X 5280’) = 2.8 X 107 ft2
(2.8 X 107 ft2) X 56.16 lbs./ft2 = 1.57 X 109 lbs./mi2
Canadian Shield sheet (4000 mi2 X 4000 mi2) = 1.6 X 107 mi2
(1.57 X 109 lbs./mi2) X (1.6 X 107 mi2) = 2.5 X 1016 lbs./vertical foot
Assume 10,000’ thick (2.5 X 1016 lbs.) X (1 X 104) = 2.5 X 1020 lbs.  or 250,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds!  (Assume ice sheet was 10,000’ thick = 561,600 lbs./ft2)  or 281 tons of ice per square foot (3900 lbs./in2)!
And this is assuming that the entire sheet is composed of ice. If we assume that 30% of it is rock material, at an average specific gravity of 3.0, we can essentially double the total weight of the sheet. 

  ————————- News, Sources and Links:

University of London conference on Climate Forcing of Geological and Geomorphological hazards, Oct 2, 2009

Dr Margaret Lillian is an independent science journalist specializing in global trends.

As reported only this year, Harvard seismologist Göran Ekström has found a striking increase in the frequency of glacial quakes, particularly in Greenland, but also in Alaska and Antarctica.
Greenland quakes have risen from 6 to 15 a year between 1993 and 2002, to 30 in 2003, 23 in 2004 and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005, closely matching the rise in Greenland’s temperatures over the same period.   Their source was traced to surges and slips within ice sheets, where rapid melting is causing water to collect under glaciers, making them glide faster into the sea, triggering quakes…   

The science suggests that as redistribution of the Earth’s mass induced by global warming disturbs the relative equilibrium of its crust, monumental forces in the form of increasing earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity could be unleashed.  And the forecasts from some quarters are dramatic - - not only will the earth shake, it will spit fire

Impact of Global Warming On Seismic Activity

Article by Preetam Kaushik   published Apr 13, 2009 
Read more:
…opinion that is endorsed by geologists around the world is that glacial melting caused by global warming is causing a rise in water levels beyond the bearing limit of the Earth’s crust.   This, they believe, is causing the spate of devastating geological events that have struck nations in recent times.

WorldWatch Institute

Global Warming May Trigger Greater Seismic Activity

by Michael Renner on July 31, 2006

The melting of glaciers driven by global warming portends a seismically turbulent future.  When glaciers melt, the massive weight on the Earth’s crust is reduced, and the crust “bounces” back in what scientists call an “isostatic rebound.”  This process can reactivate faults, increase seismic activity, and lift pressure on magma chambers that feed volcanoes.

More links:
Sharon Begley, “How Melting Glaciers Alter Earth’s Surface, Spur Quakes, Volcanoes,” Wall Street Journal Online, 9 June 2006.
Link:; and
Bill McGuire, “Climate Change: Tearing the Earth Apart?,” New Scientist, 26 May 2006,


American Scientist 1998

The Guardian

Writing in New Scientist magazine, Bill McGuire, professor of geological hazards at University College in London, said: “All over the world evidence is stacking up that changes in global climate can and do affect the frequencies of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and catastrophic sea-floor landslides.  Not only has this happened several times throughout Earth’s history, the evidence suggests it is happening again.”

Melting Ice Sheets Can Cause Earthquakes, Study Finds

Thinning of Ice Sheets

Pine Island Glacier

This is not a new notion.   Called Isostatic rebound.   It is just that the inevitable evidence may be starting to be seen now

Volcanoes too update April 2010

(Reuters) - A thaw of Iceland’s ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.

“Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades,” said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland…

Should science set global warming policy ?

| 0 TrackBacks

Science defines global warming so well, and science can tell us how to best mitigate the problem

What is the optimal global warming public policy?

Any sane and sober scientist can tell you what to do about global warming: immediately stop carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.   That’s the optimal choice.   Anything else is sub-optimal.  You may define optimal any way you like.

We need to minimize CO2 emissions - the lowest minimum is zero - or in a better world it is less than zero - where we actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere - to sequester it.  Our policy must act to move CO2 levels down fast.   The fact that it takes about 40 years to begin to see the climate effects from a change in CO2 emissions, gives the problem a special dimension.   So minimize CO2 today and see the levels begin to fall in 40 years.   And tragically, the last 40 years of CO2 emissions have been the heaviest ever.   Even with our best effort, things will be a mess until about 2050.

And the second parameter best describes when we should act: right now is the perfect time.   Any other time is less than perfect.  The further we drift from immediately, the further we move from good.  The longer we wait, the worse the consequences.   So right now is perfectly good, to act later is less so, and much later is catastrophically bad.   It is troubling that we don’t really know much about the interim choices in-between the best time of now and the worst time -of way-off or never.   Those in-between areas are the messy crap-shoot areas, the zones of confusion and bickering.  Delay and procrastination makes things worse.   Except for the doom of total inaction - no one can know the physical consequences of acting at any politically convenient time in the future.   If we spend a lot of time arguing about the best time between now and never to take action, then we are moving farther away from our goal.

So atmospheric sciences calls upon us to act fast, act completely.   Now we just need a science-driven policy designed to respect these rules and optimize our actions.  Of course, because it will be difficult and painful, humans will not like to face the tasks ahead.   So after squirming uncomfortably for a while, you may realize what must happen.

  Atmospheric CO2 was 364 ppm when the Kyoto Protocol was created.

We should immediately minimize, control, and stop carbon dioxide emissions and shut down CO2 sources.  Most CO2 comes from the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.   That would be coal, oil, gas, alcohol and even the combusion from firewood, trash and wild fires. These are all carbon based fuels that release carbon dioxide.   Because it combusts with oxygen, every pound of carbon fuel will make more carbon dioxide than the beginning carbon fuel before combustion. For instance a pound of gasoline makes almost 3 pounds of CO2. Each fuel is figured differently, but for all the carbon fuels, expect more carbon dioxide - multiply the weight by 2 or 3.   So a trainload of coal, gives us 3 trainloads of carbon dioxide.

Only when we make a huge and complex effort can we stop emitting CO2.   Governments, as they move to protect citizens and secure our posterity, can act with force or with taxation.  They can use taxes to change behavior - like taxing alcohol or taxing tobacco heavily.   Rarely do governments tax so severely as to force a business out of existence.   Or governments can use force to smash and destroy bad things - like busting meth labs, moonshine stills or foreign poppy fields.

That’s one way to handle the CO2 emitters - just blow them all up.   The problem is just about everybody uses them and enjoys the cheap energy of hydrocarbon fuels.  Not just cars, much of our electricity for homes and industry is made from burning coal or oil. The energy is good, the carbon source is not.   We are getting skilled at translating one form of energy into another.   The usual process starts with heat to make steam which drives turbine generators that makes electricity.   Burning coal is a big source of heat for making electricity; nuclear energy makes steam for the same reason but without CO2.   But wind and solar make electricity directly from a solar panel or generator.   There are plenty of clean energy sources.

So we have to act quickly, very quickly - the optimal time is right now - to change rapidly to non-carbon fuel sources - called clean energy: wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, etc.   We need to make energy without making carbon dioxide.   Most important is that we have to do away with many of the carbon fuels that we use today - oil, gas and coal.   They should all go away - completely, and the sooner the better.

OK.   From a science prospective, public policy - defining what governments should do - all this is pretty straightforward.   If we want to design a process that drives change as soon as possible then governments can use force, or they can tax.   Later they can spend the money from the taxes in smart ways like health insurance and building railroads.

Here is a simple - two part proposal that nicely fits the science requirements:

Make clean energy sources
All carbon based fuels should be tax free when used for the explicit purpose of manufacturing and establishing clean fuel systems… this might include wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal and the supporting industries for them.   Build clean energy as soon as possible.

Eliminate dirty energy sources
ALL other, ANY other carbon fuels usage should be taxed, heavily taxed, and taxed so heavily that it puts carbon fuel companies out of existence in the fastest way possible.   Eliminate CO2 emissions immediately and completely.

That’s it.   All done.

That’s the simple solution.  I know it is hard to enact.   People can do it themselves or can ask governments to help make it happen.

Other solutions such as allowing partial emissions or permitting gradual change over a few decades while gambling with carbon credits - all of those options are wild cards, hard to control, hard to evaluate, require too much time, are easily derailed and have poor chances of success.  We are stepping into areas with no historical precedent.   People will clamor for less-than-optimal change, but anything less is dangerously unknown, unproven and unaccepted by science.

As we wrangle with the colossal changes necessary to adapt and mitigate, the best way to boldly step into the future is armed with optimal solutions.

Governments can know this too.

Richard Pauli
Feb 2009

cross posted to

New debate - treachery or delusion?

| 11 Comments | 0 TrackBacks
Here's a debate:  Is AGW denialism treachery or delusion?


Global warming is unfolding faster than expected.
CO2 makes global warming worse, and happen sooner
Carbon fuels generate CO2; more CO2 emissions make the problem worse.
The only known way to reduce CO2 is to reduce fossil fuel combustion
All this is well known and agreed to by all -  except by denialists
These people disagree, deny and obstruct by claiming CO2 is blameless
They may be delusional, or they may be paid propagandists
Either way they are wrong.
If we work to make our world safe, and somebody purposefully gets in the way,
They are making us unsafe.  Even if they really believe otherwise.
Appeasing CO2 polluters hastens human demise
An obstructionist denier who blocks or delays information is harming everyone, even themselves.
Even if they believe it themselves, they pitch scientific falsehoods.
Denialists are not acting like flat-earth believers, or Holocaust deniers, or Elvis Spotters.
These are not silent believers, these are active obstructionists.
While they are entitled to their beliefs, they are not permitted to endanger others.
Their actions hinder our survival
No matter what their beliefs or intentions,
Their actions amount to treachery and sabotage.
And we cannot allow them to continue. 
They are now on notice that this is very serious.
Your belief in delusional magic is yours alone. Keep it to yourself.
If you are a paid shill from a carbon fuel company, paid to believe something,
paid to promote and influence a falsehood, then your actions are treason.
You betray a human future with your allegiance to industry or money.
Your intentional obstruction is no longer acceptable.
As global warming disasters pile up and get worse,
your voice will sound shrill and crazy to those of us suffering.
You might want to hold your beliefs in silence.

If you hold contrarian denialism in your mind,
it will be hard to distinguish from professional public relations
Neither is benign.

This issue is discussed further in Climate Progress

If we fail to heed the warning of our top scientists, if we fail to adopt the low-cost strategies need to avert the incalculably high-cost consequences (widespread desertification, large and rapid sea level rise, loss of the inland glaciers, extinction of most species, fatal acidification of the ocean, and on and on), nobody is going to be writing books labeling us "the greatest generation." We will at best be "the greediest generation" and perhaps even "the first unpatriotic generation" since we were the first who would not bear any burden or pay any price to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the next generation.

But that is how future generations will label us. We haven't failed yet. Should we question the patriotism of deniers? That is a tough call, made even tougher since they question our patriotism even as we fight to save their children and their children's children from their own ignorance and indifference.

I suppose the answer is "no," we shouldn't stoop to their tactics -- readers can weigh in with other views -- but I will say that if we are going to save this great nation, progressives are going to have to fight back much harder against the despicable actions of the deniers who practice polluter appeasement. Whatever we are currently doing, it ain't enough.

The time to act is yesterday.


New debate: Hopeful or Doomed?

| 1 Comment | 0 TrackBacks

The answer is both: the day breaks both to doom and a hopeful dawn.


A good friend writes of his internal debate on global warming.   Are we doomed or is there reason for hope?

We seem to agree that - at least for now - Obama is the very best leader if we want to see any of our DNA make it into the future.  Global population decimation is inevitable.  Decimation has a dual meaning; it can be 1-out-of-10 or nine-out-of-ten.   By the end of the century, some scenarios, derived from IPCC models,  say that our global population of 9 billion will probably be one billion - and only if we are very lucky and smart.  Starting now

Although James Lovelock may stand firmly in the alarmist wing of climatologists, nothing he says is impossible.  All is within model scenarios.  As you can see from the combined graphic on the site   Science can describe the projections for how bad it will be, we didn’t really know when things might unfold, but now with early arctic melting - we are starting to know the when.

Every day, I am ever more astounded that there is not rioting in the streets over this issue, because soon enough (years hopefully) there will be food riots, and refugee riots, and climate refugees etc.

“If your children ever found out how lame you really are, they’d murder you in your sleep” -Frank Zappa

Its a pity that Obama is so nice.   Human civilization needs a Climate Czar with the ruthlessness of a Stalin.  Otherwise we will have to wait until a sufficient number of our citizens, along with other global citizens, get the message, learn the science and decide to act to assure the future of human life.

But I am buoyed by the recent reports and the direction we are going.   The NOAA report the other day had some powerDr Hansen always has something new to say.  Be sure to check for the news and the policy stuff.   And for the science overview to a lay audience.   We are in a time of rapid change now.

We are in constant rumination over doom or hopes.   The astounding enormity of  our colossal blunder is so difficult to apprehend.  Denialism is a normal psychological reaction.  In order to survive humans have to act with ruthless intelligence and logic.  If we are lucky and smart now, in 1000 years, it will be a new species that emerges

Personally,  I suppress my anger, but refuse to suppress the truth.   One neighbor is a retired professor of Atmospheric sciences, who tells me that many scientists have shrugged and moved on with their lives - enjoying their days. They no longer speak out.   Scientists think it is up to politics and human will-power now.  They have done their job, and really shouted all they can.

Yep.  Both doomed and optimistic.   Now we can debate how much of each.

CO2 effects well into the year 3000

| 0 TrackBacks

And our children’s children cannot escape it either.

Even if we suddenly halted all CO2 and reverted to the pure state of Adam and Eve, the damage of today will last a millenium.  CO2 causes irreversible damage for at least 1000 years

Interview with NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon

The original NOAA press release Jan 26, 2008

New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible

January 26, 2009

A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.

The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

“It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said. “But the new study advances the understanding of how this affects the climate system.”

The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia.

The study notes that decreases in rainfall that last not just for a few decades but over centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by region. Such regional impacts include decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts. Dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in regions of rain-fed farming, such as Africa, would also be affected.

Climate impacts were less severe at lower peak levels. But at all levels added carbon dioxide and its climate effects linger because of the ocean.

“In the long run, both carbon dioxide loss and heat transfer depend on the same physics of deep-ocean mixing. The two work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that makes carbon dioxide unique among the major climate gases,” said Solomon.

The scientists emphasize that increases in CO2 that occur in this century “lock in” sea level rise that would slowly follow in the next 1,000 years. Considering just the expansion of warming ocean waters—without melting glaciers and polar ice sheets—the authors find that the irreversible global average sea level rise by the year 3000 would be at least 1.3-3.2 feet (0.4-1.0 meter) if CO2 peaks at 600 parts per million, and double that amount if CO2 peaks at 1,000 parts per million.

“Additional contributions to sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets are too uncertain to quantify in the same way,” said Solomon. “They could be even larger but we just don’t have the same level of knowledge about those terms. We presented the minimum sea level rise that we can expect from well-understood physics, and we were surprised that it was so large.”

Rising sea levels would cause “…irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged,” the authors write.

Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon.

The authors relied on measurements as well as many different models to support the understanding of their results. They focused on drying of particular regions and on thermal expansion of the ocean because observations suggest that humans are contributing to changes that have already been measured.

Besides Solomon, the study’s authors are Gian-Kasper Plattner and Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich, Switzerland, and Pierre Friedlingstein of Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

The latest CO2 measurements are current and will change as soon as recorded by scientists.

Chart of the current trend for atmospheric CO2

Behavioral Economics Ultimatum Game

| 0 TrackBacks

The Ultimatum Game is a deceptively simple test of human economic attitude.

It goes like this:   The experimenter tells two subjects that he will give one of them a sum of money that they may split.   One person will decide how much to give to the other.  The other person may accept or reject the offer.   If accepted then both keep whatever money they hold.   However, if the other person deems it unfair then by refusing money prevents both of them from getting any cash.   Session over.   The test is given once only.

In examining the results for the Ultimatum Game it seems that many groups will accept a small percentage.   If the experimenter gave 100 dollars, then $5 might suffice.   This changed with Western subjects, who measured 30-40%… meaning they were willing to cut off all wealth until that fairness level.  Some even insisted on 50%.

Economists used to think that we, as rational actors, would always choose the best deal.   The irrational choice of cutting off all money and ending play - was difficult to understand.   Was it the sense of fairness?   Game theory and behavioral economics are pretty new fields of study.   One can see how it may apply to the economics of global warming.

A related experiment is the dictator game where the players who make the offers get to keep their share no matter what.   Predictably they make less equal offers, keeping more of the cash.   The second mover always accepted unequal money.

So one privileged person, shares a bit with someone less privileged.  The less privilegled fellow see this is fine, until he sees the privileged one cross some sort of line that is going too far…. like Billion dollar fortunes from bailouts that will raise taxes and condemn our future.  And like a carbon fuel industry selling a dangerous product that kills our future.  That crosses the line.  Increased stakes seem to make subjects more pliant toward small rewards

The privileged ones get vast wealth, vast - the recipient has generations of cheap power, cheap electricity, cheap mortgages, rising value of real estate, easy credit, rising stocks.  The wealth runoff to the recipient is a very small fraction of the vast wealth.

It is easy to apply this to modern economics - Think of a great experimenter bestowing vast free wealth to humans in the form of Forests, Ocean harvests, Mining ores, and Oil and coal.  All were thought to be essentially free, bestowed like money in the Ultimatum Game experiment.  The initial recipients redistributing a portion of the wealth to all others: employees, clients, stock holders and consumers.   The ratio of owner wealth to consumer wealth is something other than 0 and certainly not 100% - At some time it might have been 5% and now maybe 30% [Students in economics will write many papers describing the percentage of this wealth.]  Was it 30%?

The implicit rule of this real life Ultimatum Game is an honest description of the terms of the deal, and promise of safety.

The Ultimatum Game starts with the agreement that all the costs will be known.   Free coal is dug and sold cheaply, and we get warm electricity.   But the soot and CO2 poison life itself and our 30% share (or whatever percentage) is gone - reduced to nothing - or vastly lower.

So the Ultimatum Game is that human recipients are beginning to demand a halt to this play - asking for a new agreement.   The carbon fuel companies have reduced the cost of oil, kept coal cheap in effort to move up the percentage of wealth offered to the others.   We tacitly accept, keep driving and heating and continue the game.

Now however we are about to feel the true cost of the carbon economy.   Any further CO2 output moves our species demise closer.   Even a payoff all the way to 100% is not a good deal if no one survives.   Many will ask the game play canceled.

Those who adopt the dictator stance of economic transaction will be rudely shocked to discover that C02 and atmospheric science does not negotiate with economists.

Richard Pauli

More reading in behavioral economics and global warming:

“The policy recommendations of most economists are based on the rational actor model of human behavior. Behavior is assumed to be self-regarding, preferences are assumed to be stable, and decisions are assumed to be unaffected by social context or frame of reference. The related fields of behavioral economics, game theory, and neuroscience have confirmed that human behavior is other regarding, and that people exhibit systematic patterns of decision-making that are “irrational” according to the standard behavioral model…. the standard economic approach to climate change policy, with its almost exclusive emphasis on rational responses to monetary incentives, is seriously flawed. In fact, monetary incentives may actually be counter-productive. Humans are unique among animal species in their ability to cooperate across cultures, geographical space and generations. Tapping into this uniquely human attribute, and understanding how cooperation is enforced, holds the key to limiting the potentially calamitous effects of global climate change.”

Cross posted to

Humans shall persist and thrive - Pro or Con?

| 2 Comments | 0 TrackBacks
Crazy is doing the same thing over-and-over and expecting a different result. continues crazy postings trying to establish and prop up a false debate - promoting doubt about global warming.  More accurately their own words claim they are debating "Calls to Action" or "Dissenting Voices "  (inaction).  But that is not the debate I read there.

Their headings actually are saying "Do we act or not?"   And I can see a reasonable discussion on that question.   But looking at the content on each side, they are not really debating what they claim.  Their global warming postings seem to be divided between new science discoveries versus the magical thinking of global warming denialists.  Science verses religion is an old, tired debate.

suncloudss.jpgThey seem to want to divert and delude us from facing the real issue: human extinction.  Do we want to accept it?   Maybe they can re-label their standings as a debate like:  Pro-extinction and Con-extinction

It is crazy continuing to criticize  They will
never change.  So I am expanding my messaging beyond theirs.  It is time to ponder the real issue:  "Humans shall persist and thrive - Pro or Con" 

They can frame the debate through the selection of materials they choose to post.  "... of what ultimately goes onto the page, the editors' decisions are final."

So when I ask them ( to step up and start talking about the real issue - I know that is a crazy request.

Are we a crazy species?   That's still another debate.

Just up ahead...

| 1 Comment | 0 TrackBacks

Now we are in the midst of crafting our long term economy while adjusting to the ravages of a self-destructive, short-term economy.

All decisions made and actions taken in this generation will have to apply to the generations ahead.  If we want to survive as a species, today we must choose carefully and act deliberately.

The horrible penalty of pollution is that it compresses the time left to react.   The rapidly increasing rate-of-change means our adaptation must be logical and decisive rather than genetic and leisurely.

cityfogss.jpgAny failure to make and implement key survival decisions means extinction.  Any species acts to survive.  The human beings that survive and thrive into a future will have to act much differently than we do today.

It is far easier to step into our future by choosing willful change now, rather than wait for the world to deliver the predicted assaults and react at that time to imposed change.

cross-posted to

Argues with Idiots

| 0 TrackBacks
That would be my Indian name.   Argues-with-Idiots. 

I am tilting at the windmill of human denial about the danger of global warming.   


And AGW is worse than ever. Even TIME magazine thinks we should wake up to our dangerous misunderstanding of climate change.  This article ran just a few days before the election.

"... carbon emissions would need to be cut drastically from current
levels. Yet almost all of the subjects in Sterman's study failed to
realize that, assuming instead that you could stabilize carbon
concentration simply by capping carbon emissions at their current
level. That's not the case -- and in fact, pursuing such a plan for
the future would virtually guarantee that global warming could spin
out of control. It may seem to many like good common sense to
wait until we see proof of the serious damage global warming is
doing before we take action. But it's not -- we can't "wait and see"
on global warming because the climate has a momentum all its
own, and if we wait for decades to finally act to reduce carbon
emissions, it could well be too late. Yet this simply isn't
understood. Someone as smart as Bill Gates doesn't seem to get it.
"Fortunately climate change, although it's a huge challenge, it's a
challenge that happens over a long period of time," he said at a
forum in Beijing last year. "You know, we have time to work on it."
But the truth is we don't. "

I am gradually growing to accept this human deficiency.  Our species is unable to see, unwilling to act on far off dangers - no matter how certain.   As the future of global warming becomes clearer,  the ONLY global survival solution requires a total unified human effort - with 100% support.. which is, of course, impossible.  The differing opinions and different thoughts and actions are all quintessentially human. This trait works best by having sizable factions in disputed survival judgments and errant thinkers taking different actions.    So whole populations with one trait may thrive, while those with another trait will fail.  It seems like a nice way to design a species: to allow groupings with individual differences to best adapt to a changing future.  This assures that random changes may still act to allow the species to change.
hotsuns.jpgWe are not ants.  But in this case it may bite us back, for the errant few with denialist tunnel vision are working to constrain any unified effort to change.  And that spells doom. 

They may no longer deny, they may only want to delay. That delay will kill us, the delay means tipping points are passed and runaway global warming cannot be stopped, no matter how strong the human will and effort.   And a destabilized climate will continue to wreak havoc, and the predicted increase in  temperature (11 degrees C ) can extinguish most animal life at sea level.   With less heat increase, perhaps we have better survival chances.

First comes the decimation of our species -  it will take a few decades, disease, drought, storm floods and the attendant wars and violent struggles to survive - met with violent defense.  Eventually the chaos will wean out the weak and the unwilling and the remaining population will have full commitment to survive - but almost no capability to affect global cascading events.  Then in a hot and changing age the struggle will be to survive amidst dwindling resources and scarce living places - perhaps limited to mountainous areas near the poles.   Pretty grim future.  Even though that struggle may be a few generations out - it may be good that people don't realize this just now.  How does one tell a young person about this?

And so I am not going to argue with idiots anymore because the ship is now hitting the iceberg and no change of direction can prevent it.  Now the discussion is about how to best deploy the lifeboats and figure out how best to slow the sinking. Bush was the captain that crashed the boat, Obama is the new captain.  So this is a change of attitude.   The science and the projections remain the same.   I realize this is dystopic - but it is not implausible, and it conforms to IPCC climate predictions.


Cross posted to

Looming Heat Storm Has No End

| 0 TrackBacks

Humans have decided to accept the risk of certain warming in exchange for easy, cheap carbon fuels.   Of course, mass marketing helps this along by exhorting us to ignore the consequences and to give in to this short term indulgence..

DawnCityCrs.jpgThis is similar to the profligate debt packaging of the last few decades. The payoff from the risk is too high for humans to resist.  So we persist despite warnings.  Now just one week of Congressional hubris and we are supposed to think all is well. The financial industry bailout is a model for how government will face the next big problem.  And I am not convinced that government will do very well.

We are disempowered, we keep an eye on the horizon and see the warming coming.  We can speak truth and demand an end to denial, but we are a long way from significant action.  The most fundamental thing we can control is our spiritual center.  We can prepare ourselves for the privation ahead by knowing about it.  Think of it as a slow moving hurricane like Katrina. Everyone was stunned by the unexpected death and destruction and the suffering that still remains.  For the next hurricanes FEMA tried harder, and people sensed the importance of seeking safety preparing and plans to survive.  The next hurricane will teach us more lessons.  

Global Climate Destabilization is kind of like a looming heat storm with no end.  We have never seen this, we don't know what to expect, we are not completely sure about all the catastrophes associated with this.   But clearly our own actions have made it worse, and our actions can make it less destructive.  All of human history has never seen such a storm  Science gives us much of a general view but we don't know exactly when, and we don't know exactly how bad.  But the heat is on the horizon.
darkdawncropss.jpgHumans will eventually know all this by feeling it directly.  It is really hard for me to accept that our species is unable to act to the clear danger.  It tests my acceptance, makes me angry that humans have not really decided to live into a multigenerational future.   That is really sad.  I expect people will feel these kinds of emotions more and more. 

Understanding Ourselves - thanks Wikipedia

| 1 Comment | 0 TrackBacks

Wikipedia can save the world through helping us understand ourselves better

Some human traits work to block progress in facing problems of Anthropogenic Climate Destabilization

Unique to our species, our human psychology, built from years of survival tests, leaves us with traits unsuited for modern times.  These can explain human inactivity in the face of this impending catastrophe.

Consider a quick sampling of Wikipedia’s social psychology entries :

===  see  ===

Denial See: - postulated by Freud; a condition “in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.”


Bystander Effect.. A common explanation of this phenomenon is that, with others present, observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so they each individually refrain from doing so and feel less responsible. This is an example of how diffusion of responsibility leads to social loafing. People may also assume that other bystanders may be more qualified to help, such as being a doctor or police officer, and their intervention would thus be unneeded. People may also fear losing face in front of the other bystanders, being superseded by a superior helper, offering unwanted assistance, or the legal consequences of offering inferior and possibly dangerous assistance. Another explanation is that bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since others are doing exactly the same, everyone concludes from the inaction of others that other people do not think that help is needed.  


Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune:  …We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity …what we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.


The bandwagon effect …is the observation that people often do and believe things because many other people do and believe the same things. The effect is often pejoratively called herding instinct, particularly when applied to adolescents. People tend to follow the crowd without examining the merits of a particular thing. The bandwagon effect is the reason for the bandwagon fallacy’s success.


Diffusion of responsibility is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned.

Diffusion of responsibility can manifest itself:

  • in a group of peers who, through action or inaction, allow events to occur which they would never allow if alone (action is typically referred to as groupthink; inaction is typically referred to as the bystander effect) or
  • in hierarchical organizations as when, for example, underlings claim that they were following orders and supervisors claim that they were just issuing directives and not doing anything per se.

This mindset can be seen in the phrase “No one raindrop thinks it caused the flood”.


An argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that “If many believe so, it is so.” In ethics this argument is stated, “If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable.

This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the massesappeal to beliefappeal to the majorityappeal to the people,argument by consensusauthority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum (“appeal to the people”),argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger”.


wisdom of repugnance, or the ‘yuck’ factor  describes the belief that an intuitive (or “deep-seated”) negative response to some thing, idea or practice should be interpreted as evidence for the intrinsically harmful or evil character of that thing. Furthermore, it refers to the notion that wisdom may manifest itself in feelings of disgust towards anything which lacks “goodness” or wisdom, though the feelings or the reasoning of such ‘wisdom’ may not be immediately explicable through reason.


Somebody Else’s Problem an effect that causes people to ignore matters which are generally important to a group but may not seem specifically important to the individual.


Optimism bias…  tendency for people to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions…over-estimating the likelihood of positive events and under-estimating the likelihood of negative events.


The Banality of Evil … describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.


pluralistic ignorance is a process which involves several members of a group who think that they have different perceptions, beliefs, or attitudes from the rest of the group. While they do not endorse the group norm, the dissenting persons behave like the other group members, because they think that the behaviour of the other group members shows that the opinion of the group is unanimous. In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves. This in turn reinforces their willingness to conform to the group norm rather than express their disagreement. Because of pluralistic ignorance, people may conform to the perceived consensual opinion of a group, instead of thinking and acting on their own perceptions.

[edit]Consequences of Pluralistic Ignorance

In a series of studies conducted to test the effect of pluralistic ignorance, Prentice and Miller[3] studied the consequences of pluralistic ignorance at Princeton University. They found that, on average, private levels of comfort with drinking practices on campus were much lower than the perceived average. In the case of men, they found a shifting of private attitudes toward this perceived norm, a form of cognitive dissonance. Women, on the other hand, were found to have an increased sense of alienation on the campus but lacked the attitude change detected in men, presumably because norms related to alcohol consumption on campus are much more central for men than for women.

Pluralistic ignorance may partially explain the bystander effect: the observation that people are more likely to intervene in an emergency situation when alone than when other persons are present. If people monitor the reactions of others in such a situation, they may conclude from the inaction of others that other people think that it is not necessary to intervene. Thus no one may take any action, even though some people privately think that they should do something. On the other hand, if one person intervenes, others are more likely to follow and give assistance. For example, in the murder case of Kitty Genovese: About a dozen witnesses failed to help Genovese when she was stabbed to death in 1964. Most of the witnesses only heard the murder (i.e. they were not eye witnesses) and were both unsure of what was happening and unable to monitor the reactions of other people. Nevertheless, pluralistic ignorance may explain their inaction if at the time they were reasoning: “Others must also hear what is happening - if no one else is doing anything about it, then it must not be an emergency.”


How bad? and When? Answer: Worse and Sooner

| 0 TrackBacks
I try to avoid expressing my hypervigilance much  - but this may be appropriate.  Global warming is totally ignored.  Global denial is getting delusional. 

This is the latest discussion from the global warming front...

This is picking up on some very disturbing news - not yet peer reviewed - but very big change is becoming more inevitable.   Other sites discussed this, but this guy seems to have the best writing.

For me, I think the answers may be more Zen- like, Zen something.  Techno-existentialist quandary here.

Choose:  Insanely radical change to save the very future of the species?  Or let go and live out the lovely end days.   Or how much in between?

I still want to keep trying to discover "how bad?"  and  "when?"  

This disquieting news of Methane melting suggests  Worse and Sooner.  

I am left facing my own life now and trying to enjoy it.   So far, I predict things will get slightly messy and chaotic fairly soon (years), but the real horrors may come about in mid century.  But paleoclimatological studies posit very rapid and radical climate changes in the past - changes in 2 to 10 years.   I call it possible but implausible. For now.

Cutting the Gordian Knot

| 0 TrackBacks

Cutting the Gordian Knot

A Gordian knot is a mythical, impossible to untie dilemma - solved by a swift destructive slash.

The decades of denial and delay have eliminated the options for gradual change and now present only limited, radical choices for long-term, multigenerational survival.  We overlooked, squandered or were persuaded to miss the opportunities to address the problem with more moderate sacrifice.  Now the enormity and complexity of the problem is so great that only a Gordian Knot solution will work 

The very first decision: Do we want to Live or Die ?    

 If die then keep up business-as-usual (BAU)
   (if the choice is postponed or delayed then the answer biases toward more certain death)

Next decision:  If yes to live, then how long?   Just this generation?  or how many generations?   All humans? or how selected? 
Then decide how much adaptation and mitigation we must apply in order to meet those goals.

Truncating to just near-term survival requires very little co-operation.  Any mitigating actions will extend the decline.

The greater the survival scheme the more aggressive the response required.

If the decision is for multgenerational life, then this must be decided by consensus.  Anything other than consensus is tantamount to acquiescence.

With the global agreement to transgenerational survival, then comes the committment to ruthless enforcement of atmospheric care. 

Any delay in implementation means greater challenges

(Sub decision by any civilization: decide how many of the existing human population will be saved - i.e. 10 million displaced and starving - will they be ignored?  Since this is a discussion of civilization - and certainly allowing large populations to die is not civilized - hence such an uncivilized act would be better characterized as anarchist/neo-con.  Not to excuse the act, merely to say that it is not the mark of a civil government)

So we need a civil society with strong governments, sufficient to protect its populous and bring about a radical restructure of industry, commerce, agriculture and transportation.

Failure to change, means demise is delayed, not belayed.

Here is the only solution I can see - painful, untested, but scientifically plausible.   It would require a full testing of all the best traits, discipline, organization, fealty, and enthusiasm that humans have ever displayed.

Which is why I think we are doomed.

The only hope  - see:

Delay Phrases: Script for a Climate Denier

| 0 TrackBacks

The Professional Denier's script
Purpose:  to delay any organized reaction that could limit carbon fuel consumption

For optimal delay - try to prolong time between each statement, begin:

"There is no such thing as global warming"
"OK there is some warming
        But the science is still not sure about it
"OK most ALL Scientists agree that there is warming
        But some scientists do not agree.
"OK I see that you don't really need to be a scientist to see the warming
        But it is not warming everywhere
"OK I see the data says the average temperature is warming
        But your data collection is flawed
"OK I see that data has been collected for years just about everywhere
        But not the oceans, the oceans are still just fine
"OK I see the oceans are warming most everywhere
        But Antarctic ice is increasing
"OK I see the Artic ice is melting, and Greenland ice cap too.
        But that is natural cyclical change
"OK I see that there is no cycle changes except our recent industrial age
          But global warming is not really caused by humans
"OK I see the warming may be greatly enhanced by humans
        But we cannot possibly do anything about it.
"OK maybe we should try to do something about it.
        But it won't be a problem for another century
"OK maybe it is smarter to face the problem sooner rather than later,
        But we should not be overly concerned or act with too much haste
"OK we should be really concerned and start to act right now
        But we should not be too anxious or worried
"OK we should be worried
        But we should certainly not be alarmist
"OK maybe we should sound the alarm,
        but we should not panic.

( "OK that should delay things for a few decades, can we have our paycheck now?)
Richard Pauli 9-08

The 'Shutup and Be Happy' Debate

| 1 Comment | 0 TrackBacks

I think we have about 4 generations left

I am not shouting this.  But I think it may be so.  And I know most will ignore my Jerimiahed screed.

Humans have about 4 generations left on this planet.  Not much more. 

That puts it into the next century. There are plenty of serious climate model scenarios described out to the year 2100.  Some are not so bad, some are horrible.  Even the more optimistic views are predicated on very radical changes to our civilization to fight this.  Something we are not doing in the slightest.  Not even started. No real plans. As David Letterman said recently about global warming, “We are so screwed”   

So We Humans are pretty much doomed, but not Us Humans now. Right now everything is pretty nice.  Beautiful summer, plenty to eat, and for the most part, skies are clear and cool.  . But climate destabilization is so great, and carries such momentum, that we have long passed our opportunity to effect change.  Now, today all we can say is Adapt, Mitigate and Accept.

I really don’t want to stand on the corner in a hair shirt and sandals preaching doom.  Nobody wants to hear it.  No one wants to spoil the party. And it is not fun for me.  Some want to stay oblivious for fun, some for profit, and some because they really cannot face it.  Many, many know it, but carry on with civil grace, social acceptability, and economic momentum.

The internal debate I hold is about how I let that affect my life today.  Since I am 59 years old, I may not be facing much of the big problems that the future generations will be facing. We might figure that our grandchildren will be living in a world that we cannot even imagine  - if they are lucky.  What do I owe them in preparing and warning and accepting?   If I cannot really change much, shouldn’t I just shutup and be happy?

I suspect this is a very big debate.  Philosophical, existentialist, grief and everything you want to think about applies here.  A much better debate, I think than anything else.

Just Shut Up

| 7 Comments | 0 TrackBacks is that other very popular site that I am criticizing here. This is And I have some words for them:

Just shut-up.
Your pseudo debate just props up the empty case of skeptical climate denialism.
Just because you present two sides does not mean equivalent stature.   Your soapbox for idealogs, fringe whack-jobs and professional denialist campaigns pales next to selected, reputable news and science reports.   Are you planning similar "debates" on plate techtonics, evolution, or the theory of gravity?
What does your "graceful argument" have to do with scientific truth? Comparing the styles and layouts of arguments means nothing. Do you think this another OJ trial? "If the glove don’t fit, it must not be global warming?"
I know you have the right to free speech and all that.   But the strident denials, delaying tactics and purposeful attempts to confuse the issue go too far.
If it is OK to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, do you think the opposite is OK?   In a crowded theater that is burning, we feel heat and smell smoke, we move toward the exits - are you telling me is it OK for the usher to yell "There is no fire!, sit down?" or even "There is no fire, sit down and lets have a debate."
Nothing illegal about expressing your thoughts. I think you should just shut-up.
You know you are talking about politcs, not science
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science.
We know how you have emerged victorious from the tobacco industry PR campaigns. You helped extend tobacco product sales for decades beyond their proper life — all by a professionally unified denial campaign.  You kept a toxic drug delivery mechanism out of the FDA and deflected legislation that properly should have banned nicotine.  And you cemented the flow of profit.   Now the very same PR agency and individuals are deep into the climate change denialist movement - this time paid for by the carbon fuel industries.
Gosh, could it be that all the big carbon fuel companies fully realize the decades of unrestrained carbon dioxide pollution has actually caused climate instability?
Could it be that all this subsidized deceit and purposeful denialism is here just to prevent any interference to their business operations? Are your words intentionally designed to detract science and delay responsible legislation?
It is sleazy, immoral, it ought to be illegal, and pretty soon the courts may find you liable.  Eventually you will be shunned and reviled for your words and actions, but until that day comes, then just SHUT-UP.
We are not talking about a little tobacco and cancer here.
The stakes are the ultimate: the very survival of our civilization.
We need lots of science focused on knowing the extent of the problem.
We don’t need paid obstructionists, willful skeptics, and professional denialists distracting the quest for more information.
We need to be making adaptation and mitigation plans.  First off, carbon fuel companies should stop these PR campaigns.
And we have contempt for your ignorant toady followers that you trick into academic suicide just to sabotage research and cripple public policy.
Your actions are close to criminal because your words act to inflict potential harm to the innocent.  If you don’t see that then try these common analogies:
- Let’s say we all commute in a car where the driver says the brakes are bad and maybe we should not ride, but one passenger insists the brakes are fine and we should keep going in fast traffic.  The driver is worried and wants to slow down and check the brakes. Any skeptic that denies danger and tries to stiffle more information should shut-up and let the driver decide.
- Or say your carload is driving fast in heavy fog on a darkened highway; the radio reports the bridge ahead has just collapsed.   You start to slow down so as to carefully see the road ahead, but one of your passengers insists that you keep driving the speed limit. He claims that he can see perfectly well, and insists that everything is OK, and he did not hear any warnings. Nope again, in my car, I would say Shut Up.
- Or consider the common story of a successful small town tourist spa that finds it has poison water that kills people - all the townspeople violently deny the facts, just to keep their commerce going. The difference here is that EVERYONE on the planet will suffer in some way. No matter how many want it to be OK, if there is even suspicion then everyone needs to find out what is wrong. Don’t fight these correct acts.
Remember that just prior to Pearl Harbor the impending attack was seen on radar.  Seeing more planes on a screen than anyone had ever seen before, someone was skeptical, and doubted what they saw.  They said it must have been a flock of birds, or friendly flights. But they certainly did not cling to that skepticism after seeing the smoke and fire of the attack. They did not persist in denial; I am not sure how a denialist of today would have been regarded back then.
We are on a warming planet, the climate is destabilizing, we are getting in trouble and people are dying.   You are pandering to human denial and cultivating human weakness for self-deception. Then you try to redirect public attention with debates about the shape of the arguments instead of the substance.   Stop it.
And you know, with HUMAN CAUSED, CLIMATE DESTABILIZATION, the stakes are higher than Pearl Harbor or 9-11 or even Katrina. Until someone is brave enough to call you out as saboteurs to our future, or to haul you into court, or to win a lawsuit - and that may happen soon - until then, just shut-up.
We are looking for solutions, we first have to know just how bad the problem is, and you don’t want to help, you don’t want to do research. You just want to promote delay and engage in ideological squabblings.   Well, you can think your own thoughts, but don’t obstruct the important progress of science and government and industry and community. We will not award false importance to your delusions by merely examining the process of a phony debate. There’s important work to do.
Study Science, Seek Solutions, or Shut-up.

Words up top by Richard Pauli Aug 2008
rantman {at}
After you give me wads of cash, then you can say I am bought off, until then I am poor, independent and the words at the top are all mine.

Criticisms of Climate Debate Daily . com

| 0 TrackBacks

Climate Debate Daily: A new way to understand disputes about global warming. A more accurate tag would be “the same old ways of garbling disputes about global warming.”

Climate Debate Daily is a website which claims to offer “a new way to understand disputes about global warming”:

A quick search on Google turns up quite a few links to this site. Most simply document its existence, or broadly fall for its spin. A few sites call it for what it is - a website playing the Fox News game of deception “we report, you decide”. And then there’s a wealth of libertarian/Objectivist sites which, unsurprisingly, are almost giddy over the site. Perhaps that the most telling bit - the people who are praising the site are all “skeptics”. No one pro-science seems to have anything positive to say about the site. Only the “skeptics”. Curious, isn’t it?

You might modulate your tone.... says KiMcG

Kind of like we are having a debate about style - excellent comments from dear friend KiMcG who writes:

It is perfectly fine to find yourself in a fury at liars who appear to be getting away with it.  What you may want to consider it how best to disrobe a liar, in public, for maximum effect -- e.g. credibility damage to liar, least harm/disruption to you.
That's why I adopt a more clinical tone in my writing in cases such as these.  Anger had to be carefully modulated, and name-calling kept to a minimum, in order to have one's point heard -- especially in a forum where many/most of your readers do not know you personally, and can only understand your emotions as they are expressed in a particular context.  Written rage cannot take the same form that spoken rage does; it must be framed, and crystallized.  Otherwise it's like reading about how someone feels like he's about to barf -- not appealing in either the run-up or the follow-through.
Maybe an approach for you is to break it down into bite-size pieces -- one floe at a time, if you will, rather than the whole damn iceberg in one go.  Take one point, and one only, on any given day; find no more than three links most relevant to discrediting that one point.  Write no more than one good (5-7 sentence) paragraph about the point and your disagreement, drop in the links, post, and breathe.  Then you must let it go until tomorrow.
To do otherwise is to risk health and mind for people who have no regard for either.  It also will give you no balance, no rest, and little perspective.
Shout or whisper, steely or hot, but be very aware of the forum in which you air your thoughts and feelings, and consider carefully the best way to express them to people you will never meet.


Preserving energy/resources is not just an environmental concept; it is deeply personal.  Especially when health's reins are being held by anxiety and adrenaline, calm is the only path to travel.  The ride will be rough enough due to the driver!
Rants are always a good start.  The get the thoughts and passions out.  Then they need to be sorted by a steady hand and a cool head, to be presented as the best of all the elements they contain.  But the main things an angry human teaches us is to stay at a good distance from him or her, and to be cautious in our words and deeds involving such an individual.  The "best" battle?  Maybe to act as bellwether -- pointing the way to the good information, the solid studies, the sound science.  Communicating with those who do the work of compiling and analyzing the science, to offer words of praise and encouragement, or to offer a few moments of respite for them to express their frustrations over lack of attention/funding/results.
I have long seen one of my main modes in this world as helping the helpers -- not being on the front line myself, but staying just a couple steps back, ready with towels and bandaids and a hot meal...revival and encouragement so that the fighters can return to the fight. So I offer it as a worthy effort, a possibility you may want to try, to stop the personal depletion and frustration, and to be able to end each day knowing that in small ways you did great good.  IT may not suit, but no harm in trying, eh?

  - KiMcG