babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
They may have been called severe blizzards, great blizzards, etc. While "bomb" was first used in connection with northwestern Atlantic storms in the '40s, it's use in public forecasting and mainstream media is far more recent, and still mainly applies to rapidly developing storms off the east coast of North America.
Uh this was a huge, dramatic nearly explosive rainstorm, hugely fierce. It produced huge winds and rain that ripped up a cement and pavement walkway. And again, the local media is reporting that this particular type of storm has not happened here (or there in Gimli, right by the lake) previously.
Yes, it does seem unprecedented in historical times for a synoptic scale storm at Gimli, however there was a blizzard at the end of January in 1947 that buried whole towns and trains from Calgary to Winnipeg, with some roads and rail lines impassable until spring. Manitoba has seen the odd tornado, but they are on a much smaller scale.
And for more depressing news,
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=3485
I am sorry but we really, really need to get other groups, organizations to switch focus to climate justice. We need a serious ramp up
and we are nowhere near where we need to be.
And more repressing news:
http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/11/climate-spokespersons-senten...
Read, organize, fight back. Steal a drone and aim it at a coal plant.
What is it exactly that you still need to be convinced of?
The WGI (Physical Science Basis) report will be released in late 2013. Given that feedback mechanisms and ice sheet dynamics are better understood and will be included to a greater degree, all the next report will show is that the situation is even more dire now. The scientific literature already shows that.. I'm not sure you understand what the IPCC does.
I'm waiting for action on it. Apparently it hasn't been either dire enough or convincing enough to get world leaders to take it seriously. Eventually? I'm not sure you understand what the IPCC hasn't done yet (in response to your last sentence about my understanding). They haven't convinced the only people that can impact it with regard to emissions. Hopefully in 2014 they will do a better job. Convincing individuals to run their toasters less may not be enough.
No one is going to "convince" world leaders of the need for a radical reversal of current practices if they haven't been "convinced" already.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - attributed to Upton Sinclair.
Obviously not. But my point was that the IPCC doesn't do the science; the science that will go into the 2013-2014 reports is mostly done already and is in peer-reviewed litereature, and like the last report the science done after the deadline for inclusion will likely be even more dire. To say nothing about governments having influence over what the report says.
http://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/ar5
Climate change is not a technical problem. It is a social, political, and economic problem.
The scientists and engineers aren't going to solve it. Revolutionary social change is the only answer.
The impacts of climate change have been well documented and we are experiencing them already. Despite this, the fossil fuel industry has dedicated large amounts of resources to block any meaningful action that would meet the challenge. That's the nature of the economy, make all the money you can now. Or to use an episode of Dinosaurs, the industrialist responds to the thought of the world ending by saying, "that's a fourth quarter problem, we'll drop a bomb on that bridge when we come to it. Right now my biggest problem is trying to figure out what to do with all this money." These lobbyists and energy people do have children and grandchildren, but it hasn't stopped them from jeapordizing that future for profit.
They've already provided the solutions, it's just a matter of implementation.
The crisis in the auto and financial sectors hadn't resulted in any significant changes, or revolutions. It's pretty much steady-as-she-goes there. And those events proved to be little more than systems maintenance. They didn't change the nature of what we did, but simply put the train back on the track. I'm worried that the extent of our mitigations in the area of environmental damage may similarly only result in more systems maitenance. I don't trust the word mitigation anymore. The economic system owns that word now; and it's become a catch phrase for new mythology. Telling young people that Santa drives a submersible sleigh won't stop the causes of the polar melt. Mitigation won't solve the fundamental problem that M.Spector alluded to. Engineers can certainly model technical solutions, but really it's we citizens who need a kick in the pants instead of deflecting our accountability onto politicians and governments. I mean, we just finished giving the political parties in Canada the message that economy was the most important thing to Canadians. And that's not going to stop the extinction of coral reefs or ice feilds now is it? I think M.Spector was referring more to the human problem of environmental degradation.
That's where the social, political, and economic transformation is needed.
The industrial revolution certainly did.
To a large extent the media told us that message. And to some extent they're right, the problem is they're talking about the wrong economy.
That Dinosaurs episode was dead on. Too bad that show could not go on further but nobody promoted it.
The people running our systems are sociopaths; I do not think George W Bush or Barack Obama love their children but rather seem them as props. When the organizers of what is now 350.org tried to talk to Obama, he did not deny their science, just the ability of US politics to acknowledge it. That is a sociapath; I do not have children but I feel utterly sick for the children that are here now. And utterly frustrated by publications like Canadia Dimension that say we need to put climate justice at the forefront of everything in one issue and then for every other issue publish forget that is what they said.
Not sure where to put this - sorry if this is the wrong thread.
Space program's environmental cleanup could take decades
NASA spent decades to send men to the moon, launch the space shuttles and build a laboratory in space, and now it will take a century to clean up the chemical messes left behind.
Thanks for that, Boom Boom.
This sort of horrendous pollution has taken place at hundreds, if not thousands, of military installations around the globe. It's all part of the culture of impunity for environmental destruction that has permeated the militaries of "advanced" capitalist countries - and of course as a military operation NASA is no exception. Consequently, and as a result also of government secrecy provisions that conceal the extent of military pollution and GHG emissions, the military has had carte blanche to disregard environmental concerns in pursuit of their destructive objectives.
... and to be partially amended once in awhile ...
http://canadiandimension.com/blog/4066/
Indeed. Wasn't there an outcry about an American base in Canada (Goose Bay perhaps?) leaving behind napalm or Agent Orange on the base which had to be cleaned up by Canadians? I think it was in the last 20 years or so.
Agent Orange and CFB Gagetown New Brunswick. And the stuff was used, not just stored.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/09/12/agent-orang...