Changes In Climate Change

I'm really hoping this doesn't give the Unfettered Free Market assholes a way to twist the information so they can rationalize doing nothing.

First - Dead people are dead people, no matter where they are, and we need to take some responsibility for whatever dire consequences our own actions lead to.

Second - Don't start thinking we can shelter behind an imaginary line (ie: border) and be safe.

The thing that needs to be addressed - but few are talking about - is the total disruption of the lives of huge numbers of people.

Think immigration is a problem now? Wait til you see what happens when the herds really start to move as the socioeconomic framework of relatively stable geopolitics unravels altogether.

 

The coming - some say already ongoing - apocalypse may be exacerbated by famine and disease and war, but it's being driven by the need all people have to secure food, water, and shelter.

It gets real basic real fast. (hat tip to Dr Maslow)

Almost 75% of the world's population lives within 35 miles of a sea coast, and only about 16% of those coastlines remain unaffected by human activity.

World Economic Forum Feb 2022

As sea levels rise, don't expect people to just sit there while their means of survival disappears right out from under them.

Will global warming make temperature less deadly?

The scientific paper published in the June 2021 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change was alarming. Between 1991 and 2018, the peer-reviewed study reported, more than one-third of deaths from heat exposure were linked to global warming. Hundreds of news outlets covered the findings. The message was clear: climate change is here, and it’s already killing people.

But that wasn’t all that was happening. A month later, the same research group, which is based out of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine but includes scientists from dozens of countries, released another peer-reviewed study that told a fuller, more complex story about the link between climate change, temperature and human mortality. The two papers’ authors were mostly the same, and they used similar data and statistical methods.

Published in Lancet Planetary Health, the second paper reported that between 2000 and 2019, annual deaths from heat exposure increased. But deaths from cold exposure, which were far more common, fell by an even larger amount.

All told, during those two decades the world warmed by about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and some 650,000 fewer people died from temperature exposure.

While it was not covered widely in the press, the second study circulated on Twitter, where many people made some version of the same argument: if cold was deadlier than heat, and the planet was getting hotter, global warming might actually save lives.


But whose lives? Projections indicate milder temperatures may indeed spare people in the globe’s wealthy north, where it’s already colder and people can buy protection against the weather. Yet heat will punish people in warmer, less wealthy parts of the world, where each extra degree of temperature can kill and air conditioning will often remain a fantasy.

What’s at stake

• Climate change is complicated.
• Scientists’ worries about climate change go beyond temperature’s effect on human mortality. Shifting weather patterns and rising sea levels could throw society and nature into disarray. Yet understanding climate change means studying all the changes, even the positive ones.
• Lives are not ledger entries.
• Doing arithmetic with human lives is ethically fraught. An elderly person in Minneapolis might dodge an early death if dangerous cold grows rarer. Yet a construction worker in Phoenix toiling in a heat wave will find little comfort in a global drop in cold-related deaths.
• Science helps prepare for the future.
• Many species don’t adapt well to temperature changes. Humans do. By examining where and when temperature will grow more dangerous, societies can ready themselves for the coming changes.
• Like Goldilocks, our bodies like things just right. Too hot, and our bodies work to cool down, which puts pressure on our hearts and kidneys. Too cold, and our blood vessels constrict to keep our cores warm, slowing the flow of blood and oxygen to the heart. Extremes are dangerous, but unprotected exposure to even mild heat and cold over several days can be deadly.

In most places, the temperature is more often too cold than too hot, which helps explain why more than 90 percent of temperature-related deaths were from cold, according to the Lancet study. On every continent, cold deaths surpassed heat deaths.

Twitter chatter notwithstanding, the Lancet paper did not conclusively prove that global warming led to a drop in temperature-linked deaths. It relied on just 20 years of data, and scientists require at least 30 years of observations to draw conclusions about climate change. Plus, its estimates came with great uncertainty, so what looked like a drop in cold-related deaths could actually have been an increase.

Still, it is at least plausible that, as the paper’s authors put it: “The results indicate that global warming might slightly reduce net temperature-related deaths in the short term.”

What about the long term? A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study, published in November in Harvard’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, gives us a glimpse. In the study, a team of researchers projected how mortality from temperature would change in the future.

The worldwide temperature-linked mortality rate is projected to stay about the same, but you can see enormous geographic variation: colder, wealthier countries do well, while hotter, poorer countries suffer.

see: Interactive Chart At WaPo

The study’s method works like this: Imagine a future where the climate stayed as it was in 2015, and compare it to scenarios in which humans keep emitting greenhouse gases. They used two emissions scenarios, one with very high emissions, which has academic interest but is unlikely to actually happen, and a medium emissions scenario, which climate scientists tell me is more likely, if a touch optimistic.

In the medium emissions scenario, Niger, one of the poorest and hottest countries in the world, is projected to suffer the largest increase in temperature-linked mortality, while cold, wealthy Finland sees the largest decrease. That pattern was common, said Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist who co-authored the study.

Greenstone, who over a decade ago helped the Obama administration calculate the “social cost of carbon,” a measure of the damages caused by each ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, was struck by the unfairness the results implied. “Taking $100,000 from a poor person wouldn’t be equal and opposite to how you feel about giving $100,000 to Elon Musk,” he told me. “I think that’s the underbelly of the climate problem.”

What sets this work apart from similar studies is that its model accounts for humans’ evolutionary superpower: adaptation. Of the millions of species on planet Earth, only one of them can turn on the air conditioner.

“If you have any friends who live in Seattle or the Bay Area, they don’t really have air conditioning right now, but they’re all going to,” Greenstone said. “The idea that they were just going to sit there every year, wait for the temperature to come and cause misery and destruction, and not do anything about it, violates everything we understand about human behavior.”

Many studies that project future temperature deaths do not account for adaptation — not because they don’t believe humans will adapt, but because adaptation is hard to quantify. Those studies are likely to overestimate the number of temperature-linked deaths because the people in them act more like coral reefs than humans.

To account for adaptation, the researchers used a statistical technique that compares the behavior of people with similar incomes but who live in places with different climates. It helps answer questions like: how much would it cost Seattle to learn to handle heat waves the way Houston does now?

Kristie Ebi, an epidemiologist at the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington who was not involved in the research, has spent a lot of time thinking about questions like that. “All heat related deaths are preventable, and so we should be preventing every death we can from the heat,” Ebi told me. “There’s lots of mechanisms to do so.”

When Seattle endured a record-breaking heat wave last summer, the county’s Regional Homeless Authority opened indoor cooling spaces, and the city’s public utility agency had already filled the reservoirs to prepare for higher water usage. Across the city, air conditioners are selling fast.

But Seattle is a high-tech city in a wealthy country. For much of the world, adapting to heat will be harder.

“Adaptation is not something that just kind of happens when we’re asleep by unicorns and elves. It takes policy and it takes money,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University who was not involved in the research. “The people who are barely getting by today are not going to be able to adapt. They’re not gonna have the resources. And so what are they gonna do? Well, they’re going to suffer.”

On Social Security & Medicare

To preface this, I think it's pretty safe to assume a few things.

1. I don't know what to do about all this - I'm not an economist, and I'm not a tax accountant, and I'm not trying to pretend I know how to fix it
2. Somebody does know how to fix it - in a fair, even-handed way
3. Anything we do to fix it will involve the tax code 

And everything we try to do will be picked apart and shat upon by all manner of armchair experts and keyboard commandos. This is likely going to get even messier than it's been for the last 90 years.

WASHINGTON — President Biden scored an early political point this month in his fight with congressional Republicans over taxes, spending and raising the federal debt limit: He forced Republican leaders to profess, repeatedly, that they will not seek cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

In the process, Mr. Biden has effectively steered a debate about fiscal responsibility away from two cherished safety-net programs for seniors, just as those plans are poised for a decade of rapid spending growth.

New forecasts from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, set to be released on Wednesday, are expected to show Medicare and Social Security spending growth rapidly outpacing the growth in federal tax revenues over the next 10 years. That is the product of a wave of baby boomers reaching retirement age and beginning to tap the programs, which provide guaranteed income and health insurance from the time benefits are claimed until death.

Those retirees are an electoral force. In refusing to touch so-called entitlement programs, Mr. Biden was appealing to seniors, along with generations of future retirees, when he used his State of the Union address and subsequent speeches this month to amplify attacks on Republican plans to reduce future spending on Social Security and Medicare or potentially sunset the programs entirely.

“They’re more than government programs,” Mr. Biden told a Florida audience last week. “They’re a promise — a promise we made: Work hard and contribute, and when the time has come for you to retire, you’ll be there — we’ll be there for you to help you out. It’s been a sacred trust, the rock-solid guarantee generations of Americans have counted on, and it works.”

In his 2020 campaign, Mr. Biden proposed shoring up Social Security’s finances and increasing benefits for some retirees by raising taxes on high earners. Social Security is primarily funded through payroll taxes on workers’ incomes of up to $160,200. Mr. Biden has suggested eliminating the cap for incomes above $400,000 a year, subjecting them to payroll taxes.

Influential Republicans have proposed a variety of changes to make both programs more fiscally sustainable, including spending cuts and gradually raising the retirement age from 67 to keep up with longer life expectancy.

Republican leaders in Congress have stressed in recent days that, despite the calls from some conservatives to link safety net spending and the debt limit, they will not seek those changes as part of an agreement to raise the nation’s borrowing cap.

House Republicans have threatened not to increase the current $31.4 trillion limit, which the United States technically hit on Jan. 19, unless Mr. Biden agrees to unspecified demands to reduce government spending and debt. If the cap is not raised and the government is unable to pay all its bills at once, some retirees might not get their Social Security checks as scheduled. But leaders say their demands to raise the cap will ultimately leave Social Security and Medicare intact.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, told reporters on Tuesday that “there is no agenda on the part of Senate Republicans to revisit Medicare or Social Security, period,” adding, “I’ve noticed that the speaker of the House has said the same thing.”

note: This does not mean McConnell is "on our side". It could just as easily mean, "We won't do anything to fix the problem, knowing the thing will eventually implode (because our tax-cut strategy is working according to plan), and then we can make our move to kill it altogether."

If both sides hold their positions, the fiscal debate will narrow to Mr. Biden’s proposals to raise taxes on corporations and high earners — which Republicans have roundly rejected — and Republican proposals to cut the growth of a much smaller slice of federal programs.

Mr. Biden plans to address the deficit in remarks on Wednesday in which he will criticize Republican proposals that he says would add $3 trillion to the debt. That includes repealing tax increases Mr. Biden signed into law in 2022, which would increase federal revenues, as well as making permanent several Republican tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of 2025.

That debate will exclude the primary spending-side drivers of future federal debt and deficits. Both Social Security’s and Medicare’s trust funds are currently spending more than they take in from payroll taxes and other revenue sources, a growing gap that is included in how the government accounts for the total size of its budget deficit.

In its last wave of forecasts, in May, the budget office predicted Social Security spending would grow by two-thirds over the coming decade. That’s more than double the expected growth rate for spending on the military and on domestic programs like education and environmental protection. High inflation could further accelerate that growth; Social Security enacted an 8.7 percent cost-of-living increase this year, its largest in decades.

By 2033, the May forecasts suggest, the federal government will be spending nearly as much on Social Security alone as it does on all discretionary spending — military and otherwise — combined.

Medicare is a smaller program but poised to grow even faster, at three times the rate of military and other discretionary spending over the next decade, according to the May forecasts. The new projections are likely to show its growth will be restrained somewhat by a law Mr. Biden signed last summer that is expected to reduce the program’s spending on prescription drugs for seniors.

Lawmakers could stabilize the programs by raising taxes, reducing spending or simply continuing to borrow money to keep paying full benefits. A group of liberal lawmakers led by Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, has a proposal to expand Social Security benefits and extend its solvency for 75 years through a variety of new taxes on investment and business income, along with earnings for Americans making $250,000 or more.

The conservative Republican Study Committee in the House has a plan that would raise the retirement age for both programs and reduce Social Security benefits for some higher-earning retirees.

Fiscal hawks in Washington, including think tank officials and some Senate Republicans, have said lawmakers must move now to find bipartisan agreement on plans to better balance the programs’ spending with tax revenues in the years to come. More than a decade ago, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, issued similar warnings.

“To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations,” Mr. Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union address. “We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”

Some were dismayed that Mr. Biden — and Republican lawmakers — did not follow a similar path at his own State of the Union this month. “The sober warnings from the experts is quite a contrast to the gleeful cheers from bipartisan policymakers at the State of the Union for doing nothing,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates federal debt reduction.

In his State of the Union address, Mr. Biden, who was Mr. Obama’s vice president, ripped Republicans for plans to cut safety net programs. Republicans in the audience booed him vigorously. After some back-and-forth with his critics, Mr. Biden declared victory.

“So folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security, Medicare is off the books now, right? All right. We’ve got unanimity,” he said.

BTW, let's not pretend the problems haven't already started.

Asking For Help At 80 - America's New Face Of Hunger

PBS NewsHour

And also too:

The Forgotten History of the Radical ‘Elders of the Tribe’

The Gray Panthers staged rowdy protests against ageism and found common cause with young activists on everything from health care to racial justice. What can they teach us today?

By the mid-1970s, she was a national celebrity. She had speaking engagements all over the country; she traveled 100,000 miles annually, giving at least 200 talks a year. She was all over the TV: “The Phil Donahue Show,” the “Today” show and “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson, multiple times. Media monikers for her included “ball of fire,” “dynamo” and the now-problematic “feisty.” In 1978, the World Almanac named her one of the 25 most influential women in the United States. Shortly before she died in 1995, ABC News profiled her as its “Person of the Week.”

She was Maggie Kuhn, the woman who, 50 years ago, founded the Gray Panthers, a movement to encourage activism — sometimes radical activism — among the country’s older people. Today, both Kuhn and her movement have been all but forgotten. But their mission is worth remembering, commemorating and perhaps even resurrecting, especially in the present moment.

Then, as now, was a time of intense activism. Inspired by demonstrations on behalf of racial and gender equality, and against the Vietnam War, Kuhn insisted it was time that the issues facing older people be included in any social reform agenda. Her passion was to shatter every stereotype she could about older people and, as a lifelong feminist, especially older women.

- more -

These Honored Dead

As difficult as it can be to get the straight dope here in USAmerica Inc, in a place like Russia right now, it's hard for people to get even a slight taste of the truth about what their government is doing.

But there are cracks in the monolith. As more people get hip to what's going on, the whole thing will start to crumble, and for the third time in a little over 100 years, Russia will be badly mauled by political upheaval.

Late last year, activists were tipped off about the heightened activity at this gravesite, which lies adjacent to a cemetery used by the local community. Then, it contained about 50 graves. Now, it has about 300...

BAKINSKAYA, Russia — It was a lonely funeral. Four narrow caskets, recently pulled from the back of a covered truck, rested on stands under an insistent snowfall as an Orthodox priest performed last rites. Three gravediggers in tattered jackets looked on with their hands folded solemnly. An excavator was parked close by, ready to dig more graves.

“Lord have mercy,” the priest chanted as he blessed the bodies of fallen Russian soldiers with incense, his cassock buffeted by a freezing wind.

Once those corpses were lowered, four more dead soldiers in crimson-covered caskets were sung their last rites.

This the final resting place for many of the men who lost their lives fighting for the private mercenary force known as Wagner, which has been leading the Russian military effort in the monthslong battle for the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut.

Wagner’s founder, Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, a tycoon who has a close relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin, has lauded his force as “probably the most experienced army in the world today.”

But the rapidly growing cemetery in Bakinskaya, a town near the Black Sea, is evidence that his mercenary army — which includes many poorly trained ex-convicts — is sustaining tremendous battlefield losses. On a recent weekday, nine men had their remains interred at this relatively new cemetery, established for Wagner recruits who had indicated that they preferred to be buried there.

Late last year, activists were tipped off about the heightened activity at this gravesite, which lies adjacent to a cemetery used by the local community. Then, it contained about 50 graves. Now, it has about 300, and those observing the cemetery say between four and eight soldiers are being buried per day, on average; local media estimates are even higher, reporting as many as 16 graves per day.

Almost all the graves, sheathed in fresh snow, were identical, though occasionally a slim Muslim headstone stood at the head of the grave, rather than an Orthodox cross. Each has a wreath of plastic flowers in the style of the Wagner logo — red, yellow and black with a golden star in the middle. Only one, the grave of Andrey V. Orlov, who died on Dec. 15 at the age of 28, had a photograph, and an extra wreath of flowers.

Burials here were gaining little notice until late December, when an antiwar activist, Vitaly V. Wotanovsky, started publishing images of the cemetery, including the names and dates of birth of the dead, on his Telegram channel. Ten days later, on New Year’s Day, photographs of Mr. Prigozhin laying flowers on the graves emerged.

“Since November, the number of deaths has increased dramatically,” Mr. Wotanovsky, 51, said in an interview at his home in the nearby city of Krasnodar. In the past he had counted around four burials a day, he said, but noted that on one recent day there were 11.

Mr. Wotanovsky, who has spent 20 days in detention since the invasion began because of his antiwar activities, has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of his region’s cemeteries. He collects tips from local residents and keeps a running tally of the war dead buried in the area and posts pictures of the grave markers on his Telegram channel. He said that informing the public about the names and identities of the fallen was his only way to protest and to try to change public opinion.

“This is the only normal, legal way to tell people that war is death, that it is bad, so that they somehow reflect on it in their heads,” said Mr. Wotanovsky, a Russian army veteran who spent years working for the military as a radio engineer.

Many of the Wagner fighters buried in Bakinskaya had been convicted of crimes, according to an analysis by The New York Times. Western intelligence agencies, the Ukrainian government and a prisoners’ rights association, Russia Behind Bars, estimate that around 40,000 inmates have joined the Russian forces since July — about 10 percent of the country’s prison population. Ukrainian officials have claimed that nearly 30,000 of them have deserted or been killed or wounded, but that number could not be independently verified.

One of the gravediggers took pride in pointing out to visiting journalists that the caskets were placed not on the ground but on individual stands “in a dignified manner.”

Some observers have speculated that the graveyard is a public relations ploy by Mr. Prigozhin, who is increasingly seeking credit for capturing Ukrainian territory and is believed to harbor political ambitions.

“Unlike the general tendency in Russia, which is to try to minimize casualties and downplay the loss of life, Mr. Prigozhin is trying to promote the military heroism and sacrifice” of his soldiers, said Samuel Ramani, an associate fellow at RUSI, a defense think tank in Britain, who studies the group.

Not far from the cemetery, a 20-minute ride along the region’s highway, stands a compound containing a chapel erected to commemorate the dead Wagner fighters. On a recent visit, the gates around the compound were completely shut. Videos of Mr. Prigozhin visiting the site have shown walls containing the cremated remains of an unknown number of fighters.

Another 10 minutes down the highway is the Molkino base, which observers say has been a training camp for Wagner soldiers since 2015. According to Russian media reports, the Ministry of Defense has spent at least 1 billion rubles, or $13.6 million, developing the training facility.

The base is off limits to civilians, but soldiers in various uniforms were the main customers at several cafes, fast food joints and a convenience store in the vicinity.

One soldier, who gave his name as Abkhat, said he was from the Samara region, near the border with Kazakhstan, and that he was being dispatched to Ukraine that evening.

He said he was 30 and that he “volunteered not for the money, but out of love for my country.”

In the regional capital of Krasnodar, a city of 900,000 people, the war is never far away. Civil aviation has been suspended since Feb. 24 of last year, the day Russia invaded, and fighter jets fly training missions overhead, complementing the ongoing tactical exercises at Molkino.

The Krasnodar area, with the third-biggest population of Russia’s 85 regions, has the second highest number of cases for “discrediting the Russian army,” a common charge made against anyone who expresses opposition to the war. A repeat offense can result in up to 10 years in jail.

In one case making headlines and alarming local antiwar activists, a married couple discussed their opposition to the invasion between themselves as they dined at a restaurant. The establishment’s owner called the police, who charged the husband and wife with petty hooliganism. The wife was additionally accused of “discrediting” Russia’s army.

Despite the intimidating climate, Mr. Wotanovsky’s close friend, Viktor V. Chirikov, also an army veteran, believes that the simple act of posting about the dead will eventually bring about not only an end to the war, but the collapse of the system Mr. Putin built.

“Do you know why the Russian Empire fell?” he said in Mr. Wotanovsky’s kitchen. “Because of the number of coffins coming back from the First World War fronts to the villages where the fallen lived.”

“It’s one thing to watch on TV or the computer ‘oh, they are fighting there, they are killing there,’ like in computer shooting games,’’ he added. “But people start to ask ‘why are we doing this?’ when they see the coffin or grave of their school friends.”

The two men said they would continue to count the dead as casualties mount. At the cemetery in Bakinskaya, the plot appears to have room for many more bodies.

“They are still going to need more space,” Mr. Wotanovsky said.

Cause & Effect

So the usual assortment of wingnuts have been all over the place bashing DOT Secretary Pete Buttigeig, and complaining about "all that infrastructure money" not being used to fix problems and prevent such calamities.

And of course, they leave out a couple of inconvenient details: While the money has been allotted, it's not yet been distributed, and these same people have been actively trying to prevent the money from being distributed (all that debt ceiling bullshit).

But that doesn't stop them from demagoguing and propagandizing the shit out of it, because they demagogue and propagandize the shit out of everything.

It fits with a standard GOP play.

1. Prevent government from doing something
2. Bitch about how the government isn't doing something

Wanna know what caused this particular fuckup? Deregulation.

Is Donald Trump to Blame for Ohio Train Derailment?

The derailment of a 150-car train carrying hazardous material in East Palestine, Ohio, was likely more severe because the Trump administration repealed key safety legislation, according to an industry insider.

On February 3, the Norfolk Southern Railway freight train derailed at approximately 8:55 p.m. local time before catching fire near the state border with Pennsylvania.

While there were no injuries, the train included a number of cars containing vinyl chloride, a potentially explosive colorless gas, resulting in about 5,000 people being evacuated on the orders of the Ohio and Pennsylvania governors.

Rescue workers blew holes in five railway carts on February 6, allowing them to conduct a controlled burn of vinyl chloride which released toxic chemicals into the air.

Speaking to investigative news outlet The Lever, Steven Ditmeyer, a former top official at the Federal Railroad Administration, said the "severity" of the accident was likely increased by the lack of Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) brakes.

Legislation was passed under President Obama that made it a legal requirement for trains carrying hazardous flammable materials to have ECP brakes, but this was rescinded in 2017 by the Trump administration.

The National Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency responsible for investigating rail accidents, told The Lever that the Ohio train that derailed was not fitted with ECP brakes.

"Would ECP brakes have reduced the severity of this accident? Yes," Ditmeyer said.

Referring to opposition from within the rail industry to fitting ECP brakes he added: "The railroads will test new features. But once they are told they have to do it...they don't want to spend the money."

Newsweek reached out to Donald Trump and the Norfolk Southern Railway for comment.

On Monday, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg provided an update on the accident and an ongoing investigation into its cause.

"USDOT [Department of Transportation] has been supporting the investigation led by The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Our Federal Rail Administration and Pipelines and Hazardous Materials teams were onsite within hours of the initial incident and continue to be actively engaged," Buttigieg tweeted.

"We will look to these investigation results & based on them, use all relevant authorities to ensure accountability and continue to support safety."

Buttigieg added the federal Environmental Protection Agency remained on site, where they are monitoring indoor and outdoor air quality following the release of toxic chemicals.

Strange Doin's

A lot of odd phenomena is surfacing now because of things flying around the skies of North America.

And, as usual, people are having some fun with it.

Mr Whiskers disappeared last night

Leaked video from the shoot-down in Canada

A Survey

Luckily (in a dangerous kinda way), as the GOP shrinks, the radical wingnuts will be entertained and feel encouraged by the illusion that their ranks are swelling.

It's not true of course, but Americans aren't exactly well schooled on such subtleties as:

A shrinking pond will make the frog look bigger ...

... so the wingnut influencers will crow about how powerful they're getting while the rubes and a double-digit percentage of normal Americans will go right along with it.

More than half of Republicans support Christian nationalism, according to a new survey

Long seen as a fringe viewpoint, Christian nationalism now has a foothold in American politics, particularly in the Republican Party — according to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution.

Researchers found that more than half of Republicans believe the country should be a strictly Christian nation, either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21%) or sympathizing with those views (33%).

Robert P. Jones, the president and founder of the nonpartisan PRRI, has been surveying the religious world for many years now. Recently, Jones said his group decided to start asking specifically about Christian nationalism.

"It became clear to us that this term 'Christian nationalism' was being used really across the political spectrum," he said. "So not just on the right but on the left and that it was being written about more by the media."

Christian nationalism is a worldview that claims the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the country's laws should therefore be rooted in Christian values. This point of view has long been most prominent in white evangelical spaces but lately it's been getting lip service in Republican ones, too.

During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said party leaders need to be more responsive to the base of the party, which she claimed is made up of Christian nationalists.

"We need to be the party of nationalism," she said. "I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists."

Jones said until now it's been difficult to tell how prominent Christian nationalism is within the Republican Party.

"There was some data out there but what we saw as a need was to have a real set of data that would quantify what that term means, how many Americans really adhere to it," he said. "And we also wanted to have a more nuanced view — not just people who are hard adherents but maybe people who are sympathetic."

Jones said this is just the beginning of his group's effort to track the prevalence of these views in American views. He says over time we will have a better idea of whether these views are becoming more or less widely held.

Americans broadly don't adhere to Christian nationalism

While a majority of Republicans currently either adhere to or sympathize with Christian nationalism, the survey found that this remains a minority opinion nationwide.

According to the PRRI/Brookings study, only 10% of Americans view themselves as adherents of Christian nationalism and about 19% of Americans said they sympathize with these views.

Christian nationalism is still thriving — and is a force for returning Trump to power
Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a history professor at Calvin University, said it's important to note that this is not a novel ideology in American families.

"These ideas have been widely held throughout American history and particularly since the 1970s with the rise of the Christian Right," she said.

Du Mez said these views are mostly a reaction to changing demographics, as well as cultural and generational shifts in the U.S. As the country has become less white and Christian, she said these adherents want to hold on to their cultural and political power.

In fact, according to the survey, half of Christian nationalism adherents and nearly 4 in 10 sympathizers said they support the idea of an authoritarian leader in order to keep these Christian values in society.

"At its root there are some deeply antidemocratic impulses here," Du Mez said. "So, to see that more than half of one political party is committed to Christian nationalism I think explains a lot in terms of our ability to achieve much bipartisan agreement."

The survey also found correlations between people who hold Christian nationalist views as well as Anti-Black, anti-immigrant, antisemitic views, anti-Muslim and patriarchal views.

Republicans may need to reckon with ideology in its ranks

Tim Whitaker, founder of The New Evangelicals, grew up in the church and now spends his life trying to detangle these kinds of views from the evangelical faith.

"We need to understand that the world of Christian nationalism largely rejects pluralism, which this study shows," he said. "Most Christian nationalists — either adherents or sympathizers — either agree or strongly agree with the notion that they should live in a country full of other Christians."

Whitaker said he has faith that most Americans will continue to reject these ideas when they hear them, but he's worried about the outsized influence these views have in the Republican Party.

"The reality is that a lot of these folks — especially the adherents — are very militant in this belief that God has given them a mandate to rule over the nation," he said. "And so for them, I think that compromise is a sign of weakness and the GOP needs to understand what they are dealing with."

According to the survey, adherents of Christian nationalism say they will go to great lengths to impose their vision of the country. Jones with PRRI said they found adherents are far more likely to agree with the statement: "true patriots might have to resort to violence to save our country."

"Now is that everyone? No. It's not everyone," Jones said. "But it's a sizeable minority that is not only willing to declare themselves opposed to pluralism and democracy — but are also willing to say, 'I am willing to fight and either kill or harm my fellow Americans to keep it that way.'"

Today's Tweet

A survivor of the Sandy Hook School mass shooting in 2012 is a student at Michigan State University: “I am 21-years-old and this is the second mass shooting I’ve lived through. We can no longer allow this to happen. We can no longer be complacent.” pic.twitter.com/Jcafl57tmZ

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) February 14, 2023

Suspect identified in Michigan State University shooting: 3 dead, 5 in critical condition

Morning dawned Tuesday on East Lansing to a rattled Michigan State University campus hours after a mass shooting left three dead and five others critically injured.

An alert was sent at 8:31 p.m. Monday, telling students to "run, hide, fight" with a report of shots fired at Berkey Hall and at the MSU Union.

Two people were killed at Berkey Hall, said university Interim Deputy Police Chief Chris Rozman. The gunman then moved to the MSU Union, where another was killed.

Students were told to shelter in place as authorities searched for the gunman. The 43-year-old suspect was Anthony McRae, Rozman said at a news conference Tuesday. McRae was found off campus early Tuesday before he could be arrested; he had died from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

PS) Fuck your thoughts and prayers.

An Unsurprising Surprise

Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections

Insider knowledge

For decades, some members of the fossil fuel industry tried to convince the public that a causative link between fossil fuel use and climate warming could not be made because the models used to project warming were too uncertain. Supran et al. show that one of those fossil fuel companies, ExxonMobil, had their own internal models that projected warming trajectories consistent with those forecast by the independent academic and government models. What they understood about climate models thus contradicted what they led the public to believe.

Structured Abstract

BACKGROUND

In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter.

ADVANCES

Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003.

Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models.
Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.

OUTLOOK

Today, dozens of cities, counties, and states are suing oil and gas companies for their “longstanding internal scientific knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change and public deception campaigns.” The European Parliament and the US Congress have held hearings, US President Joe Biden has committed to holding fossil fuel companies accountable, and a grassroots social movement has arisen under the moniker #ExxonKnew. 

Our findings demonstrate that ExxonMobil didn’t just know “something” about global warming decades ago—they knew as much as academic and government scientists knew. But whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world.



Historically observed temperature change (red) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (blue) over time, compared against global warming projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists.

(A) “Proprietary” 1982 Exxon-modeled projections.

(B) Summary of projections in seven internal company memos and five peer-reviewed publications between 1977 and 2003 (gray lines).

(C) A 1977 internally reported graph of the global warming “effect of CO2 on an interglacial scale.”

(A) and (B) display averaged historical temperature observations, whereas the historical temperature record in (C) is a smoothed Earth system model simulation of the last 150,000 years.

Abstract

Climate projections by the fossil fuel industry have never been assessed. On the basis of company records, we quantitatively evaluated all available global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming that is consistent with subsequent observations. Their projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models. Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and reasonably estimated the “carbon budget” for holding warming below 2°C. On each of these points, however, the company’s public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data.

In 2015, investigative journalists uncovered internal company documents showing that Exxon scientists have been warning their executives about “potentially catastrophic” anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming since at least 1977. Researchers and journalists have subsequently unearthed additional documents showing that the US oil and gas industry writ large—by way of its trade association, the American Petroleum Institute—has been aware of potential human-caused global warming since at least the 1950s; the coal industry since at least the 1960s (4); electric utilities, Total oil company, and General Motors and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s; and Shell oil company since at least the 1980s.

This corpus of fossil fuel documents has attracted widespread scholarly, journalistic, political, and legal attention, leading to the conclusion that the fossil fuel industry has known for decades that their products could cause dangerous global warming. In 2017, we used content analysis to demonstrate that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies authored or coauthored by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that global warming is real and human-caused.

By contrast, we found that the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter. Cities, counties, and states have accordingly filed dozens of lawsuits variously accusing ExxonMobil Corp and other companies of deceit and responsibility for climate damages. The attorney general of Massachusetts, for instance, alleges that ExxonMobil has had a “long-standing internal scientific knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change” and waged “public deception campaigns” that misrepresented that knowledge. Civil society campaigns seeking to hold fossil fuel interests accountable for allegedly misleading shareholders, customers, and the public about climate science have emerged under monikers such as #ExxonKnew, #ShellKnew, and #TotalKnew.

But what exactly did the fossil fuel industry understand about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming, and how accurate did their understanding prove to be? Several of the documents in question include explicit projections of the amount of warming that could be expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, whereas the text of these documents has been interrogated in detail, the numerical and graphical data in them have not. Indeed, no one has systematically reported climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest, let alone assessed their accuracy and skill. This contrasts with academic climate models, whose performance has been extensively scrutinized.

- more, in case you need to get totally geeky-freaky with it -

The fuckers knew - the Dirty Fuels Cartel knew what was coming because of what they were doing.

They fucking knew.

And we've seen numerous studies of numerous smoking guns now. Class action lawsuits should be pouring in, and I should think the insurance companies would be leading the charge.

It's Not Aliens

DEEP SIGH

It’s not aliens. It’ll probably never be aliens. So stop. Please just stop.

"There is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns."

Aliens have been having a moment in recent years.

For decades the notion of unidentified flying objects—UFOs—and little green men running around Roswell, New Mexico, remained comfortably confined along the fringes of societal discourse. But no longer. Serious people in the government are taking a serious look at the phenomenon.

The story of why this posture began to change begins about 15 years ago and is long and complex. (This New Yorker article is a good place to start.) But the basic gist is that then-Nevada politician Harry Reid, a powerful political figure who at times led the US Senate, began to take it seriously. So he started shoveling money at the Pentagon to study the issue.

Along the way, perhaps because of the stigma attached, the government stopped calling sightings of unidentified objects UFOs and began referring to them as unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP). The release of three videos in 2020 by the US Navy heightened public attention. Then, in 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a much-anticipated assessment of the government's files on UAP.

This report, alas, held an unsatisfying conclusion for those who want to believe. "The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP," this report stated. In its nine pages, the report did not mention "aliens" a single time.

But the cat was out of the bag, and the government moved onward. Last December, the nation's buttoned-down space agency, NASA, named the members of a "study team" to determine how the space agency should analyze UAP. Knowing and respecting some of the members of this study team, I have no doubt that they will do good work, and we can rely on their conclusions.

Recent takedowns

All of this brings us to the recent spy balloon mania, during which US F-22 jets downed a Chinese balloon nine days ago and, subsequently, three unidentified objects over Canada and the United States. Given the lack of government transparency about what, exactly, these latter three objects were, conspiracy theories have multiplied. Misinformation, after all, loves nothing more than a vacuum.

The extent of the howls of "It must be aliens" was underlined on Monday when White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre felt compelled to address the issue during a press briefing. "There is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns," she said. "I wanted to be sure the American people knew that, and it is important for us to say that from here."

So yeah, it's not aliens. Unless you believe the government is covering things up, of course.

Look, the universe is vast. It is so mind-bendingly vast that we cannot comprehend its immensity. There are billions of galaxies, and in each galaxy, there are billions of stars. One of the greatest scientific discoveries during the last two decades, thanks to the Kepler space telescope and other instruments, has confirmed that many, if not most, stars have planetary systems. So there are almost certainly billions and billions and billions of worlds out there upon which life like ours could arise.

But, in all probability, we haven't found it yet. Or rather, it hasn't found us yet, or revealed itself to us meager, carbon-based, Earth-confined wretches. Just why we haven't found it yet, by the way, is a fantastic philosophical question.

Extraordinary claims

I will close this article by referencing an astronomer and a physicist. The astronomer is Carl Sagan, perhaps the most gifted science communicator of the 20th century. He once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Certainly, the existence of an intelligent species capable of traveling between stars would be an extraordinary thing. And while there is plenty of "evidence" of unidentified flying objects in our skies, there is no "extraordinary" evidence that proves the case. I'm sorry, there just is not. The truth is, almost every hyped alien sighting can eventually be explained by a rather pedestrian phenomenon.

The second quote is simply a tweet from an English physicist, Brian Cox, today: "I've always suspected that an advanced alien civilization with the technology to travel at close to light speed across interstellar distances would arrive in Earth orbit unobserved and proceed to dispatch a fleet of small, easily detectable balloons into our atmosphere."

Pretty much, Brian. Pretty much.

A Thought

It occurs to me that the wingnuts are missing a really good opportunity to combine their penchant for the ridiculous with their kinda creepy obsession over the world's sexual behavior (or is that a redundancy?).

Anyhoo - it seems like somebody should've thought about how Valentine's Day is abbreviated as "VD" so that has to mean Jesus disapproves of how the media and the globalists and the immigrant caravan are leading the pious folk away from god and whatever the fuck else they usually throw into that mashup.

Just a thought. Happy VD, everybody!