Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

Th number of innovations required to deal with global warming staggers the imagination. New technologies for creating & delivering electricity thru wind power and solar cells; designing, building and servicing jobs for converting all automobiles to non-fossil fuels. Plus, consider all the employment opportunities affecting our society due to these major technological changes. It makes far more sense to pursue these opportunities in changing & upgrading wind and solar power and non-fossil fueled automobiles than to try & preserve outdated fossil fueled technologies that are harmful to the planet and all biological life.

 

Like most Democratic Socialists in America, I'm not a Marxist. Marxism is far too extreme and has always resulted in tyrannical governments wherever it's been tried. I'm not familiar with Alikyism. Sorry. My aim or goal is NOT to divide Americans, but to remind them that our strength as a nation is our unity, and that we have far more common ground to share together than issues to divide us.

 

Correction ... not required.

 

The number of people it would take to break all those windows, make the new glass and then install it staggers the imagination. Think how many jobs that would create?

The free market most efficiently distributes the capital, Even with the government subsidies these "innovations" have not proven to be the huge boost to the economy as was claimed.

 

Who would have ever thought that the stage the phone booth would enter would be the automobile?

 

"The goal of socialism is communism."
Vladimir Lenin

I found it really strange back in 2008/2009 so many on the left never heard of Saul Alinsky while community organizers and union organizers, law enforcement and conservatives knew who Saul Alinsky was and what Alinskyism was.

In 2009 Bill Maher didn't know who Saul Alinsky was and learned who he was from conservatives and Fox News !!!

Alinskyism isn't a political ideology but a tactic usually employed by union organizers and leftist community organizers like Barack Obama.

Barack Obama never personally knew Saul Alinsky but was a student of Alinskyism.

Hillary Rodham Clinton actually knew Saul Alinsky, corresponded with Saul Alinsky and studied Alinskyism but never really adopted Alinskyism but went with the "New Left."

The Hillary Letters







https://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/

 

Given I have appraised buildings in Berkeley in my past, had family live there in the past and am in the Bay Area for most of my life, I used google maps to find the place she lived.

Frankly the building is very old.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/2...725791dd88691!8m2!3d37.8619048!4d-122.2543009

 

So that's where the snake lived in 1971.

Interesting, not to far from "The Peoples Park."

 

Two/three blocks is all. My appraisal work was always west of where she lived. Some south west, some due west and some north west. I glanced at the windows to try to date the property and of course noted 1 car garages. We know it was past say 1920 and prior to WW2 when built. The interiors of those structures had a lot of internal depreciation. Tiny closets were common. Poor kitchens too. She was not then living the glamorous life.

I appraised a home in Berkeley that the female Architect Julia Morgan designed. She designed for her era and not today's era. I found much to admire though and the appraisal was one of the more difficult to do.

 

It is not a matter of chance that the only ilk that remains in denial of anthropogenic climate change is an isolated, ideologically-hidebound creed.

Beyond that band of incorrigible dogmatists, the global community's observational skills support a commonsense conclusion validated by the empirical data that results in a scientific consensus: Spewing an unprecedented millions of tonnes of industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the past couple of centuries has had and will continue to have an impact upon the atmosphere.

Climate change denial is not a scientific theory; it is a symptom of ideology, and its victims share that common etiology. A climate change denier can be diagnosed by quizzing him about politics, not climatology.

 

Since I'm not familiar with Mr. Alinsky, I can't comment on him or his followers. But as a Democratic Socialist in the same vein as Bernie Sanders, I can say with no doubt whatsoever, there are many socialists in this world who abhor Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Communism in its entirety. While I don't personally "hate" anyone, I can comfortably say, I am in total disagreement with Marx & Lenin in that "the goal of Socialism is Communism." No. No. No. No. No. Absolutely untrue. Not for me. Not for most Socialists around the world. As Socialists, we want a more democratic, less financially disparate society where we reside. We DON'T want Communism--not at all. As to your quote above. . .Lenin was wrong.

 

I put forth a lot of science on climate and by golly Democrats keep attacking me. They attack science.

My problem for you guys seems to be that I am not alarmed that earth warmed 1 degree in 140 years. A degree change happens daily. So why worry?

 

First, let me admit, though I have a degree in Geography, I'm no climatologist. But I have two comments on your 1 degree in last century post. First, look at the impact around you that that 1 degree temperature change has made. In the past decade, at least eight years have broken all records for high temperatures during Summer for the entire globe. Consider the fact that it was the first time world temperature records have been broken 8 times in a single decade since climate records have been kept. Second, consider the impact additional record breaking temperatures can have on local communities, and what those peoplewill be forced to do to cope. Lastly, you cited 1* in over 1 century, and that was the fastest change in recorded history. But consider that scientists are in agreement saying that this warming is happening at an ever increasing rate. What does that bode for our future? I remember reading over a decade ago that climatologists were predicting that a 2* overall change could push us past the point of no return--where we would no longer have an ability to stop it happening. According to your post, we've already passed the half way point to that standard. Wanna risk going the last half?

 

Taking that risk seems the safest option. Let's do it.

 

The global mean surface temperature does not change by 1C in a single day; not even close.

 

I did not come close to commenting on global mean surface temperature.

 

I have no choice but to ride it out.

But get this, if you want to know what scared the heck out of me it is Mt. Everest.

Did you know in a short period of time it grew by 2 meters?

Now, that is something to fear.

The new recorded height of Mount Everest is 8850 metres, or 29035 feet. That is anincrease of about two metres - or seven feet - on the altitude, which was set by Indian geologists and which has been recognised officially for 45 years.Nov 12, 1999

 

That's very interesting. Do you know when that new measurement was made? I'm asking because in April 2015, a huge earthquake hit Nepal & Mt. Everest. I wonder if that quake might be responsible for the uplift you're referencing?

 

Climate cultists aren't big on listening.

Natural processes convert CO^2 to vegetation.

Humans are planet-wreckers, we're losing all the trees!

Since 1982 global forest cover has increased by 7.2% (850 thousand sq. miles). If that were the land mass of nation, it would be the 12 largest nation in the world.

 

Why is that something to fear? Will it suppress future GDP? Will it reduce Earth's carrying capacity for humans?