Great speech by John Nichols of the Nation:

Vote for UMass Permaculture as College Campus Champion of Change!

You have to sign in and thus provide your email address, and you may use all 3 votes to support the UMass project.

From John Gerber, Professor of Sustainable Food and Farming at UMass Amherst:

The UMass Permaculture Project was selected from among 1400 nominations as one of 15 finalists in the White House Campus Change Challenge.  After a week of online voting we were leading the nation (until yesterday), when the University of Arkansas got a story in USA Today and picked up thousands of votes.  We believe that with a last minute “push” we can retake the lead in the balloting.

If you are willing please vote for us here and ask a few friends to help us out.

Our students have done a terrific job trying to change the culture on campus to be more supportive of local food and farming.  This would be quite a tribute to their hard work.

VOTE UMASS Permaculture!

by Richard Hugus

March 3, 2012

New York City appears to be going all out to win a world award for racism and bigotry. On February 24 the New York Post published a cartoon (1)   depicting three men with long noses, long beards, turbans, and dishdashas assembling bombs in a locked upstairs tenement room. One of the men has a bomb strapped to his waist. He is looking out a window at an New York Police Department car in the street. The cartoon shows him speaking into the phone: “Hello, AP Press? . . . I’d like to register a complaint against the N.Y.P.D. for spying on us.”

From the Jill Stein camp:

We are on the ballot in: Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia

…

Next major priorities include: New Mexico and Nevada

…

We are currently petitioning in: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Iowa, Indiana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia

Read Part 1 Here

Download PDF for full version (with figures and references)

Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 2

28 January 2012

Scientists are finding it difficult to persuade the public of the urgency to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions. This is in part because people profiting from fossil fuel business-as-usual support disinformation about the science, so that they can expand extraction of fossil fuels despite the evidence that such expansion will push the climate system beyond tipping points, assuring further climate change with impacts that are practically out of humanity’s control.

Scientists attempt to communicate, but are flummoxed by the ability of the profiteers to manipulate democracies.  The scientific method (objective analysis of all facts) is pitted against the talk-show method (selective citation of anecdotal bits supporting a predetermined position).

The tragedy is that a common sense pathway exists that would solve our energy needs, stimulate our economy and protect the future of young people.  Yet people benefiting from business-as-usual are able to block adoption of policies in the public’s interest, via the corrosive influence of money in politics and aided by corporate-dominated media.

Should scientists connect the dots all the way to policy implications?  Profiteers strongly oppose that, because scientists are trained to be objective, and profiteers want no interference with their functioning profit pathways.  Let’s consider that issue after summarizing the situation.

From Jim Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:



Cowards in Our Democracies, Part 1, a discussion of why I submitted a Witness Statement to an Information Rights Tribunal in the UK, is available on my web site.

~Jim

Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 1

27 January 2012

The threat of human-made climate change and the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions have become increasingly clear to the scientific community during the past few years.  Yet, at the same time, the public seems to have become less certain about the situation.  Indeed, many people have begun to wonder whether the climate threat has been concocted or exaggerated.

Public doubt about the science is not an accident.  People profiting from business-as-usual fossil fuel use are waging a campaign to discredit the science.  Their campaign is effective because the profiteers have learned how to manipulate democracies for their advantage.

The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions.  This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science.   But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position.