The Eco-Woodstock of America to the World

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

7 posts / 0 new

The Eco-Woodstock of America to the World

Why has the world's climate movement let the terrorists win by stopping the Live Earth / 24 Hours of Reality show in Paris at the UN’s COP 21 climate talks. For the first time in the last 20 plus years since I’ve been following this movement and doing my best to spread the word and the knowledge of where and how people can education their selves with the truth and the facts of what’s happening to our planet. This Has been the one and only time I was able to get most all the people that I, one person was able to get damn near every person I contacted to tune in and follow this event. That was incredible and has to be re-broadcast and finished to its end if we are to hope to save this world. My suggestion is to broadcast from America for security reasons in a setting similar to Woodstock in numbers and media coverage. And done without delay while the momentum is still strong. I cannot believe or want to believe that it’s just to difficult, to expensive, to much trouble for all those organizations and all those entertainers to not want to help save the planet for their families and future generations of the world. If this is true, then this is truly a pathetic world that we have created and we may not deserved to further the existence of the human race.

I have been pushing for many years the concept of joining together as one synchronized movement with the many different organizations, movements, businesses, politicians, religions, or any other groups or individuals that recognize the urgency and reality of this nightmare coming. Because massive numbers of people rising up and speaking out is the only thing that will bring this to the forefront of our corrupt treasonous politicians and corporate media that takes it’s commands from the fossil fuel industry. They must fear us “ WE The People “ more then losing their bribes their taking through our corrupt political systems throughout the world. And this applies more specifically to America’s downright treasonous law coming from our Supreme Court, the Citizens United decision. But this cannot be done with the public/the American people not knowing the truth or where to find it so they can take a stand for their children, their grandchildren and future generations with the courage needed to take on these powers.

I have heard many great speakers, many great organizations, and only a few in the political world that are willing to put their selves on the line to stand up to this devastating corruption. One of the few and only in the last 25 years in the political world I have seen is Bernie Sanders a man of morals, integrity and authenticity, judging from his past 30 year record on issues. Another strong one is Elizabeth Warren. It’s people like these that will save our country and our Planet.

Over the years I have followed and participated in movements such as Occupy Wall Street which was a great movement until it started splitting itself into to many different directions on too many issues instead of focusing on Wall Street and the money that has corrupted our government. That’s why this, the Climate Change Movement must stay on target with how this fossil fuel industry is destroying our ecosystem and corrupting our government with their bribes they buy our politicians with.

What’s my motivation in this fight for a better world and a planet that will sustain life for centuries into the future. It’s my four Great Nephews ages 10 to 15 and their families they will have, that’s why I will lay it all on the line for them and all the children of climate change. At age 60 I will do everything possible to correct or at least mitigate the damages my generation has left them.

“unless you try, nothing changes”


Bill GM

BillGM's picture
Mar. 28, 2016 10:15 pm


The challenge the Climate Change movement has is the absence of evidence to back up the hyperbole. Measurements don't comport with the fear mongering and computer models. Even the "global average temperatures" ( there are more than one) is nothing but the output of computer models.

...that it’s just to difficult, to expensive, to much trouble for all....

stwo's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

the physical evidence is out there everywhere you look. All you have to do is open your mind to the reality of what is taking place with the climate today to predict the future. When you start seeing all these once in a thousand year storms coming one after another, whether it be flooding, forest fires, Arctic melting, weather patterns changing, seasonal farming and gardening changes, and many more. All these are not computer models, these are the realities of the world we live in now. Denial will get us nowhere. We must face reality head-on to change the path of this planet is on. And if nothing else, we must not error on the side of denial being pushed from the fossil fuel industry. The children and future generations of this planet need us to recognize this critical situation we find ourselves in from a history of denial and complacency.

BillGM's picture
Mar. 28, 2016 10:15 pm

BillGM-- actually no. There are MEASURED decreases in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather of nearly every type. Also Earth is GREENING. Thre are not more forest fires. The arctic isn't "melting" My mind is very open. I read the research- lots of it- not blog posts. Not "news" stories- I study research papers and historical MEASUREMENTS to establish my understanding of the situation.

You describe anecdote and prediction, not evidence. You warmists do far more harm to people in developing countries and to future generations than "deniers".

stwo's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Ah yes, the Earth is greening.

Offsetting climate change's effects: Longer growing season offsets climate changes effects on grasslands, study finds -- Harvard University

"The good news is that total grassland productivity is not going to decline, at least for most of the region," Richardson added. "But the bad news is that we're going to have this new seasonality that is outside of current practices for rangeland management, and how to adapt to that is unknown."

Unfortunately we get a complexity of opinions to choose from, and the science of predicting the future lacks the certainty of studying the past through the evidence found in rocks.

Quote Science grapples with climate conundrums:

New research illustrates that reactions of people, plants and animals to the changing climate are a key factor in unravelling the complexities of global warming.

LONDON, 31 March, 2016 – The evidence of a series of new studies shows that climate change is keeping the gurus guessing.

Even when the grasslands become hotter and drier, the grass may still be green. And when summer temperatures rise and yields fall, it isn’t just because heat takes a toll of the crops, it is also because the farmers have decided to plant less, and plant less often.

As economies slump, demand drops and oil prices plummet, then carbon dioxide emissions, paradoxically, start to soar again.

And, against all intuition, you shouldn’t recharge an electric car at night when prices are low, because that could increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Each study is a reminder that climate change is not a simple matter of atmospheric physics. The wild card, every time, is how people, plants and animals react to change.

Climate simulations

Koen Hufkens, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, and colleagues decided to take a look at how the North American grasslands – the high plains, the prairies, the open range – would respond to climate change.

The predictions have been consistent: such places that are already dry will, on the whole, get drier.

But a report in Nature Climate Change by the Harvard team says that their climate simulations of locations from Canada to New Mexico, from California to Illinois, tell another story.

Warming may not mean overall lower productivity. In a warming world, winters will be milder and the growing season will begin earlier. So, overall, the grass stays green.

“You have an earlier spring flush of vegetation, followed by a summer depression where the vegetation withers, and then, at the end of the season, you see the vegetation rebound again,” Dr Hufkens says.

Here's a link to Harvard's Richardson Lab that's been doing the work that projects that, with warming, dry climates will become drier, but also gives that first linked story on offsetting climate change effects.

Here we have the story the Harvard team projects of a greening effect:

Productivity of North American grasslands is increased under future climate scenarios despite rising aridity

Koen Hufkens, Trevor F. Keenan, Lawrence B. Flanagan, Russell L. Scott, Carl J. Bernacchi, Eva Joo, Nathaniel A. Brunsell, Joseph Verfaillie & Andrew D. Richardson

Affiliations Contributions Corresponding authors

Nature Climate Change

Received 13 April 2015 Accepted 20 January 2016 Published online 29 February 2016


Grassland productivity is regulated by both temperature and the amount and timing of precipitation1, 2. Future climate change is therefore expected to influence grassland phenology and growth, with consequences for ecosystems and economies. However, the interacting effects of major shifts in temperature and precipitation on grasslands remain poorly understood and existing modelling approaches, although typically complex, do not extrapolate or generalize well and tend to disagree under future scenarios3, 4. Here we explore the potential responses of North American grasslands to climate change using a new, data-informed vegetation–hydrological model, a network of high-frequency ground observations across a wide range of grassland ecosystems and CMIP5 climate projections. Our results suggest widespread and consistent increases in vegetation fractional cover for the current range of grassland ecosystems throughout most of North America, despite the increase in aridity projected across most of our study area. Our analysis indicates a likely future shift of vegetation growth towards both earlier spring emergence and delayed autumn senescence, which would compensate for drought-induced reductions in summer fractional cover and productivity. However, because our model does not include the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 on photosynthesis and water use efficiency5, 6, climate change impacts on grassland productivity may be even larger than our results suggest. Increases in the productivity of North American grasslands over this coming century have implications for agriculture, carbon cycling and vegetation feedbacks to the atmosphere.

Now here's an example of spurious, anecdotal guessing that gets into the news, that will potentially harm any measurable prosperity for "developing" areas of the globe, as well as future generations to come:

Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures


Delphine Deryng1,2, Declan Conway3, Navin Ramankutty4, Jeff Price2 and Rachel Warren1,2 Published 19 March 2014 • 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd
, ,

Full PDF article, with Abstract quoted below:


Extreme heat stress during the crop reproductive period can be critical for crop productivity. Projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme climatic events are expected to negatively impact crop yields and global food production. This study applies the global crop model PEGASUS to quantify, for the first time at the global scale, impacts of extreme heat stress on maize, spring wheat and soybean yields resulting from 72 climate change scenarios for the 21st century. Our results project maize to face progressively worse impacts under a range of RCPs but spring wheat and soybean to improve globally through to the 2080s due to CO2 fertilization effects, even though parts of the tropic and sub-tropic regions could face substantial yield declines. We find extreme heat stress at anthesis (HSA) by the 2080s (relative to the 1980s) under RCP 8.5, taking into account CO2 fertilization effects, could double global losses of maize yield (ΔY = −12.8 ± 6.7% versus − 7.0 ± 5.3% without HSA), reduce projected gains in spring wheat yield by half (ΔY = 34.3 ± 13.5% versus 72.0 ± 10.9% without HSA) and in soybean yield by a quarter (ΔY = 15.3 ± 26.5% versus 20.4 ± 22.1% without HSA). The range reflects uncertainty due to differences between climate model scenarios; soybean exhibits both positive and negative impacts, maize is generally negative and spring wheat generally positive. Furthermore, when assuming CO2 fertilization effects to be negligible, we observe drastic climate mitigation policy as in RCP 2.6 could avoid more than 80% of the global average yield losses otherwise expected by the 2080s under RCP 8.5. We show large disparities in climate impacts across regions and find extreme heat stress adversely affects major producing regions and lower income countries.

Keywords: climate impacts, global crop yield, extreme temperature stress
S Online supplementary data available from

So, a reader of a variety of the many scientific reports being churned out these days can decide which ones to use for their personal, open-minded version of understanding climate change.

Unfortunately, we are all obliged to read all of this stuff if we are going to dare to talk about it with an expert.

Because only an expert can deal with a problem.

.ren's picture
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

After a second cup of coffee and a stroll around my now burgeoning springtime yard, observing the birds, the blossoms, the cats, and the bees, I decided that a simple conclusion to the above post, set apart in a separate post, might better express the problem we face in making any politically-related decisions about the whole of the complex issues of climate change.

Quote Offsetting climate change's effects:

Though the results suggest climate change may have some positive effects, both Hufkens and Richardson warned that they are the result of a highly delicate balance.

"One message here is simply that the effects of climate change may be somewhat counter-intuitive," Richardson said. "It's getting more arid and that's causing more intense summer droughts, but because of a changing seasonality, vegetation growth is shifting, and those negative effects of drought on ecosystem production can be offset. But that then raises these new questions about appropriate management responses. Relying on this increase in productivity, or expecting that climate change will have long-term benefits because of results like this, is like playing the lottery - the odds are not very good."

Nowhere in the reports from the above scientific studies (which serendipitously appeared in my email this morning before I opened up Thom's board) do I find included the impact of changing ground water availability related to various factors, including industrial agriculture. For the agricultural management aspect they alllude to in the studies, that will also be a factor; as will energy availability; as will a host of other factors not included. I thing that's also an inseparable part of the science that we have to consider, because it implies the problem of expert driven decision-making out of a set of compartmentalized expert-derived results. Institutional decision making has run into this decision-making problem throughout the history of civilizations, and that includes the ever recurring collapses that societies have endured.

My own science background includes both ecology and anthropology -- which for me involved concentrations in cultural anthropology, physical anthropology and archeology, the latter two areas very scientific method-oriented. From my efforts in all those areas, I am well aware that systems are extremely difficult to put into whole scenarios with any scientific rigor. That's one of the reasons why scientists have tended to shy away from the politics. Most of science is involved with aspects of systems. Many of the scientists involved are well aware of the limitations of a study that does not include the whole, and therefore the danger of making any prognostications that imply certainty.

Envisioning whole global systems falls to the social sciences, therefore to a "soft" version of science when it comes to applying the rigors of the scientific method. Those rigorous methods can be extremely harsh on the global visionaries' efforts. That does not mean we have to shy away from making the effort because we can't meet those rigorous conditions of analysis. But it does present a very serious challenge.

.ren's picture
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

-new-chainless-bike that-never-rusts is a design success.

Bikes are good anyhow for their green effect. Fat & heart health aren't bad side effects. (that youngster Prince just died)

douglaslee's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Trump and His Billionaire Buddies Plot to Destroy Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid

Thom plus logo Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are officially in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, and they intend to go after them this year.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system