Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

James Lovelock (the scientist behind Gaia), says some alarming things

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:29 AM
Original message
James Lovelock (the scientist behind Gaia), says some alarming things
not least of which is that he "expects 'about 80%' of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100."

He also says it's pretty much way too late for us to do anything about global warming except try to figure out how to survive it.

Don't you find this a bit alarming, coming from the man who discovered the hole in the ozone layer, began predicting global warming nearly 40 years ago and developed the Gaia hypothesis?

lovelock/guardian


What can we do other than the bush family approach of steal, kill, lie and cheat and hide in Paraguay?

Where would be a good place to try to preserve some semblance of civilization in the face of a disaster of this magnitude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TCJ70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. Antarctica would be a good place.
Since it is the coldest place on the planet, it would make sense to try and preserve things there since everything else will be baking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. Except for That Ozone Hole
Which hasn't completely healed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TCJ70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Aw, who needs an ozone anyway? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. He's been saying this for a few years
...that we passed the point at which we could initiate effective action. thanks, leaders of the free world...

and of course, many of those who will be hit the worst by this are like those people who drowned in New Orleans during Katrina... and we left to rot by Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Explains why the rich just can't get enough $$. They are buying some pricey shelters
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 11:55 AM by havocmom
They have known all along and denied publicly while they horde hoard all the nuts and acorns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idovoodoo Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. hoard
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thanks. I'll go get my coffee now
:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. wouldn't it be a good idea for progressives to collectively do a similar thing?
find a good place, go there and build a community that could survive the coming disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. sounds good to me. can it be in canada? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think parts of Canada would be an excellent place
to survive the effects of global warming (assuming GW doesn't trigger another ice age).

"America's Breadbasket" is already drying out and moving gradually north.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. we could grow hemp "plastic" and rope and paper and...
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 02:43 PM by RainDog
also have a bookstore and restaurant to bring in some revenue from other places, and we can find out what skills people have and build upon that.

I'm all for it. If we have enough money, pooled, couldn't we open a biz in Canada? you know, relocating an entire biz...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. we'd need to build an entire self-sufficent community
but that's the basic idea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. yeah, but you don't want to close off access to the wider world, do you?
I mean, that would be a little creepy to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. no, no.
but as things get worse, you want to be as self-reliant as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. With few exceptions, the bad guys have all the $$
This is not something communes of urban progressives will survive. ANd, the bad guys will have all the heavy arms. They will take what they need and leave nothing, sorta like now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Then let's just party!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Decent wine & all the good books I haven't taken time to read
That's my agenda for the big part of what is left of my life
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. that's a good agenda
I've come to the conclusion that enjoying life, as Lovelock suggests, really is the best advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I also work to teach youngsters to garden
I think those lessons may come in handy for those living beyond my lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I teach them to write songs
a similar pursuit, but less practical . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Very practical, actually. Tis thru bards our history shall be kept alive
Libraries are already going by the wayside.

And plants do better with music.

Teach song, my friend. It has value beyond your dreams.

Poetry and farming are not that dissimilar. Planting seeds is planting seeds ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
48. thanks
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
60. They've been doing this for some time already.
It's a relatively small group right now, but they believe in imminent collapse and have actually taken steps to mitigate the effects of that collapse.

"Then take a good long look at where you live. Does the bioregion you live in have the capacity to feed itself? Does it have a secure water system? Is there a high potential for drought? What will it look like if civil order is lost? These are basics. Figure them out.

If you are satisfied with where you live, work on personal and community self-reliance. If there is a crash of any kind and you have three months worth of food and water, you will not have to take part in the first stages of crisis and the violence of cleaning out food stores shelves. Know your neighbors. Be prepared to rebuild with the people that live around you. Prepare to work cooperatively. Even plan large cooperative neighborhood meals to practice working together." -Dan Armstrong

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/352/

The above website takes the inevitability of collapse as a given, and goes from there. They essentially talk about building local self-sustaining communities as off the grid as possible, energy-wise and financially. One thing they don't talk about very much, to my surprise, is defense. If you've got a working community, and there are those who didn't plan ahead and see what you've got, you're going to get a large scale invasion coming in.

Right wingers on the other hand, don't particularly care about building large communities, they care only about very small coalitions of like minded survivalists. However, as you might expect, they are very concerned about defense. And these people in particular are well aware of the dangers of climate change. Check out this forum which gives some idea of the mentality involved.

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=7885f030e1327b1929a5b1e6a5540560&f=6

BTW, on a non-political front, it does have some useful general info, and not all of them are nutters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. ahhh yes
NOW i see why the greed has gotten so out of control! the uber-rich are hoarding to build their survival shelters. there's much more to this picture than we, the hoi polloi, are allowed to see, i fervently believe.

taking off my :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. Crazy as it sounds, this very thought went through my mind the other day as well. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. Isn't there a huge aquifer in the region of Paraguay BFEE is said to have purchased lands?
Water will be the new oil, any day now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. water will be the new oil
yes--true IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
44. Yes. Right Underneath the Future Bush Compound
No accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
43. Yep
Have you noticed how many of the new McCastles appear fortification-ready? Then you have those who, I think, believe they will buy themselves a spot on the ISS or whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. there's a McCastle enclave near me
these are more than McMansions--they seem like new versions of those self-contained castles in Scotland where you have a buffer of land around your fortress and plenty of room for the loyal retainers inside the walls. Some even have a perimeter wall all around.

All the people around here wonder what these people are doing. These are not ordinary family homes. "They're fortifications against a social upheaval" has been expressed by some of the more rational people I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. It's a Mix of That
I see some who appear to want that security and I also think some of it is sheer pretension. I was out for a walk yesterday and went past this one very small, walled, community. The way it was done reminded me of a part of Camden I was once in. One of these homes actually had a Design Tour where they sold tickets for $14.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. true they must be for display as well...
steroidal "houses" without any features worth admiring, owned by nobles without nobility, but plenty of Lord of the Manor fantasies. Do they have "foxes and hounds" paintings in there?

I admit a certain horror and fascination with this bizarre phenomenon. But I certainly don't view these McManors with envy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
73. Huge influx of 'trust funders' here in Montana the past few years.
And they want all the comforts of their old 'hoods despite the fact that we don't have the tax base here to provide such lavish municipal services.

This 'big buy' has raised property to where most Montanans can't afford it. Those lucky enough to have a place are seeing tax increases on the horizon that they will never be able to afford.

But former GOP gov Racicot built a lot of prisons before he moved on to chair the RNC, bush/cheney 04 and get lots of swell lobbyist gigs. And we have a lot of nice new roads to pretty much nowhere. Something is up and it looks like 'the last best place' is going to the pigs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #73
81. That's Happening In My Hometown
In upstate NY. People who grew up there, if they didn't get out or get highly educated and come back or have the mixed blessing to get a General Electric gig, will be lucky to max out their salaries/wages at $40k. Meanwhile, the average price of a house went from $50k (for a well-built, charming fixer-upper)- $100k to 4 or 5 times that as people from the City moved up after 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
61. At least some of the more liberal of the rich will begin to come around...

once their multi-million properties in Manhattan and around Miami begin to flood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sad to consider the future of the human race will be scions of the top 1% now
Avarice will be the dominate human characteristic in the gene pool and altruism will be extinct.

Glad I'll be long dead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. they are also pretty stupid people all-in-all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
45. Not so sure.
Are we descended from people who learned how to cultivate crops with sharp sticks, or those who learned how to stab the farmer with them?

Starvation is a strong motivator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
13. There are places where survival is more likely
than other places. Check out any earth changes map to find them. Personally, I think Lovelock is optimistic if he thinks we'll have the massive die-off towards the end of this century. I think it will happen in my lifetime--and I'm not that young.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
14. No offense but Lovelock and the Gaia hypothesis of Earth as Organism are crap.
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 12:06 PM by HereSince1628
The biosphere isn't a superorganism and although it has many cybernetic (positive and negative feedback) systems, what he asks us to think of as organismic homeostasis is really little more than predictable behavior within the boundaries of dynamic system behavior.

Unfortunately, our spiritless planet is totally unaware of its dynamic excursions (and their impacts on us) induced by inanimate and soulless/spiritless dynamic driving forces that threaten to move the planet beyond what are known locally stability boundaries of its systems. If the biosphere were a cognizant god/mother 'Gaia' the planet would be countering these forces without human intervention. But, there is no biospheric equivalent to self-healing or immunity to what "ails" it. Providing a dream of the earth as an organism with such ability is not only anthropomorphizing inanimate nature, it is dangerous to our survival.

I know that envisioning planetary equilibria as a form of organismic homeostasis is popular. It appeals to our limited understanding by false analogies to a complex reality most of us have given precious little contemplation. Substituting a model with mythic appeal for understanding is not good. It provides nothing with respect to the guidance needed to husband life on this planet as the biosphere's many dynamics assume trajectories that head away from known behavior and off toward nodes whose distance from current behavior and whose stability properties are not yet defined.

If we think of the Earth as a God-Mother, we expect its relationship to us to be benign and caring. Thinking such things are comforting appeals to the supernatural. It shows little affective advancement beyond the Neanderthals who depicted the spirits of their world with colored dusts on cave walls.

Thinking like that will give us about as much survival certainty as it gave them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. whether Gaia is literally true, metaphor, or bullshit (I think of it as metaphor),
what about his other troubling predictions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. For me he has no credibility. I know he's a pop star.
But for me that's the cost of mixing religious images with science. I actually gave up on him and his pronouncements decades ago.

There are many other respectable scientists attempting to project trajectories for various of the planets systems. They write things worth reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
40. yes and no?
I agree that there is no "sentient" gaia. however, the severity of hurricanes, their frequency, and their locations are one way in which the earth responds to climate change. As a shift in the gulf stream that would be in reaction to the ice melts...which are definitely happening.

As far as the whole gaia metaphor, these things are important and useful when ppl want others to understand the impact of their actions. It is so hard for humans to see beyond the next day, much less the days in which their grandchildren will live. And the gaia metaphor also gets beyond the idea of "manifest destiny" and the idea that god created the earth for humans (adam).

we'll all get to see what happens...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #40
62. It may be more useful to think of the Earth as an egg or a cocoon...

it can support life for a limited time, but if we can't eventually escape its bounds then we are doomed to the fate of a lifeform that can't even survive the pre-birth phase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
52. You should probably get a better understanding of what the Gaia metaphor is all about
From the post I'm responding to, you don't have that understanding right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. Nice article, but it would appear Lovelock is wrong.
Energy companies like Exxon are making record profits, with no end in sight. The environment will slow them down one day. Extreme weather? Maybe to humans. Nature is not cruel, but is brutal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. "no end in sight"?
how do you figure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. They will raise the price of gas to offset any money spent in further
exploration and we the people will pay whatever it takes to get to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. how long will reserves last?
exploration only works when there is oil to find.

the strategic needs and the hoarding of the oligarchy will put an end to private profit from oil sooner rather than later I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I'm not saying it won't have to end, but they will drill the ocean floor
clean first, before giving up and starting all over. It is the way mega-companies work. Hang on in quiet desperation, as long as money is flowing in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
27. the first thing we have to stop doing is running away from the idea
of environmental collapse. That means losing the idea that there's some better place to go-- where we can scrounge and raise vegetables and live in a way that we have no idea how to do. That's just survival instinct, not creative thinking.

While I'm not a complete pessimist re the environment I do agree with Lovelock that buying biodegradable detergent is not going to save us. We are past the days of little "feelgood" measures. But most people can't face this. We need some really big picture answers and some clear leadership on environmental issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
31. "Too late" on global warming? The MORE we do the right stuff, the less of a disaster it will be ...
and that means aiming not just for "Climate neutrality" (as in the CN Net coalition) but for NET NEGATIVE GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions ASAP.

Resignation is not a worthy position for such an important scientist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
32. It's too late? Great, I'll buy that hummer, stop recycling and start eating rhino!
DOOM!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. no you won't
those of us who have been trying to make changes in our own lives for years are in the minority. We need a louder voice and leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. With every report of faster melting than predicted
and the rapidly de-salinization of the northern Atlantic, I wonder if he's not right.

That a worst-case scenario is now inevitable and imminent. If so, we are talking about an unprecedented disaster. Rising seas eliminating the homes of two-thirds of earth's human population. Where do the people go when it's Katrina--EVERYWHERE? Drought. Where will food and water come from? Never mind gasoline. We've already lost the core underpinnings of our democratic culture--no habeas corpus, no protection from search, seizure, surveillance . . .

I think things are looking pretty damned grim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. 80% population loss in 80 years is unhelpful extremism.
It makes the rest of us look like nutters.
We are not doomed. It is not too late.
We're not dealing with the Siberian traps here. There are solutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. I don't see any way for us to stop the ice from melting at this point
it's already too far along

recent reports indicate alarmingly faster melting (faster than the "nutter" theories of just a few years ago)

they report more rapid sea level changes

they report woefully inadequate response to the threats by developed countries

Katrina showed what the future will be all too much like IMHO, including the inability (or negligent unwillingness--makes no fundamental difference) of central authority to help the victims.

Imagine a summer with two, or three, or twelve concurrent Katrinas. What would happen in this country?

I'm not so quick to dismiss pessimistic assessments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. Lovelock's point is that it's too late IF WE LEAVE IT UP TO THE POLITICIANS
And possibly too late regardless. But definitely too late if we expect the politicians and ruling class to do anything. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" reviews why: most members of ruling classes are stupid and narrowly self-absorbed. Their only skills, if any, are in exploiting the rest of us. So they "fiddle while Rome burns". Or, as it might be, demand that the last breeding pair of fish be served up for their dinner, cooked over a fire made from the last tree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. is he the guy
who uses the example of Easter Island? I haven't read the book but heard about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. That's the guy. He's a prof at UCLA
It's an awfully good book, and appropriately both scary and hopeful. You'd enjoy it, I'm sure. His subtext is that if we take control of the world away from the ruling psychopaths before it's too late, we have a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. You also may be thinking of Jared Diamond.
I know he wrote about it as well. Maybe in his book 'Collapse'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #58
69. I think it was from "the third Chimpanzee"
one of Diamond's earlier books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
68. Since all of his predictions since 1965 have been correct, I doubt that
he's off base now. Most of the world's experts agree with him. There may be some solutions out there, but there sure as hell isn't the political will to implement them. Do you hear a single presidential candidate talking seriously about changes to slow climate change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #68
82. All his predictions have not been 100% right, and he does not have 'psychohistory'
which he would need to pull to make this prediction. A tremendous amount of this prediction is not based on simple science but on the actions of people, governments, politics, religion and media. He may have approximately predicted some things, but a genius on human studies this does not make him.

And most of the worlds experts do *not* agree with all his beliefs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #38
80. Reality bites sometimes....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
41. Alot of people will suffer
when the earth changes come upon us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. it's happening now.
isn't it?

and a lot of people are suffering
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #47
71. There are and there will be more,
Sad to say. I have a feeling that we are on the cusp of a change in ages. With that often comes periods of upheaval. Cylical. Human beings will end up reaping much of what reflects our thinking, feeling and ultimately what we have done to this planet. You do not need to be a shaman, seer or oracle to see where humanity could possibly run into some major problems globaly and the effect that this addiction to progress at any price will come back to haunt us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #41
75. Already 44,000 deaths a year according to one recent LBN article
due to climate change. People are already suffering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
59. Lovelock if a flake.
You do the cause of fighting climate change no good by pointing to people like this as some sort of prophet.

This is the kind of stuff that is red meat to the rabid right.

Here is more on Lovelock from sourcewatch:

Lovelock's past mistakes

CFCs and the Ozone Layer

Lovelock was one of the pioneering scientists who analysed the concentrations of the controversial chemicals chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in Antarctica. These man-made chemicals were found to be responsible for causing the hole in the ozone layer, particularly over Polar regions.

In 1973 Lovelock published the results of his work on CFCs in the scientific journal Nature. He concluded about CFCs that "the presence of these compounds constitutes no conceivable hazard". He was totally wrong, a fact that still causes him great embarrassment. In his autobiography Homage to Gaia he describes the mistake as a 'gratuitous blunder'.<1><2>

Later in the book, he also acknowledges that he appeared in a 1974 US Congressional Hearing on the future of CFCs as 'the principle witness for the industry's defence'<3>

Hedgerows

Lovelock also admits in Homage to Gaia that one of the instruments he designed, to monitor the movement of cattle as they grazed, 'led me to participate in the removal of hedgerows - one of the most destructive changes that happened to the English Countryside after the Second World War. I regret to say I played a small part in this act of national ecocide I loved the English country scene passionately, yet I was as thoughtlessly responsible for its destruction as was a greedy shareholder of an agribusiness firm, or a landowner out to maximize the return from his broad hectares."<4>

He explains: 'What we were doing at the Grassland Research Institute was providing essential information to the civil servants of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the farmers. They then used this to plan their campaign to replace the old English countryside with an efficient agribusiness operation The scientists, the farmers, the agribusiness men, and, most important, the civil servants who drafted the legislation that gave grants to farmers to take out their hedges, all of us were ignorant of the consequences. I am ashamed and now regard myself as part of the unconscious vandalism that has all but destroyed the beauty of my countryside'<5>

Chernobyl

Lovelock denies that Chernobyl has caused massive human health impacts. He maintains a position that there were only 45 deaths. According to Westminster Hansard:

John Barrett : In the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked Professor Lovelock about deaths following Chernobyl. Professor Lovelock said that be believed that 45 deaths were attributable to Chernobyl. My hon. Friend asked whether he was aware of the figures suggesting that between 25,000 and 85,000 deaths were associated with Chernobyl. John Robertson : What was his answer? John Barrett : The evidence from the World Health Organisation was that there were tens of thousands of deaths, and when Professor Lovelock was asked whether he would stick to 45 he said yes. I was in a cancer hospital in Ukraine 10 years after Chernobyl and it was full of 10-year-old children who were suffering as a direct result of Chernobyl. The doctors confirmed that. There were more than 45 people in that one ward and I do not believe Professor Lovelock's figure.

Yet see the Chernobyl information website which includes the info that; There is a consensus that at least 1800 children and adolescents in the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus have contracted cancer of the thyroid because of the reactor disaster. It is feared that the number of thyroid cancer cases among people who were children and adolescents when the accident happened will reach 8000 in the coming decades. This figure is given in the UNDP-Report 2002. The German specialist in radiation medicine and Chernobyl expert, Professor Edmund Lengfelder of the Otto Hug Strahleninstitut in Munich, which has been running a thyroid centre in Belarus since 1991, warns of up to 100 000 additional cases of thyroid cancer in all age groups.

A recent report by leading scientists and researchers commissioned by European parliamentary groups, Greenpeace International and medical foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine, Scandinavia and other countries suggests that the number of casualties may have bee far higher:

"At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine". <6>


Long-term Supporter for Nuclear Power

Lovelock hit the headlines on 24 May 2004 when he declared in The Independent: 'I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.' Lovelock's comments were widely reported in other media and consequently used by the pro-nuclear lobby to support their push for new nuclear power stations in the UK.<7>

Lovelock originally offered a draft of this article to Resurgence Magazine which said it would only run it if an anti-nuclear article could be run alongside. Lovelock refused and was told to take it elsewhere.

Contrary to the 2004 media coverage, Lovelock has long been an advocate of nuclear power - he has been on record as a supporter of nuclear power for 20 years.

Happy to Store Nuclear Waste in His Garden Shed

In May 1984, Lovelock was interviewed by the freelance writer, John May, who recalls on his blog how "I went to interview him on 1 May 1984 to conduct a taped interview (which has yet to be published).

According to May: "We start talking about nuclear energy. Surprisingly he is an advocate. He likens his passion to that of being a heretic. Chances of accident equivalent of airliner landing on his house. Willing to store suitcase-sized chunk of nuclear waste produced by large power station for a year, in a shed in his garden, use the heat it gives off. Happy to have his grandchildren stand by it. Happy to live near Windscale". Says of Hiroshima that "death rates of survivors from cancer lower than comparable populations. Deaths from radiation exposure need to be put in proportion compared with tobacoo etc. Far greater threat from CO2 build-up".<8>

Nuclear is Normal

In his 1988 book The Ages of Gaia, Lovelock states: 'I have never regarded nuclear radiation or nuclear power as anything other than a normal and inevitable part of the environment.'

In Homage to Gaia, he states that in 1993 'the Japanese Atomic Industrial Forum invited me to present a paper at their meeting in Yokahoma. I was glad to have a chance to express in public my strong support for nuclear energy'.<9>

He also writes of the 'beneficence of nuclear power' and attacks the Green movement as a 'global over-anxious mother figure who is so concerned about small risks that she ignores the real dangers that loom. As in the biblical fable, we strain at the gnats of Chenobyl, and swallow the camel of massive pollution by our carbon-burning civilisation'.<10>

Of the October 1957 reactor fire at Windscale - the world's first serious reactor incident - he says: 'This incident exposed the people of England to what some would now consider a dangerous level of radioactive contamination. I wonder why we have heard nothing of an epidemic of thyroid and other cancers over the years that followed?'.<11>

Nuclear is Safe

In an article for Readers Digest in March 2005, he writes: 'Nuclear energy is safe, clean and effective The Green idea that renewable energy can fill the gap left by retired nuclear power stations - and also meet the constantly rising demand for power - is romantic nonsense. Wind farms are monstrously inefficient and still need fossil-fuel back-up for the three days in four when the wind doesn't blow. Solar energy is a ridiculous dream for northern Europe. Energy on a large scale from waves and tidal currents is far off'.<12>

Dangers of Nuclear are "Imaginary"

Writing in The Daily Telegraph in 2001, Lovelock commented about the "imaginary dangers of nuclear power". He added in the article "If permitted, I would happily store high-level waste on my own land and use the heat from it to warm my home". In the same article he added, bizarrely: "I have wondered if the small volumes of nuclear waste from power production should be stored in tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by greedy developers."<13>

Links to the nuclear industry

Contrary to public percetion Lovelock has long-standing ties to the nuclear industry and its supporters. <http:www.ecolo.org/lovelock Lovelock's website> is maintained by Bruno Comby and hosted by the Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy. It states: 'James Lovelock is in favor of the use of clean nuclear energy' and 'he supports the Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy.' It describes him and Comby as 'friends'.<14>

Lovelock wrote the foreword for Comby's book Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (which was reproduced in The Independent).<15>

He is a Patron of Supporters of Nuclear Energy, whose Secretary is Sir Bernard Ingham.<16>

He was also awarded a medal by the nuclear power company British Energy in November 2006, "in recognition of his major contributions to the fields of medicine, biology, instrument science, and geophysiology".<17>

Links to big business

Lovelock started working for Shell in 1963, having regular monthly meetings with the Shell boss Lord Rothschild. He states in Homage to Gaia: 'My experiences with Shell left me firmly with the impression that they are neither stupid nor villains. On the contrary I know of no other human agency that plans as far ahead or considers the environment more closely'.<18>

Links to the security services

Homage to Gaia describes how, in 1961, Lovelock went to work at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratories in Houston, as part of a team working on the first lunar mission.

It also reveals that in 1965 he met with CIA officers in Washington to discuss new ways of detecting people hiding in dense tropical forests, using electron capture technology. Lovelock describes how he also met with an unnamed General at the Pentagon and scientists at the Advanced Research Projects Agency (now known as DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, this is a US Department for Defence research organisation). All three agencies appeared disinterested in his proposals, but 'I now know that the CIA and other American agencies did not make use of my idea until years later,' he writes.

One his return to London he discussed his experiences of the US security services with Lord Rothschild, at one of their monthly meetings. Rothschild - 'it was rumoured that he had worked with the security services during the Second World War' - gave him a phone number and consequently two scientists from the UK's Atomic Weapons Research Establishment came to see Lovelock.

Subsequently, he was invited to go and present his ideas at a meeting in Century House, which was then home to MI6 - though Lovelock does not make this clear. The spooks' 'real interest was in the KGB and its agents in London and other cities', he states. A week later, Lovelock demonstrated his invention in the New Forest to a man called 'Colin Place'.<19>

Later, he was invited to Leconsfield House in Curzon Street, which then housed MI5 (again, Lovelock glosses over this fact) and was offered a lab at Holton Heath, a defence research establishment in Dorset. He writes that his work had a "high classification'. He also notes: 'The potential for chemical tracing was considerable and soon the security services decided to build a proper new laboratory at Holton Heath specifically for this need'. He concludes: 'During my years with the Security Services I developed an instinct for discretion. This was invaluable in my work with multinational companies and other government agencies, where I discovered much more about their workings than I needed to know.<20> <21>

Links to anti-Greens

Lovelock was also one of the original signatories of the 'Declaration in Support of Protecting Nature With High-yield Farming and Forestry.' Other signatories are Patrick Moore, the ex-Greenpeace founder and now Greenpeace's bete noir, who runs an anti-environmantal PR company called Greenspirit Strategies, Dennis Avery of the Centre for Global Food Issues which is part of to the right-wing Hudson Institute and Eugene Lapointe one of the leaders of the international 'Wise Use Movement' and World Conservation Trust Foundation /IWMC World Conservation Trust and Norman Boulag, a rabidly pro-GM scientist.<22>

Dennis Avery is one of the main people behind many of the attacks on organic food and author of the inspirationally-titled Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Avery sees himself as a missionary, promoting the high-tech farming industries: pesticides, irradiation, factory farming, and the newcomer: biotechnology.<23><24>

Avery is behind misleading claims that organic food is dangerous and is the originator of the 'E. Coli myth' - that people eating organic foods are at a significantly higher risk of food poisoning. He calls organic food a 'gigantic marketing lie'.<24>

Eugene Lapointe runs the organisation the International Wildlife Management Consortium, a coalition of international hunting, shooting, whaling, right-wing and wise use organisations.<25>

Other signatories include Bruce Ames, the controversial cancer scientist on the board of climate-sceptic Fred Singer's SEPP and a Director of the George C Marshall Institute and academic advisor to the Reason Foundation, and Klaus Amman, a vehemently pro-GM scientist.<26>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Lovelo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. thanks for your post
He has been a controversial figure for most of his career. I never claimed he was perfect or had been 100% right on everything he's ever done.

Two issues:

1. I don't give a lukewarm squirt what constitutes red meat for the rabid right.

2. You didn't address what he said now.



Do you think it's to his credit that he admits past mistakes he made? I don't think his admitted mistake about CFCs has much bearing on current issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. His claim is absurd.
It is perfectly in line with the examples posted.

If you were actually out there trying to get policies initiated over the objections (as stupid as they are) of the rabid right, you too would cringe when junk like this is trotted out. There is nothing in the science that supports these claims except a couple of models that are outliers so extreme they simply can't be taken seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
64. One thing is for sure, neither me or this dude are still going to be around in 2100.
Nevertheless, he's not the first to tell us in no uncertain terms that "We're all doooooomed".

The trouble with this attitude, in addition to being totally speculative, is that it encourages people to say "fuck it". The reason I care, the reason I'm environmentally aware, shit the reason I'm politically aware, is because I REFUSE to say "fuck it" when the future of my kids' planet is at stake, thankyouverymuch.

And I'm sorry, but our species- as much as some of us may love to self-flagellate with moany, whiny, pissy self-hatred- is the most interesting thing to come along on this planet in a VERY long time. We've gone from caves to space travel in 10,000 years. To look at things now and go "oh, well, shit is insurmountable, we're all fucked, I'm going to go to the pub and drink myself stupid".. geezus, that's a failure of imagination.

Yes, we have problems and challenges- big ones- but many of our current problems are due to the fact that we've let the backwards looking folks run the show. We need to be smart--- and look forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. He says in the article that fi we're lucky, the shit will take 20 years to hit
the fan, so most people reading this will still be alive and suffer from it.

Another big problem; no candidate running for President is willing to seriously address climate change. Both HRC and Obama won't even cap emissions within their own lifetimes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. Yes, but I've heard extreme enviro-doomsday predictions all my life.
I remember being involved with the Rainforest Action Network in the 1980s, and hearing people say things like "the planet Earth will be unable to sustain any life higher than cockroaches by the year 2000, that's a scientific fact"

It's hyperbole, and gibberish.

I don't believe 80% of the world's population is going to die in the next 100 years.

I absolutely think we need to address climate change- NOW- but telling people alternately that they all need to move into mud yurts and abandon modern civilization; or that there's no point to doing anything because all our problems are totally insurmountable.... well, not only do I believe both those viewpoints are incorrect, they're also dangerously counter-productive to accomplishing real solutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. he says that the answer (to the extent there is an answer)
is more technology. he agrees the going back to nature, mud yurt approach won't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. You really need to read the article. That's not what he says
And I was also part of the Rainforest Action Network fund raising campaign in the 1980s. I NEVER heard anyone say anything like that. Back then we thought that mankind had a few hundred years and that was bad enough. Even my best friend's father, a prominent geologist studying climate change for over 40 years, is absolutely shocked at how ahead of schedule their predictions are. Some ice fields which are now gone weren't expected to melt for more than another 100 years. Everything is happening far faster then anyone predicted; what was expected to happen in the span of a couple of centuries is now happening within decades. That SHOULD wake everyone up-but I guess that it won't. Our candidates aren't paying attention, the media sure as hell is not paying attention, and by the time people do "get it" there won't be a thing that any of us can do to even slow it down. All I can do is everything I can to change the way I live my life, prepare for what's to come, and try to enjoy what little time we have left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conning Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
65. where would be a good place to try to preserve some seblance of civilzation i
The best places seem to be the ones near the arctic circle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #65
76. Lovelock mentioned in an interview that after he gave a talk in California
several profs, including Nobel laureates, asked him for his recommendations on where to relocate. They're taking him seriously.

He says the Arctic and Antarctic circles will still be inhabitable, but pretty much that's going to be it.

I find it significant that corporations are already buying land up there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #65
77. farther north in Canada than currently might seem inviting
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #65
79. Pay attention to historical migrations of humans and animals..
I'm guessing there would be a clue there?..:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
78. Northern and Central British Columbia...that's where we bought property and where based on the info
I have been researching, will be the place that many will be able to survive....atleast that's what we are betting on. My guess is that Paraguay will be an unsurvivable place and that as far as I'm concerned is where our Dictator can go eff himself.

Re. Lovelock and his hypothesis, I actually agree with him, although he has a rough around the edges approach to sounding the alarm. After reading his book "The Revenge of Gaia", what I took out of it is that while on the one hand he says we are all screwed, he doesn't give a completely hopeless view of everything. Basically, he's saying its too late to reverse things and that our energies and focus should not be on how we are going to stop global climate change (because its too late) but rather instead of how we are going to live and survive it. The world will become very inhospitable in most places and in his estimations, maybe 10-20% of the population that we have now will survive and have to survive in the northern most climates and figure out how to be living (possibly underground or in houses built into the hillsides?) using Geothermal and nuclear power for energy and figuring out how to have water and grow food. I don't think his ideas are so crazy. I think he's a bit of a cranky old man at 88, but I think his points should be listened too. Its not that I or my family are going to stop recycling, quite the contrary, its a good thing for us all to do and it doesn't take much effort. But his point is that instead of us all thinking that recycling, carbon offsetting etc. is going to stop the inevitable, he's advocating that we all prepare and figure out how those of us who are going to remain can survive on this planet, because she, "Pachamama", has been around before us and will be here after us and its us that needs to figure out how to save the human race from extinction, not Mother Earth.

So, based on all of our research into what is coming, survibility will come by being further North, in an area with abundant resources and in particular water, and then hope that we can figure out how to grow/produce food and keep the human race going in a sustainable way. That's why we have acreage in Central British Columbia. It's my hedge bet for my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc. and yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC