<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Jock,<br><br></div>So good to see you speak up.<br></div>You expressed things so eloquently.<br></div>Good job!<br><br></div>Paul Olivier<br><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jock Gill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jg45@icloud.com" target="_blank">jg45@icloud.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto"><div>Paul,</div><div><br></div><div>The interesting question is why do people feel obliged to deny the science of Climate Security / Insecurity? Politics and "culture wars" play a huge part. For example, if global climate disruption is a real threat, then governments will have an extremely important role in solving the problem. To some, it is unacceptable for government to play any role in any solution. For these people government has to be the problem and can never be allowed to be part of a solution. Government must always be seen to be failing. Hence the objections, for example, to government health Plans, even though we know from other countries they can work at lower costs with better results.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On the political front, also consider the interesting role of the American "Dixiecrats" who were fundamentally opposed to government imposed civil liberties. The descendants of the Dixiecrats are alive and well in Washington, DC and far too many state capitals. The recent hard turn to the right in formally moderate North Carolina is a case in point.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In short, people do not like to see their entrenched core values threatened with significant change. The fossil fuel companies do not want to be told they cannot monetize 100% of their reserves. Yet, if we want to mitigate Climate Insecurity, we probably have to find ways to leave as much fossil carbon in the ground as we can. Monetizing it all creates too great a risk of globsl climate disruption. This, however, is unacceptable to the likes of the Exxon and the Koch brothers etc. They will fight it tooth and nail. As they have effectively "bought and paid for" far too many elected officials, I expect they will prevail for some time to come. It will be hard to convert from an extraction model to a stewardship model.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, until we have policy, incentives and education promoting Climate Security, I expect very little to be done to creatively address the daunting challenges to Climate Security that we are facing. As a result, I am not sanguine about the future my grandchildren will inherit from us. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Jock</div><div><br><div>Jock Gill</div><div>P.O. Box 3</div><div>Peacham, VT 05862</div><div><br></div><div>Cell: (617) 449-8111</div><div><br></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">:> Extract CO2 from the atmosphere! <:</span></div>
<div><br></div>Sent from my iPad</div><div class="im"><div><br>On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Paul Olivier <<a href="mailto:paul.olivier@esrla.com" target="_blank">paul.olivier@esrla.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>Ron and Josh,<br><br></div>Take heart. An article appeared today in the New York Times entitled "Welcome to the Age of Denial." The author, Adam Frank, puts things in perspective quite nicely:<br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130822" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130822</a><br>
</div><div>Frank is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester. The language that he uses is not the language of religion or politics. It's the language of science, and yet it is, at times, tough and brutal. Let me quote just a few lines:<br>
</div><br><i>Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR
playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate
science that were decided scientifically decades ago.</i>..<br><br><i>North Carolina has banned state planners from using climate data in their projections of future sea levels...<br><br>From one end of their educational trajectory to the other, our society
told these kids science was important. How confusing is it for them now,
when scientists receive death threats for simply doing honest research
on our planet’s climate history? </i><br><br></div>I encourage everyone to read the entire article. Let no one try to take the high road and say that climate issues should not influence the way we design stoves.<br>
<br></div>Thanks.<br></div>Paul<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Paul A. Olivier PhD<br>26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong<br>Dalat<br>Vietnam<br>
<br>Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)<br>Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)<br>Skype address: Xpolivier<br><a href="http://www.esrla.com/" target="_blank">http://www.esrla.com/</a>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div>