could catastrophic climate change conceivably be --- a con?

.. CO2 is faaar up - shockingly ...

  .. polar/glacier ice really is melting ...

    .. but consider; means, motive, and opportunity?

(Terminology; excess CO2-caused catastrophic climate-change = e-CO2_c**4.)

Preamble, 1: To the Q: Is it a con, my instincts scream a big, fat "No!" - but for the record, instincts are like aaar ... err, opinions (everyone has them - and often differing); sooo - better to look to the actual evidence. Also, in considering possible 'conspiracies,' we are advised to seek the *simplest* explanation (but also recalling: eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable...)

Preamble, 2: The situation is 'tail wagging dog;' i.e. various inconvenient 'facts' (researched/presented via professional scientists) are driving the (puppet?) politicians, with the (corrupt & venal) MSM along for 'the ride.' ('Facts' written within quotes due to dispute; see next.)

Preamble, 3: As usual, neither the puppet politicians nor the corrupt & venal MSM (incl. big bits of the AusBC) can be trusted to tell us the truth - in sad fact, the exact opposite most often obtains; we (the sheople/voters) are awash in a sea of consciously produced marketing, lies & outright propaganda (arch-example: no  Iraqi WMDs! - 100s of 1000s, if not 1.3mio+ dead; murder for oil) - with any truth far more often than not lonely outliers. In this case, so-called 'climate-sceptics' (aka denialists) assert that the science is either not proven - or worse, the reported 'facts' have been fiddled, fabricated - or otherwise f**ked-up.

-=*=-

Arguments: As part of 'means, motive, and opportunity,' we can consider who might win (cui bono) or lose from catastrophic climate change, in the two cases a) if we do nothing (or too little), and our ecosphere gets catastrophied, or b) if we manage to somehow scrape through and avoid it. The case c) if we do (as good as) nothing and nothing much happens to the climate, is called 'business as usual' and/or 'more of the same,' both of which imply the rich getting ever more filthily richer, and the rest, i.e. the middle class & poor all 'going down' a step or three - which would mean more and deeper into poverty; fewer to no medical services affordable. Case (c) can only happen *if* e-CO2_c**4 actually *is* a con, the headline question. Let's see...

Re-ordering on cui bono, we must ask, Q: What's in it for the tail-wagging 'pushers' (aka the pro-e-CO2_c**4 scientists)? A: Possibly fame, probably more (paid) studies, vanishingly likely 'carpets of gold,' aka riches beyond avarice. Preliminary conclusion: possible scientists' motives a bit underwhelming. (I've seen trolls suggesting that the scientists wish to see our once jewel-like planet de-industrialised. Talk about 'improbable!') Another suggestion (Abbott&Co) is that Lab's ETS is a (disguised) tax, this implies that a) Abbott *accepts* the e-CO2_c**4 threat (otherwise he'd have to *deny* e-CO2_c**4 - I don't see him doing that); b) that Lab's ETS will be effective (otherwise Abbott'd have to say so), and *only then* c) that the tax is a deplorable and avoidable side-effect - which is his position, i.e. on the way to screeching "tax!", Abbott has accepted e-CO2_c**4, and that Lab's ETS could be effective in stopping it.

IF it's a conspiracy pushed by pro-e-CO2_c**4 scientists, THEN it must be a bloody good one; apart from massive scientific solidarity (with only a small minority of denialists), it's 'hooked' the world's politicians - to the point that they feel that they have to do something - hence Kyoto, hence Copenhagen.

More cui bono, we have seen that the do-nothing case (c) could only benefit the already obscenely-rich fat-cats, but what of the denialists, like the lying trolls, say? How do they benefit - unless they're collecting 30 shekels each? (Beats me; always has.)

The biggest question of all is Q: Can the politicians save the planet?

-=*end*=-

Some evidence:

[Note: Images 'managed' by blogger are 'shrunk' to fit; this may degrade the images somewhat, so that doesn't always suit. I will provide 'picture credits' links ([pcl]); one may <r-click> and select 'Open in New Window' OR <r-click> and type the letter 'n' to open the links in new IE instances.]

1. What may well have sparked the e-CO2_c**4 thesis:

[pcl]

Upward, ever upward, the wild CO2 held its sway... so far.

2. A bit of history, with a prompt:

[pcl]

Reaching (reducing back to) 350 ppm is not a matter of choice but a necessity.

Q: Where does 3 degrees Celsius warming = 550 ppm come from?

A: Perhaps here:

  «Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature ΔTs change arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:

» Delta T_s =~ lambda~Delta F

where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and ΔF is the radiative forcing (External Link). A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.» 
[Radiative forcing ...the facts - no more, and no less]

Comment: Note that there is some discussion of setting +2°C as a limit; the 350 website asserts that to do the best possible (under the circumstances), we must back-track to <=350.

3. Similar to (2), with an addition:

[pcl,3=4]

CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years, emphasis on recent past dramatic increase - well into 'uncharted territory.'

4. The culprits:

[pcl,4=3]

Global fossil carbon emissions 1800 - 2004

5. Current trend:

[pcl]

Return to sanity required.
 

our malevolent rulers - unjust tyrants (melting ice)

.. democracy = of, by, for the people ...

  .. IF covenant broken ...

    .. THEN no right

-=*=-

(Updated, [*])

-=*=-

Preamble: The world stands at a fork in the track; one path is labelled "Save the planet," and the other "More of the same." Some (well-formed) estimates tell us that our atmosphere has already passed the 'critical CO2 content' and that destructive climate-change is actually underway. Some (milder) 'opposition' to this argument contends that the science is unclear; some (rabid) 'opposition' contends that there is no problem at all. There is incontrovertible proof that some sort of climate change is happening, namely net melting of the polar ice. The rabid response is "Not CO2!" - this in the face of measurable and significant CO2 increase. The scientific consensus is a) that CO2 is a critical greenhouse gas and b) that ever more CO2 will cause increasing greenhouse effect. The proper name for doubt-free climate-change nay-sayers is not sceptic[1] but denialist[2].

IF the polar ice continues to melt (beginnings already visible) THEN the flooding will eventually be catastrophic. Most rational observers say things like "Better safe than sorry," a paraphrasing of the precautionary principle[3].

IF atmospheric CO2 content is rising (it is) THEN the world is burning too much (fossil) carbon.

IF we wish to reduce CO2 emissions (we, or at least the EU *must*[4]) THEN the world must (soonest!) reduce coal mining and/or oil pumping.

To end the preamble, this: A working morality can be based on "Do unto others ..." with the corollary "Do no harm." IF excess-CO2 caused climate-change threatens life & limb (it does) THEN it's at least immoral and probably illegal - for doing actual harm, namely grave ecosphere disturbance leading to many people dying as a result. One of man's strongest principals is (biblical phrasing *devoid* of all religious overtones): "Thou shalt not kill!" Any killing not strictly self-defence is usually termed murder. Continuing to produce vast excesses of CO2 can now be termed murder if (when!) death results - and we, the sheople/voters may legitimately attempt to protect ourselves from such murderous attack.

-=*=-

Democracy: 'They,' those who simultaneously inform and mislead us (like the AusBC, say, either quoting criminals or actively contributing crooked content), they allege that we the (US, UK, Aus & IL) sheople live in so-called 'democracies.'

Examining 'democracy = of, by, for the people;'

Q: How are we doing?

A: Not too well:

Of implies that our candidates are 'people like us' - but basically only from the two parties likely to govern. When those two parties (in Aus, Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins) offer either no effective difference or outright bipartisanship, our choice varies between "Hobson's" (take it or leave it) and "Catch-22" (all choices yield equivalent, often undesirable, results.)

By implies that we vote - and we do. But, we are neither honestly nor fully informed (in actual fact often propagandised); it means that any vote we may make cannot be 'well-founded.'

For implies that our so-called 'representatives' actually work *for* us, as opposed to working for someone else ('big end of town,' say) - and therefore actively *against* us.

In this specific case, we the sheople/voters in Aus need protection and relief from destructive climate-change. What we do not need is for coal-extracting entities (then the consequent down-stream burning) to be allowed to further foul our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere; coal mining and oil pumping *must* be reduced.

IF we do not get protection and relief THEN our leaders will (again; recall Iraq; illegal invasion thereof) - have proven themselves both traitors[5] and tyrants[6], this time for all practical time - many scientists predict no recovery may be possible, once some critical 'tipping-point' (i.e. CO2 concentration) is passed.

-=*=-

ETS vs. tax vs. ???

In Aus, Lab had an ETS (Emissions Trading System) proposal 'on the table;' Turnbull's Libs had agreed to pass it - with their amendments. The Greens said that those Lib amendments added $Au7bio in (unwarranted) 'exceptions,' $Au5bio of which would be born directly by the sheople (that's us, we the voters.) The Greens refused to support Lab's ETS - then Abbott's rabble 'spat the dummy.' Abbott and similar misleader/deceivers started calling Lab's ETS 'a tax' - but only to scare the sheople. Current stand: No Aus ETS. Now try this:

Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails
By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM
Posted December 4, 2009 08:06:00
  «The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Then this (previously cited):

Wong not buying draft Copenhagen deal
Posted December 12, 2009 13:36:00
  «Australia is set to lose out under the draft agreement, which, if approved, will require countries to meet their greenhouse targets though action in their own country.
The Federal Government was planning on achieving its goals by paying developing countries to reduce their emissions, then including the savings against Australia's target.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Comment: "Put a sock in it!" - is one proposed modus operandi; blame and load-shifting another. Just like trying to stop bulls**t by putting a cork in it, or bribing a cow to stop f**ting. Won't work; looks very much like ETSs were a) a scam, b) an attempt to offload the problem and c) possibly proposed as a way of skimming us (we the sheople/voters) even more. No extra costs (or taxes) need be envisioned, nor even any job-losses. 'Cap and trade' simply can't work - far too much corruption, far too few honest cops. And it's attacking the problem at the arse, i.e. the wrong end.

-=*=-

Proposal: There's little practical point in complaining without suggesting some 'way out,' so here is one: stop increasing coal/oil output! All sheople currently employed in coal/oil extraction, from the source to the sink, stay where they are. As 'natural attrition' removes workers, no replacements. No new digging or drilling (possible exception, to *replace* exhausted sources). No new infrastructure, no new shipping; quite clearly at the moment, everyone is getting enough. And now, daaarlings, with the polar/glacier ice starting to melt, enough has gotta be enough - and no bloody more.

Having (easily) stopped increasing, then start decreasing. Keep decreasing - until the CO2 content of our air drops below the 'life-preserving' target (actually lower than current).

Q: "Please, Sir, may I have some more?"

A: No! (Idiot.)

Fazit: No more more!

-=*end*=-

PS Oh, yeah: stop importing people into high-carbon wasting economies - like Aus, the world's highest per capita CO2 polluter.

-=*=-

[*] Update; this *looks* hot:

Australia accused of cooking carbon books
By Gregg Borschmann for Radio National - exclusive
Posted December 14, 2009 07:00:00
  «"What's going on here is that there is a suggestion that you can use Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry and the creative accounting around that without the robust figures in place," Christine Milne said.
"And you can use that to offset your emissions reduction targets, especially in your fossil fuel sector.
"It is very clear that you need to reduce your emissions from fossil fuels and you need to sequester carbon in the landscape and you need to protect your forests as carbon stores, but that isn't happening," she continued.
"What we are seeing is attempts to be offset and quite dishonest systems so that we are going to end up with something that doesn't actually save the climate."» 
[AusBC/justin]

But be warned: « ... source told Radio National Breakfast that there were huge problems trying to account for carbon in rural landscapes.» Preliminary conclusion: *Looks* as if the Labs are trying to swindle Copenhagen'09, just as Howard swindled Kyoto. What was that about Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins? More as/when time allows.

PPS IF the climate 'goes down,' aka polar/glacier ice melts and oceans flood - THEN we'll know who to hang for it.

[End update]

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] sceptic n. (US skeptic) 1 person inclined to doubt accepted opinions. [POD]

[2] denial n. 1 denying the truth or existence of a thing. 2 refusal of a request or wish. 3 disavowal of a leader etc. [ibid.]

[3] Precautionary principle:

  «... is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action... The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation.
[4] In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.» 
[wiki/Precautionary principle]

[5] traitor n. (fem. traitress) (often foll. by to) person who is treacherous or disloyal, esp. to his or her country.  traitorous adj. [Latin traditor: related to *tradition] [POD]

[6] tyrant n. 1 oppressive or cruel ruler. 2 person exercising power arbitrarily or cruelly. [Greek turannos] [ibid.]
 

admission of *complete* failure (Copenhagen climate change conference)

.. it really does *not* ...

  .. get much worse...

    .. than this

-=*=-

Trigger article:

EU pledges billions in climate aid
Posted December 12, 2009 00:37:00
  «The money will go towards what is being called a 'fast start' fund, to help poor nations combat rising sea levels, deforestation, water shortages and their own carbon output.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Note: "rising sea levels" - what a surprise! From melting polar ice, do we suppose?

Comment; Q: If that's not an admission of total failure, then what would be?

A: The world *must* reduce fossil-carbon burning, fast, and keep reducing until CO2 in the air also starts to drop. Then *continue* reducing, until the ice stops melting, then starts to accumulate again. Clear?

 .. AND, the way to reduce fossil-carbon *burning* is ... to *reduce* mining coal, *reduce* pumping oil?

Our so-called 'representatives' = idiots. Corrupt idiots.

-=*end*=-

PS It's not 'just' the puppet-politicians who are horrendously corrupt - and not just BTW wrong, it is the sceptics (= lousy denialists) in general, and the filthily lying trolls in particular...

 .. and the AusBC, all of whom 'obfuscated,' when not outright lied.

Boo! Hiss!
 

climate wars (Abbott = null-policy zone)

.. Aus-Liberal style ...

  .. policy 'on the cheap' ...

    .. means do nothing (ice melting...)

-=*=-

In our wide-brown land of the kangaroo, the land of the local maximum (world's largest concrete sheep, say), and where the one-eyed person is incontrovertibly monarch (detested English; spit!), the AusBC has looong ago picked its horse, and that horse has now installed the 'right' jockey - and all the betting is on the sheople's dumbed-down ignorance, when not outright stupidity.

Q: How can anyone lose?

'They' say, that one shouldn't criticize the voters' choice.

Q: Why not? A: 'They' also say, that one will never go broke, by overestimating the sheople's gullibility.

-=*=-

Abbott has now 'staked out' his territory:

Abbott downplays $50b climate change bill
Posted December 7, 2009 09:19:00
  «The Coalition will reveal its new climate change policy in February, but Mr Abbott has already said will not include an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Abbott's policy is clear: Do (almost) nothing. Doesn't get much 'cheaper' than that; it's no new taxes alright (always excepting the 'never, ever' GST); no taxes at all might be 'best' for Abbott and 'his' Libs. (But: No taxes means no services. Ooops!)

Even before Abbott's 'new' policy mention:

Abbott reaps poll bounce
Posted December 7, 2009 06:46:00
  «Twenty-three per cent of those surveyed for The Australian believe new leader Tony Abbott would make a better prime minister than Kevin Rudd.
That is an increase on the 14 per cent support for deposed leader Malcolm Turnbull in the previous poll in late November.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Comment: The sheople have already approved of the Abbott coup against Turnbull - or so it would seem. The above two snips bring to mind a long-term Q: "How can the sheople choose what's Oh, so obviously bad for them?"

Well, here's a possible A:

In Search of Morale
Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?
By Bruce E. Levine
December 05, 2009 "Counterpunch"
  «Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not “set them free” but instead further demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States? Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further? What forces have created a demoralized, passive, disCouraged U.S. population?» 
[ICH/Counterpunch/Levine]

Comment: The article discusses the so-called 'world leader,' aka the USofA. Following the 'monkey see, monkey do' principle, what one sees in the US today, comes to Aus some-when 'down the track' - usually sooner rather than later. The article suggests an answer to its own Q: «Can people become so broken that ...» with the A: «YES. It is called the “abuse syndrome.”» Well, well; imagine that.

-=*=-

A 'good bit' of what Turnbull blogged:

Turnbull savages Abbott over climate 'bullshit'
By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers
Posted December 7, 2009 09:50:00
  «After ousting Mr Turnbull six days ago Mr Abbott withdrew Coalition support for an emissions trading scheme and said a Coalition policy would not involve any new taxes.
But in today's blog entry Mr Turnbull says emissions cannot be cut without a cost.
"While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy," he writes.
"So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.
"To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.
To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.
"Somebody has to pay.
"So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, 'bullshit.' Moreover he knows it.
"It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist."
Mr Turnbull goes on to describe those who backed Mr Abbott's leadership as climate change sceptics.
"As we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming.
"As Tony observed on one occasion 'climate change is crap', or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it's cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.
"The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing."
He also attacked Mr Abbott for holding contradicting views on climate change and for reneging on the deal Mr Turnbull reached with the Government to pass the ETS.
"Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it," he says.
"His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with 'Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but...'
"We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted."» 
[AusBC/justin]

Comment; Q: Is this merely 'sour grapes?' A: IMHO, no. Yes, Turnbull is 'unleashed' - but what he says has 'the ring of truth' to it. All, again, as usual and of course; IMHO.

The climate-change 'sceptics' (polite term), aka denialists (correctly-loaded term) are a) disputing peer-reviewed IPCC consensus evidence, b) attempting to discredit such via selectively quoting from material acquired by break-in/hacking, and (worst!) c) ignoring the 'precautionary' principle, all at our, we the sheople's grave peril. In order to continue 'business as usual,' here defined as digging up and burning ever-more fossil-carbon (in Aus: coal), they twist and turn - and tell whopping lies - and all the while, the ice is melting ever faster. Conspiracy theorists amongst the sceptic/denialists allege that ETS is a tax, designed to rip the sheople off, and/or the 1000s of IPCC climate scientists are actually luddites intent on de-industrialising the world. To deploy an Abbottism: "Crap!"

Fazit: One big (alleged!) difference between humans and monkeys, is that monkeys do not plan ahead at all well, even if at all. But (and this is a BLOODY-BIG but): the (neoliberal) policies of exploit now, pollute now, and (try to!) fix any problems 'down the track' could destroy our once jewel-like planet's ability to accommodate us comfortably (massive understatement!)

This makes such neoliberal policies (possibly literally) antediluvian.

Stupid troglodytes!

-=*end*=-

PS Yet another illustration of why lying to the sheople is (stupidly, criminally) wrong.

IF we wish to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,"

THEN the sheople need to be honestly and fully informed.

Q: Are Abbott's Liberals helping this 'process?'

Q: What about the AusBC?
 

appropriate punishment for liars (climate catastrophe)

.. ONCE the polar ice melts ...

  .. THEN it may be far too late ...

    .. to save our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere

-=*=-

Sufficiently aware observers of recent Aus-events could have witnessed a political coup, whereby Turnbull was replaced by Abbott as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Describing the position in such a way is itself a total travesty, as was done by the (now ex!) MP for whom the "All politicians lie!" charmer was and possibly still is most often deployed.

The coup included a PR campaign aimed at the sheople-voters and was ostensibly purposed at stopping Lab's ETS - which seems to have been accomplished, and at the same time what might be termed the hard-right faction has seized control of the Federal parliamentary Libs.

It has been pointed out that the Lab ETS was quite similar to an earlier Lib ETS, a policy taken to the last election by the same above mentioned, now ex, MP. That the Lib & Lab ETSs could almost be twins would be no surprise at all; I call the two parties the pug-ugly Lib/Lab twins, and any ETS proposed by either must pass the 'Swiss-cheese/smell' test, i.e. it must have sufficient holes in it for the big-end-of-town to drive an entire fleet of coal-mining trucks through it, and at the same time have sufficient 'playing room' such that the same big-end-of-town may get even richer by manipulating (aka 'trading') within it. (Q: Then why 'smell' test? A: Because all big-end-of-town rip-offs stink.)

Finally (for these ETSs), that neither would produce a sufficiently meaningful reduction in CO2 would also be no surprise; the only possible way of reducing climate-crippling CO2-pollution is to burn (far!) less fossil carbon, total anathema to coal extractors - and therefore sooo politically difficult (for sell-out 'representatives') that neither Lib nor Lab dare risk it. For Libs to accuse Labs of wanting an ETS as a new tax (as in 'tax and spend') surpasses (sick!) comedy. In fact a tightly regulated, escalating-scale tax is probably the best, if not only way to throttle fossil carbon extraction down below a liveable threshold. Liveable, as in allowing our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere to continue to support us. One of the loudest and most rabid anti-ETS agitators was screeching "Jobs!" - a truly delicious irony, for it is the extreme r-wing neoliberal policies which have created the jobs-crisis. Note: There won't be *many, if any* jobs, if (when!) our once-comfortable life supporting climate crashes.

-=*=-

Now, a climate intro, part 3: The sun appears vertically above points within the tropics, very low above points within the polar circle, and for long periods (polar night) "the sun is below the horizon ... from 20 hours at the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle to 179 days at the Poles." The converse is the long period of light, the midnight sun. If ice is present, it reflects most light (off into space), but any open (i.e. ice-free) water will absorb most light falling on it. This is why melting of the Arctic is taken so seriously; a positive feed-back loop may lead to runaway[1] warming.

Path of the Midnight Sun viewed from South Cape, Spitsbergen.

One need not take my word for it ... «Sea ice decline is likely to affect future temperatures in the [polar] region. Because of its light appearance, ice reflects much of the sun's radiation back into space whereas dark ocean water absorbs more of the sun's energy. As ice melts, more exposed ocean water changes the Earth's albedo, or fraction of energy reflected away from the planet. This leads to increased absorption of energy that further warms the planet in what is called ice-albedo feedback.» 
[To view animation, <r-click> link and type the letter 'n': NASA.mpg-URL]
[NASA/Loss In Arctic Sea Ice]

-=*=-

Fazit: The threat to the planet is enormous - and not just getting more dangerous; it may go beyond any possibility of reversal. Ergo, our so-called 'leaders' must now lead and not obfuscate; we need effective action. What if we don't get it - and our life-support systems get crippled? Q: Who do we blame? A: The liars, first and foremost; the super-cynical if not outright criminal climate-change sceptic/deniers.

Then Q: What should we do to them? A: String 'em up!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] runaway n. 1 fugitive. 2 bolting animal, vehicle out of control. 3 (attrib.) that is running away or out of control (runaway slave; runaway inflation). [POD]
 

El Salvador Option for Afghanistan

.. no surprises there ...

  .. except extremely bad ones

    .. for the hapless owner/occupants

-=*=-

We knew it was 99.9% guaranteed, when we heard about Ramb-O-Bama 'choosing' McChrystal.

But to eliminate all doubt, this:

US may cede authority to locals, not Karzai's army
03 Dec 2009 23:37:17 GMT
  «"A piece of the president's strategy is working with the sub-national parts of Afghanistan, working with the tribal shuras, working with the village elders, working with the district governors and leaders as well as those in the provinces," Gates told a congressional hearing.
"In fact, a good bit of this security that may come as part of this (July 2011) transition will be local security, local police, as we've seen develop in parts of Wardak province," he added, referring to an area outside the capital Kabul.
"So it won't be necessarily that we turn over security responsibility to the Afghan National Army but rather to local authorities who have... reestablished control of their own areas from the Taliban," Gates said.
The Pentagon envisages the transfer of authority in Afghanistan to follow the model in Iraq, where the U.S. military ceded control to the country's security forces and began to gradually pull out.» 
[(ICH)/alertnet]

Comment: Same general, same strategy: (a) identify corruptible local 'strong-men,' (b) recruit them onto the US' payroll, (c) send (aka 'surge') in the death-squads to eliminate any 'problem' people (i.e. local patriots).

Everyone left (estimates from 100s of 1000s up to 1.3mio dead in Iraq plus 2mio fled outright and another 2mio internally displaced); those left may then live 'happily ever after,' except that the hapless remaining inhabitants will suffer a life of eternal terror under the vicious rule of US-paid puppet-outlaw-tyrants, and the US will be free to build its Afghanistan pipelines, as they are now free to rip Iraq's oil off.

Perhaps that's what they mean by "Land of the free..."
 

right wing extremism - abandon all hope

.. "NO!" - to ETS in Aus ...

  .. "NO!" - to minarets in CH ...

    .. "NO!" - to peace by Ramb-O-Bama

-=*=-

All the same, really. Our once jewel-like planet is completely f**ked. Thanks a lot, r-wing idiots.