Dear Climate Alarmists...
The human potential for screwing up the environment is staggering; I believe that no one is blind to the harm we do to nature in our relentless pursuit of more material wealth. We are now living through the sixth mass extinction event on this planet, and some scientists have dubbed it the Anthropocene extinction, as in extinction caused by humankind...
Image by Comfreak - source: Pixabay
It's no use trying to deny mankind's role in the rapid transformation of the natural environment. Evolution has given us the biggest brain to body-mass ratio in nature, and with it we've left evolution behind, or rather replaced it with our own kind of evolution, the cultural evolution. Our ability to adjust the environment to meet our needs instead of the other way around, has given us a giant head start; not only the earth's ecosystems, but also we ourselves are not able to keep up with the rapid changes brought about by advancing human technology and science. And this causes problems, for sure.
But there are still caveats to consider, the first being that we are also part of nature. Somehow the notion that we destroy nature places us outside, or above nature. I'm still not clear if this is good, bad or neither, but it is something to consider. When we'll be able to replace most of our failing body-parts with artificial substitutes, will we still be human? Even something as basic as a pair of glasses falls into this category, and we don't have a problem with glasses, or hearing aid, or... Will we deny blind people a set of artificially crafted eyes to see with, and will we envy them, because their man-made eyes will be able to see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and they can freely choose between the frequencies? Is there a threshold to be reached where we suddenly are "more" or "less" than human? And what does this say about our place in nature? I won't pretend I know, I'm just saying that progress can't be stopped and we need to realize that someday these questions will answer themselves if we don't try to answer them beforehand. And those answers might not be as straightforward as we currently imagine them to be.
But I get sidetracked... The reason why I write this today, is the video linked below, which I would very much like you all to watch. In today's political climate I thought it prudent to first clearly state that I'm not a denier of mankind's destructive influence on the planet. If you're interested to know what happens when people censor themselves to talk about what they know is true, watch this video. "What happens to society when people who are presenting facts are bullied into silence?" This sentence is the heart of the message of this video; scientists who report facts about the climate that are not in line with the mainstream message of climate alarmism, are systemically marginalized. It's good to be concerned about our planet and all the lifeforms it contains, but what's happening now simply prevents us from addressing the real problems and come up with real solutions. When the painted crisis is a lie, how will solving THAT crisis do us any good..? It would be good for us to remember that the same capitalists who gain most from the ongoing destruction of natural habitats, are the same ones that have initiated and cultivated the climate scare. And they'll use it to make another boatload of money, as well as further limit our freedoms because we will be held responsible for solving the problem...
A Reading of Dr. Ross McKitrick's "Open Letter to Lisa Raitt" on the Climate Mob Effect
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | |
|---|---|
| Atomization On Steroids | Your Incredible Supernova Origin |
| Arcane Arms Race? | Rich In 3 Simple Steps! |
| Rich Debt, Poor Debt | Paranoimia |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!
Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:
Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO
@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!
first of all, how many scientists did you query before you wrote the line, "scientists who report facts about the climate that are not in line with the mainstream message of climate alarmism, are systemically marginalized."
is there a reason they are marginalized? did you look at who backs their paycheck? who supports their research? maybe their science is flawed by their desire to hold the divergent opinion in order to sell more books? what percentage of scientists fall in line with the mainstream vs the marginalized few, and what does that tell us?
it's always good to check history and sources, and to look at why someone might be shouted down by their own peers
Ross McKitreck aligns with Exxon Mobil. He advocated for the North American pipeline from Canada to the Gulf, which is problematic in the extreme, and wrote this surprising comment;
“[B]lockading pipeline resource development is neither a smart nor sustainable approach to pursuing environmental goals,” McKitrick said. “Completion of an interprovincial pipeline would be a boost for national unity and economic development, and it would be entirely consistent with the smart, technology-driven approach to environmental management that we have successfully pursued for many decades.”
He isn't talking about environmental goals, he is talking about business goals. He is talking about whats good for the economy, not for the environment. The NAPL puts the environment at risk with the danger of contamination to the Ogallala Aquifer, a shared water resource under several US states. Sure the risk might be minimal, but once the damage is done, how do you reverse it? Millions of families and businesses rely on that water for their daily needs.
Another statement from Ross McKittrick, "scientist":
“We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.”
Carbon dioxide IS a pollutant when it is out of proportion to plants and trees ability to utilize it. A surplus of carbon dioxide creates an overabundance of greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, causing ice caps to melt and ocean levels to rise, which causes flooding. Any scientist knows that. Yet this guy dismisses it as unimportant. Probably because governments dont want to piss off big business, who would be the major players in reducing CO2 emissions.
If you present facts in a skewed way to support your opinion, then present it as science, that is not fact. It's bullshit.
RM was on the panel to advise President Trump how to put a positive spin when Trump dismantled the EPA. And you wonder why he is marginalized? He advocates for big business. He isnt an environmentalist, he is just someone who has a degree in Environmental science and uses it to coat his own pockets by holding a position politicians and business men use to counteract public opinion.
This is why he is being marginalized, imho.
Carbon dioxide IS a pollutant when it is out of proportion to plants and trees ability to utilize it.
If you know anything about plants and carbon it's that right now we aren't even half way to what is optimal for them, so yes it's out of proportion, the levels of carbon would need to triple for them to even come to optimal. They are literally built to suck carbon dioxide through the leafs, and they aren't stressed by "all this 450ppm carbon dioxide".
So why is there this scare about co2, among the Scientists? Why are they huffing and puffing this strawman?
where do you get your data?
Search for How much co2 is optimal for (ie dogs)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=How+much+co2+is+optimal+for&ia=web
Real World Facts. And why are you asking such a question? Do you have anything to the contrary, anything to substantiate your claims, or you're going to rely simply on your insinuating questions that somehow my sources are incorrect or outright completely mistaken? Where do YOU get your data, and more importantly, why don't you readily know what you're talking about and are so completely mistaken about it?
why I asked is because its apparent you are taking data relevant to greenhouses, and trying to equate them to the earth, like the earth is a giant greenhouse, a closed system. while the mechanisms are similar, you are discounting the fact that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades. higher atmospheric CO2 negatively alters nutritional content in crops, among other things, sapping nutrients like zinc, iron and protein. So while crops might produce more, the lack of nutrients will cause more dietary issues, and still not use all of the atmospheric CO2. I get my information from science journals. by scientists.
No, I am not comparing the earth to a greenhouse, I'm pointing to the fact that Optimal Levels of CO2 for plants (not for greenhouse, anywhere) is 3x4 times more than current levels.
So that is clearly wrong, the optimal level of CO2 is not even halfway there, so what are you sounding the alarm about?
O yes:
What are you talking about? Co2 never goes away, it's released by plants art night when they consume oxygen, and by us, animals of all faiths and prejudices all the time, and it seems that you think we're "aging" it somehow or that it's "trapped" or that it's not a natural cycle, all of which is Bullshit.
How, by what mechanism, is it that by some unintended consequences there's just enough minerals that plants have access to for the CO2 levels we have right now? So the fact that they grow, Faster, and Produce more by three digit percentages than compared to current atmospheric CO2 levels, that they don't have the nutrients that they need? Like the crops cannot be fertilized, like the soil cannot sustain so much plant building? And even though they produce more, they don't need to remove any carbon but maintain it at optimal levels, which, is a matter of "that's for greenhouses". No, that's a matter of plants producing more, utilizing the CO2, and I call it bullshit to try and twist it into "dietary issues". Show me these fabled "journals" that turn the real world on it's head, why do I have a doubt that someone who leads with a loaded question regarding sources (and incidentally the claims), won't do anything to that effect.
http://environment.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/myers_2014_increasing_co2_threatens_human_nutrition_aop_version.pdf
This ammounts to "all these people tried to find if any significant changes in nutrient makeup happen with increased co2 and they found little to any conclusive or repeatable data about the changes in nutrient make up, but we ran our own test, and then analized all their data to correlate for high incidents and we found paltry 8-9%" Vs the real world:
"we tried to find optimal plant growth, and discovered that at 1200 ppm CO2 plants produce the most, grow the fastest, if feed they can eat nutrients by the boatload, their vigorous growth inhibits pests and means faster turnover rate" it would be wonderful if people could grow planted twice as fast and produce twice what they regularly do, and that study, it literally completely avoided that nutrition is predicated on what the plants eat.
Exactly like that I guess.
No matter that plants can use it, besides we destroying the big green masses to fix that excess from the atmosphere back into organic matter, the excess translate in heat, and they die in drought and scorching conditions.
Lots of pseudoscience to justify things (pd. I'm a former scientist, I don't work at it right now but I see how information is always sweeping to keep people in the blind). There's no truth but the truth, life will thrive on Earth but eventually (at this pace) without us and many other species as we know them. It's all about BALANCE. Every year thousands of species become extinct (NO UNDO FOR THAT), I don't even think we´ll bother to change things before it's late.
what does it change? we know meat industry and transportation pollute the air, we know plastic poison the seas...
we always will look for justification for our own comfort.
You think that life will thrive but the most adaptable species will not survive. Makes sense.
No, I just feel empathy for mammals who will likely perish, I find sad that I'm envisioning it, if it can be prevented, call it empathy as I am one too. pd I'm a Animal and Molecular Biologist. Koalas has just enrolled the list of "functionally extinct" they won't survive another generation and those might be one that ring bells but that doesn't change the fact the CURRENT extinction rate is 1000 times HIGHER than it would be in natural background WITHOUT our interference. It takes not much effort.
Life thriving will be likely those cheeky bacteria that are starting to eat plastic. And yes "LIFE" will thrive. It makes sense .
Yes, mamal life is so fragile and will not adapt, so so sad.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2011/03/04/Greenpeace-CoFounder-Slams-Species-Extinction-Scare-Study-as-proof-of-how-peerreview-process-has-become-corrupted-ndash-Study-greatly-underestimate-the-rate-new-species-can-evolve/
https://reason.com/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use
I read a study on seeing evolution in bacteria, 50k> generations, what was the conclusion? There's no such thing as evolution. The bacteria "evolved" (adapted to the environment) and subsequently went completely sterile and died off (O no, it went extinct like 99.9999999999999999% of species that ever existed), or they found that the it lost it's adaptability to the environment and the environment killed it (O no, extinction because of the micro liliputians). Another study, grew lactose intolerant bacteria in milk, talk about a hostile environment and thriving. Going along those lines, talk about the numerous species that constantly turn out to not be extinct.
Science suffers GREATLY because of the Certainty that it freely affords itself, instead of exemplifying the great doubt, the inquisitive prowess that reasons and investigates, the great how and why it peddles in conjecture and supposition for many "basis". If it didn't suffer greatly the articles above would have not existed as it would be completely ridiculous notion that these rigorous studies and numerous people could fuck up so much, but one doesn't even have to look for that, only to question well, because exactly like the bullshit of that other person in the comments, claiming that co2 impacts our diet by contributing to nutrition deficiency as plants apparently had less zinc and iron, it had nothing to say to "what about feeding the plants" as it was postulating better genetics, avoiding the obvious.
And yes, indeed, the most adaptable species, human life, won't thrive, because bacteria somehow are "cheekier" when it comes to Thriving.
Last Saturday Kuwait registered the highest Temperature registered 63.3 C The temperature in Fahrenheit would be around 145
Where I live we usually have cool weather, still we are undergoing too a heatwave at the moment, not less than 40C forecast for the following weak, all the old beechwoods drying or burning in wild fires. :(
If really that's the the world we prefer to live in I'm not entering more into discussions
And that is because of man made global warming? Or is it cooling? Why do we see far more cooling happening? Is it because the same thing happened almost 200 years ago, when the last solar minimum occurred, where it seems we are heading for again?
People like to whine about a few degrees of change in average temperatures as if that isn't what happened in the past, as if we never had really hot and short summers before, which were followed by long and cold winters, because the environment is a delicate creature, and all predicated on nonsense like "balance" or the inherent fragility of the "ecosystem", which is convenient in fear mongering because looking at how quickly the temperature changes from day to night or how adaptable life is by looking at what it went through during the past lends itself to optimism in regards the future of life and species, not bleak, bacteria as the highest form of life, cesspools. I don't prefer to live in fear, and I don't prefer that bleak pessimistic outlook about "those cheeky bacteria".
McKitrick is just trying to obfuscate the issue and promote a "let us not rock the boat please, things are going well for me." The fact is that again and again our climate predictions have fallen short of the reality. We are living the middle of a climate crisis, it's not alarmism if it's real.
I will be clear with this
we are destroying the planet as we know it and soon it won't be survivable for us and many of our Earth Companions, sure Earth will adapt and life will thrive, hopefully that life will spend long time without messing it again. Climate change is not a hoax, it's something that you can appreciate in FACTS and there is no other reality than the truth. Wether some choose to be blind, or some chose to even say it's a hoax for their own benefit, the truth is the truth, it is provable and in fact we're f... it faster than we expected cos we are an absolutely DUMB species boiling like a frog in a pot.
It's all okeeeeey!
This post is about the fact that there is no scientific consensus about human-caused climate change (Oreskes' and Cook's reports have been criticized often enough; the advertized 97% consensus is at the very least an exaggeration). There is no consensus, but one side of the argument is villified. This has all the hallmarks of a media-campaign, not of an honest discussion among scientists. Furthermore, there are no climate change deniers among scientists, none that I know of at least. Climate has always changed and will continue to do so, with or without us. Furthermore, I made very clear that alarmbells should ring about thousands of ways we destroy the environment on which there is consensus, but those bells we don't hear. You rightly point to a potential decreased ability for food-production @torico; there are studies that say the sediment has changed drastically since the industrial revolution. But it's not clear why this is. There is however a high probability that it is the result of intensive farming, made possible by automation and the use of GMO's, not global warming. I've heard about really alarming studies on this, saying we have "soil-food" left for only 60 more harvests in some agricultural areas, like Western Europe; we should be concerned, yes.
Climate skeptics and alarmists are dug in their own trenches, both have multiple websites, constantly "debunking" each other's claims. I know of enough scientists I admire and respect for years (Freeman Dyson comes to mind) who at least have doubts about the alarmists side. And there is a media campaign, mainstream corporate media, the kind I inherently don't trust, against the skeptics. That's all. CO2 is plant-food. The governments that sound this alarm are the same governments that come with fake non-solutions to the problem, like emission trading. Those same governments love to see us bickering like this. Those same governments have lied to you and me for as long as I can remember. No one believes the boy that cried wolf, whether there's a wolf or not. Now you can wave with reports all you like; I can dig up a rebuttal for most if not all of them. But I won't pretend to know which one is true. There is however a high probability that the governments aren't totally trustworthy in any message they spout out. We agree that humans are destroying the planet, I've been really clear about that. At this rate we won't survive in the way we'd like. THAT alarm is true. Oh, and so are the quotes mentioned in the video, taken from the IPCC itself; drought and extreme weather are NOT anthropogenic climate change related, or at least, they attach low probability to that. I know because I've read some of them; highly boring stuff. Here's the summary on drought:
"Drought in a changing climate: AR5 and recent scientific advances
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/presentations/Sbsta_drought.pdf
Do I think we should try our hardest, as societies, to reduce human caused greenhouse gas emissions? Of course I do; again, I'm not blind to the harm we do to the planet, and even if there's the smallest chance the worse predictions come true, it would be stupid not to act. But that's exactly what this whole alarmist campaign amounts to: we're not acting, we're worsening the situation. And don't go blame the so called deniers for that; blame the political and financial powers that refuse to admit that we will need to shrink the economy instead of grow it, we need to stop making cheap products just to keep consumerism going, we should try diverse farming, intercropping instead of monocultures, vertical farming, the list goes on; they won't go there because all real solutions cost money, so as long as the big companies make their economies grow, they're happy and so are most people. There are real solutions and we are smart enough to co exist with nature. It's not a matter of technology or a lack of basic willpower. It's a bit more complicated that that I'm affraid, and I won't simplify it by joining either of the trenches. As things stand now, we'll solve it when there's enough money to be made from it, and in the meantime money will be made from the crisis, perceived or real.
This post wasn't about who's right or who's wrong about this in the first place; it's about those trenches and how they're being kept alive. I clearly failed in conveying that, for which I'm sorry. I do appreciate your responses, it's made some things clearer for me. I hope you all forgive me for responding with this broad sweep instead of answering you all one by one.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. but i also think that people like Ross McKittrick, who feeds the fire by propping up and shilling for businesses like Exxon, are leeches on society. I have to wonder how much lack of consensus comes from the greed of politics and business, and how much is a total misunderstanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Everyone points to CO2 and says "oh but that's plant food" yet fail to understand that balance is imperative when regulating any organic system. We only need to look at the human body to know too much or too little of an element can throw the body off kilter, yet when it comes to the earth we fail to understand the same principle. I think it's important to look at why alarmists and skeptics are saying the things they do. I can forgive ignorance. I cannot let greed and power go without speaking out.
I found this article a week back that touches on what you're talking about - the stuck in discussion yet doing nothing, because no one can agree -this tbh. and i think that this is one of the reasons theres so much vitriol, because while we have lack of consensus, the clock is ticking.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-psychology-behind-climate-inaction-how-to-beat-the-doom-barrier/a-48730230
Hi @zyx066!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.483 which ranks you at #6355 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 180 places in the last three days (old rank 6175).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 188 contributions, your post is ranked at #43.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!