Why the Planet’s Past 485 Million Years Are a Climate Warning

Science and Technology
1

…
While models give us theoretical projections, the fossil record gives us chemical fingerprints from ancient oceans. By integrating more than 150,000 data points with 850 climate simulations, they produced what they call the PhanDA curve (see above), a reconstruction of GMST spanning nearly half a billion years.

So what did they find?

First, Earth’s temperature has swung far more wildly than previously thought. Over the Phanerozoic, GMST ranged between 11°C and 36°C. That’s like flipping between an ice age and a sauna, many times over. Most strikingly, the planet has spent more time in greenhouse states (hot and ice-free) than in our current coldhouse state. Today’s average of about 15°C is relatively chilly in a deep-time context. …

No Mikie, this isn’t cause for celebration,
but you gotta continue to reading the fine print to educate yourself as to what it does mean.

What’s it they say, we don’t know what we have until it’s gone. Humanity was blessed and we’re managing to destroy that blessing - vaults full of gold won’t help solve, or even deal with, this problem.

Whereas 50, 60 years ago all it would have taken is to turn down our self-absorption and self-serving bottomless pit of avarice and gluttony. We could have bought ourselves centuries of extra time. But that was then and this is the dreaded 2025 on a planet with too many needy human beings .

2

You know that Earth rights are birth rights ?

3

… We argue that Earth’s rights encompass and include the right to health and can be integrated into international human rights frameworks to protect all forms of life, responding to colonial legacies of discrimination and violence.

We respond to the scarcity of literature discussing Earth’s rights in relation to situations where human rights and Earth’s rights are violated.

We ground our argument in the theoretical conceptualization of Latin American proposals of Earth’s rights and its potential for actionable policy approaches that include human health as inevitably interconnected to our planet’s well-being.

We address the environmental injustices that affect the right to health and argue that an Earth’s rights framework can support reparations for historically marginalized communities. …

The problem with “Rights” is that they are not granted they are taken.

And today we have a society where strong political interests and propaganda thinking is driven by a rejection of learning, and the willful ignorance.

I’ve gotten to taste it up close and personal in my recent travels, and so many folks want to be pissed off and don’t want to entertain anything that doesn’t already aline with their hatred - even got a guy, or two, around here who displays that mentality.

I know way more about Earth and my (our) connection to her, than any one wants to hear.
I would love to discuss aspects of that, but no else seems interested - including you, who seems mainly interested slapping people up-side-da-head.

So where do we go from here?

4

Where to is by sharing the rising value of the earth’s natural resources (and natural monopolies), a genuine economic democracy is possible.

5

What would that be?
What’s the plan?

6

The plan is for self funded public infrastructure such as housing and high speed rail by replace income taxes with a system to share the naturally rising value of the earth. Everyone becomes a shareholder to the earths natural resources by taxing land owners and resource licence holders.

7

That’s a good plan. Implementation is a problem. First you have all the people who used the current system in good faith. It would take a lot of sorting of them from the people who abused their privileges and broke the weak environmental laws we have now.

I don’t know how we would change the economy, since it is based on ownership and resource extraction.

8

Massive massive investment into electrified public transport

9

The current system can invest and convert. It won’t do it fast enough and it won’t democratize anything

11

All the more reason why america is not a democracy under either party ..

12

I’m not discussing the quality of our democracy. I agree that it’s not great, more like “late stage capitalism”. I asked about solutions like how we get everyone to be a stakeholder in the environment. Are you going to cut and paste random talking points or have a discussion?

1 Like
13

Is a tax on unearned income part of your plan? Earth sharing and all?

14

Can we get this straight, I don’t have a plan. I had a plan half a century ago that would have demanded taking “externalities” in account. Taking on responsibility for understanding and maintaining healthy biospheres, and biodiversity.

Having the cojones to look at our penchant for greed -
To learn to take real science real damned serious -
and so on.

I so wish to have some rational constructive dialogue, but it seems all you want is baiting.

That’s the plan?

Sounds like a dream to me.

Earth Rights for the Advancement of a Planetary Health Agenda - PMC

What foundation does a “modern” people … - who were born and bred to live off of Hollywood Dreaming (more is better) - and who in masses abandoned the best Democratic framework humanity ever achieved (thanks almost entirely by the land of boundless opportunity it provided) - … have to enable them to do anything like that?

Fiduciary responsibility would have included the health of others, human and the aspects of this Earthly realm the supplies our life support systems, not to mention, that created and sustains us.

Putting restraints on how large corporations were allowed to become.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

How do people become stakeholders if they are quite clueless about environment, physical reality, being an evolved Earthling creature, related to all other creatures. Who like you possess a mind created by its particular body interacting with life. Science and biology and evolution - should have been a major personal interest.

Without that sort of foundation all this other jazz you love tossing out there is mucho-blah-blah.

Gotta start with the basis. Here,

A historic snafu in need of revisiting

Back in 2004, during the Vice Presidencial debates, the question of the moment was: America’s Right to “Go It Alone.” Cheney proclaimed: “America will not allow anyone veto power!” Senator Edwards (and by extension the Democratic Party) could respond no better than to mumble meaningless platitudes.

Why couldn’t Senator Edwards invoke the words of our United States Declaration of Independence? The last line of the first paragraph reads: “… a decent Respect to the Opinion of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation.”

Our Declaration of Independence and its signers granted no one veto power, however they did recognize a higher arbiter of correctness and a requirement that they be able to justify their actions in the eyes of the world!

Why couldn’t the Democrat articulate that?

Why have we so easily misplaced our respect for the rest of mankind?

That last line includes a lot of things like curiosity and education and learning from mistakes and striving to be constructive - the need for physics and science and experts and rational regulations . . . etc., etc. And some self control.

Do you ever think of the deep problems?
wondering about our original sin and how we have allowed ourselves, en masse, to be evolved into automata. You can find a million things that are wrong, go back into history and you’ve find the precursors everywhere. Is it important to clearly recognize that?

Ever think about our shear population size and its inevitable cascading consequences - it’s past escaping where we put ourselves.

Want to bitch at stuff, or strive for some deeper awareness of …?

15

If you dont have a plan or point to others with a plan then dialogue is pointless

16

Earth sharing is about removing tax from labour and putting it on the rising value of earth resources that we equally all own such as implementing a land value tax

17

But isn’t such dreaming pointless, if you have no conception of Earth and its relationship with us.

If one feels no inner awareness, or emotional connection to Earth, aren’t such notions are nonstarters.

What does “removing tax from labour” even mean?

18

Opinions are guesses about a subject which is uncertain. So all opinions are valid if the subject is uncertain. American minds are trained to hate uncertainty. We have been taught certainties from the past and refuse to accept that our beliefs are merely opinions about the future or about mistakes made in the past. We color those opinions into a picture and that picture becomes our certainty, our ideology.

New ideas are resisted if they challenge our picture of certainty. We refuse to listen or read or discuss anything which challenges that picture. Fraying around the edges is dismissed as unimportant. Only if the core dissolves will we accept that the entire picture could be wrong.

The American picture is one where the society is good, but beset by small numbers of evildoers with evil opinions. They have convinced a near-majority of the population of the certainty of false opinions. Those falsehoods compete with the truth on equal footing and prevent solution of society’s problems. We are in a stalemate.

Escaping that stalemate can only come from allowing uncertainty. We will only allow uncertainty after we have recognized that the picture describes a failure.

The failure of Representative Democracy is becoming clearer. It is a necessary first step to actual freedom: the freedom to think new thoughts about uncertainties at the core of the American picture.

19

What I find curious there’s no mention of understanding the, Why our Representative Democracy failed.

And this “Freedom to think” sounds sort of Orwellian to me.
What happened to the learning part?
Or the facing up to our mistakes part?

20

Wow. Please tell what "dialogue " means to you. Show me dialogue

2 Likes
21

I wonder why you think Representative Democracy is a success?. At this point, after nearly 240 years, it must be a success or a failure. I say it has failed and the culprit is ideology. We have proven that one ideology (Fascism or Communism) drives failure, so why expect better results from two ideologies?