Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览汤姆·恩格哈特(Tom Engelhardt)档案
Dahr Jamail:“我们无法撤消此操作”
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

达尔·贾迈尔(Dahr Jamail) TomDispatch 定期,报道 惊人 from Iraq in the years after the 2003 American invasion of that country. Since then, he’s refocused the skills he learned as a war reporter on covering a fossil-fuelized war against the planet (and humanity itself). It goes by the mild name of climate change or global warming and, while a Trump tirade about the border or just about anything else gets staggering attention, the true crisis this planet faces, the one that our children and grandchildren will have to grimly deal with, remains distinctly a secondary matter not just in the news but in American consciousness. Yes, opinions are slowly changing on the subject, but not nearly fast enough. Something about the time scale of this developing crisis — no less that it could, in the end, 取出 human civilization and so much else — makes it hard to absorb. It’s increasingly evident that we are already living on a climate-changed planet whose weather is grimly intensifying. If you doubt this, just ask the inhabitants of 波多黎各, 休斯顿天堂 (California, that is). Its most devastating consequences will, however, be left to a future that still seems remarkably hard to absorb in an era of the endless Trump Twitch and in a time when we’re becoming ever more oriented to the social media moment.

In 2013, as Dahr Jamail mentions in his piece today, he penned a dispatch for this website on climate change. In my introduction to it, I , “Still, despite ever more powerful weather disruptions — what the news now likes to call ‘extreme weather’ events, including monster typhoons, hurricanes, and winter storms, wildfires, heat waves, drought, and global temperature records — disaster has still seemed far enough off. Despite a drumbeat of news about startling environmental changes — massive ice melts in Arctic waters, glaciers shrinking worldwide, the Greenland ice shield beginning to melt, as well as the growing acidification of ocean waters — none of this, not even Superstorm Sandy smashing into that iconic global capital, New York, and drowning part of its subway system, has broken through as a climate change 9/11. Not in the United States anyway. We’ve gone, that is, from no motion to slow motion to a kind of denial of motion.”

立即订购

Sadly, with different and more severe examples of every one of the phenomena mentioned above — four of the years since have, for instance, set new heat highs — that paragraph could stand essentially unchanged. In those same years, however, Jamail did anything but stand still. He traveled the planet, producing a remarkable new book, 冰的尽头, which is being published today. It holds within its pages the most dramatic (and well-reported) of stories about what both the present and future will mean for us in climate-change terms. If it were up to him, we would all feel the desperate immediacy of our situation as we face the single greatest crisis since that ancestor of ours, 露西, walked the edge of in Ethiopia so many millions of years ago. I only hope that the passion in his piece today (and in the book it describes) carries a few of us into the new world we now inhabit, whether we care to know about it or not.

(从重新发布 TomDispatch 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 科学 •标签: 地球暖化 
隐藏11条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:

    I guess Climate Change has become so important to Mr. Engelhardt that it trumps his principled antiwar dissidence. He’s barely had time to mention in recent weeks the announcement of Uncle Sam leaving Syria, much less back the President.

    And once again: why does Mr. Engelhardt enjoy the privilege of having these introductions published separately from the article of the, as he vainly reminds us, “TomDispatch regular”?

    Mr. Jamail’s article is here separately, where it can receive comments; so we’ll have commenters literally talking past each other, diminishing one of the best aspects of TUR.

    假设(非常)假设TomDispatch或其父公司The Nation想要放大Linh Dinh或CJ Hopkins等人撰写的TUR文章,很难想象Unz先生要求的,很少得到的,如此烦人的小肥皂盒。

  2. Sparkon 说:

    I tried to leave a comment under Mr. Jamail’s article, but it has disappeared.

    Therefore, I will leave it again here:

    “我们不会阻止这次火车事故,”他严厉地向我保证。 “我们甚至没有试图减慢二氧化碳(二氧化碳)的产生,并且大气中已经有足够的二氧化碳。”

    I wonder if Bruce Wright, Dahr Jamail, or Tom Engelhardt would point to that block of stone where Earth’s correct level of CO₂ is etched?

  3. anonymous[340]• 免责声明 说:
    @Sparkon

    It’s there now. For some reason, the first comment under an article is not picked up by the review/moderation features.

    And thank you for helping to illustrate my point, above. Are all those who wish to reply to your comment likely to copy/paste into the other thread? Even if they do, why should this be?

    Mr. Engelhardt (and Mr. Unz) should realize that his teasers divert and detract from the work of the “TomDispatch regulars” deemed worthy of publication. If nothing else, the teaser and article should be together.

  4. I think the title sums it up perfectly. We can’t undo the meltdown because we can’t change the stupidity of human behavior fast enough. Collectively, the dysfunctional madness of our energy and growth addictions appear to be a terminal disease. Throw in the primitive tribal politics already on full display, and our goose is cooked. Just look at the current reactions to forced human migration and imagine it getting a thousand times worse over the next few decades. Every habitable sweet spot left on the planet is going to get a bit crowded unless famine and disease thins out the herd.

  5. @Sparkon

    There is no correct level of CO2 just like there is no correct level of sea. It’s just convenient where it is right now for about 2 billion coastal inhabitants. It’s going to be very inconvenient to say the least as both rocket upwards.

    • 回复: @Sparkon
  6. Sparkon 说:
    @Sceptic Reader

    Indeed, there is always some danger of a flood in low-lying areas around any large body of water. It comes with the territory. Ask the Dutch. Fully 1/3 of Holland (the Netherlands) is below sea level. Many American coastal cities have very poor storm surge protection, as we saw with “super storm” Sandy, only a modestly strong tropical depression (80 mph winds at NYC) that nevertheless flooded parts of NYC, and caused \$65 billion in damages along the East Coast.

    Also big flood and storm surge damage in recent years in “N’arlins,” and Houston…

    Psst. But bombs man, we got us some bombs, and don’t worry too much ’bout no stinking infrastructure.

    I’ve been visiting some areas of California’s Central Coast for over 40 years, and I see no sign of any noticeable difference in the tides. Nothing along the coast is rocketing upwards other than, well…real rockets actually launched (usually) upwards from nearby VAFB, still keeping its head above water.

    It’s going to be very inconvenient to say the least as both rocket upwards.

    火箭 动词
    rocketed; rocketing; rockets
    及物动词
    : to convey or propel by means of or as if by a rocket

    不及物动词
    1: to rise up swiftly, spectacularly, and with force
    飙涨 to the top of the list
    2 : to travel rapidly in or as if in a rocket

    Well, sensational, florid, overcharged, turgid, and/or downright inaccurate language may play well to the emotions of ignoramuses, well-meaning do-gooders trying to save the world, various slop surfers feeding at the subsidy troughs, or the green blob’s own mobs, cliques, and coteries of climate alarmist babblers and scribblers looking to flesh out their own patois of hyperbole, but just for purposes of calibration with, you know, reality, could you please provide an example or two where either CO₂ or sea level is rising “swiftly, spectacularly, and with force”?

  7. sailor1031 说:

    For all of those who are buying this nonsense about a climate catastrophe (somewhere) in the world’s future – would you be kind enough to provide some real evidence? and I don’t mean some BS from Dana Nucitelli, John Cook or realclimate.com. And especially not from a certain professor at Penn State whose seminal work was completely discredited years ago.

  8. obwandiyag 说:

    Whatever it is, or turns out to be, betcha bottom dollar it isn’t like they say it is, and it won’t be the way they say it’s going to turn out. It never is. Wrongness is their job. And I mean pro and anti, left and right.

  9. I’m still waiting for the mile-thick glaciers and death by Kelvination that were the “settled science” of the mid 1970s. I mean, 45 years is only a tiny fraction of a tic in geologic time. Also, something must be done to quench the molten metal roiling about in the earth’s core. Down with magma (and volcanic activity), I say! Perhaps the cult of Climate Scientology can arrange a meeting with God and convince him to turn down the heat a bit.

  10. Bill Jones 说:

    同时,对于生活在现实世界中的我们这些人来说,这是全球变暖骗局的全部内容:

    http://www.investors.com/po…

    “上周在布鲁塞尔举行的新闻发布会上,联合国气候变化框架公约执行秘书克里斯蒂安娜·菲格雷斯(Christiana Figueres)承认,环保主义者的目标不是拯救世界免遭生态灾难,而是摧毁资本主义。

    “这是人类历史上的第一次,我们将自己的任务设定为在一定时期内有意改变自工业革命以来已经统治了至少150年的经济发展模式,”她说。

    谈到新的国际条约,环保主义者希望今年晚些时候在巴黎气候变化会议上能够通过,她补充说:“这可能是我们赋予自己的最艰巨的任务,这是有意改变第一个经济发展模式人类历史上的时间。”

    http://www.cfact.org/2017/0…

    IPCC于2007年发布的第四次总结报告的主要作者奥特玛·埃登霍弗(Ottmar Edenhofer)坦率地表示了优先考虑。 他在2010年发表讲话时建议:“人们必须摆脱国际气候政策就是环境政策的幻想。 相反,气候变化政策是关于我们如何重新分配事实上的世界财富。””

  11. @Sparkon

    The correct level of CO2 was that of the Carrbonifer0us era. Just ask the dragonflies.

    Or maybe it’s today, if you ask the humans.

    Where is the support for orbital solar power stations, thorium reactors, even the SAINT configuration nuclear reactors, figuring out what drives fission product production on cold fusion experiments, and so on?
    Or maybe the whole thing is intended to answer the question: “Who will save us from Western Civilization”, or maybe “Who will save us from Civilization?”.

    Note that lower Mesopotamia is now almost uninhabitable thanks to Mesopotamian civilization. Obviously we have to end civilization.

    Or something. The entire debate makes no sense except as a power grab.

    平叛

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Tom Engelhardt评论
Personal 古典文学
二十一世纪美国八项杰出的(愚蠢的)成就
安全国的保密狂热将如何创造您
单一超级大国时代的妄想思维