CLIMATE CHANGE

Sometimes, things are not what they seem. Excellent find from Argus.

CASSANDRIC

Death chatteringFOR CHARLATANS

AND YOUR BASIC … SIMPLETONS …

In effect: it’s all the garbage you can guzzle. Hey, don’t mind me—I’m just an old dog who actually loves animals, so feast your eyes on this—

—and for all that this gullible old dog knows, it might even be true too. But knowing what I know of human nature (you know, gullibility, and the inbuilt religious desire to believe) I believe.

View it and make your own mind up. Sometime in my unknown but no longer distant future all will become academic anyway. However … for yourself? Your downlines?

YOUR CALL~!

dodo

Aux armes, citoyens
Marchons, marchons!

View original post


95 thoughts on “CLIMATE CHANGE

  1. This is bullshit. The narrator *suggests* only it could be diseased, as opposed to starving due to the affects of climate change. And criticising him for wanting to capture an image of climate change? Right, lets have a war but we should never actually publish a photo of it.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. and just so you know, Dr Susan Crockford is a paid climate change denier. She denies human’s contribute to climate change, and is funded by the notorious Heartland Institute. These are the same people who tried to show smoking wasn’t harmful.

        This video is pure bullshit. Take it down.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. I’m not sure I’m getting the gist here.

          The thrust of the video states that the starving polar featured is this way because of climate change – something that is then denied by National Geographic and the producers of the video. In fact, based on the quotes the producers merely used the poor animal and its condition as a platform for climate change.
          Have I missed something?

          Like

          1. They didn’t deny its state wasn’t due to climate change. Read their statement. You’re being deceived by a woman PAID to deceive.

            This woman is a pure hack.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. 1:35
            ”Climate change was not the cause of this poor bear’s condition …..”
            ”And no other starving bears were seen.”

            ” …. euthanized and autopsied the bear to find out the cause of its distressing condition.”

            The issue is not whether climate change is happening – of course it is – but the apparent fact the film crew used the bear to promote awareness.
            Getting caught in a lie only gives deniers the opportunity to fling more shit and exacerbate an already insane situation.

            Like

          3. Jesus man, watch the video and listen carefully to how she’s presenting her argument. It’s deception spiced with lies. She makes NO case, and thoroughly misrepresents what Nat Geo said.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. ”National Geographic admitted they went too far linking the bear’s condition to climate change.”
            Again, I am not in any way suggesting climate change is not real only that it was not established that the bears condition could be directly attributed to climate change, and this is where Nicklen risked damaging his credibility.
            What am I missing?

            Like

          5. Too far in “DRAWING A DEFINITIVE CONNECTION between climate change a particular starving bear.”

            That is NOT an admission that it’s state is “not” due to climate change, which is what Crockford tries to claim. It’s simply saying there might have been other factors, but then goes on to say there is clear evidenced for bear’s dying off due to climate change. In other words, it’s more likely than not, given the EVIDENCE.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. In fact, sea ice is in serious decline year over year. In fact, sea ice is the primary hunting grounds of polar bears. In fact, seals are in decline. In fact, bears are wandering way outside historical hunting grounds. In fact, record number of bears are smaller, litters are fewer. In fact, pathogens are creeping north as climatic conditions continue to favour tundra melt. And so on, and so on, and so on.

            In fact, nothing and no one dies from climate change. Drowning is different from sea level rise. Burning to death is different from drought. Starving is different from loss of sea ice. And so on. This is – or should be – obvious. But the EFFECTS from climate change raise many conditions that do cause increased hardships and even death.

            Obviously, the effect for this one bear can ALWAYS be argued to be something other than climate change, but the changing conditions and facts of a harsher realty that such a bear faces are directly attributable to human caused climate change which is amplified in the North and is the canary in the coal mine. That’s the point of the video and that’s the point such collaborators as the shills for deniers, the Merchants of Doubt, will not face or ever accept… and that’s the point that raises issues using the video that has the effect of promote denialism by saying this one bear is not suffering and dying due to climate change any more than any one Californian is not dying from climate change in the recent fires or any one hurricane victim of Dorian was killed by climate change (Dorian was actually a Category 7 if the same parameters were used beyond the accepted 5). The planet – like this bear – is undergoing EFFECTS of human caused climate change and this is the point to be championed rather than get bogged down in trivial details like this one bear used by deniers to try to divert too many of us from accepting what is true, an acceptance necessary so that we can develop timely solutions that work to mitigate our lunacy of empowering runaway climate change in the name of ‘skepticism’.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. A little research also reveals her lies. She claims sea ice had not retreated early that year (2017). In fact, it was a record early retreat. And 2017 was, in fact, a record year for sea ice melt throughout the arctic.

            The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic hit record lows through the winter of 2017. In March, when the sea ice hit its largest extent of the year, it was lower than it ever had been in the nearly 40-year satellite record. The spring melt began A MONTH EARLIER THAN NORMAL, and though the pace of decline slowed some over the summer, the Bering and Chukchi Seas along Alaska’s coast remained ice-free longer into the fall than ever before.

            https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27122017/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-sheets-2017-year-review-glaciers-disappearing-polar-records

            She also makes the claim that climate “is not” the reason for the bear’s condition, yet she offers no supporting evidence.

            Crockford is a paid propagandist for the fossil fuel industry.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. Beginning her speech at the Heartland Institute’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12), Crockford declared:

        “I am here today to give you an example of the failed science that is used to convince uninformed people that burning fossil fuels has had and will continue to have harmful effects on the planet.”

        Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says Crockford has “zero” authority on the subject. [2], [7]

        “If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, people will begin to believe it,” said Ian Stirling. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert.”

        https://www.desmogblog.com/susan-crockford

        And she’s a regular on Fox news.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. This is how denialism works… use whatever means to cause DOUBT. That’s all that is being asked of you – to exercise enough doubt to not fully commit your political capital to addressing known real world problems it – in order to be fully on board the climate denial train… enough doubt to deny the reality we all face, that climate change TODAY is the primary existential problem for our species we simply are not dealing with.

          There is absolute certainty that climate change has impacted the North far more profoundly than anywhere else on earth (current models have north of 60*4C warmer ALREADY with all the negative impacts ALREADY being seen… including a profound impact on polar bears… not to mention the methane bomb to which we’ve collectively lit the fuse). Going after the content of the video as if this mitigates the central message about climate change and the North under the banner that it’s one bear that may or may not be starving due to a radical change in its climate is (to be truthful but blunt) as stupid as stupid can be because it isn’t the point; the point is that climate change is here and climate change is now and climate change continues to increase the global mean temperature… which brings with a veritable host of negative impacts that such denialism permits to be shoveled in growing volume into the future. This denialism to act TODAY because whatever causes doubt if not a crime against humanity is at the very least a social pathology and unequivocally a complete and utter moral capitulation to humanity’s future on this planet. There are very real climate tipping points we are rapidly approaching when our mitigating efforts will no longer matter. The patient is bleeding out while far too many people go along with doubting how best to act; that doubt which fuels inaction is killing the planet.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Seems she’s also on the payroll of the Mercer family; one of the world’s largest climate change denying financing teats. From the same link:

            February 4, 2018

            In January 2018, more than 200 scientists endorsed an open letter calling on the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) to remove climate change denier Rebekah Mercer from its board and to “end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation.” The New York Times reported that those among the AMNH letter calling for Mercer to step down were Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. [36]

            Crockford was among a group of climate change deniers who responded with their own open letter, calling for the AMNH “not to cave in to this pressure.” The letter was signed by numerous individuals with ties to groups funded by the Mercer Family Foundation such as Will Happer of the CO2 Coalition; Richard Lindzen, a fellow at the Cato Institute; and Craig Idso, the chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. There are a number of signatories affiliated with the Heartland Institute, which has received over $5.78 million from the Mercer Family Foundation since 2008. [37]

            The letter reads: [38]

            “The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. In WWII language, these are the collaborators. Radical climate change is the enemy and we know what causes it. We know what the solution is. The problem such collaborators insert is to doubt how BEST to get from the problem to the solution… and the fundamental tool is to deny there is a problem and so no solution is necessary. And those who buy into not doing anything – for this reason or that – are their strongest allies.

            I came across the Heartland Institute back in their tobacco days and could see the same tactics of irrational denialism being dusted off and reintroduced to great effect to a susceptible population. I also saw how quickly and effectively other very real atmospheric problems could be addressed when industrial interests were not ready, willing, and able to counter with misinformation such effective and collective redress – problems like leaded gasoline, like acid rain, like smog, like ozone depletion.

            But the trillion dollar industry of fossil fuels and the short term trillions yet to be made in exchange for a long term livable planet and the ends to which these vested interests are willing to go is not to be underestimated. A war is coming.

            The true counter movement has to be global and the demands unequivocal: stop burning fossil fuels. Unconditional surrender. That means alternative energy in whatever forms they may take must step up to fill the demand and trillions more are ready to be made. That focus on renewables absent fossil fuel burning must be the central demand made by populations of their governments… front line fighters who are crazy enough to wish the continuation of humanity over and above the tax revenue generated by the use of fossil fuels. That is why a geometric carbon tax is fundamental. And that is why those who are against such a tax are ignorant of the war they are losing, ignorant of the reality we are collectively creating for ourselves, and so grossly misguided because of that ignorance. They may even think it’s about polar bears.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. One of my greatest fears is just how effectively the Chinese totalitarian government has been silently stepping into this war and positioning themselves to become the dominant world power by such wisdom now. This is what inaction by us and the squabbling over stupid things is also creating: a future that overwhelms liberal secular democracies with totalitarian rule under the guise of saving the planet.

            Liked by 3 people

          4. You’re exactly right here. China is being seen as the one country that can lead the world through this crisis… and that’s not good.

            *written on the day the US formally submits its resignation from the Paris Accord.

            Liked by 4 people

  2. I honestly never believed that one polar bear can be used as an example of climate, just as one weather event never can. Polar bears are being impacted, but their numbers are not steadily declining significantly yet.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. So the same foolproof ‘science’ that admitted it was off a few billion years as to the age of the universe………

    somehow overnite has managed to gain credibility as to ‘climate change?’ Really?

    The guesses of yesterday are no more credible than the ‘science’ guesses of tomorrow, but the greater issues are these which no one ever addresses. Will evolution or ‘climate change’ diminish the oceans of the world to the point of extinction or irrelevance?

    Or will the earthquakes of thousands of years ago ever get our attention that ‘climate change’ entirely misses the boat as to WHY nature has such great hiccups.

    There is much blame to go around, be they pro or con- and maybe the polar bear needs to ‘evolve’ and find a home where he doesn’t starve.

    Like

    1. Absolutely everything about this comment is wrong, but I’m letting it through in the hope that someone with more patience than me will tell you what an arsehole you are for writing it.,

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Funny how these believers have difficulty agreeing on anything! Jason Lisle, past member of both the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis says,

          “All of these things (like a spherical earth) are mentioned or implied in Scripture. And they are scientifically provable. Yet, some Christians claim that such things are false or even anti-biblical! When Christians deny things that are observable, provable, and biblical, it is dishonoring to the Lord and makes unbelievers less likely to embrace the Christian worldview.”

          So our friend Colorstorm is dishonoring the Lord, apparently. But whom should we believe? A bible thumping Christian or a bible thumping Christian? If only there were some other way of knowing… like checking in with reality from time to time and let it arbitrate these supposedly godly inspired biblical counter claims!

          Liked by 3 people

          1. The fair person that I am, I will admit you make a good point tildeb.

            There will ALWAYS be various viewpoint re scripture and science, science and scripture; many liberal scientists even disagree re this or that which are clear to others using the same info. Many believers also disagree as to scripture using the same info; case in point Collins and HGP.

            But believers are only useful to you when they agree with your science, and you are happy to point out their assumed intellect which makes them appear sane, at the same time you call them clowns for believing a man rose from the dead, which ‘science’ preaches every day with the perennial flower bulb. It APPEARS dead, but wow……wait til next year.

            So WHY do believers disagree when dealing with space, time, matter, orbits, planets,, planes, horizons, vanishing points, perspectives, etc? Simple. The cost of isolation in holding to scripture above all else is thought to be ‘unscientific,’ but the study of scripture reveals the greatest of the sciences.

            The science of Hydrology has no context apart from scripture. Some believers cannot fathom the simple words of waters above and waters below, (per Genesis) and this is WHY all modern astronomy is miscalculated. Believers want to straddle the fence; don’t rock the boat, and the thought of the earth ‘is stationary and does not move,’ which are words of scripture, science, fact, and common sense, are not ‘intellectual enough’ for the carnal mind.

            I dare say our ancestors were far smarter that you and I. They were not uncomfortable in their lack of the internet and its opinions. So believers will disagree. Your greater concern should not be why they do not agree, but what is the ENTIRE case built by scripture re cosmology? Don’t rely on them or me. Study yourself, and you will find what is right. That is, if you really want to know, which most people do not.

            Yes, some believers are lazy readers and see what they want, being fed opinions which have never been tested in reality as opposed to theory, (67,000mph for example; a speed only seen on paper)

            (ps ark-don’t be guilty of the same thing you accuse Flea of- selective trashing, just sayin)

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Gosh, aren’t we ‘lucky’ to have a ‘genius’ of the calibre of @ShitforBrains to ‘steer’ us to the ‘Word of God’, where nothing but ‘pure’ ‘Truth’ can be ‘found’?

      Like

  4. Wow~! As far as I got it (comments) this is interesting. Polarisation and ad hominem hint through in places, thank heavens we are all level headed objective folks here. (We need facts, not opinions, no?)

    So the currently trumpeted fact is that the globe is warming, presented as if (opinion) we are entering a man-made ‘heat death’.

    ASIDE: To misuse Kipling: “If you can bear to hear the words you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools etc etc”

    So here’s the trap which I try to avoid; namely that at the beginning of this AGW brouhaha when it was first being screeched there was this one red-flag word:

    unprecedented

    —and it blew me away completely. So instead of going with a very seductive ‘trap for fools’ flow I looked into it a bit deeper; and then with a well earned cynicism looked at that major secondary driver of human behaviour:

    what’s in it for me?

    —and there’s the source of all conflict. My own personal driving motivator is that I don’t like con-jobs. Never have, learned from a very early age to doubt much/most/all of the stuff I was being ‘educated’ with.

    SMNP …

    Like

    1. “Polarisation and ad hominem” says the dog. Oh my. Sounds unreasonable. But what do these terms ACTUALLY mean in reality?

      Polarization: telling it like it is.

      ad hominem: questioning the intellectual integrity of those who refuse or doubt what telling it like it is means.

      AGW brohauhau: telling it like it is.

      Being screeched: telling it like it is.

      Trumpeting: telling it like it is.

      Well earned cynicism: doubting or refusing to understand what telling it like it is means based only on denying reality any say in the matter.

      The dog doesn’t like con jobs, implying AGW and the scientific consensus reached by tens of thousands of climate and associated researchers is a profit-driven con job. Think about the hubris necessary to reach THAT conclusion. Yup, no ad hoiminem there. The dog knows better because unlike every other person in the climate science room extracting evidence from reality and using that to form conclusions, the dog uses “well earned cynicism”. Based on… what? His equivalent scientific knowledge that produces his “level headed objective” reality-denying opinion, we might presume? Maybe a wee dash of hubris?

      Read it, dog.

      As I’ve said, telling it like it is by climate scientists and related researchers offering us 11,258 signatures from 153 countries. Yesterday. Look at that profit roll in!

      “As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge widespread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual. We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.”

      Part of the problem or part of the solution. That’s the only choice left to you, dog.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Read it, dog”

        lol

        Issue Section: Viewpoint

        Moreover, when you visit the “Alliance of World Scientists” home page you find the following disclaimer:

        Statement:

        During our original signature screening process, we attempted to remove all signatures that appeared to be invalid. Although, a few invalid ones were missed. We are thoroughly reviewing the full list at the moment and will make further updates if required.

        And when you click on their “View the Signatories” link you get the following error message:

        Signatures unavailable
        Viewing signatures is currently unavailable. We are working on the issue.

        I wonder if it had anything to do with the following video which reviewed the names of the Canadian signatories and discovered a fair number of the them had no actual climate science credentials, including one obvious troll who listed his occupation as “BS Detection and Analysis”. (19:22)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Regardless, just look to the IPCC. It’s absolutely unequivocal, Ron, and supported by no less an authority than reality.

          Burning fossil fuels by humanity is the primary driver of unprecedented rate of change to climate patterns, amplified at the poles.To suggest otherwise is denying reality.

          Again, we know the problem. We know the solution. All the rest prevaricating and hand wringing and yeah-but-ism, is denialism, which to my way of thinking is an utter abdication of adult moral and ethical responsibility. This capitulation in the name of something else is unfettered selfishness, criminal shortsightedness, and astounding greed that directly harms everyone and everything alive on this planet on a sliding scale towards making it more and more miserable for future generations. Our inaction today is unpardonable and our refusal to change our addicted ways a guaranteed commitment to harming all life on the planet. But yeah, there may be false signatories on the latest petition. That’s what matters most, eh?

          Like

          1. I’ll take that as a quiet concession that your linked article was an editorial rather than a peer-reviewed paper. And here’s what the authors of IPCC unequivocally reported in 2001:

            In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf (14.2.2.2, p. 774)

            Like

          2. Yes, and now we ask how confident are we in the climate models predicting global mean temperatures. The answer:

            “Very confident. If emissions continue on their present trajectory, without either technological or regulatory abatement, then warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected by the end of the 21st century.”

            Feel free to disagree with this assessment from a 2014 Royal Society question and answer package based on your web browsing cherry picking. The plot lines, as I’m sure you’re aware, are now all indicating previous estimates were too low, that emissions have continued to increase over the past 5 years, that our carbon budget is now less than 8 years to avoid a minimum rise of 2.5C – 3.0C by 2100. That would be catastrophic for humanity. 7C kills in 20 minutes should be unlucky enough to find yourself outside in Georgia. Try growing crops.

            There is now 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. This is an increase from the IPCC 4th assessment that estimated 90% confidence, that now we have amassed enough evidence to say with very high confidence that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years. It is this evidence that leads us to having 97% consensus in climate science articles that we are driving rapid climate change towards various atmospheric tipping points where switching to sustainable energy and eliminating every single source of human caused fossil fuel burning won’t matter a tinker’s damn. That’s the real danger that inaction draws us ever closer to realizing. 8 years, Ron. Eight fucking years arguing with pin heads who can’t be bothered to find out what reality has to say but think their contrary and skeptical opinions to fight necessary changes now are justified when they are not. We know what the problem is. We know the solution. Stop adding to the problem.

            Like

  5. Put me down for ‘part of the problem’ … I’m old enough and selfish enough to carry on with my char-powered barbecue whilst making cynical remarks about others.

    Let’s invoke God and Nature here: if we do cook ourselves to extermination … that can only be good for The Planet, no?

    Or will some clever people sneak off and hide deep under mountains, to crawl forth once the planet greens again at last?
    Unprecedented … looking at the record this old world has been both a lot hotter, and a lot colder, in the past. I think she’s fitted with sufficient feedbacks to maintain her ideal, and if that means removing us … anything wrong in that, if it saves the polar bears?

    Like

    1. Unprecedented means at the rate of change. What once took a million years now takes decades. It ain’t ‘natural’ Argus. That’s how we know we are causing it. And the fundamental driver is using fossil fuels as energy and not energy per se to BBQ your food. Or plastic straws. Or meat. Or whatever. It’s burning fossil fuels. That’s the energy we must eliminate from our human diet in the same way hair spray or refrigerants was not the problem for ozone depletion but the use of chlorofluorocarbons to power them (as well as a host of other reasonable uses). Again, we know the problem. We know the solution. So what’s stopping us?

      Like

      1. Quite simply: we are all selfish pigs. Me too. Anyone that isn’t is a liar (1st Class with Hons) (or loopy).

        Being a selfish pig tends to stop people.

        So when ‘they’ stop jetting in to their conferences, when Al Gore’s mansions revert to candles, when we stop squandering more energy resources making ‘wind turbines’ than they generate …

        So if we’re to stop talking, here, and actually DO something … where should we start?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. We start by admitting that we have a collective problem that we know is caused by burning fossil fuels. Once we admit that basic truth, the solutions are many and myriad, not least of which is agreeing to the principle that we have to change our primary source of energy. In other words, we know we have get off oil and the best alternative is to get on to renewables. The benefits are many and myriad. We stop funding and subsidizing fossil fuels and start charging for the real cost of its emissions. That means a prohibitive incremental carbon tax. I think we need to understand that to address this long known problem at this 11th hour means we must go on a war footing as nations and make this fundamental switch happen as quickly as we can. And that requires political capital. Your capital and mine. The time for doing nothing is over. The time for complaining is over. The time for pretending this is some nefarious and conspiratorial plot is over. This is the time to face reality and be responsible adults in meeting it.

          Like

          1. I am enjoying the ping pong match between you and argus/ but the question remains:

            If evolution boasts of such techno marvel, and men are intellectually advancing compared to ‘stone age dunces,’ then what is the real problem if men creates the very fire that destroys himself all in the name of science and even atheism? Why complain at such ‘progress?’

            And btw, if there be no God who is well aware of man’s nefarious ways, then who cares how it all ends? If man is accountable to no one, then anything goes. just sayin.

            Like

          2. CS, I have no clue where you are getting this bizarre notion of evolution (techno marvel?). Evolution is all about the natural mechanisms involved with life passing on genes that have had success surviving. Evolution understood rationally has nothing to do with certain human behaviours and activities that on a small scale is very beneficial to human well being but when writ large can alter ecosystems on a global scale to the point of being an existential threat for all life. The fact we can alter our collective behaviour (as the human animal has done repeatedly since the stone age you mention) means some current helpless and hapless attitude – no matter how piously wrapped it may be – is not a means to facing real world problems and implementing real world solutions but its antithesis, an immature and inexcusable inaction that is a significant impediment to implementing ANY solutions.

            Like

          3. ‘Evolution’ as it relates to ‘adaptation’ ie, horse, carriage, car, plane, etc; so with all the marvels man has utilized, there should be no gripe that the very advancements are used to destroy ourselves-

            I have been saying this for years: we are not smarter than the men who labored and built the pyramids.

            We are NOT wiser than Solomon. We are not honest as Daniel- a man unequalled in diplomacy and righteous tact.

            Don’t worry, the ring of Antarctica is not threatened by mans stupidity.

            Like

          4. Adaptation is a product of successful genes reproducing over time. You’re talking about behavioural adaptation. Unless you can demonstrate how this alters genes, then you’re not talking about evolution. And technological advancements always come with consequences… some beneficial, some not.

            You also have some funny idea that I think today’s human is ‘smarter’ than yesterday’s. I would agree if the time frame is at minimum hundreds of thousands of years because our brains are significantly different and can demonstrate much higher cognitive functioning in comparison. But I do not believe generations are any more intellectually advanced by some magical replacement hypothesis. Certainly I have yet to come across anyone ‘smarter’ than, say, Aristotle or Galileo or Da Vinci or Mozart. The knowledge bases may be different in any comparison but the intelligence of insight and making connections is unparalleled.

            As for not worrying about Antarctic somehow handling our ‘stupidity’, au contrare. Thwaits, Totten, Pine Island, the ice sheets of Ross and Larsen, all are significant players in sea level rise, affecting ocean currents, food sources, salinity, and associated weather patterns and the ecosystems regulated by these. Their importance cannot be overstated… even on a flat earth!

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Sir tildeb/
            Write a treatise on your site describing the ‘theory’ of an orbiting 67,000mph earth, and how this holds up to true science, that is, things observable, testable, and repeatable.

            Thing real hard now, because it has neither been observed, has never been tested, and unfortunately can never be repeated. And I challenge you to rely on your own means of knowing, and not some borrowed hocus pocus from others who devised their own ‘theories.’

            Good luck, as the theory is only that, and exists on paper only and in the minds of Walt Disney studios.

            (sorry ark for the detour)

            Like

          6. Sure. But I suggest you visit Nepal and such. Even the Rock Mountains should suffice. Unmoveable, just as it appears. ‘Evidence’ is always best. Trust your eyes and your senses, not what Einsteinian gobbletegoop says on paper only.

            And to nip in the bud your next remark, use the same judgement that the patriarchs used: the laws of observation, evidence, and common sense.

            Like

          7. Either you entirely missed the point or you’re up to your usual diversion tactics.

            Oh and just in case you didn’t know … definition of “gender” — The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. How’s that carbon tax working out in Canada? Has it prodded Canadians to turn off their furnaces in the dead of winter, or have they simply resigned themselves to the fact that they’ll be forced to pay more for the luxury of staying warm?

            Liked by 1 person

          9. The carbon tax is under attack by various politicians cashing on fear with assertions like the ones you make. I have yet to hear a single politician who decries the evils of a carbon tax speak honestly about it, namely, that it is revenue neutral with rebates to over 80% of the populations. So the ‘turning off the furnace’ is pure bullshit peddled solely by those who would pay to maintain their own fossil fuel burning conveniences justified by lying and by borrowing from the welfare of their children and grandchildren. Nice company.

            Like

          10. If it’s revenue neutral, then why bother with the tax? But we all know it won’t be revenue neutral because at bare minimum it costs money to administer the program. Moreover, businesses will pass on the increased shipping and heating costs to their customers, so Canadians will end up paying a hidden tax which far exceeds any “feel good” rebate they might receive from the government (aka the Canadian taxpayer) and pat themselves on the back for doing their part to save the world from “climate catastrophe” while the Alberta economy languishes and those transfer payments Ottawa needs to bribe Quebec with to stay in confederation slowly wither away and dry up.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “If it’s revenue neutral, then why bother with the tax?”

            Right there you demonstrate the willingness to ask a good question, an important question, but then lack the intellectual integrity to answer it with facts. You just presume to know the answer which is what you then use to justify your conclusions. This is an example of really poor thinking skills and it’s no different a broken method than what the religious apologist uses to disregard very real problems raised by honest inquiry with the theology. You then stay true to the apologist script by inserting made-up shit, in effect to smear those who do not believe as you do (like non believers in religious framing) with negative attributions that have no link with reality. Furthermore, you then seem to sit back and presume you’ve ‘handled’ the issue to your own similar pious satisfaction.

            You can do better, Ron. And you should do better. It’s only the fate of the world’s ability to sustain life hanging in the balance… not that you care to know anything about it.

            Like

          12. I’m pointing out a dishonest tactic you are using and one that by now you should recognize.

            Your points are straight out the Conservative playbook and all have a germ of truth but used dishonestly when examined in detail. You obviously have no clue about why charging and increasing amount for dumping a substance that will kill the planet should be used to reflect the economic cost of doing so. Notice you don;t speak about the billions in subsidies currently in place for the fossil fuel industry and you don’t even consider for a moment how to adjust our economies to profit from renewables. The primary way to do that is make consumers fiscally aware of the honest cost of dumping using the same horse-and-buggy business-as-usual fossil fuel method you think outweighs your responsibility to not kill the planet by helping to figure out how to replace this toxic addiction to oil and gas with better more responsible methods that can yield far greater jobs, far greater profits, and accept the responsibility each of has to support this necessary transition.

            Again, we know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. How are we going to get there, Ron, when some people refuse to admit there is a problem or refuse to accept that maintaining the toxic levels of pollution we are creating to the long term detriment of all life on the planet should carry with it the increasing cost if it diverts us from having the means to help the transition be undertaken? The cost of using fossil fuels must be leveled around the world in order to create a level playing field for all economic interests in which to compete. That’s why every major player in energy production of all kinds agree that the first step is a regulated tax environment. Of course, you know better because you BELIEVE the bullshit these short term politicians are selling you. Your attitude is handing the future to China which takes the long view and has implemented Dion’s Green Plan to massive profits in all areas of renewables. Why isn’t this global leader Alberta that has seen this writing on the wall for decades but has done nothing except double down through a combination of government inaction while going to considerable lengths to intentionally thwart its ability to economically profit from the transition? That’s where your anger needs to be directed and not to those of us who point out reality’s arbitration of our idiotic dependence on fossil fuels.

            Like

          13. I have addressed many of your points. You have addressed none of mine. Like the religious apologist, you use the tactic of the gish gallop.

            Like

          14. Thus far, you haven’t addressed any of the points I made in this comment thread. Ad homs and long rants don’t constitute valid arguments.

            Like

          15. Thus far, I have addressed the carbon tax, explained why it’s revenue neutral to those purchasing necessary energy, explained why it’s important. I haven’t addressed the idiotic transfer payment you believe exists between Alberta and Quebec when you should know the transfers come only from the federal government and not between provinces. The payments follow a well known and long established formula that have nothing to do with climate change or a carbon tax.

            Look, I know you are a climate change denier in the sense that you’re just going to peddle any and all bullshit you need to peddle to feel you are justified to be ‘skeptical’ and pretend this is reasonable when it’s not. We know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. But you’ve decided you’re smarter than tens of thousands of scientists whose work seemed good enough to successfully address many atmospheric issues like acid rain and ozone depletion but now regarding fossil fuel emissions their work is worthy of your skepticism, that you’ve determined it isn’t quite good enough for you, even though it is good enough for 97% scientific consensus on this issue of what causes AGW and what we need to do now. Still, you know better, I guess, because you can google to find a never-ending stream of bullshit I call a gish gallop but you think raise enough points that you insist I must address to your satisfaction. Get over yourself, Ron. In effect, you are a climate change denier and when it comes to this issue in the same way a person will be a creationist no matter what reality has to say in the matter. You just believe you’re justified and there’s nothing I can do to change that kind of closed mind.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. lol
            Just because I reject your proposed solutions doesn’t mean I reject the entire enterprise. But like every other cult member who runs around screaming the end is nigh, you summarily denounce anyone who dares to ask questions or begs to bring critical thinking into the equation.

            When the province of British Columbia initially introduced its “revenue neutral” carbon tax in 2008 it made good on its promise by lowering the personal and corporate tax rates a few percentage points to compensate. But since then the corporate tax rate has reverted to its previous 12% level and for two years the province created an additional 16.8% personal tax bracket for individuals with taxable income above $150k. An independent audit also discovered the provincial government had included preexisting tax credits as revenue offsets in its calculations to grant the appearance of revenue neutrality — an accounting sleight-of-hand that’s estimated to have picked an additional $865 million from ratepayers pockets between 2013/14 and 2018/19. Nor are there any plans to offset the new carbon tax levies going forward. So the precedent has already been set and there’s no guarantee the federal government won’t follow suit by de-indexing, reducing or eliminating the rebates at a future date.

            Furthermore, you didn’t address my point that increased shipping, refrigeration and heating costs incurred by businesses will be passed on to consumers, resulting in a hidden tax, while Canadian farmers are stuck eating the costs of drying their grains.

            Nor did I say the transfer payments flow directly from Alberta to Quebec. That’s your straw man. The federal government collects those monies from all Canadian taxpayers and re-distributes them to the “have not” provinces, of which Quebec receives the lion’s share (currently 68%). But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that destroying the energy sector which accounts for nearly 30% of Alberta’s $385 billion GDP will greatly lessen the revenue stream to Ottawa, leaving the feds with one of four options: cut expenditures, raise additional taxes, borrow the funds, or implement some combination of the previous three.

            And for the love of science quit using that stupid 97% of scientists concur argument, because it’s a blatant appeal to authority. If the truth of a proposition were decided by the percentage of people who agree with it we’d have to lend credence to the claims of Islam and Christianity, because 100% of Islamic scholars agree “there is no god but Allah and Mohamed was Allah’s messenger”, and 100% of biblical scholars agree that Jesus rose from the dead.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. “And for the love of science quit using that stupid 97% of scientists concur argument, because it’s a blatant appeal to authority.”

            But it’s true. Bummer.

            How about the fact that every major scientific organization in the world concurs. Sure, it’s appeal to authority – perhaps an authority even greater than your own esteemed opinion – because this IS the scientific consensus. It’s not me, Ron, raising why your attitude is part of the problem; it’s reality.

            The fact you aren’t willing to recognize this fact when dealing with the economics of getting off of oil and gas is my point that it is you who are not engaging in the actual argument but wish to support business as usual regardless of the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is the problem. If you wish to address the problem, then you have to start by recognizing the problem and not allow diversionary issues – like vilifying the carbon tax rather than coming up with another means to make the use of carbon too expensive to continue – to fuel your antipathy to this factual reality.

            Like

          18. When financial institutions and insurers and reinsurers are all “screaming” the same message, when they all belong to the same “cult” you attribute to me (but not the ever-shrinking minority who think otherwise in spite of listening to what reality has to say in the matter), then it’s time to stop listening to the nay-sayers because they’re not willing to listen to reality. Just like creationists accusing those who respect reality as some kind of crazed ideologues.

            From those crazy extremists at CBS:

            “Climate change could punch a hole through the financial system by making 30-year home mortgages — the lifeblood of the American housing market — effectively unobtainable in entire regions across parts of the U.S.
            That’s what the future could look like without policy to address climate change, according to the latest research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The bank is considering these and other risks on Friday in an unprecedented conference on the economics of climate change.”

            Yeah, Ron, it’s more important to ‘protect’ the source of this problem – oil and gas industries and the entire public infrastructure to bring it to ‘market’ (ie burn it) – from economic policies needed to address it. That way, we can all crash and burn together while you mutter to your grandchildren, ‘Sorry… I didn’t know… who could have known?’ Remember this conversation. You are part of the problem.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. Yep. Nothing “screams” We believe in catastrophic sea level rises due to global warming will wipe out the entire eastern seaboard louder than buying a $15 million estate right next to the ocean.

            Barack And Michelle Obama Are Buying Martha’s Vineyard Estate From Boston Celtics Owner

            And since there’s no rebuttal on the carbon neutrality portion of my last comment I’ll conclude you have conceded that point as well.

            BTW, how are you enjoying the arctic blast that’s gripped half the continent?

            100-year-old records fall as major cities plummet into single-digit temperatures

            It’s beginning to feel a lot like Christmas. 🙂

            Like

          20. No, Ron I already accounted for your carbon neutral point. Of course, like every other point I’ve raised, you just ignored it. I said for 80% of the population, it would be neutral.

            The Obama purchase is a non sequitur.

            The polar cold has split – again – and so we receive this blast. Your comment is the equivalent of bringing a snowball into Congress and claiming it disproves global warming. It really is climate change denialism because if you understood what this weather represents, it would be cause for much greater and not lesser concern about the increased rate of change. But you don’t care about any of that: you have oil and gas to sell and want to double down on continuing to do so.

            Like

          21. Reality needs objectivity, both in definition and fact (interpretation).

            I do my best to look at both sides but in the end all gets fed through my filters (experience and knowledge) before acceptance.

            Knowledge of Human Nature is one of the majors here but it’s never acknowledged. For all it is: WIIFM?

            We (desperately) need objectivity … but here’s my prediction, we won’t get it.
            All we shall get is ever more polarisation —possibly leading to the herds storming the oilfields and torching the wells (that’s been done before, too). If you want to make an omelette you have to break eggs; if you want to save the planet from people who refuse to give up their civilisation you have to take ‘affirmative action’ … no?

            Liked by 1 person

          22. TILDE:
            No-one said give it up. We just need someone to save the planet, no? So first identify the problem then take the necessary steps to eliminate the problem … no?

            (But to say yes is to invite outraged squawks from the deeply vested self-interested folks. You know the ones … you, and me …)

            The problems, we are told, is us. So? Remove us—and then you have (after a wee while) an Edenistic Paradise.

            QED

            Like

  6. TILDE:

    States “Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations met at the First World Climate Conference (in Geneva 1979) and agreed that alarming trends for climate change made it urgently necessary to act. Since then, similar alarms have been made through the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as scores of other global assemblies and scientists’ explicit warnings of insufficient progress”

    Met at, attended. Got there, then … by horse and cart? On foot? By bus? By plane? Surely not … so, can some exceptions be made pro bono publico? Or do we have a few two-faced opportunists in our midst? Leading by example: she can’t be beat. Expediency rules …

    I agree, it’s a big issue. Maybe we need another restart comet/asteroid thing that will destroy civilisation in order to save the planet (don’t sneer, the dinosaurs didn’t think it funny).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Extinction and a reset is not a reasonable option because tipping points can bring about Venus conditions. Zero life. That’s why the issue is not just a concern of humanity and our conveniences but a planetary concern that requires a fundamental change for meeting our energy needs. We cannot continue to use fossil fuels or we really will bring about the end to life on this planet. Your contrary beliefs not withstanding, this is the brute truth.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You make it sound like a choice between hothouse or horse-power. Except that a chosen few, our Lords and Masters (the new aristocracy) will have full access to all the mod cons presently available to all of us now but which will become the limited rewards for toeing the line.

        For those few not weeded out, of course—so do we recommission the gas chambers and incinerators; given that we (people) are the root-cause of the problem? If we are to be practical here rather than dreamers … where might you suggest we start?

        Like

      2. “Venus conditions” didn’t seem to happen the last few times comets/asteroids hit the planet and loosened up the biosphere a wee bit. Quite the contrary, in fact; just ask any damned dinosaur … or look more deeply into the ending of the ice age around twelve thousand years ago.

        Like

        1. You don’t want to get into the science with me, dog. All this comment of yours shows is the desperation of those who find it inconvenient that reality will not support their contrary views. So they make shit up, hide it with vague references that only SEEM to support their contrary denying view, and then wave it away with the conspiratorial broom they hint allows them deeper insight than the rest of poor deluded fools.

          Again, we know the problem. We know the solution. Either we get there – preferably with your help – or we don’t. But it is unreasonable to stand by and let you say stuff that is diametrically opposed to gaining solutions to a known problem when the rock upon which you stand is that there is no problem.

          Reality begs to differ. Bummer.

          You can take these apologetic PRATTs of yours and either find out why you’re wrong OR you can recognize what you’re doing (and I hope feel shame)… you are using the identical tried and true tactics of a religious apologist trying to counter scientific consensus over just about anything… say, evolution. You’re falling into the same intellectual trap of believing in your belief more than doing your due diligence and taking an objective viewpoint by finding out for yourself why AGW is real, why it’s here, what it causes, and the reasons why we need to address it rather than take a seat on the conspiratorial Crazy Train and pretend our pseudo-skepticism is magically justified by going on this trip.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Wow~!

            If indeed we are burning huge fossil reserves and ruining the planet … where did those ‘reserves’ come from in the first place?
            I was told at school (and it was accepted at the time) that oil came from long squashed dinosaurs. I found that a bit hard to believe, but it was coinage back then … and now we’re informed that it’s actually made by geophysical processes deep underground, no dinos involved. Bummer—all those educated folks were deluded?

            Back to coal … what were conditions like, back in those days, when coal was made? As warm as now, maybe? Warmer?

            It’s an interesting discussion, and polarises folks … but would you personally recognise ‘experts’ in the opposing camp as being expert?

            For this uneducated old dog it’s a bit like refereeing an argument between Catholics and Protestants.
            And if the planet cooks up and shrugs us off, so that it can go through the long process again … is that a such bad thing? By dying our heat death we’ll have done what Mother Earth actually needs, no?

            I take the view that this planet goes through cycles.
            Hot to cold and vice versa. If we are involved, then it’s all natural anyway—we are part of nature. (Perhaps we are just a tool Mother Nature is using to restore an equilibrium~?)(Think feedbacks.)

            Again I say that it seems as if you are desperately trying to preserve your own status quo. Nothing wrong there, we all do.
            But if YOU gave up all mod cons (except the wwweb) I’d be more convinced of your sincerity—
            —sell your car, then; resolve never again to use electricity, or anything produced by other than horse-power (animal) or wind, water, solar.

            Good start, well done …
            … now grow all your own food—hydroponics is in and we’ll turn a temporary blind eye to how you source your tools, implements, glassware etc and seeds. If you manage to produce a surplus you can bypass currencies and trade for your needs, even better.

            Digressing: may I suggest that your gods & heroes are hypocrites?
            Rather than sail to their conferences using organic wind-power they fly—in fossil-powered aircraft, no? Their limos aren’t sail-cars or solar either, are they? Candles only in their caves, cottages, or mansions?

            My case is simply that my own lifestyle (such as it is, quite humble in fact) is dependent on modernity. To save the planet I’d give up all mod cons … if … IF the alarmists will set the precedent. First. Lead, and I shall follow … but how will they get their message out without mod cons, hmmmm?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. There as many experts in the opposing camp regarding the massively accelerated rate of climate change as there are in the creationism side of the evolution ‘debate’. The points you raise can be answered in the same way, one at a time to bring you up to speed and requires the same amount of 100 to 1 effort used to explain reality to the creationist who is quite comfortable waving it all away. You can answer these points yourself if you wish by going to such sites as Real Climate or NASA or the Royal Society… you know, all the world’s major scientific organizations. The truth is out there, Arg, and we know the problem. We also know the solution. All the rest is a diversion.

            Like

          3. All the rest is a diversion … works both ways, ouch. But—

            —but I have indeed listen to the Prophets. Both sides. In the end I guess that you and I are doomed to experience the sorrows of the deeply religious who despite their best Bibles/Korans/Wotevers cannot convince the damned heathens. Bummer …

            Like

          4. “Yesterday, it rained in zero locations across the continent (Australia), for the first time ever known. It’s spring; summer hasn’t begun yet.”

            Once much of the east is in ashes from bush fires, the ‘real’ fire season will start. Notice the same massive change and expansion in duration in fire seasons all over the world. Apparently and according to Ron, one must be a ‘cult’ member to notice such climate-related inconveniences.

            Oh, and yesterday from the National Academy of Science, those “screaming” “cult” members usually known as ‘scientists’ reported,

            “We present an approach to normalize hurricane damage, where damage is framed in terms of an equivalent area of total destruction. This has some advantages over customary normalization schemes, and we demonstrate that our record has reduced variance and correlates marginally better with wind speeds and pressure. That is, it allows us to better address climatic trends. We find that hurricanes are indeed becoming more damaging. The frequency of the very most damaging hurricanes has increased at a rate of 330% per century.

            Human caused changes to climate patterns is indisputable now. We know the problem. We know the solution. Perhaps one of these days we might just start to collectively do something about it where can see a temperature cap a century down the road. Right now it seems to be coming in around 3C (conservatively speaking but still rising because of rising emissions) by 2100. That result is already guaranteed to cost all of us trillions and trillions of dollars as we try our collective best to mitigate vulnerabilities and implement massive infrastructure changes while dealing with the actual aftermath of seasonal ramifications (like the new budgetary reality for fire seasons, as one small example, while also forking out money for responding to victims of its damage).

            Like

          5. Then solution isn’t individual. This the bullshit being peddled by so many confused people who want to do something and think this is meaningful. The opposite bullshit is that those who point out the problem need to give up everything and become independent of modernity. The fact is that the problem requires a fundamental change in energy production away from fossil fuels as out primary energy source and replaced by non fossil fuel energy source. That’s something thee or me can do (except on a scale so small as to be insignificant). This is why the problem requires a global change led by governments all aiming at the same target: getting rid of fossil fuel burning. That means raising alternatives to take over. The longer we have, the easier this is. But this has not happened except on some local levels (and on a much more impressive scale in China where government policies can be forced on all sectors).

            This is why our individual support for democratic governments dedicated by public policy to achieve this necessary change PRECEDES any meaningful action. And this is why people (many with good intentions) who believe this support has to come from someone somewhere else FIRST are adding to the problem by making this necessary change politically impossible. These are people who need to change their minds because they have stopped us collectively from being able – through government public policy – to make the necessary global change happen.

            Like

  7. TILDE:

    you do well to draw parallels to Creationist beliefs. But do I detect just a hint of wannabe ‘controller’ in your reply?

    If you read me at all you’ll know that I say of ‘Democracy’ that we are democratic only on the day we go to the polls to elect our dictators for the next period. But that is possibly a straw-man issue, so we’ll ignore it. (I think the Swiss have the best system, but that’s just my opinion, and a diversion).

    You seem (to me) too desperate to ignore history—as presented by sciences—in the fact that this planet has been a lot hotter in the past.
    And cooler (brrr~!).
    So what indeed is our ‘natural’ state?
    The world YOU were born into, perhaps? Could it be that told it is changing you’ll cling desperately to any hope of preserving a beloved status quo? At any cost?

    Looking at the record the natural state is constant change—swings and roundabouts. Highs and lows. Dries and wets, Hots and colds. And we too, are part of Nature.

    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