Anderson Cooper on CNN's "AC 360" does the air quotes thing on air today and THEN APOLOGIZES FOR DOING AIR QUOTE AND says "Oh my gosh, I never did that before!"

it occurs in the middle at 1:"27 and later 1.:46 of the segment during the segment and he even apologizes for using the scare quotes gesture!

Anderson Cooper on CNN's "AC 360" does the air quotes thing on air today for the first time ever appaerently and he says "Oh my gosh, I never did that before!"

September 22, 2012

A woman in Georgia is being sued by her homeowner's association for the color of her granddaughters playhouse.

QUOTE: ''I waNNA APOLOGIZE FOR DOING THIS...I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE....SAID SOTTO VOCE''

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/the-ridiculist/?hpt=ac_ac4


@AC360

don't you mean "concerns"? Like, you know, ''air quotes''?
Anderson Cooper 360° ‏@AC360


A clue about what's coming up next on the #RidicuList:

Do you want to paint your playhouse PINK, or should we call the lawyers?

 
And during this segment, AC actually did the AIR QUOTES gesture with his two hands and fingers posed in the air quotes position, but it was more like a SCARE QUOTES air quote, what is now called SKAIR QUOTES, that is air quotes gsetured as a scare quote in fact.

Smiley McDiddly MD ‏@smiley_lnp


Man @andersoncooper just cracked me UP with the #Ridiculist. That poor little girl's PINK playhouse has to look like a shed. Lol!

Little pink playhouse causes a stir. 21 Sep 2012
6:46 pm. CNN's Anderson Cooper adds an outcry over a PINK playhouse to the RidicuList ...


http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/the-ridiculist/?hpt=ac_ac4

September 21st, 2012


RidicuList: Little pink playhouse

On the RidicuList, a little house, a little girl and the big fight her grandma's now in with neighbors about painting her playhouse pink. And for the first time ever in CNN history, Anderson Cooper does an AIR QUOTES gesture on air, saying at the same time ''OH MY GOD I CANNOT BELIEVE I JUST DID THAT!"

Jim Laughter Sees Polar Cities In the Future - NPR interviews

Copyright ©2075 National Public Radio. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT


September 19
ROBERT SEGAL, HOST:



Now to a story about a Tulsa novelist who has written a very interesting sci fi novel about the future
of climate change and how it might impact the Lower 48. Jim Laughter is a retired USAF officer and his
novel, published in April, on Earth Day, is titled POLAR CITY RED. It's set in 2074 in Fairbanks, Alaska.
More on the story from Zane Bolt of NPR Southwest News Network.



ZANE BOLT, BYLINE: This is a story about a Tulsa novelist who has written a very interesting sci fi novel about the future of climate change and how it might impact the Lower 48. Jim Laughter is a retired USAF officer and his novel, published in April, on Earth Day, is titled POLAR CITY RED. It's set in 2074 in Fairbanks, Alaska. I'm Zane Bolt of NPR Southwest News Network, standing in for Rick Fisher of TULSA NPR [who refused to do the interview].






JIM LAUGHTER : I'm a retired USAF officer in Tulsa and my
novel is set in 2074 in Alaska.



BOLT: He's a Tulsa novelist who has written a very interesting sci fi novel about the future

of climate change and how it might impact the Lower 48.


LAUGHTER : I owe a lot of my research to the work of James Lovelock.
BOLT : I spoke with Lovelock last week.

JAMEs LOVELOCK : Polar cities? It may very well happen and soon!

BOLT: Lovelock did not give a timeframe but said it would happen someday in the future: climate chaos, that is.

DANNY BLOOM : I've been working on polar cities ideas since 2006
BOLT : Danny Bloom is a 1971 graduate of Tufts University and he says only one thing will save
humankind from extinction due to climate chaos in 2500.

DANNY BLOOM: Polar cities.



BOLT : What does Dr Lovelock have to say about Polar Cities?

JAMES LOVELOCK:  I have seen the images and it may very well happen.


BOLT : Laughter's novel set in 2074 in Fairbanks, Alaska.



LAUGHTER : You should read it.



BOLT : I intend to.

LAUGHTER: Good on ya, mate.

BOLT : 1  For NPR News, I'm Zane Bolt in Tulsa.



(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)



AUDIE BELLOW, HOST:



This is NPR.



Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.



NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

Graduation Speech to "Class of 2099" Asks We Tighten the Noose Around Coal and Oil

You read that right: I have written and delivered, virtually, online,

via a YouTube video,

a "graduation speech" to the class of 2099 and aimed, again,

virtually, over the years, at every high school and university

in the world. Not just North America, but schools in Asia, Africa and

Europe, too.



Was I invited to give this speech and who invited me? Nobody invited

me; you could say that I invited myself in

an act of social media prayerfulness, to show concern and compassion

for the future. I imagined I was addressing

the Class of 2099 anywhere and everywhere, if there is a class of 2099

anywhere or anywhere to hear my words then,

and to do the "event" and make it look real, I first sat down and

wrote a text and then rented a cap and gown at a local

costume shop as my props. As luck would have it, I found a senior at a

local university who was well-versed in using

a blue-wall screen or whatever they call it in TV studios, and

together, Aremac and I ventured into the college TV studio

during some quiet time when nobody was using it and we taped the

speech there. Aremac -- that's his nickname and it stands

for "camera" backwards -- directed the four-minute video, and I read

my text in one take.



The speech was inspired by some words I heard once from Dr Jesse

Ausubel at Rockefeller University in New York. In an academic

paper in 1988, more than 20 years ago, he said "we must tigthten the

noose around coal" in the future if we want to stop climate

change and global warming from turning the Earth into a planetary

emergency ward within the next 200 to 500 years. I added "oil" to the

mix and tell the Class of 2099 in my virtual speech that "we must

tighten the noose around coal and oil."



I put the video on Youtube three years ago, and let it find its

audience step by step, week by week. In the first year, the hits

remained

few and far between, never even reaching 100. But as word of mouth --

and word of mouse -- spread on the internet, the hits starting

climbing to 500 and then 3000 and now it's almost at 10,000. If the

video stays up at YouTube for the next 90 years or so, I hope

it will eventually attract 100,000 eyeballs and ears, maybe as many as

a million. It's my parting gift to the Class of 2099 and beyond,

and the speech is part of my climate activism that I have been engaged

with since 2006.



As you know, every spring, famous alums, celebrities and writers are

invited to college campuses nationwide to give graduation speeches,

and most of them are very good. A few sink right away, but most of

them are keepers and bring important messages to graduating students,

not only at universities but also in high schools as well.



Although I will no longer be here in 2099, having been born in 1949

and set to depart this mortal coil within the next 20 years, if not

sooner, I

wanted to do something dramatic and poetic and artistic and leave what

I call a ''Virtual Graduation Speech to the Class of 2099'' as a kind

of thought experiment, not only for the Class of 2099 in the future,

but also for the class of 2013 and 2014 and so on, all the way up the

2100. YouTube

is covering for me, and as long as the video sharing service remains

solvent, my speech will go on forever and ever. That's my intention.



Yes, I wanted to give a speech, in full regalia, cap and gown, to

students in the future, 90 years from now, but also intended for

students in this year's graduating classes, and I am hoping for

feedback, too, in the form of comments.



My theme is that we must tighten the noose around the use of coal and

oil if the human species is to survive the very troubling problems of

global warming and climate change. So the speech is both a warning and

a cri de coeur, and it is getting close to 10,000 hits on YouTube.

Will my little speech endure? Will it be heeded? Or will it like many

climate appeals, drop out of view and hardly even make a ripple on

this planet's conciousness?



You may view the video here:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wnrm2jE-E




Excerpts from the text goes something like this:



''Good afternoon, Class of 2099,



''I can't be here in person to address you, since I passed into

oblivion long ago. But as a member of the graduating class of 1971

here at my own beloved alma mater, I wanted to leave you with a brief

message -- from the past to the future -- about global warming and

climate change.



''As the class of 2099, you are about to enter the 22nd Century in a few

more months, and you will bring with you not only your university

experience but also your career expectations and personal anxieties as

citizens living on a planet in the midst of a climate crisis. I'm sure

you've heard this term a lot in the past four years -- "climate

crisis" -- but you should know that in my days as a student, we never

used the phrase. Back then, we had not even heard of the term yet!



''Back then, of course, we were focused on terms such as Cold War,

nuclear winter, war on poverty, racism, the oil shock, the Middle East

situation, and later on, towards of our "three score and ten" on

Earth, newer terms such as 911, terrorism and global warming.



''I'm not around now, but I hope you can read my message online and

perhaps view it on a digital recording in a public library.



''Members of the Class of 2099, you are living in a very crucial time in

the history of humankind. Your world stands at the threshold of a

period of human history when very important decisions will have to be

made about the use of fossil fuels and the "consume! slash! burn!"

lifestyle that you have come to expect.



''I wonder: do the names James Lovelock or James Hansen or Al Gore still

ring a bell in your generation now, or have new faces and names

replaced these far-seeing men? Is that book by Mark Lynas, titled "Six

Degrees", still in print, or has a new bestseller on climate change

become the must-read of your generation? Is that documentary from

2006, "An Inconvenient Truth", still in circulation? And what about

Leonardo DiCaprio's "The 11th Hour"? Have you ever heard of the movie,

or has it been all but forgotten in your day and age?



''Class of 2099, I want to leave you with seven words: "We must tighten

the noose around coal". And let me add "oil", too.



''Dr. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University in the U.S. wrote those

words more than 100 years ago, and they were prophetic. Has your world

tightened the noose around coal? Has your world started to tackle the

vexing problems of overpopulation, climate change and the creation of

a sustainable economy?



"I hope your generation finds a

way to stop the burning of fossil fuels and also finds ways to

mitigate the impact of climate change on your future world.''

Sheelagh Schano

Sheelagh Schano
says



Christie,

I’m a fairly crazed reader, and I LOVE my Kindle, but perhaps because I’ve spent decades reading with paper, I do notice a difference. I tend to fairly quickly dismiss info on Kindle, but feel more involved in the print version of the same book. I’d love the science on this as well.

'Jeffrey Sachs' responds to 'Dan Bloom's' oped attack on his climate motives

'Jeffrey Sachs' responds to 'Dan Bloom's' oped attack on his climate motives



by "Jeffrey Sachs"

I appreciate your oped about climate change the other day in the Taipei Times, ''Dan Bloom'', if that is really your name, where you took issue with me and Jeffrey Sachs. You made some good points, but let me just say this, Dan: Give in to optimism, not apathy. Your approach is all doomsay, gloom and doom, may I say Bloom and gloom?

see:
http://leftcall.com/earth-has-gone-past-the-point-of-no-return/

It is easy to get carried away with doomsday scenarios. Right now, the world’s economy is shaky, conflict is spreading throughout the Middle East, food prices are rising and the climate is changing rapidly. There are many reasons to be scared.


That is precisely why people should avoid buying into the belief that the world is doomed, that people have no hope and that we might as well give up.










Yes, things are bad. Yes, they might get worse, but people will live on, they will adapt and they will get stronger — if they do not give up.





















Climate change is an even bigger issue than the economy or conflict. At this point, it no longer matters what is causing climate change — climate change affects our lives in myriad ways every day, whether it is man-made or natural. It is devastating food yields, increasing disease, playing havoc on the weather and thus killing people and causing billions of dollars in damage. Climate change is real, and it is dangerous.





















Many countires are in a unique position to manufacture the tools needed to combat climate change or adapt to it. Although the solar sector is struggling everywhere, with massive government help it could be revolutionized in China, India, the USA and Britain. The same goes for wind turbines and other energy-saving devices such as bicycles and mass-storage batteries.





















Are we facing the end of the world? It is only the end of the world if people believe so and give up trying to do something about the changes shaping global society. Hopefully, those who are willing to struggle on will outweigh those who want to give in to apathy.







Your oped, Bloom, was good and sharp and to the point. I don't mind you attacking me for being rich and making oodles of money from my climate change lectures and books. Hey, a man's gotta eat, right? So what if I'm in the one percent? I worked hard to get here, mensch! However, I think it is important that we refrain from hysteria when talking of climate change. Hysteria breeds irrationality. At the same time we should not rest on our laurels. Yes, action is required but in order to have the general populace onboard, the rhetoric needs to be careful. Humankind will always revolt against fear-mongering.

'George Monbiot' responds to 'Dan Bloom's' oped attack on his climate motives

'George Monbiot' responds to 'Dan Bloom's' oped attack on his climate motives


by ''George Monbiot''

[READER BEWARE: Notice that the ''George Monbiot' name in headline and in byline is in ''scare quotes''. Whatever those are. He himself, the real GM that is, did not write this. A certain ''Jonathan Swift" did. IN FACT, this blog just received a comemnt in the comment section below which you can read now from the real George Monbiot saying, and here I paraphrase "This is George Monbiot. I did not write this piece and someone used by name without permission and in a very Swiftian response to my refusing to answer his earlier emails or tweets since I never answer emails or tweets from lower-order Yanks or Brits for that matter, too. I am ThE George Monbiot, God's answer to everything! King of the climate world!"]

UPDATE : THE REAL George Monbiot has left a new comment on your post "'George Monbiot' responds to 'Dan Bloom's' oped at...":
''I am George Monbiot, and I did not write this [LETTER IN RESPONSE TO DAN BLOOM'S VERY GOOD OPED ON CLIMATE VIPS.] Someone else was using my name. ''


I appreciate your oped about climate change the other day in the Taipei Times, ''Dan Bloom'',  if that is really your name, where you took issue with me and Jeffrey Sachs. You made some good points, but let me just say this, Dan: Give in to optimism, not apathy. Your approach is all doomsay, gloom and doom, may I say Bloom and gloom?

see:
http://leftcall.com/earth-has-gone-past-the-point-of-no-return/

It is easy to get carried away with doomsday scenarios. Right now, the world’s economy is shaky, conflict is spreading throughout the Middle East, food prices are rising and the climate is changing rapidly. There are many reasons to be scared.



That is precisely why people should avoid buying into the belief that the world is doomed, that people have no hope and that we might as well give up.



Yes, things are bad. Yes, they might get worse, but people will live on, they will adapt and they will get stronger — if they do not give up.



Climate change is an even bigger issue than the economy or conflict. At this point, it no longer matters what is causing climate change — climate change affects our lives in myriad ways every day, whether it is man-made or natural. It is devastating food yields, increasing disease, playing havoc on the weather and thus killing people and causing billions of dollars in damage. Climate change is real, and it is dangerous.



Many countires are in a unique position to manufacture the tools needed to combat climate change or adapt to it. Although the solar sector is struggling everywhere, with massive government help it could be revolutionized in China, India, the USA and Britain. The same goes for wind turbines and other energy-saving devices such as bicycles and mass-storage batteries.



Are we facing the end of the world? It is only the end of the world if people believe so and give up trying to do something about the changes shaping global society. Hopefully, those who are willing to struggle on will outweigh those who want to give in to apathy.   Your oped, Bloom, was good and sharp and to the point. I don't mind you attacking me. However, I think it is important that we refrain from hysteria when talking of climate change. Hysteria breeds irrationality. At the same time we should not rest on our laurels. Yes, action is required but in order to have the general populace onboard, the rhetoric needs to be careful. Humankind will always revolt against fear-mongering.

Hard-hitting climate change oped attacks Climate Cassandras for not going far enough, but who's to say and who's to judge?

The Earth has gone past the point of no return, opines climate activist Danny Bloom
in  hardhitting oped online and print, claiming that the world is still in denial about the real facts of climate chaos. British reporter Samson Dada in the UK offers this fresh perspective on Bloom's oped, while at the same time disagreeing with it

Climate activist Danny Bloom has done it again, penning a hardhitting oped online and in print, but does he get it right, or is it just more hot air from a man who knows not what he is talking about. I will let readers decide for themselves.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/09/03/2003541826

It is obvious that Mr Bloom feels strongly about these issues and displays a compassionate stance towards the future. However, since he does not have PHD, nor any support from any bonafide organizations or experts, and since he has no affiliation with any university or research centre, one must conclude that the impassioned man is going too far and cannot see the future any better than anyone else. I would not go so far as to tell him to shut up, since I believe in free speech, but I would tell Mr Bloom to perhaps temper his arguments a bit and try to appeal to a more center-lined audience as he reaches out for readers. As it is, nobody will read his oped and come away impressed. They will most likely come away thinking he is possessed, and that cannot be a good thing for any writer, even a climate activist like Bloom.


 Among other insights, or misperceptions, depending on how you read him, Bloom writes:

''In two recent commentaries about climate change, Jeffrey Sachs (“Our summer of climate truth,” Aug. 1, ) and George Monbiot (“Rich world’s smugness will melt with the ice,” Aug. 31) emphasized that not only is climate change real and about to turn this planet into a global emergency ward, but if we are not careful, it may be curtains for the human race. Of course, these words, whether written by Sachs, Monbiot or other climate Cassandras, generally fall on deaf ears. Life tomorrow will go on as usual in Paris, in Washington and in London.



''Sachs, who is an adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals and professor at Columbia University, pulled no punches in his piece. Monbiot went even further.



''However, in my opinion both Sachs and Monbiot are still in denial about the real impact of climate change and global warming on this planet and on the future prospects for humankind.



''They talk about “solutions,” as if some magical fix will make everything all right. Sachs speaks as if it is not too late to stop climate change and global warming, and once the world switches to alternative energy sources such as wind, water or solar power, everything will be okay.



''It is too late. What we need to do is prepare for any potential climate chaos that might turn Taiwan and the rest of the world toward barbarianism as climate change creates huge migrations to the north of the globe. It will not be a pretty picture. There will be no Taiwan, there will be no lower 48 in the US anymore. All human life will settle in northern regions to endure a punishing, terrible hell on Earth.



''Listen, lawmakers, world leaders and policymakers: Nothing will ever be okay again. No more comforting words about how everything will be okay once we find a way out of this mess. What very few people want to acknowledge, even luminaries like Sachs and Monbiot, is that we have already lost the battle.



''The human species is at risk of extinction in 30 more generations. Sachs does not want to face this possibility since his well-paid career as an Ivy League economics professor means that he has to keep offering “solutions” and “fixes.”



''He cannot understand that while the planet will recover from climate change impacts in the future, the human species has now passed the tipping point and billions will die over the next 500 years as climate chaos engulfs all nations, including Taiwan. Monbiot might understand this, but cannot write such words. It would cost him his job as a columnist for the Guardian.



''What humankind is facing is not pretty and very few academics or climate activists want to go there. Their jobs and careers depend on creating hope that we can find solutions to this mess. The sad and tragic fact is that there are no solutions, no fixes, as Monbiot actually hints at but cannot bring himself to say outright. In the near future, perhaps just 100 or 200 years from now, billions of people will head north to Arctic climes, from Russia to Canada to Alaska.



''In the southern hemisphere, millions of climate refugees will search for shelter in New Zealand and Tasmania and even Antarctica. Sachs and Monbiot know this but cannot bring themselves to write it out in the public prints because they are in denial. Everyone is in denial.



'Planting more trees and recycling chopsticks is not going to do the trick. Humanity is doomed. However, some remnants of civilized people will survive and repopulate the Earth. They will survive in makeshift polar settlements scattered across the northern and extreme southern regions of the planet. What we need is to set up task forces and government commissions worldwide to study and discuss this kind of “adaptation” in a fragile world. The world cannot stick its head in the sand.''

To repeat: It is obvious that Mr Bloom feels strongly about these issues and displays a compassionate stance towards the future. However, since he does not have PHD, nor any support from any bonafide organizations or experts, and since he has no affiliation with any university or research centre, one must conclude that the impassioned man is going too far and cannot see the future any better than anyone else. I would not go so far as to tell him to shut up, since I believe in free speech, but I would tell Mr Bloom to perhaps temper his arguments a bit and try to appeal to a more center-lined audience as he reaches out for readers. As it is, nobody will read his oped and come away impressed. They will most likely come away thinking he is possessed, and that cannot be a good thing for any writer, even a climate activist like Bloom.

Earth has gone past the point of no return -- OPED on Climate Chaos in Future Centuries

The Earth has gone past the point of 'no return'


[OPED for New York Times By Danny Bloom] published first in the Taipei Times

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/09/03/2003541826



NEW YORK -- In two recent newspaper commentaries about climate change, Jeffrey Sachs (“Our summer of climate truth,” Aug. 1) and George Monbiot (“Rich world’s smugness will melt with the ice,” Aug. 31) emphasized that not only is climate change real and about to turn this planet into a global emergency ward, but if we are not careful, it may be curtains for the human race. Of course, these words, whether written by Sachs, Monbiot or other climate Cassandras, generally fall on deaf ears. Life tomorrow will go on as usual in Paris, in Washington and in London.



Sachs, who is an adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals and professor at Columbia University, pulled no punches in his piece. Monbiot goes even further.



However, in my opinion, both Sachs and Monbiot are still in denial about the real impact of climate change and global warming on this planet and on the future prospects for humankind. They are not the only ones in denial either: the list includes Mark Lynas, Fred Pearce, Andrew Revkin, David Roberts, Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, Jim Laughter (author of POLAR CITY RED), Richard Black, Marlowe Hood, Richard Ingraham, Alistair Doyle,  Fiona Harvey, Lord Monckton, Anthony Watts, Marc Morano, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ken Caldeira at Standford, Dan Joling in Alaska, Juliet Eiperin and Meg Garber at the Atlantic.



They talk about “solutions,” as if some magical fix will make everything all right. Sachs speaks as if it is not too late to stop climate change and global warming, and once the world switches to alternative energy sources such as wind, water or solar power, everything will be okay.



It is too late. What we need to do is prepare for any potential climate chaos that might turn Taiwan and the rest of the world toward barbarianism as climate change creates huge migrations to the north of the globe. It will not be a pretty picture. There will be no southern or central Europe, there will be be no Mexico or Africa, there will no China or Japan or India, there will be no lower 48 in the US anymore. All human life will settle in northern regions to endure a punishing, terrible hell on Earth.



Listen, lawmakers, world leaders and policymakers: Nothing will ever be okay again. No more comforting words about how everything will be okay once we find a way out of this mess. What very few people want to acknowledge, even luminaries like Sachs and Monbiot, is that we have already lost the battle.



The human species is at risk of extinction in 30 more generations. Sachs does not want to face this possibility since his well-paid career as an Ivy League economics professor means that he has to keep offering “solutions” and “fixes.”



He cannot understand that while the planet will recover from climate change impacts in the future, the human species has now passed the tipping point and billions will die over the next 500 years as climate chaos engulfs all nations, including all civilized nations. Monbiot in the UK might understand this, but cannot write such words. It would cost him his job as a columnist for the Guardian.



What humankind is facing is not pretty and very few academics or climate activists want to go there. Their jobs and careers depend on creating hope that we can find solutions to this mess. The sad and tragic fact is that there are no solutions, no fixes, as Monbiot actually hints at but cannot bring himself to say outright. In the near future, perhaps just 100 or 200 years from now, billions of people will head north to Arctic climes, from Russia to Canada to Alaska.



In the southern hemisphere, millions of climate refugees will search for shelter in New Zealand and Tasmania and even Antarctica. Sachs and Monbiot know this but cannot bring themselves to write it out in the public prints because they are in denial. Everyone is in denial.



Planting more trees and recycling chopsticks is not going to do the trick. Humanity is doomed. However, some remnants of civilized people will survive and repopulate the Earth. They will survive in makeshift polar settlements scattered across the northern and extreme southern regions of the planet. What we need is to set up task forces and government commissions worldwide to study and discuss this kind of “adaptation” in a fragile world. The world cannot stick its head in the sand.

Climate activist says God told him to prepare world for ''polar cities" but UK journalist Samson Dada says there's no proof

Climate activist says God told him to prepare world for ''polar

cities'' for survivors of ''climate chaos'' in 2121 AD but his vision lacks
clarity, direction, even purpose, writes Samson Dada, budding UK journalist

LONDON -- A self-described modern-day "Jeremiah" says prayerful vision led to

insight into the need for polar cities for survivors of climate chaos

in future. However, the American climate activist has many holes in his

theory and his hunch about the future might not hold up to scientific analysis.



A new novel titled ''POLAR CITY RED'' by Tulsa writer Jim Laughter tells fictional story

of family in a polar city in Alaska in year 2075; some call it ''cli

fi'', others call it ''sci fi'' -- whatever it is, the novel is a

climate thriller, entertaining read and full science, too.



But pioneering American climate activist, Danny Bloom, says

that in a prayerful vision four years ago, God told him to prepare

humankind for ''polar cities" for survivors of "climate chaos" in 2121

A.D. and yet he has no proof of this. Calling himself a modern-day

Jeremiah, the soft-spoken climate

activist, 63, tells me in a recent email that by 2121 A.D., billions

of people will die in

massive human die-offs due to devastating climate change impacts of

excessive heat waves, widespread drought, and a dire lack of food,

fuel and shelter for billions of climate refugees.



But I must ask him and he must provide a lot more information about

his so-called ''prayerful vision'' with God.

For example, what day and time did it happen? What country did it

happen in? Was his vision

in his bedroom at home?

Can he tell me what God said word for word?

And this: How did God appear to him? Did he appear unexpectedly or did Mr Bloom

pray to God asking him to appear?



If Mr Bloom cannot answer these questions, then his whole enterprise

seems full of holes. He is

not a clergman, he is not a scientist, he does not hold a PHD, he has

not sponsors. So it does look

like his polar cities ideas are not really worth considering until he

can offer proof, either scientific or religious.

So far, he has no leg to stand on.



Some other questions that Bloom must answer:

How is his opinion about the consequences of global warming

different from what Jim Laughter writes in the novel Polar City Red?

If he commissioned Jim Laughter to write this novel, why doesn't

he mention Bloom on his website?



The problem, in my opinion, is that the polar cities vision story

happened four years ago, so why would a

reporter in the UK want to write about it now. It seems like old news,

and silly news.



"I see dead people," Bloom says. "Billions of dead people. But at the

same time, I see hope, too, for those

remaining remnants surviving in polar cities."





Bloom, a 1971 graduate of Tufts University, has been discussing,



planning, designing and pre-siting "polar cities" for global warming



survivors since 2008, when



New York Times reporter Andrew C. Revkin interviewed him about his

work (google "dot earth + polar cities" for link).







Bloom believes

that there are no solutions to fixing the problems of global warming,

and that it is already too late to stop what he calls The Great

Interruption, when humankind will die in massive die-offs in the

distant future, leaving only remnants of humans alive

in polar cities scattered across the northern regions of Earth (and in

New Zealand and Australia, too).





"God told me in a prayerful vision that only man-made 'polar cities'

will save the human species from extinction," Bloom says. "I am an

optimist and I have hope that polar cities will serve God's purpose."













In addition to promoting ''polar cities'' as the only real and

''workable''solution to climate change problems, Bloom also

commissioned a Christian writer in Oklahoma to write a religious novel

about polar cities titled "Polar City Red".







"Jim Laughter's novel is the first literary novel to ever talk about polar

cities, and it deserves a wide readership, both as entertainment and

as serious and prayerful thinking. Time is running out,'' Bloom says,



''and the time to start discussing, planning, pre-siting and even

pre-building polar cities is now.







Brief synopsis of ''Polar City Red'' -- ''It's 2075 in Alaska and



global warming has destroyed the Earth's ecosystems worldwide, and



mllions of people have had to trek north to find shelter polar cities



in the Arctic region. Not everyone gets in: there are Godless



scavengers out on the tundra murdering for good and supplies. It's a



character-driven novel, and a fast read. And it's more than just



explosions and murders. And it ends on a note of hope and prayerful



Christian reflection."







Mr. Laughter's 200-page novel explores how faith and religion will survive in a

post-apocalyptic world, and asks questions like: "Would mankind's sins

of the past follow him into the future?"





While it paints a picture that is "not a pretty picture", it also

ends on a note in the final chapter of hope and moral optimism. So

it's a positive book, and not a downer,

as one might expect from the theme. In fact, Laughter offers hope for humankind.







Read ''Polar City Red'', set in the near future after God's wrath and

man's stupidity destroys the ecosystem of the Earth. It's science

fiction -- for now!



Still, without Mr Bloom being able to answer exactly how God

instructed him to offer his

vision of polar cities to the world, it seems to this reporter that

his entire work is questionable,

very iffy and probably left ignored and undiscussed, since he cannot

explain himself.



Polar cities? A vision from God? I think this entire story is silly. I

am only reporting what I have

found after detailed discussions with Mr Bloom proved fruitless and

unsuccessful.