Troy

Del, OK. I'm not going to argue with you or try to convince you otherwise. If the planet's scientific community catches up to you and reverses decades of research and analysis and agrees with your assessment, I'll agree with you too. I just looked at the links you've provided. The sites supported what the global scientific community has been saying. Below is a direct quote from the site YOU provided links to (emphasis mine). I'm beginning to think you are just messing around with me- "Changes to the climate system have been observed at a global scale, in the measurements of temperature at the surface, and the middle atmosphere, increased sea level, increased sea surface temperature, increased ocean heat content, and increased water vapour in the atmosphere. Decreased polar ice sheets, decreased global sea ice extent (with regional variation but overall net loss), and net decrease in glacier volumes (with regional variation) have also been observed. Drivers of these observed changes have been identified as a positive radiative forcing of the atmosphere, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification. Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing. In this regard, human influence on the climate system is clear. Future global and regional climate change indicate that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY UNVEILS SPEAKER LINE-UP FOR ITS INAUGURAL MULTICULTURAL SUMMIT, CAA AMPLIFY Attendees Will Hear Insights from High-Profile Leaders from the Worlds of Entertainment and Sports, Activism, Technology, Politics, Advocacy, and Education Invitation-Only Event Provides a Dynamic Platform for Key Decision-Makers and Influencers to Help Accelerate the Growth and Visibility of Diversity in Business LOS ANGELES (June 19, 2017) – Creative Artists Agency (CAA) today announced the speaker line-up for CAA AMPLIFY, an invitation-only event convening multicultural artists and leaders from entertainment, sports, media, corporate brand marketing, and technology to accelerate the growth, value, and visibility of diversity in business. AMPLIFY kicks-off June 20, 2017 in Laguna Beach, CA, and will explore a variety of topics, including leadership, disruption and opportunity, technology, and the creative process, as well as criminal justice reform, civil rights, and immigration. Providing a dynamic platform to share business insights, explore industry trends, and discuss social issues, AMPLIFY’s invited guests will hear from, and interact with, an array of innovative leaders, including director, writer, and producer J.J. Abrams; director, producer, and writer Ava DuVernay; President of public policy organization Demos and its action arm Demos Action Heather C. McGhee; Founder and President of the National Black Women’s Justice Institute Monique Morris; film producer Will Packer; Executive Director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance Ai-jen Poo; former White House National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice; Los Angeles Clippers Head Coach Doc Rivers; Executive Director of the ACLU Anthony Romero; Warner Bros. Chairman and CEO Kevin Tsujihara; Founder and CEO of Define American Jose Antonio Vargas; actor and producer Kerry Washington, former White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett; Chief Diversity Office of Perkins Coie LLP Theresa Cropper; and 25-time Grammy Award-winner and world activist Stevie Wonder, among others. CAA is a global company of diverse individuals, whose mission is to identify, create, and expand opportunities for the people who shape culture and inspire the world. The agency works with the world’s premier entertainers and athletes, leaders in politics and policy, Nobel Prize Laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and many other of today’s foremost thinkers and change agents. # # # ABOUT CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY (CAA) Leading entertainment and sports agency Creative Artists Agency (CAA) represents many of the most successful and innovative professionals working in film, television, music, video games, theatre, and digital content, and provides a range of strategic marketing and consulting services to corporate clients. CAA is also a leader in sports, representing more than 1,000 of the world’s top athletes in football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, and golf, and works in the areas of broadcast rights, corporate marketing initiatives, licensing, and sports properties for sales and sponsorship opportunities. For more information, please contact: Beth McClinton Creative Artists Agency (CAA) 424.288.2247 Beth.McClinton@caa.com

OK Del, so I'm only a numerical illiterate, cool (shhh, don't tell that to my math students). You are approaching this the wrong way, from my perspective. If I'm a numerical illerate, then, by extension, so is the global scientific community. They have access to all the graphs you've shared and so much more. Your disagreement is not with me--because I don't claim to be able to prove a thing. Your disagreement is with all of them. They have collected an overwhelming amount of evidence to show to a high degree of certainty, that climate change has accelerated due to man's efforts. Nothing on your two graphs can disprove this. Again, it is not just me saying this is everyone else (save you, 45, a few other conspiracy theorists, and fossil fuel execs). I just hope folks read the conclusions of the scientific community and vote in politicians that will take action to do something about this problem. Since our impact on the climate can not change on a dime, the climate will definitely get worse before it can get better. Some believe we may have even passed a point a no return. The media have also played a part in our inaction because they have given climate change deniers equal coverage as if this issue was up for debate. This seems to have changed more recently with climate change deniers being relegated to the same category as "Flat-Earthers." So while you never said you know more that all of the scientists who study the climate, your position on climate change suggests otherwise Del, don't you think?

Del you asked if I could read the graphs. I said I could. Now you want to know if I can "interpret" them. I'm sure I can't--at least not to your satisfaction. I simply would not presume to base my understanding of global warming solely on the two graphs you've presented. I already made it abundantly clear that I don't agree with your interpretation. I told you why and gave you details to help you understand why. What else can I possibly write? Interpreting the graph is completely different than understanding statistics. I assume you'd agree that someone with multiple engineering degrees from reputable universities, like myself, has a level of intelligence to understand what you wrote and disagree with it. Why suggest that I'm "numerically illiterate" when you know that can not possibly be the case? Doing this sort of thing I'd think would be beneath you. Again, I ask you, why do you think you know (and 45 for that matter), know more than all of Nasa? It is a level of hubris that escapes me.

@Delano, speaking of "avoiding a direct question" did you answer Mel's question?

Del, As you know I have an MBA and a graduate degree in Engineering, I can read the graphs. I thought that was obvious. Del here is a direct question for you: Why do you think that I would consider the two graphs presented and your simple explanation sufficient proof for me to reject the assessments of NASA, the NOAA, and the consensus of the entire Global scientific community? That is a big ask Bruh. In fact, 45's position on the issue is sufficient for me to believe in man-made climate change.

Hi @Onyeka Stanley, I see you'very shared a few articles to the site: http://sydneyebunuche.blogspot.com what is your relationship with the Blog?

Del, the info quoted below was from the EPA's website. The Trump administration, has pulled it down from the government's websites. Fortunately newspapers across the country have republished it (Boston Globe: http://climatechangedata.boston.gov) they understand how important it is for the public to have this information. Whether the public agrees with it, understands it, or accepts it, is an entirely different matter. I'd encourage you (and others) to visit the Boston Globes site and read the information they've provided. It is very accessible, written in layman's terms: "All major scientific agencies of the United States—including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In the 2014 National Climate Assessment, the Global Change Research Program concluded that "global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels."[1] Hundreds of independent and governmental scientific organizations have released similar statements, both in the United States and worldwide.[1][2][3]Multiple analyses of peer-reviewed science literature have repeatedly shown that more than 97 percent of scientists in the field agree that the world is unequivocally warming, and that human activity is the primary cause.[3] "

Thanks, @Mel Hopkins , I spent Father's day running around Cleveland with Maya. @Pioneer1 , you can always copulate with a white woman and roll the dice that you'd have a white child. Good white blonde-haired blue-eyed babies are a precious commodity. In the rare instances when they are actually put up for adoption they are quickly scooped up by Hetero couple who are given priority. Gay couples settle for what they can get unless they have money and desire for artificial insemination. Black babies are a dime a dozen... (OK I just made all that up, but it sound plausible doesn't it).

You are on a roll Harry. Another classic. Thanks for continuing to share books.

Ms Ty Unlike King, this man was murdered. Why do you think the public's reaction was so much more muted? Was it because the press coverage was so much less? It felt like the entire Black community stopped to hear the King verdict, but not in this case. Obviously, we saw what happened when the King verdict went south... Can you imagine being in the car when your mate (or father) is shot for absolutely no reason?

Well I have to say I'm surprised were charged with such serious offenses in Flint Michigan case. I have not been following it, but I hope this sends a message and stops administrators from endangering the lives of the public. I have to also say these poor working stiffs pay the price, while Wall Street, Big Tabacco, Fossil Fuel exec, continue to rape (I mean reap) billions of dollars from the public. taking homes, giving people cancer, and polluting the environment. I just heard they plan another trail for Cosby after this mistrial. I thought they gave up after a mistrial...maybe it is the discretion of the judge. I dunno. I guess they will keep up until the man is in jail.

Harry, this is a classic--thanks for the reminder! This book celebrates the "Good Black Men" who are all too forgotten in the mainstream media. Books like these give us reasons to acknowledge these men and removes excuses to take them for granted. Happy Fathers Day!

OK, I'm sure you are right Mel. I'm been in overthinking mode lately, maybe I need to chill out

Editor's Note: This conversation is being continued here because it was a dramatic digression from the subject where it picked up, "Another Controversial Time Magazine or Can Black Women Catch a Break" Del, the definition of what you wrote about my response was "dismissive." Why do you get away with being dismissive? Del you understand is statistics, no one has disputed it all called that into question, what I've called into question is your knowledge about climate, a subject you have neither asserted or demonstrated, detailed knowledge of. Am I wrong about that? Statistics is a tool, like a hammer, nothing more. Understanding how to use a hammer does not make you an architect. You wrote, "...35 years of temperature is NOT climate." Who said it was? There are places on the earth where temperatures are going down. The average global temperature can be misleading. The problem is the global climate is changing more rapidly than it normally would and the best minds in the world the cats who study and understand the science, better than you I'm sure, say that it is because of man's activity. Now I'm sorry if I've offended you because I say the scientists who study the subject know a lot more than you. I'm stating a fact, if facts offend you I'm sorry to learn that. Again this is a surprising revelation. Please answer this question: Why @Delano, do you believe you know more about the causes of climate change than the preponderance of Ph.D.s whose profession it is to understand this stuff? Keep in mind, a keen understanding of statistics is insufficient reason for these guys now statistics too.

Del, the definition of what you wrote about my response was "dismissive." Why do you get away with being dismissive? Del you understand is statistics, no one has disputed it all called that into question, what I've called into question is your knowledge about climate, a subject you have neither asserted, or demonstrated, detailed knowledge of. Am I wrong about that? Statistics is a tool, like a hammer, nothing more. Understanding how to use a hammer does not make you an architect. You wrote, "...35 years of temperature is NOT climate." Who said it was? There are places on the earth where temperatures are going down. The average global temperature can be misleading. The problem is the global climate is changing more rapidly than it normally would and the best minds in the world the cats who study and understand the science, better than you I'm sure, say that it is because of man's activity. Now I'm sorry if I've offended you because I say the scientists who study the subject know a lot more than you. I'm stating a fact, if facts offend you I'm sorry to learn that. Again this is a surprising revelation. Please answer this question: Why @Delano, do you believe you know more about the causes of climate change than the preponderance of Ph.D.s whose profession it is to understand this stuff? Keep in mind, a keen understanding of statistics is insufficient reason for these guys now statistics too. Del (everyone) please reply to the climate change digression in this new conversation. (Thanks)

I always wanted to make it to Canada for Caribana. Now I have an even better reason to attend. I just added the festival to our website: https://aalbc.com/events/index.php?st=Canada#Toronto+Urban+Book+Expo Maybe next year I can schedule and excursion.

...maybe I don't really understand what you mean by seeing someone Mel. I can see a lot of people. But I'd be willing to bet that they don't see themselves the way I see them. There is a Brother I know, who I "see" as a sociopath; not the kind to kill someone and put them in the freezer to eat later, but the type of Brother that will deceive you for personal gain. It is not the deception that is this issue it is the lack of guilt. He is capable of expressing emotion, but this is something he understands how to do to portray himself in a way to get what he wants. He is very smart. I know a few brothers like this. Now I "see" this Brother, but I suspect he does not see himself this way. If I explained how I (and others who share my sentiment) to him, I doubt he would feel "satified." Do who see what I mean. It is not the ability that I'm questioning necessarily it is the differences in our perspectives I'm calling into question.

Del I'm not a climatologist or scientist who specializes in this field--neither are you. Del climate change is, in fact, happening this is not in dispute by trained practitioners who study the subject. There is some controversy over whether man is causing these changes, but those who believe man is not the cause are in such a small minority they are irrelevant (likely in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry). This subject is not a simple matter of correlating CO2 emissions and average temperatures. This is a complex subject. I suspect you are unaware of what you don't know. Perhaps this is why the public is not very concerned. The media are treating this issue much like you are as if it is up for debate. I find it fascinating and surprising that you would presume to know more than the entire scientific community. Now I'm not surprised that the "average Joe" (someone like 45) might assume they know more; I'm surprised that you would. There is old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I presume (hope) you've read much of the same information I have, so I won't waste time sharing things with you have you've already rejected. But in the not too distant future, it won't matter that we've stopped listening to scientists.

@Mel Hopkins, your statement, "There's nothing so satisfying as being SEEN by the one with whom you share Life and LOVE... " Is particularly intriguing. Obviously, you believe this is possible. I'm not so sure. Perhaps couple can get close and maybe is an admirable goal, but I wonder if it is truly achievable. Now I believe people can share their lives and love each the, but the "SEEN" part is what is getting me caught up. How different people see another person is always different because we see things differently. For example, I'm sure Del sees Pioneer differently than Pioneer sees himself, and Del definitely sees Pioneer differently than I see him. Which perspective is "true?" Who truly see's Pioneer? Is it even possible?

@Sankofa Books , I hope the event went well. I meet the publisher of Sycorax's Daughters and have begun adding their backlist of titles to AALBC.com

Hi Anne, this looks like a really fascinating book. Would you mind posting an excerpt? Also the link you posted above does not work here is an alternative: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1316643484/ref=nosim?tag=aalbccom-20 or a shortened version: http://amzn.to/2sBgg0b This link also contains an affiliate code. Amazon actually pays people who refer visitors to their website when they buy something. Read this article point #3 to see why it matters.

Del this post of yours, is a brilliant example my point.

Yeah, I don't marriage is natural either, it is a social construct that most fail at achieving--perhaps because it is an unnatural state. I think many single older people are unnecessary miserable because the idea of marriage is so strongly drummed into our psyches we feel we are failures unless we have achieved it. As far as being completely open for a perfect marriage, that I'm not so sure about... I think that is why we have friends and therapists.

Mel I understand that you know how the stock market works and are good at research. But again most people are not. I think a side column about politics would be a great idea. Why should you be the only one who benefits from your knowledge? The challenge as you've noted however is generating interest. In order to raise people's awareness and prompt meaningful action, people have to both be aware and interested in what you have to say. They also have to understand why it is important. I've learned Google, for example, is a major road block keeping us from each other online. I've also learned that social media controls the information we see which distorts and biases our perspectives. So I research and try to understand this area, because it not only adversely impacts Black folks it impacts my livelihood. Google and social media will directly and adversely impact your ability to reach the people who most need to read your political information. I also realize the negative impact of social media and Google are happening without our knowledge, so people have not clue unless you tell them. It is like climate change. I would have no clue we were on the brink of making the planet inhospitable to human habitation unless the media informed me. Similarly, I would have no idea that Obama dropped more bombs from drones than Bush unless someone the media informed me. But information and facts alone are not enough. We need understanding and context. Just because you understand the stock market does not mean you will make money. We rely on research reports and the companies themselves to provide information. If they lie what good are our facts and information. If rating agencies and government regulators fail to do their jobs we are screwed--and we are. Did Obama drop more bombs from drones because drone technology improved and the tool was more readily available to him than it was to Bush, or did he drop more bombs because he viewed the increase in collateral damage (like killing everyone in an innocent wedding party) was an acceptable risk if fewer American's dide as a result of drone strikes? Knowlegde of facts does not automatically impact understanding.