Talking about big election, it is an issue. Right now candidates do not have a choice but to accept ridiculous amounts of money from those that have it. What happens then? Does a candidate have to be sure those same donors survive their politics in office so the elect turns into a re-election. It is horribly corrupt.
I also don't believe there are two extremes in the private donation club. On one hand there is the wealthy purchasing their candidates and on the other hand there is nothing but public funding. The idea there has to be those two extremes is a hideous argument. That argument is not based in facts and/or democracy. Purchasing candidates is Anti-American and anti-democracy.
How does this effect Earth Day? Who are the big donors? What relationship do they have with Earth and a very hot and dry planet? Who is financing these elections? Those that have moral arguments or those that will corrupt our democracy to protect the people from a dangerous climate? Are the elections already corrupted by a negligent and inept Supreme Court? Do I have to answer these questions here? I would think not.
There is a greater morality in life than declaring a woman's uterus the property of government. Babies need more than mother's milk to survive and live a comfortable and productive life.
March 18, 2014
By Michael E. Mann
...The misunderstanding stems (click here) from data showing that during the past decade there was a slowing in the rate at which the earth's average surface temperature had been increasing. The event is commonly referred to as “the pause,” but that is a misnomer: temperatures still rose, just not as fast as during the prior decade. The important question is, What does the short-term slowdown portend for how the world may warm in the future?...
The manifestation of the upper tropospheric vortexes changed the outcomes scientists were expecting. The graph changed from a flat line to a parabola. The deterioration of the biotic content accelerated. It is still accelerated with a negative feedback loop.
There are two choices today, push the biotic system back the other way and return function to Earth's troposphere or completely compromise the outcomes of Earth. I wouldn't wait too long to make that choice.
I also don't believe there are two extremes in the private donation club. On one hand there is the wealthy purchasing their candidates and on the other hand there is nothing but public funding. The idea there has to be those two extremes is a hideous argument. That argument is not based in facts and/or democracy. Purchasing candidates is Anti-American and anti-democracy.
How does this effect Earth Day? Who are the big donors? What relationship do they have with Earth and a very hot and dry planet? Who is financing these elections? Those that have moral arguments or those that will corrupt our democracy to protect the people from a dangerous climate? Are the elections already corrupted by a negligent and inept Supreme Court? Do I have to answer these questions here? I would think not.
March 18, 2014
By Michael E. Mann
...The misunderstanding stems (click here) from data showing that during the past decade there was a slowing in the rate at which the earth's average surface temperature had been increasing. The event is commonly referred to as “the pause,” but that is a misnomer: temperatures still rose, just not as fast as during the prior decade. The important question is, What does the short-term slowdown portend for how the world may warm in the future?...
The manifestation of the upper tropospheric vortexes changed the outcomes scientists were expecting. The graph changed from a flat line to a parabola. The deterioration of the biotic content accelerated. It is still accelerated with a negative feedback loop. There are two choices today, push the biotic system back the other way and return function to Earth's troposphere or completely compromise the outcomes of Earth. I wouldn't wait too long to make that choice.
