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.
I don’t want UK to be at forefront of tackling climate change, says Osborne
Chancellor says Britain should not price itself out of energy markets by placing heavy environmental burden on suppliers
Saturday 28 September 2013 11.10 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/28/climate-change-energy-bills-george-osborne
~~~
Separately, he was asked this morning whether his workfare scheme was heartless and a return to the workhouse. “No”, he said and then in reply to another question whether there were any jobs for the long term unemployed, blithely quoted TNT Post (one of the likely Royal Mail privateers) having 1,000 vacancies to be filled in Manchester.
Putting the boot in twice by crowing about the RM privatisation in other words.
http://news.sky.com/story/1148059/chancellor-jobless-must-work-for-the-dole
Milipede’s Labour say that they will not renationalize the RM but will impose stricter service conditions. Pathetic or what.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327001#
@Scouse Billy
Nobody is disputing that the sun affects global temperatures, that is easily proved. It is the sceptics who are saying that co2 doesn’t when it is easily proved that t does.
Computer models do not affect the data already received. They know the decade to 2009 was the hottest on record, they know the Arctic sea ice is disappearing, they don’t need models to tell us that.
That increases in global temperatures lead to increases in co2 is the worrying part. This does not show man made co2 doesn’t contribute to global warming, it means it is a positive feedback system hence small increases in global temperatures can be amplified considerably. Scientists know that as the sea warms it releases co2, just warm some lemonade in a pan to see that. They also know that increases in atmospheric co2 cause the sea to warm.
Thanks for that excellent reminder of the Kogi, Crab, who, after living some 300 years in isolation, came down from their mountain tops in Columbia and told us to stop changing the weather and the environment.
A people that have missed the industrial age and developed spiritually to a far greater extend then the rest of us clutter minded bucks. They were right long before the IPCC had any grip on issue.
I have a few questions for all you “sceptics” of man-made climate change.
For any given system, how do you change any one part without a measurable manifestation of that change?
Specifically in relation to AGW, how do you pump nearly one trillion (million x million) extra tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, wherein CO2 being a denser gas concentrates at lower altitudes, without that extra CO2 manifesting itself in some way measurable and system altering?
How is it possible that nearly a trillion tonnes of CO2, massive deforestation and massive overfishing have NOT combined to cause any measurable shift in the world’s climate?
It seems that you “sceptics” (for want of a less flattering term) believe that man is incapable of polluting the biosphere to the extent that runaway processes will be triggered. Nevermind that comparatively small alien objects have a devastating impact on biodiversity when they hurtle into the Earth’s atmosphere – or maybe dinosaur fossils are just a hoax.
A tiny amount of CO2 –
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45
The danger of little rocks falling from the sky –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event
Chinese solar panels have until recently been subject to a state subsidy prior to leaving port in China. Europe has been trying to re-add the subsidy to the price in local European taxation.
The UK and Germany are happy for the Chinese subsidy to remain. I should think so. TESCO offers discouint of 25p on sunflower margerine, I’m buying them.
Fedup: there is no reason why you should be allowed to froth and bully your way abusively through this board, hurling your invective at anyone who either questions you or gives you so much as a touch of mild sarcasm. It is appalling behaviour; your response to Dreoilin was sheer bullying; and in the absence of Jon, I’m telling you so.
Fuck that. Show me where the AOGCMs are wrong. Show me where the EMICs are wrong.
Otherwise all you have is words words words. No proof of consistency. No measure of uncertainty. No defined tie to anything observable at all. The mathematics of the IPCC models is nothing but a language that has those things built in.
If you no sabee, you can’t talk to pukka sahib.
Amen. But you are dealing with intuition here. And nothing trumps intuition.
I’ve seen nothing supported by a one-hundredth of the verifiable data indicating global warming, or by any statistical rigor at all, in support of the view that there’s nothing wrong, and there’s nothing that can be done, so buy a bigger car and use more energy. Complain about models all you like, but what’s your alternative, deniers? A crystal ball?
Sea level rise: here’s a little graph, for those whose arts education encouraged their use:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html
So why is it rising, and when will it stop? Use your prowess with the ouija board to tell us, and thousands of trained scientists worldwide (and, incidentally the US Marines) that we can all relax and burn oil for fun.
RE: fur
Another reason people get upset is due to the number of actual animal deaths required for a single item of clothing. Smaller animals tend to get used due to their soft fur. Imagine if every time you had a roast dinner, you had to kill 50 animals to do so. It is a form of excess that humanity no longer needs. Leather will keep you warm just fine.
http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/facts-and-reports/how-many-animals-have-to-die-for-a-fur-coat/133/
Hearing in EU Parliament about NSA spying has started. Livestream:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20130930-1500-COMMITTEE-LIBE
The IPCC is a political body and does not represent good science.
A short (5 minute) clip in which climate scientists explain why man-caused global warming cannot be occurring (that’s right – there is no consensus). The entire man-caused global warming fear is based on climate (computer) models. Climate models cannot duplicate the complexity of earth’s climate. When climate models attempt to predict the past they fail miserably to predict to predict what actually happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UKI3lKts9Q
The models predicted accelerated warming as atmospheric CO2 concentration increased (by “positive feedbacks” as mentioned by a “believer” above). We have had no such warming for the last 15 years. The models and their underlying assumption of “greenhouse gasses” driving climate/temperature are well and truly busted.
http://www.exposingthetruth.co/inefficiency-of-privatisation/#axzz2gNjpWUQD
More recently the US has introduced work schemes which are turning private prisons into work camps – 21st century slavery. Prisoners work for virtually nothing doing jobs that the massive pool of unemployed should be doing. So the new cycle is this. The unemployed have not enough to live on. They resort to stealing. They end up in prison. When they come out they cannot get a job because they have been in prison. The US government thus has a continuum of slave-labour recycled through the prison system. No wonder private prison population is increasing. Bill Gates approves of this initiative.
This week sees the anniversary of Talha Ahsan having been sent by the extraordinary Christian Theresa May to a US maximum security prison where he has to pass 23 hours ever day in a small cell despite suffering from Asberger Syndrome. He has committed no crime and has not been charged or brought before a court. If people do not protest now it could be them next and as the saying goes there will be nobody left to protest. I would like to see the detractors on this blog offer an argument as to why Talha Ahsan and Babar Ahmad should have been extradited to the US when they are British citizens. On Saturday there is going to be a demonstration outside parliament calling for his release with posters saying Bring Talha Home.
The ‘Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields’ that play a crucial role in the axiom of intention.
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html
The human genome can only be fragment of the human mind. The morphic fields of mental activity are not confined to the insides of our heads. They extend far beyond our brain though intention and attention.
Scouse – fewer assertions, more data, please. And most researchers in the field, for or against AGW, have done a bit more than just Google “Global Warming + Heritage Foundation”*, to find someone they instinctively agree with..here’s a good example of the kind of rational debate that goes on behind the scenes. Several well-known scientists in the field here, I know one of them, and he’s highly sceptical of AGW, btw. But he does the research, collects the data and draws conclusions based on his expertise in the field. Which is considerable. I listen to him. His contribution is of value. He raises points which need to be taken into account. In this kind of debate, they are. Equally competent scientists offer other views based on the same or different data.
*Do it, though. Have a look at who’s funding the antis, and then sneer at the IPCC for being political. I dare you.
Sorry – link to debate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
Just one aspect of the attempt to find out, truthfully, what’s going on. Remember, both sides on this page have equal authority.
Komodo, I have reviewed the science at considerable length over many years. The presumption by the IPCC of a “Greenhouse Effect” driving climate is unsupported by experiment and defies physics:
Don’t take my word for it – I know you won’t. Here is a concise and well researched and referenced piece by geologist, Tim Casey on the history of the Greenhouse “Theory” and why it is wrong:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
John, thank you for your “welcome back” – I have been browsing/lurking and delighted to see that the veils are being lifted by many here 🙂
Mark, gotta love Sheldrake – thanks.
More than an atom of truth here, unfortunately:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/29/the-ironic-impact-of-activists-negative-stereotypes-reduce-social-change-influence/
That’ll be this Tim Casey, Scouse?
http://cv.geologist-1011.com/
No axe to grind at all, then. Quite a lot of rock-drilling though.
And I see he has a BSc (Hons) in geology. Tell you a secret – so have I. Most researchers are required to have at least a Master’s, btw. Not impressed. Try again.
Re. your research – please point me to your published papers.
Illuminating website here:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545
Only believe.
Scouse Billy, do you represent “good science”?
Runner77, 28 Sept, 3.35pm
Ecuador had a go:
Ecuador Leaves Oil Riches in Ground to Save Ecosystem
http://www.voanews.com/content/ecuador-leaves-oil-riches-in-ground-to-save-ecosystem-119484999/162461.html
Unfortunately, no takers (or rather, givers) to the $3.5 billion fund needed to make Ecuador’s proposal work:
Ecuador pulls plug on innovative cash-for-conservation program in the Amazon
http://www.gazettenet.com/home/8090743-95/ecuador-pulls-plug-on-innovative-cash-for-conservation-program-in-the-amazon
Rupert Sheldrake provides another example of what happens when you challenge scientific orthodoxy. He was invited to do a TED talk and gave a 20 minute presentation called ‘The Science Delusion’ in which he challenged some of scientific sacred cows. It was well constructed and deliberately thought-provoking.
Within a day, TED had removed the video of his talk from YouTube. In response to the outcry, TED issued a detailed justification of their action in which they called Sheldrake ‘a pseudo scientist’ and made three specific accusations. When Sheldrake successfully refuted these accusations, TED backed off but still won’t officially endorse the video.
In general, TED talks are wonderfully entertaining, informative and educational, covering a huge range of subjects, and often very speculative. Given the sheer range of scientific and non-scientific topics, it is hard to see the singling out of Sheldrake (and a couple of others) as anything other than attempted thought control.
http://consciouslifenews.com/rupert-sheldrakes-response-banned-ted-video-science-delusion-video-included/1152072/
Wingman sniper going berserk;
I am already on record; The fucking tag team feel they own the fucking joint, headlong rush to help by laying the suppressive fire cover, on goes the fucking charade
The latest salvo, further clarifies the sense of entitlement of the tag team that translates into first revoking my license to comment and then scold my non genuflection; “who either questions you or gives you so much as a touch of mild sarcasm”. What is this fucking world coming to, where there is no deference, and genuflection has gone out of fashion?
How dare Fedup to not be happy with the “mild sarcasms”? How dare he not to put up with being questioned? Fact remains that; who the fuck with extra blogial super powers, can question, reprimand, and be sarcastic? The tag team of course!
Further failure to put up with the tag teams “far too reasonable expectations” then results in the sentencing of the offender by revocation of his license to comment. As clearly stated by; “why you should be allowed to froth and bully your way abusively through this board,”
With a dash of “poor little dreo” on goes the charade, only to reiterate the “moderator” powers albeit self awarded, exercised in the absence of the Mod (shooting two targets with the same bullet sort of).
The simple fact that don’t fucking question, or be sarcastic, and most important, scroll past my comments, somehow are not the alternatives that the sniper Jane may entertain, because playing the joint den mothers the tag team are hanging around to aid the little ziofuckwits when they are getting their arse handed to them.
Pitiful, fucking pitiful.
“And in the absence of Jon, I’m telling you so.”
Patronising, sanctimonious drivel. This Technicolour character really thinks she owns the joint.
I have finally read your post fed up, and I agree with the last burp of yours.
‘Pitiful, fucking pitiful’
So full of yourself that you can’t control your urges to bully? go on say sorry, Haderlump.
And I had to read the whole fucking, saying and meaning absolutely fuck all, what a pissing waste of time.
Thanks for nowt and you don’t have to work up to your moniker every fucking second of the day.
Fedup, you keep revealing yourself as a random and paranoid bully. Do you think this is OK because you are – er – Palestinian? Someone who knows someone Palestinian? Someone who has read about Palestine? Whatever. It’s still rubbish.
And Anon, how very inexpensive of you to join in, and how amusing that you are also going down the female route. Problem with that gender, perhaps? Transparently easier than responding to the earlier discussion, which you left without even a puff of smoke. Perhaps it was the idea of doing some research which troubled you?
Personally I can’t see how one can “bully” an anonymous online persona, but I’m sure the achingly right-on Technicolour will find a new ‘-ism’ with which to outlaw it.
I’ve seen others refer to you in the feminine. Apologies if I’ve got it wrong.
Re our previous discussion, I lost interest when you announced you were going to bed.
“the little ziofuckwits when they are getting their arse handed to them.”
By whom? By you? By typing “fucking” nine times in one comment?
Oh I don’t think so Fedup … that’s not how you hand intelligent people their arses. All you do is highlight your own lack of control.
I once recommended to a guy who had anger issues to take it out in the handball alley, with a racquet and a ball. It worked very well.
Dear, dear, Anon. Which part of you is ‘aching’? Is it your brain, from all that research you’ve been doing?
Seriously, Anon – the Naked Ape is a good read.