Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tim

Pages: [1]
1
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 11, 2019, 02:06:12 AM »
I'm not talking about social action. I was pointing out social dysfunction. You don't present facts, you isolate information and compartmentalize it into silos, ignoring other connected observations and omitting 'facts' heavily when you make your many specious arguments here on the site ... all always leading to the same conclusion, to underplay climate change.

That's what I was calling you out for. You don't present science, you intentionally misrepresent it.

Like with your frequency red herring.
.

2
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 10, 2019, 09:57:30 PM »
And you did backpedal when confronted. Walked straight backwards and backed off of what you were trying to shmeeb with your doublespeak. It's a smarmy way to be.

Meanwhile, your country is drowning, and burning, and getting blown away. It's absurd what you do here on this site with your stream of contrary arguments.

But whatever. Knowing you were banned before brings some solace. Not sure why you aren't banned again, you definitely just bring obfuscation to the subject of AGW.

3
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 10, 2019, 09:51:07 PM »
No, it's what the politicians and economists have asked for as a stalling tactic for thirty years ... more evidence ... while they delayed and blew past the chance for anybody to do anything about it, where the scientists were quite sure of what they were seeing. Extremely long term statistical evidence is just one singular line of reasoning.  For some people, they could still be asking in a thousand years for more statistical evidence. It's a ruse, and supports the, oh, it will change back argument that people like Trump make.

You'll notice that when it comes to spraying chemicals around, or damning a river, that there's no need to bother with long term statistical evidence in your society. They just spray it. It's a ruse. Your whole tact here is to obfuscate what science is certain of. Quit trying to present yourself as rational. You're need for never ending statistical evidence is called prolonging the debate, a well known doubt merchant strategy, whether you are aware of yourself doing it or not.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. - A. Einstein

4
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 10, 2019, 08:04:02 PM »
So now you change your story from a very solidly stated 'no connection' to 'too early to make one very specific procedural conclusion, a long term statistical one' ... admitting now that there are observed changes, they just haven't been observed for long enough.

But that's very different from what you first tried to BS us with, which is that there was 'no connection,' implied in a context that there have been no observed changes whatsoever. I know it's subtle, but this is what you do here on this site. You spin things.

That was my point, your here to support the denialists. Same goes with all the other Cato Institute arguments you present here on this site, ad nauseam.  You spin, is what you do, heavily.

We scientists, you say. What, are you a dentist or something? Don't flatter yourself.

5
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 10, 2019, 06:57:59 PM »
Here's how you like to phrase things:

"... linking hurricane activity with global warming have found no connection."

Would you like to talk about the jet stream, AGW, and hurricanes?

Jennifer Francis had some thoughts about it's influence on Florence last fall.

You would be laughed off Dr. Masters site for the ignorance you spew about there being no connection between AGW and hurricane behavior, which is what you're arguing hard to try and imply here.

You're just a subtle doubt merchant dude, and it's annoying to watch you do it. Desperately trying to show how it's not happening with most everything you post.

6
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 10, 2019, 06:22:48 PM »
The point was, you try to discount AGW effects through a great deal of omission when you present your arguments. It's pretty obvious to see what your intention is here at ASIF. That was my point.

You try to create a sense that hurricane behavior is not actually changing much, by omitting most of the ways they are being observed to be changing when you make points in isolation.

Your arguments you make here are clearly specious in their nature, dishonest. You're here to obfuscate science, that's pretty clear from watching you make your arguments against climate science here (which is what you do, even though you say you don't.)

A troll.

7
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 10, 2019, 05:53:20 PM »
Klondike Kat, you seem to like to omit a lot of things, isolate certain points while being guilty of omission. I find you to be like a subtle doubt merchant more than any sort of legitimate skeptical thinker, which is how you like to present yourself.

You claim to know a lot about hurricanes, but you just mentioned shear, when Michael last fall rapidly intensified in a high shear environment, which confounded the historical ideas of a lot of experts in the field.

You also ignore the way these systems are both stalling, and also steering differently, due to the changes AGW has produced in jetstream behavior, which is also noted by hurricane experts. I called you out on your omission of that once before here. Think ... Flo last fall and the Carolina's, stalling, and steering, from noted and observable jetstream changes.

You don't seem that up on hurricanes. I find you to just be a doubt merchant, not a legitimate skeptic. You omit a lot of things to make points in very isolated contexts, and I find that disingenuous. Yes, just an intentional doubt merchant, grasping at straws in isolation through a lot of omission and placing things outside of their larger context a lot.

8
The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: June 05, 2019, 04:43:55 AM »
Tim,

Great point. Perchlorate is a severe hazard. It is a powerful oxidizer and toxin. Even in trace concentrations it is a huge health problem. Perchlorate and pertechnetate (radioactive waste) substitute in the body for iodate (iodine’s active form in the thyroid). In doing that, they wreck havoc on thyroid and pineal gland function and with other organs and tissues to a lesser degree.

Sam

The soil can be cleaned or brought from Earth. Do you really think that life on Earth in the next 10-20 years will be better and safer than on Mars?  :)

Read the latest news from the next branch.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2728.msg203412.html#msg203412

Quote
Human Civilization Faces "Existential Risk" by 2050 According to New Australian Climate Change Report 

Strange logic.

If, as has been pointed out, the ability to inhabit Mars is practically nil, for the myriad of reasons just explained ... deterioration of civilization, or even the entire earth system, does not increase those possibilities of inhabiting Mars up from nil.

The report you presented doesn't magically make Mars more inhabitable.


9
The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: June 05, 2019, 12:14:32 AM »
Plus ... perchlorate in all the soil. What? Can't use the soil? Can't even come into contact with it? Can't even be exposed to the dust that would be impossible to keep out of the protective bubble habitat you'd have to exist in, permanently, forever? What, science fiction fans didn't know about the actual chemical makeup of the deadly martian soil?

Pffft. What a waste of resources all this living on Mars bullshit is. People tried to live in a sealed habitat right here on earth, spent tons of money trying, and it failed miserably. Look that up too.

The high levels of perchlorate found on Mars would be toxic to humans, Smith said.

"Anybody who is saying they want to go live on the surface of Mars better think about the interaction of perchlorate with the human body," he warned. "At one-half percent, that's a huge amount. Very small amounts are considered toxic. So you'd better have a plan to deal with the poisons on the surface."

Any humans exploring Mars, Smith said, will find it hard to avoid the finest of dust particles. "It'll get into everything…certainly into your habitat."


https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html

It's all just so stupid.  Why not just stop killing the planet you've got? :o

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 02, 2019, 07:08:21 PM »
But Neven, didn't you just have a meta discussion yourself?  ;D

11
The rest / Re: Pareidolia
« on: June 01, 2019, 06:55:03 PM »
Hurricane Michael having a malevolent chuckle just before it hammered the US last year.


12
Consequences / Re: AGW consequences where you live
« on: June 01, 2019, 05:19:18 PM »
Tom, you're looking at this wrong to think this is all just about adding a few degrees to your local temperature, such as 3C global average rise means 3C warmer in your area, what's the big deal, sounds nice.

It's about the knock on effects those seemingly slight changes have on earth systems. Let me tell you not about what people predict might happen, but what already has happened to my area, and some of the earth system changes that have happened to cause that, and it's all been very bad.

The 1C rise so far, so tiny it seems, has led to the arctic melting. That reduction in albedo and open water has actually led to the arctic beginning to warm faster than just the 1C global average. Knock on effect one.

This has led to the knock on effect two of a radical change in the way the jet stream behaves, because the jet stream was driven by what used to be a sharp difference in temperature between the cold arctic air and the warmer mid latitude air. Now that this differential has been reduced, the jet stream has slowed, causing massive changes to the amplitudes in it's sine wave pattern. Those amplitude waves are also getting stuck in one place for longer than they used to. This has all amounted, already ... not in the future ... to drastic changes in how weather manifests in the middle latitudes. The first picture I've attached is a picture to demonstrate this change. This is knock on effect two.

What's that jet stream change has caused for my area in southern Alberta Canada, is that these huge amplitude jet stream ridges have been reaching high up toward the arctic during our winters for the past ten years, and getting stuck that way for months and months on and, and continued to happen year after year after year. This virtually eliminated the cold winter temperatures for our area. When these ridges form, which have been called ridiculously resilient ridges, we don't just change by a 1C global average temperature, we go from sub freezing temperatures that used to be the norm in our area, it means we change by 20C, or even 30C from what used to be the norm, virtually eliminating what used to be 'winter' under the old way that the jet stream used to behave. These patterns now 'lock' and stay this way for months. No more winter here.

We would call this 'weather' ... but it has been drastically changed by climate change altering the jet stream. And this is all just caused from the 1C global average change so far.

Knock on effect three, and I'll group a few things together here, has been what this elimination of winter has done to our local ecology that evolved to be stable under the 'old' jet stream behavior, and can't handle these changes to the jet stream. The plants all come out of the ground and trees start to form buds during these extended winter warm periods of 20C to 30C warmer 'weather.' Then they die when the buckled jet finally moves off and the cold swoops back in. They weren't adapted to swing back and forth in these extreme shifts. The animals that hibernate will come out of hibernation, thinking it is spring, and find they are out of step now with long evolved symbiotic systems, and there will be no berries for them to eat because it isn't actually spring yet. They die, or wander into human settlements looking for food, because they are starving. Then they get shot.

This loss of winter has also led to another incredibly massive knock on effect too ... the pine beetles that had evolved to die back over a cold winter, now no longer die over the winter. This has led to them expanding in a way they never used to, to the point where they have ravished the boreal forests of western Canada to the point where they have killed half the forests already since the 1990's. I'll put a picture of this happening up as picture two. Let's call this knock on effect three.

For knock on effect four, I'll talk about the wildfires that are erupt from having all this dead wood standing around that has been killed by the pine beetle changes (all caused through these knock on effects of climate change in just a 1C changed world so far.) There are wildfires burning 600 miles north of me right now, 1000 km away, and in picture three I'll show you what my area looks like right now because of this. It's awful, and extremely hazardous to people's health, especially the very young and the very old. This is smoke, for the third summer in a row now. The last two years this was how our entire August looked like. It's almost approaching unlivable to spend a solid month like this, in smoke, every summer. This would be knock on effect four in my local example.


All this earth system change from just a 1C global average rise so far. 20C to 30C changes for my area in winter, not from the global average rise, but because of how it has changed the arctic, which changed the jet stream, which changed the weather, which changed the pine beetle, which changed the fire activity.

See what it's about? Tacking 3C onto your nice sunny weather is not at all what it's about. It's about changes to the sensitive earth system that even small changes to the gloabal average temperature produce. Remember, it's only a few degrees C cooler and you trigger a whole ice age. These tiny changes produce massive changes to the earth systems, including 'weather.' Think ... Mississippi flooding. That's a stuck pattern. California drought, that's a stuck pattern. Hurricanes dumping a deluge on North Carolina from a stuck jet stream ridge in the North Atlantic when it was expected to have turned north. That's a jet stream change. Think extremelt abnormal heat in Scandinavian countries. Jet stream changes.

That's what you're missing. You're looking at it wrong. You need to expand your learning of the impacts of climate change. Not just what people say might happen, but what even now already [has] happened. It's much more drastic than the way you've framed it. It's about changes to the entire system from tiny global average temperature changes, not about tacking a few degrees onto your nice summer afternoon temperature.


13
The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 27, 2019, 05:45:31 PM »
wdmn,

Let me try and take you through some of the mythological language you use when you speak. By mythological, I mean it's a story, a narrative, a meme.

I personally believe that there's no way back. I think that it's the wrong move to idealize a past culture.

The past? A past culture? No way back?

This is clearly a narrative, and one I've already pointed out in this thread ad nauseam, but I'll try one last time.

This is social Darwinism, which is not something Darwin ever espoused himself, in fact he spoke out against the idea. It's a narrative that says people such as the Amazonian tribesmen or the Kogi tribe in Columbia or the Dongria Kondh tribe in India ... are stone age relics of an evolutionary past.

It's a narrative that tells a story of how civilization is the evolutionary successor to these people's, who are all from the evolutionary past. It's a story, a myth, a narrative ... a meme.

Did civilization people grow another set of physical adaptations and present a different genetics from the people of this this supposed evolutionary past, like Darwin's theory speaks about? No, they didn't. They are the same DNA as civilized people. Both are homo sapiens sapiens. So where does this bullshit come from that they represent the past, and civilization represents the future? Those people I just mentioned are living here right now as we speak.

You're passing along a mythology here. A story told in word usage alone, not a reality. Indigenous thought is not 'the past.'

What's really hilarious here is how you then turned around after saying 'we can't go back to that' ... and quote a scientific paper that expressed an idea lifted entirely from an indigenous narrative of respecting the environment and caring about it, rather than just plundering it as an externality.

What are these transformed social values the paper was referring to, if not those of the indigenous people's who have told civilized thinkers this exact very same thing for centuries every time civilization rolled over them? This is the people out at Standing Rock calling themselves 'water protectors.' These are the people who two hundred years ago told civilization that its accumulation society and private land ownership customs would most certainly result eventually in environmental collapse.

That concept, of having respect for the environment, is one universal to all indigenous cultures civilization encounters. It was only just civilization culture that abandoned this narrative and cultural point of view thousands and thousands of years ago when the totalitarian agriculturalist culture (one culture) emerged out of the fertile crescent thousands and thousands of years ago. Now you seem to be saying you want to 'go back.' Or do you really think the idea of not plundering the environment, and instead developing some form of respect for it, is suddenly a brand new idea these scientists had, just now? No, it's an idea borrowed from what the indigenous have been saying to civilization for centuries.

So you've said both things now without even realizing it. In your own mythological language said how we can't go back to this supposed past ... and then suggested we do go back to this past. You just altered the words between the two contradictory ideas you expressed was all.

The indigenous in the Amazon are not from the past. They are there right now. What a bunch of mythological language you just used. One that paints a mosaic that says civilization is the next evolutionary step after those 'indigenous stone age people from the past.' You just, very subtly, expressed a mythology there. A story. A culture forming story.

...

Want to hear another story myth you just expressed?

I would say then that the way forward, rather than seeing ourselves as just another animal ...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. But you are an animal. There, didn't even need to spend too much time on that one. You are an animal. Why are you trying to distance yourself from that?

Surely you're not trying to promote this mythology that the Abrahamic religions all started that separates humans from animals and tries to paint them as being some sort of superior supernatural special creature made in the image of some god from the sky are you? Because that's what I heard in the language you just used. I heard you promoting a mythology there ... because you are an animal.

...

And furthermore, about Luther Standing Bear's quote. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about, is Luther Standing Bear's view of the biosphere, instead of the Christian cult's view that it's beneath them, ugly and filthy, wild and savage. That's a mythology the Christians have promoted heavily among their people for the past several thousand years, the very same people who now think they are more advanced than those 'wild savages' on an evolutionary scale because of this meme they tell themselves about themselves.

Now, to use your convoluted word symbols, you want to go backwards to an idea from some guy from the stone age.

Can't go back? Can go back? You've said both things again.

Using some of the ideas from indigenous culture would be in line with something I am suggesting as a possibility. What, did you think I meant running around in loincloths or something when you implored how we can't go back? No, I'm talking about ideas and narratives and memes, not about loincloths and living in teepees.

Your wording about 'back' with it's subtle implications of 'moving backwards' ... is a memetic mythology. A narrative. Just as much as how separating humans outside of the biosphere with the use of the word 'nature' as a separation signifier forms a very subtle narrative and lulls the mind into a very specific point of view. You've also done this now by labeling indigenous thoughts and ideas as being 'from the past.' See what you did there with your mythological meme?

...

Last one, even though I could keep going, is the way you used the word 'stewardship.'

I saw nothing in Luther Standing Bear's quote that implied control over the environment that the word 'stewardship' conjures. The indigenous didn't see themselves as arrogant controllers of the environment. This idea of stewardship over the environment has only come along out of Christian thinking as Christian thinkers started to become aware over the past few decades of how their original thousands of years old idea of dominion over the environment was starting to look a little ignorant and destructive and power hungry ... control over, dominion over ... conquerors of it.  It was their realization of environmental degradation that only just started to become obvious to civilized thinkers a few short decades ago, so now, the 'control' language has shifted in the churches from 'dominion over' to 'stewardship over.' It sounds better, but it still implies dominance and control.

It still spreads the same myth of superior to the environment The controller of it. Dominion over it.

It's a meme, dude. A narrative. A destructive one to the mind. Luther Standing Bear wasn't saying anything about controlling the environment through any sort of stewardship idea. The word stewardship is directly implying something smarter and more able will care for something less smarter and less able. It's just the same old freaking superiority, magical special creature, separate from nature ... nature's goddamned steward now for blinkin' sakes ... worldview of the arrogant narcissist. Luther Standing Bear wasn't talking about being any steward. He was speaking out against that meme of separation and superiority to the environment that infects the civilized mythology.

...

So your thread was about being lulled into mythologies by subtle word usages. I just pointed out a whole bunch of them that you use. It's a good subject, and once you see the mythology of superiority and narcissism the civilized narrative tells, you never see it the same way again afterward.

...

Thanks for the discussion. I'm not even going to address the comment about how it is that Jack Forbes can speak and write in English. I'll let you think that mystery over for yourself. By the way, I'd already read that research paper you posted. I was struck immediately about how long after the bell it was that this researcher was suddenly grabbing at the concept of actually caring about the biosphere, and saying how civilized culture needs to make a social transformation. Same thing them Indians from this mythological 'back then' have been telling civilization for hundreds of years now and continue to tell them today. Civilization seems a little slow on the oopidsday in that paper, not advanced at all if you ask me. I had read that paper already when it came out. What you should do is read Quinn's books, and maybe Jack Forbes books. It would save me a lot of typing. In Ishmael, he undoes and exposes several of the mythological narratives you just used. I think it would be instructive for you. And what Forbes does, is describes how these memes get transmitted, almost like mental viruses. I'm sorry if that seems like a general idea to you. I think it's actually drilling down into something quite specific myself. Incredibly specific.

Cheers.

.

14
The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 25, 2019, 02:48:47 AM »

... usually with the additional claim that there was some time "before" when we weren't unnatural, but never with a clear explanation of how the one state can arise from the other.


An attempt at an explanation was made, but maybe you chose to ignore it?

What's really been discussed here is just the different meanings we colloquially assign to the word-symbol 'natural,' of which there are probably several usages. It obviously has several different colloquial connotations in how the word gets used in language. Of course humans, even those from civilized culture, are natural ... because they are biological life and living on the planet and evolved out of evolution, no different from any other lifeforms found on the earth. We obviously aren't separate from that. In that sense, we are natural. Obviously.

But the word is also used colloquially to mean ... all the rest of the biosphere and earth system that isn't human. This is where it gets quirky, and I think you've sometimes flopped back and forth between the two usages in this thread from time to time as you made or countered various arguments.

This time that you refer back to mockingly, that you don't think was, for which you ignored the explanation that was given for how the quirk in modern humanity arose, can be explained as follows. No other living creature in the ecosystem, including every indigenous culture civilization has ever encountered, has ever consciously chosen (by conscious intent) to exterminate a competitor the way civilization culture does. This is noted by ecologists, no other creature does this. And no indigenous culture does this. Only civilized culture does this. If it's not it's own food, or the food of it's food, civilized culture is ok with exterminating it. Farmers will actively hunt down all wolves just to be rid of them. Crop sprayers will proactively exterminate insects they feel are a nuisance. The examples are many. In fact, the biosphere is mostly all extraneous to civilized culture. Indigenous cultures certainly didn't share this world view. Only civilized man holds this worldview.

This is something no other evolving life form has ever done, not even indigenous cultures. A baboon is an aggressive animal, and it will attack and kill a hyena if it encounters one. However, it does not come up with a plan to consciously and proactively seek out and kill all hyenas as a policy for ridding themselves of their competitor. Only civilized man started doing this on a mass scale and by rationalized policy. Indigenous cultures didn't do this.

It's a pretty defining break from what ecologists talk of as being the peacekeeping law, or animal ethics. It allows for diversity and without it things don't evolve, you'd just wind up with several top species in each niche, and that is not what we see when we look out into the biosphere. Only civilized man exterminates things proactively, sometimes even completely in an area he is occupying. It's a defining trait of civilized culture and considered holy work among civilization agriculturalists.

This is the defining break from the rest of the living biosphere that civilized culture undertook. That was the switch. It's quirky in the same way we would distinguish murder from a non-murder death. Using the logic you used to say what we're doing to the biosphere is 'natural' is just removing a classification in a sense, like saying, as you noted, meh ... climate always changes. Well, then murder isn't murder, it's just another death. Arson isn't arson, it's just another fire.

Just as murder is not 'just another ordinary death,' I think when we can see one culture abandoning a pattern of behavior that all other lifeforms on the planet maintain, as I described above, we could certainly call it unusual, or crazy, or departing from the natural order, much in a similar way to how we don't think murder is just another ho hum way somebody died. We do distinguish murder as being different from just plain old dying. We should consider civilized culture's departure from the order found in the rest of biosphere a similar aberration and not seek to pass it off as normal or ok. We don't do that with murder or arson, because they aren't the same thing as just dying or just a fire.

Natural, nature, unnatural ... they're really just word symbols. Should we get rid of murder as a word too, because that too is just assigning a value judgement to a death. Maybe we should do away with that sort of classification too? That seems to be what your suggesting about a common usage of the word natural or unnatural. It brings nuance to our language, like how murder further defines ways someone can die.

And I hope you give some though to what changed in civilized culture that diverges from the behavior of any other life-form on earth. It's a pretty big deal. I don't think we should seek to cover it over and ignore it with semantic arguments. I'd be fine with calling civilized culture 'unnatural' due to the reason I explained above. They departed from an ecological law that all other life follows. Or maybe we should call it stupid instead. I'd be fine with that too. Or, insane.


15
@AbruptSLR

Just watch for those two gaming strategies I outlined. To summarize, price controls are absolutely required or corporations will just gobble up those dividend cheques for themselves. And the large emitters must not be exempted from the tax, because that's the actual source of the money Hansen was eyeballing. Without them contributing to the tax, the dividend is a ridiculous pittance and not what Hansen envisioned at all.

You need price controls to protect the dividend cheque from being stolen, and large emitters participating in the tax in order to make the dividends large enough to matter.

Watch for it, because with those tiny changes, they've totally gamed it. Coming soon to an area near you!

16
Except you better watch closely how this tax is actually implemented in its details. In Alberta Canada, we have a carbon tax, but it wasn't implemented in line with Hansen's vision at all, where the taxing of large emitters would create a dividend so large that those households you mention would be able to buy solar panels and electric cars with it. Instead, the largest emitters are exempt from the tax and placed under the easily gamed cap and trade system, which has made the dividend cheque we receive pitifully small because the big money source Hansen was aiming at with his idea is exempt, which effectively negates Hansen's concept.

Then, what's happened on top of all that, is that the energy companies have all still cried wolf politically, about a tax which they are actually exempt from, and raised their prices beyond even what those small dividend cheques provided to families, effectively hoovering up all those cheques from the households and placing them into their own pockets instead.

The devil is in the details. In Alberta, the tax has left households net poorer, and in even less of a position to buy alternatives.

Hansen envisioned a culture that actually wanted to solve climate change. He forgot to account for the psychopaths that run and game the system, who are finally only now going to implement the tax because all the Davos people got together and figured out how to game it. Just because they're calling it a carbon tax and dividend program, doesn't mean it's Hansen's vision. All they've done is figured out how to game it is all. Nobody in Alberta's contracting economy is able to buy a solar panel or an electric car with the $120 dollars every three months that we get, especially when our energy costs, overt and hidden, just went up by four times that amount by the companies who don't even pay the tax. It's a total fail here because it was gamed to change Hansen's vision into something he wasn't envisioning at all, which is what corporations and their governments do with ideas.

The devil is in the details.

17
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 20, 2019, 05:52:41 AM »
I don't think most people from civilization even realize that they are just one culture.

Some peoples have understood for centuries that a society built on extraction and accumulation would burn the whole planet alive. Western science has a lot of nerve showing up just as we’re on the precipice of a biospheric death spiral to brandish some graphs and offer to block out the sun just a little.

“Indigenous knowledge systems are rigorous, they pursue excellence, they are critical and comprehensive,” Simpson says. “The global roots of the climatic crisis and the exploitation of natural resources are issues indigenous peoples have been speaking out against for hundreds of years.” The proof is in the pudding: Colonists were warned by word and weapon that a system of individual land ownership would lead to ecological apocalypse, and here we are. What more could you ask from a system of truth and analysis than to alert you to a phenomenon like climate change before it occurs, with enough time to prevent it? That is significantly more than colonial science has offered.

The devaluation of indigenous political thought has nothing to do with its predictive ability. The ruling class produced by accumulation society simply will not put its own system up for debate. (this discussion of culture is what that XR banishes from its ranks by policy, because it's a corporate movement, a march for more culture as usual) Thus the climate change policies we discuss—even and perhaps in particular the Green New Deal—take for granted not just the persistence of commodity accumulation, but its continued growth.

18
Quote
Most writing about technology and climate change still concentrates on mitigation—i.e., reducing emissions, by means of clean energy sources, better batteries, sleek electric vehicles, and so on—or, if all else fails, heroic efforts like engineering the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space. These technologies are often futuristic and cool.

This is the result of a careful co-opting of the environmental message away from doing anything that will help the biosphere, and shifting it toward a social engineering message that seeks to stimulate neoliberal growth economies by turning the climate crisis into a huge money spinner.

No longer is environmentalism about pictures of trees or fuzzy owls who's habitats we'd like to salvage by slowing growth capitalism and it's ideologies. Instead, those symbols have been replaced with western industrial symbols of resource sucking windmills and solar panels that are made by razing the biosphere even further. The message has been carefully co-opted, and the narrative slowly switched. All criticisms of the growth system itself have been removed from the narrative and replaced with a corporate friendly solution that supports renewed growth in their stalling economies. They want investment vehicles, that's all it's about.

The Davos crowd calls it 'the fourth industrial revolution' ... but it isn't called that in the messaging. They even airbrush that out of their invented darlings pictures for the general public to consume. The environmental crisis brought on by the economic growth mentality is very real, but the mainstream solutions being marketed for it are a story of the careful capture and co-opting of a message to serve corporate growth markets only, not to realistically address the problem created through ... growth markets.

"The ‘one kid immediately got twenty supporters’ – from a Swedish network for sustainable business. What is going on is the launch of a global campaign to usher in a required consensus for the Paris Agreement, the New Green Deal and all climate related policies and legislation written by the power elite – for the power elite. This is necessary in order to unlock the trillions of dollars in funding by way of massive public demand."

Notice what was airbrushed out here for the public? This is the wrong kind of green. We need less growth, not more. The precious metals for this tech are harvested by razing the very forests in the Congo that Jane Goodall fought to save for her chimps. The fourth industrial revolution is about money, not environmentalism.


Pages: [1]