aaas

Not to put too fine a point on it . . .

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/18/climate-change-world-risk-irreversible-changes-scientists-aaas?CMP=ema_565

'debate'

http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/02/18/meet-the-press-meets-climate-change/

The idea that, at this late date, NBC News think there is some 'debate' going on about climate change is ridiculous.  So instead of bringing on a knowledgeable, articulate climate scientist, 'Meet the Press' stages a 'debate' between a Republican ignoramus from The State That Gave Us the Scopes Trial and an entertainer who got a bachelor's degree in engineering 35 years ago.  Prettyboy host David Gregory is a pathetic excuse for a journalist.

terrifying math

One of my ur-texts on climate change is Bill McKibben's article, 'Global Warming's Terrifying New Math,' from the August 2, 2012, issue of 'Rolling Stone':

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719?print=true

Basically, McKibben says that if we want to stay within a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature (a questionable goal in itself), we can burn no more than about 565 gigatons of fossil fuels.  However, the reserves of various fossil fuel companies are about 2800 gigatons.  To quote the article:

'Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.'

vortex

Think these midcontinental cold spells this winter disprove global warming?  Think again:

http://climatedesk.org/2014/01/breathtaking-the-white-house-releases-its-climate-heavy-hitter-on-the-polar-vortex/

keystone delay

Some at least provisional good news on the Keystone XL front.  Anything that delays this disaster is a plus.  Do you realize they have to HEAT this crap to get it to even flow through a pipeline?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/19/3309791/nebraska-keystone-pipeline-ruling/

'Best Earth'

The overriding concept should be 'Best Earth' or 'Best Earth Ever,' the idea that we should always be thinking about how to make this planet as good as it can be.  In particular, I'm intrigued by the idea of beings from outer space coming upon planet Earth.  The question naturally arises, 'What will they think of us?'

the crux of the matter

The crux of the Planetarian position is that we should implement policies that our descendants, looking back from a distance of two or three centuries, would be grateful for.  In many cases, it's probably impossible to know what such policies would be.  In the case of global warming, however, isn't it obvious that they would want us to ameliorate it as much as possible?  Now, how should we go about doing that?

descendants

Comment:

Environmental policy should be based on this consideration: that people two or three centuries from now will look back on us and say, 'Thank God they did what they did. They saved us.'

mckibben

Bill McKibben on whether 'the big brain' was a good adaptation:

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/bill-mckibben-confronting-climate-change/

population

There is essentially no political will in this country to do anything about global warming. This is true of all but a handful of other countries as well. People are simply unwilling to accept higher prices for gasoline and heating oil, and anyway, we're supposedly on the verge of becoming the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas.

I'm thinking that population regulation is the way to go on this-- particularly the idea that people shouldn't have more than two children unless they have very, very good reasons for doing so (and religious 'go-forth-and-multiply' reasons don't qualify). I think this would seem reasonable to most people, and it would result in a gradually smaller human population. After all, if the human population of this planet were what it was in 1950-- about 2 billion-- global warming wouldn't be a problem at all.