Climate Change: Real or Not?

Isn't Greta Thunberg just the cutest little zealot you've ever seen? Don't you just love how this 16 year old Swedish sophomore gives that intense glare and little pout as she lectures members of Congress about global warming? I half expected her to cross her arms and stomp off. But, there she is, all the way from Sweden, which is currently being destroyed by invading so-called "Migrants", chastising politicians (I refuse to call them "leaders" or "representatives" since they are neither) in Washington and at the United Nations about "climate change" complete with her very own "how dare you" sound bite (soon to appear on t-shirts everywhere no doubt). Doesn't she know that these people are literally owned by the same corporations who are busy at polluting this world of ours? Can she be really that naive?

The little sixteen year old has shown some moxie though. After all, she is facing off against Congressmen and Senators who could otherwise be busy "dialing for dollars", playing golf, or enjoying some corporate paid junket somewhere. Of course, they have gotten use to playing the part of a piñata or the "public crusader", at least while the cameras are rolling. In truth, they couldn't begin to care less as long as their corporate owners are happy.

Of course, the topic of climate change isn't new. I remember it from the early 1970's, when President Nixon signed off a variety of bills calling for reducing water and air pollution, imposing fines for littering in public parks and on highways, reducing the use of fossil fuels, ending lead gas, and recycling (including the introduction of biodegradable plastics). Who could ever forget the famous TV commercial featuring Chief Iron Eyes Cody with that single tear rolling down his cheek as someone throws a bag of garbage at this feet? We created "Earth Day" (April 22, 1970). Heck, it was even called the "Ecology Movement" and had its very own flag!

Students from elementary school all the way to high school were expected to do their part by picking up trash, reporting offenders, "adopting" stretches of highways, and, of course, writing their Congressmen and Senators, not to mention local businesses. There were even field trips out to streams to help pick up plastic bottles, papers, check the water quality content and discuss endangered native wildlife (being teenagers, the only "endangered wildlife" most of us were concerned about was our own).

I remember reading books about a pending mini-ice age, mass pandemics, and the "Population Bomb", which would trigger a mass die off since we would be unable to fed this surge in population. It all seemed pretty bleak to those of us who were trying to pay attention to all the "experts". Congressional committees were promised to "study the data". There were hearings as one scientist after another testified about our pending disaster as a species. Washington pretended to get onboard (especially during election time) as well as did various businesses, big and small; that is, until the next "crisis-de jure" came along and the all seeing eye of the media focused its attention elsewhere. I guess, when you think about it, not much has changed.

So is climate change for real? Of course it is! Otherwise, we would be living on a dead planet, which means that we would be well on our way to becoming just a part of another mass extinction event on this planet along with every other living organism. In its 4.5 billion or so year history, our planet has been everything from a "water world" to being pockmarked marked by constant meteor shows and erupting volcanoes filling the caustic air which hot ash. We've gone from being this floating ball of fire to being a frozen ball of ice countless times.

This planet has experienced approximately five global mass extinctions thanks to a host of natural disasters. The worse one was about 250 million years ago. It killed off 96% of all aquatic life and approximately 70% of all life on land. It took millions of years to recover (the last major extinction event was about 66 million years ago, which killed off the dinosaurs, not to mention much of the plant and marine life). This was due to a combination of meteor strikes, triggering dramatic climatic changes thanks in large part to volcanoes eruptions which released massive amounts of Co2 gas into the air.

It just so happens that Mankind has existed within a relatively calm window of time; where the climate has stable and enabled life on this nondescript rock to flourish. Now you can call that divine intervention or just a happy coincidence. The fact is that Mankind has been pretty lucky, at least up to now. Of course, there's been several events which have nearly wiped out Mankind over the millennia (called "bottlenecks"). Perhaps the worse was about 77,000 (which was a few days ago in geological time). This is referred to as the "Toba Super Eruption" and it took place at Lake Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia. It's effect was global and it nearly wiped all life on this planet, including us.

This enormous volcanic explosion created, essentially, a "nuclear winter", dropping the overall surface temperature by nearly 36 degrees! It dropped almost six inches of ash over the whole of Asia and threw up toxic ash which nearly blotted out the sun, killing off massive amount of vegetation, animal and sea life for close to 1000 years. Human life on the planet was reduced to an estimated 20,000 individuals; in some places it was as few as 1000 isolated people desperately trying to survive. But survive we did, and as the earth slowly recovered, so did our numbers.

So, there's no doubt that climate change does happen, often brought on by non-human events such as volcanoes, meteors, shifts in the tectonic plates which cause earthquakes and can trigger tsunamis among other things, changes in weather patterns, and even naturally occurring shifts in the planet's axis---called a "true polar wander"--- affecting the growth or decline of ice sheets at the opposing polar poles (the earth wobbles on its axis at a rate of roughly 1 degree per 1000 years). But what about now? Are we facing another mass extermination event as those like Greta Thunberg would claim?

Species have been vanishing from the earth from the get go. Over the past 100 hundred years, approximately 500 species have gone extinct. That means they're gone forever. There are currently over 3000 species on the endangered list (the Endangered Species Act was passed into law in 1973 under President Nixon). The majority simply couldn't adapt to the ever changing environment which affected their habitat. However, many have vanished as a direct or indirect result of Man, be it over hunting or deforestation, water pollution, or destruction of their ecosystem which impacted their food supply or breeding grounds.

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), says we lose some 18 million acres of forests every year (that's about the size of Panama, or to put it another way, 27 soccer field per minute per day). Much of this never replaced; just land stripped of it trees and much of its vegetation, leaving unprotected topsoil. Much is done illegally and on land belonging to indigenous tribes. According to the World Wildlife Federation, 15% of all greenhouse gas (which leads to the warming of the upper layers of the atmosphere and helps increase global temperatures) is a direct result of deforestation. As a result, trees, which absorbs up to 80% of the Co2 emitted, are eliminated from the equation (trees and other vegetation taken in the Co2 animals (including us) give off. In turn, they emit oxygen which we need to breath in a symbiotic relationship between Earth and Man). Without trees (which can store 3000 billion tons of Co2), the buildup of greenhouse gases increases, destroys the protective ozone layer which in turn causes a temperature rise (not to mention decreases the amount of breathable oxygen).

70% of the earth is covered by water. From space, we look like a big blue ball. Our bodies are comprised almost totally of water. Without water we'd die within days, and yet we have access to just over 1% of the earth's fresh water. 60% of our water comes from surface water (water not directly received from the oceans). Most comes from streams, rivers, and water stored deep in the earth. However, 80% of all ocean pollution originates from land sources; mainly waste (much of it toxic) produced by human activity.

The United States alone produces some 34 billion gallons of wastewater (which includes raw sewage) every day! As an aside, while wastewater is typically treated at various plants in and near cities and towns, the EPA estimates that 850 billion gallons still enter the water systems untreated; treatment facilities are overwhelmed. The world's largest polluter of water is, by the way, China.

The UN estimates that around 930 million of China's 1.3 billion population consume at least partly polluted water every day while 20 million ingest water that's radiated; half of the population lacks safe drinking water. 1/3 of all industrial waste and 90% of household sewage enters the waterways completely untreated. India isn't much better. 63% of household waste enters its waterways completely untreated. The result, like in China, is a massive die off of its rivers, stream, ponds, and wells used for drinking water (while India does have laws on the books to prevent its water pollution, corruption has proven to be a major problem).

Air pollution is another serious contributor to the increase in greenhouse gases, as well as health problems which affect not just human life, but animal and plant as well. 91% of the world's population live in or near to an area which exceeds the UN's minimum guidelines for air quality. According to the World Health Organization, the worst offender is China which produces 30% of world's pollution. The United States is second with 15% of world's air pollution, followed by India which contributes 7%. Russia is fourth with 5%.

Rounding out the top five is Japan which produces 4% of the world's air pollution. Despite various national laws and international agreements, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that air pollution with increase by 150% by 2050. Couple this with the growing deforestation taking place in Brazil and elsewhere, and we have a real problem. Meanwhile, the world's ruling Oligarchies, along with the governments they own, are busy undermining alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, along with other forms of transportation away from oil/gas consumption. By the way, of the top 50 most polluted cities, the majority of them are located in the China, followed by India (which has the top five worst polluted cities), Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Middle East.

Lastly, arable land; the land which is capable of growing our food. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, demand for food (especially wheat, barley, oats, and rice) has outpaced production 9 of the last 10 years. Approximately 50,000 acres are being lost annually due to overuse, erosion, changes in weather patterns (too much or not enough rain for instance), and development. Too much of what was once farmland has now become subdivisions and shopping centers. The result has been over use of the remaining land, including the increased dependence on man-made chemicals, which create their own toxicity over time. Meanwhile, erosion is occurring at 27 times the natural rate according to the USDA (to put it another way, that's a loss of 11,000 pounds of fertile topsoil per acre compared to the natural rate of 400 pounds per acre).

Globally it's even worse. Scientists have estimated that the world has lost 1/3 of its arable land over the last 40 years. Erosion, globally, is happening at a rate of 100 times the natural rate. Iceland for example is losing 38,800 acres of formerly productive land each year. 30% of available land worldwide is now used to support livestock---cattle, chicken, pigs, etc instead of crops. Meanwhile, with a global population expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050, scientists say we need to increase food production by at least 50% before then, otherwise we can expect worldwide starvation and famine.

So, is Greta Thunberg and others correct? Well, yes and no. Yes in that the earth is changing. That's not just to be expected, but to be encouraged. A planet which doesn't experience climatic and seismic change is one that is dying. What we have to hope for is that those changes occur within a small window in terms of temperature; a "Goldilocks zone" that's not too hot or too cold or we're all in big trouble. There's also no doubt that we are grossly polluting the planet, destroying its ecosystems, and exhausting its ability to support us, but that doesn't necessarily affect the climate does it? That only affects life on the planet.

However, Man's consumption of natural resources is accelerating at a faster rate than Mother Nature can replenish them, such as deforestation. This could result in an increase in greenhouse gases and eventually in a rise in the earth's temperature which potentially could cause a cascading effect. Regardless, we can expect species to vanish at an increasing rate as their habitats and food sources disappear.

Our pollution of the water and air, as well as the loss of arable farming land will make life harder to sustain for the majority of us (the wealthy will do just fine thank you). The oceans will increasingly be less and less able to support us as we overfish and kill off large areas while the polluted air will increase greenhouse gas eat away at the protective ozone layer, trigger rising temperatures, cause all sorts of lung damage and even various forms of cancers. Of course, how quickly this will occur is open to debate. Lastly, we can expect to see more and more wars over access to decreasing natural resources, especially sources of fresh water, and arable land.

In the end, we too may vanish; the result of greed and our failure to replenish Mother Earth. We need to think and act in terms of sustainability. We need to develop sustainable alternative sources of energy, food production, and transportation, not to mention restricting the development or harvesting of virgin land. If that means nationalizing certain industries (such as oil and gas) in order to encourage alternative means of energy, transportation, or restricting their pollution and redirecting their cleanup from taxpayers back to the industry sector itself then so be it. We must become better caretakers of this planet. For now, it's the only home we have. While we may need this old blue and green orb floating all alone in the vastness of the universe, the earth can and will get along quite nicely without us. Think about that.


Deforestation: Facts, Causes, and Effects
https://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

Water Pollution in China
http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat10/sub66/item391.html

50 most polluted cities in the world, ranked
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world-ranked/11/

World running out of farmland

How to Make Nations Disappear

I've always like magicians. Seriously, who doesn't? Be it clowns and card tricks or making 747's disappear. While I appreciate the illusions and the showmanship which goes into each performance, I've always found myself drawn to the act of the illusion itself. Perhaps it's the sleight of hand tricks that I enjoy the most---creating a believable situation, stating a "problem" and then presto chango, the "problem" re-manifest itself into some other form; be it a flower, coin, different card, or simply vanishes into thin

air. I think we, as spectators, are complicit in the illusion just as much as the magician. After all, we know it's a trick, yet we allow ourselves to believe by suspending our logic and reason and step, albeit briefly, into a world of make believe.

I think politics is a bit like magic too. We all see the problem. We know what our logic and reason tells us, yet, we are subtly drawn into a world of make believe by a media which manipulates the truth into something which sounds reasonable to many of us. The politicians use a verbal form of "sleight of hand" to lead us along a path where the roses have no thorns. Together, they create a world of illusion which promises one thing but delivers another while trying to convince us that it's the same as what we desire. I don't think we're to blame, at least not entirely. There's a part of us which wants to believe. We want to think that the individuals in office are looking out for us; that they have our best interests at heart, and yet, the logical portion of our brain tells us that we've just been hoodwinked in the way a magician seems to magically move coins from one pocket to another.

One of the tricks used most often by the media and politicians is misdirection. Have you ever noticed how we seem to go from crisis to crisis? We seem to always be jumping from one fire into another. The media treats each as if it's some earth shattering event given the "overkill" they devote to each; creating this feeding frenzy where they start citing each other's opinions and comments as if it's actually part of the story. Of course, there's the opposing pundits doing the same thing. Eventually, the public grows mind numbingly confused and loses interest out of frustration. Mission accomplished. But don't fret! We're soon off to the next big thing before we know it and the cycle repeats itself. Naturally, the politicians and their handlers are busy putting out their own spin. They're just as much a part of the media spin cycle as any of the talking heads.

Right now, we're being bombarded with stories about the poor refugees coming by makeshift boat or foot from war torn areas of the Middle East in search for a better and safer life (the majority are single young men not whole families). At least that's the storyline. We see pictures and video of these battered refugees confronting various military and police units who are either impeding their travels or herding them through like cattle. We are told, if the media mentions it at all, that most of these individuals are from Syria, Afghanistan and the East African nation of Eritrea. It's true that that most of the refugees are in fact coming from these areas, but many more are coming from surrounding areas not affected the hostilities. They're simply looking for an easy way out of the region.

We're also not being told that overwhelmingly these migrants are Moslem. Some are hoping to escape persecution by fellow Moslems (Sunni vs. Shiite, moderate or secular vs conservative or extremist). What we're not hearing much about are the Coptic Christians and Yazidis who are trying to get out of harm's way. These groups, along with the Kurds, are the region's most persecuted. While the media doesn't mention it, these groups are more likely to be murdered by extremists like ISIS than any of the other groups, who are at least Moslem. We also don't hear about the Christians, Yazidis, or Kurds who do make it to the refugee camps. Far from safe, they are often attacked and robbed by other refugees (who happen to be Moslem) and unfortunately, the authorities are much too busy to deal with it. Their attention is focused on being understaffed, a lack of housing, fresh water, food and ample sanitation (not to mention disease).

The media and politicians have been silent on the violence Europe is experiencing too. Since this mass exodus into places like Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, and Scandinavia, there are been several violent encounters with police over what is seen as "non-Sharia" compliance; from women's clothing to ringing church bells to food; a few Moslems have recently petitioned the Mayor of Munich and the City Council to end Oktoberfest and stop serving beer (alcoholic beverages are forbidden under Sharia law). No doubt they'll also demand that Germans stop eating pork which has been a staple of the German diet (along with beer) for centuries. German girls have been asked not to wear short skirts to school as not to "offend" the newly arrived Moslem children and their parents. Schools have been asked to remove crosses and other religious items as well. In addition, there has been outbreaks of violence between Moslems sects with centuries old hatreds, battling each other with rocks, bottles, and fists with the police seemingly powerless to combat it. Many admit they are heading for Europe because of promises of free housing, food, medical treatment, and yes, "willing blue eyed blonde women needing strong men" as one advertisement put it...I kid you not.

These are the tip of an iceberg which has collided with Europe. Not since the end of World War II has there been such a mass movement of people from one region to another, but I can take it one step further when I say that it's been since 1511, the last attempted invasion of Europe by Islam, has there been an influx of this many Moslems on European soil. At that, nearly all of Christendom had fallen under the banner of the Crescent Moon. To be fair, the chaos in the Middle East is largely the fault of the West; especially the United States. Yes, this cesspool of religious and ethnic hatred has been going on for centuries. However, it has generally remained localized. However, this time it was the blundering of Washington working hand-in-hand with corporate interests that has reopened Pandora's Box. This then is the sleight of hand orchestrated by politicians sitting in the United Nations and in the EU Parliament working hand-in-pocket with the media to portray an image that is only partially true while attempting to cover up the real truth---that Europe has been sold out.

Take a look at the US. For over 25 years we've been demanding an end to illegal immigration. We've been demanding a secure Southern border. We've been demanding an increase in border patrol agents and funding. We've been demanding stiffer penalties for employers and churches who smuggle and protect illegal immigrants. We've been demanding an increase in ICE funding and deportations. We've demanded widespread application of E-Verify. And what have we gotten for all those years? Well, we've gotten a partial amnesty courtesy of Ronald Reagan.

We've gotten lip service about building a wall and clamping down on employers of illegal immigrants. We've gotten a half hearted effort at applying E-Verify. We got a federal lawsuit against Arizona for enforcing existing federal immigration laws (and the unprecedented approval by the DOJ to allow a foreign government to interplead against a US State). We got an illegal gun deal ("Fast and Furious") perpetrated by the US Justice Department which resulted in the murders of US agents. We got so-called "sanctuary cities" which can pick and choose what federal laws to ignore, including refusal to cooperate with ICE agents. We got border patrol agents who were told to "stand down" and not do their jobs, resulting in agents being killed. We got states having to pick up the financial tab for medical treatment of illegals, of providing translators for schools and taxpayer based services. We got the re-introduction of long eradicated diseases. We got an increase in drug gangs and cartels. We got an end to deportations short of violent criminals (who simply re-enter a few days later). We got in-state tuition rates for illegals going to school (plus access to grants, housing, and taxpayer subsidized loans). Of course, we also got funerals as several---mostly women---were murdered not to mention other violent crimes.

You may also note that in nearly every instance when public outrage reached the boiling point, "something" always happened to divert the public's attention away. The greater the outrage, the longer the media focused on whatever that something was. Sometimes is was domestic like the economy and at other times its some manufactured "crisis" overseas. This is in essence the same diversion used by magicians in their sleight of hand acts; get the people to look somewhere else while hiding what you don't want them to see.

So who gains from this? Well, domestically, employers gain the most. They get individuals who are willing to work hard for sub-standard pay and little chance they'll complain. Employers can avoid taxes and having to offer benefits. There's no chance of unionization. Working conditions aren't a concern and neither are other niceties such as mandatory restroom or hourly breaks, limitation of hours, vacations, or even lunch breaks. In short, employees are barely a step up from slaves. Churches and other groups benefit by expanding their level of influence over the illegal immigrants (and perhaps a financial kickback down the road). In addition, these institutions benefit by making broader connections with those who'll partner with them in breaking the law through housing, medical treatment, and employment. Even in the case of legal immigration, employers expect to pay lower wages with few if any benefits. This influx of potential employees drives down wages as competition for jobs increase. Meanwhile, higher paying jobs are outsourced to lower paying companies overseas. Unions support amnesty for illegal immigration in the hopes they will fill the mostly lower paying jobs and fill empty union coffers. Plus the increase in union membership will, hopefully, restore at least a measure of organized labor's former clout.

Lastly, the foreign countries benefit. Most are struggling economically; limited to primarily an agricultural base, few ever developed a middle class thanks to a combination of limited education, a repressive Church hierarchy which discouraged economic self-improvement, and an upper class which controls the levers of power. Women are largely considered to be second class citizens, whose primary purpose is to marry, have children, and stay home. Many are "discouraged" from even voting. Of course, there's always the military and police which serve as enforcers of the status quo. Whenever there's been an attempt to reverse the trend, it's often brutally put down. On those rare occasions when a "Man of the People" has succeeded, they've been ousted by a coup and a military junta installed (mostly with the active support of the US Government coupled with sweetheart deals for a select few corporations). Such has been "democracy" corporate style!

As for Europe, I don't see who benefits from the overthrow of centuries of culture and tradition while disrupting the economies. Perhaps surrendering Europe is the price the West has to pay for access to oil, yet oil is available elsewhere. Perhaps subjugation of Europeans is better than a nuclear war; better a few hundred thousand die than millions and collapse the economies of the world. Certainly an eventual world war would eliminate what the elites call an "excess" global population given the decline in available fresh drinking water and high yield farm land. Not to mention a weakening of the West's resolve, declining population, and strong political leadership. Maybe too this is payback for the intervention of Western (mostly US) military forces at the behest of corporations into the Middle East to seize direct control of the oil fields and shipping lanes, not to mention expanding access to markets.

There's no doubt that the US is in decline as well. It lacks the full support of most countries, including former and current allies who note that the US has been unable to match its actions with its promises. American political leadership has become something between a global joke and a global embarrassment. The American People are fed up with Washington and the rumblings of fundamental change are growing ever louder. The economy has deep fissures and the crisis with illegal immigration is making them worse. Russia and China, on the other hand, have showed a willingness to step up and fill the gap being left by the US. Neither have any patience with Moslem extremists and have shown they are more than willing to use the same level of brutality. Perhaps that's what it will take. Imagine the irony of our Cold War arch-enemy Russia coming not just to the rescue of the West, but to ours as well. Talk about your sleight of hand. That would be the slickest trick of them all.