Radical Acceptance of the Human Predicament
How will climate change and destruction of the natural world affect the future? No one knows for sure but most-likely outcomes don’t look very good unless we do something radically different from what’s being done now.
Scientists can be pretty bad at communicating to the public about the state of the planet. In retrospect, our focus on carbon dioxide (CO2) was a messaging disaster. It confused the public and opened the door for deniers to change the subject from global heating to whether or not CO2 was its cause.
It was also a mistake to use terms like “global warming” and “climate change.” These bland expressions suggested that the future was manageable if we just made a few small adjustments.
The emphasis all along should have been on temperature, the heating of the planet.
The planet is getting too hot for humans and most other species to flourish. Mean global temperature is at the highest level in at least the last 11,000 years (Figure 1).
Temperatures during Medieval Warm Period have been misrepresented. Source: Marcott et al (2013), Berkeley Earth & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
The data in Figure 1 is from one of the most thorough and comprehensively integrated studies in all of climate science.
A more recent paper showed that present global temperatures are the highest in at least the last 24,000 years.
“We show that the magnitude and rate warming over the last 100 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes over the last 24,000 years.”
Matt Osman
This is science. Others look to irrelevant arguments or excuses so they don’t have to think about those unpleasant outcomes.
What about the Medieval Warm Period? It was real but temperatures were lower than levels over the last 150 years. The idea that temperatures were hotter than today in the Middle Ages is based on bad science that has been discredited as academically dishonest misinformation.
People continue to make ridiculous arguments that a hotter planet is actually a good thing—that agriculture in cold areas will be possible or that the negative effects of climate change are minimal.
Alex Epstein has proclaimed that global heating is “mild and manageable” and that its threats are greatly exaggerated. Data, however, indicates that he is wrong.
“Climate change is generating increasing and more certain risks and impacts…Demonstrating just how evident these impacts already are, the U.S. suffered billion-dollar climate catastrophes 28 times in 2023, the highest number of disasters ever in a calendar year, as shown in Figure 2 below.”
GARI (Global Adaptation & Resilience Investment Working Group)
A stable climate is requisite for successful agriculture. The fact that some colder areas will become warmer and theoretically prone to higher crop yields than at present becomes irrelevant if weather is too unstable to support commercial farming.
David Barker wrote in The Wall Street Journal this week that alarm about climate change is based on “bad science.”
“Economic growth, compounding year after year, can far outstrip the effects of climate. But to inflict their agenda, climate alarmists need to show that warming will reduce economic growth.”
David Barker
I’d encourage him to take figures 1 and 2 from this post to any Las Vegas book maker and ask what odds he’d pay that Barker is right.
Society is in a terrible predicament. Not only is the planet getting too hot for human civilization to flourish but over-consumption of all energy is destroying earth’s ecosystem—the true basis of wealth that forms the foundation for human prosperity.
Well-intentioned people look for solutions. Populist con-artists profit by telling people there is nothing to worry about, and that climate change is either a hoax or will actually make things better for the planet.
I’d like to tell people that renewable energy is part of a solution but I fear that substituting renewable for fossil energy will make that problem even worse. It will enable continued growth of the human enterprise which is unfortunately the primary source of our predicament. Climate change is but one of growth’s many serious consequences.
If some brand me as an alarmist for pointing out the obvious, maybe that tells us all we need to know about those people—they can’t handle the truth.
Figure 1 alarms the hell out of me and should alarm any sane and reasonable person. The planet is 20% hotter than the average temperature since before agriculture began, and I see no relief in sight unless something very different happens going forward.
We are well beyond a soft landing for the planet. There are no moderate pathways ahead. The only move we have left is radical acceptance of our situation, of the human predicament.
“What is Radical Acceptance? It’s when you stop fighting reality, stop throwing tantrums because reality is not the way you want it…Rejecting reality does not change reality…Acceptance may lead to sadness, but deep calmness usually follows. The path out of hell is through misery. By refusing to accept the misery that is part of climbing out of hell, you fall back into hell.”
Marsha Linehan on Radical Acceptance
Solutions are impossible until we understand and accept what we’re up against. Let’s start there. Right now.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
Art, thanks for your brutally frank assessments and insights. I expect they are dead, on, and yet, given human tendencies, I don’t expect any meaningful changes. It seems as though there’s a law out there that “any viable energy resource will be remorselessly exploited until it is no longer viable.”
Circling back on a previous Limits to Growth comment, I expect the best we can hope for is that some of the elements of the “polycrises” undo other elements (i.e. a drop in the overall industrial production destabilizes ephiphenomenal financialized arranagments, which promotes people to occupy the land differently (more locally), etc.) Either way, it seems we are in a sort of “thermodynamic determinism” situation, and, as aforementioned, I don’t think we can rely on humans to change their behavior en masse, unfortunately. Prospects seem grim, and a hard landing seems inevitable.
Take care.
Pete,
My objective is not to change public policy or human behavior. I am not powerful or important enough. My intent is to provide objective information for those who search for something more useful than what is available in the mainstream or the grift echo chamber.
All the best,
Art
Mr. Berman correctly states, “. . . over-consumption of all energy is destroying earth’s ecosystem—the true basis of wealth that forms the foundation for human prosperity.”
Humanity’s relentless ruination of Earth displays an imbecilic refutation of the self-evident truth Mr. Berman conveyed. Humanity is flaming-out, both literally and metaphorically.
Hubris doomed the experiment of humanity’s evolution. By ignoring the wisdom of classical Greece, humanity’s hubris guarantees its ruination.
Hubris is defined as excessive arrogance. The word is derived from classical Greek. In the context of Greek history, hubris is pride in defiance of nature or the Gods. Ancient Greek tragedies placed a strong emphasis on teaching about the dangers of hubris. When one presumes to be able to outsmart nature, disaster follows.
Humanity’s deplorable ignorance regarding the unprecedented, self-created catastrophe of climate change is inexcusable.
Science is a great intellectual achievement. More than 35 years have elapsed since Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress. The NY Times article regarding his testimony, published on 24 June 1988, is illuminating. The title of this article is “Global warming has begun, expert tells Senate.”
The NY Times article includes these passages:
. . . higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected
global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist
reported today.
. . . today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was
99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural
variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and
other artificial gases in the atmosphere.
If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans,
by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered
the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth
for centuries to come.
Dr. Woodwell, and other members of the panel, testified that
planning must begin now for a sharp reduction in the burning
of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide.
Because trees absorb and store carbon dioxide, he also proposed
an end to the current rapid clearing of forests in many parts of
the world and ”a vigorous program of reforestation.”
As the above quotations from the NY Times article show, clear notice was given to the government and public in 1988 that greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation are the primary causes of climate change. During the intervening years between Dr. Hansen’s testimony and the present, thousands of newspaper articles have been published depicting the ever-increasing global destruction of nature by steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Habitat destruction, gross overpopulation and population exacerbated the horrendous, unprecedented global destruction of nature.
Subsequent to the 1988 testimony of climate scientists, a vast amount of irrefutable scientific evidence supports the colossal, globally unprecedented ruination of Earth being caused by gargantuan emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation. Species extinction, habitat destruction, gross overpopulation and pollution greatly exacerbate the catastrophic ruination of Earth.
For over 35 years humanity’s persistent refusal to heed science has caused, and continues to cause, unprecedented global environmental ruination. By wantonly destroying nature, humanity is also destroying itself. Ironically, humanity’s imbecilic, persistent rejection of science, one of its greatest achievements, assures its own downfall.
Last year the average global average temperature was 1.5C. This is the threshold set by the Paris COP; a temperature threshold believed to be the highest humanity should strive to maintain. Breaching this threshold will take additional years of 1.5C average global temperatures. That this threshold will be breached is a virtual certainty. Human imbecility in concert with human depravity guarantee greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase.
Nature is a magnificent, incredibly complex work of living art. Humanity has destroyed the equivalent of the Louvre, the Uffizi Gallery and the Prado art museum. Destruction of all the remaining world-class art museums is virtually guaranteed. Only a species which is spiritually dead is capable of such incomparable depravity.
John,
I’m not sure if this is a comment or a lecture. Perhaps you should start a website and post this kind of thing there.
Art
Art’s “Figure 1” is a product of measurements obtained from sensors that were once in rural locations and are now embedded in vast heat generating and trapping structures such as cities and airfields. The $6 trillion a year climate industry (source: PCW) then arbitrarily adjusts that contaminated data to confect its hockey stick. And you can observe them discuss their distortion methods (“tricks”, in their language) in their scandalous, leaked emails. Meanwhile, if sustaining your argument requires you to label Nobel Laureate physicists as “populist con-artists”, you know you’re in trouble. All the best.
Richard,
Show me a better chart. You can’t so is the right answer to simply reject the best data that we have?
Global mean temperature is what it implies. If you look for the local temperature on your phone or on TV, it will be different that the true temperature at your location. Does that stop you from consulting the TV weather or your phone? Of course not.
I don’t know how much you deal with data. I deal with it every day and I promise you there are always reasons to discount it. The alternative is to wing it like we did before weather forecasts. If a hurricane comes, it must be God’s will, right?
Good luck with your efforts to ignore data,
Art
Art,
Thank you for your work!
Sea level rise is also accelerating. When Manhattan is submerged we’ll have acceptance.
Degrowth will come by catastrophe, sadly.
Greetings from Germany.
Uli
Uli,
There will never be acceptance IMO. People will always find some reason not to acknowledge reality. That’s not meant to be a cynical statement–merely an empirical observation.
All the best,
Art
Are,
Am I noticing that your state of concern has led you to use the construct XX percent hotter, rather than XX degrees (K, C, F) warmer? 11 degrees C 20 percent warmer than 9 degrees C.
Percent seems a strange descriptor for temperature, except perhaps for K, but I am no physicist as should be clear.
Sadly, for me, I agree with all you are saying.
And I wonder if you would address my question, above?
In any case, it is fascinating to observe the various ways in which observational data can be ignored or rationalized.
Thanks for you work and usual clear expression,
Marc
Thanks for your comments and question, Marc.
I used percent because most people have no idea what a base line for temperature means.
World temperature is 20% more than the Holocene average. If my body temperature is 7% higher than human average, I’m dead. Maybe that’s too abstract for the average person too.
All the best,
Art
To say that “World temperature is 20% more than the Holocene average” is moronic because the percent increase is totally dependent on the scale used. Would you claim that a 1 deg C is a 1000% increase over 0.1 deg C?
Celsius: 9 deg C / 11 deg C = 22%
Fahrenheit: 48.2 deg F / 51.8 = 7.5%
Probably the only legitimate scale is Kelvin: 282.15 deg K / 284.15 deg K = 0.7%
Jim,
The scale of the chart and my post is °C as stated.
The global average temperature for the last 11,000 years is 8.96°C. It is now 10.75°C. That’s an increase of 22%.
Nothing moronic or mysterious about that.
Art
My comment demonstrates that percentage change in temperature is a function of the scale chosen because the percent change differs greatly depending on the scale (C, F, K) you choose (22% to 0.7% with the same raw data). Surely with your background you understand this obvious truth. If not give back your scientist card.
More importantly, you’re comparing a low-resolution poorly sampled proxy data to high-resolution far better sampled direct measurements. That (as is percent temperature) is apples-to-oranges scientific malpractice. I refer to it as the “Swiftian Fallacy” just as Swift demonstrated when he compared Gulliver’s crater-like pores” (direct measurement of the recent) to the “fair-complected Lilliputians” (proxied past). If you don’t comprehend this, consider that “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.” because when you look down around your feet you can see all the bare patches. When you look across the field, the angle/perspective doesn’t allow you to see (resolve) these patches. The same is true about climate. We can measure with precision to the second all the current and recent extreme highs and lows and variation, but we are not able to see these with anywhere near the same resolution in the past. This leads many to believe that the present is chaotic, and the past was pristine and smooth/gradual even if it was even more wildly variable in reality.
In this way, the red line in figure 1 is no more valid than splicing a snippet of well log onto a low frequency seismic trace.
Jim,
You can make all of the arguments about temperature data that you like but those apply to all the data that I work with whether about weather, oil supply and demand, oil and gas production volumes, etc.
Data is data and has many imperfections. If you expect perfect data, we can return to the dark ages of just dealing with things when they happen without the benefit of understanding the state of things.
Art
By the way, Jim.
Any more comments about me being moronic, will get you blocked. I offer a service for free. You don’t have to agree with me but you should show more respect.
You are pointing out things about data that I know at least as well as you do. Pontificate elsewhere.
Art
hello Art
I am a sceptical retired Chartered Geologist and hydrogeologist. To form an opinion facts are necessary – we can all agree on that!
The problem is that certain factions ignore some facts, dispute others and promote those which confirm their prejudices; and It seems also that some create ‘facts’ to suit their situation. In this context what is your reaction to ‘Climate Change: The Movie’ ? You quote Colonel Jessup’s jibe to the Court – is it true, I question, that the CO2 in limestones, and there is lots of it, once resided in the atmosphere of our planet ? How do we handle the answer?
Best regards
Jim,
Just focus on Figure 1. Show it to people who argue against climate change.
Everything else is noise. The limestone story is absurd.
Psychology is the answer.
All the best,
Art
Interesting article, as always, but this one IMHO is completely off the rails. You sound like Chicken Little….
An interesting watch for a more reasoned perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI&t=848s
Robert,
You cannot change the subject on Figure 1.
Deny the facts but facts don’t lie. You can call them names (off the rails) but they are what they are.
Art
But why is the subjective experience of humans not congruent with that graph? In my location, the weather is not warmer than 50 years ago. In fact it’s colder, more snow, more rain, less sunshine (temperate NW). I don’t know anyone who is personally experiencing a hotter local climate.
Karlan,
Figure 1 is real. Data doesn’t lie. Impressions are only impressions.
It was 45°C yesterday in Mali and 32°C in Spain. This is April, not August.
I suggest you work on having an open mind about reality instead of trying to make it the way you like.
All the best,
Art
Hi Art,
I generally agree with the “Overshoot” hypothesis and have so since the sixties. I hear you talk about the return to a standard of living in the U.S. that will be more like that of when we were growing up in the fifties. Still, we had much cheap energy then and life was pretty darn good. Could you take a bit of a dive though into the real future that we might expect after a radical downsizing of the human enterprise. I don’t think your fifties scenario comes close in my opinion. Also, perhaps there are some possible solutions that you are holding back?
Thanks for telling the truth.
Scott
Scott
Scott,
There are no solutions–just outcomes. Buckle up.
All the best,
Art
I certainly share the view that you are no alarmist, Art. More and more in your writing I can see that you’ve come to grips with and explicated critically important perspectives. Thank you. Latency in GHG conversion to heating and from that to the growing social impacts including in the energy market & destruction caused by weather is a difficult concept to communicate. Likewise the longer the delay in addressing the matter, the worse the predicament becomes as a function of that core concept to GHG heating. For those that are still being acquainted with the predicament you identify, among many other credible resources available , check out Professor Tim Lenton’s recent YouTube interview on the Circular Metabolism Podcast. The summer of 2024 may indeed be one of the ‘social’ tipping point spoken about by Dr. Lenton. That is, one in which everything after will be dramatically different from our actions and approach prior to that point. I look forward to your writing as the year progresses.
Art, please view Climate the Movie (https://rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html); these scientists have been stating for well more than a decade that urban population (and thus concrete) has grown around temperature monitoring stations. Moving away from these urban monitoring stations have a very notable temperature deviation. Also, CO2 always follows global temperature rise – it does not precede it. The earth has historically experienced vastly higher concentrations of CO2 prior to the industrial periods. This report of yours is just not a well rounded presentation of ALL the data available, and fails to cover those areas where data has been undoubtedly manipulated in order to support a prescribed outcome. Notable scientists you should LISTEN to are: John Christy, Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville, Richard Lindzen, MIT, Dr. William Happer, Columbia Univ / Princeton and many others. As the oceans warm they emit CO2 and vice versa when they contract, and mankind is not controlling natural oceanic warming and cooling. There are many other contributors from the planet to CO2 concentrations, and if mankind limited his comparatively minimal CO2 contributions to near zero, the earth would still experience a rise in CO2 levels. Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to you that universities have a vested interest in producing an outcome that the climate is an existential threat.
Brad,
Do you honestly think that you’re showing me something that I didn’t know about? Are you an energy expert?
You can’t change the subject on Figure 1. If your body temperature were 20% higher than normal, you’d be dead. Earth’s temperature is 20% higher than its 11,000 year average.
Get it?
Art
I’ve followed and appreciated Art’s work on the oil markets for many years – his thinking is a valuable resource. By contrast, the work on climate – an interest of my own for decades – seems remarkably narrow and limited. For a broader perspective on recent thinking in the area you might reflect on two recent books: (1) “Unsettled” by Obama’s former science adviser, Steve Koonin; and (2) “Climate Uncertainty and Risk” by Judith Curry.
Competent reviews of the science, without the political advocacy and ad hominem distractions that mar so much of the field.
Pwelder,
Steve Kooning is a climate grifter. See my post on his book and why it’s wrong.
https://www.artberman.com/blog/steven-koonins-unsettled-much-to-like-and-to-dislike/
All the best,
Art
Art,
You have been brilliantly connecting the dots since I met you. And this piece is the best ever. Keep going over space and time horizons to help people grasp the future. When it is clear and bad enough maybe they won’t bring any more kids into this world to live through the contraction. Here is a 9 min video I made from what I learned from you.
Civilization’s: “Running out of gas” story.
youtu.be/b5z5R6xqEG0
Keep writing and speaking I will keep making videos.
Thank you,
Jack Alpert http://www.skil.org
Thanks Jack.
All the best,
Art
In retrospect, doubt any approach would have a different reaction from the human presence. When I was born in circa 1960 there were about 3 billion people, today over 8 billion; all because of fossil fuels making it possible as the prime driving force.
Unfortunately, curbing it’s consumption will revert the numbers. Doubt there are solutions now, but outcomes.
Thank you, Mr. Berman, for addressing this critical topic and the dire consequences of our modern conveniences and lifestyles.
You mentioned it is just a pimple in the scope of History in another discussion. I agree and must admit was lucky to have lived during it. Thank you
VPK,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
All the best,
Art
The balance of humanity by now knows deep down that the insatiable drive for consumption (closely aligned with perceived pleasure and social status) is not sustainable, and yet with each passing day, votes for consumption. This is humankind’s choice.
Christian,
Whatever the causes, these are the facts. I’m not a great fan of causality. I like observable reality.
All the best,
Art
Essentially… to many rats in the cage causing a stressed capitalist economic model.
John,
I don’t think it has much to do with capitalism. It’s just human behavior.
All the best,
Art
Hi Art,
Hope you’re well, Mark Lewis here, it’s been a while. I think the last time we met was at the ASPO conference in Austin in December 2012 when i was at Deutsche Bank.
In any case, have recently been drawn back to your excellent work and this piece is not only a great piece of analysis but also exegesis — drawing out the conclusions to seek the much broader underlying meaning.
We certainly are spiralling out of control fast, and the worst is that the warming is accelerating. But our governance and business structures are simply not equipped to deal with this problem, which combines the tragedy of the commons with the tragedy of the horizon.
Best,
Mark
It is good to hear from you Mark.
Sadly, I agree with your comments.
All the best,
Art
Thanks, Art; and by the way, I loved your exhortation to David Barker to take his chances with Figures 1 & 2 in Vegas.
Mark,
David Barker is in the finest tradition of Neo-classical economists like William Nordhaus who don’t believe that climate change will affect agriculture. Amazing.
Art
1970’s: New Ice Age coming. TIME Magazine cover story.
1980’s: Acid Rain will destroy the earth in one decade.
1990’s: Global Warming, oceans will flood Coast. Mr. Obama, Mr. Gore, Mr. Gates purchase Ocean front property.
2000’s: Climate Change. Great strategy as the global climate has always been under change.
2010: Plant Food (CO2) will kill us. We’ll have more & better & faster growing trees, but somehow we’ll all perish.
2020’s: Cow facts & farmers are killing us.
Climate Gate: Cleary demonstrated the ‘Science’ behind the Science of Climate Drama. All designed to control food & energy. I.e. world population.
Only the remedial Science ignorant buy this bilge. And, yes, I’m well studied in scientific study design. Garbage data in =’s Your Narative being ‘proven.’ I.e. 90% of ‘scientists’ agree with the organizations that fund their research! Period.
Art, how much did they pay you?
David,
No one pays me. I have a policy not to waste time with reality-blind people.
Art
Good one, Art! If the price of both fossil energy and renewable energy is high for a sustained period, we might somehow manage a hard landing as the human enterprise will start scaling down. The biggest risk is of course runaway climate change, which will cause a crash.
Archith,
I disagree that climate change is our greatest risk. Nuclear war/geopolitical risk, financial collapse, AI and ecological destruction are much great short-term risks.
All the best,
Art
You are so unique, Mr. Berman. As for being an alarmist, there’s none more so than Sam Carana, author of the Arctic blog, who has claimed for a decade that the assumption that warming will proceed at it’s present rate is unfounded. Why? Methane and the other heat-trapping gases that are completely ignored (although I agree with you that biosphere destruction is the bigger threat). We are now in the timeframe during which Mr. Carana predicted that temperatures would no longer increase in a linear fashion but would become exponential. This theory seems to be getting borne out by the acceleration of not only CO2, but methane (which @ its current level of ~ 2000ppb, with an atmospheric hydrolization rate in the atmosphere of 10 years means, methinks, a 2ppm additional CO2 gets added from its breakdown, and lo, here we are @ 10-15 years into the fracturing of the earth’s crust on a continental scale, and the CO2 numbers are spiking so much that even the AP published an article pointing it out (NOAA has been publishing “data not available” for months now, posting readings sporadically, at best … today’s 426.71 was the 1’st in a week).
https://apnews.com/article/carbon-dioxide-methane-global-warming-climate-change-94424de6b22f1f734b1afd6bce8489b2
You might like this compendium of articles: https://climateandeconomy.com/
Thank you so much for sharing your work and insights. Who knew the truth could be so radical?
Thanks for your comments, Robert.
Methane is not ignored by my network and I hear plenty about it in the news that I read. I still maintain that the messaging about greenhouse gases was a mistake. It’s too abstract for the public. Heating is the first order effect.
All the best,
Art
I certainly share the view that you are no alarmist, Art. More and more in your writing I can see that you’ve come to grips with and explicated critically important perspectives. Thank you. I’ll be short. A distributed energy resources approach is our only option. That odds maker can bet 100% that ‘we’ will do so like it or not. That is, those that are able to will implement one or the society will be forced to do so as best it can if it can still be carried out systematically. The ‘luxury’ and ‘magical thinking’ of ‘all the above’ and ‘electrify everything’, believing there are a 100 options about this will soon come to an abrupt end (if we are lucky and delusions abate rapidly along a growing scarcity of amenities). Whether a ‘proper’ perspective will have been in time, we will likely know very soon. My company is part of a developing industry building foundation for the future, we’ll continue to faithfully do so. Finally for one of your central concerns, carbon free and carbon ‘in process’ DERs, local use cases have the intrinsic advantage of reducing the use of energy overall, forcing at the outset individual and groups to leave their ‘energy blindness’ for a sober assessment -‘invisible hand’ reduction-of our uses and use of energy…believe it or not, like it or not, no legislation or ‘guilt trip’ necessary. Best wishes to all.
Thank you for this critical baseline position. We have to start from the difficult truths you stand by. From here, we need to work through a new paradigm, in the sense used by Thomas Kuhn. I can’t help but think that Kuhn’s ‘anomalies’, or evidence that our current trajectory based on our current paradigm is wrong – are everywhere – and we will do anything to avoid seeing them or explain them away. Nate Hagens appears to be canvassing for elements of a new paradigm. We desperately need one, unadulterated by magical thinking, to guide collective responses to our predicament. It’s a heavy lift. Thank you again for your efforts.
I agree, George. At the same time, none of those good intentions will accomplish much without promoting psychology far up the ladder of necessary human knowledge. Without that, we’re still re-arranging the same deck chairs while steering toward the same icebergs.
All the best,
Art
The maladaptive behavioral crisis that drove overshoot is at the root of all of this. Our systemic devaluation of true ecological wealth versus the carbon pulse’s world-devouring industrial plunder machine. My hope is that initiatives like John Liu’s Commonland eco-restoration camps continue to grow exponentially (over 60 so far) and we collectively move to regreening, rewilding and repairing the Earth en-masse.
https://youtu.be/TYHVQssoDEs
Chris,
I agree but have little expectation that there will be any meaningful action.
All the best,
Art
1970’s: New Ice Age coming. TIME Magazine cover story.
1980’s: Acid Rain will destroy the earth in one decade.
1990’s: Global Warming, oceans will flood Coast. Mr. Obama, Mr. Gore, Mr. Gates purchase Ocean front property.
2000’s: Climate Change. Great strategy as the global climate has always been under change.
2010: Plant Food (CO2) will kill us. We’ll have more & better & faster growing trees, but somehow we’ll all perish.
2020’s: Cow facts & farmers are killing us.
Climate Gate: Cleary demonstrated the ‘Science’ behind the Science of Climate Drama. All designed to control food & energy. I.e. world population.
Only the remedial Science ignorant buy this bilge. And, yes, I’m well studied in scientific study design. Garbage data in =’s Your Narative being ‘proven.’ I.e. 90% of ‘scientists’ agree with the organizations that fund their research! Period.
Orion,
You cannot change the subject and cite headlines from ???? to ignore the data in Figure 1.
If your body temperature were 20% higher than normal, you’d be dead. Earth’s temperature is 20% higher than its 11,000 year average.
Get it?
Art