Bugs In My Borders And More About Climate Change

Linking this amazing video that Tish posted.
A must watch.
Restores one’s faith in humanity.
Puts my veggie patch to shame!

Pop over to her spot to watch the video. You won’t be disappointed.

And her photos are nice too!

Ark

Tish Farrell

IMG_3216

It’s cool today after yesterday’s roasting, and thinking is easier. I’m still brooding on Boris Johnson’s climate change contentions (quote and article link in previous post) and it occurs to me that when an issue becomes polarized between sceptics and supporters, more energy goes into the argument than the resolution. In other words, nothing gets done and the conflict becomes an end in itself.

A poor end, I might add; the kind that happens in marriages, between nations, in neighbour feuds. And so when it comes to the climate-change sceptics, those cash-loaded, vested-interest, shadowy entities who fund political campaigns, and infiltrate their agendas across our mass media through advertising and sponsorship, then such wily bodies with share-holders to appease are sure to understand this very well. Distract. Confuse. Immobilize.

In some ways, then, whether rapid climate change is caused by humans or is the product of the planet’s own cycles…

View original post 330 more words


13 thoughts on “Bugs In My Borders And More About Climate Change

  1. I lost interest right at the beginning of all the ‘Global Warming’ brouhaha when they used a word in their guff that was so obviously wrong, incorrect, highly emotive, appealing to the undiscerning and totally in error too.
    Guess which word was the one that blew it for me—? Choose correctly from this list and I might even send you a chocolate fish; or blow you kisses—
    terrible
    doom-laden
    all encompassing
    dastardly
    commie plot
    unprecedented
    disastrous
    fatal

    And if you didn’t spot it, there’s hope for Mankind (oops, person-kind) yet. Just send me your cash donation (make it substantial) and I’ll help you defuse the ticking bomb that is us; and thereby save the planet. (That word with regard to the unprecedented high temperatures was “unprecedented” …)

    And yes, I do often make ‘mistakes’ … part of the fun is catching me out, no?

    Like

    1. Bugger … that reply was for Tish (and I was being rushed by The Spouse) (one doesn’t argue, sometimes—and this was one of ’em). But for anyone else, if the shoe fits …

      And later I’ll be able to read the sources. Dammit, this ‘flu is making me all addled and oogle phleep awgle snarp …

      Like

        1. I’ll catch it tomorrow. As sour a cynic as I might seem (it’s frustration speaking!) I do see the need.

          Like

    2. I’ve searched the first 4 summaries on climate change as produced by the IPCC. The term unprecedented never gets used to describe any greenhouse gas levels or temperature ever experienced. There are some cases where they will say “unprecedented in the past 10,000 years”. What they do say is the rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentration, the rate of thermal forcing from greenhouse gases, or the rate of temperature increase is unprecedented. Which it is. That’s the problem. Maybe some journalist has mischaracterized scientific argument. But I have never seen a publication where a scientists claimed carbon levels or global temperatures were unprecedented. It’s the rate that is the concern and that is unprecedented.

      Like

      1. I understand.
        The strength of the popular movement (here, at least) lay in pushing ‘unprecedented’. I took umbrage and indignantly reacted to what I saw as blatant misrepresentation: the habit is now ingrained.

        If the current situation is indeed anthropogenic then the persons at fault should be compelled to put it right, no? Oops.

        I offered (just a bit tongue-in-cheek) that a good nuclear war/winter might solve the problem. As yet no-one has taken me to task, so either I’m correct or the offer just too contemptible (but it would work, no?) to be worthy of a reply.

        Hell … if the blight is indeed us, then exterminating us would save the planet. And if the well-intentioned exterminations didn’t achieve a hundred percent extermination … then the survivors at least might eventually reboot, but this time keep the memory alive and take proper steps to prevent recurrence.

        And now I must once again watch the Peter Sellers movie ‘Dr Strangelove’ … boom boom!

        Like

        1. Actually the idea of polluting the atmosphere to block the sun has been argued before, but of course this leads to other deleterious health impacts. In the case of nuclear war, again it’s the rate of temperature change that is largely the issue over the value of the temperature itself. All mass extinctions we’ve faced historically has been function of a rapid rate of change, not the value of the temperature.

          But yes, reducing the world population is one solution to deal with climate change. Preferably through birth control and personal choices, not nuclear war.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. As I mentioned in other places, ‘they’ were all for coating the icecaps with soot back a few decades. Apparently the planet was entering a new ice age—changing the reflectivity of the chilly regions would help prevent that by absorbing needed solar heat instead of bouncing it away … sadly ‘they’ didn’t, so we can’t now blame them. Pity …

            Like

          2. It’s important to remember that there was no global cooling consensus in the 70s. That’s a myth. Even some papers that talked about cooling were looking at the cooling in the face of increasing temperatures caused by increased carbon dioxide. The warming impacts of increased greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by man has been studied for some time.

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

            Like

          3. I was there at the time, Swarn. It may appear now to have entered history as just another myth but a lot of the hoi polloi were taking it seriously. (For the record, I didn’t.)

            Common people seem to form the voting majority, and hee hoo commands popular opinion has a strong position in The House*.
            How better to acquire that than by being a superb orator and appealing to ‘hopes and fears’ … where fears seem predominant?

            You might also notice that a lot of what I say is directed (very tongue-in-cheek, cynically) at the Thinker. Especially the thinker in an ivory tower with a command of Reality but no way of getting it across to the voting masses. Hence my bright burbling about a nuclear winter …

            … which (trust me on this) I really really really do NOT think is actually a good idea. (But it would work, sort of, hey?)

            —————————————————

            * “Hey, you! Lackey!”

            “Yes, Mr President, Sir?”

            “How many of them election promises last time did we honour?”

            “None at all, Sir.”

            “Great! We can use ’em all again next time!”

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I don’t doubt that in popular culture it was prevalent, I’m just saying we have a much different situation today at least scientifically. But I agree that it’s a problem when the media gets it wrong or decides to exaggerate a frightening finding, even if it’s an isolated study just to sell more papers, commercial spots, etc. It erodes public trust. That being said a more scientifically literate society would be able to better discern the differences in expert opinion vs populism, and would be more accepting of the fact that science does get it wrong…that’s the nature of the game, but that understanding increases with time, and we certainly understand much more about climate today than we did in the 60s. In the end, there really is nothing else to rely on when it comes to warning us of dangers that will impact human lives. Unless one wants to take seriously the end of the world predictions of fundamentalists. 🙂 Obviously skepticism and caution is important when approaching science, but at this point the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is nearly as well built up as it is for evolution. That matters. Now in terms of what to do about it…this is a much more complicated problem. And I’m all for having that discussion, but I don’t think that complexity warrants doing nothing. And that conversation can’t even be had until we have both political parties admitting there is an actual problem. To me, that’s the most frustrating part of it all.

            And I knew you were being tongue and cheek about the nuclear winter thing, which is actually why I answered the question seriously in terms of solutions that have been looked at for blocking sunlight.

            Like

  2. As for reducing population by birth control—brrrrr. An excellent idea, in theory. But practise, beyond the voluntary? We have to consider aspects of simple human nature, economics, military strengths—in countries where children are the oldsters’ pensions … brrrr.)(Traditions, religions?)

    Are we envisaging every valid country with a ‘Berlin Wall’ around all own borders, shoot-to-kill, and sea approaches heavily mined—given that most folks would take a chance rather than fester?

    Even if we expanded the land area by doing the Chinese ‘island building’ thing … we’d still only end up with more people than ground.

    (Perhaps my nuke war option is actually looking realistic … is this why the US and Russian and other leaderships have all those deep underground bunkers? To sit it out possibly for decades/generations before coming forth by day to repopulate the new Eden?)

    Like

  3. And popular literature (Readers Digest, I think, possibly, perhaps?) had a well scribed quite lengthy article about the Russian (who else?) “Cobalt Bomb” which apparently was built deep underground in the Urals, with vents aimed at and intended to vastly poison the planet’s atmosphere in the ultimate “peeved boy” last-ditch response … “If I can’t have this toy ‘cos you’re bigger than me, then neither can you ‘cos I’m smashing it! Boom boom!”

    A threat the west must have taken seriously ‘cos we never did get around to bombing them dam’ Russkies.

    I love international diplomacy … and populist literature (who else votes, huh?)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s