Dis-Information Ain't Right: A Globally Warming Battleground

[RascalPuff]

The Empathic Civilization:
The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis
by Jeremy Rifkin





Will global empathy save us from the catch-22 of climate change? John Gray is sceptical

• 
• • John Gray
  • The Guardian, Saturday 13 March 2010
  • Article history

Whoever hacked into the emails at the University of East Anglia fired the opening salvo in a new kind of dirty war. The Copenhagen conference met on the basis that dealing with global warming was in everyone's interest. The idea that nearly 200 countries could reach meaningful decisions was always unreal, but the meeting's collapse reflected a more fundamental reality.

1. The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis
2. by Jeremy Rifkin<LI class=inline>688pp, <LI class=inline>Polity Press,
3. 

Environmentalists have always assumed that the threat of disaster will bring about an era of global cooperation. In reality, climate change is triggering another round of geopolitical conflict. Limiting the use of fossil fuels may be essential if disaster is to be avoided, but countries that in different ways rely heavily on these fuels for their prosperity – such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, China and the US – were never going to accept the strict carbon curbs that the EU and others demanded. How much the leaked emails contributed to the breakdown of the summit is unclear, but the effect has been to let those countries, along with the rest of the world, off the hook. The undermining effect on climate science looks like being long-lasting and profound.

"Climategate" was an exercise in postmodern cyber-warfare – a move in a larger conflict that environmentalists show little sign of understanding. In The Empathic Civilization, Jeremy Rifkin suggests that the whole of history is a struggle between the polar forces of empathy and entropy. "There is, I believe, a grand paradox to human history. At the heart of the human saga is a catch-22 – a contradiction of extraordinary significance – that has accompanied our species, if not from the very beginning, then at least from the time our ancestors began their slow metamorphosis from archaic to civilised beings thousands of years before Christ."

The catch-22 is that, as civilisation has extended the reach of empathy beyond the family and the tribe until it covers all of humankind, the expanding infrastructure of industry and transport has needed ever larger inputs of energy, increasing entropy and wrecking the planet.

Moving from hunting and gathering to farming, and then to industrial production, enabled humans to interact with one another as never before, but this increasing interconnection involved depleting the planet, a process that is reaching a climax just as civilisation is becoming planet-wide for the first time. "Our rush to universal empathic connectivity," Rifkin writes, "is running up against a rapidly accelerating entropic juggernaut in the form of climate change and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
How can this deadly collision be averted? The answer appears to be straightforward: by developing "biosphere consciousness". "Only by concerted action that establishes a collective sense of affiliation with the entire biosphere will we have a chance to ensure our future." In other words, a transformation of consciousness can save humanity from self-destruction.

It is hardly a new story. How often have we heard environmentalists exclaim that the alternatives facing the world are radical transformation or total catastrophe? The trouble is that their analysis of the environmental crisis is extremely shallow. Climate change is not mainly the work of sinister corporate interests and weak-kneed or corrupt politicians. It is a direct result of the energy-intensive civilisation in which the affluent part of humankind lives, and which the rest very much wants to join. While humans are more interdependent than ever before, they are at the same time destabilising the planet. Reining in corporate interests and chivvying politicians to be greener do nothing to resolve this fundamental contradiction.

The essence of any catch-22 (If you are sane enough to resist the mission you are fit to fly) is that there is no way out, but Rifkin shrinks from this cruel logic, with the result that his argument verges on incoherence. How could human empathy possibly defeat the force of entropy, an irreversible physical process? Does Rifkin believe an increase in altruism can lead to the repeal of the second law of thermodynamics?

His practical proposals for dealing with the climate crisis are disappointingly conventional – massive investment in renewable energy and the like – and, in line with standard green thinking, he never explains how a human population of 7 billion, rising to 9 or 10 billion over the next 50 years, can be supported by a mixture of solar panels and hydrogen-powered fuel cells. Stewart Brand's recent Whole Earth Discipline, which argues that coping with environmental breakdown will necessitate making the most of demonised technologies such as nuclear energy and GM food, is more realistic as well as more visionary.

Most of The Empathic Civilization is not in fact concerned with the practical task of coping with the mess humans have made of the planet. Instead it is devoted to defending Rifkin's view that humans are essentially empathic animals, whose benign qualities have not been fully manifested throughout most of their history. "Wanton widespread violence has not been the norm in human history," Rifkin writes, looking back wistfully on the "tranquil agricultural life that existed for thousands of years" before the "mega-machine" of property and government disrupted humankind's natural innocence. One need not be a hardened cynic to find this Rousseauesque tale implausible. Humans may be more moved by empathy than is sometimes allowed, but empathy for the feelings of others is not only expressed in compassion. It is equally the basis of cruelty, a trait that is also distinctively human.

For all its inordinate length, The Empathic Civilization fails to substantiate its central thesis. The innate sociability of human beings is a fact, but it does not follow that they are likely to cooperate in dealing with environmental crisis. The impact of climate change is rather to intensify human conflict. As global warming accelerates, natural resources such as arable land and water become scarcer, and competition to control them will be acute and pervasive. At the same time, those whose power and wealth come from fossil fuels will do anything they can to promote "climate scepticism".

This is where the leaked emails come in. With global warming fuelling a resurgence of geopolitical tensions, climate science has become a weapon in a war of disinformation. Whatever lapses in intellectual probity they might reveal, the messages are being used to obscure a mass of evidence showing that anthropogenic climate change is real, and may be occurring more rapidly than previously believed. It is still possible to frame an intelligent response to the threat, but first we need to recognise that the climate has become a battleground. Empathy won't save us.

Post Script: Jeremy Rifkin and John Gray appear to be addressing Buckminster Fuller's admonition of the want for 'the immediate reward in the immediate moment'; disregarding future consequences. - RP

John Gray's Gray's Anatomy: Selected Writings is published by Penguin.
NON-FICTION

[labelwench]

.....he never explains how a human population of 7 billion, rising to 9 or 10 billion over the next 50 years, can be supported by a mixture of solar panels and hydrogen-powered fuel cells.

Originally posted by Rascalpuff

In my simple opinion, this sentence is the critical point.

An expanding population.

A limited resource base.

Every other species that I have observed has suffered the consequences of being too successful.

We now live longer. We intervene, out of compassion, where nature would not. The resources are unevenly distributed, and then furthermore, unevenly allocated.

We legislate 'Universal Health Care' without adequate resources and funding. Our ideology states that all should have equal access, and yet, not unlike Orwell's 1984, not all animals are equal, some being 'more equal than others'.

My genetic inheritance is one of extreme empathy, and I experience physical and psychological pain when I am faced with circumstances where there is nothing that I can do to effect change. A peaceful warrior, I do not shrink from most challenges, but the present global circumstances are beyond my abilities to contend with, to effect positive result.

Though not as knowledgeable as some, I can never-the-less, assess the larger global picture, and what I see disturbs me much. Yet, there is little I can do that I have not done.

I have chosen my place.

I continue to learn what may be of assistance.

I will do what I can, to teach those who would learn the knowledge of nature.

It is up to each individual to take the actions they deem appropriate unto themselves....

......and accept that there will be consequences.

On a positive note, I am sure that our species has the capacity to survive.

On a negative note, there is no way, (IMO) to save them all.

History is an epoch of constant change, and it is my sense that a change of great importance is imminent. We may elect to choose the path, or the path will choose us, if we continue to delay.

The outcome will be but slightly different, from my ponders....

Kind regards,

Labelwench

[RascalPuff]

In my simple opinion, this sentence is the critical point.

An expanding population.

A limited resource base.

Every other species that I have observed has suffered the consequences of being too successful.

We now live longer. We intervene, out of compassion, where nature would not. The resources are unevenly distributed, and then furthermore, unevenly allocated.

We legislate 'Universal Health Care' without adequate resources and funding. Our ideology states that all should have equal access, and yet, not unlike Orwell's 1984, not all animals are equal, some being 'more equal than others'.

My genetic inheritance is one of extreme empathy, and I experience physical and psychological pain when I am faced with circumstances where there is nothing that I can do to effect change. A peaceful warrior, I do not shrink from most challenges, but the present global circumstances are beyond my abilities to contend with, to effect positive result.

Though not as knowledgeable as some, I can never-the-less, assess the larger global picture, and what I see disturbs me much. Yet, there is little I can do that I have not done.

I have chosen my place.

I continue to learn what may be of assistance.

I will do what I can, to teach those who would learn the knowledge of nature.

It is up to each individual to take the actions they deem appropriate unto themselves....

......and accept that there will be consequences.

On a positive note, I am sure that our species has the capacity to survive.

On a negative note, there is no way, (IMO) to save them all.

History is an epoch of constant change, and it is my sense that a change of great importance is imminent. We may elect to choose the path, or the path will choose us, if we continue to delay.

The outcome will be but slightly different, from my ponders....

Kind regards,

Labelwench

In reverent deference to LW's post - particularly the characteristic eloquence and propriety of the last two sentences thereof (subjecting 'delay', and 'ponders'), Truly Yours offers the following (abridged) introductory excerpt from Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' (an 88 page pamphlet written in February of 1776):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. In this first parliament every man, by natural right will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present... And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right.

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.

But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies, some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

... if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.


To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

How came the king by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.

... for as the greater weight will always carry up the less, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.

And time is at premium prices.
Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

AlterNet by David Corn
George W. Bush: The Un-science Guy
George W. claims that global warming theory isn't based on "sound science." How long can he pull off this act -- until Coppertone stock splits and New Orleans is underwater?
June 19, 2001 |
In 1984, Ronald Reagan's reelection team aired a fiendishly clever campaign ad. The television spot showed a large bear lumbering through the forest, and a disembodied male voice warned, "There is a bear in the woods. For some people, the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame, others say it is vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who is right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear -- if there is a bear." Then the image shifted to a hunter facing the bear and the words appeared: "President Reagan: Prepared for Peace."

That Reagan commercial, which became a classic of political propaganda, effectively and elegantly captured the arguments of Cold War hawks. Who could know about the Soviet Union's true intentions? The prudent course was to assume the Russkies were bent on world domination and hankering for (nuclear) war and, then, act and arm accordingly. Why risk being wrong? You could end up bear food.

Of course, the ad was simplistic (a fitting tribute to its main beneficiary). Arms control is a bit more complicated than grizzly hunting. And, as it turned out, there was no bear in the woods to fear. The real bear was sclerotic, bleeding internally, and near collapse. Still, the spot suggested conservatives believed in being responsible and planning for worst-case scenarios. Such caution, though, rarely extends beyond conventional national security topics. Which brings us to global warming.

As George W. Bush prepared for his recent trip to Europe, he and his advisers continued to dismiss the science underlying the calls for reducing greenhouse gases. The general consensus in the field of climate science, reflected in the work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (an international body comprised of hundreds of scientists), is that global temperatures are on the rise -- and may climb 10 degrees Fahrenheit this century -- and that this increase is, to some degree, a result of human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases. While there is a small number of contrarian scientists who either argue otherwise or question the basic models, it is undeniable that most experts concur there is a bear in the woods.

Moreover, it is clear that the consequences of an extra 10 degrees would be horrific -- rising sea levels, the dislocation of coastal populations, the spread of tropical diseases, the eradication of species, severe weather, drought, disruption of ocean currents -- and that reducing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would require implementing extensive measures (mainly dramatic reductions in emissions) soon and maintaining these remedies over a long period of time.

So where is that bear-in-the-woods attitude now? Some people say global warming is a danger. Some people say it is not. Since no one can be really sure -- until it's too late to do anything about it -- isn't it smart to address the threat?


Instead, Bush calls for more studies -- even after the latest study confirmed the existing consensus. On June 6, as Bush was skimming through Let's Go Europe and practicing the pronunciation of the names of Europe's leaders (did his tutors skip Spain?), the National Academy of Sciences released a report on global warming that Bush had requested. Bush did not have to read too far to get the drift. Here are the opening sentences:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century."

If Bush reached the last paragraph of the first page, he would have read,
"The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC...report."

Best regards,
- RP

[labelwench]

The dialogue as it relates to global warming, is a many-faceted conversation, whether one examines such from the societal level or from the position of government, and the debates regarding the dangers or opportunities arising from any model of climate change are, diverse.

One of the 'battlegrounds' potentially arising from the inescapable and observed facts of melting polar ice, regardless of cause, is the viability of the historic Northwest Passage, and it's potential as a route of commerce, as a route to and for the difficult to access resources which abound in the north.

To whom does this real estate and route belong?

Long inaccessible, the infrequent navigations of the past have elicited minor saber-rattling from those countries which claim ownership. The melting polar ice, has returned this consideration to the table of international negotiation, and because of the economic considerations involved, it is unlikely to be removed therefrom. Fresh water, petroleum resources and precious minerals and gems, along with real estate, wildlife and breathable air.

Which of these shall prove to be the most coveted in the eyes of our species?

The following links provide a more detailed history of the Northwest Passage, the first by our internationally recognized CBC News Service, and the second by Canadian Singer, Stan Rogers.

That I have selected Canadian content as my resources of support, is quite intentional, as the debate rages very near my doorstep.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/northwest-passage/

The Northwest Passage is coveted again

Perhaps the sacrifices were worth it.

The Northwest Passage is 7,000 kilometres shorter than the current shipping route through the Panama Canal. That's about two weeks saved in travelling time. From London to Tokyo via the canal, the distance is about 23,000 kilometres. Travelling east through the Suez Canal is also longer at 21,000 kilometres. The route through the passage is just 16,000 kilometres.

However, it's rarely used since it is frozen over for most of the year, making it impossible for all but the most heavily reinforced icebreakers to make it through.

But as scientists speculate that the Arctic ice is melting, the passage is becoming a coveted shipping route. And the issue of whether the Northwest Passage is an internal waterway, and therefore Canada's, or an international waterway open to all remains murky.

'Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage,
To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea.

Tracing one warm line through a land so wide and savage.....
and make a Northwest Passage to the sea.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th-WD...eature=related

[SteveA]

Whew, at least we can rely on the mainstream news sources to not try to manipulate people.

[labelwench]

Whew, at least we can rely on the mainstream news sources to not try to manipulate people.

The CBC New Broadcast does have an excellent record of credibility and accuracy and in Canada, we get news from around the world, unlike when I visited Alaska and Minnesota and found that the news seemed to end at the borders of a certain great nation......

All media is suspect, but then again, so is personal opinion, Laddie, as me father-in-law used to say.

[labelwench]

An article that relates to my prior post regarding the Northwest Passage.LW

Michael Byers

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Oct. 26, 2009 5:51PM EDT
Last updated on Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009 2:31AM EDT



Like motherhood and apple pie, Arctic sovereignty is difficult to oppose.

So when Conservative MP Daryl Kramp introduced a motion on Oct. 5 to rename the Northwest Passage the “Canadian Northwest Passage,” the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois quickly jumped on board.

It's time to reconsider that move – before the motion is put to a final vote. Renaming the Northwest Passage would weaken our legal claim, offend the Inuit and contradict centuries of Canadian history.

The proposed name change will not strengthen our claim in international law because the dispute “crystallized” in 1985. After the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea sailed through without seeking permission, the Canadian government drew “straight baselines” around the Arctic islands and asserted that the channels within them were “internal waters” subject to the full force of Canadian law.

When an international legal dispute crystallizes, subsequent efforts by either country to strengthen its position are of no legal effect – especially if they attract a diplomatic protest.

The U.S. embassy will write a letter stating that the name change is of no consequence, and that will be it – unless we end up litigating the Northwest Passage dispute with the U.S. or another country. If that happens, our opponent will point to any evidence that the Canadian government is unconvinced by its own legal position. Since the proposed name change is aimed at strengthening that position, it cannot help but suggest a certain insecurity about the strength of Canada's existing arguments.

Bizarrely, the Canadian government has tried changing the name before. In 2006, the Department of National Defence began calling the Northwest Passage “the Canadian Internal Waters” – reportedly on instructions from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I can almost hear the laughter in the U.S. State Department.

Worse yet, in their rush to support Mr. Kramp's motion, all four political parties overlooked the Inuit – the Canadian citizens who, through their thousands of years of living, hunting and travelling on the ice of the Northwest Passage, constitute the strongest element in our sovereignty claim.

When they signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993, the Inuit explicitly assigned to Canada any sovereign rights they had acquired through those millenniums of use.

The president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Inuit land-claims organization, wrote to all four party leaders on Oct. 14. Paul Kaludjak drew their attention to the legal requirement, set out in the 1993 agreement, to consult the Inuit before changing the name of any geographic feature in the territory.

Mr. Kaludjak wrote that his people expected that any new name for the Northwest Passage would “reflect the history of Inuit use and occupation of the waters in question for thousands of years, and the reality of continuing Inuit use and occupation.”

He is absolutely right. Instead of changing the name unilaterally, parliamentarians should work with the Inuit to identify an appropriate Inuktitut name. That name could then be used in parallel with the existing English and French names.

Such an approach would respect Canada's promises and, by reminding other countries of the Inuit contribution to its legal position, strengthen, rather than weaken, our claim.

It would also be consistent with Canadian history: The name “Northwest Passage” was used throughout the three centuries of British exploration that began with Martin Frobisher in 1576 and ended with the dozens of rescue expeditions sent after the Franklin expedition in the 1850s. Many of those explorers were assisted by the Inuit.

In 1880, the British government formally transferred title over the Arctic islands to Canada, making the historic name as Canadian as the country itself.

The name is an intrinsic part of Canadian culture, too. Songwriter Stan Rogers did not call the waterway the “Canadian Northwest Passage.” He did not need to: It's ours, and our arguments are good.

Michael Byers is the author of Who Owns the Arctic?. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

[labelwench]

I stumbled upon the following comments relating to climate and it's effects on human civilization to be stimulating in that I had never considered some of the aspects presented herein. LW

Description

This section is from the book "Principles Of Sociology With Educational Applications", by Frederick R. Clow. Also available from Amazon: Principles of sociology with educational applications.
1. Influence Of Climate

There is the direct influence of geographic conditions on man's constitution, causing what the biologists call modifications. Examples of these are the sluggishness induced by living in the tropics, the hardihood of mountaineers, the mental alertness of the peoples of the temperate zones. There is a book1 which attributes to climate a large share in determining the number of homicides in a country.

Everywhere a cold climate puts a steadying hand on the human heart and brain. It gives an autumn tinge to life. Among the folk of warmer lands eternal spring holds sway. National life and temperament have the buoyancy and thoughtlessness of childhood, its charm and its weakness. - Semple, Influences of Geographic Environment, p. 621.

There is the influence of diseases peculiar to climate, such as catarrh, malaria, and hookworm. Man can live in any climate on the earth when he becomes accustomed to it, and makes proper provision to cope with it; he is the most cosmopolitan of animals. The greatest difficulty seems to come when people from northern or temperate regions are being acclimated in the tropics. When any country opposes invaders who come from a different climate, one of its strong defenses is in the diseases and hardships peculiar to its climate.

Climate makes the calendar for outdoor occupations of all kinds, such as agriculture, fishing, traveling (other than by rail), and field sports. Through these it sets the seasons for much indoor work as well, fixing the time of stress and of vacation.

1 Morrison, Crime and its Causes.

Of more importance are the indirect influences of climate. First there are the social arrangements to which the foregoing direct influences lead. One of them is the political backwardness of tropical regions, involving at the present time the subjection of most of them to the states of the temperate zones. Montesquieu noted that the capital city of a country is best located in its northern part.

A warm and even climate makes it possible to exist at small cost in either money or labor; this favors abundant population and low wages - a point which Buckle makes much of. A cold climate is repressing to primitive peoples who have not learned how to cope with it; it keeps down their numbers, makes large states impossible, and prevents progress. But after the subtropical zone developed enough civilization to provide adequate shelter against the cold, and after the northern peoples had adopted civilization from the south, then life in the north became more comfortable than in the south, and the north took the lead in civilization. The varied seasons of the north give variety to life and require complicated social arrangements. The members of a family spend more of their time at home, thus fostering domestic life.

What matter how the night behaved? What matter how the north-wind raved? Blow high, blow low, not all its snow Could quench our hearth-fire's ruddy glow.

- Whittier, Snow-Bound.

The winter, when the soil cannot be worked and the nights are long, favors manufacturing and other forms of indoor work. Extreme changes in the weather have in recent years caused the science of meteorology to have a practical application in the work of the weather bureaus. This, of course, reacts upon the science and contributes powerfully to its further development. Finally, climate makes some places more desirable for residence than others. This leads to the partial segregation of the leisure classes, which in turn brings other consequences of importance.

Man grew in the temperate zone, was born in the Tropics. . . . Where man has remained in the Tropics, with few exceptions he has suffered arrested development. His nursery has kept him a child. Though his initial progress depended upon the gifts which Nature put into his hands, his later evolution depended far more upon the powers which she developed within him. These have no limit, so far as our experience shows, but their growth is painful, reluctant. Therefore they develop only where Nature subjects man to compulsion, forces him to earn his daily bread, and thereby something more than bread. . . .

Most of the ancient civilizations originated just within the mild but drier margin of the Temperate Zone, where the cooler air of a short winter acted like a tonic upon the energies relaxed by the lethargic atmosphere of the hot and humid Tropics; where congenial warmth encouraged vegetation, but where the irrigation necessary to secure abundant and regular crops called forth inventiveness, cooperation, and social organization, and gave to the people their first baptism of redemption from savagery to barbarism. . . .

As the Tropics have been the cradle of humanity, the Temperate Zone has been the cradle and school of civilization. Here Nature has given much by withholding much. Here man found his birthright, the privilege of struggle. - Semple, op. cit., pp. 634, 635.

. . . The hypothesis, briefly stated, is this: Today a certain peculiar type of climate prevails wherever civilization is high. In the past the same type seems to have prevailed wherever a great civilization arose. Therefore, such a climate seems to be a necessary condition of great progress. It is not the cause of civilization, for that lies infinitely deeper. Nor is it the only, or the most important condition. It is merely one of several, just as the abundant supply of pure water is one of the primary conditions of health. Good water will not make people healthy, nor will a favorable climate cause a stupid and degenerate race to rise to a high level. Nevertheless, if the water is bad, people cannot retain their health and strength, and similarly when the climate becomes unfit, no race can apparently retain it's energy and progressiveness. ---- Huntington, Civilization and Climate, p. 9

[timeparticle]

Hi, folks. I wrote this article mainly from this movie for an online newsprint.. Check out the movie, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME

The Great Climate Debate
by Tp.

The Earth's climate has been getting warmer, but why? In the past few years, we have been told that the Earth's climate has been warming due to our systematic use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. The combustion of these fuels create CO2, which is one of many greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere which helps to increase the climate temperature. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,(IPCC), explains that the temperature has been rising since the Industrial Revolution because of the CO2 increases.

Not all of the scientists agree on the IPCC report according to Professor Richard Lindzen, Department of Meteorology at M.I.T. He says many disagree, but are persuaded not to come forward with the conflicting reports. There is pressure from certain government authorities and corporations not to disagree with the IPCC. Professor Patrick Michaels, Department of Environment, University of Virginia, says that tens of thousands of jobs are created by the Global Warming agenda and big money is at stake. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, says that the Global Warming agenda is a political activist movement backed by big business.

Professor Nir Shaviv, from the Institute of Physics at the University of Jerusalem, says that there have been many increases of CO2 in earth's climate history, from 3 to 10 times as much CO2 as we have today, with no correlating climate increase.

Professor Ian Clark of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, says CO2 does not drive climate change. He says that he researched earth's climate from 600 Million years ago to gather information on what creates climate changes. He found that the Sun is the key factor in driving climate change, not CO2. The planets of the Solar System live within the Sun's "atmosphere" and are greatly affected by the solar winds and magnetic storms bursting off the Sun's surface.

In the early and mid 20th Century, scientist found that subatomic particles from space, or "Cosmic Rays", as they called them, came in contact with water droplets, from the water vapor from our seas, to form clouds. The more Cosmic Rays poured into the atmosphere, the more clouds were formed. The clouds have a great cooling effect on the Earth. The Sun, however, with it's great power, has altered the amount of Cosmic Rays that bombard the Earth in the past. The variances of Sunspot activities with their huge electromagnetic storm bursts throw out energy toward the Earth. The huge magnetic waves push the Cosmic Rays away from the Earth's atmosphere, which decreases the amount of formed clouds and increases Earth's climate temperature. The Sun's magnetic field has more than doubled in the 20th Century. So, the temperature has been rising from an increase of the magnetic storms from the Sun, not an increase of CO2.

These scientist, and many more, are saying that the increases in CO2 levels throughout Earth's history follow the increase of temperature by hundreds of years. So, the higher temperatures create higher CO2 levels, if the chart were read correctly. Not the other way around.

So, what the heck is going on with this conflicting information? Why is there such a disagreement among scientists? Why have the governments of the world sided with the Global Warming agenda, not with the other scientists? Everyone agrees that the consumption of fossil fuels is not the ideal way to create energy and industry, but are they keeping Third World countries away from progress by promoting the Precautionary Principle? This principle maintains the idea that using industry in countries that don't have it might be risky and harmful to their environment. Are they keeping the Third World countries from being more progressive for a reason?

I consider myself an environmentalist. I was even President of the Ecology Club in High School,... yes, in the early days. I recycle and grow my own fruit and vegetables. I drive a hybrid car. I try to keep up with the scientific studies and breakthroughs on environmental studies. I was glad to see the governments of the world finally talk to each other about Ecology, in order to implement standards and goals for the future. However, I want to see the changes come about in an ethical manner from accurate data, not manufactured facts. As progressives, we must be open to what might be emerging from the new wave of environmental concerns. Discerning ethical scientific studies will give us the ability to choose the right direction for our future.