I experience great sadness when I engage with, or read articles by, individuals who I greatly respect for the reporting of the reality of the world when I realize that they are anthropogenic climate change (ACC) deniers. There is something about the community of those that stand up for the truthful reality of the world that creates utter science-denying lunacy among some of them when it comes to ACC. I can somewhat understand it from those of the right, as ACC directly threatens the sanctity of the market that they believe in by being the greatest market failure. The requirement for extensive state action also threatens their sheer hatred of state action. But what about those from the left?
"This is not some conspiracy to close down small farms, but rather a complex issue made much more difficult by decades of policy delay."
Actually, it does seem to be just that.
"The above greatly discredits a specific group of scientists and other public health professionals who were under great pressure to feed an elite-serving narrative."
I'm sorry they found the pressure too much. All of these various agendae are being manipulated by the PTBs for their own advantage. Those testifying for them - pressure too much? - end up as repeat perjurers. Someone lies this sort of a situation, I would prefer they be beheaded rather than followed.
The science on climate change is not clear; it depends enormously on what time scale one uses. Is there any agreement on that? Just for starters. That we are figuring out "science" to fit whatever policies the ruling elites want is wrong. And, I suggest, undeniable. I'm 68 and have been active in this stuff since a teenager; I shit in a bucket, save seeds and do biochar and plant trees. What I find fascinating is the point I've reached: the corruption is so great that there is no possible science or policy given the psychopaths and parasites and the power they wield. When someone shoots down Gates' or Kerry's jets, then maybe "we" can start to talk about science.
I have learnt after coming to academia late in my life that there are a lot of careerist jerks in this world, just as much as in the business world. In science though we have to discern between "basic" science and stuff at the edge that is open to profiteering manipulation. The natural scientists are very much fighting the social science attempt to undermine the basic science of biology and sexual reproduction, just as much as they are resisting the attempts to undermine the basic Earth System science including climate change. The tactics used against the latter very much mirror the tactics used against attempts reduce smoking, continuously fund "experts" (most of which are not actually climate scientists) to raise "concerns" or spout absolute bullshit. COVID and MRNA are most definitely not settled science and are open to widespread manipulation, and I have little sympathy for the scientists who sold their soul by their outright lying.
The trick for the elites is to make it that we feel like we cannot believe anything, then they can construct whatever narrative they want. Modernism provided us with the scientific method and this has given us a huge bounty through basic empiricism. Human sex differences and climate change are settled science, no matter how much intellectual garbage is thrown out in an attempt to "debunk" therm. The elites want a world where they stay rich and powerful and the rest of society pays the cost of ecological stress. I am 60 and feel your angst, three decades ago I could never have believed that we would still be arguing about such things.
Also keep in mind "green washing" and the "green rush" (referring to AGW rather than legal weed). There are large factions of the capitalist billionaire elite and grifters all the way down the ladder (including politicians eying the revolving door) who are trying to guide government policy in a manner that lines their pockets by appearing "green" and all that jazz. Elon Musk - I believe - makes hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon credits. https://doctorow.medium.com/teslas-dieselgate-e530d631a311
"The trick for the elites is to make it that we feel like we cannot believe anything,"
What's that quote from a former CIA head, when the american people can't tell what is true anymore.... Something like that. It's not only CIA, but corporate and political practice across the board. I don't know that it's "postmodern" reality so much as simple "baffle them with bullshit" propaganda. And on top of it, even the propagandists fall for their own bs.
Excellent piece! But how weird that people who claim to be progressive, find themselves allied to the most reactionary positions! But perhaps we need to be looking at a Western 'left' that's completely lost the plot as the reason for this insane disjuncture. In other words, the death of politics and the subsequent death of the Western left, a left washed up and bankrupt, utterly compromised by its alliance with an imperialist ideology. Seen in this light, its denial of ecological murder by capitalism, makes complete sense.
There are some traditional leftists who have integrated a leftist critique with an understanding of climate change and ecological collapse. John Bellamy Foster is a very good example. His book "Capitalism in the Anthropocene: Ecological Ruin or Ecological Revolution" is excellent.
From the beginning of the capitalist system and the first rumours of industrialisation critics have pointed out the dangerous environmental impact of socio-economic activities and urbanisation. These included criticisms of long distance trade and its role in transmitting diseases. Cholera, for example, like the plague was a consequence of trade while its impacts were multiplied by such things as slum living, a function generally of industrialism.
All such criticism met immediate and vigorous denial from those benefiting from the changes . Denials which were quickly adopted by dilettantes looking for ideas that appeared radical or original, without earning the hostility of the powerful.
It is good to 'hear' William Bowles wise voice again- happily he looks not a day older.
Ron Pielke Jr (The Honest Broker) and Jessica Weinkle (Conflicted) seem to write nuanced articles about why specific financial interests in highly regulated industries (i.e. insurance industries in the US) might push overly catastrophic narratives and implausibly pessimistic modelling (RCP8.5 vs. RCP4.5). This is not to say that historically the majority of elite interests have been served by anthropogenic climate change denialism.
I suppose that you could construct a reasonable hypothesis that 'denialism' typically serves the interests of industrial capital and 'catastrophizing' serves the interests of financial capital. I imagine that the real story is that capital loves a good crisis be it imagined or real and is largely indifferent to whether billions are killed or not (just so long as billionaires are not the ones being killed).
You make a good point. The rich want only performative policies that don't threaten their interests until it can be spun as a crisis that needs immediate action without citizen oversight (just like the bank bailout after the GFC and the corporate bailout during COVID) and time for a proper societal discussion. In a "crisis" they can power and money grab, and shut up any critics. Also, to profit out of fake solutions such as carbon capture and storage. We are not many years away from the crisis they are looking for, but that crisis may not be one modern society can survive. And, yes they dont give a shit about billions dying, as long as it is not them.
Well said. I think people can't get a handle on climate change because it is exponential, universal and a predicament that will likely end in the death of everything we love. Easier to say it's sunspots and we will be ok. We will not be ok.
We can turn it around if the US, Russia, China, India, Germany and Japan co-ordinated to deindustrialise to a technological level of the 16th century, with a similar population reduction, and used Far Eastern intensive agricultural techniques of that era.
Yes, I remember the lily pond problem attempt to explain this, "if 1/16th of the lily pond is covered in lilies before you go away for a 4-day weekend how much will be covered when you get back if the area of lilies doubles every day?" We are not evolved for the exponential.
My take on the likes of Jimmy Dore, who I also respect quite a bit, is that given the other opinions he espouses - generally antiestablishment left-leaning antiwar folks - which by nature requires nearly constant (justified) bashing of the Democrats and liberal warmongers, he's already not going to get a big audience from those of us who think there is merit to the science of "ACC" much less standard center-left corporate Democrats, and is, rather, throwing the tent flaps open to an audience that has demonstrated is willing to pay money for - and click on - this type of content. In the same fashion as Matt Taibbi has "alt-right" and right-wing paying subscribers, again many of whom lean to the right and even more so are very much out to "own the libs."
Thanks for this post. I don't understand why people can't fathom the fact that every faction or belief system has some crazies, and that they shouldn't discount everything the non-crazies say.
Sorry, but I believe you're wrong. Check out my aggregation site https://sitrepworld.info/ . Going back for two years you will find dozens upon dozens of articles from many highly credible people that debunk the notion of anthropogenic climate change. First off, CO2 is life itself for the plant kingdom. Secondly, the arguments favoring the electromagnetic activity of the sun as the culprit (insofar as there actually is any global warming), including the recent prevalence of sunspot activity are very convincing. Thirdly, note the strong arguments for the saturation effect of CO2 in the atmosphere which keeps it at a harmless level. If I were you I'd stick to geopolitics, a subject you're covering quite well..
There is a simple scientific saying that "the dose makes the poison", you can even make yourself sick by drinking too much water (electrolyte depletion). Yes, plant life needs CO2 and thrives in it until the other limiters kick in (e.g. nitrogen availability) or the other effects of climate change overwhelm the benefits. I have visited your site and we are aligned on many things. I have also spent three decades looking at climate change, painfully learning the science in detail, reading the UN IPCC reports etc. Sunspots have been debunked so many times, and believe me I have read and got deep into so many "credible" naysayers and every time their arguments fall apart and they keep moving the goal posts when you push and question them. The actual climate scientists (as against the politician bullshitters) are very conservative with their research and I find are them very open to questions and are able to support their arguments in detail. This is called Geopolitics and Climate Change for a reason, and it will stay that way. I know that by arguing against both sex denial and climate science denial I will annoy a lot of people, but real science denial is just that. Very different to profit and power hungry groups lying to us lying to us for profit and political control.
I was ‘sad’ to read this post today, especially in light of the fact that I pledged your monthly subscription fee just yesterday. I don’t have the emotional or mental energy right now to embrace what you end the essay with that this sub being a place to exchange ideas. I will just say that you embrace the “science” as truth yet there is no science in this article, only references to experts you believe to be that. Believe. I have been on this beautiful planet 72 years, most of it lived ‘outdoors’. You state; “ In this specific area they sound just the same as the right-wing ACC deniers, spouting rubbish about sunspots, CO2 not driving climate change etc.“ CO2 is not driving climate change, increased CO2 is a downstream change brought about by an upstream condition. It may be a socioeconomic effect, it may be spots on the sun. The elephant in the room is whatever *it* is, write about that. If you site the scientific research that supports your belief please reference at the bottom of the page and I’ll read and make my own evaluation. Please do not assume that I am incapable of that for my not being a ‘scientist’ because if you do then you are only increasing the vast chasm between the people in the picture ( whose little signs are actually true in the context of what mix of gases are necessary for life) at the beginning of the essay and the underpaid(relative to what?)scientists who claim their observations somehow predict the future. I enjoy your geopolitical commentary, this not so much.
I have spent 30 years painfully investigating the science and also painfully having the type of discussion you request. Again and again I meet with obfuscation, moving of goal posts etc. etc, It is amazing to me that people live their lives completely dependent upon science, including physics, then question a very specific part of Earth Science and reject very basic science out of hand. If you don't believe that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 (and methane, nitrous oxide etc.) trap heat and drive climate change we differ at the moist basic level. What do you think it is? Its certainly not sunspots. There are of course secondary effects, such as moisture and cloud changes, but the basic driver is the level of the gases. As we move through the El Nino I will be spending a lot more time on climate change, the ENSO cycle, feedback tipping points and historical evidence.
The sunspot remark was only to make the point that there is *something* under the increase of the warming gases, the greenhouse gases that I think are only a symptom of all the observations and reductions of data that science points to as a trend. To not acknowledge that the mass of humanity and all its technocratic trappings do not have an effect on the balance of the eco system of this beautiful blue dot is naive. And I agree that the ignorance of the average citizens( of any country!) awareness of what is behind every damn machine and technological device that we all enjoy as a ‘quality’ of life is astounding to myself as well. The sunspot remark was only to allow the people in that picture a voice, right or wrong, it is there right. I’m a self taught and experienced engineer, mechanic, machinist, carpenter, electrician….I’ve been building stuff since childhood. The understanding of first principles is paramount to to the successful manifestation of any abstract creative idea. I read like a fiend, science, physics, philosophy, geopolitical history mostly. I’m also a surfer and have enjoyed the concentrated energy manifest from the El Niño phenomena many times over the years, the one from 1969 remains as a hallmark in my memory. Were those man made phenomena? I always understood them as cyclical phenomenon of the overall distribution of heat across and in the oceans of the world. These phenomena are also influenced by the spin, tilt and precession of the earth on its axis, not withstanding any energetic input to our seemingly *balanced* system from solar fluctuations and other subtle cosmic radiation inputs.Throw some gravitational and magnetic field effects in for fun and then put the anthropic inputs as well, talk about a complex *system*!!! I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time making sure I understand the second law. See Sabine Hossenfelder for her take on entropy and the second law, not conventional and coming from a very highly regarded physicist. My point is the planet is not a closed system, it never was and never will. Evolution is a process and we are part of it. I have never understood the tendency towards misanthropy. I’m a self described ‘machine’ person , we all are, I’m doing it with my index finger on this I pad and I’ll do it in the morning when I put the key in the ignition to go into the town I help to maintain the order of. Most of the infrastructure I enjoy was here before I existed as this consciousness. I do not hate myself nor my fellows, as ignorant of the technology they use without a thought of it’s entropic price as they seem to be. Biology has some how *learned* to cheat entropy, see Karl Fristen for his free energy principle. I refuse to marginalize the little people for their lack of understanding. Why has the knowledge base of mankind remained locked behind an academic curtain of qualification and cost only to trickle down via the high altar of ‘expertise’? Blah blah blah… right? So I’ll tell you what is the driver of climate change; a complex web of interrelated phenomena including the WAY in which we have come to live as men on this evolved planet. So since we can’t change the inputs into the system other than our anthropic ones I can understand your passion and concern. So let’s question the WAY we live and dream up another way to do that. Electric cars are only a bandaid. Creativity not condemnation are the answer, just as in the micro of Ukraine which could become the nuclear macro at any moment. Time is wasting as the ‘proletariat’ seems to be energizing more by the day. I have lots of ideas, torturing the little people via the tried and untrue austerity is not one.
If the Earth was a closed system it would be a very cold place, the atmosphere directly interacts with the energy from the Sun. The history of the probable "snowball earth" and "hothouse earth" and how the Earth corrected over vast periods of time, and how greenhouse gases changed in response to a strengthening Sun over time is fascinating. James Lovelock's Daisy World is one of the most simple and elegant ways of showing how the Earth System can be self-regulating with respect to an external varying energy source (the Sun).
Anthropogenic Climate Change is overlain across the natural climate cycles (Melankovic etc.) and there are some that argue that human pre-industrial emissions helped maintain the Holocene. ENSO is a natural shorter term cycle, but its effects will be intensified by a warming climate. We are now pushing toward a hothouse earth outcome. The greatest irony may be that ACC will trigger Earth System feedbacks which runaway from any ability of humanity to control them. The Earth will then repair itself, but not in timeframes relevant to humanity.
The "little people" tend to know what is happening, but the elites and their propagandists lie to them and obfuscate matters to preserve their own power and wealth. The "Spirit Level" book identified US$20,000 as an income above which happiness does not improve, we do not need the consumer goods (including EVs) above that level to be happy. The most equitable way to deal with climate change would be to converge on that income point with extensive public transport, but there are a lot of very rich people who would not like that at all.
How about eliminating the energy footprint of many industrialized *food* sources like corn syrup based sweet things that everyone knows are bad for them. The medical industry(oxymoronic description but true) would rather generate income from ‘products’ that manage type 2 diabetes than explain the cause and empower people to change themselves and their habits that manifest as the symptom. As poor as the current response time of the medical ‘system’ is the time may be ripe. There are many other categories of food production as well, sugar and milled cereals being my pet peeves. The energy footprint plus the negative byproducts of industrial farming are immense. The threshold for farming becoming industrial is a question that we should try to answer. I preach public transportation whenever I’m given the soapbox. There is a lot we can do, but you know as well as I that policy capture by the mega corps is far reaching to put it lightly . Education is key but the desire for knowledge must come from inside each individual, perhaps engendered in a family culture of wonder of the world we live in…..? Exposing a value structure different from our current quantity based system that gave purpose and satisfaction to individuals will and does meet great resistance from the mainstream. If in fact there really is any *free* dynamic in our current version of markets then voting for quality of life via our spending choices is definitely something we can do.
Has anyone ever quantified the amount of heat energy that any NASA, ESA or private enterprise rocket launch puts into the atmosphere? I’ve been watching the NASA channel since my first C band satellite tv receiver. I think the earth science they do are worthy but all the interplanetary stuff should be held accountable at the energetic level. And I agree with Oracles comment about the elites and their jets. So after thinking about this overnight I agree with much of what you say, none of it is anything I have not read or thought about in context. But, I think like Oracle, that forcing us at the bottom to embrace and implement all these painful adjustments in our lifestyle without the same or even more from the top is only going to have bad implications for the current social order, and you know exactly what I mean. The earth will abide and the grass will grow again, mankind will survive if and when we understands why evolution has brought us to this place and time. Knowledge is not necessarily understanding.
"I experience great sadness when I engage with, or read articles by, individuals who I greatly respect for the reporting of the reality of the world when I realize that they are anthropogenic climate change (ACC) deniers."
And I unsubscribe from anyone who uses the inflammatory, disrespectful term 'denier.'
"This is not some conspiracy to close down small farms, but rather a complex issue made much more difficult by decades of policy delay."
Actually, it does seem to be just that.
"The above greatly discredits a specific group of scientists and other public health professionals who were under great pressure to feed an elite-serving narrative."
I'm sorry they found the pressure too much. All of these various agendae are being manipulated by the PTBs for their own advantage. Those testifying for them - pressure too much? - end up as repeat perjurers. Someone lies this sort of a situation, I would prefer they be beheaded rather than followed.
The science on climate change is not clear; it depends enormously on what time scale one uses. Is there any agreement on that? Just for starters. That we are figuring out "science" to fit whatever policies the ruling elites want is wrong. And, I suggest, undeniable. I'm 68 and have been active in this stuff since a teenager; I shit in a bucket, save seeds and do biochar and plant trees. What I find fascinating is the point I've reached: the corruption is so great that there is no possible science or policy given the psychopaths and parasites and the power they wield. When someone shoots down Gates' or Kerry's jets, then maybe "we" can start to talk about science.
I have learnt after coming to academia late in my life that there are a lot of careerist jerks in this world, just as much as in the business world. In science though we have to discern between "basic" science and stuff at the edge that is open to profiteering manipulation. The natural scientists are very much fighting the social science attempt to undermine the basic science of biology and sexual reproduction, just as much as they are resisting the attempts to undermine the basic Earth System science including climate change. The tactics used against the latter very much mirror the tactics used against attempts reduce smoking, continuously fund "experts" (most of which are not actually climate scientists) to raise "concerns" or spout absolute bullshit. COVID and MRNA are most definitely not settled science and are open to widespread manipulation, and I have little sympathy for the scientists who sold their soul by their outright lying.
The trick for the elites is to make it that we feel like we cannot believe anything, then they can construct whatever narrative they want. Modernism provided us with the scientific method and this has given us a huge bounty through basic empiricism. Human sex differences and climate change are settled science, no matter how much intellectual garbage is thrown out in an attempt to "debunk" therm. The elites want a world where they stay rich and powerful and the rest of society pays the cost of ecological stress. I am 60 and feel your angst, three decades ago I could never have believed that we would still be arguing about such things.
Also keep in mind "green washing" and the "green rush" (referring to AGW rather than legal weed). There are large factions of the capitalist billionaire elite and grifters all the way down the ladder (including politicians eying the revolving door) who are trying to guide government policy in a manner that lines their pockets by appearing "green" and all that jazz. Elon Musk - I believe - makes hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon credits. https://doctorow.medium.com/teslas-dieselgate-e530d631a311
"The trick for the elites is to make it that we feel like we cannot believe anything,"
What's that quote from a former CIA head, when the american people can't tell what is true anymore.... Something like that. It's not only CIA, but corporate and political practice across the board. I don't know that it's "postmodern" reality so much as simple "baffle them with bullshit" propaganda. And on top of it, even the propagandists fall for their own bs.
Excellent piece! But how weird that people who claim to be progressive, find themselves allied to the most reactionary positions! But perhaps we need to be looking at a Western 'left' that's completely lost the plot as the reason for this insane disjuncture. In other words, the death of politics and the subsequent death of the Western left, a left washed up and bankrupt, utterly compromised by its alliance with an imperialist ideology. Seen in this light, its denial of ecological murder by capitalism, makes complete sense.
There are some traditional leftists who have integrated a leftist critique with an understanding of climate change and ecological collapse. John Bellamy Foster is a very good example. His book "Capitalism in the Anthropocene: Ecological Ruin or Ecological Revolution" is excellent.
A great take by him of the fake "left" and its irrationality: https://mronline.org/2023/02/21/the-new-irrationalism-a-conversation-with-john-bellamy-foster/
Agreed Roger, forgive my generalisations, I'm just pissed off.
From the beginning of the capitalist system and the first rumours of industrialisation critics have pointed out the dangerous environmental impact of socio-economic activities and urbanisation. These included criticisms of long distance trade and its role in transmitting diseases. Cholera, for example, like the plague was a consequence of trade while its impacts were multiplied by such things as slum living, a function generally of industrialism.
All such criticism met immediate and vigorous denial from those benefiting from the changes . Denials which were quickly adopted by dilettantes looking for ideas that appeared radical or original, without earning the hostility of the powerful.
It is good to 'hear' William Bowles wise voice again- happily he looks not a day older.
Ron Pielke Jr (The Honest Broker) and Jessica Weinkle (Conflicted) seem to write nuanced articles about why specific financial interests in highly regulated industries (i.e. insurance industries in the US) might push overly catastrophic narratives and implausibly pessimistic modelling (RCP8.5 vs. RCP4.5). This is not to say that historically the majority of elite interests have been served by anthropogenic climate change denialism.
I suppose that you could construct a reasonable hypothesis that 'denialism' typically serves the interests of industrial capital and 'catastrophizing' serves the interests of financial capital. I imagine that the real story is that capital loves a good crisis be it imagined or real and is largely indifferent to whether billions are killed or not (just so long as billionaires are not the ones being killed).
You make a good point. The rich want only performative policies that don't threaten their interests until it can be spun as a crisis that needs immediate action without citizen oversight (just like the bank bailout after the GFC and the corporate bailout during COVID) and time for a proper societal discussion. In a "crisis" they can power and money grab, and shut up any critics. Also, to profit out of fake solutions such as carbon capture and storage. We are not many years away from the crisis they are looking for, but that crisis may not be one modern society can survive. And, yes they dont give a shit about billions dying, as long as it is not them.
Well said. I think people can't get a handle on climate change because it is exponential, universal and a predicament that will likely end in the death of everything we love. Easier to say it's sunspots and we will be ok. We will not be ok.
We can turn it around if the US, Russia, China, India, Germany and Japan co-ordinated to deindustrialise to a technological level of the 16th century, with a similar population reduction, and used Far Eastern intensive agricultural techniques of that era.
Yes, I remember the lily pond problem attempt to explain this, "if 1/16th of the lily pond is covered in lilies before you go away for a 4-day weekend how much will be covered when you get back if the area of lilies doubles every day?" We are not evolved for the exponential.
My take on the likes of Jimmy Dore, who I also respect quite a bit, is that given the other opinions he espouses - generally antiestablishment left-leaning antiwar folks - which by nature requires nearly constant (justified) bashing of the Democrats and liberal warmongers, he's already not going to get a big audience from those of us who think there is merit to the science of "ACC" much less standard center-left corporate Democrats, and is, rather, throwing the tent flaps open to an audience that has demonstrated is willing to pay money for - and click on - this type of content. In the same fashion as Matt Taibbi has "alt-right" and right-wing paying subscribers, again many of whom lean to the right and even more so are very much out to "own the libs."
Thanks for this post. I don't understand why people can't fathom the fact that every faction or belief system has some crazies, and that they shouldn't discount everything the non-crazies say.
Sorry, but I believe you're wrong. Check out my aggregation site https://sitrepworld.info/ . Going back for two years you will find dozens upon dozens of articles from many highly credible people that debunk the notion of anthropogenic climate change. First off, CO2 is life itself for the plant kingdom. Secondly, the arguments favoring the electromagnetic activity of the sun as the culprit (insofar as there actually is any global warming), including the recent prevalence of sunspot activity are very convincing. Thirdly, note the strong arguments for the saturation effect of CO2 in the atmosphere which keeps it at a harmless level. If I were you I'd stick to geopolitics, a subject you're covering quite well..
There is a simple scientific saying that "the dose makes the poison", you can even make yourself sick by drinking too much water (electrolyte depletion). Yes, plant life needs CO2 and thrives in it until the other limiters kick in (e.g. nitrogen availability) or the other effects of climate change overwhelm the benefits. I have visited your site and we are aligned on many things. I have also spent three decades looking at climate change, painfully learning the science in detail, reading the UN IPCC reports etc. Sunspots have been debunked so many times, and believe me I have read and got deep into so many "credible" naysayers and every time their arguments fall apart and they keep moving the goal posts when you push and question them. The actual climate scientists (as against the politician bullshitters) are very conservative with their research and I find are them very open to questions and are able to support their arguments in detail. This is called Geopolitics and Climate Change for a reason, and it will stay that way. I know that by arguing against both sex denial and climate science denial I will annoy a lot of people, but real science denial is just that. Very different to profit and power hungry groups lying to us lying to us for profit and political control.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The subject is fraught and only time will tell - or not. So, let's just agree to disagree and move on..
Climate Change Is Real !
How do i know ? Spring, locally, doesnt officially start until 1 September, yet yesterday (31 July 2023),
the butter, which i store in the 'fridge only in Summer, spread easily...
It wouldnt spread easily if it was still Winter, so Spring has started a month earlier...So Climate Change Is Real...
Hahahaha I follow the weather trend from the phase state of my jar of coconut oil!
I was ‘sad’ to read this post today, especially in light of the fact that I pledged your monthly subscription fee just yesterday. I don’t have the emotional or mental energy right now to embrace what you end the essay with that this sub being a place to exchange ideas. I will just say that you embrace the “science” as truth yet there is no science in this article, only references to experts you believe to be that. Believe. I have been on this beautiful planet 72 years, most of it lived ‘outdoors’. You state; “ In this specific area they sound just the same as the right-wing ACC deniers, spouting rubbish about sunspots, CO2 not driving climate change etc.“ CO2 is not driving climate change, increased CO2 is a downstream change brought about by an upstream condition. It may be a socioeconomic effect, it may be spots on the sun. The elephant in the room is whatever *it* is, write about that. If you site the scientific research that supports your belief please reference at the bottom of the page and I’ll read and make my own evaluation. Please do not assume that I am incapable of that for my not being a ‘scientist’ because if you do then you are only increasing the vast chasm between the people in the picture ( whose little signs are actually true in the context of what mix of gases are necessary for life) at the beginning of the essay and the underpaid(relative to what?)scientists who claim their observations somehow predict the future. I enjoy your geopolitical commentary, this not so much.
I have spent 30 years painfully investigating the science and also painfully having the type of discussion you request. Again and again I meet with obfuscation, moving of goal posts etc. etc, It is amazing to me that people live their lives completely dependent upon science, including physics, then question a very specific part of Earth Science and reject very basic science out of hand. If you don't believe that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 (and methane, nitrous oxide etc.) trap heat and drive climate change we differ at the moist basic level. What do you think it is? Its certainly not sunspots. There are of course secondary effects, such as moisture and cloud changes, but the basic driver is the level of the gases. As we move through the El Nino I will be spending a lot more time on climate change, the ENSO cycle, feedback tipping points and historical evidence.
The sunspot remark was only to make the point that there is *something* under the increase of the warming gases, the greenhouse gases that I think are only a symptom of all the observations and reductions of data that science points to as a trend. To not acknowledge that the mass of humanity and all its technocratic trappings do not have an effect on the balance of the eco system of this beautiful blue dot is naive. And I agree that the ignorance of the average citizens( of any country!) awareness of what is behind every damn machine and technological device that we all enjoy as a ‘quality’ of life is astounding to myself as well. The sunspot remark was only to allow the people in that picture a voice, right or wrong, it is there right. I’m a self taught and experienced engineer, mechanic, machinist, carpenter, electrician….I’ve been building stuff since childhood. The understanding of first principles is paramount to to the successful manifestation of any abstract creative idea. I read like a fiend, science, physics, philosophy, geopolitical history mostly. I’m also a surfer and have enjoyed the concentrated energy manifest from the El Niño phenomena many times over the years, the one from 1969 remains as a hallmark in my memory. Were those man made phenomena? I always understood them as cyclical phenomenon of the overall distribution of heat across and in the oceans of the world. These phenomena are also influenced by the spin, tilt and precession of the earth on its axis, not withstanding any energetic input to our seemingly *balanced* system from solar fluctuations and other subtle cosmic radiation inputs.Throw some gravitational and magnetic field effects in for fun and then put the anthropic inputs as well, talk about a complex *system*!!! I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time making sure I understand the second law. See Sabine Hossenfelder for her take on entropy and the second law, not conventional and coming from a very highly regarded physicist. My point is the planet is not a closed system, it never was and never will. Evolution is a process and we are part of it. I have never understood the tendency towards misanthropy. I’m a self described ‘machine’ person , we all are, I’m doing it with my index finger on this I pad and I’ll do it in the morning when I put the key in the ignition to go into the town I help to maintain the order of. Most of the infrastructure I enjoy was here before I existed as this consciousness. I do not hate myself nor my fellows, as ignorant of the technology they use without a thought of it’s entropic price as they seem to be. Biology has some how *learned* to cheat entropy, see Karl Fristen for his free energy principle. I refuse to marginalize the little people for their lack of understanding. Why has the knowledge base of mankind remained locked behind an academic curtain of qualification and cost only to trickle down via the high altar of ‘expertise’? Blah blah blah… right? So I’ll tell you what is the driver of climate change; a complex web of interrelated phenomena including the WAY in which we have come to live as men on this evolved planet. So since we can’t change the inputs into the system other than our anthropic ones I can understand your passion and concern. So let’s question the WAY we live and dream up another way to do that. Electric cars are only a bandaid. Creativity not condemnation are the answer, just as in the micro of Ukraine which could become the nuclear macro at any moment. Time is wasting as the ‘proletariat’ seems to be energizing more by the day. I have lots of ideas, torturing the little people via the tried and untrue austerity is not one.
If the Earth was a closed system it would be a very cold place, the atmosphere directly interacts with the energy from the Sun. The history of the probable "snowball earth" and "hothouse earth" and how the Earth corrected over vast periods of time, and how greenhouse gases changed in response to a strengthening Sun over time is fascinating. James Lovelock's Daisy World is one of the most simple and elegant ways of showing how the Earth System can be self-regulating with respect to an external varying energy source (the Sun).
Anthropogenic Climate Change is overlain across the natural climate cycles (Melankovic etc.) and there are some that argue that human pre-industrial emissions helped maintain the Holocene. ENSO is a natural shorter term cycle, but its effects will be intensified by a warming climate. We are now pushing toward a hothouse earth outcome. The greatest irony may be that ACC will trigger Earth System feedbacks which runaway from any ability of humanity to control them. The Earth will then repair itself, but not in timeframes relevant to humanity.
The "little people" tend to know what is happening, but the elites and their propagandists lie to them and obfuscate matters to preserve their own power and wealth. The "Spirit Level" book identified US$20,000 as an income above which happiness does not improve, we do not need the consumer goods (including EVs) above that level to be happy. The most equitable way to deal with climate change would be to converge on that income point with extensive public transport, but there are a lot of very rich people who would not like that at all.
How about eliminating the energy footprint of many industrialized *food* sources like corn syrup based sweet things that everyone knows are bad for them. The medical industry(oxymoronic description but true) would rather generate income from ‘products’ that manage type 2 diabetes than explain the cause and empower people to change themselves and their habits that manifest as the symptom. As poor as the current response time of the medical ‘system’ is the time may be ripe. There are many other categories of food production as well, sugar and milled cereals being my pet peeves. The energy footprint plus the negative byproducts of industrial farming are immense. The threshold for farming becoming industrial is a question that we should try to answer. I preach public transportation whenever I’m given the soapbox. There is a lot we can do, but you know as well as I that policy capture by the mega corps is far reaching to put it lightly . Education is key but the desire for knowledge must come from inside each individual, perhaps engendered in a family culture of wonder of the world we live in…..? Exposing a value structure different from our current quantity based system that gave purpose and satisfaction to individuals will and does meet great resistance from the mainstream. If in fact there really is any *free* dynamic in our current version of markets then voting for quality of life via our spending choices is definitely something we can do.
Has anyone ever quantified the amount of heat energy that any NASA, ESA or private enterprise rocket launch puts into the atmosphere? I’ve been watching the NASA channel since my first C band satellite tv receiver. I think the earth science they do are worthy but all the interplanetary stuff should be held accountable at the energetic level. And I agree with Oracles comment about the elites and their jets. So after thinking about this overnight I agree with much of what you say, none of it is anything I have not read or thought about in context. But, I think like Oracle, that forcing us at the bottom to embrace and implement all these painful adjustments in our lifestyle without the same or even more from the top is only going to have bad implications for the current social order, and you know exactly what I mean. The earth will abide and the grass will grow again, mankind will survive if and when we understands why evolution has brought us to this place and time. Knowledge is not necessarily understanding.
Brilliant essay, thanks
"I experience great sadness when I engage with, or read articles by, individuals who I greatly respect for the reporting of the reality of the world when I realize that they are anthropogenic climate change (ACC) deniers."
And I unsubscribe from anyone who uses the inflammatory, disrespectful term 'denier.'