<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Naomi Klein Adresses Climate Change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/10/naomi-klein-adresses-climate-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/10/naomi-klein-adresses-climate-change/</link>
	<description>Climate Change News &#38; Analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 18:01:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/10/naomi-klein-adresses-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-65897</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=11139#comment-65897</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you don&#039;t agree that the earth is in crisis, then you are bullshitting yourself!  7 billion people already live on planet earth with  population continuing to explode.  China and India and Brazil and other developing countries are rapidly increasing demand for natural resources and commodities that well eventually become more and more scarce and thus more and more expensive.  Scarcity coupled with greed may readily lead to wars over resource distribution.    Failure of the world, its peoples, its governments, its institutions to renounce unrestrained growth and instead embrace sustainability will surely doom the planet.  Yes-- sustainability and fairness would require wealthy societies to give up the pursuit of more and more wealth and more and more greedy consumption and perhaps even to sacrifice some wealth so that other societies can have a fair share.   I wish I could believe that any of this change of attitude  and action is possible.  Given that economic and political power is already heavily concentrated in self-centered, gain-greedy oligarchs-- and that that power grows unrestrainedly-- perhaps economic collapse or some catastrophic natural disaster is the only thing that might save planet earth as a viable ecosystem for human life survival.   Sure, I would like to believe that new technology and entrepreneurship will save the planet without any change in current economic and political trajectories.   I just don&#039;t see how it could happen.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you don&#8217;t agree that the earth is in crisis, then you are bullshitting yourself!  7 billion people already live on planet earth with  population continuing to explode.  China and India and Brazil and other developing countries are rapidly increasing demand for natural resources and commodities that well eventually become more and more scarce and thus more and more expensive.  Scarcity coupled with greed may readily lead to wars over resource distribution.    Failure of the world, its peoples, its governments, its institutions to renounce unrestrained growth and instead embrace sustainability will surely doom the planet.  Yes&#8211; sustainability and fairness would require wealthy societies to give up the pursuit of more and more wealth and more and more greedy consumption and perhaps even to sacrifice some wealth so that other societies can have a fair share.   I wish I could believe that any of this change of attitude  and action is possible.  Given that economic and political power is already heavily concentrated in self-centered, gain-greedy oligarchs&#8211; and that that power grows unrestrainedly&#8211; perhaps economic collapse or some catastrophic natural disaster is the only thing that might save planet earth as a viable ecosystem for human life survival.   Sure, I would like to believe that new technology and entrepreneurship will save the planet without any change in current economic and political trajectories.   I just don&#8217;t see how it could happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R.J.</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/10/naomi-klein-adresses-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-65852</link>
		<dc:creator>R.J.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=11139#comment-65852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The science is NOT airtite by any stretch of the imagination with respect to age. It is full of holes, full of falsified data, and full if what comes out of the rear end of a horse as far as I&#039;m concerned. Anyone who says a matter is settled and no further investigation need take place is an activist not a scientist.

Ms. Klien shows us her true stripes in this one paragraph:

Climate change demands other forms of planning as well—particularly for workers whose jobs will become obsolete as we wean ourselves off fossil fuels. A few “green jobs” trainings aren’t enough. These workers need to know that real jobs will be waiting for them on the other side. That means bringing back the idea of planning our economies based on collective priorities rather than corporate profitability—giving laid-off employees of car plants and coal mines the tools and resources to create jobs, for example, with Cleveland’s worker-run green co-ops serving as a model.

That&#039;s Marxism through and through and, like Marx lamented the effects of the industrial revolution in his &quot;Manifesto&quot;, his modern day counterparts are still at it with their call for &quot;centrally planned economies&quot; that put the concerns of the &quot;collective&quot; ahead of &quot;corporate profits&quot;. Pathetic. You &quot;watermelons&quot; are losing the argument. Only an imbeciles would conclude that throwing trillions of dollars down a hole to effect a mitigation of &quot;AGW&quot; that would be both barely measurable and unnoticeable is anything but economic suicide! Futhermore, only a wealthy country has the means and the money to clean up it&#039;s environmental messes. Destroying the engine that produces that wealth virtually guarantees a dirtier environment. The ten most polluted places on earth are in third world basket cases, not the western civilized world. You peole are too stupid to &quot;manage&quot; the earth and I do not wish to be an &quot;ant&quot; in a colony or a &quot;cog&quot; in your collectivist wheel fantasies of utopia...You and your ideas must be defeated.

The earth&#039;s eventual destruction and by extension all life on it is a certainty. The only hope we have, that life has, is our ability to continue to developed new technologies and that is going to take money, lots of it. The modern advances we all enjoy today came Crome the minds of the individual pursuing his interests not the collective shoving them down our throats! If new, cleaner forms of energy are going to be found, it will be done that way, not yours.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The science is NOT airtite by any stretch of the imagination with respect to age. It is full of holes, full of falsified data, and full if what comes out of the rear end of a horse as far as I&#8217;m concerned. Anyone who says a matter is settled and no further investigation need take place is an activist not a scientist.</p>
<p>Ms. Klien shows us her true stripes in this one paragraph:</p>
<p>Climate change demands other forms of planning as well—particularly for workers whose jobs will become obsolete as we wean ourselves off fossil fuels. A few “green jobs” trainings aren’t enough. These workers need to know that real jobs will be waiting for them on the other side. That means bringing back the idea of planning our economies based on collective priorities rather than corporate profitability—giving laid-off employees of car plants and coal mines the tools and resources to create jobs, for example, with Cleveland’s worker-run green co-ops serving as a model.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s Marxism through and through and, like Marx lamented the effects of the industrial revolution in his &#8220;Manifesto&#8221;, his modern day counterparts are still at it with their call for &#8220;centrally planned economies&#8221; that put the concerns of the &#8220;collective&#8221; ahead of &#8220;corporate profits&#8221;. Pathetic. You &#8220;watermelons&#8221; are losing the argument. Only an imbeciles would conclude that throwing trillions of dollars down a hole to effect a mitigation of &#8220;AGW&#8221; that would be both barely measurable and unnoticeable is anything but economic suicide! Futhermore, only a wealthy country has the means and the money to clean up it&#8217;s environmental messes. Destroying the engine that produces that wealth virtually guarantees a dirtier environment. The ten most polluted places on earth are in third world basket cases, not the western civilized world. You peole are too stupid to &#8220;manage&#8221; the earth and I do not wish to be an &#8220;ant&#8221; in a colony or a &#8220;cog&#8221; in your collectivist wheel fantasies of utopia&#8230;You and your ideas must be defeated.</p>
<p>The earth&#8217;s eventual destruction and by extension all life on it is a certainty. The only hope we have, that life has, is our ability to continue to developed new technologies and that is going to take money, lots of it. The modern advances we all enjoy today came Crome the minds of the individual pursuing his interests not the collective shoving them down our throats! If new, cleaner forms of energy are going to be found, it will be done that way, not yours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter S. Mizla</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/10/naomi-klein-adresses-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-65780</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter S. Mizla</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=11139#comment-65780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Peter Mizla Nov 11, 2011, 7:08am EST
The climate system does change. However the question that must be asked is HOW? over the last 500,000 years we have had glacial periods - and warmer interglacial periods like now- the last interglacial warmer then today was the &#039;Eemian&#039; 125,000 years ago- when it was about 1 degree C warmer then now- but these periods of warmer and cooler where caused by slight changes in the earths orbit, and the tilt of the axis. And they took far longer then the warming we are seeing now.

We have seen warming of 1C degree since about 1950 which is unprecedented in the planets geologic history in such a short period of time- Sources;
NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
NASA  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The Hadley Climate Center
BEST http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct
IPCC

&#039;Cycles&#039; of climate change in the more distant past where indeed caused by &#039;natural events&#039;- on tectonic and volcanic activity over tens of thousands of years-

the last great warming event was the &#039;PETM&#039; 55 million years ago- when vast amounts of carbon - C02 and cH4 (methane) where induced by heavy continental shift and volcanic activity- temperatures rose 5-7 degrees C over 20,000 years )very swift in geologic time)

C02 is now being introduced 10,000 times faster! This means humans in burning fossil fuels for energy are now adding carbon into the atmosphere at an unprecedented pace!

If we continue on a BAU track- we could do in less then 90 years, what the PETM did in 20,000 yrs.

The earth has cooled ever since the PETM- however scientists can now go back and get approximate C02 levels to nearly 20,000,000 yrs to the Miocene when C02 was as high as today (393ppm) sustained in time- at that time there was no ice in the arctic or Greenland year round- the Western Antarctic ice sheet did not exist- and sea levels where 100 feet higher then today.

The science is air tight on global warming- and the facts are truly frightening.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter Mizla Nov 11, 2011, 7:08am EST<br />
The climate system does change. However the question that must be asked is HOW? over the last 500,000 years we have had glacial periods &#8211; and warmer interglacial periods like now- the last interglacial warmer then today was the &#8216;Eemian&#8217; 125,000 years ago- when it was about 1 degree C warmer then now- but these periods of warmer and cooler where caused by slight changes in the earths orbit, and the tilt of the axis. And they took far longer then the warming we are seeing now.</p>
<p>We have seen warming of 1C degree since about 1950 which is unprecedented in the planets geologic history in such a short period of time- Sources;<br />
NOAA <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/</a><br />
NASA  <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</a><br />
The Hadley Climate Center<br />
BEST <a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct" rel="nofollow">http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct</a><br />
IPCC</p>
<p>&#8216;Cycles&#8217; of climate change in the more distant past where indeed caused by &#8216;natural events&#8217;- on tectonic and volcanic activity over tens of thousands of years-</p>
<p>the last great warming event was the &#8216;PETM&#8217; 55 million years ago- when vast amounts of carbon &#8211; C02 and cH4 (methane) where induced by heavy continental shift and volcanic activity- temperatures rose 5-7 degrees C over 20,000 years )very swift in geologic time)</p>
<p>C02 is now being introduced 10,000 times faster! This means humans in burning fossil fuels for energy are now adding carbon into the atmosphere at an unprecedented pace!</p>
<p>If we continue on a BAU track- we could do in less then 90 years, what the PETM did in 20,000 yrs.</p>
<p>The earth has cooled ever since the PETM- however scientists can now go back and get approximate C02 levels to nearly 20,000,000 yrs to the Miocene when C02 was as high as today (393ppm) sustained in time- at that time there was no ice in the arctic or Greenland year round- the Western Antarctic ice sheet did not exist- and sea levels where 100 feet higher then today.</p>
<p>The science is air tight on global warming- and the facts are truly frightening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob LaVelle</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/10/naomi-klein-adresses-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-65670</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob LaVelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:44:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=11139#comment-65670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You do not answer her central point. In the field of medicine, perpetual growth is called cancer.  How does an economy that pulls the natural world through itself continue to grow ad infinitum? How does an eternally, perpetually growing subsystem (the economy) of a finite system (the world) continually expand without wrecking its host?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You do not answer her central point. In the field of medicine, perpetual growth is called cancer.  How does an economy that pulls the natural world through itself continue to grow ad infinitum? How does an eternally, perpetually growing subsystem (the economy) of a finite system (the world) continually expand without wrecking its host?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 13/22 queries in 0.015 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 279/308 objects using disk: basic

 Served from: www.globalwarming.org @ 2013-05-15 20:26:36 by W3 Total Cache --