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 11

  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.

1 2 3 11

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud