Gaia and all that

by craig on September 28, 2013 6:05 am in Uncategorized

I have been trying for the last few days to discover a coherent logic towards my feelings on man’s relationship with his environment.  This is proving not to be simple.

The process started when I heard on World Service radio a gentleman from the International Panel on Climate Change discussing their latest report.  As you know, I tend to accept the established opinion on climate change, and rather take the view that if all our industrial activity were not affecting the atmosphere, that would be strange.

But what struck me was that the gentleman said that a pause in warming for the last fifteen years was not significant, as fifteen years was a blip in processes that last over millennia.

Well, that would certainly be very true if you are considering natural climate change.  But we are not – we are considering man-made climate change.  In terms of the period in which the scale of man’s industrial activity has been having a significant impact on the environment, surely fifteen years is a pretty important percentage of that period?  Especially as you might naturally imagine the process to be cumulative – fifteen years at the start when nothing much happened would be more explicable.

Having tucked away that doubt, I started to try to think deeper.  Man is, of course, himself a part of nature.  Anything man does on this planet is natural to this planet.  I do not take the view man should not change his environment – otherwise I should not be sitting in a house.  The question is rather, are we inadvertently making changes to the environment to our own long term detriment?

That rejection of what you might call the Gaia principle – that the environmental status quo is an end in itself – has ramifications.  It is hard to conceptualise our relationship with gases or soil, but easier in terms of animals.  I am not a vegetarian – I am quite happy that we farm and eat cattle, for example – and you might argue that the cattle are pretty successful themselves, symbiotic survivors of a kind.  Do I think other species have a value in themselves?  Is there any harm in killing off a species of insect, other than the fact that biodiversity may be reduced in ways that remove potential future advantages to man, or there may be knock on consequences we know not of that damage man somehow?  I am not quite sure, but in general I seem in practice to take the view that exploitation of other species and substantial distortion of prior ecological balance to suit men’s needs is fine, so presumably the odd extinction is fine too, unless it damages man long term.

I strongly disapprove of hurting animals for sport, and want to see them have the best quality of life possible, preferably wild.  But I like to eat and wear them.  I am not quite sure why it is OK to wear animal skin on our feet or carry it as a bag, but not to wear “fur”.  What is the difference, other than that leather has had the hair systematically rubbed off as part of the process of making it?  A trivial issue, but one that obviously relates to the deeper questions.

Yes I draw a distinction between animals which are intelligent and those which are not.  I would not eat whale or dolphin.  But this does not seem entirely logical – animal intelligence and sensibility is evidently a continuum.  Many animals mourn, for example.  The BBC World Service radio (my main contact with the outside world at present – I have just today found my very, very weak internet connection just about works if I try it  at 5am) informed me a couple of days ago that orang-utans have the ability to think forward and tell others where they will be the next day.  Why cattle and fish are daft enough to eat is hard to justify.

I quite appreciate the disbenefits to man of radically changing his environment, even if it could be done without long term risk to his existence – the loss of beauty, of connection to seasons and forms of behaviour with which we evolved.  But I regard those as important only as losses to man, not because nature is important intrinsically.  In short, if I thought higher seas, no polar bears and no glaciers would not hurt man particularly, I don’t suppose I would have much to say against it.  I fear the potential repercussions are too dangerous to man.  At base, I don’t actually care about a polar bear.

 

 

 

 

Tweet this post

1,009 Comments

1 2 3 6

  1. I’m a vegetarian, which is very luxurious choice, because, when it comes to survival, I’ll eat you.

    No idea why this thought/idea always leaves so many people in shock and horror.

  2. I remember when I first heard the theory of global warming in the early 1990s that I found it very plausible.

    What has changed my mind is the suspicion that there is an agenda behind it. I am particularly suspicious of “carbon trading”. The carbon trading system was designed by Ken Lay of Enron, which sets the alarm bells ringing instantly, and it has reportedly been shut down several times due to large scale fraud.

    I now regard global warming as a scam that is being exploited by both the “left” (communists who want to extend state power and create a global socialist government) and by the “right” (big business that sees it as an opportunity to make money).

  3. Unfortunately the evidence with which an informed assessment of the situation is being tampered with and misrepresented.

    Talking of Gaia – James Lovelock isn’t getting much airtime of late – can’t just be that he’s getting on a bit – more that he’s not actually an acolyte and has the integrity to modify his opinion based on actual evidence rather than just whoop along with that supposed consensus

  4. B.Liar too Techno.

    Tony Blair takes time out from JP Morgan sinecure to shill for global warming
    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/09/tony-blair-takes-time-out-from-jp-morgan-sinecure-to-shill-for-global-warming-2774678.html
    |
    No ‘serious person’ should doubt man behind climate change, says Tony Blair
    No serious-minded person could possibly doubt that climate change is manmade, Tony Blair has claimed, as several influential figures move to head off fresh doubts about the integrity of the science behind global warming. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10329520/No-serious-person-should-doubt-man-behind-climate-change-says-Tony-Blair.html
    |
    Why I do not buy carbon offsets
    July 24, 2008 by Robert Kyriakides
    I do not buy carbon offsets. The carbon offset is now big business. Plenty of people are being offered carbon offsets when they book air travel. In a moment of environmental concern many people do sign up. I do not recommend that you do buy a carbon offset . These are my reasons. We do not really understand […]
    http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/why-i-do-not-buy-carbon-offsets/
    |
    The great persuader and climate change policies
    March 19, 2008 by Robert Kyriakides
    Someone who consults for JP Morgan Chase and Co and also for the Zurich Insurance Group is trying to persuade countries like China to drastically cut their carbon emissions. You may ask what JP Morgan Chase & Co and the Zurich Insurance Group have done themselves to cut carbon emissions; the answer is not very […]
    http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/the-great-persuader-and-climate-change-policies/

  5. Isn’t fear of potential repercussions to man while not caring what happens to polar bears to ignore the connection there is between all living things? The view that Man is somehow at the top of the evolutionary scale strikes me as arrogant.

  6. Hullo Craig,

    I would critique this as a directionless piece lacking any fundamental underlying philosophical principle apart from ‘I don’t care about this and I sort of care about that’, except for the fact that what stands as the premise is entirely moot: the ice is currently at record levels, the sea levels are exactly as they always were, and polar bears are in no danger of dying from anything apart from old age.

    In terms of what’s causing global warming, between us and the sun one of these two things if very, very, very, very, very big. And it’s not us.

    That being said, if I was a banker keen to usurp national sovereignty and institute a one-world currency and thus effectively control the world by way of a global monetary policy I’d say ‘carbon trading’ was a brilliant idea! Three Cheers! Bravo! And long may I reign!

    If I was a banker that is. If I wasn’t a banker I’d tell them to fuck off and stop insulting my intelligence.

    But each to his own of course…

  7. @Techno: Antropogenic climate change is real. That is as much a scientific fact as can be.

    Now, what about these Enron & Co.? They’ve been fighting the realisation of the consequences of oil exploitation for decades (“climate change is just a theory”, “it’s a scam”, “oil keeps growing underground so there won’t be a peak oil”, …); now that the evidence is becoming incontrovertible even for them, they try to make the most of it. They have even started advertising global warming as a good thing (“we’ll be able to drill the pole”, “we’ll colonise Siberia”, etc.). Them exploiting financial instruments linked to global warming is just going to happen; that is what they do. Hell, it’s probably one of the less nefarious things they do.

    Because they are so powerful and have so much liquidities, large oil companies like are in position of benefiting of any situation, no matter what happens. They do have their preferences, as some scenarios will benefit them more than others; but they will end up making money in any case. Hence, oil companies making money out of wind farms, solar panels and nuclear plants is not a sufficient sign to proclaim that these are bad avenues to explore. The only thing that would not benefit these societies are major accounting failure (like Lehman Brothers or Enron); strong regulation, consistently and globally (dream on…); or the utter collapse of civilisation.

    Big oil is coming to the position of the tobacco industry, who have began arguing that tobacco killing off people benefits society because there will be fewer pensions and medical bills to pay them. Are you going to start doubting the nefarious health effects of cigarettes because of these arguments? Same line on climate change.

  8. Why is the Arctic ice suddenly melting but the Antarctic is not? It’s man made all right. Since I first read about HAARP I am convinced that the mad Banksters are doing it on purpose. All that oil and gas to be extracted and transported to hungry markets. There’s no way that the greedy maniacs could resist such a vast money making scheme.

  9. Thanks for this article Craig. The last thread has as some gems of transactions between those who “believe” in “Global Warming” and I along with the rest of the sceptics. The argument is all about “science” (just what science? is not the issue). This current con was designed way back by Enron (dealing on climate) and by the most clever boys in the room (see where did, that lot end up?)! Further the dog and pony show in the UN has concluded that the only hope for humanity is to be found in the financial markets. If this does not start ringing the alarm bells then we might as well be eaten by some other species because we are patently too dumb too!

    The simplicity of the thermometer in hand and taking readings and then extrapolating the data into future, and when our readings do not make any sense rejecting the readings itself and going back to the “trends” is a suspect fucking preaching of a new age dogma. The simplicity of the arguments forwarded by the mendacious misanthropes, is further exacerbated by their admittance; “we only have data for the last two/three hundred years”. This is of course based on the fact that thermometer was invented then, and before that instead of the anemometers, and thermometers, there was the good old wet finger to determine the direction and the wind chill factors!

    The fact is, why there is such a fearmongeing and for whose benefit is it? This no longer is the matter for debate. The pitiful compliance of the conditioned pavlov dogs, is evidently the model for the current avant garde of the hate, loathing and fucking phobia. These are more preoccupied by their solipsist preoccupation with the “global warming”, than any real science or hints of such.

    As I have already gone on record, this con is designed as an anti competitive measure to hold back the evolution of any economic competitors to challenge the dominance of the current batch of ne’er-do-wells.

  10. Ah human exceptionalism, the acceptable face of might.

  11. I’m sorry to see so much mixing of the political and the scientific here. No doubt big business is doing its best to make as much profit as always – by creating the sceptical atmosphere in which it can continue the exploitation of fossil fuels while raking in as much from carbon trading as possible. You can buy almost anything with money, including a lot of people prepared to make the five per of doubt concerning global warming look like 100 per cent doubt. Remember the tobacco industry’s efforts to rubbish the link between smoking and lung cancer? PR lies like the devil. But the facts are harder to lie about, if people are prepared to do the hard work of looking at them. And if you do that you find that, for example, the misused words “pause” and “hiatus” have been slipped into the discussion because they give the impression that global warming has stopped. Yes, folks, no global warming since 1998 (despite the fact that we’ve had a string of “hottest years ever” since then). The trouble is that there has been – this “hiatus” is meant to denote a slowing down of the rate of warming, not a cessation. Sure, the scientists thought it would speed up, not slow down. Seeking for the reasons why it has happened has greatly enhanced their understanding of what is going on. They know, for instance, that the sea is a great heat reservoir. Well, they always knew it was, just not that this would affect the rate of warming. Surprise. It does. Doubtless the models (models are not predictions – they are efforts to “model” how things happening now will shape up in the future, educated guesses) are now much more refined and closer to the truth as a result. The experience seems to have convinced more researchers and produced a rise in the degree of confidence that scientists have in the results – up to 95 per cent. Pretty good, in times when the underhand and dishonest, the politically motivated, efforts of the sceptics have seemed to be dominant in the discussion.

  12. This rock started its life without us and will end it life without us. We are no more than passengers on a lump in a solar system, flying 100K mp/h through the vastness of space, so I enjoy every moment of it [mainly because we’ll all be dead so damn long]. Money truly corrupts everything it touches. How come none of the greedy banksters that drove the entire world economy into the ground [2008 ad onward] are behind bars? This rock can withstand the most horrendous impacts of ABWLMs and doesn’t need our help. It’s like a person lying down in front of a truck ‘because all the little calf inside have to be treated humane…, on their way to the slaughterhouse…’ and afterwards wolfs down a hamburger. A friend who did research on Antarctica said that they clearly could see the changes in production of copper, bronze and steel over the centuries, because of the residue they found which had been locked in the snow/ice for so many years. I just wonder, why do I hear so very little about Global Dimming?

  13. @Fedup

    Yeah you keep banging on about how fucking stupid every cunt is who pissing disagrees with your shitting confused bollocking anger.

    All I can glean from your nonsense is that you think the system is rigged against the poor and so the threat of global warming must be a scam.

    Have you got anything else to say? If so please explain your point rather than rage at the stupidity of others.

  14. Your article Craig illustrates how many things are lumped together as environmentalism/conservation. There is the really important thing – climate change which could kill billions. Then there’s the preservation of the polar bear, the Panda, the Ruddy Duck, or the great crested newt. Or not building on greenfield. Or keeping the parks clean. Which are by comparison totally and utterly utterly utterly trivial and unimportant.

  15. “But I regard those as important only as losses to man,not because nature is important intrinsically.

    Rose
    28 Sep, 2013 – 8:39 am
    “Isn’t fear of potential repercussions to man while not caring what happens to polar bears to ignore the connection there is between all living things? The view that Man is somehow at the top of the evolutionary scale strikes me as arrogant.”

    Add plain ignorant too.

    “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
    ― Albert Einstein

    and another:

    ““Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

  16. I think the problem with Craig’s argument starts with the notion that “Man is, of course, himself a part of nature”.

    Yes – we evolved as part of nature; but the explosion of symbolic abilities and, especially, symbolic systems is a gateway event that has turned against natural evolution, so that industrialism is now firmly in charge, exploiting the world, destroying ecosystems, and programming humans to further its interests. Children are ‘educated’ to replace their embodied awareness of nature and other creatures by a cooler, detached understanding of their place in food chains and biological taxonomies; so it’s hardly surprising that Craig and many others don’t care about polar bears. A wide awareness of the natural world is replaced by consciousness’s detailed focus on particular issues – often those emphasised by advertisers and the propagandists of the mainstream media.

    Humans may have started out as using symbolic powers; but in industrial society, humanity’s dog is being wagged by the tail of ideological, and especially economic, systems. Thus the notion that “man is a part of nature”, and therefore that anything we do is ‘natural’, is a superficiality that is often used to deflect awareness of the destructiveness of industrialism.

  17. What puzzles me about the global warming thesis is the inherent contradiction of the Gaia theory.

    Gaia tells us that life on earth is a self correcting mechanism that, via feedback loops and such, regulates the environment so that it sustains life on the planet. In other words, if the planet warms, water vapour and hence precipitation will increase; greater precipitation (that is, snow at the poles) leads to thicker ice caps since they don’t retreat as far back in summer. Also, larger surface areas of ice caps reflect more heat etc …

    I found this post, http://www.r-bloggers.com/the-surprisingly-weak-case-for-global-warming/, very interesting; both from a data analysis perspective but also from the point of view of the irrationality of some of the commentators. Very weird.

    Lastly, the nail in the ‘climate science’ coffin for me was the way the quantity surveyor at UEA behaved with respect to the freedom of information request of his emails and what was found when they were hacked. What did they say in Amory v Delamirie? Everything is presumed against a destroyer of evidence.

  18. I do care about polar bears. I care about them in the same way I care for other carnivores like lions or crocodiles – with respect. I would not approach any of these species. They can be very dangerous. For me the argument boils down to privilege. We are privileged to have commandeered the planet and turned its resources to our advantage. We are the single biggest polluters of the planet, and I believe that the upper-atmosphere tests in the sixties, carried out by Billy McCormac (a freemason) and his team, are responsible for the depletion of the ozone-layer. (As a spin-off let me just mention that Billy McCormac junior, a friend of Karl Rove, is one of the advisers through the Prime PR company to the Swedish government responsible for issuing an arrest-warrant for Julian Assange).

    Like Craig I speak out for the disadvantaged and underprivileged in human society and against the bald eagles, other hawks and slaughterers. To me there is no difference between a dolphin and a buffalo (a kind of cow). Cattle in the world today are treated as factors of production when they are actually sentient beings. It hurts when the calves, mostly bullocks are sent to the slaughter-house so that we can drink their mother’s milk. They can smell the death in front of them and know their turn is coming. They try to escape but are fenced in. They shit themselves. They have no voice in parliament and no blogs to fight their corner.

    In the east the butcher or slaughterer is considered the lowest of the low. We use the words as a parallel to those who commit human genocide. So the question I ask meat-eaters, because I have asked it of myself, is would you be prepared to do the slaughtering yourself? Could you look a cow in its big brown eyes and at the same time slit its throat and watch the life drain out of those eyes? It was the question Barnes Wallace asked himself, and why he became a vegetarian.

  19. Nature has made man in his-Gods alikeness to garden the planet and create a world not destroy it,
    Carbon credits given to the individual not the corporations would reduce our overall consumption.

    As consumers we are guilty as accused for the over production of unneccersay manufaturing.

    What do any of us as egalitarian individuals actuallly do to offset our Carbon consumption?

    Nice one Craig.. I fear your Polar Bear is a comparison of western culture.

    As the Panda is the Idol of WWF they are struggling to rejuvinate it’s species.
    What is the next symbol for destruction!

  20. Rose. What you say is very true. Anyway when we have gone, the insects and lower life forms will probably still be around.

    ~~~

    I read this on DV this morning. Interesting that the writer expected the NY market involving fossil fuel stocks to crash on release of the IPCC report but they did not. The balls are kept up in the air somehow.

    Wall Street to Planet Earth: We Don’t Mind and You Don’t Matter
    by Chris Williams / September 27th, 2013
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/wall-st-to-planet-earth-we-dont-mind-and-you-dont-matter/

    He is a prolific author on the subject of climate change.
    http://dissidentvoice.org/author/chriswilliams/

    Chris Williams is a long-time environmental activist and author of Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis (Haymarket, 2011). He is chair of the science dept at Packer Collegiate Institute and adjunct professor at Pace University in the Dept of Chemistry and Physical Science

  21. nevermind, its in the public interest to prosecute Ian dale for GBH

    28 Sep, 2013 - 10:38 am

    The only conclusion I’m getting from the scientists and this article is that we cannot trust mankind to solve its unsustainable impact on earth.
    No more to be said really, now lets see how many carbon trading issues and chem trail reports we can highlight here.

    I’m appalled that the BBC and other MSM media outfits have transmitted Ian Dales violence against a man and his dog, excessively and on a loop and that he has got away with a caution.

    How come that the public interest is a twitter, at least, a stretchy bit of rubber you can pull this and that way. It might have been in the interest of Lord Brown to stifle public resolve against his plans to pollute our rivers and more, by having Ms. Lucas charged, but it is not in the same public interest to have the violent outbursts on TV, for all to see, of some wannabe publisher prosecuted.

    Oh shit, I have just added to global warming, again…
    does that mean I do not care about our impact on this world?

  22. At a triple satellite scientifically measured average annual increase of 3.2mm per year, the sea level at San Francisco Bay may be expected to increase by 32cm (about the length of a 13in cock) in ONE HUNDRED YEARS time. Not enough to drown the Maldives or cause the slightest concern to the mortgage lenders or Al Gore in purchasing his sea front property there. QED.

  23. Craig, agreed with your points. Evidently the forces of conservatism are now bent on fighting the nature itself, in keeping it a constant. Fact that this planet has undergone many changes, and continues to do so, have no bearing on the thinking of those bent on preservation of the status quo.

    ====

    Runner 77 said;

    Humans may have started out as using symbolic powers; but in industrial society, humanity’s dog is being wagged by the tail of ideological, and especially economic, systems. Thus the notion that “man is a part of nature”, and therefore that anything we do is ‘natural’, is a superficiality that is often used to deflect awareness of the destructiveness of industrialism.

    1- Human beings are a natural species living on this planet. Thus whatever they do is also natural to them, regardless of how it may be interpreted. If the latter was not the case, nature would have ceased to sustain the anomaly and the abhorrent blip. As it has done so to many other species. Destruction is part of the nature’s cycle, and despite our wishes, Earth is a dynamic planet, it moves, heaves, rotates, and travels.

    1.a- Earth is not a closed system, it is a part of a bigger system, and the greater systems dictates as to how it should behave. The flexing of the crust (that is ground you and I are residing on), despite our inability to determine and discern (astral bodies exerting such forces). This combined with the rotational moments of the fluid core, that is regulated by the solid inner core (we hope), is giving rise to the birth of new crust (mountains, hills, and islands ) as well as the destruction of the old crust (valleys and depressions).

    2- Destructive industrialism is war and the industries associated; armed forces, security, secret services, war tools manufacturing, war services providers, and war mongers. To consider the use of the term “fossil fuel” without the associated power matrix of this product is a wilful neglect of the glaring facts; he who controls the oil taps plays the tune!

    2.b- Thus, if you wish to stop using the energy derived from this fuel, that is your choice, however you cannot impose your will on the rest of the humanity.

    ====
    Je said;

    There is the really important thing – climate change which could kill billions.

    As it stands, this eventual outcome will take many thousands of years, however a more pressing matter would be a dying distant star going supernova, and emitting xray pulses, that would fry all living organism on this planet with in a matter of seconds. How do you propose Carbon Trading or for that matter any other financial instrument would address this eventuality?

    Are we playing what if scenarios, then could we consider;

    1- What if magnetic poles flip?
    2- What if ISON is about to hit the Earth?
    3- What if the organisms from the vicinity of black smokers adapt to living in our environment? (the only know poison that kills all is sulphur, alas these organisms thrive on the stuff).
    4- What if, we encounter a black hole as our solar system is traversing the universe?

    There are even greater dangers, however just to illustrate the point. This kind of “science” is akin to the teenage angst, very real for the individual experiencing it. Alas, but a mole hill for any other observer.

    ====

    Daniel Rich, You sound a balanced and self aware individual, who is not suffering from the species dysmorphmis. (sorry Fedup for stealing your term) syndrome.

  24. Glenn_uk:

    Craig has said he has doubts about climate change. Are you going to call him “an ignorant climate denier who scoffs at the entire notion of science”?

  25. A Node, a very well constructed question!

    Needless to point out, “deniers” are clearly in denial of being deniers, and so they will never even know they are deniers. Impeccable logic applied and interpolated. Although there is always the awl test and or ducking stool trial, if not then some more smoke will not be harming the environment as the deniers are tied to the stakes, and set to burn in the wood pile.

  26. @Passerby:
    1. “Humans are a natural species living on this planet”.
    Well, that certainly how we started off; but today we mostly inhabit symbolic systems and the manufactured infrastructure derived from these. Not many industrialised humans could survive in a truly natural environment. And I suspect that nature WILL at some point destroy the ‘anomaly’. Google Jared Diamond, Easter Island for an excellent parable of why this may well occur . .

    To say that “destruction is part of the Earth’s cycle” is glossing over major differences between natural destruction and the role of industrialism. Cosmic events aside, natural destruction tends to destroy individuals rather than species, with very few exceptions. And by maintaining the health of ecosystems, natural destruction often turns out to be CONSTRUCTIVE (Sorry – italics and other forms of emphasis don’t seem to work on this website) at more fundamental levels. The same cannot be said for e.g. tar sands mining, widespread deforestation, and the extinction of multiple species. We should not interpret the fact that SOME TYPES OF change are intrinsic to nature as a licence to destroy anything that’s not industrially useful.

    1a. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here; but I’d certainly agree that the Earth is part of larger systems. That doesn’t mean that whatever industrial society does is OK. The analogy between industrialism and cancer is an alarmingly close one, as John McMurtry has argued very plausibly.

    2. I agree that the arms industry represents industrialism at its most obviously destructive. And the links between war and the oil industry are clear for all to see. That does not mean, however, that ALL uses of oil are immoral, or that we should live in an entirely preindustrial way. Although there’s no clear dividing line between the immoral and the moral uses of oil, that doesn’t mean that there can be no distinction. By analogy, there’s no clear dividing line between night and day; but I don’t think you’d argue that night is the same as day . . .

  27. How could we be anything but ‘natural’? Has anyone ever managed to come up with a definition of ‘unnatural’? We’re a product of, and a part of, this planet. I like the tree analogy. Trees only make sense if you regard each branch as a community because they all shoot off and lead different kinds of lives. As do all the groups of everythings on this planet. We’ve evolved to do a lot of stuff via emotion and intellect so what’s ‘natural’ for us is to do what seems right to us. Trouble is, we’ve got an intra-species battle going on because a small group within us (homo very richius) are doing their level best to mislead the rest of us into harming ourselves and all the other branches with a wonky idea of what seems right, and why.

  28. Without doubt, this is the most disappointing article Craig has written to date. My old grandfather advised that if you’ve got nothing to say, then don’t say it. This article would have been an excellent opportunity to put that advice into practice.

  29. Glenn_uk:

    So is Craig “an ignorant climate denier who scoffs at the entire notion of science”?

    …and if not why not?

  30. Craig,

    Given that the significant differences between animal species are the products of thousands and millions of years of evolution, the loss of any animal or plant species is effectively a permanent one as far as human experience is concerned. So long as billions of useless eaters ravage the biosphere to feed its survive-and-breed existence, there will be no chance that new species will outnumber extinctions. 

    Our descendents can look forward to a world of limited animal and plant species – a small catalogue of those that feed, entertain, comfort and work for us. And those that stubbornly refuse to die off despite great efforts to eradicate them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity

  31. @Moniker:
    “How could we be anything but natural?”
    You’ve answered your own question very clearly, Moniker:
    “Trouble is, we’ve got an intra-species battle going on because a small group within us (homo very richius) are doing their level best to mislead the rest of us into harming ourselves and all the other branches with a wonky idea of what seems right, and why.”

    Yes. But it’s a bit more complex than this, I reckon. It’s not just that a few rich people are messing things up. The industrial SYSTEM colonises us all in various ways, so that our ways of thinking, needs, emotions, and language are all infected to some degree. Indeed, most education, media, and propaganda has precisely this objective . . .

    So the crucial distinction is not between the (evil, greedy, etc) wealthy, and the (eco-minded, sustainable, pure) mr/ms average; it’s between the natural order and the industrial system, and all of us are, to varying degrees, caught up in the latter, thereby losing touch with the former . . .

  32. Hi Craig. Some inteeresting thoughts there. Your concluding remarks highlight the tactical errors of many in the Green movements, in that they focus on “conservation” of “Nature” as if conservation (ie prevention of change)were an end in itself, and as if “Nature” and “the Environment” were something outside of the human species.

    This second error allows “skeptics” and the sheer bloodyminded to retort that they don’t care about “the environment” as they prefer watching TV to walking in the countryside, so can do without the latter. What they need to understand is that “the environment” is what we live in (including the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil which produces almost all our food directly or indirectly), and that we have nowhere else to go for the foreseeable future. Look at it that way and it feels a bit more relevant. And certainly not a “middle class fad” or a luxury for the wealtheir countries- the USA and northern Europe would probably survvie even catastrophic global temp increases, whereas Bangladesh would be inundated.

    AS to “conservation”, the fact is that the vast majority of all species that have ever existed, became extinct long before humans existed. Our stone age ancestors wiped out a good few more- they weren’t all like Cheif Seattle! However, in recent years the rate of extinction has massively increased, and is now comparable only with the rate during immense natural catastrophes such as the Ice Ages, large meteor strikes, etc. Thing about the environment is that it’s very, very complicated- randomly removing bits of it is like randomly deleting programmes from your computer- some won’t make much difference, others will.

    As regards climate change, there often seems to be a false dichotomy being argued, ie either its man made so we must stop it, or else it’s natural in which case we needn’t do anything. Which is a catastrophically stupid position, because if climate change continues (for whatever reason) we could see the biggest social upheavals since the fall of the Roman Empire. And BTW, in the long run, natural climate change- far in excess of predicted manmade change- will continue as it always has done. Humanity, with its petty squabbles, religious dogmatism, and short-term outlook, is nowhere near ready to deal with another Ice Age.

    Finally, as regards the alleged “climate change conspiracy” beloved of American libertarians (whom BTW I respect regarding many of their other ideas). Because the inner workings of conspiracies are by definition hidden, one has to consider (a) who would benefit from the purported conspiracy? and (b) do those people/person have the power and lack of ethics to effect the said conspiracy?

    Now the most powerful lobby in the world today is surely the oil/gas industry (just look at the West’s involvement in the Muslim world, or the Bilderberg guest list!) So if there’s any massive, well-funded conspiracy going on, it would surely be more likely against the carbon-emissions-related global warming theory, not in favour of it? To be sure, the nuclear industry benefits from the latter, and they’re a powerful lobby, but not as powerful as oil.

    Conspiracies get more believable the fewer conspirators they require to be involved. Thus, a small team of dedicated hit men killing JFK, David Kelly, or Diana, is believable. Whereas 100,000 NASA employees faking the Apollo moon landings, or millions of Jews faking the holocaust, is not beleivable. The idea of a “climate change conspiracy” falls between these two extremes, but nearer the latter than the former.

    BTW, the reason people get more worked up about fur than about leather or meat, is because animals caught in leg traps take a very long time to die, and also because in the Chinese fur farming industry it is thought acceptable to skin animals while still alive and conscious. Search for “live animal skinning” on Youtube if you want the evidence.

  33. resident dissident

    28 Sep, 2013 - 1:39 pm

    Craig

    I have no problem with scientific theories being subject to scrutiny and challenge as that is all part of good scientific practice – “doubt” in itself is not a bad thing, and has been at the root of many scientific discoveries. Perhaps what is more important is how that “doubt” is used and whether or not scientific method is then abandoned in favour of some pre-existing prejudice. You could of course take your position on scientific matters as being one which is diametrically opposed to that of Tony Blair or by some connection to Julian Assange by 4 degrees of association (Swedish Govt.to Karl Rove to Billy McCormac Jr to Billy McCormac Sr – who we are gratuitously told is a Freemason and therefore probably in thrall to the Rothschilds) – alternatively might I suggest that some challenge be made to the view that there has been a pause in the global warming for the last 15 years – it certainly doesn’t tie in with the vast bulk of the evidence I have seen. There has been a slowdown in the rate of accelaration in global warming in recent years – but that is not the same thing.

    Even if your view is that you are not worried about the impact of global warming on polar bears – and I for one am more concerned about the impact of rising sea levels on the peoiple of Bangldesh and the Maldives – I wouldn’t be too dismissive of the impact of how ecosystems which do affect all creatures are interlinked. Because of rising sea temperatures we are already seeing changes in the distribution and sizes of fish populations which do affect human livelihoods. Yes it may be nice to grow more grapes in the UK – but what is the impact in Southern Europe and North Africa?

  34. technicolour

    28 Sep, 2013 - 1:46 pm

    What Runner 77 says. This ‘man is natural so whatever man does is natural’ can of course be extended to drones, war, and torture.

    It is not hard to justify eating meat, on a ‘it’s me or it’ basis. It is impossible to justify the factory farming system, unless you live in wilful ignorance of it. Sheep are slaughtered while pregnant. Cows are skinned alive. Chicks are crushed to death alive. The use of antibiotics to keep animals alive in excruciating conditions threatens us all. The research is endless, from CWIF to Fast Food Nation, to the film ‘Facing Animals’ to the undercover work done by VIVA. And with the imminent introduction of giant pig farms here, another US model, it is only going to get worse. What it does to the people working inside them is another question.

    Chickens mourn too, by the way.

  35. technicolour

    28 Sep, 2013 - 1:50 pm

    As for what our ‘natural’ behaviour is doing to the oceans, are people aware that the corpses of dolphins off the UK coast are officially classed as toxic waste because of the pollutants they have absorbed? And that the melting of the sea ice is releasing decades of industrial pollutants once trapped in the ice, over which they crystallised, back into the waters and atmosphere?

  36. Hi Glenn_uk,

    In answer to the previous thread:

    With all due respect back I think it would be worth looking in to the people behind the recent man made global warming narrative.

    On page 75 of The Club of Rome’s 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution, the organization outlined how they would manufacture mass ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them:

    “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,”

    This has largely been manifested in Agenda 21 and the Sutainable Development fetish – a non binding voluntary agreement agreed upon in 1991 that is regardless enforced by the UN and EU on us all.

    Reality hasn’t backed up their increasingly fanatical and desperate predictions and public opinion is increasingly turning against them – the IPCC and government funded/sponsored scientists unfortunately simply cannot be trusted anymore. But the global sociopaths are pushing ahead anyway with the agenda to impose authoritarian control measures to regulate and tax every aspect of our existence.

    And if you don’t like it, then you’re obviously a right winger and need jailing. It’s already being suggested by the United Nations to make it a ‘crime against humanity’ to question the “reality” of man-made global warming. This is very dangerous territory.

    This scam is being exploited by both the corporates and the world communists-they have merged and they are one and the same. This is fascims in a green uniform.

    I congratulate Craig for questioning this agenda and bringing it to peoples attention – not an easy thing for people in the public eye to do in the co- opted corporate media of today.

    The term is over used but ‘join the dots’ is probably the best thing to suggest.

    On another note – Polar bears are excellent swimmers and do not need to be rescued from blocks of ice …

  37. Runner 77 said;

    To say that “destruction is part of the Earth’s cycle” is glossing over major differences between natural destruction and the role of industrialism. Cosmic events aside, natural destruction tends to destroy individuals rather than species, with very few exceptions. And by maintaining the health of ecosystems, natural destruction often turns out to be CONSTRUCTIVE

    Although we are mostly in agreement, there are areas of divergence, this perhaps could be bridged, or we could agree to disagree. One of these points is the degrees of distaste for industrialisation. Given the almost infantile rush for “order” manifested and reflected in the last few centuries. Further, taking account of the influence of production, management thereof, and disposal of the goods produced; some useful, and others destructive and only designed to kill, dismember, mince and incinerate. We can conclude that industrialisation is a force for good, as well as a force for evil.

    The good industrial practices lead humanity towards a path of enlightenment, whilst concurrently introducing Trojans of destructive nature into the mix. Clear example is the fashionable igadget, that is the sought after must have device, and cannot live without item. This clearly is not any industrial phenomena, but a conceptual construct that has been promoted, and portrayed as the most desirable state of material existence.

    Therefore, despite your notion that destruction is part of construction, however to fall into the trap of conceptualisation of the destruction, is the most unsatisfactory outcome that could emerge. In qualifying this proposed notion, we can learn from the recycling in nature that death is in fact part of life cycle despite the termination of the life form that is not so pleasant for the life from engaged in dying.

    Can we agree that bad industrialisation is correlated with excessive conceptualisation, that belies the destructive industrialisation you refer to.

    Fact is as you already know the founder of the Gaia theory himself is in the dog house, and shunned by his contemporaries for daring to proffer the use of nuclear energy option. Fact is conceptualisation can cut both ways, and unfortunately the current brouhaha about “global warming” is such a construct.

    It would aid the progression of the debate to identify the tertiary but a very highly influential issue of the conceptualisations that in fact are promoting confusion, disarray, waste, and above all hate and phobia.

    Therefore, notwithstanding the mortality or morality of the existence of humanity; as well as considering the “homo very richius” (thanks Moniker) and its overall conceptual constructs, perhaps it is about time we re-examined the headlong rush to apportion blame and seek problems that effectively are not in need of any solutions? Ie there are far more pressing matters than “global warming” construct, designed to validate and mandate the trade in Carbon.

  38. Has someone pointed a shotgun at Gaia though?

    http://earthsky.org/earth/u-s-midwest-sees-another-bright-fireball

    U.S. sees another bright fireball on September 27

    The American Meteor Society (AMS) has reported at least 373 reports of another bright fireball over the U.S. last night (September 27, 2013). These reports followed a similar event over approximately the same area the day before (September 26). The AMS called the coincidence of two bright fireballs spotted over approximately the same region on consecutive days “surprising.” Witnesses from Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin and West Virginia reported a bright light moving across the night sky on September 27 at around 11:33 p.m. local time, according to the AMS.

    September 2013 has been a busy month for sightings of bright fireballs, according to the AMS. Last night’s event marks the 14th fireball sighting with at least 25 witnesses in September, the most ever since the AMS started recording sightings online, they say.

  39. RD, I never mentioned the Rothschilds. “(Swedish Govt.to Karl Rove to Billy McCormac Jr to Billy McCormac Sr – who we are gratuitously told is a Freemason and therefore probably in thrall to the Rothschilds)” RD, now you’re talking! You’re beginning to understand how the system works. Congratulations!

  40. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 3:27 pm

    global warming is a misnomer. When the atmosphere/seas warm, it creates anomalies in weather patterns which results in colder than normal summers. Just because there is still ice in Antarctica it’s no reason to rejoice.

    As to predominant cause, I’m with Craig. Humans certainly exacerbate with carbon emissions, but the Earth’s cycles play a major role. It’s just Gaia’s way of saying it’s time to clean house. Extinction events are normal in the vast sea of time.

    http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_eb688d82-27fd-11e3-9cea-001a4bcf887a.html

  41. There is some opinion out there (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/juancole/ymbn/~3/7obR6sqZKfc/minimum-ninas-really.html) that there have been cooling trends from mother nature to compensate for the warming trends from industrialization.

    Humankind burns more fossil fuels, tending to warm the place, but the sun has produced fewer sun-spots, tending to cool the place — a stand-off. That sort of thing. If this is correct, then when the sun-spot activity returns to normal (also, if unusual La Nina cooling is reduced), then we should see renewed and vigorous warming, making the huge majority of scientists happier (at their predictive ability) and sadder (for the fdate of the world, especially the world’s poor).

  42. @Passerby:
    I think we’re getting to a stage of the debate here where it’s difficult to explain all the nuances and qualifications of our positions in a blog + comments context. However, and briefly:

    While there are indeed some apparently ‘good’ outcomes of industrialism, these could also be the result of other systems so far unexplored. (My own preference would be for a form of ecosocialism, with the emphasis on the ‘eco’ bit). The problems with industrialism are, I think, systemic, in that they arise out of the nature of the beast itself – e.g. the drive to commodify everything, to view any natural species or entity as ‘raw material’ or ‘natural resources’ (or as ‘pests’ etc), and above all the imperatives of capital growth and the reduction of all qualities to monetary value. I think that we could use our technical knowledge as part of a more intelligent and ecologically sound society that eliminates these destructive core characteristics.

    I also agree that conceptualisation is part of the problem – as is language. One tool in our psychological repertoire – the ability to abstract – which should exist within a wider context that also includes feeling, attachment, intuition, spirituality, cultural integrity, etc. has become overly dominant, so that ‘economic rationality’ drives out social interest and individual well-being.

    As an aside, I’d also like to say that the current emphasis on climate change has itself become part of the problem, since it blinds us to the enormity of what we’re doing to the natural world – which also includes widespread extinctions, deforestation, pollution of the oceans and the land, the dissolution of ecosystems into scattered individuals, and so on. Most ‘solutions’ that are offered to these issues are in fact ways of preserving the totally unsustainable industrial system rather than of preserving the natural world. Carbon trading is a good example of this, as it has had no effect whatsoever on the tonnage of fossil fuels burned. A real solution, such as that offered by George Monbiot – ‘leave the stuff in the ground’ – would, of course, not even by considered by industry or governments . . .

  43. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 3:37 pm

    AA; Those DHS/FEMA exercises in Region3 (Eastern seaboard) seem a little off the fireball mark, if they have some early warning they are keeping close to the vest. I had only heard of the one fireball over the SE US. That’s quite a few concentrated in one geographic area.

  44. “Could you look a cow in its big brown eyes and at the same time slit its throat and watch the life drain out of those eyes? It was the question Barnes Wallace asked himself, and why he became a vegetarian.”

    I slaughter and butcher my own meat, not cows, I’ve done bullocks in the past.

    It’s nature’s way, half the chicks that hatch are male but only one is needed for a flock. Same with sheep, cows, pigs, only geese tend to be monogamous and I never killed one of those. A surplus is born so the best one can survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, the rest are surplus to requirements, some thing’s going to eat them, might as well be me.

  45. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 3:46 pm

    Yes Fred. Temple Grandin, the autistic savant, says animals like steers are raised for their meat. If they were not there might be a few in zoos, but the vast population exists and lives for that purpose. She says we owe it to them to treat them humanely, including the manner of slaughter.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

  46. Fred and Ben Franklin, nature’s way is to graze freely on the plains like the buffalo used to do (and still do in some parts of the USA). Other birds seem to manage quite well without man’s intervention. I cannot criticise you for killing your own meat, though it would not be my choice of catering for myself. It’s easier and more humane to open a packet of Quorn. No fat either. Still each to his or her own. I’m not preaching, just mentioning my preference and the reasons.

  47. Ben,

    There does appear to be some chatter about possible impacts in various places. The speculation seems to be somewhere North Atlantic/NE America down possibly as far south as Puerto Rico. Some callers from Puerto Rico on a recent radio show said that the island appeared to be preparing for a tsunami and that staff at the Arecibo telescopes were all very worried right now. That could all be nonsense of course.

    But see twitter chatter for puerto rico tsunami – https://twitter.com/search?q=puerto%20rico%20tsunami%20-from_japan&src=typd&f=realtime

  48. nevermind, its in the public interest to prosecute Ian dale for GBH

    28 Sep, 2013 - 4:18 pm

    We are ‘natural’ in the sense that cancer is natural and we are unable to change our ways of life, apparently.
    Now with all the intelligence this human specie is supposed to have, what of this malevolent, almost spiritual denial to make it work for us all, this sole pursuit for ephemeral money, meaningless, a mere exchange for services and valued items, naturally produced, why adopt morals that , so we now find out have misled us for centuries, drugged us with theories of caring and supporting each other? when in reality it merely disguised class and ranking, fed differing values to poor and rich.

    Cancer is natural and hence, our quixotic fight against inevitable impact, cancer was present in Egyptian mummies, but our industrial age has fed it, we have evolved it into something big, something that we can’t fight, a mechanism within that perverts our cells and their life.

    Our demise will not end life on earth and a lot of species will thrive, even if we kill each other in a nuclear crescendo, a small, wry reason to raise a glass to evolution and smile.

  49. Ben,

    Also I’ve finally had a bit of success with getting the NASA Horizons telnet system to give me some close approach data on my own little curiosity. However no matter how far I widen the uncertainty limits I can’t (so far) get it to compute a possible October close approach solution. Now I am even more puzzled why its output is so different from that on the official impact risk page. The two NASA systems appear to differ by about 90 million miles or so in position at the moment.

  50. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 4:42 pm

    AA; Based on FT3 size and velocity, do you see 200 hundred foot tsunami?

  51. nevermind, its in the public interest to prosecute Ian dale for GBH

    28 Sep, 2013 - 5:00 pm

    over a week has passed and we hear nothing of Frankfurt’s financiers pressurising Merkel and the social democrats to speed up their coalition talks.

    No hectic here, so if Evan Davis of R4 want to see coalitions work to the best of voters, maybe he ought to go over there and ask how it works. But to justify the current gaggle of speed daters as a coalition is really stretching the cloak of imagination over the hard facts of reality.
    A coalition with the Greens is more remote than last week.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-press-review-on-merkel-s-search-for-a-coalition-partner-a-924432.html

  52. O/T Our wars massively waste resources and damage the environment, apart from the killing and maiming of other humans that is.

    I have just watched a review of a new film about the war (or conflict! as it is called) on Afghanistan which questions its purpose. John Reid’s false promise is quoted.

    The Patrol: Film Examines Afghan War Legacy
    The movie takes a piercing look at the conflict in Afghanistan through the eyes of a British Army patrol.
    http://news.sky.com/story/1147447/the-patrol-film-examines-afghan-war-legacy

    I will not be going to see it.

  53. Ben,

    Depends on how near you are. You can scare yourself silly or otherwise at http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

    For example for a 340m asteroid.

    Use Diameter 340m
    Density 3000kg/m3 (solid rock)
    Impact Velocity 20km/sec
    Impact Angle 45

    You can alter distance and target type to suit. And/or up the size until you blow the planet apart.

    Basically if you are near enough to worry about a 200 feet or more tsunami there’s a good chance you’ve already spontaneously combusted from the heat blast from the impact fireball.

  54. It’s rare for me to agree with Fred, but I love meat.
    In my poorer days, I helped myself to the bounty of the country, and never asked for permission of the landowner before killing and eating animals that lived on ‘his’ land.
    Being a ‘Veggie’ is either a fashion statement of the rich, or a choice forced on the poor.

  55. technicolour

    28 Sep, 2013 - 5:44 pm

    I love ‘meat’ too. But I don’t love it if I actually spend a second thinking about where it came from.

    “Being a ‘Veggie’ is either a fashion statement of the rich, or a choice forced on the poor”

    Not quite. It depends where you live. In Walthamstow you have access to a local market which will sell you 6 avocados for a pound. In Newham, you have the local shop which offers a few oranges and a freezer full of burgers. Horse meat is cheap.

    Plus, many sources for this:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1370788/Fruit-vegetable-prices-rocket-putting-reach-low-income-families-warns-report.html

    and it’s going to get worse because of the anti-immigration bigotry, apparently: no more cheap labour.

    How crazy is this?

    Back to ‘Gaia and all that’ – I think we as a species suffer from a misuse of imagination, and a refusal to use the precautionary principle. Both, of course, in the interests of corporate profits.

  56. @Technicolour.
    Unfortunately, there were no Avocado trees growing in my area.
    Actually, nothing grows in winter up here.

  57. Doesn’t the planet naturally sequestrate CO2 on a massive scale? Doesn’t it have to given the natural fluctuations of CO2: Volcano’s, hemispherical seasons, sun bursts and the relationship between the vast oceans with all those factors?

    It’s chemical, pharmaceutical, biological and radiological products of mans activity that post a massively greater threat to mans livelihood than anything else like CO2. One really should be suspicious that it’s not those factors that are getting focus but CO2 instead.

    I very much like most Techno’s view (28 Sep, 2013 – 7:41 am) even if I’m only tepid towards his left-right description.

    Most anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics – some notable scientists included, believe that AGW may be a reality but that the effects are nowhere near as significant as the careerist computer modellers (GIGO anyone?) and ‘hide the decline’ types make out.

    But IF it was really a threat, then isn’t the real problem the thing that you can see on Google Map? – i.e. Deforestation without replenishment. I am often taken aback at how in a sea of green [forests and woods] there are mighty lakes of grey [cities] where green once stood.

    If the a runaway CO2 related climate change scenario was actually proved beyond reasonable doubt, AND the resulting change was actually dangerous to man (instead of leading to a more fertile planet overall), then rather than these awful carbon trading units – which will always work to the favour of the pre-existing financial elite and continued exploitation and domination – isn’t the answer a massive human effort to re-forest which would of course be affordable and rapidly effective.

  58. nevermind, its in the public interest to prosecute Ian dale for GBH

    28 Sep, 2013 - 6:34 pm

    Great news, my rescue chickens, three of six are left, have laid their 500’s egg today, three cheers to whoever advanced our symbiosis with jungle fowl.

    the other three ended up as stock.

  59. “I love ‘meat’ too. But I don’t love it if I actually spend a second thinking about where it came from.”

    Like the woman who wouldn’t have the tongue because she couldn’t bear the thought of eating something which had been in an animal’s mouth. So she had an egg instead.

    If people were to see where quorn comes from they wouldn’t eat that either.

  60. There’s a contradiction here. If it doesn’t matter whether the polar bear survives, why do you care if people hunt them for sport? Either they matter or they don’t. Personally I can’t help but feel that they do. We have a right to our day in the sun and a share of the earth’s resources – I agree with you on that – but so do other creatures. I cannot go along with the idea that anything we cannot exploit or profit from has no right to exist in itself. This is, to use an old-fashioned word, just barbarous. It seems to me an extension of the by now pervasive idea that everything must justify itself in economic terms, that is turn a profit.

    I don’t want to live in a world without room for anything wild, anything outside our own control or outside the cycle of exploitation and profit.

  61. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 7:02 pm

    Fukushima to the left of me —-2007 FT3 to the right of me. Guess I’m stuck in the middle.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_MIqbObsU

    Gaia………http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynttgx6lNL4

  62. “I don’t want to live in a world without room for anything wild, anything outside our own control or outside the cycle of exploitation and profit.”

    Well said.

    I hated this post of Craig’s.

  63. “I don’t want to live in a world without room for anything wild, anything outside our own control or outside the cycle of exploitation and profit.”

    In a true wild world, we will be hunting and eating everything.
    Unless you imagine a wild world without humans?
    Maybe you just wish you were born 15,000 years ago?

  64. technicolour 28 Sep, 2013 – 1:50 pm :…the melting of the sea ice is releasing decades of industrial pollutants once trapped in the ice, over which they crystallised, back into the waters and atmosphere?

    One presumes TC isn’t that familiar with the colligative properties. Too bad.

  65. technicolour

    28 Sep, 2013 - 7:33 pm

    “Like the woman who wouldn’t have the tongue because she couldn’t bear the thought of eating something which had been in an animal’s mouth. So she had an egg instead.”

    No, not like that. Like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVGR1N2Pl00

    I don’t eat Quorn.

  66. technicolour

    28 Sep, 2013 - 7:44 pm

  67. I feel unable to abandon my presumptions just yet, as I also presume you didn’t read to the end of (at least) one of the articles…

    “The next step is to to find out how much is in the Arctic, how much will leak out and how quickly.” followed immediately by
    @Hung said that, with the exception of lindane, there was little existing knowledge of the scale of the Pops stored in high latitude regions: “We really don’t know.”

    – my emphasis.

    So you were aware of colligative properties and saw fit not to use that knowledge to challenge the articles accordingly?

    Just curious.

  68. technicolour

    28 Sep, 2013 - 8:19 pm

    Sorry, are you saying that because the ‘scale’ is not known – and scientists are urging further research – that this is not happening? Did you read the report itself, or even the summary?

    “Here we show that many POPs, including those with lower volatilities, are being remobilized into the air from repositories in the Arctic region as a result of sea-ice retreat and rising temperatures. We analysed records of the concentrations of POPs in Arctic air since the early 1990s and compared the results with model simulations of the effect of climate change on their atmospheric abundances. Our results indicate that a wide range of POPs have been remobilized into the Arctic atmosphere over the past two decades as a result of climate change, confirming that Arctic warming could undermine global efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to these toxic chemicals.”

    As for the scale itself, dozens of reports show the high levels of POPs in the Arctic itself: this is how it works:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100601072630.htm

  69. Frankly, there is no difference between killing an animal for sport and killing it for food – with the exception of when the latter is a case of absolute necessity (rare, these days). They are both the same in as much as they both involve killing, they are both unnecessary and they are both for the gratification of the killer.

    Be compassionate, be peaceful, be vegetarian.

  70. technicolour

    28 Sep, 2013 - 8:30 pm

    Just one study of Arctic contaminants (and then I have to go!)

    “The Fuglebekken basin is situated in the southern part of the island of Spitsbergen (Norwegian Arctic), on the Hornsund fjord (Wedel Jarlsberg Land). Surface water was collected from 24 tributaries (B1-B24) and from the main stream water in the Fuglebekken basin (25) between 10 July 2009 and 30 July 2009. The present investigation reveals the results of the analysis of these samples for their PAH and PCB content. Twelve of 16 PAHs and seven PCBs were determined in the surface waters from 24 tributaries and the main stream. Total PAH and PCB concentrations in the surface waters ranged from 4 to 600 ng/L and from 2 to 400 ng/L respectively. The highest concentrations of an individual PCB (138-308 ng/L and 123 ng/L) were found in samples from tributaries B9 and B5. The presence in the basin (thousands of kilometres distant from industrial centres) of PAHs and PCBs is testimony to the fact that these compounds are transported over vast distances with air masses and deposited in regions devoid of any human pressure.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22164112

  71. Juteman
    28 Sep, 2013 – 5:51 pm
    “@Technicolour.
    Unfortunately, there were no Avocado trees growing in my area.
    Actually, nothing grows in winter up here.”

    So what do animals (that you eat) eat? Certainly not other animals. Has it ever occurred to you that most animals that man eats are in themselves vegetarian!?

  72. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 8:42 pm

    Faith and Begorrah , TEPCO has brass.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-28/fukushima/4986614

  73. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 8:48 pm

    This independent source needs some support.

    http://fukushima-diary.com/category/dnews/

  74. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 8:50 pm

    AA; Eerily, the asteroid animation took the impact to the coast off the Carolinas

  75. With around 20 years of no statistically significant warming, the AGW junk-science began to fall apart, so they renamed it ‘climate change’. But the climate has always changed, as evidenced by ice-skating on the Thames (1600s) and red wine grape cultivation in England (1300s). The link between man’s increasing CO2 output and rising temperatures has always been tenuous at best, based as it is on dodgy computer models that produce the *right* result just as long as the *right* data is fed in. Should the results not support the theory, it’s better for one’s career to simply hide the results.

    Many leftists like the idea of climate change legislation to create sort of socialist utopia in which wealth creators are taxed into extinction. I once debated this issue with a lefty who admitted that he felt AGW theory was in all probability a crock of shite, but that it was worth implementing the legislation anyway as something had to be done to curb economic growth and “save the planet”. I suspect that many lefties feel like this. Veggie campaigners, too, jump on the bandwagon, seeing an opportunity to end wasteful meat production. Big oil, finance, etc., unsurprisingly try to work out ways to make money out of it. Government, ditto, wants more government. Poor and low-lying island nations seize the chance to make a buck out of the West and through all of this China carries on regardless (the leftists don’t tend to bother about China and India because the target is, of course, the West’s economic sucess).

    I should add before the usual accusation is made that I do not have a climate science background myself, but having spent a lot of time reading sites where qualified people on both sides of the debate gather, it is quite clear that the sceptics absolutely wipe the floor with the alarmists. Even a layman can see that. And I am quite prepared to change my mind should I see solid research that proves the sceptics wrong, but in the meantime it is a crying shame that real conservation and biodiversity issues are being drowned out by – and government resources put into – this obvious scam.

  76. Exexpat: “The debate is over.”

    Doesn’t look like it is, fella. :)

    Ps, I take it you departed to and returned from your expatriate destination by wind and sail?

  77. O/T Gulnara and all that….!

    Unexpected find on the Mail website.

    The split at the heart of one of central Asian repressive dictatorships: Uzbek dictator’s glamorous daughters hate each other Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva says she hasn’t spoken to her elder sister Gulnara in 12 years
    Dictator’s younger daughter gives first interview to western media

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436597/The-split-heart-central-Asian-repressive-dictatorships-Uzbek-dictators-glamorous-daughters-hate-other.html

  78. @anon

    Since you’re getting personal are there other things in your life you are in denial about? :)

  79. Glenn: “Without doubt, this is the most disappointing article Craig has written to date. My old grandfather advised that if you’ve got nothing to say, then don’t say it. This article would have been an excellent opportunity to put that advice into practice.”

    Dreoilin: “I hated this post of Craig’s”

    Craig (2011): “When I am lacking time or energy for deeper thinking, I tend to throw out some provocative thoughts from the top of my mind to see what people make of them.”

  80. I’m wondering if there must be a troll shared services unit somewhere.
    Was very Hasbara in here now the Energy Industry seems to be represented?

  81. Exexpat
    28 Sep, 2013 – 9:19 pm
    “I’m wondering if there must be a troll shared services unit somewhere.
    Was very Hasbara in here now the Energy Industry seems to be represented?’

    Thanks for letting us into your wondering mind.

    While you’re at it, are there any other neuroses you would like to let us into?

  82. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 9:37 pm

  83. Glenn: “Without doubt, this is the most disappointing article Craig has written to date. My old grandfather advised that if you’ve got nothing to say, then don’t say it. This article would have been an excellent opportunity to put that advice into practice.”

    Dreoilin: “I hated this post of Craig’s”

    Craig (2011): “When I am lacking time or energy for deeper thinking, I tend to throw out some provocative thoughts from the top of my mind to see what people make of them.”

    Well now he knows.

  84. There are animals on this planet that I would rate higher than some of the f*ckers that claim to be running entire countries.

    G’night

  85. With regard to vegetarianism and vegetarianistas, I find there is little point challenging vegetarians on their beliefs as those are their choice and the debate can make for the most boring dinner of party conversations as well as blog threads. However, I do object when a vegetarian says they do not eat meat because of the appalling conditions animals are kept in in industrial farming units. Surely the obvious response to that would be to eat meat sourced from local producers operating to the highest standards? Very odd.

    Anyway, all I’ll say on the veggie debate is: eyes at front of head + teeth for tearing meat = meat-eater, but each to their own!

  86. Villager: best to ignore the twerp!

  87. Dreoilin: “Well now he knows.”

    Knows of what, Dreoilin? That you disapprove of his views and lack of conformity? Perhals you would like to add some of your own views on the past two decades of no significant warming?

  88. I don’t know about other readers but I’m just aching to hear Technicolour’s views on Halal slaughter…

    :)

  89. Anon, and Mary’s views on kosher….


  90. “Having tucked away that doubt, I started to try to think deeper. Man is, of course, himself a part of nature. Anything man does on this planet is natural to this planet.”

    Anything that man does, following this, is natural – let’s just save a step.

    Therefore, torturing, enslaving, murdering and generally viciously exploiting other people is simply natural. After all, it surely does appear to be a natural tendency!

    Waffle waffle, snark. Amazing what absolute BS mental masturbation can produce.

    *

    A node said:

    :Glenn_uk:

    Craig has said he has doubts about climate change. Are you going to call him “an ignorant climate denier who scoffs at the entire notion of science”?

    Absolutely. How else could a position be described, when it’s argued from utter ignorance, zero scholarship, and a disrespect for the scientific method?

    *

    Enjoy your new-found champion of ignorance and – frankly – utter heartlessness. Take care all.

  91. “With around 20 years of no statistically significant warming, the AGW junk-science began to fall apart, so they renamed it ‘climate change’. But the climate has always changed, as evidenced by ice-skating on the Thames”

    Except that wasn’t the climate that changed, it was the Thames.

    Back then the Thames was wide shallow and slow moving and froze easily. Then they rebuilt London Bridge, built the Thames embankment and it became narrow deep and fast moving.

  92. Looks like the hasbara double team are back folks.

    Villager who cares what u think? I’m not really sure why you post “on this dreary blog” when its clear all you do is disrupt?

    Don’t forget you’ve been put on notice here…. :)

  93. N.b. Craig

    IPCC is the INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

    i.e. it is a political body.

    “The tragic fact is that global temperature has declined slightly for 17 years while CO2 levels increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hypothesis said that if CO2 increased temperature would increase. The hypothesis is slain.

    Instead of acknowledging the hypothesis is wrong, as science requires, the defenders advance bizarre explanations none of which bear examination. According to the IPCC what is happening can’t happen. They were over 90 percent certain of their results and planned to increase that certitude to 95 percent in their next Report (AR5).”

    Full article:

    http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/322-17-year-warming-hiatus-causes-panic-cover-up-ipcc-duplicity-continues.html

  94. “Surely the obvious response to that would be to eat meat sourced from local producers operating to the highest standards? Very odd.”

    There speaks someone very rich or wilfully blind.

    “Anyway, all I’ll say on the veggie debate is: eyes at front of head + teeth for tearing meat = meat-eater, but each to their own!”

    Two teeth – canines – for tearing meat. The rest for grinding. Work out the proportion, for your own health, if nothing else. And if you can actually do some research – for example read Fast Food Nation, or The Price of Meat, or watch Facing Animals – and still sound so chirpy about what this advanced species is doing to itself and others I’d be – interested.

    Btw what on earth is ‘lefty’ about pointing out that the current economic industrial model is disastrously polluting our land, sea, air and bodies? That’s fact, not politics.

    Fred; thanks about the Thames.

  95. Fred, you may well be right there, but the fact remains that whatever tbe delth of the Thames at the time, there was a little ice age before the recent warming, and a medieval warming period before that. I live in a glacial valley.

  96. tbe delth = the depth

  97. As this is the weakest solar maximum for 100 years – and the next is predicted to be weaker still – I wonder if we aren’t in for a period akin to the Dalton Minimum of the 18th/19th century, or perhaps even a Maunder. This means a succession of harsh winters might be in store for us, maybe a few decades worth.

    That’s if Ison’s dust-tail doesn’t get us first!

  98. Technicolour,

    “There speaks someone very rich or wilfully blind.”

    Nonsense. You either pay a little bit more for your meat or eat a little bit less.

    “Work out the proportion”

    Still makes us meat-eaters.

    As for your various campaign orgs, I do not eat fast food and nor do I have any any interest in watching clips of the World’s Worst Things That Have Happened To Animals, Ever, cobbled together and marketed as evidence that eating meat is bad.

  99. The problem, I think, for you Technicolour, is that you are a Londoner and utterly divorced from the realities of what happens in the countryside.

  100. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 10:38 pm

    “That’s if Ison’s dust-tail doesn’t get us first!”

    Mike; AlcAnon is much more informed on this issue and in his absence, I ask you; What is the significance of the fireballs seen in Continental US (as well as the infamous Russian) wrt to OORT cloud objects too small for NASA and independent astronomical observatories to track? If ISON were to break up prior to sun-grazing, what is the downside to offset matter trails and entry into earth’s atmosphere?

  101. Technicolour:

    “Btw what on earth is ‘lefty’ about pointing out that the current economic industrial model is disastrously polluting our land, sea, air and bodies? That’s fact, not politics.”

    Earlier I wrote:

    “I once debated this issue with a lefty who admitted that he felt AGW theory was in all probability a crock of shite, but that it was worth implementing the legislation anyway as something had to be done to curb economic growth and “save the planet”. I suspect that many lefties feel like this.”

    You see now, Technicolour? You’re moving the goal posts. I quite agree that we are “disastrously polluting our land, sea, air and bodies”. The issue in question is whether increased CO2 emissions are causing rising temperatures!

  102. Rereading the original post I think it’s an honest attempt to come to terms with the fact that everything we do has an effect. And that, unless one is a Jain, and even then, some of that will be harmful. Sentient creatures suffer, sentient creatures are tortured and killed in their millions, daily, for profit, not survival. Living in a vegan cave doesn’t solve the problem; it just makes it slightly easier on oneself (though that is not a bad thing), while making the rest of society almost intolerable (which is). It’s a perilous line between hypocrisy and awareness, very post-Fall.

  103. ““The tragic fact is that global temperature has declined slightly for 17 years”

    Yet the 10 hottest years on record all occurred since 1997. The decade 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade on record.

  104. Wild animals suffer too. Wild animals get ill or injure themselves when there is no one to fetch a vet to them. In times of famine wild animals starve when there is no one to fetch food to them. Wild animals get attacked by predators when there is no one to protect them. Animals don’t tend to die of old age where only the fittest survive.

  105. Anon

    a) Live in the country. Grew up in the country, lived in London, moved back out to the country. We used to have a local butcher, who slaughtered his own cows. Now closed down. Small local relatively humane abattoirs everywhere have been closed down.

    b) ‘Campaign orgs ‘ v dismissive way of treating the research in Fast Food Nation, or Facing Animals. Why?

    c) Most people live in cities; silly to dismiss them

    d) Rising Co2 levels causing rises in temperature – a question I had also. But if we both accept that Co2 levels are rising, then why would that *not* have an effect (methane a pernicious greenhouse gas also, btw)? Incidentally, I think ‘climate chaos’ is a more accurate description than either ‘warming’ or ‘change’, judging by the reports around the world.

    e) “We are meat eaters” – if you read Desmond Morris’ The Naked Ape, you’ll find that this was grafted onto us: we were originally fructarians before the transition to hunter gatherers. Hence the pathetic two teeth (have you looked at a Rotweiller?)

  106. Fred: “Wild animals suffer too” – yes, of course. I think it’s the industrialised, calculated scale of suffering inflicted which really demeans our species.

  107. 15-year blip is be explained in the Weather Wunderblog
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
    have scrolled through these messages v. quickly, but can vouch for Dr Masters as a good climate reporter, and his commenters are lots of different weather people, with different perspectives.

  108. Fred: although, in a way, I think it’s also a sign of innate human decency that people would rather buy an anonymous slab of plastic packed meat than actually go out and kill something themselves. It’s complicated.

    And I’m for bed!

  109. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 11:28 pm

    Falloch; Xlnt link. I found it interesting that Human-caused hurricanes was over stated. I’ve always thought the key to Climate change was in our ocean temps. whose currents ebb and flow with deference to salt density and temp.

  110. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    28 Sep, 2013 - 11:35 pm

    ” anonymous slab…” Heh, tech. I feel certain if people shopped for meat with a face on it, the demand for choice/Prime would diminish post-haste.

  111. I don’t think skating on the Thames and growing red grapes for wine has anything to do with climate change even if it is three centuries apart. In 1980 at about Christmas I could walk across the lake in Cannon Hill Park. Never been able to do it since. There are English red wines still available that have been produced since God-knows-when. This one is from at least the seventeenth century.

    http://www.greatenglishwines.co.uk/english-red-wine/stanlake-ruscombe-2010

    It is reasonably-priced and I don’t doubt good. My mother, a lovely woman, made wine from the red grapes from Rushen Abbey in the Isle of Man in the 1970s. It was good. She was an excellent wine-maker and won best wine in the Douglas Show on four or five occasions. But not with a red wine. I am a red-wine drinker and the best red-wines are from the South of France (with exceptions), where it is quite hot, and the grapes can benefit from the coolness of altitude in the best vineyards. I’m indulging tonight in a palatable blend from California (Paul Masson). It is not expensive and has a pleasant taste.

    Sorry, Anon, your argument does not hold water.

    Welcome back Scouse Billy.

  112. I don’t believe there’s any value in this never ending left right palava but I am still saddened that well meaning people who see themselves as left liberals have been conned and used on such a massive scale. Critical theory has never been so prominent. The Henry Ford political equivelant of ‘you can have any views you like as long as they are the same as ours’ The same brainwashing could be said to be true of others of other political persuasions of course – all causing a very convenient Everton/Liverpool – Man U / Man city dialectic. The question is, who always benefits regardless. Cui Bonno?

    I know the above is an exaggeration but surely the overwhelming evidence of the trickery of the global sustainable develpment and climate change governmental and inter governmental lobby groups is obvious to all by now? Don’t believe a few commentators on a blog – the evidence is there in the computer you’re looking at!

  113. Now we, if not in the spirit, have been caught up to see our earth, our mother, Gaia Mater, set like a jewel in space.

    We have no excuse now for supposing her riches inexhaustible nor the area we have to live on limitless because unbounded.

    We are the children of that great blue white jewel. Through our mother we are part of the solar system and part through that of the whole universe. In the blazing poetry of the fact we are children of the stars.

    William Golding’s Nobel Lecture

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1983/golding-lecture.html

  114. A Node asked:

    “Craig has said he has doubts about climate change. Are you going to call him “an ignorant climate denier who scoffs at the entire notion of science”?

    Glenn_uk replied:

    “Absolutely. How else could a position be described, when it’s argued from utter ignorance, zero scholarship, and a disrespect for the scientific method?”

    My intention was to demonstrate that your attitude towards people who disagree with you about AGW was irrational. Job done.

  115. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    29 Sep, 2013 - 12:18 am

    Mark; Any relation? I sense a similar passion for prosaic insight. Cheers.

  116. A Node

    A bob for you – job well done ;)

    I am reminded of the Chartist, Gerald Massey when he said,

    “They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth.”

  117. first thing to remember is BP, Shell, the Insurance Companies, the Banks, the military, the MSM, are all behind the scam. second thing is to realise the “sceptics” all believe in climate change & believe that the temps have been rising since the 17th Century, tho paused for the past 15-17 years. the sceptics includes IPCC scientists, Labour voters, Green voters, environmentalists, etc., even tho the MSM tries to portray all sceptics as rightwing nutters in order to make it a partisan issue to keep one lot onside.

    James Corbett in Japan always does a thorough job. recorded just prior to the release of the new report:

    28 Sept Corbett Report: Episode 282 – the IPCC Exposed
    http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-282-the-ipcc-exposed/

    btw if Govts really believed in catastrophic manmade global warming, (something they never dare call it since they started using the deceptive, generic “climate change”, would they really be starting wars all over the place?

    VIDEO: RT: Morales: Obama can invade any country for US energy needs
    In his dramatic speech in New York, Bolivian President Evo Morales called for the UN to be moved out of the US and for Barack Obama to be tried for crimes against humanity. Speaking to RT, Morales explained his controversial proposals.
    In his most controversial demand, Morales said that Obama should face an international trial with human rights watchdogs among the judges. The Bolivian president accused his US counterpart of instigating conflicts in the Middle East to make the region more volatile and to increase the US’s grip on the natural resources it abounds in. He gave Libya as an example of a country where “they arranged for the president to be killed, and they usurped Libya’s oil.”
    “Now they are funding the rebels that fight against presidents who don’t support capitalism or imperialism,” Morales told Eva Golinger of RT’s Spanish sister channel, Actualidad. “And where a coup d’état is impossible, they seek to divide the people in order to weaken the nation – a provocation designed to trigger an intervention by peacekeeping forces, NATO, the UN Security Council. But the intervention itself is meant to get hold of oil resources and gain geopolitical control, rather than enforce respect for human rights.”
    The US also operates in the same imperialist way outside the Middle East, Morales argued. At the General Assembly Obama said that the US “is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests” in the Middle East. Among the core interests, he mentioned “the free flow of energy from the region to the world.” Morales said that Obama’s statement should make any country possessing natural resources worried. …
    “I think that statement poses a threat to all countries that have energy sources, especially gas and oil,” Morales said. “But mostly those countries that sell gas and oil to the US. It is a direct threat. I am planning to meet with President Maduro and analyze the issue. I understand that this is a direct threat to Venezuela, because in order to secure his country’s energy needs, Obama can invade any country.”
    http://rt.com/news/morales-interview-obama-un-442/

  118. “High levels of European military spending played a key role in the unfolding EU debt crisis and continues to undermine efforts to resolve the debt crisis, alleges a new report by Transnational Institute and the Dutch Campaign against Arms Trade.”

    http://www.pana.ie/articles/eu-military-spending-2013.html

  119. “The inhabitants of Easter Island chopped down the last trees to transport a few more statues down to the coast, in the hope that they would bring back the forest.”

    The world, as seen from behind a herd of extremely flatulent cows.

  120. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    29 Sep, 2013 - 3:46 am

    BRRISON; The Moon’s a Balloon.

    http://www.cometisonnews.com/

  121. A demonstration of a troll’s effort to divert and disrupt.

    Villager
    28 Sep, 2013 – 10:00 pm
    Anon, and Mary’s views on kosher….

    Perhaps we could be informed of the ‘K’ view on climate change.

  122. There are over 2,000 comments on the BBC website page. The headline leaves no doubt as to which side of the debate the BBC supports.

    IPCC climate report: humans ‘dominant cause’ of warming
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

  123. Any truth in the rumour Malcolm Rifkind to resign JIC Chairmanship post to stave off demand for independent prosecution for treason made to the CPS. This is with regard to his lying on the Commons Floor to shill for Syria bombing during the recent vote. The video YouTube “evidence” now proved false with the gassed children proved to have been kidnapped elsewhere. The Israeli “intercepts” transcripts (if concocted by the same crowd in Herzliya that gave us the fake laughable “auschwitz” mavi marmara audio), when made public, should provide a final nail in the coffin of this JIC dual loyalty Pollard !

  124. I love my Sunday breakfast.
    Bacon, black pudding, link and Lorne sausage, fried eggs, fried bread, mushrooms and a pint of Guinness.

    Or I might save the planet and have some seeds and water instead.

  125. resident dissident

    29 Sep, 2013 - 9:07 am

    Rather than just trolling the positions of Tony Blair and the BBC might I kindly suggest that the issue is important enough to warrant some thought on her part.

  126. resident dissident

    29 Sep, 2013 - 9:25 am

    It is interesting how a number here have sought to argue that the slow down in the rate of global warming can be taken as evidence that global warming has ceased – and can be used as evidence for their own narrow political perspectives. It cannot – if they want to see some real evidence rather than engage in political posturing might I suggest that they look here

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

  127. “They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth.”

    This applies perfectly to the BBC – on the Today programme John Humphreys was putting the denialist case and citing its authority as the fact that Lord Lawson supports it (there being a marked absence of scientific facts to do the real job). Meanwhile a bunch of people who study the data, who know a great deal about the climate and who develop their theories according to the scientific method are dismissed as involved in a communist conspiracy aimed at bringing down the capitalist free market (and therefore Lord Lawson). Not hard to see which side is irrational here.

  128. “Anything man does on this planet is natural to this planet.”

    Along the same line as “everything is natural”, everything is free and eternal, etc.

    But the concept of nature becomes unintelligibly wide with this treatment, so a new word should be allowed to address these current differences between human technological phenomenon and those which have arisen and remained through ancient ‘natural’ history (such as life itself).

    What can a naturalist say now?

  129. resident dissident

    29 Sep, 2013 - 9:28 am

    Juteman

    By all means enjoy your Sunday breakfast – but if you try that everyday saving the planet will be the least of your worries. Wholemeal toast, muesli and tea for me (with added lower fat cow products).

  130. While we enjoy our Sunday breakfasts, take a minute to think about this young Nepalese boy who died in the super-rich, wonder-State of Qatar:

    At 16, Ganesh got a job in Qatar. Two months later he was dead

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/25/qatar-nepalese-workers-poverty-camps

  131. @RD.
    As I can’t afford a decent pension, my Scottish diet should make sure I don’t need one. I don’t want to work until I am 90, so a fatal heart attack around 65 will do nicely. Preferably after enjoying my breakfast.
    I pity my fellow Scots that depend on foodbanks. Due to lack of fresh meat, they might have to live for decades in poverty, and not get the benefit of an early heart attack.

  132. Sofia Kibo Noh

    29 Sep, 2013 - 9:58 am

    Just passing thru to feed my coffee cravings and see what the grownups are up to.

    Seems there’s less malice around. That’s a breath of fresh air.

    As for the great Global Warming / Climate Change debate I can’t add any expertise to the brew, but, when I read the Liar in Chief patronising us with, “ No serious-minded person could possibly doubt that climate change is manmade…” I smell a rat.

    Aside from Bliar’s record with facts there is the small matter of just why a “serious minded person” should alight from his favourite Bombardier aircraft to warn us of the menace of human induced climate change.

    Surely a reasonably minded person would now start to ask is this issue being hijacked by those whose actions pour more CO2 into the atmosphere in a week than most of os can manage in a year.

    And then when I see they have a comodotized, bank-friendly, carbon credit solution ready and running I start to get very suspicious.

    What about seriously addressing the ways we live and relate to our planet-home? The twelve design principles of Permaculture might be a good start.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#Twelve_design_principles

    Also cheer-leading for industrial scale destruction in the ME might not be such a cool climate change solution. Better to just park that Bombardier and take a train to the Hague (yes Tony, there’s a tunnel) and turn yourself in to the ICC. There are millions who would love to see you embark on your sentence of 10 years community service in Fallujah.

    Just a thought.

    Btw, just look at the data. Seems that, whatever the cause(s) we already have climate chaos. Something’s afoot.

    Must go. Be sure to contunue behaving yourselves.

  133. Mary, here is an extract:

    “And meditation is not something that you practise for an hour or ten minutes and the rest of the day do your mischief. Meditation is the whole of life and that is the beauty of meditation, it is not something set aside, it covers and enters into all our activities and to all our thoughts and feelings. So it is not something that you practise or give attention to once a day or three times a day or ten times a day and the rest of the day live a life that is shoddy, neurotic, mischievous, violent.

    And if you would understand what meditation is the mind must be totally free from all violence and aggression. Are you following all this? As I said, as the speaker said, this is a very serious matter and if you don’t want to listen to it, don’t. But you should know something of all this, it is good for you to know this. We are educated in violence, our ways of life, all our activity is a form of violence. We are geared to war, and war is very profitable, and we are educated to kill, kill not only the poor animals for our food but also kill your neighbours in the name of God, in the name of peace, in the name of your country, in the name of your bank account. And it is part of our tradition, both religiously, economically and socially, the competition of the priest to become a bishop, climb the ladder, the hierarchical ladder of spiritual whatever it is. And we are also aggressive, we think it is necessary to be aggressive in order to progress. That word ‘progress’ at one time meant, to enter the enemy country fully armed. I hope you appreciate the meaning of that word. And aggression was a form of security, the animals, if you have observed them, are very aggressive amongst themselves – as the top dog. So there is in us not only aggression but violence. And we deem it necessary.

    Intelligence is above and beyond violence and aggression. That intelligence comes when one understands the full nature and the structure of violence outwardly and inwardly with all its aggression. Then in that understanding flowers intelligence. That intelligence can operate in our daily life and therefore there needs to be no violence at all.Because intelligence is not an intellectual thing, intelligence comes into being when man is whole, when he is acting totally with all his being, when he is not fragmented, when his actions are not contradictory, and when he is aware of his contradictions choicelessly. Then out of that awareness comes this sensitive, pliable, rich intelligence, which will operate in our daily life, which will give us deep abiding security, which violence and aggression cannot. So a mind that is enquiring into meditation must be free of violence and aggression.

    And there arises a question, which is, where do you draw the line between intelligence and violence? You kill animals to eat and the animals are becoming rather expensive because they need a great deal of the land and so gradually you are being forced to become vegetarians, of necessity. Some writer some time ago wrote an article in this country saying, vegetarianism is spreading like some awful disease in this beautiful land. So where do you draw the line? You put on shoes of leather, you support war when you buy a stamp, when you pay your tax. Where do you draw the line between the least killing, the least violence and aggression? And that intelligence that is not involved in violence, in killing, when that intelligence operates there is no line. It will operate intelligently when the problem is put before you.”

    http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=1126&chid=830&w=animals

  134. I suppose we all have ‘the beast’ inside us Ben – thanks for your kind comment.

    “Some people make a living, others make a killing” – an exclusive new documentary on Tony Blair which will break unexplored ground.

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/22595538/the-killing-of-tony-blair

  135. Sofia Kibo Noh

    29 Sep, 2013 - 11:27 am

    Hi People,

    I couldn’t resist another coffee and lightning tour of the threads. It’s good to reconnect with you all.

    I offer this link for perspective.

    http://htwins.net/scale2/

    It can take a while to work, but I promise it’s worth the wait.

    Pour youself a nice cuppa, or wharever you fancy. Put those tired feet up….and explore.

    I’m deffinitely hitting the road again now, but in the words of my Great Uncle Fu, “I will return!”

  136. Will this be reported on the BBC by the loyal partei propagandist Nick Robinson? Probably not.

    Tell the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester: SAVE OUR NHS. Defend Jobs and Services. No to Austerity.
    March and Rally – Sunday 29 September 2013

    Supporters of the National Health Service and all those who want to defend jobs, services and a decent welfare state will be marching in Manchester to deliver a clear message to Conservative Party Conference that we mean to Save Our NHS from cuts and privatisation.

    A march and rally have been called by the North West TUC, backed by unions and NHS campaign groups. They’ll be assembling at Liverpool Road (M3 4FP) from 11am, and marching to a rally in Whitworth Park.

    The protest will highlight the impact of huge job losses and spending cuts across the health service, as well as the rapid sell-off of the most lucrative parts of the NHS to private healthcare companies – many of whom like Circle are also Conservative Party donors.

    The event will also raise concerns about the wider effect that government economic policies are having upon communities across the UK.

    http://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial/tuc-22405-f0.cfm

  137. Sofia Good to hear from you. What you say is true.

    Villager I enquired what the revered K had to say about climate change/global warming etc. I did not ask for more of your preaching.

    RD I am sure you are not at all interested in my views or thoughts on the matter. If I said A, you would disagree and jeer just as you would if I said B.

    All I know is that I lead a very ecologically low impact friendly lifestyle, care for others and for Mother Earth and her wonders.

  138. “In Scotland over 14,000 people use food banks – a figure which has more than doubled since the previous year as welfare changes begin to affect families.”

    http://www.thirdforcenews.org.uk/2013/09/dwp-attempt-cover-up-over-food-bank-figures/

    “It stated that government policies forced some of the most deprived members of society to “shoulder the heaviest burden of national debt created by the super-rich”.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24321105

  139. It was the increasing forestation that killed the mammoth eventually, they could do not much about it.

    The dinosaur’s died out, depending on what theory you believe, because they could not do anything about it, or adapt.

    Now humans can do something about their behaviour, they could ‘do different’ (UEA’s motto, 50th anniversary this week) if those who wield power wanted to, or could see the benefits of a changed human attitude.

    Climate change is winning over Human change, to continue to argue and question the methods, even work against this consensus in the name of keeping inequality were it is now, that is what will bring us down.
    We have the mental abilities and we know how to do different, but we don’t want to and most of our leaders still believe that they can run away from it, that increasing chaotic weather patterns don’t include his kind and class, are somehow something to be ignored.

    We have seen nothing yet. I think that this article, genuine as it is, is also the worst of Craigs, because it looks as if his reaction to the IPCC headlines and stories in our MSM sounds as if he’s going through the motions, his headline and last sentence express the sentiment he feels about this issue.

    Just have written to a developer here in Norwich, which is promising ecological heaven on earth, I’m trying to persuade them to actually mean it and use the excellent rural scope to use local low CO2 natural materials and recycled material for their build, for example, not from high energy intensive bricks. I let you know their answer.
    http://www.beyondgreen.co.uk/tag/consultation/

  140. Hullo Sofia nice to hear from you

    i tend to wonder
    if living things in nature are driven by survival,
    then some of the things humans do are certainly Not natural,

    But one can’t beat the Peoples of the first nations for wisdom –

    “A man’s heart away from nature becomes hard; lack of respect for growing, living things soon leads to a lack of respect for humans too.”

    Chief Luther Standing Bear

    “The tipi is much better to live in; always clean, warm in winter, cool in summer, easy to move. The white man builds big house, cost much money, like a big cage, shut out sun, can never move: always sick.”

    Chief Flying Hawk

  141. But what struck me was that the gentleman said that a pause in warming for the last fifteen years was not significant, as fifteen years was a blip in processes that last over millennia.

    Well, that would certainly be very true if you are considering natural climate change. But we are not – we are considering man-made climate change. In terms of the period in which the scale of man’s industrial activity has been having a significant impact on the environment, surely fifteen years is a pretty important percentage of that period?

    Craig – it’s good to see that you are trying to make your own mind up, but I’m afraid that to judge by these statements, you aren’t getting it.

    The gentleman was right. You don’t even have to look back millennia; a few centuries will do. There used to be ice fairs on the Thames. They stopped, because of regional warming, shortly before industrialisation. That warming could’t possibly have been caused by industrialisation.

    The loonies whose minds jump to attention whenever the task arises of ‘explaining’ the official story, will doubtless tell us that that doesn’t imply what it obviously does imply: namely, that climate change happens in a big way without any help from industry.

    The climate has always changed, and it always will.

    The crazed loons are those who believe that human beings can (or should) stop the climate from changing. Such an idea really is horrendously insane. Even the Nazis with their ‘thousand year Reich’ didn’t go that far.

    That’s one part of the message of all the propaganda we are exposed to, wall-to-wall.

    Another is that we should all tighten our belts, do recycling work for free, etc. etc., pay for plastic bags to ‘help the environment’ while Tesco and Sainsbury throw away millions of tonnes of food, and all while our arrogant masters tell us how we should act, because they so committed to looking after the planet and humanity.

    Perish the thought that they’re a bunch of fucking wide boys who’d say any old shit to make a buck, and that they’re smashing up the planet like no-one’s business. Perish the thought that a society based on profit can’t last.

    Mustn’t say stuff like that.

    A third, more subtle, part is that a big economic collapse is coming, which I don’t think anyone who’s serious is in the slightest doubt about. And I mean a big economic collapse, with a much smaller world population at the end of it.

    A cull.

    Martin Rees, the current Master of Trinity College, Cambridge – the professed atheist who goes to church because he thinks religion is good for people (or for serfs and scribes anyway, not for the elite like him) – claims that the present century is a key one, on the scale of billions of years.

    He’s probably only saying what he’s supposed to say, but that doesn’t make his statement any the less mad.

    Also note that ‘climate change’ is just a more user-friendly and hasty rebrand of ‘global warming’, introduced when news got out that some parts of the world are getting colder.

  142. Mary 29 Sep, 2013 – 8:01 am …..

    “There are over 2,000 comments on the BBC website page. The headline leaves no doubt as to which side of the debate the BBC supports.”

    ….. and Briar 29 Sep, 2013 – 9:27 am

    “….. on the Today programme John Humphreys was putting the denialist case and citing its authority as the fact that Lord Lawson supports it (there being a marked absence of scientific facts to do the real job). Meanwhile a bunch of people who study the data, who know a great deal about the climate and who develop their theories according to the scientific method are dismissed as involved in a communist conspiracy aimed at bringing down the capitalist free market (and therefore Lord Lawson). Not hard to see which side is irrational here.”

    …and this is why:
    In 2006, three organisations co-sponsored a secret day-long seminar held at Television Centre on January 26, 2006.
    (1) CMEP, operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr Joe Smith, a small outfit set up to lobby the media on global warming, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, WWF and the University of East Anglia (home of the Climategate emails scandal).
    (2) A lobbying group calling itself the International Broadcasting Trust, which in the previous seven years had received £520,000 from the Department for International Development’s foreign-aid budget for “media research” – which includes lobbying the BBC on issues such as climate change.
    (3) The BBC

    In 2007, the BBC announced its future policy on global warming:

    “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [my emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].”

    The BBC then spent a considerable amount of time and money trying to keep secret the names of those “scientific experts” but eventually a freedom of Information request revealed them.

    “Only three of the “28 specialists” invited to advise the BBC were active scientists, none of them climate experts and all committed global-warming alarmists. Virtually all the rest were professional climate-change lobbyists, ranging from emissaries of Greenpeace and the Stop Climate Chaos campaign to the “CO2 project manager” for BP, one of the world’s largest oil companies.”

    Full list of attendees here:
    http://order-order.com/2012/11/13/the-list-of-names-the-bbc-did-not-want-you-to-see-scientist-exposed-by-climategate-set-bbc-policy/

    Whatever your views on AGW, we are entitled to hear the

    As this blog demonstrates, the debate on climate change isn’t settled. There are scientists, repeat scientists, on both sides citing conflicting data and different interpretations of that data. It is not a respectable argument to merely assert that those on one side or the other are unscientific/shills/ corrupt/etc.
    We pay the BBC to provide us with impartial information. In the hugely important matter of climate change, it has a declared policy to favour one side of the debate. Now we know how that policy has been arrived at, alarm bells should be ringing. Everybody who is certain that AGW is established beyond doubt should ask themselves how much of that certainty is based on information supplied by the BBC, and whether their other sources may be similarly prejudiced.
    Keeping an open mind on this subject is not “scoffing at the entire notion of science.” Keeping an open mind is what a scientist should do.
    And it doesn’t preclude being a responsible environmentalist either.

  143. @A Node – you’re right.

    But ‘science’ is under central control, and climate change propaganda involves the funding of two sides…

    …ditto 911: the ‘men in Asian caves’ position versus the ‘truther’ position.

    The question that people should be asking isn’t whether to follow this or that bunch of experts, but why the propaganda is being put out on such an enormous scale, by big business interests and the governments they control.

  144. “We pay the BBC to provide us with impartial information”

    Stop it, my sides are killing me!

  145. I keep saying to people: read Dan Brown’s latest novel, Inferno, and find out what message it has inserted or reinforced inside tens of millions of minds. You may be very surprised about its message on terrorism and the need for a big cull.

    Let’s not pretend there’s a real market and that everything that’s in bestsellers such as this and Fifty Shades is the result of authors, publishers and agents sitting around working out what will sell best. Opinion and consumer choices are controlled, in this as in all the other sectors. What sells best isn’t determined by mugs who go in bookshops are fiddle with their Kindles or whatever. ‘Firms and households’ economic nonsense is strictly for morons only.

    Dan Brown is the guy who, for all his ‘conspiracy’ branding, has never written a thing that doesn’t uphold the ultimate rightness of western governments and US business interests.

    And now he comes out backing the viewpoint of the ‘committed’ bio-terrorist.

    (Don’t believe me? Then read the book and decide for yourself! :) )

  146. N_ Spot on. I thought that about Dan Brown’s novels from reading The Da Vinci Code to Angels & Demons with their not exactly accurate portrayal of how secret societies manipulate the populace. How it works is quite clever. By joining and swearing an oath of allegiance you are committed and there is little way back. It is not ordinary third degree masons that society has to worry about, though they, as a part of the pyramid are part of the manipulation, unwittingly or otherwise. Once part of it favours are heaped upon initiates. But as one favour deserves another each and every one of them is compromised. You might not want to do the favour asked, but as with the armed forces and police, who have many masons amid their ranks, the initiate already knows how to obey these orders regardless of the morality, and when duty is called upon the initiates have to be there.

    Dan Brown is what is called a formula writer. His style is that of all popular novelists, a few narrative hooks, lots of dialogue, intrigue, a touch of magic, a few deaths and other techniques that make them, and let’s be honest about it, highly readable. He is a grand master of his art.

  147. @N_

    Do you really think that because you don’t understand how climate change is man-made, that others also don’t understand? Why did I bother to get a degree in science only for it to leave me as ignorant and uninformed about scientific principles as you?

    It doesn’t take much CO2 to have a direct effect on people –
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

    How some people just don’t get it –
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

    PS – Global warming as a WHOLE is still taking place despite it being non uniform. Some idiots can’t get their heads around the difference between localised effects versus global average effects – hence some cold spells in some places while net global trend is upwards.

  148. @Jemand – There’s no need to be rude, even if you don’t answer the point about the ice fairs. I won’t answer in kind, but will just observe that in your second sentence, your desire to be sarcastic seems to dominate at the expense of rationality.

    Later on, you talk about ‘idiots’ who think global warming isn’t taking place. In most places, it certainly is. You haven’t been led to believe that being critical of the wall-to-wall propaganda, of ‘science’, and of the official story equals denying that global warming is happening (in most places, anyway), have you?

    The reason I ask is that I was wondering whether you were trying to argue against the opponents of the idea that climate change is anthropogenic by implying that we all opponents of the idea that the climate is changing.

    That equates (by contrapositive, if you want the logical term) to the argument that since the climate is changing, the change must be anthropogenic. Which, er, doesn’t stand up.

    In the course of getting a science degree, did you gain any useful knowledge about how scientific research in academia is funded, and how research topics get chosen? Sadly, most graduates don’t.

    @ John Goss – Agreed, Dan Brown is a master of readability. But throughout Digital Fortress I was hoping that the story goal of preventing a breakdown of NSA computer security wouldn’t be achieved :) It was much easier to get behind the hero in Angels and Demons when the goal was to stop the bad guys from massacring a conclave of cardinals!

    Inferno has the usual shape-shifting character, but it’s different from the first 5 in that it carries a (vile) social message.

  149. The two-headed baby of Fallujah

    29 Sep, 2013 - 2:32 pm

    Guess I see the point, that you can exempt animals from the categorical imperative if they fail to pass some intelligence test. It’s a corollary of the argument from compassion exemplified here,

    http://charliedavis.blogspot.nl/2013/06/how-lhasa-apso-made-me-eat-my-vegetables.html

    But in purely instrumental terms, all species have some option value because it’s hard to know which one might take over if homo sapiens cooks itself or nukes itself. Maybe you want to be remembered when you’re gone (why you’d want to be remembered is beyond me (you don’t exist, what do you care?) but I see all kinds of people taking up space with gravestones, so I guess that has some ineffable appeal.)

    Maybe it will be cockroaches learning from your mistakes, maybe it will be polar bears, hell, maybe loa-loa worms would have stepped up to do it. There’s plenty of time for any of these to evolve. How hard can it be to advance beyond the level of a Bush or an Obama or a Blair? If every human stopped reproducing and turned the world over to the next species in line, I’d be fine with that. Give them a head start.

  150. Ben, Sorry for the delay. Comet Siding Spring (very close brush with Mars next year) is also a newbie from the Oort cloud. It is odd how so many long period comets seem to be entering the inner solar system in such a short space of time. Has something disturbed them? Maybe Sedna, Nemesis or one of the small TNO planets might have done it. Who knows.

    I do think that if solar cycle 25 is weaker even than this one it could point to another Dalton/Maunder period of harsh winters.

  151. I remember when it all started and people were proud to achieve a 10% efficiency. Now look at what happening, better panels approaching the 50% efficiency mark.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/26/2681701/super-efficient-solar-cells/

    Concentrated solar power in the Magreb could produce all our needs in Europe and beyond, sadly the neocon war machine is waltzing its way through the Med, leaving not much hope and many armed jihadi’s in their wake.

    Desertec and DII have split some month back but the idea is still financed and backed by some powerful backers.

    http://www.dii-eumena.com/

  152. ‘The two-headed baby of Fallujah’

    Your title is in very bad taste.

  153. “MMR jab or else: Cruddas alarms Labour with benefit claimant policy threat”

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/09/23/mmr-jab-or-else-cruddas-alarms-labour-with-benefit-claimant

  154. Chris Jones, Thanks for your kind remarks in the other thread, I really appreciated your observations. Further I share you sadness, that amidst the “tribal” confusions, the more serious issues are remaining overlooked.

    The simple fact that we are living on a dynamic planet that is constantly changing, yet to expect and seek constancy and conservation of the moment is a forlorn hope born out of the fucking reactionary mindsets bent on maintaining the status quo.

    The patently obvious confusion on this thread is telling of the degrees of conflict of interest spilling into outright fights. Further, the wider issues of compassion for animals, as well as dietary preferences, added to the memes sewn by the corporate media at the behest of their plutocrat masters are confusing the issues, which is then given a “scientific” bent. The fucking comical notion of debating the “scientific methods” raging without the mundane notion; are the right questions being asked and the answers thereof being searched for?

  155. “The fucking comical notion of debating the “scientific methods” raging without the mundane notion; are the right questions being asked and the answers thereof being searched for?”

    Oooh, G’won, Fedup. You tell us. I know you’ll know the answers.

  156. ‘The two-headed baby of Fallujah’

    “Your title is in very bad taste.”

    It is. No doubt he/she thinks it’s funny.

    [Probably still pulling wings off flies, and putting salt on snails. Some folk never grow up.]

  157. The Killing of Tony Blair

    “Dear friends, in just over 30 days we reached 110K and still have 1 week to go to raise more, making this already the highest crowd-funded documentary film ever in the UK. This is absolutely amazing and we cannot thank you, our backers, enough. We are truly touched by your contributions so far. With one more week to go, please continue to let all your friends and family know about it and ask your local newspapers and radio stations to run a story on this already record-breaking documentary. Let’s keep the momentum. You are making this happen, thank you!”
    George Galloway

    2,840
    Backers
    £111,129
    pledged of £50,000 goal

  158. Did someone mention “compassion for animals”?

    CIA front organisations spread false rumours of cruelty to animals by innocent Muslims –

    http://www.banliveexport.com/egypt

    http://www.peta.org/features/further-abuses-of-australian-animals-exposed-in-gruesome-investigation.aspx

    http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/02/11/559591_latest-news.html

  159. @Fedup “The patently obvious confusion on this thread is telling of the degrees of conflict of interest spilling into outright fights. Further, the wider issues of compassion for animals, as well as dietary preferences, added to the memes sewn by the corporate media at the behest of their plutocrat masters are confusing the issues, which is then given a “scientific” bent”

    Very true – the meat industry, agriculture and nature itself is also under attack as directed under Agenda 21 and Sustainable development and its doctrine of re wilding and coroprate property and rural control. There are serious questions and accusations made against the validity of the Foot and mouth debacle as well and whether it could be a deliberate virus Released from Government labs as a further way of attacking the agricultural community and feeding the billion pound vaccination programme. It’s death or a vaccine to the animals,enforced MMR for us,the other useless eaters. And if you question MMR as more and more are thanfully doing, you’re obviously a right winger, a nutter or some other kind of denier/anti semite/homophobe etc etc.

    http://rabbitholenews.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/foot-and-mouth-virus-released-from.html

    (A pleasure regarding comments on the other thread by the way-just saying it how I see it)

  160. Oooh, G’won, Fedup. You tell us. I know you’ll know the answers.

    No saucer of milk today, I see your claws are out again!

    Drive by snipping seems to be all that you do lately.

    ====

    CIA front organisations spread false rumours of cruelty to animals by innocent Muslims

    What was the “Classic” movie about the _ews and their Kosher slaughter. What was the name of that move again? Der ewige J……

    Fuckwit hatemongers have really limited options don’t they? The same fucking historical narrative, puled out, dusted and represented with new victims, but who is counting?

  161. Nothing on the BBC ‘News’ about the NHS protest in Manchester. They do have a report on the website.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-24286582#

    They quote attendance of 50,000. It was probably many more. They always understate numbers at protests and on marches.

    They made a big thing of two old boys from the Royal Fusiliers in their berets and hackles, heckling Hammond on army cuts.

    At the start of the Con conference, they displayed the greatest hypocrisy by showing a filmed tribute to Thatcher introduced by Grant Shapps aka Michael Green in his other life!.

    They knifed her in the back for goodness’ sake and got rid.

    Her ashes were laid to rest yesterday at the Royal Hospital Chelsea, with family and Chelsea pensioners in attendance. Hope that it is the last we hear of her.

  162. Re, the killing of Tony Blair film proposal. If George Galloway is in charge of the money, expect a low budget film with much evidence given by George, with some luck he might even dare to take some shots, oops, sorry, film footage, in Iraq, Fallujah to be specific.

    Or no film at all.

    Just feel as if I can’t trust him, don’t know what it is, maybe its to do with his past, hence no support here.

  163. The WHO report on congenital anomolies in Iraq was not made publicly available (because it was a shit report) but has been now. It is receiving harsh criticism. The report is a “disgrace”.

    “The truth can be established by science, but not if it is dishonest and political. And it seems that this report, and the events and decisions that preceded it, and particularly the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine peer review meeting, are a classical example of scientific dishonesty. The use of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reminds me of the use of the Royal Society to produce a disgraceful report on depleted uranium in 2001. Since the outcome is intended to exonerate the US and UK military from what are effectively war crimes, and since the result will be employed to defend the continued use of uranium weapons, all concerned in this chicanery should be put before a criminal court and tried for what they have done.”

    http://rt.com/op-edge/who-iraq-report-disgrace-461/

  164. Viewpoints from public bodies etc on the IPCC report.

    Viewpoints: Reactions to the UN climate report
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24296204

  165. Ref the Manchester march and its non reporting by the BBC, it appears that the BBC take their orders from the Cons.

    From Medialens

    BBC Man: Tory Security told us not to film – so we didn’t!
    Posted by Vegetable Man on September 29, 2013, 5:14 pm, in reply to “BBC sponsors begin conference today”

    From Norman Smith’s Twitter feed:

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS
 Unfortunately security at #cpc13 won’t allow us to film #nhs299 demo outside conference centre #magnacarta #gloriousrevolution

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS For clarity. I was stopped from filming “Live” for @BBCNews Channel from conf centre overlooking #nhs299 demo #cpc13


    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS
 Also to be clear. I was stopped by security staff who said they had been told by police not to allow access. No reason was given #cpc13

  166. Now what is needed is an international report by independent qualified scientists not funded by public bodies, governments or private interests on the climate and how it could change for the better or worse. 5 non dependent scientists from each of the world’s countries should come up with a good range of balanced evidence and theories. Only then can a real objective consensus be reached and definate decisions be made

    Science is a hypothesis or theory only assumed to be true true until proven otherwise

  167. the meat industry, agriculture and nature itself is also under attack as directed under Agenda 21 and Sustainable development and its doctrine of re wilding and coroprate property and rural control.

    Chris Jones, you have hit the nail on the head. The current preoccupation of the corporates, is to further consolidate their concessions into monopolies regardless of the efficiency of their operations, or suitability of their products and services.

    Further if you recollect the “Tamiflu” doses for every man, woman, and child as promised by bLiar, is in fact the continuation of the same scam you have outlined.

    you’re obviously a right winger, a nutter or some other kind of denier/anti semite/homophobe etc etc.

    ROFL, thanks for the laugh.

  168. “There used to be ice fairs on the Thames. They stopped, because of regional warming, shortly before industrialisation. That warming could’t possibly have been caused by industrialisation.”

    I debunked that one last night.

    The first River Thames frost fair was in 1607 and the last in 1814; changes to the bridges and the addition of an embankment affected the river flow and depth, hence diminishing the possibility of freezes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    At least the climate scientists talk sense not a load of anecdotal clap trap.

  169. “Science is a hypothesis or theory only assumed to be true true until proven otherwise”

    Yes Newton’s theory of gravitation is only a theory.

    Best hold on to something.

  170. @Fred “Yes Newton’s theory of gravitation is only a theory. Best hold on to something”

    I think you’re deliberately misunderstand the premise. Newton’s theory of gravitation seems pretty sound to me. If no one proves him incorrect then his theory will stand

  171. “Drive by snipping seems to be all that you do lately.”

    I don’t snip, Jon snips. And you didn’t tell us all about
    “are the right questions being asked and the answers thereof being searched for?”

    Why am I not surprised?

    Meanwhile, you’re daily telling us you’re ROFL and PMSL, all of which is 100% fake.

    1. pmsl

    possibly the worst and most unrealistic of internet jargon…
    ‘pissing myself laughing’ sure u are
    arse: OMFG really pmsl
    cool dude: please dont piss…
    arse: wat?
    cool dude: stfu n00b

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pmsl

  172. “I think you’re deliberately misunderstand the premise. Newton’s theory of gravitation seems pretty sound to me. If no one proves him incorrect then his theory will stand”

    How about Darwin’s theory of evolution then?

    46% of Americans believe Darwin wrong with about as good evidence as the climate sceptics have got.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

  173. Fred :

    “I debunked that one last night.

    The first River Thames frost fair was in 1607 and the last in 1814; changes to the bridges and the addition of an embankment affected the river flow and depth, hence diminishing the possibility of freezes.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    According to Wikipedia, work on the London Embankment started in 1862.

    Well after 1814, in other words.

  174. @Fred I think there are many many questions not only regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution as he presented it but about he himself as a man.The original title of this book was ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ . That tends to suggest that there were some darker motives to his work. He was an eugenicist into bloodline breeding and an Anglo supremacist. Although obviously a highly intelligent man I don’t think his theory of evolution can be taken as gospel anymore.

    http://henrymakow.com/was_darwin_an_instrument_of_th.html

    Lloyd Pye. Everything you know is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE

  175. Craig, perhaps the fate of the splendid polar bear is Natures foreshadowing of the tragic fate that will overcome our (great?) grandchildren. Whether or not global warming is the result of anthropocentric effects due to too clever by half technologies or not is really by the by the point is that polluting and exploiting the environment that supplies our essential requirements is a totally unnecessary and dumbassthingtodo!

  176. resident dissident

    29 Sep, 2013 - 7:20 pm

    @Chris Jones

    Yes lets throw away Darwin’s theory of evolution and replace it with some nonsense from an anti-semitic website which blames everything on the Rothchilds, Freemasonry and the forged protocols of ZIon – or we could look at the other link you provide which pumps aliens and the paranormal. Talk about destroying whatever credibility you had with a single post.

    @Fred

    While I totally agree that man made climate change should be taken very seriously – that doesn’t mean that most climate scientists do not accept that there are natural and largely unexplained cycles in temperatures on both a global and a localised level. That said since such cycles are still largley unexplained – and therefore unforcastable it would be idiotic to assume that they can be relied upon to counter the problems that are already arising from man made global warming. This Thames freezing over stuff really is pretty much an irrelevance raised in nearly all cases by those who wish to ignore the science that does exist.

  177. I don’t snip, Jon snips. And you didn’t tell us all about

    Thought I could summon the spelling Stasi/NSA/Guardia out too, and presto, here we have it.

    You damn fine well knew the semantics of “drive by sniping”, but could not let the opportunity go, could you? Not predictable at all, not at all!

    Meanwhile, you’re daily telling us you’re ROFL and PMSL, all of which is 100% fake.

    Your finely developed septic powers, can without the aid of a crystal ball or whatever the witches use, can see “ROFL and PMSL” are fake/put up/not true too. What can be said, facing such superpowers?

    This is the extent of “contributions” from you; assertions, baseless assumptions, that are concluded in your customary denunciations! Indeed traits of children and those not accustomed to reasoning and critical discourse.

    ======

    Science is a hypothesis or theory only assumed to be true true until proven otherwise

    Chris, despite your statement obviating the need for any further debate, nonetheless there is a debate.

    PMSL, I am in fucking fits here. **

    Perhaps this would be of some use;

    In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support (“verify”) or empirically contradict (“falsify”) it.

    ** N.B. dreo; fake, totally fucking fake too. PMSL

  178. Chris
    Yes, I agree but the far greater problem with Darwin’s Theory is that his superseded, subverted and over simplified the cybernetic theory of Russel Wallace. His theory saw the unit of survival as a flexible organism-in-its-environment (not independent as with Darwinism), where natural selection acts mostly to keep the species unvarying but may act at a higher level to keep that complex variable … survival.

  179. Mike, Ben,, Brian, spacewatchers,

    Assuming a big chunk of rock doesn’t land on my head before-hand, May 24th 2014 looks exciting.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/209P/LINEAR

    209P/LINEAR is a periodic comet discovered on February 3, 2004 by Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) using a 1.0-metre (39 in) reflector.[1] It was given the permanent number 209P on December 12, 2008.[4]

    Preliminary results by Esko Lyytinen and Peter Jenniskens predict 209P/LINEAR may cause the next big meteor shower which would come from the constellation Camelopardalis during May 2014.[5] There may be 100 to 400 meteors per hour.[5] All the trails from the comet from 1803 through 1924 may intersect Earths orbit during May 2014.[5]

    http://www.imcce.fr/langues/en/ephemerides/phenomenes/meteor/DATABASE/209_LINEAR/2014/index.php

    The estimate of level of the shower is based on photometric measurements of the comet. Very few data are currently available (as on Oct. 2014). So far, given the observations, we estimate a ZHR of 100/hr to 400/hr, which is an excellent outburst! But this shower can become an exceptional one. Indeed, given the current orbit of the comet (from JPL HORIZONS ephemerids database), ALL THE TRAILS EJECTED BETWEEN 1803 AND 1924 DO FALL IN THE EARTH PATH IN MAY 2014!!! As a consequence, this shower might as well be a storm. But how to definitely know whether or not it will be a storm?

  180. @Ressident Dissident: “Yes lets throw away Darwin’s theory of evolution and replace it with some nonsense from an anti-semitic website which blames everything on the Rothchilds, Freemasonry and the forged protocols of ZIon – or we could look at the other link you provide which pumps aliens and the paranormal. Talk about destroying whatever credibility you had with a single post”

    The website you refer to is written by a Jewish Canadian who is very critical of the Israeli government and the Zionist kabal. I’m not sure how that makes him anti semitic – he speaks fondly of all the people of Palastine.

    Any views on the original racist title of Darwin’s book though?

  181. Post Normal Science is the term that has been given to a new science and strategy for dealing with environmental issues in which there are high stakes and uncertainty, plural and conflicting value systems, and in which decisions are urgent, like global warming, biodiversity loss and so on. Induction and deduction methodologies which represent a reductionist approach to science may work for linear systems in engineering, physics perhaps but NOT for complex cyclic systems strewn with uncertainty and unknowns like ecological systems….

  182. “Indeed traits of children and those not accustomed to reasoning and critical discourse.”

    ‘Critical discourse’ like your pseudo-intellectual drivel?
    You’ve been plastering it all over this place, seven paragraphs at a time, since you arrived.

    /ends//bye bye n00b

    ———————————————

    “While I totally agree that man made climate change should be taken very seriously – that doesn’t mean that most climate scientists do not accept that there are natural and largely unexplained cycles in temperatures on both a global and a localised level. That said since such cycles are still largley unexplained – and therefore unforcastable it would be idiotic to assume that they can be relied upon to counter the problems that are already arising from man made global warming.”

    Yup.

    http://www.mudguardtricycles.co.uk/photo-gallery/

  183. Yet another massive fireball over the USA last night.

    http://www.amsmeteors.org/2013/09/another-massive-fireball-over-atlanta/

    Another Massive Fireball Over Atlanta

    Its been a busy week for the AMS as we are bombarded by fireball reports from all different parts of the country. The latest event took place over Alabama and Georgia last night September 28th 7:30 PM local time. Over 250 witnesses from Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama and Georgia have reported the event so far.

  184. resident dissident

    29 Sep, 2013 - 8:25 pm

    Chris Jones

    This whole issue of whether Darwin was a racist is pretty old hatr and is more than adequately addressed here.

    http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2488

    It was a website you referred to – if you think that quoting the forged protocols of Zion as though they were fact – or the constant references to freemasonry etc do not constitute anti-semitism then I very much doubt that you would ever recognise anti-semitism. It is quite possible to be critical of the government of Israel without resorting to such racism – but you seem now to be arguing (without any prompting) that because someone is Jewish and critical of the government of Israel that it is not possible to be an anti-semite as well which really is quite illogical and until you work that Out might I suggest that you stay away from subsjects such as science.

  185. resident dissident

    29 Sep, 2013 - 8:27 pm

    I should also add that Isaac Newton had some very odd ideas and that Galileo was pretty beastly to his family (he didn’t marry the mother of his 3 children) – but I will continue to believe in gravity and that the earth goes round the sun rather than vice versa.

  186. “blames everything on the Rothchilds, Freemasonry and the forged protocols of ZIon”

    There’s something in the Zionist cultural milieu that encourages this kind of perverse craving for attention at all costs. Say what you like about the Afrikaners, when they were in Israel’s role as brutal, racist skunk of nations, they were blessedly free of this sort of manipulative grandiosity. They made themselves useful as criminal enforcers without much fuss.

    Let’s face it, you Zionists are handicapped by a very annoying disposition. You need to work on that if you’re going to make it as hostis humani generis.

  187. You’ve been plastering it all over this place, seven paragraphs at a time, since you arrived.

    Unlike your “contributions”; bitching, drive by sniping, not forgetting teaching punctuation, grammar, spelling, and joining in the ziofuckwit farrago to kick up a shit storm and disappearing only to come back to redux.

    Although after your “urban dictionary” foray, you have added to your vocabulary of shite on demand; /ends//bye bye n00b Fucking pitiful.

    1- When was the thermometer invented?
    2- When did the said thermometers became calibrated in a standard fashion?
    3- Where these thermometers were placed to record any temperatures?
    4- Who decides where should they place the said thermometers for taking measurements?
    5- The data that is currently being used, covers what percentage of the planets surface?
    6- Why are the surface temperatures of any interest?
    7- Have the temperature gradients of the stratosphere, been subject of any change?
    8- How far back does the data in 7 go back to?

    Understandably these mere pseudo-intellectual drivel have nothing to do with the feeling in your water that clearly determines global warming is man made.

  188. “Well after 1814, in other words.”

    And 1814 is well after the start of the industrial revolution 100 years after they started using steam power. Fossil fuels were being shipped into London by the barge full.

    But then 1814 was the last frost fair not the last time the Thames froze, there were only ever six frost fairs over a 260 year period.

  189. Somebody earlier referred to B.Liar’s hypocrisy for using a private jet for his trips whilst he has been recently expounding on global warming.

    This Mail reporter must have been reading Komodo’s links on an earlier thread about the Bombardier flights.

    Blair Force One: Former Prime Minister rents £30million private jet for globe-trotting at a cost of £7,000 an hour
    The 581mph Bombardier Global Express can seat up to 19 people
    It is owned by a mystery businessman who rents it out
    Blair has a long history of jet travel including in aircraft owned by Gaddafi

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2437193/Blair-Force-One-Former-Prime-Minister-rents-30million-private-jet-globe-trotting-cost-7-000-hour.html

  190. Pretty well everything has been said, and I have only a couple of points to add. In general I agree with Craig.

    I am not really a scientist, more a historian who had to study climate change as part of his doctorate 30 years ago.

    As mentioned earlier, the climate change issue has become far too binary recently. You’re either an industrialist who denies climate change for business reasons, or you’re a scientist who agrees with the anthropogenic global warming model, and if you don’t agree you’re in denial.

    While it is obvious that industrialists will want to deny anthropogenic climate change, it is also true that climate change science is now a gross machine, in which careers and money are invested, and it is difficult to draw back.

    The argument as far as I understand it is that there is a vast increase in the proportion of CO2 in the air, and that this should be reflected in increase of temperatures. If this is not the case, as has happened recently, it’s only a blip.

    The fact is that you can only look at climate change in the long term, and not only look at recent evidence, which is the tendency of climate change scientists. I only know of two methods: one is ice cores from Greenland, which show changes in the level of Oxygen 18, and the other is cave stalactites.

    As far as I know, the results don’t go beyond the variation known from the historical past. “Historical past” means the period of writing, about 3000 BC. In earlier human times, there was greater variation, and more before.

    Evidently in global warming, there are two elements: the natural warming since the “little Ice Age” of the 16th century, and anthropogenic warming. It is difficult to distinguish between the two.

    Our scientists have difficulty in seeing the wood for the trees. We should try to to see what is natural and what is anthropogenic.

    That said, it is evident that our environment is degrading rapidly through pollution, but it is not necessarily a problem of temperature increase.

  191. @Chris Jones

    You’re a creationist then?

  192. http://www.examiner.com/article/was-it-a-meteor-that-lit-up-the-sky-last-night

    A fireball reportedly hit near a home in northern Adams County, Ohio, a few miles outside the city of Peebles causing a house fire. Those reports are unconfirmed. The six alarm fire left fireman battling the blaze into the early hours of the morning. It is unknown at this time if the residents made it out safely.

    A neighbor said the meteor crossed over the city and hit near the Locust Grove Cemetery

    Update: As of the morning of September 28, 2013, a home outside of Peebles, Ohio, in the Locust Grove area of Adams County burned to the ground last night, the two residents of the home, an elderly couple, Jane and Lyle Lambert, died as a result of smoke inhalation. The fire is believed to be caused from the meteor or pieces of the heated meteor that hit the home. The state fire marshal is investigating the fire.he home, an elderly couple, Jane and Lyle Lambert, died as a result of smoke inhalation. The fire is believed to be caused from the meteor or pieces of the heated meteor that hit the home. The state fire marshal is investigating the fire.

  193. Sorry for cut and paste duplication mess above.

  194. Fred

    Wasn’t your point that the Thames stopped freezing because various bridges were rebuilt and the Embankment built, thus making the river flow faster?

    All I did was to point out that the Embankment wasn’t started until well after the date you gave for the last Frost Fair.

    What’s your problem with that?

    BTW, when you say that 1814 was,’t the last time the Thames froze, you’re right of course. For instance, it froze at Windsor in 1963. Depends whether you’re talking about the tidal Thames or the Thames upriver of the tide, doesn’t it? What are you trying to prove exactly?

  195. “The argument as far as I understand it is that there is a vast increase in the proportion of CO2 in the air, and that this should be reflected in increase of temperatures. If this is not the case, as has happened recently, it’s only a blip.”

    It’s a bit more cut and dried than that. They have had satellites in orbit for the last 40 years which can measure the amount of heat the earth is radiating into space at the frequencies associated with co2. They know that with the increase in co2 more heat is being reflected back and they know how much more. Global surface temperatures are not a measure of the increase in the amount of heat. A spark is very hot compared to a pan of hot water but the pan of water holds a lot more heat.

    There isn’t any doubt that more heat is being stored in the earth than there would be without man made co2, the only debate is about where it is going and what effect it is going to have, that is the complicated part.

  196. technicolour

    29 Sep, 2013 - 9:16 pm

    “Although after your “urban dictionary” foray, you have added to your vocabulary of shite on demand”

    Fedup, no-one could add anything to the ‘vocabulary of shite’ without your excrescent presence. You are the fuck shit piss master, and don’t we all know it. Stop being so modest!

    But since Dreoilin is now apparently a ‘ziofuckwit’ then presumably so are Hamas. Will no one be saved?

1 2 3 6

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos