ChicagoMatt: Many years ago, when I lived in California, I tried to visit the Forestiere Underground Gardens in Fresno but got there too late..it was closed. So, I never did see it. It was originally 10 acres underground and they had fruit trees growing down there with skylights to let in the sun. It was patterned after the ancient catacombs.
http://www.forestiere-historicalcenter.com/Undergroundwonders.html

And I remember traveling through SW Colorado where some American Indians lived not only in caves on the side of cliffs but in deep holes they dug into the earth. The holes were in the shape of a bottle...narrow opening above widening out below.

I guess there is a good reason why a lot of those homes in the Southwestern US are built out of adobe. I remember traveling through Tucson and Phoenix when it was so hot that it felt like an oven...110 degrees...and I understand it gets even hotter. When I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia it got pretty darn hot as well...although I was lucky that I didn't have to work in the Rub' al Khali desert oil fields. I did skirt them once, though, in an air conditioned vehicle when I traveled down south from Dhahran.

The problem with living underground would be the potential of flooding. One would have to choose wisely just where they dug their homes. We can't even avoid big floods like they are having in Minnesota right now. If it's not earthquakes, or wild fires, or tornadoes, or hurricanes, it's the floods that are going to get us. And then there are the microscopic creatures that can kill us, or the poisoning of our atmosphere and water. But, enough of all this happy talk. I've got to finish reading agelbert's interesting tome (and I thought I was the only one that got carried away). ;-}

As anybody consider the fact, that Speaker John Boehner is filing this Lawsuit/Impeachment on the president, for he can remain as speaker of the house, and it will boost his numbers for his reelection. Will the speaker and the Republicans Congress ever understands how much damage he is doing to this country, along with the Republican/Conservative congress and the tea party, does he not know it shows that racism is still alive and well in this country to the rest of the world, and that our history is not far behind us.

This country is supposed to be setting the example that we have equality for every American, but yet again, we are not running from our pass, more likely trying to return to it, which points to this President like no other President, the first black President in United States History. I believe that the speaker is making a bluff; on this Lawsuit/Impeachment, it is just for his own benefit, and quite embarrassing to all Americans. One more thing, Let us not repeat history!

Interesting theory. Time will tell.

I suspect that a lot of people were not paying attention, and have not reduced their storage of data, but maybe the people that matter have.

Craig, Palin- Me neither! The Clintons suck. - AIW

And at this web site ( http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm ) you will see more evidence that the office fires and jet fuel fires were oxygen starved (cooler fires) and the Jet fuel fire only lasted a couple of minutes leaving the office fires to continue longer at a reduced temperature (since the jet fuel was burned out within a couple of minutes).

If you skip down past all of the mathematics and formulas here are the summations:

Quote 911research:So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

And remember, these buildings were designed to withstand raging fires caused by airliners smashing into them. Even if the temperatures were such that it would weaken steel by half it's strength, this was built into the design. No other steel building in history has collapsed due to fires, even ones that were way hotter and lasted way longer.

http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com/

Well said. President Carter is a great man.

This is what President Reagan did to thwart Renewable Energy in the service of fossil fuel profit over planet!

How Ronald Reagan Turned Out the Lights on Solar Power

In an excerpt from his new book, John Perlin reveals how one of the first actions of the new Reagan administration was to dim the lights on the solar energy program.

SNIPPET:

Dr. Barry Commoner, a distinguished scientist and strong solar advocate, was "surprised and troubled by the smallness of both the proposed solar research budget and expected results." He wanted to see the data from the National Science Foundation that supported the Atomic Energy Commission’s dismal view of the future of solar power, especially since Solar Subpanel IX, the scientific panel that appraised photovoltaics’ contribution, was made up of, in Commoner’s judgment, "a distinguished group of experts." A report by Solar Subpanel IX contained their findings, the scientist learned; when Commoner asked to see a copy of the report, the Nixon administration denied that such a report existed. Not believing the response credible, Commoner enlisted the support of Senator James Abourezk of South Dakota, a strong supporter of solar energy.

He received the same runaround. Finally, a solar-energy friendly "Deep Throat" told the senator that a copy existed and could be found at the Atomic Energy Commission’s document reading room. According to Commoner, "This turned out to be a dim photocopy of a hazy carbon; but it has brilliantly illuminated" the discrepancies between the science and politics of energy.

Unlike the author of The Nation’s Energy Future, the subpanel recommended an outlay of almost six times more money than the Atomic Energy Commission had requested for research and development of solar cells[/i]. Furthermore, the National Science Foundation had great expectations for solar electricity, predicting that with its suggested outlay of funds for photovoltaics, solar cells would supply "more than 7 percent of the required U.S. electrical generation capacity by the year 2000," even though the expenditure for the solar option would be 16 times less than for the nuclear choice.

The subpanel also found the solar option more appealing because "in contrast to problems incurred by nuclear plants, photovoltaic systems would find wide public acceptance because of their minimal impact on the environment."However, the report warned, if underfunded, "photovoltaics will not impact the energy [situation]" in future times.

http://www.alternet.org/how-ronald-reagan-turned-out-lights-solar-power

The planet and the biosphere, according to serious, objective, proven environmental science, will become uninhabitable if we do not stop burning fossil fuels within a couple of decades . As things are right now in June of 2014, the scientific community has estimated that it will take over one thousand years, even if we stopped all dirty energy use today, to get our atmosphere back to 350 ppm of CO2. And that is without even taking the other greenhouse gas dangers like methane into account.

The intransigence of the fossil fuel industry in this matter is a given. They wish to avoid liability for the damage they have caused so they have, for several decades, (See the George C. Marshal Institute) launched a campaign of disinformation to claim there is NO climate threat whatsoever.

Not only do they deny climate change, they scare monger people into thinking we are running out of oil! Well, hello? We are supposed to stop using it, aren't we? Now who do you suppose would want us to feel we were "running out" of something so we would VALUE it more? The truth is that oil is a liability, not an asset. But that is precisely what the propagandists work mightily to prevent the people form realizing. If somebody tells me we are running out of a something that , when you burn it, poisons the atmosphere, I'm rather pleased we are running out of it! But for some amazing reason, that obvious truth never makes the news either.

The worsening weather will be the ONLY thing that will spur change and even then we already passed the point a couple of decades ago when bioremediation was going to be fairly straight forward.

Dr. Hansen said oceanic inertia (acidification from CO2) is nearly 100 years. I had thought it was only about 30 years. That means we are experiencing NOW the effects of our generated pollutants (if you say the incubation inertia conservatively is half of 100 years) as of 1964!

Consider all the pollutants that have poured in to the biosphere since then and you start to understand why brilliant people like Guy McPherson are so despondent. There is NO WAY we can stop the pollution/bad weather clock from CONTINUING to deteriorate for another 50 years (or 100 if Hansen is right) even if we STOPPED using all fossil fuels today.

I'm not in charge and neither are you. But clinging to this fossil fuel fantasyland of cheap power and all we "owe" it for our civilization is not going to do anything but make things deteriorate faster.

If enough people reach the 1%, maybe they will wake up. It's all we can do in addition to trying to foster community.

The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that is saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

Mother nature will force it to do so.

Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a switch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the consequent die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates) in 2017.

So I would use that future melting now as a rallying point to wake people up and join in the effort to ban fossil fuel burning and internal combustion engines from planet earth. Expect the fossil fuelers to counter that polar ice melting catastrophic reality with propaganda about what a "wonderful" thing it is to have a new ocean to shorten ship traveling (i.e. TANKERS) distances. So it goes.

If things, by some miracle, go well for humanity and the 1% galvanize to save the biosphere and their stuff, we will witness the dismantling of the centralized fossil fuel infrastructure, it's use and, more importantly, the relinquishing of political power worldwide by big oil.

15 April 2013

James Hansen

1. Exaggeration?

I have been told of specific well-respected people who have asserted that "Jim Hansen exaggerates" the magnitude and imminence of the climate threat. If only that were true, I would be happy.

"Magnitude and imminence" compose most of the climate story.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf

The main reason that large dirty energy industries DO NOT want to transition to Renewable energy is because It has NEVER been about ENERGY beyond CONTROLLING the spigot to we-the-people.

That's why the fossil fuel industry simply didn't switch to the much more profitable and economical renewable energy technologies long ago (they certainly have the money to do so); they simply could not figure out a way to retain POWER and CONTROL with a distributed, rather than a centralized energy system.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other.

And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves.

If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/

The fossil fuel industry and those who side with it, regardless of appearing to take a pro-environment position in their personal lives, are hurting our chances for a viable biosphere.

Those who, instead, simply stand their ground on the settled climate science and state unequivocally that fossil fuels must be BANNED from human use forever and the fossil fuel industries dismantled while a massive transition to a lower carbon footprint and 100% plus renewable energy economy takes place, are the only hope Homo sapiens has.

The question is, which side are you on?

Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as described by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:

Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option

Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

Phase 3 - Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the Disguise of General Support

(Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will disappear.)

I wrote the following about a year ago. It was key to my realization that there MIGHT be hope for us to transition rapidly and safely out of dirty energy for the sake of future generations. I sent a copy to Senator Sanders of Vermont last November. I have not heard anything back.

Note: The idea of the Green Leaf Star American on my petition came later when I saw a Blue Star Mother WWII poster.

Historic proof that manufacturing all the renewable energy machines and infrastructure needed to transition to a 100% Renewable Energy world economy can be achieved in two decades or less: The mass produced Liberty Ships of WWII.

The other day, a knowledgeable mechanical engineer I know stated this concern about the colossal challenge and, in his opinion, impossibility of switching to renewable energy machines in time to avoid a collapse from an energy to manufacture and global industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational infrastructure.

He said:

I admire your enthusiasm, and I agree with many of the points you make. Yes internal combustion engines waste high EROEI consistently, yes fossil fuels and conventional engineering has a warped distorted perspective because of the internal combustion engine, and yes we have an oil oligarchy protecting its turf.

However say we hypothetically made all the oil companies disappear tomorrow and where able to suspend the laws of time and implement our favorite renewables of choice and then where tasked with making certain all of societies critical needs were met we'd have a tall order. The devil is in the details and quantities.

Its the magnitudes, its 21 million barrels per day we are dependent on. Its created massive structural centralization that can only be sustained by incredible energetic inputs. Not enough wind, and not enough rare earth material for PV's to scale and replace. We have to structurally rearrange society to solve the problem. Distributed solar powered villages, not big cities and surely not suburbia. I fear we'll sink very useful resources and capital towards these energy sources (as we arguably have with wind) when the real answer is structural change.

I have shown evidence that there are several multiples of the energy we now consume available just from wind power. This data came from a recent study by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Scientists.

He thinks we CAN'T do it even if we had enough wind because of the colossal challenge and, in his opinion, impossibility of switching to renewable energy machines in time to avoid a collapse from an energy required to manufacture and global industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational infrastructure.

His solution is to survive the coming collapse with small distributed energy systems and a radically scaled down carbon footprint. Sadly, that option will not be available to a large percentage of humanity.

Hoping for a more positive future scenario, I analyzed his concerns to see if they are valid and we have no other option but to face a collapse and a die off with the surviving population living at much lower energy use levels.

I'm happy to report that, although the mechanical engineer has just cause to be concerned, we can, in reality, transition to 100% Renewable Energy without overtaxing our civilizational resources.

This a slim hope but a real one based on history and the word's present manufacturing might. Read on.

http://www.skylighters.org/troopships/libshipschematic1.jpg

I give you the logistics aiding marvel of WWII, the Liberty Ship. It was THE JIT (just in time), SIT (sometimes in time) and sometimes NIT (never in time because it was torpedoed) cargo delivery system that helped us win the war.

This was a mass produced ship. These ships are a testament to the ability to build an enormous quantity of machines on a global scale that the U.S. was capable of over half a century ago.

The Liberty ship model used two oil boilers and was propelled by a single-screw steam engine, which gave the liberty ship a cruise speed of 11 to 11.5 knots. The ships were 441.5 feet long, with a 57 foot beam and a 28 foot draft.

[img width=640 height=480]http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/116liberty_victory_ships/116images/116coverbl2.jpg[/img]

[img width=640 height=480]http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/liberty2/libertyshipsforitaly.jpg[/img]

The ships were designed to minimize labor and material costs; this was done in part by replacing many rivets with welds. This was a new technique, so workers were inexperienced and engineers had little data to go on. Additionally, much of the shipyards' labor force had been replaced with women as men joined the armed forces. Because of this, early ships took quite a long time to build - the Patrick Henry taking 244 days -

but the average building time eventually came down to just 42 days.

[img width=640 height=480]http://www.skylighters.org/troopships/libertyship-hi-new.jpg[/img]

A total of 2,710 Liberty ships were built, with an expected lifespan of just five years. A little more than 2,400 made it through the war, and 835 of these entered the US cargo fleet. Many others entered Greek and Italian fleets. Many of these ships were destroyed by leftover mines, which had been forgotten or inadequately cleared. Two ships survive today, both operating as museum ships. They are still seaworthy, and one (the Jeremiah O'Brien) sailed from San Francisco to England in 1994.

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-history/88389-history-of-the-liberty-ships/

Today, several countries have, as do we, a much greater industrial capacity. It is inaccurate to claim that we cannot produce sufficient renewable energy devices in a decade or so to replace the internal combustion engine everywhere in our civilization.

The industrial capacity is there and is easily provable by asking some simple questions about the fossil fuel powered internal combustion engine status quo:

How long do internal combustion engine powered machines last?

How much energy does it require to mine the raw materials and manufacture the millions of engines wearing out and being replaced day in and day out?

What happens if ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY is, instead, dedicated to manufacturing Renewable Energy machines?

IOW, if there is a ten to twenty year turnover NOW in our present civilization involving manufacture and replacement of the internal combustion engines we use, why can't we retool and convert the entire internal combustion engine fossil fuel dependent civilization to a Renewable Energy Machine dependent civilization?

1) The industrial capacity is certainly there to do it EASILY in two decades and maybe just ten years with a concerted push.

2) Since Renewable Energy machines use LESS metal and do not require high temperature alloys, a cash for clunkers worldwide program could obtain more than enough metal raw material without ANY ADDITIONAL MINING (except for rare earth minerals - a drop in the bucket -- compared to all the mining presently done for metals to build the internal combustion engine) by just recycling the internal combustion engine parts into Renewable Energy machines.

3) Just as in WWII, but on a worldwide scale, the recession/depression would end as millions of people were put to work on the colossal transition to Renewable Energy.

HOWEVER, despite our ABILITY to TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY, we "CAN'T DO IT" because the fossil fuel industry has tremendous influence on the worldwide political power structure from the USA to Middle East to Russia to China.

IOW, it was NEVER

1. An energy problem,

2. A "laws of thermodynamics" problem,

3. A mining waste and pollution problem,

4. A lack of wind or sun problem,

5. An environmental problem,

6. An industrial capacity problem or

7. A technology problem.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ABOVE excuses for claiming Renewable Energy cannot replace Fossil Fuels are STRAWMEN presented to the public for the express purpose of convincing us of the half truth that without fossil fuels, civilization will collapse. It was ALWAYS a POLITICAL PROBLEM of the fossil fuel industry not wanting to relinquish their stranglehold on the world's geopolitical make up.

It drives them insane to think that Arizona and New Mexico can provide more power than all the oil in the Middle East. Their leverage over lawmakers and laws to avoid environmental liability is directly proportional to their market share of global energy supplies. They are threatened by Renewable Energy and have mobilized to hamper its growth as much as possible through various propaganda techniques using all the above strawmen.

It is TRUE that civilization will collapse and a huge die off will occur without fossil fuels IF, and ONLY IF, Renewable Energy does not replace fossil fuels. It is blatantly obvious that we need energy to run our civilization.

It is ALSO TRUE that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in iternal combustion engines, Homo sapiens will become extinct. This is not hyperbole. We ALREADY have baked in conditions, that take about three decades to fully develop, that have placed us in a climate like the one that existed over 3 million years ago.

We DID NOT thrive in those conditions or multiply. This is a fact. We barely survived until a couple of hundred thousand years ago when the weather became friendlier and even then we didn't really start to populate the planet until about 10,000 years ago.

The climate 3 million years ago was, basically, mostly lethal to Homo Sapiens. To say that we have technology and can handle it WHILE CONTINUING TO BURN FOSSIL FUELS is a massive dodge of our responsibility for causing this climate crisis (and ANOTHER strawman from Exxon "We will adapt to that" CEO).

Fossil fuel corporations DO NOT want to be held liable for the damage they have caused, so, even as they allow Renewable Energy to have a niche in the global energy picture, will use that VERY NICHE (see rare earth mining and energy to build PV and wind turbines) to blame Renewables for environmental damage.

In summary, the example of the Liberty ships is proof we CAN TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY in, at most, a couple of decades if we decide to do it but WON'T do it because of the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on political power, financing and laws along with the powerful propaganda machine they control.

In other words, what happens, if my petition or some other effort does NOT succeed in getting our government (and several others too) to engage in a massive Transition to 100% Renewable energy NOW?

What can we expect from the somewhat dismal prospects for Homo sapiens?

1) Terrible weather and melted polar ice caps with an increase in average wind velocity in turn causing more beach erosion from gradually rising sea level and wave action. The oceans will become more difficult to traverse because of high wave action and more turbulent seas. The acidification will increase the dead zones and reduce aquatic life diversity. But you've heard all this before so I won't dwell on the biosphere problems that promise to do us in.

2) As Renewable Energy devices continue to make inroads in fossil fuel profits, expect an engineered partial civilizational collapse in a large city to underline the "you are all going to die without fossil fuels" propaganda pushed to avoid liability for the increasingly "in your face" climate extremes.

3) Less democracy and less freedom of expression from some governments and more democracy and freedom of expression from other governments in direct proportion to the percent penetration of Renewable energy machines in powering their countries (more Renewable Energy, more freedom) and an inverse proportion to the power of their "real politik" Fossil Fuel lobbies in countries. (more Fossil Fuel power, less freedom).

The bottom line, as Guy McPherson says, is that NATURE BATS LAST. Nature has millions of "bats". Homo SAP has a putrid fascist parasite bleeding it to death and poisoning it at the same time. The parasite cannot survive without us so it is allowing us to get a tiny IV to keep us alive a little longer (a small percentage of renewable energy machines). It won't work.

But the parasite has a plan. The IV will be labeled a "parasite" (the villain and guilty party) when Homo SAP finally figures out he is going to DIE if he doesn't fix this "bleeding and poison" problem. Then the real parasite will try to morph into a partially symbiotic organism and Homo SAP will muddle through somehow.

I think that the parasite doesn't truly appreciate the severity of Mother Nature's "bat".

Three future Scenarios:

1. If the parasite (as a metaphor for a fossil fuel powered civilization) does not DIE TOTALLY, I don't think any of us will make it.

2. If the parasite takes MORE than 20 years to die, some of us will make it but most of us won't.

3. If, in 2017, when the north pole has the first ice free summer, all the governments of the Earth join in a crash program to deep six the use of fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine within a ten year period, most of us will make it.

A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

It simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is. It DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs. The internal combustion engine and fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.

As a Christian, I take very seriously the commandment to respect my fellow human beings as myself. Because the life giving biosphere is God's creation, I take equally seriously our responsibility to be good stewards of our home. We have not been good stewards. Help me with this petition and future generations will thank you. We really, really ARE all in this together.

Will a massive public outcry born of demands like the one I make in the petition (link at close of post) make a difference?

I think so. I know doing nothing is not optional for a caring human population. It is our thankless task to convince the powers that be that they are on a course for planetary suicide that can only be changed with a paradigm shift involving respect for all life, not just human life.

If we change, if we act to leave dirty and centralized, political power concentrating energy behind, we will give future generations a chance to live in a Viable Biospshere AND a political democracy.

If we don't, we will perish.

Anthony G. Gelbert

Renewable Revolution Forum/blog

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/you-will-have-to-pick-a-side-there-is-no-longer-room-for-procrastination/msg46/#msg46

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/historical-documentaries/msg1214/#msg1214

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/no-we-never-needed-lwr-nuclear-power-plants-to-make-nuclear-weapons/msg1332/#msg1332

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-u-s/msg353/#msg353

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/how-the-promise-of-chemurgy-was-dashed-by-big-oil/msg3/#msg3

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/how-the-promise-of-chemurgy-was-dashed-by-big-oil/msg89/#msg89

Petition to Demand a WWII Style Massive Effort to Transition to 100% Renewable Energy within a decade: http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ai3Tb

Thank you and please pass it on. The Bisophere you save may be your own.

We must understand the exponential factor of global warming. Current rates are changing rapidly. The estimates now for the Thermus Maximus event and mass extinction is now closer to 17 years not 50. In order to change the rate of global warming that leads to mass extinction we must do the following:

The next Kyoto or international agreement must be to ban the manufacture and export of all petrol chemical burning vehicles. Switch to electric air flight with propellor planes. Eliminate coal burning. Remove the plastic mass swirling in the oceans and replace with plankton farming using alkalizer substrates. Re-freeze the polar caps by shading with orbiting nets. Nets would have to be elastic enough to withstand incoming debris and deflect sunlight 70%. End the cutting of rainforests and oldgrowth. End the use of trees for paper and pulp products. Replace with hemp. Plant a trillion trees a year for 100 years. Sounds easy? Without this political will humankind is doomed. Are you feeling lucky? Do you trust our politicians and the science community to do the right thing?

When the Carter's put up solar panels on the white house they knew this forecast of the future. Reagan-Bush and the oil baron's took them down. Notice the Clinton's did not put them back up? When Jimmy Carter stands with the former president's, notice he stands a distance apart everytime. This is important body language. Notice Clinton stands with the Bush's. Hillary has said little concerning global warming which is the most important issue facing mankind. She is more concerned with her image as a wealthy person. We need Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Jackie Speier, to step forward. These are true democrats that are leaders on this important issue. We are weary of the corporate media annointing an heir apparent. People on the west coast are tired of the east coast repocrats running our democratic party.We need progressive leadership. We don;t have much time.

A thought on the Cell-Phone Ruling:

My first reaction was that the 5 that suddently decided to vote properly were just concerned about the porn on their devices being discovered after a traffic stop, but I think it goes deeper.

The reality of the ruling is just that it has been clarified that technically, in "most" cases, a warrant needs to be obtained and the inference is that warrants are not easy to obtain.

Unlike so many other rulings by SCOTUS dealing with "privacy" (which the Corporate Media give little coverage to) - this ruling gets big headlines and more airtime than all those erosions of our rights.

Now why would that be?

My conclusion is that the (substitute the 3-letters of your choice) have noticed a decrease in the amount of personal / potentially embarassing or incriminating information being stored by people on their electronic devices since Mr. Snowden's whistleblowing began a year ago.

This ruling, although proper in itself, is intended to lull users back into a false sense of security about how cavlier they can be with how they use their electronic devices.

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11.Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12.Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13.Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/347-high-temperatures-persist...

Palindromedary ~ One last thing before I turn in. I know you are a 9/11 buff. You should find this most interesting. A few blogs ago I discussed the Israeli film crew and it's implications. I found an article, entitled, "Hoax of the Century" that expounds on that story I thought you might find interesting. It talks about the crew, the company they worked for, what happened to them after the attacks, and a picture of the van that was at the scene that has a mural painted on it that you will not believe. Anyway, check it out when you have time. I'm going to bed but will check back to see if you have any comments tomorrow.

PS Sorry for getting off topic.

http://www.maltanow.com.mt/?p=2663

DAnne. That was great.

Speaking of relatives I heard a good one the other day. "freinds are Gods way of apologizing for relatives".

Interesting. A lot of what I think and say here is based on what I want for my children's and grandchilderens future. But is is more leaned towards economic things as I think I always worry that they are taken care of where you and Alice seem to be more worried about the earth And the bigger picture.