Cold Wind

Bruce Krasting's picture


Cold wind blowing today in the North East, fitting for the first day of winter. The whole country is having a bit of a cold spell. Even the poor folks in Palm Beach might see a frost (raises hell with the begonias).



I was feeling a bit sorry for the folks in the sun belt before I saw that it was down to –55F in Siberia. That’s cold, a fifty year low.



The topic of weather gets me to a story I’ve been following - the continuing drought in the mid-west. The odds say that two years of severe drought is unlikely, but that is what’s happening. The 30/90-day rainfall is a fraction of normal:




The lack of rain has many negative side effects. One is the water level on the Mississippi. The water is so low that ships, sunk and lost twenty-five years ago, are now visible.



A number of emergency steps are being taken to keeps the river navigable. Thirty miles south of St. Louis there is a rock formation that was once deep below water. Now it’s a risk to barge traffic, so they’re blasting it apart.



A more controversial step was taken to drain water from Lake Carlyle. The hope is that the extra water will raise the northern Mississippi by six inches. Not a big deal considering it's already down by 20 feet. The water drained from Lake Carlyle will keep the upper Mississippi navigable for, at best, another twenty days.



The river is already impaired; it’s getting worse by the day. There will be economic consequences to this. There are not enough trains and trucks to pick up the volume of goods that go by barge. Everything that goes up and down the river is going to get a fair bit more expensive in the very near future. A hell of lot of “stuff” gets floated up and down the Mississippi, so this is one to watch out for.




There is no connection between this weekend’s weather and climate change (It’ll be back in the 80s down in Boca next week), but I’ll jump to that topic anyway. For those of you who have strong feelings (either way) on matters of climate, there was an important development this week.


It appears that a significant motivation for Obama to nominate John Kerry as the next Secretary of State is that Kerry is going to lead a global effort to “Confront Climate Change”. The Hill has the story on this today (Link), some snippets from the article:


From Twitter:


“Confident John Kerry as state sec is good news for climate. Cross fingers his dedication will make climate a strategic priority. ” Hedegaard - E.U.’s commissioner for climate action.


“One of the most pressing challenges is to reverse potentially devastating climate change. Kerry understands the need to work closely with allies on the most pressing topics – including climate change.” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)





“I have absolute confidence that Secretary Kerry will be committed to action on climate change as he, is the most knowledgeable, passionate person to break the international logjams on this existential threat.” Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)


“Sen. Kerry will bring vital expertise and knowledge on the issue of climate change as we endeavor to work toward a meaningful, balanced international agreement in 2015,” - Eileen Claussen, the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.


“As Secretary, Senator Kerry will face numerous issues that are crucial to both the security of our nation and the future of our planet, including critical decisions on the Keystone XL pipeline.” - Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.


“Senator Kerry could certainly teach the President a thing or two about how to make a clear and compelling case for climate action. That starts with saying no to the Keystone XL pipeline and then continuing to use the powers of the presidency to regulate emissions and promote clean energy.” - Jamie Henn, co-founder of the climate advocacy group .


“We need a leader with John Kerry’s experience and talent at the helm of the State Department. There is much more to do on all of these crucial challenges, from nonproliferation to climate change.” - Hillary Clinton.



I thought it was interesting that Obama did not mention Kerry’s role as "Climate Defender" when he announced his nomination. I guess Obama understood that this is a very hot topic, and if the plan is for his new Sec. State to put the nix on the Keystone pipeline; he had better keep his mouth shut until after Kerry's Senate confirmation.


Anyone have any thoughts on this?

-Should the Secretary of State be leading a new global charge directed at climate change?

-Is there anything that might be done to influence the climate?

-Are humans responsible for climate change? Are Americans responsible for climate change?

-Does your opinion of Kerry, as Sec. State, change, now that you know that one reason he is getting the job is to push a climate agenda?


It’s cold out, I’m just trying to turn up the heat.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Disenchanted's picture

Imagine that...


by Joanne Nova
The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come


some excerpts:


The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?


Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?


If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the “Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role.


Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where even the most insignificant pro-AGW*
findings are reported, repeated, trumpeted and asserted, while any anti-AGW results lie unstudied, ignored and delayed. Auditing AGW research is so underfunded that for the most part it is left to unpaid bloggers who collect donations from concerned citizens online. These auditors, often retired scientists, are providing a valuable free service to society, and yet, in return they are attacked, abused, and insulted.


The real total of vested interests in climate-change science is far larger than just scientists doing pure research. The $30 billion in funding to the CCSP (graphed above) does not include work on green technologies like improving solar cells, or storing a harmless gas underground. Funding for climate technologies literally doubles the amount of money involved, and provides a much larger pool of respectable-looking people with impressive scientific cachet to issue more press releases—most of which have little to do with basic atmospheric physics, but almost all of which repeat the assumption that the climate will warm due to human emissions. In other words: a 30-billion-dollar cheer squad.


Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What's amazing is what they haven't found: empirical evidence.)


my favorite though is this:


The stealthy mass entry of bankers and traders into the background of the scientific “debate” poses grave threats to the scientific process. The promise of “trillions of dollars” on commodity markets—with all of that potential money hinging on finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant role in the climate—surely acts like blanket of mud over open dispassionate analysis.


mkhs's picture

-55 degrees in Siberia. Long live global warming.

shovelhead's picture


Greenie's picture

Went duck hunting yesterday on the Illinois river south of Havana. Wearing only chest-high waders, I waded a quarter of the way across the river and the water was never deeper than mid-thigh.  Never tested how deep the channel portion was but its safe to say navigating a barge on the river without grounding it would be tough.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

The climate is always changing.  Man is not responsible for it.  There is nothing that man can do about it.  Increasing taxes, controlling individuals and bailing out failed green investments will not impact the climate in the slightest.  Or improve anything.

PUD's picture

The climate "is" always changing...correct!

It is changing now...correct!

Mans industrialization has accelerated natural change as well as added to other exponential and catastrophic environmental changes...fixed it for you!

PUD's picture

Did you come up with that all by yourself? wow!

Bicycle Repairman's picture

You are a moron.  Therefore you cannot comprehend and are utter undeserving of any other answer.

Ol Man's picture

What the evidence shows
So what we have on the best current evidence is that

  • global temperatures are currently rising;
  • the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;
  • the “trip” or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the “opening” and “closing” of the Arctic Ocean;
  • there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;
  • the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;
  • if CO2 were the temperature–oscillation source, no mechanism—other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)—has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;
  • the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;
  • water—as a gas, not a condensate or cloud—is the major radiative absorbing–emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;
  • determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6–7.6-µm water band in the 60–80% RH range; and
  • the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.

Robert H. Essenhigh is the E. G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio State University, 206 W. 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; 614-292-0403

PUD's picture

You need to look up the definition of the words "theory" and "fact"

A "theory" is an explanation of a given observation that is supported by "facts"

A "theory" is the strongest scientific statement possible it is not a "conjecture" as the ignorant (religious intelligent designers apologists" claim

Once again...over eager "opinions" from those who fail to do their proper due dilligence

pine_marten's picture

Here are a couple of links that support my opinins on "man made" global warming:

The guys at Cerne are idiots right?

And our politicians are careful and prudent with environmental spending:

Now get on it with those famous liberal open minds.........


PUD's picture

62 years of cosmic ray count plotted against global fail again because you have a religious mindset. Construct a "belief" then find data to support

PUD's picture

Linked to from the "Drudge report" bhwaaaaa..nuff said.

A lot of global warming deniers try very hard to connect global warming to the Sun. In this case, the thinking is that Sun’s magnetic field affects how many cosmic rays hit the Earth — in times of lower solar activity, the Sun’s magnetic field doesn’t protect us as well from cosmic rays, so we should see more clouds at solar minimum and therefore cooler temperatures. During higher activity, the Sun’s field protects us better, so there should be fewer clouds, and more warming.

The problem here is two fold: there doesn’t appear to be a large variation in Earth’s temperatures with solar activity*, and also that temperatures are rising extremely rapidly in the past 100 years, when solar activity has been relatively normal.

I researched this quite a bit for my book, "Death from the Skies!" It seems like an amazing idea, and well worth investigating, that cosmic rays could affect us so much that our weather might change due to them! But what I found then, as it still seems true at least for now, is that if cosmic rays do have an effect, it’s very small, and not nearly enough to account for either the suddenness or the amount of rise in temperatures the Earth has seen in the past century.

We may know more about any alleged connection in the next few years, but be very, very wary of anyone claiming with certainty that the Sun is causing our temperature rise, or that global warming is due to cosmic rays (or in this case, the lack thereof).

As I’ve said before, here are the facts:

The Earth is warming up. The rate of warming has increased in the past century or so. This corresponds to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the planet (hence the name) — if they didn’t we’d have an average temperature below the freezing point of water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is dumped into the atmosphere by humans to the tune of 30 billion tons per year, 100 times the amount from volcanoes. And finally, approximately97% of climatologists who actually study climate agree that global warming is real, and caused by humans.

moneybots's picture

"In 2005 I had to flee Southeast Texas to escape Hurricane Rita.  It came right after Katrina, and it barely missed my area.

In 2008 I had to flee Hurricane Ike.  To this day I really don't think there's been a recovery.  I've since fled permanently, I'm a "climate refugee."

Now, there is no fucking way that 2 powerful Cat. 5 hurricanes in the same area in the space of 4 years is just random noise"


We are currently setting a new record for the longest number of days without a category 3 or above hurricane hitting the U.S.  The new record was set a year ago and continues to this day.  The previous record was in 1900.

What was that again about random noise?  The alarmists said we we supposed to have more and stronger hurricanes.  The opposite has happened.  A record long lack of them.

While Arctic sea ice coverage was at a record low last summer, Antarctic sea ice coverage was at a record high, during their winter this year.


Ol Man's picture
150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times


PUD's picture

There were no satellites in 1870, no ice cores taken, no oceanic science of note, no measurements of glaciers or co2, no computers or models, no data sets to compare to, no geologic record, no science called climatology, no fossil records of note, no chemical analysis, no instruments, no understanding of weather to speak of, no aircraft etc etc...what you post is like comparing the "origin of species" to our genetic understanding of

pine_marten's picture

I often get a kick out of the "static earth" mentality when it comes to opinions on the environment.  The mecca period for the environmentalists is one nano second before Columbus set foot on North America.  Why not a period of volcanism or an ice age?  These geological conditions are just a natural part of the moods of our earth mother too no?

SokPOTUS's picture

"Hot Topic"  heh-heh.  I see what you did there.  Nice.

Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

There is big money in UN CHANGING the climate. If there wasn't, it would not be so.

It's a circus for global cooperation.

The better the globe cooperates, the more souls are controlled, and the more money is made.

Imagine Facebook for Global Government, where everyone is under surveillance, everyone controlled, everyone a source of profit.


PUD's picture

I'll post this again for those who are uninformed and those who are willfully ignorant and full of meaningless "opinions"

You all have to understand that the "global warming" element is but one part of the entire assault upon the bio systems that support life on this planet. You also have to understand that it is not the fact that climate changes, it is the fact that man influenced climate "rates" are changing. When climate changes over thousands of years, creatures adapt. Human evolution took place because of climatic changes that literally brought us out of the trees and into the grasslands. All well and good when it takes place over tens and hundreds of thousands of years but when it takes place over decades there is no adaptation possible. Add to this the side effects of chemical contamination, dead zones, soil and water depletion, forest and fishery destruction, weather disruptions, drought, storms etc etc and there can be no question what so ever that the very fabric of life globally is under assault.

We have altered the face of the planet and only a complete fool would argue otherwise. Our mines can be seen from space, deforestation on a global scale can be heat mapped and it's mind blowing. Urbanization and industrialization in the 3d world has created gigantic toxic sewer cities with measurable health consequences extending far beyond human placed borders. There are 1200 coal fired power plants under construction world wide. They will consume and burn billions of tons of coal adding gigi tons of co2 to an atmosphere richer with the gas then any other time in the last 800,000 years! as well as all the other contaminants, toxic heavy metals, fly ash and the like.

The oceans will get more acidic every year as the heat content rises and absorption of co2 increases bring profound changes to the entire global oceanic ecosystem.

You doubters do not get it. You are willfully un-informed, ignorant, blind or maliciously indifferent.

The data is in. It is huge in its scope and completeness. It is irrefutable and it's going to hit you right in the face no matter how much you deny it.

tbone654's picture

I guess don't worry about it... abortion and gay marriage will take care of everything for you...  less people to change cities into sewers and chop trees...

Clinteastwood's picture

John Kerry has a manservant who makes his peanut butter sandwiches.  That's all you need to know about global warming.

KingTut's picture

As a former physicist (I'm retired), I believe that the science of global warming might be the most important issue to get right in the next few years.  This i mostly because the "solutions" to the problem look as bad as the problem itself.  To rapidly replace fossil fuels (85% of our energy) with anything else wil cost 10's of tirllions at a time when we have commited 100's trillions that we don't have.  Addressing global warming may end up being more destructive to humanity than the warming itself.

Our modern civilization is based on cheap energy, and any replacement energy source will NOT be cheap.  This must be accounted for in real terms, no amount of inflation can chnage the real cost of alternative energy sources.  Consider your vision of paradise: palm trees, beaches and endless summer?  Sounds like global wamring to me!  The world doesn't care about the warming: it has adjusted itself countless times to all kinds of climate chnage.  It is only humanity that doesn't want its coastal cities flooded.

My calculations regarding the greenhouse effect can only account for about 1/4 of the warming we see.  It is has probably gotten about 1 ?C warmer in the last few decades,  but the amount of CO2 we measure can only raise temperatures 1/4?C.  We know that the earth has always suffered periodic ice ages, droughts and all manner of exreme weather. It is not "denial" to assume that those forces, which have existed for billions of years, might be partly responsible for what we are seeing.

As mentioned above the temperature increases we saw in the 1960's 70's 80's and 90's, stopped and temerpatures have remained essentially constant for over 10 years.  While the northern ice is retreating, antarctic ice is increasing. We wouldn't have the word "climate" if it wern't changing all the time.  We need to keep doing the science, and watch what ahppens carefully,  but we also have to manage our energy use in a way that doesn't make our economic collapse worse.

lindaamick's picture

Look up in the sky everyday and notice the pattern.   About every 3 days you will see chemical trails that spread into haze and thin clouds.  For the next couple of days it will be cloudy and sometimes there will be a little drizzle or a little rain.  

Do some investigation.  At any given time in the US there are around 60 weather modification programs being performed by private corporations.  I am sure other countries are engaged in the same efforts. 

Additionally there are geoengineering experiments being done to attempt chemical solutions to climate change.

I am sure there are knock on effects and unintended consequences associated with these efforts especially since these activities are not coordinated. 

Who knows, maybe these efforts are impacting weather negatively.  Mother Nature will not be controlled.

This is the ultimate hubris. 

Oldwood's picture

We have had economic "scientists" pushing the concept of a debt driven economy, and given our current situation we have Doctor Krugman, basically suggesting, as all good liberals do, that they only need to double down on debt and borrow and spend significantly more. How many rational people believe this will work? Yet they base their theories on their "science". Sorry but "proven science" has told us everything from the earth is flat to where we are today. If we could take actions that did not require massive government intervention and wealth transfers, especially at this moment, I don't think anyone would fight this. But that is not the case. Just as with Obamacare, at a time when we needed our focus put on jobs and financial stability, our government buried itself in a highly partisan, devisive battle on healthcare (which by many accounts only created a greater disaster) rather than focus on the immediate problems at hand. The foundation of our house is failing, so we debate over new siding or granite countertops, because its more important about how we perceive ourselves than whether the whole thing will come down on our heads. But of course having a credit card does always increase a persons options, at least in the short term.

pine_marten's picture

The environmental movement was high-jacked by corrupt politicians 20 years ago.  They have all figured out how to steel billions of tax dollars throwing lucrative contracts around and garner kick packs of startling variety.  Not just campaign contributions but everything under the sun like setting up hollow on paper only consulting firms who's employees are extended family of Washington insiders.  There are so very many cases of malfeasance surrounding funding for green or renewable engery schemes you could investigate and prosecute for decades if you controlled the FBI ( you don't ).  Now the bureau is used almost soley for intimidation and repression.

So all you up above who have a hard on for current environmental political rhetoric and policy are just helping to fleece the people of the world and put money into the pockets of pyschopathic monsters who don't give two shits about what happens to the planet or it's peoples.




rsnoble's picture

Also, im sure the US gov'ts answer for all of this will be the same as the woman that wanted to have the deer crossing signs relocated.

rsnoble's picture

A couple years ago scientists were claiming the US was going to turn into a very wet area and some places overseas would turn into deserts.  Better hurry up and ran lol.  Funny people don't see how serious this is. I live in the country and just one year of little rain has had disastrous consequences. Imagine 10 or so.

I admit i've been having a blast riding the 4wheelers thru the dried up creeks, some you can literally go miles in. Haven't found anything of interests yet but im still waiting for the creek that has the supposed gold hidden by it to dry up. And you can bet your ass ill be melting it down if I did find it. Gee...........let's send a bunch of coins to the gov't and see what they say. Fucking idiots.

rsnoble's picture

BTW they get away with the shit they do because of everyone's short or non-existent attention span.  Nevermind the dustbowl etc, this is all a brand new problem.  Weather patterns never stay the same throughout all of history, fuck im living in what used to be the bottom of an ocean.  Too bad DC couldn't suddenly go under.  

Donutwarrior's picture

As I learned many years ago working in the environmental business, the environmental movement is about 90% bullshit, with a smattering of real problems mixed in.  Nearly everything the environmental movement says is dishonest or mischaracterized in some way.  Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is no exception.  Its bullshit.  The raw data has been manipulated and falsified, the theory that CO2 causes H2O to increase (forcing) is flawed, the underlying theory is garbage and the implementaion in models is crap.  The statisticsal analysis used for the proxy studies is worthless too.  The final nail for me was that the satellite measured radiation budget values did not show the predicted reductions due to the "greenhouse" capturing the radiative outflow.

I personally think that the solar magnetic field fluctuations (and thus changes in cosmic ray flux) are much more critical.  Changes in cosmic ray flux determine the rate of cloud formation (as has been directly measured in actual experiments).  The sun drives our climate, how difficult to imagine.

AGW is about taxes and government contol.  Like everything else they propose.  The UN actually thinks they can use it to get a world tax base.  God help us.  Even if the theaory were true the changes that they propose amount to tiny reductions in the fractions of the CO2 output over time.  So even the proponents aren't serious about it.....

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

donut, good on ya man. but truth to AGWers is never taken kindly.

tugtrash's picture

The solution to climate change is really quite simple, congress needs to regulate all solar activity. This would not only stabilize the earth's climate, but the whole solar system's as well. 

Cult of Criminality's picture

Ban governments and tv`s

Now there is change I can believe in !

Besides, they kill people even without those dreaded guns.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

 obuma says you didn't do that, right you are barry or is it mr suerto? or the other AKA's he has gone by, if he even is a he.

barry fits right in with man made climate change, they are twins, no real data on either. but both will effect my pocket book and freedom..fascists love AGW, is one fact we can all see, Al gore is just more obvious in milking the AGW wonder GS loves AGW programs.


q99x2's picture

Global control by the NWO may partially be accomplished through climate change unless of course this is the first decade of the next ice age which is what if feels like here in Southern California.

Sparkey's picture

How can a Capitalist invest in the coming "War on climate change", this is the one we gotta win!

Jim in MN's picture




Yes to your questions.

Kerry has been good at listening to the advocacy groups on such issues.  So the question becomes how to get moderate policies via the advocacy groups.  But of course, the increasing polarization of these issues tends to push the liberal side to the extremes as well.

Since cap and trade programs are actually the moderate position on global climate change regulation, one would think that Exxon and Koch interests are sitting pretty as the know-nothing debate continues to play to the extremes.  In other words the leadership vacuum will continue and we will continue to waste another decade that we don't have to waste in terms of the real story: technology, investment and R&D.  As I have consistently pointed out, the key technology not being researched adequately is biomass gasification, specifically hot gas cleanup.  Since we will burn essentially all of the oil, the climate outcomes will turn on US, Chinese and Indian coal use.  If there isn't a sound, dispatchable (fueled) low-carbon electric power technology, i.e. biomass in conjunction with natural gas and nuclear, then we will also burn all the coal.  You can kiss mid-continent North America goodbye after that. 

C'est la vie.  As the chair of the Harvard Economics department once told me, there's no market for middle of the road analysis.  And that was fifteen years ago.

Ho ho ho.  And, may we all have a civil 2013.

cougar_w's picture

"You can kiss mid-continent North America goodbye after that."

You know what's funny? People read that and their eyes glaze over. What's the problem here? Too much geography? Too much scale? Something just happens to people at scale. Now if you say "they'll tax you somehow" they come unglued on the spot, with specifics. But "they'll destroy the center of your continent" and you get all whut?

FleaMarketPete's picture

I will gladly trade you an environmental collapse 50 years from today, for an Obama economic collapse 5 years from today.  To quote Dr Krugman:  "debt isn't a problem until it is."

Jim in MN's picture

Like, OMG, y'know?  It's so, like, tubular.

Take care y' out for banksters and drones, and don't fall in any wellbores

the grateful unemployed's picture

the debate about climate change will bring about a typical government solution, spending billions of dollars to control the weather through cloud seeding and other even more esoteric technology. the mark twain anecdote will be finally be rendered no longer funny, because we will finally do something about the weather.

cougar_w's picture

You'd be powerful fortunate if all the government ends up doing is fiddling with the weather.

Actually, that would be really criminal. Lots of people would sue.

No, sorry they are going to do a hell of a lot more than that actually and when they do it will already be too late. And another thing, you and everyone else will know it's too late and you'll be screaming at them for dropping the ball, that's how obvious it's going to be.

hootowl's picture

Your arrogant assertions are worthy of a one-word response......bullshit!!!.

You stepped over lines into areas with which you are ignorant and uninformed.

You shame yourself with your ignorant flatulence.

You remind me of an old philosphy professor I once had, who finally committed suicide when he realized he wasn't near as smart as God.



Bruce Krasting's picture

I was just wondering, who is this rant directed towards?

Or is this just another of those spontaneous rants you hear about??

cougar_w's picture

Had me wondering. Just assume it was directed at either PUD or myself.

We can take it!

claude's picture

I agree with PUD's statement and believe that both the financial collapse and the environmental collapse are irreversible and coming. They are inevitable at this point because there is too much to gain by TPTB and the 99% are asleep and/or in denial because reality is too difficult to accept and confront.


There are  many parallels between the environmental path we're on and the economic one and the greatest is mis information and denial for selfish reasons.

keep up the good work, Bruce. always nice to read your thoughts.