Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


At What Date Do You Wish to See A Dystopian World, Or Your Children or Grandchildren Dead?

*Pic: Flickr, David Blackwell: ‘Walking home one evening in 2074 Paul wondered about the scientific breakthrough reversing the effects of climate change and its impact on his beach condo investment’ …

First published July 7

Lately, when there is discussion of climate change there are two conversations going on; one pushing the need for reliable energy sources, and the other being in relation to climate change. Climate change has to a great extent been subsumed by discussions in relation to energy.

But, the lack of water, breakdown of crops, and sea level rise will lead to the creation of a dystopian world creating refugees by the score. Reticulated water problems have already been experienced in California, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia etc, a recipe for community breakdown. Lack of water resources have been stated to be a background influence in the Arab Spring. Sea level rise has already been experienced in a number of locations.

It seems like a hysterical title, but it is promoted in all seriousness, people are dying through climate change, a very recent example is 33 deaths in Canada from heat stroke.

Professor James Anderson who alerted the world about the ozone layer has stated … “The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.”

He has also stated “Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no.”1

A number of Australian habitats are breaking down,2 including:

• “kelp forests shifting to seaweed turfs following a single marine heatwave in 2011;

• the destruction of Gondwanan refugia by wildfire ignited by lightning storms in 2016;

• dieback of floodplain forests along the Murray River following the millennial drought in 2001–2009;

• large-scale conversion of alpine forest to shrubland due to repeated fires from 2003–2014;

• community-level boom and bust in the arid zone following extreme rainfall in 2011–2012, and

• mangrove dieback across a 1,000km stretch of the Gulf of Carpentaria after a weak monsoon in 2015-2016.”

The IPCC is in the process of compiling research for a Report to be published later this year, leaked documentation indicates that the minimal standard set at Paris of a 1.5C above pre-Industrial times is virtually not attainable. 3

Permafrost is thawing at quite a rate causing the breakdown of infra-structure and public and private buildings. Also, with the breakdown of permafrost greenhouse gases are emitted. Anton Vaks et al studied caves in permafrost areas, in areas where permafrost was intermittent, and non-permafrost areas.4

Robertscribbler a week or so ago gave warnings about weather forecasts for extremely hot weather to be experienced in the following days. Scientists have stated that a fingerprint of climate change is the increasing warmth of night time temperatures, Robertscribbler gives a later breakdown of the temperatures on the film he has attached to his article showing how night time temperature has been increasing along with other records.5 It has been a neutral ENSO period which does not bode well when there is a 50% chance of changing to an El Nino later in the year.6

James Hansen in 1988 created 4 scenarios to display what can be expected depending on how serious climate change was taken; contrarian fraud misrepresented two of his scenarios, and then argued he was wrong.7 The hyperlinks provide the details.

Just lately two studies have been published in relation to Antarctica; one showing the degree of melting of the Antarctic 8, interestingly the other study supports the first study in a way, on the basis as volume of ice is lost causes the bedrock is lifting slightly.9

People die from climate change10, Also visit epidemiological studies.

A New York article warns that 800 million people are at risk in South Asia.11

James Hansen et al have provided research in relation to sea level rise, they postulate that sea level rise will be far greater than what the IPCC has predicted 12.

So if you don’t mind people dying or being placed in survival conditions; then continue to push the status quo; a business as usual approach promoting coal, gas and coal powered stations.The risks created for young people increase with time; the warning provided by Professor James Anderson is certainly not the only one provided by scientists.

Please prove me wrong, though to do so it will be necessary to debunk the references provided. The article is about the exceptionally high risk of ignoring climate change, the risks are increasing rapidly.

Though civil strife and war are the most likely matters; rather than, excessive warmth that pose the greatest danger as essential resources are lost.

Refs …

1… https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/#6c0aa341963e
2 … https://theconversation.com/ecosystems-across-australia-are-collapsing-under-climate-change-99367
3 … http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1748-9326/page/IPCC-SR1.5
4 … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71YvYqJWQc
5 … https://robertscribbler.com/2018/07/05/temp-records-shattered-across-northern-hemisphere-33-lives-lost-to-heat-in-quebec/
6 … http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
7 … https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
8 … https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/28/17475342/antarctica-ice-melt-thaw-climate-change-sea-level
9 … http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/rising-bedrock-below-west-antarctica-could-delay-catastrophic-ice-sheet-collapse
10 … https://qz.com/568450/fossil-fuels-kill-more-people-every-year-than-wars-murders-and-traffic-accidents-combined/
11 … https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/28/climate/india-pakistan-warming-hotspots.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
12 … https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist

*Keith Antonysen has been researching climate change for several years. Apart from reading about climate science, Keith also views pseudo-science presented by contrarians. It seems that the material referenced by contrarians is continually recycled. Doctoring graphs by contrarians is something that has been seen on occasion. Fossil fuel companies have known for decades about the impact of their products.

New York Times Opinion: Abnormally hot …

CTV News: Amid extreme heat, 33 die in Quebec

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Kim Peart

    July 15, 2018 at 5:31 am

  2. TGC

    July 14, 2018 at 2:49 pm

    #37 … “We are now doomed on Earth alone.”
    Euthanise! Euthanise!

  3. Kim Peart

    July 11, 2018 at 1:43 am

    Re #35 … TWO – Concerning evolution and human progress, we need to consider the speed of events in our current age.

    Computers and computer related technologies are progressing at an accelerating rate. We do not live in normal evolutionary times.

    With the dawn of the space age, we gained the ability to expand life on Earth into space. Spelt out in works like “The High Frontier ~ 1976” by the Princeton physics professor, Gerard K. O’Neill.

    O’Neill saw that making the industrial transition to the power of the Sun in space, we would “find ourselves here on Earth with a clean energy source, and we will further improve our environment by saving, each year, over a billion tons of fossil fuels.” (page 162).

    It was physically possible for the space effort to have been in full swing in the 1980s.

    James Hansen later worked out that in the 1980s, CO2 in the air passed a tipping point of 350 ppm. What kind of coincidence is that?

    Our simple reality is: we are now subject to evolution at a rapid pace, with the most primal force of all in the Universe ~ expansion.

    By not acting on space when we could have, we have burnt too much fossil fuel for too long.

    Now the scientists are telling us about the silence from the stars, and how this behaviour may be all too common among planet civilisations on the cusp of expansion.

    Now we face a rather rude choice.

    We can float along with business as usual, which got us into the carbon mess, or we can get really smart, really fast and catch up with the future we should have been in with space decades ago.

    The alternative is in the warnings from the scientists and the basic carbon maths (comment #30).

    We are now doomed on Earth alone.

    We need to work out a path of survival in which each interested individual can engage.

    I believe that we may still have time to act.

  4. Kim Peart

    July 11, 2018 at 1:08 am

    Re #35 … Max, it is quite disturbing to me that you don’t read a comment, just blow smoke with what you think someone has written.

    When I wrote “Repeatedly I have stated that space development must go hand in hand with winning back a safe Earth” .. that is what I meant.

    If you wished to know how that would happen you would have asked questions, rather than running crazy with assumptions.

    What you wrote about space is absolute rubbish. It doesn’t work like that.

    Fantasising about how you think space must work is an absolute folly, and utterly disrespectful to the thousands of scientists and engineers who have worked on solving the space problems since the 1960s.

    I will say this much, and I invite you to read this.

    Mars, or the Moon, will only be stepping stones to a more permanent solution to living in space.

    For health reasons, and being able to return to Earth for a holiday, the real future of human settlement in space will be in orbital space habitats which also provide radiation protection.

    You need to ask a heap more questions if you want the basic facts about space.

    What I have written above will give you a few key words to investigate on the Internet, if you wish to know.

  5. max

    July 10, 2018 at 10:09 pm

    # 34, Kim … Fish didn’t just jump out of the water and start running around.

    It is estimated that it has taken 540 million years for humans to make the transition from the sea to now. Yes, we can live in space and we can go to Mars .. but Mars will never be an alternative earth.

    We would be supermen for a while, confined to space suits and domes, and if we ever adapted over generations we would be marooned on Mars, too weak to come back. To put out false hopes of surviving the current ongoing destruction of Earth by living in space and coming back in a thousand years or so when earth becomes habitable, is at this stage, only a dream. The mega rich must already be building survival domes on earth; it can be the only reason they are still pursuing fossil fuels.

  6. Kim Peart

    July 10, 2018 at 6:25 am

    Re #33 … Max, why this Earth only approach to survival?

    If fish had remained in the sea, we would not be here.

    We are children of the Universe, not just the Earth.

    We are all made of the dust of stars.

    I suggest that it was our failure to act on serious space development in the 1970s which has resulted in our survival crisis now.

    If you wish to understand how space really works, ask more questions.

    When I asked, I found a working answer to each question.

    Why assume you understand how space will work, based on an SF novel?

    The space options have been worked out by scientists and engineers, not SF writers.

    If you build a brick wall between you and survival, you will not see what is possible.

    Repeatedly I have stated that space development must go hand in hand with winning back a safe Earth.

    Many times I have described the details, but folk seem blind to simple words.

    We can only save ourselves, and save the Earth, by getting really serious, really fast, about space options.

    If you wish to understand how, follow the trail of questions.

    The longer we delay action, the harder it will be to act.

    At some point in the near future we will have committed mass suicide by waiting too long.

    What each individual does now will determine our survival odds.

    Survival is not won by the suicidal.

  7. max

    July 9, 2018 at 10:15 pm

    # 31 Kim … All life on earth developed over millions of years from who knows what to the present life forms.

    Evolution has uniquely formed and shaped life on earth. Humans have been able to alter their environment and live in inhospitable places .. but it was still earth, with the same gravitation.

    Can we adapt to a totally different planet with different air, gravity or other differences? We can live in space by building a suitable environment .. but can we step on a totally different planet?

    A.C.Clark explored how we could build a home that we could live in and travel to other stars in his book Rama, but this concept is out of reach at the moment. Earth is at present our only suitable habitat for the foreseeable future .. and it might be a very short foreseeable future.

  8. TGC

    July 9, 2018 at 1:16 am

    #25 … “Poor old TGC. He has lost mid-winter .. or did not note it’s passing with the winter solstice.”

    #25 is apparently one of the newer fellas who contradicts the natural seasons.

  9. Kim Peart

    July 8, 2018 at 11:19 pm

    Re #28 … THREE ~ Earlier this year I ran in two Tasmania elections, and in Prosser I organised 6 community meetings, sending out 14,000 invitations to homes and businesses via Australia Post at a cost of a few thousand dollars.

    We could not get one media story on this beyond the pages of the Tasmanian Times.

    The response in attendance was 1 in Ross, 0 in Oatlands, 1 in Bagdad, 0 in Sorell, 0 in Eaglehawk Neck, and 4 in Swansea.

    I am quite puzzled as to how the message can be communicated when whole electorates will not engage in democracy.

    Any individual with any fight in them for human survival, may like to consider my invitation in comment #13 above.

    James Lovelock attempted to ring the warning bells in his 2009 book “The Vanishing Face of Gaia – a final warning” where he wrote “We are deeply impressed by the power of our weapons, yet they are puny compared with the most powerful weapon of all: creative intelligence.” (page 157)

    And “Almost all of our achievements come from single acts of genius or leadership, amplified coherently by the many.” (page 157)

    And “Our obligation as an intelligent species is to survive; and if we can evolve to become an integrated intelligence within Gaia, then together we could survive longer.” (page 63)

    I suggest that we need to view the Earth system in the context of the Solar System as a whole, especially as all the energy for life radiates from the Sun at its heart.

    Expansion was the first act of the Universe. Expansion happens every time a star explodes, and expansion is seen with life filling the Earth system to the brim of the atmosphere .. so how does expansion not apply to human evolution now?

    If the Great Filter theory is our warning bell, then it is our failure to run with evolution in the expansion of life beyond Earth in the 1970s, when this became possible, that has put our survival at risk now.

    I wrote a follow-on document to Vision Drum called “Rising to the Challenge” https://stargategrid.forumchitchat.com/post/rising-to-the-challenge-5-feb-2018-9643421

    Will we rise to the challenge?

  10. Kim Peart

    July 8, 2018 at 10:54 pm

    Re #28 ~ TWO ~ When subsequently researching for my TT article http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/vision-drum/ I came upon Professor Guy McPherson, who dares state “I can’t imagine there’ll be a human on the planet in 10 years and probably a lot less than that.” (find reference in the article)

    Wondering if he had a point, I checked the simple carbon maths, and found …

    The implications of the current CO2 and temperature rise can be shown, by comparing levels with the last ice age when atmospheric CO2 was at around 180 ppm, and with the Earth’s temperature a few degrees lower. CO2 in the air rose to around 270 ppm during the last few millennia, which is a rise of 90 ppm. That is the difference between an ice age and the paradise millennias when human civilisation emerged. When we add 90 ppm CO2 to 270 ppm we get 360 ppm, a level passed in the 1990s. As the force of CO2 in the air works slowly, the full force of a 1990s level of CO2 will take a long time to impact. By simple deduction, going up 90 ppm is locking in future temperature rise and other Earth changes that might be as dramatic as the shift from the last ice age when the sea was 120 metres lower. If all the ice sheets were to melt away in a hotter world, the sea would rise by another 70 metres, so we can wonder what future the 1990s level CO2 in the air will give us. Then we can look at the present level of CO2 of 410 ppm and wonder what future temperature rise, global warming and climate change we can expect on a planet with CO2 currently 140 ppm up on the pre-industrial level and racing upwards by 1 ppm every few months, heading for 440 ppm over the next decade. The present rate of rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, could also begin to accelerate. With the Arctic rapidly warming and ice melting, CO2 and methane are escaping from the permafrost, often exploding out of the ground. As the oceans warm up, there is concern that the vast deposits of ocean floor methane hydrates, an ice that burns, will begin to dissolve. Methane is a much more potent form of greenhouse gas. The most abundant form of greenhouse gas is water vapour, which will increase as the world gets hotter by evaporating water into the air. Higher levels of water vapour in the air also set the scene for storm events and higher levels of flooding. There are many more impacts that come into play, such as drought and fire in the tropical rainforests where much of our oxygen comes from. Unless CO2 in the air can be rapidly extracted we are delivering a most dangerous planet to future generations. Now some scientists are beginning to wonder if that most dangerous future will arrive more rapidly.

    Is the stage set for a sudden heat pulse from which we will fail to recover?

    Will the global destabilisation lead to conflict that slides into nuclear madness?

    I had hoped that Vision Drum would have sparked some level of awakening and drum beating, at least with Wallace-Wells article which is referred to, but all I got was a stony silence, and not one comment.

    The tribes slept in from last night’s party. Or, there is a strong view that any solution to the carbon crisis has to be on their terms, or they are not interested .. in a “my way or the highway” approach.

    It strikes me that there is a deeper level of denial, which is far more dangerous, because it is suppressing any rise to action at a level that would be effective.

  11. Kim Peart

    July 8, 2018 at 10:04 pm

    Re: 28 ~ Soapy Dodd ~ The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells of July 2017 attracted its own Wikipedia ~

    Susan Matthews writing in Slate said “The instantly viral piece might be the Silent Spring of our time”.

    A key piece of information in that article is when Wallace-Wells found the climate scientists discussing the Great Filter theory.

    This is an arm of Fermi’s Paradox, wondering where ET is.

    If life is as spontanious in our Universe as it has been on Earth, cosmologists believe as many as 30,000 alien ambassadors should have made it to the Solar System by now, but all we have is the eerie silence.

    It is now wondered if planet civilizations have a disturbing habit of burning their fossil fuel too much and too long, bringing on a runaway greenhouse effect, and their own demise in environmental chaos, and this could include conflicts that slide into nuclear madness.

    A carbon apocalypse is the one event that could be expected to strike any civilization at the same stage in there development, before they secured a sustainable industrial presence beyond their planet, and invested in their cosmic survival.

    In my 2006 document ~ Creating a Solar Civilization ~ I wrote of proposals to send a probe powered by a solar sail and accelerated by a laser beam, to reach a star within decades.

    Such a mission is now being planned.

    It is only one step further to make rockfall with nanno machines that can use local star energy and raw materials to establish a star base, send information home, and build other star probes to send on to other stars.

    So simple, but in the blink of a cosmic eye, a civilization could have reached every star in the galaxy, and be sending probes to other galaxies.

    Is the silence from the stars a warning for us?

    If yes, then we had better get very smart very fast, because a carbon catastrophe would have to be in our very near future.

  12. Soapy Dodd

    July 8, 2018 at 7:05 pm

    Folks, we are just not describing the problem in terms that anyone cares much about.

    ‘Decimation and disappearance of the human race’ might be a bit more descriptive because ‘human induced climate change’ doesn’t cut it.

    So what are the chances (using scientific evidence) of the human race disappearing in the near future? Perhaps that’ll get tongues wagging?

  13. max

    July 8, 2018 at 6:51 pm

    #26 … Kim, the runs way effect is happening right now with only a 0.8 degree rise in temperature.

    What proof does any sane person need when all glaciers are in retreat and the polar ice is shrinking? Climate change is here now, and the news any night of the week has examples. Without a further rise 0.8 degrees is causing (and will continue to cause) the climate to do all the things that we fear, and yet we are lied to and told that we can survive a more than doubling of 0.8 degrees to 2 degrees.

    Are they fools .. or are they too frightened to tell us the truth?

  14. Kim Peart

    July 8, 2018 at 12:59 pm

    Re #24 ~ Christopher Eastman-Nagle … The problem is a heap simpler, if each individual decides to be honest.

    In honesty we can ask questions, and listen, and dig, deep if need be, to find answers.

    For instance, how do we get atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm .. a 1980’s level that James Hansen says will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect (Storms of My Grandchildren, 2009)?

    Now going beyond 410 ppm and rising by 3 ppm per annum, this is the key environmental problem we face.

    What is the honest answer to that problem?

    It needs to be detailed, and simple enough for anyone to grasp.

    Action on solving this problem has not even begun yet.

    But there is plenty of talk.

  15. philll Parsons

    July 8, 2018 at 11:05 am

    Poor old TGC. He has lost mid-winter .. or did not note it’s passing with the winter solstice.

    Perhaps he is missing the cold as night temperatures respond to ocean warming in a maritime influenced climate.

    A look at the 3 month temperature outlook shows a more than an 80% chance of warmer nights. There will not be a change in this forecast until we stabilise CO2 in the atmosphere.

    For others it is the longest night which begins on the 21st and ends on the 22nd of June.

  16. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    July 8, 2018 at 2:31 am

    Yup, I get it. None of this is going to end well. By the looks of it, there just won’t be a civil consensus to address the problems until it is far too late to reverse, or even ameliorate, what is coming at us.

    And the reason for this is that indulgence capitalism is not just an economic problem. It is a social and cultural one as well.

    The drive to deregulate and privatise the economic and social system is being driven by the twin pillars of the establishment, ie economics free market libertarian corporate graduates and humanities trained social libertarians who have since been pouring out of universities as indulgence capitalism started to roll out in the early 1970s.

    Both of them have done the same kind of damage to their respective commons, whether we are talking about the degradation of the natural environment, extremist and destabilising economic management, or the systematic destruction of social infrastructure in favour of market forces.

    Action to correct this is permanently gridlocked by ritualistic mutual recrimination and finger pointing at ‘the other guy’. Both sides accuse each other of libertarian crimes against the commons that the other is responsible for. Both are incontrovertibly right, but they self cancel and nothing happens.

    Fixing this means re-regulation and de-privatisation of the economic and social system, major shut downs of the consumer economy, diversion of investment resources into ecological defence/restitution and social infrastructure recapitalisation, as well as commitment to less extreme economic polarisation that threatens an already unstable social system.

    We need to recognise that we just are not going to get much sense out of the squabbling Tweedle Dees and Tweedle Dums of our age, because they share far too much common agenda for one to properly prevail over the other, and/or and fundamentally change much if they did.

    The only agenda that is going to stand the slightest chance of getting up out of the mess we are already in, is a fundamentalist re-assessment of what it takes to build a sustainable way of life. The deregulatory past isn’t going to give us any sort of guide to the future.

    We haven’t got a prayer if we do not re-imagine our future in ways that will residualise both sides of what passes these days for politics and transform them into something else with a common vision that just might save something.

  17. Keith Antonysen

    July 7, 2018 at 8:09 pm

    #21, Verdun … I still think we can bypass the worst of climate change, though if we continue to focus on a business as usual strategy we ultimately are stuffed. Vote LNP at the next Federal election and you are voting for a business as usual approach. It is the science of climate change and the necessary policies to act which the LNP has ignored.

    Think about how scientists are feeling when their research is ignored.


  18. max

    July 7, 2018 at 7:09 pm

    #19 … Kim, you should have invited R.C.H who would have been right at home chanting, burn, burn, burn, my hearties.

  19. Verdun Schmerl

    July 7, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    Geez, this is a barrel of laughs. Might as well end it all now!

  20. Ted Mead

    July 7, 2018 at 3:39 pm

    #19 … Yes, thanks Kim. I can’t for next year’s infamous event, and if I come across a thylacine carcass in the next 12 months I may he able to satisfy your wishes. Otherwise Trev can lend me his outfit.

  21. Kim Peart

    July 7, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    Re #18, Ted Mead … What a mad suggestion from an over-heated imagination.

    We dressed warmly last night, with a raging bonfire on the hill above Ross.

    Great to reflect with the flames and coals beneath the glittering stars of the Milky Way, with the predicted rain by-passing our town.

    A mid-winter bonfire is a great way to burn all the troubles of the past year, and look toward the best that can happen in the coming year.

    It will be on again next year on the first Saturday in July, should anyone like to venture to Ross.

    And if Ted turns up in his thylacine-hide undies, we’ll get a picture of that to post in the TT.

  22. Ted Mead

    July 7, 2018 at 2:32 pm

    #6 … I agree, Trev. The title is depressing, but it has got to that point where shock reality may be the only way to make people think or act.

    Meanwhile things are going to get hotter, and maybe you will take note when the stalactites begin dislodging from your cave roof?

    # 14 … Meanwhile, back in the metropolis of Ross, we all have this vision of you running around in your thylacine-hide undies last night burning an effigy of someone, whoever that may be.

    The sort of thing nightmares are made of!

  23. Kim Peart

    July 7, 2018 at 1:53 pm

    Re: #15, John Hayward … My primary interest is human survival, both in space and on Earth, and then how we can win back a safe Earth.

    A huge amount of damage is yet to happen on Earth, and we may need to plan for extreme danger in a hotter environment, and or a post-nuclear war world.

    To survive in what we can see coming on Earth, we may need to live on Earth as if we were living in space.

    If a sustainable industrial presence can be secured in space, even with mini-machines, that will give us more survival options, because mini-machines can build larger machines, humans scale habitats, and shuttle craft.

    Mini-machines can be directed from Earth, the same as drones over Syria are flown in California.

    The same on Earth, if we can bring all the basics together to keep industrial society going in a kind of star seed, as if starting out in another star system.

    A thousand star seeds or more on Earth would help improve our survival options, and also plan for the future healing of the Earth.

    At the same time, all engaged in fighting for survival can also work toward fixing the damage done on Earth.

    If any plan does not include the hope of survival, along with the best we have in life now, who will buy into it?

    Enough with the armchair staring competitions and blowing hot air in the “poor me” championships.

    Where are the dangerous people who will fight for survival?

  24. Keith Antonysen

    July 7, 2018 at 1:33 pm

    ‘Inside Climate News’ provides an excellent article about how the denial of climate change science evolved. Much of the research completed by Inside Climate News has been the basis for Court cases against fossil fuel corporations that are in progress at present in the USA.


    Here’s a shorter article that provides a summary virtually of where we are positioned presently in relation to climate change: https://medium.com/@aarnegranlund/three-things-we-dont-understand-about-climate-change-c59338a1c435

    “The situation has become dangerous during the last four years of 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and now continuing into 2018. Certain parts of the world see the less immediate risks, but systematic changes affect us all.”

    Last year was the second or third warmest year ever recorded, even though it was not an el nino year. It completely knocks out the 1998 datum point that deniers have used in the past.

    My article, and previous comments about being in a completely dire situation, hinge on a business as usual strategy in relation to the use of fossil fuels. There are other forms of energy and transport available. Yesterday for example, our solar panels produced more energy than we could use .. even though it is the winter season.

    The production of electric vehicles is increasing with 196,000 sold in May 2018 world wide (robertscribbler).

    There would be no point in writing this article unless it is possible to ward off the worst effects of climate change; political ideology is a huge barrier at present. The stupidity of political ideology is similar to what happened when Galileo was accused of heresy.

    Objective data will always push out supposition (#12) or political philosophy/ideology.

  25. john hayward

    July 6, 2018 at 9:55 pm

    Narcissism isn’t confined to individuals, such as Trumpty. It defines our whole species. How else can you explain our propensity to see the destruction of this planet as a disaster almost solely for “our children and grandchildren” when we have wilfully refused to manage either their numbers, or our mania for riches and power?

    Back to the drawing board, Gaia. It would be generous if you could give Kim and Co time to blast off.

    John Hayward

  26. TGC

    July 6, 2018 at 9:34 pm

    #13 .. “I had better run now, as we have a bonfire on the hill in Ross tonight to burn all the troubles of the past year, and rise from the ashes and the flames with a Spring of new visions, and a crop of inspirations.”
    It’s not even mid Winter yet!

  27. Kim Peart

    July 6, 2018 at 8:20 pm

    When is the meeting to explore these problems? A regular forum could be launched in Second Life, which anyone on Earth could attend via an avatar.

    I have meeting venues set up, and Second Life has some excellent meeting venues for really large events.

    The key problem for me appears to be where we get the energy from to extract excess carbon from the air as I look at the carbon maths and see the potential risk of a sudden rise in heat, warned of by James Lovelock, Guy McPherson, and others.

    We need to consider how environmental crises can slide into conflict which in our world could go nuclear.

    There has never been a war between two or more nuclear powers, and they would be quite different. I have written of these in TT.

    I can see working solutions, but I cannot see these happening by limiting the view to the Earth alone.

    On Earth alone we have stepped to the brink.

    We need to consider a whole new approach.

    Earth is in a system that is solar at its centre, so we are nuts to ignore where Earth’s energy for life comes from, or how the unlimited energy-well radiating from our star can be best employed for our future.

    Participants can put up displays in the virtual world, exploring there argument, documented with Notecards, and each proposal can be explored and weighed in the forums.

    Articles can spin out, and even peer reviewed documents produced.

    There are many threads to look at, including evolution, to grasp what we are up against.

    All threads need to be considered, and we need to wonder how those threads link and interact.

    Finding a way beyond global environmental crisis and nuclear conflict is a complex problem .. with no simple answers.

    But, we must take on that complex web, and find the pathway if we hope for a future with a future.

    Who is ready to engage?

    Email me ~ kimpeart@iinet.net.au

    I had better run now, as we have a bonfire on the hill in Ross tonight to burn all the troubles of the past year, and rise from the ashes and the flames with a Spring of new visions, and a S crop of inspirations.

  28. TGC

    July 6, 2018 at 8:04 pm

    If #11 and others are really, really serious .. and I doubt they have adjusted their present lifestyle or plans for the future to reflect what they write. Then they would insist on halting everything that ‘scientists’ declare to be the cause of their misery. Does that suggest a liveable future?

    Maybe they will take the view .. ‘Yes’, halt everything – but not yet, not yet.

  29. Simon Warriner

    July 6, 2018 at 6:12 pm

    To someone who is watching the seasons merge and blackberries flowering in late June, early July, it is now abundantly clear that something real is happening, and prudence dictates a far more mature attitude than the approach asserted above by our resident expert in one line inanities at #6.

    We have ample evidence that “scientists” in the employ of some large industrial sectors are guilty of producing “evidence” to support the commercial objectives of their employers with no regard for the consequences those employer’s actions have for humanity or the environment. That the anti climate change crowd are closely aligned with industries employing similar “scientific” tactics should be setting alarm bells ringing and investigative journalists searching for excavators to find the rot.

    I suspect that the presence of such rot in the form of proof of the considered, deliberate ignoring of data revealing a direct link between industrial activity and global warming will place those responsible, along with their enablers, both political and bureaucratic, on the ends of some very sharp pitchforks and well tied ropes in the fullness of time. Criminal negligence would seem to be an applicable description of the crime.

  30. Keith Antonysen

    July 6, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    Trevor Cowell #6, if I’d read this piece at the beginning of the decade I’d agree with you that it can be seen to be stupid. BUT, contrarians have been very successful in stopping science from being taken into account. Meanwhile more and more red flags have gone up. Sea level rise has been going up, and over time the trend lines have been going in the wrong direction. So you know more than James Hansen, James Anderson, Kevin Anderson et al, I have collected well over a thousand references over the last 6-7 years. As there is a continuum with climate change, the research is showing that climate trends are going in the wrong direction. Plainly you have not at least scanned the references provided.

    About four years ago I provided a reference to pingos exploding in Siberia. The comment from Jason Box, a well respected Glaciologist, was “we are f…..”, but he did not mean immediately. Since then 7,000 more pingos have been found. While not all pingos might explode, they do release a large amount of methane when explosions do occur.

    I have been under the illusion that free speech or free views were something that conservatives held dear. The title encapsulates what is going on. But, for you to make any meaningful comment you need to be able to show how the references are wrong.

    Millions of people are dying from the effects of the emissions from fossil fuels, as stated by reference No 10 from the article.

    Also, view Catalyst: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxWluxSuXjY

    A few times I have referenced Dr Benjamin Berger, detailing events at the end of the Permian epoch. Read his research and watch his video. It’s a very scary piece of research which he relates to our present time. His study relies on Physics and Chemistry.

  31. max

    July 6, 2018 at 5:22 pm

    It’s about time we stopped all this nonsense about keeping the world below 2 degrees.

    In the last 100 years the temperature has risen a lousy 0.8 degrees .. not even half of the planned halt at 2 degrees. If the world had a constant temperature of 0.8 of a degree, and ice had no latent heat, there would no ice. There is latent heat and because of it there is ice at higher temperatures.

    Glaciers are in retreat now and polar ice is melting, so this should prove to even the worse sceptics that a miserable 0.8 of a degree rise in temperature is exceeding the latent heat of ice. With no more rise in temperature all the world’s ice will melt .. it’s simple science.

    All a stop at 2 degrees will do is speed up the melt. Please some one show me where my simple science is wrong so that I will know my grandchildren will have a future.

  32. Stephan

    July 6, 2018 at 5:06 pm

    #2 … Denying climate “change” and its probable impact on society is pretty much the same as the denial of an old school tobacco smoker who says his/her relative lived to 90 and they themselves feel fine.

    #6 … TGC, in aspect I agree, BUT you ignore the body and the point. Not unusual. I am childless by choice .. and a decision I made pre-puberty. Wanna guess why?

    The “contract” that we all enter into, knowingly or unknowingly as members of our society, in part agrees to providing a better world for our children and their descendants.

    It’s a pity that the open greed of some sociopathic businesses, and a minority of very rich people are doing their very best to make a profit while destroying the environment.

    You see .. they don’t care. All they’ll have to do is create an enclosed environment and charge the survivors for the very air they breath and water they drink. It’s win/win.

  33. Keith Antonysen

    July 6, 2018 at 4:34 pm

    Philll #2 … Bill McKibbon has stated that those who knowingly deny climate change are committing the crime of the epoch, not just the century. I fully agree with that sentiment.

    Ironically, Trump (a climate change denier) may very well cause a halt in the flow of fossil fuel emissions through creating a tariff war which could easily end up in a recession .. causing less production.

    I guess there are three main words that can be used in relation to climate change … “denier”, “skeptic” or “contrarian”. “Skeptic” is totally unsuitable as it is a key word used with the scientific method, the aim being to try and prove a hypothesis wrong.”Contrarian” is a softer word than “denier”, and less likely to put people off.

    Robert Scribbler is very effective in writing and creating films about was has eventuated. His latest piece is about a wildfire in Colorado. Towards the end of his film he uses information compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The fire season has increased by a significant amount over decades. Watch his short film here: https://robertscribbler.com/2018/07/06/three-hundred-foot-tall-fire-tsunami-burns-through-colorado/

  34. TGC

    July 6, 2018 at 3:49 pm

    What depressing pessimism. This sort of fatalism should be struck out.

    The heading is plain STUPID!

  35. Soapy Dodd

    July 6, 2018 at 2:45 pm

    Australians are forced to pay the salaries and expenses of contrarians in government, and are also exposed to media concentration where making a media empire the ‘kingmaker’ of Western politics is the only focus.

    This reasoned article about climate is in contrast to the reality that at least one of our political parties policies are antithetical to our lives, wealth, happiness and freedom .. and are threatening our entire existence.

    Sadly, reasoned articles don’t work with psychopaths and other mentally deranged or deficient persons, particularly those in government.

    Perhaps we need to redefine ‘violence’ to include the special threats created by privileged politicians, and others, in order to free people to rigorously defend their lives, families and freedoms, and protect the ecosystems upon which our lives rely.

  36. Jon Sumby

    July 6, 2018 at 1:27 pm

    They don’t actually say anything new here, but they confirm past research …

    Global warming may be twice what climate models predict
    [i]’Future global warming may eventually be twice as warm as projected by climate models and sea levels may rise six metres or more even if the world meets the 2°C target, according to an international team of researchers from 17 countries.

    The findings published last week in Nature Geoscience are based on observational evidence from three warm periods over the past 3.5 million years when the world was 0.5°C-2°C warmer than the pre-industrial temperatures of the 19th Century.

    The research also revealed how large areas of the polar ice caps could collapse and significant changes to ecosystems could see the Sahara Desert become green and the edges of tropical forests turn into fire dominated savanna.'[/i]


  37. Jon Sumby

    July 6, 2018 at 1:14 pm

    ‘The barbarous alternative is that of “exterminism”: hierarchy and scarcity. As the rich seek to monopolise space and resources in the face of eco-apocalypse, the bulk of humanity is ever more marginalised.

    Fraser makes the haunting observation that “the great danger posed by the automation of production is that it makes the great mass of people superfluous from the standpoint of the ruling elite. Rather than neglecting or imprisoning the poor, why not simply eliminate them?”


  38. philll Parsons

    July 6, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    Is denying climate change and delaying comprehensive, adequately and timely action simply being a contrarian, or is it far more dangerous?.

    Hansen posited climate change would be a series of steps where new states of climate emerged rapidly and were the status quo for a period, for example the declines in rainfall in the Perth WA catchment.

    Society acts against genocide, ecocide, mass murder and certain acts of, and in, war yet we allow the likes of Abbott to suggest that all these worthy goals that protect us all should be ignored and we should allow fossil fools to rule the world at the risk of extinction.

    Whilst we value freedom of speech we do limit it through the laws of defamation, and to prevent racism, homophobia and a free-for-all for misogynists.

    Do those who threaten the existence of the current order through our dependence on the degree of climate stability that we have depended upon to place our cities, to produce food and fibre, to provide drinking water and a tolerable range of temperatures and a limited number of catastrophic events that we can recover from because the time between events allows for that have the right to continue with their denialism in the name of free speech?

    In my view they are like the Nazis of Germany. Had they been suppressed, like the English did after the start of World War 2, a lot of trouble would have been avoided.

    However the existence of those German Nazis suited some in the ruling elite at that time, as does the denialism of Abbott et al here, and others across the globe which suits the current special and vested interests of the fossil fuel industry.

    In my view it is time they were, in the interests of survival of all life we currently know, restricted in what they can say about climate change.

  39. Mark Temby

    July 6, 2018 at 11:18 am

    Thanks Keith … and all that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Leave a Reply

To Top