Climate Change Will Not Spare an Inch of Global Ocean

Coral Reef aerialAnd the Greedy Lying Bastards still say it ain’t happening! Via Live Science:

Every corner of the world’s oceans — from pole to pole and sea surface to seafloor — will undergo chemical changes associated with global climate change by 2100, jeopardizing the livelihoods of billions of people who subsist on marine ecosystems, according to a new study.

Previous studies addressing the effects of climate change on future ocean health have tended to focus on the effects of increased temperature and acidity on marine ecosystems. However, other oceanic conditions — including dissolved oxygen and productivity, or the abundance of tiny plant-like organisms that form the base of the marine food web — also play an important role in overall ocean health. As is the case on land, marine animals need oxygen and plant-life to survive. [Video: Humans Hit the Oceans Hard]

A team of 29 international scientists based at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, have now developed more comprehensive projections of future ocean health, which take into account temperature, acidity, dissolved oxygen and productivity. To develop these projections, the researchers compiled more than 80,000 existing modeled maps of oceanic change, many of which informed the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

The team found that mangrove and coral reef ecosystems near the tropics will likely experience the smallest cumulative change by 2100, whereas cetaceans (the group of mammals that includes whales, dolphins and porpoises), as well as pinnipeds (such as seals and walruses) will face the largest amount of change.

“We already knew that coral reefs are very susceptible to temperature change, and our models show that they are going to be impacted the least,” study co-author Camilo Mora, a researcher at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, told LiveScience. “So you can imagine what it’s going to be like for other ecosystems.”

The team used the compiled maps to estimate the impact these changes will have on coastal human populations whose livelihoods depend on marine resources.

Researchers considered two different climate change scenarios: one in which humans significantly cut back carbon dioxide emissions and, as a result, global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase from the current 440 parts per million (ppm) to just 550 ppm; and one in which humans continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate, under a scenario known as “business as usual,” which the IPCC projects will result in an atmospheric carbon dioxide accumulation of 900 ppm by the end of the century. (Parts per million is an indicator of the concentration of a chemical in, for example, air. So in this case, 440 ppm means that there are 440 molecules of carbon dioxide in every million molecules of air.)…

[continues at Live Science]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

84 Comments on "Climate Change Will Not Spare an Inch of Global Ocean"

  1. emperorreagan | Oct 16, 2013 at 8:47 am |

    Climate change is a lie perpetrated by greedy real estate developers and their buddies the scientists who want to scare people away from prime ocean front property.

    • Charlie Primero | Oct 16, 2013 at 8:58 am |

      The Climate Fraud is actually perpetuated by the giant energy corporations who receive billions in government subsidy from it.

      The worst part is that paying academics to produce fraudulent science has destroyed the integrity of the scientific research in general. It’s ruined cancer research, psychiatric research, and nutrition research.

      It’s like the kid who shoplifts merchandise, or the the cop who beats a homeless person. The first time he does it, the behavior feels bad. The tenth time, it seems normal and acceptable.

      • The Climate Fraud being perpetuated by the giant energy corporations is that is doesn’t exist and humans are not a cause.

      • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:30 am |

        I feel like you need it to be a fraud. I don’t see it that way. You can manipulate people by telling them the truth too. Any big bad scary thing is grist for the mill. Its exaggerated and most of the fear mongering is based on projections from computer models. But things are warming up and its dumb to think humans have only a minimal impact on the globe. The most dominant feature on the planet are human controlled ecosystems called anthromes. wilderness areas do not dominate the planet. This is the Anthropocene.

        • Charlie Primero | Oct 16, 2013 at 10:29 am |

          Ted, nobody argues that our species has zero effect on the planet. The corporations are not selling that. They are selling Fear.

          Fear is the greatest human resource management tool. Fear of Satan, Fear of Turrrsts, Fear of other races, Fear of technology, Fear of criminals. Fear has been an awesome tool for thousands of years.

          Ask yourself why there is no world government funded political body to protect a single line of orthodoxy in physics, microbiology, or evolutionary theory.

          Why do corporate foundations like Gates, Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al. spend billions of dollars funding climate fear porn “non-profit” media projects? Why do giant transnationals inject climate fear constantly into popular television and movies? Do you suppose it’s because corporations have historically had the people’s best interests at heart, because they are just so fond of us?

          Why is it necessary to commit scientific fraud? Why the secret computer models with wild amplifications built in? Why the faked data, the firing of professors who dissent, and the politicized selection which research to fund?

          Is the purpose of the world carbon trading market really to reduce carbon output? Does it?

          Ted, I’ve begged you to examine the history of fascism and the Anglo-American empire by reading their early 20th century planning papers. You won’t be able to understand human predation until you do.

          • Please link to some of those papers. I might learn something as well.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 16, 2013 at 11:00 am |

            The carbon trading market is the end-game for now. That’s all it is. That’s the commission for the hard sell. The payoff for the fraud of big biz. For political orgs like the U.N and U.S, it’s the same as ever.. fostering more perception that they are legitimate, in control, and benign or even helpful. Power grab and money grab joining forces. Some big biz will pay dearly for the birth of this new market, and rest assured they don’t want it. This is typical inter-corporate warfare, the piranhas are swarming the sharks.
            and I’d be interested in those papers too.. you talking about the captains of the industrial age?

          • Agreed. A carbon tax (with exemptions and help in transition for working class) addresses the real problems, carbon credit casino only benefits financial interests and politicians who get political payoffs and promotes greenwashing, not greening. Ask Goldman Sachs.

            Saw study a while back that says that carbon trading is counterproductive for global warming.

            The latest fad in greenwashing? Palm-oil based biodiesel where landclearing is done by slash-and-burn, which releases enough CO2 into atmosphere to make this kind of biodiesel no longer carbon-neutral. (see tax breaks)

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:10 pm |

            Neither you or Andrew understand what I am saying. You each frame what you think I am saying to be you respective polar opposite. Interesting. Also you both think I am uniformed about some key point. I already Know America was founded by pirates that doesn’t mean humans aren’t changing the climate.

            Propoganda is not really about whats true or false its about the agenda behind drawing attention to a given thing. It is Climate Porn like you say. But its not complete bullshit either.

          • Giving fear away (like the dance of an organ grinder’s monkey) is different? Not only do I not tip your song and dance, I kick the hat holding your gains far and wide.

          • The FEAR tactic is exactly why climate change has failed to gain any real traction with the public at large. The fear that the world will be greatly transformed by our actions 100 years in the future just doesn’t get that many people worked up. Scientist just don’t do fear like politicians do. It took Al Gore’s big production just to get the topic out there. Climate change just isn’t that scary.

            Ted’s pretty much got the right perspective on it. It’s going to happen and no one is going to do anything meaningful until it starts affecting peoples lives and then it will be too late and all the things they do end up doing then, like terraforming, will probably only make things worse for everyone. He does get a little butthurt about the polar bears though.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:23 am |

      Climate change is actually a fraud perpetrated by people who know nobody ever believes the truth and just get off watching society destroy itself.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:24 am |

        Which, I must confess, I do, too, these days.

        Sometimes, without provocation, I find myself shouting at the top of my lungs, “BRING ON THE ‘BOOM’, TED!”

        Can’t change anything, but you sure as hell can enjoy the ride.

        • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:35 am |

          Just do what the polar bears do. If the ice caps melt, fuck a grizzly bear.

        • Nihilism for the win!

          • Liam_McGonagle | Oct 16, 2013 at 10:36 am |

            Well, what can you do? If voters keep sending the message, “we are dumb*sses who are not fit for democracy” how can you argue?

          • Do not go gentle into that good night
            Rage, rage against the dying of the light

          • Liam_McGonagle | Oct 16, 2013 at 12:31 pm |

            Here’s the problem with that: Insistence guarantees resistence.

            If there’s anything I’ve learned from my adventures in the world of politics, it’s that the single most important thing people want out of the process is to assert an identity. In fact, that may be the ONLY thing they want out of politics. Certainly the only thing they can reasonably hope for.

            That’s why these things go in cycles. Gay rights become a popular issue, then there is a backlash of repressive state laws, followed by a counter-lash of gay rights activity. People just bounce back and forth between extremes until they surrender more out of fatigue than from conviction. Nothing is permanent.

            So insisting that this or that party or platform is simply wrong is only going to net you an increasingly hostile and stupid group of opponents–especially if you behave truthfully and forthrightly with them. They do not see you as working with them towards the Truth. They see you as infringing upon their autonomy.

            Sucks when one person’s autonomy means extinction for the whole species, but that’s just how reality works some times. The best thing you can do is to tell the truth when asked but give up on any stupid notions of evangilism.

            Most likely we will all die horrible gruesome deaths as pathetic failures anyway, but it does leave open the (longshot) possibility that people smarten up on their own.

          • Resistance is already guaranteed, and I’m already a pathetic failure, so I’m not really evangelizing as much as I am expressing my own hostility.

            I’ve never claimed to be part of the solution.

      • $77566380 | Oct 16, 2013 at 3:34 pm |

        I just wanna watch it burn.

  2. Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:08 am |

    only wimps and peasants are afraid of Climate change. Its so obvious. I don’t know why more people don’t get it.

    Oh no! I must be a bad person because I don’t live in fear!

  3. Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:19 am |

    Down vote me. This won’t help the climate, but it will make you feel better, in a petty sort of way. This the most useful things you fucks will do all day. I am glad you are so unhappy about things you can’t control. This just proves my point that this climate change thing is just some emotional harangue. That’s about 99% of politics, channeling your hatred in a completely useless way. Feel powerful with your mouse. Then get in your car and go to Best Buy and stop on your way and get some fast food. You have earned your indulgence with your self righteousness.

    As for me, I adapt and my panties stay wrinkle free. But hey I am not you, so clench those butt cheeks and get to down voting.

  4. Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:45 am |

    The problem with solving climate change is that nature is incomprehensible. Civilization is about control. Control is easier when you reduce as many variables as possible. So Civilization is simpler than nature. Picture a boring subdivision, or a monocrop of cornfields compared to a mangrove swamp or a rain forest.

    But this desire for simplicity for the sake of control is a losing battle. When trying to control more and more, things invariably, get complicated. Hierarchy gets stretched to the breaking point. Its all hubris trying to micromanage everything. So we get all these unintended consequences. Climate Change is one.

    So this is like people figuring out they are addicted to crack. The problem I have is that climate scientists seem to think the solution is more crack, more micromanagement of the globe. Geo-engineering and all these other schemes.

    I say fuck it, wear shorts, live in a house boat. Do what the plants and animals do. Adapt. I never saw a lizard pissing and moaning and wringing its hands yet.

    • emperorreagan | Oct 16, 2013 at 10:06 am |

      Most of the “solutions” are aimed at maintaining the status quo for people sitting on top of the heap. After all, when you look at the supposedly environmentally conscious leaders (like Al Gore), they don’t curb their own consumption whatsoever. They just claim to be buying offsets or whatever.

      Ideas like clear cutting a forest to replace it with bamboo to get carbon credits is definitely the sort of idea that comes from someone who can’t get off their crack binge.

    • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 12:41 pm |

      Nature is not incomprehensible.
      Lizards don’t piss.

      • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:02 pm |

        Yeah, it is. You just aren’t as smart as you think you are. Even if you could read every book in existence you won’t know everything.

        • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:07 pm |

          I am as smart as I think I am & I’ve never claimed the ability to know everything, nor that every book that is, has been or will be will provide such knowledge.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:14 pm |

            Nature is incomprehensible you are just ignorant of this fact. There is a lot of nature you don’t see because your models are in the way. So its actually more incomprehensible to you than it is to some other people.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:18 pm |

            I’ve never claimed to see all of nature.

            Perhaps you could say: “I find nature incomprehensible”. or “Nature is more incomprehensible to me than it is to some other people.”

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:20 pm |

            Nope, what I meant was is that NATURE IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

            To think otherwise is delusion. More specifically hubris. But that’s humanity. We have to have something to do. So why not try to control nature? It won’t work but you won’t know that until you try.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:23 pm |

            When you say ‘nature’ are you referring to all of existence? By ‘comprehension’ do you refer to omniscience?

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:34 pm |

            I am referring to Pan. Do you know him? Do you have a model for predicting his behavior? I can tell you right now, your model is false.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:40 pm |

            I know Pan.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:49 pm |

            Like in the Biblical sense?

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:52 pm |

            Your direction of thought does indeed remind me of evangelical sensibilities.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 2:03 pm |

            Two ways to avoid ever being surprised:

            1.Know everything
            2.pretend to (delusion)

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm |

            But yeah, you have me pegged. God made the Earth for us to have dominion to pollute. You got me pegged. That’s my point. Drill baby drill!

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 2:16 pm |

            I have no interest in pegging you.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm |

            yeah, just pigeon-holing. Better than corn holing so that’s good…

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 17, 2013 at 1:01 am |

            You feel like a pigeon?

          • Hymn to Pan

            Thrill with lissome lust of the light,
            O man ! My man !
            Come careering out of the night
            Of Pan ! Io Pan .
            Io Pan ! Io Pan ! Come over the sea
            From Sicily and from Arcady !
            Roaming as Bacchus, with fauns and pards
            And nymphs and styrs for thy guards,
            On a milk-white ass, come over the sea
            To me, to me,
            Coem with Apollo in bridal dress
            (Spheperdess and pythoness)
            Come with Artemis, silken shod,
            And wash thy white thigh, beautiful God,
            In the moon, of the woods, on the marble mount,
            The dimpled dawn of of the amber fount !
            Dip the purple of passionate prayer
            In the crimson shrine, the scarlet snare,
            The soul that startles in eyes of blue
            To watch thy wantoness weeping through
            The tangled grove, the gnarled bole
            Of the living tree that is spirit and soul
            And body and brain -come over the sea,
            (Io Pan ! Io Pan !)
            Devil or god, to me, to me,
            My man ! my man !
            Come with trumpets sounding shrill
            Over the hill !
            Come with drums low muttering
            From the spring !
            Come with flute and come with pipe !
            Am I not ripe ?
            I, who wait and writhe and wrestle
            With air that hath no boughs to nestle
            My body, weary of empty clasp,
            Strong as a lion, and sharp as an asp-
            Come, O come !
            I am numb
            With the lonely lust of devildom.
            Thrust the sword through the galling fetter,
            All devourer, all begetter;
            Give me the sign of the Open Eye
            And the token erect of thorny thigh
            And the word of madness and mystery,
            O pan ! Io Pan !
            Io Pan ! Io Pan ! Pan Pan ! Pan,
            I am a man:
            Do as thou wilt, as a great god can,
            O Pan ! Io Pan !
            Io pan ! Io Pan Pan ! Iam awake
            In the grip of the snake.
            The eagle slashes with beak and claw;
            The gods withdraw:
            The great beasts come, Io Pan ! I am borne
            To death on the horn
            Of the Unicorn.
            I am Pan ! Io Pan ! Io Pan Pan ! Pan !
            I am thy mate, I am thy man,
            Goat of thy flock, I am gold , I am god,
            Flesh to thy bone, flower to thy rod.
            With hoofs of steel I race on the rocks
            Through solstice stubborn to equinox.
            And I rave; and I rape and I rip and I rend
            Everlasting, world without end.
            Mannikin, maiden, maenad, man,
            In the might of Pan.
            Io Pan ! Io Pan Pan ! Pan ! Io Pan !

            Aleister Crowley
            Ironically, this is the poem Jack Parsons would read before a rocket launch. an ode to the mysterious god of Nature. Makes me think that my theory that nature is insane and we are the agents it uses for its own self-mutilation and destruction

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 2:08 pm |

            I don’t know about that. I think its heals more than it mutilates. Its just that we have to do everything the hard way.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:24 pm |

            Let’s put it this way. Nature is bigger than any circle you can draw around it. Its also more mysterious. The stuff you can draw a circle around (a circle consisting of “the Known” )eventually leaves the circle again.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:29 pm |

            I see. Then we essentially have a mathematical concept unto which you may address the extensive field of non-computability and the even more unsurpassable transcendental numbers.

    • Doing something is human nature.

    • geoengineering scheme has been ongoing.the skies terraformed for well over a decade now.
      do you think they’d factor that in,or even mention the calculated cumulative result of such aerosol dispersal/weather modification when assembling their climate models?

      man,it’s going to be morbidly fascinating when geoengineering is ‘officially’ presented & launched, and the public reacts that the skies don’t look any different.

      • Ted Heistman | Oct 17, 2013 at 10:23 am |

        I was kind of disappointed when Joe Rogan went the wrong way with this.

        • well i did find it pretty hilarious when his ‘expert’ the ‘scientific’ mick west, attempted to debunk the plausibility of aerosol dispersal..when geoengineering is exactly that…putting him in direct conflict with the scientific proposed means of mitigation.

          rogan could’ve had on a geoengineering scientist to then counter west’s claims concerning aerosols viability…but he was too busy fantasizing about punching in the camera crews face in the octagon.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 17, 2013 at 1:49 pm |

            I actually like Joe Rogan. I just think he dropped the ball on this. If you just think he is a dumb meat head I don’t agree. Or maybe I missd something. Did he get in a fight with his camera crew or something?

          • haha..nahh,no actual fighting..was just cracking on his obsession w/ the mma/man brawling.
            but yeah,i agree that he’d indeed dropped the ball on the subject matter for the reasons i’d stipulated.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 17, 2013 at 4:17 pm |

            He’s the real deal. He is very humble from everything I have heard from people who have dealt with him in person but also a legit martial artist. He’s no phony tough guy. He’s also a pretty deep guy. You should check out his podcast he has some great guests.

            The thing with the chemtrails is that some of the conspiracy theories are bogs, like the depopulation theory. But I really do think it is geoengineering and Snowden apparently leaked some things to that effect.

          • Ted Heistman | Oct 17, 2013 at 4:20 pm |

            He is aware that a lot of people have the impression you seem to have of him at first. I actually thought he was just another douchey jock when I knew him from fear Factor and the Man show. I started gaining respect for him from his UFC commentating, and then one day I checked out his blog and I have been hooked on his podcast ever since

  5. Lookinfor Buford | Oct 16, 2013 at 10:46 am |

    Another (climate science is one big) misapplication of Multiple Regression Analysis techniques. Hint: the idea is to reduce the number of models as much as possible through the use of techniques which identify poorly selected variables. Part of the trek is generating a pool of models, the majority of which will be tossed out as unlikely, and settling on the few which pass the tests of elimination. These flim-flam scheisters have never played by the rules, and never will, lest their climate science be classified as the boring work of a weatherman. Oh, and just ask any weatherman if I’m correct. This is the methodology used to predict weather (over a week, not 87 years), and they are actually pretty good at it, because they use it correctly.

  6. weirdo hippie | Oct 16, 2013 at 11:11 am |

    How does this OPINION piece tie in to real science, which just recently stated the oceans have been COOLING for 50 years? IF (we know it is not), the earth warms up because of humans, it sure as hell isn’t the fault of poor people. It was rich pigs in search of more money.

    • the poor are still responsible for their actions(and non-actions). most are complicit with the rape of the earth

  7. ishmael2009 | Oct 16, 2013 at 11:15 am |

    Something has to actually happen first for people to be in “denial” about it. These are predictions based on computer models. Given the failure of past predictions, it’s understandable that people are withholding judgement until they see empirical evidence.

  8. doodahman | Oct 16, 2013 at 11:39 am |

    The CO2 link to climate change is rapidly falling out of favor for numerous reasons. Ocean acidification, though, is a relatively new issue that some say is just being raised to keep the pot boiling (no pun intended) on carbon trading– because carbon trading is a huge scam that will enrich the Owning Class and impoverish workers. But it does bear watching, with the unsettled issue as to how sensitive the oceans are to acidification from CO2.
    The problem with focusing on CO2 is that it is probably the least likely destroyer of ocean viability– we have toxic runoff from agriculture and industry; we have over fishing and depletion of fishing stocks; we have continent sized patches of plastic trash; we have Fukushima; we have oil spills. My fear is that, as with air pollution, all other pollution issues will be ignored while the media and the govt’s fixate on carbon for the same reasons as stated above. We’ll go broke paying for bogus “carbon credits” while the oceans die anyway from the usual suspects.

  9. doodahman | Oct 16, 2013 at 11:58 am |

    OMG! You Disinfo commenters have AGW completely right! Bravo.

  10. I agree excessive CO2 emissions negatively effect the Earth. But, how much of what’s happening to the ocean is related to CO2 emissions and how much is related to nuclear waste, excessive ELFs and microwaves, plastic, etc?
    And when are people gonna stop bitching about it and blaming the gov’t and corporations and start “being the change they want to see in the world”?
    Maybe instead of all the negativity and accusations, people can start working on living a life that doesn’t contribute to harming the Earth.

    • Ted Heistman | Oct 16, 2013 at 2:15 pm |

      I think one thing Climate Change alarmism does focus peoples attention away from things people can actually work on. I agree.

  11. BuzzCoastin | Oct 16, 2013 at 1:55 pm |

    here’s a chart of the last 400K years of climate change
    you make the call

    • atlanticus | Oct 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm |

      That chart again…where did you find it?

      • BuzzCoastin | Oct 17, 2013 at 12:13 am |

        ice core weather data
        there’s a lot of this type of thing out there

        • atlanticus | Oct 17, 2013 at 1:22 am |

          I’m sure there is, but I was curious about *this* graph. I found similar graphs on wikipedia, but they weren’t as clear…

          • BuzzCoastin | Oct 17, 2013 at 2:07 am |

            google ice core data, images
            scroll down
            on the right side past page 1
            click on the image to discover the source

          • atlanticus | Oct 17, 2013 at 11:44 am |

            I don’t use google. Thanks anyway.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 11:45 am |

            As Buzz said there is a great deal of data that supports this graphing but I can find no scientific publication that this image comes from. It’s web history starts from a blog and was rapidly picked up by AboveTopSecret.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm |

            Well, that’s why I’m curious, since the other graphs I find don’t seem to match up entirely, but I’m not 100% that they are actually charting the same parameters, anyway…then my head starts hurting and I get dizzy and feel an intense urge to read articles about celebrities…

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 1:43 pm |

            Oh my, cross-vector transmission of Kardashianitis. The implications are apalling.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 2:33 pm |

            I hope you realize I’m joking. Mostly. I only read tabloid covers in the check-out line and then I remember why I don’t have TV.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 20, 2013 at 2:48 pm |

            Despite any evidence to the contrary I have a thoroughly immersive cognizance of the absurd. I hope you feel free to partake in such to your heart’s delight.
            The implications I was joking about were not a reference to yourself but rather the insidious interweaving of media mindcontrol.

          • atlanticus | Oct 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm |

            Yes…glad we’re on the same…”wavelength”… O_O

  12. so many assume that the global elite are simply ignoring supposedly irrefutable evidence of a ticking global climate catastrophe bomb to simply gain short term wealth before the world inevitably self destructs.
    one would also have to assume that somehow the elite have no capacity for facilitating strategic plans in their own favor.

    what about a plan that involves the elite manipulating weather,and information to convince a large segment of the world,that this is an inescapable eco crisis that’s somehow being ignored?…all while it’s in it’s downward spiral stage soon resulting in global climate devastation…and it’s all because you and your family,your neighbors mere existence are a fucking blight to their world,their resources..while also slipping 99% of population the bill to mitigate such dire circumstances to even have a chance at a viable future.

    now realistically,which fucking scenario grants the elite THE most control and financial reward in both the short term and extended long term?…considering the world doesn’t end in climapocalypse.

    they’re harnessing and directing fear and panic,which offers them all the control they’ll ever need.

    • atlanticus | Oct 16, 2013 at 7:59 pm |

      Your either/or scenario doesn’t include all of the options…It’s not necessary that the elite *create* the situation to exploit the situation.

      I do think that they know what is happening better than anyone…I think they also know that not everyone will survive, even if there was a way to save most. So how to decide who survives? What better lottery is there than the one we already have running?

  13. Otherworld | Oct 18, 2013 at 9:46 am |

    I wonder who funded this study, then?

Comments are closed.