Less “theory,” more fact every day…

Reading the NPR article below, I found myself wondering about accelerating effects from crossing the  400 ppm CO2 Rubicon  and its effect to trap enough energy from the sun to approximate that of the detonation of 400,000 nuclear devices every day.

I’m wondering because I thought that noticeable sea-level rise from melting polar ice and thermal loading of the oceans was still decades away.  It may be that models for the effects of climate change were the wrong.  But scientists tend to be conservative; especially those whose papers go through a peer review process.  Regardless of what’s been written and thought, NASA may have to re-tool for higher ground sooner than later:

NASA launch site flooding

There are some elected officials who either do not see climate change as a problem or affected either way by the actions of man.

“if the earth if getting warmer it’s a good thing: “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer…And if sea levels go up 4 to 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.”  — Representative Steve King (R-IA)

Congressman Jeff Miller announced his intentions for the Environmental Protection Agency and responded to questions about a scientific consensus on climate change by saying none existed.

“I will tell you this,” said Miller. “I will defund the E.P.A.”

The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”  — Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)

This is a good lead-in to a timely article in the  Guardian which is related to the quotes above:

Democracy v
Psychology: why people keep electing idiots

…. and explains a fair chunk of history.


According to NASA, 97% of scientists agree on climate change.  This makes me wonder what the real agenda of those who have subverted what it means to be “conservative” in the United States.  What happened to the conservative interests who were shepherding our nation’s resources, respecting citizen’s rights, keeping us energy independent, and maintaining technological superiority?    While I’m at it, here’s another question, “why is it that the UK’s Guardian does such a better job of profiling international climate deniers than our national media?”

The stone age did not end because mankind ran out of stones.  Technology evolves and does so more rapidly than political will.   The time for the fossil fuel industry’s hegemony over the production of energy has passed.

If France can do this....

Education, increased development and deployment of renewable sources for the production of energy, more efficient products, conservation, and lower birth rates  are required to effect meaningful, long-term effects on the anthropogenic causatives of climate change: not licensing drilling far from investigative eyes.

Peter Terezakis
Greenworld, Art and Public Policy
University Artist in Residence
New York University 2015