“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
False data leads to false conclusions. Most everything presented as Data is Skewed by the $$$ or perspective behind it. So, I can't buy into your conclusions because I don't believe you are using accurate data sets.
It should be obvious to most that if the use was serious about climate change they would close just a few of the 800 military bases around the world. They can do that in a heart beat, it. will take years to reduce consumption of meat, not that we should.
They are up to something far more sinister. Neo Feudalism, now we become the slaves and make phones and electronics for the billionaires.
There are a lot of very smart people who DON’T believe there is a warming problem. You and many others think there is. All of us have looked into it deeply. Over time one side will be proven to be correct. My questions then are, 1. Do you think it is fixable? 2. Do you think it is catastrophic, or merely ‘uh oh, this isn’t good’? 3. Do you think the minuses outweigh the pluses? 4. Will life in Canada be worsened or bettered by 1.5 degree C warming? 5. Do you think the destruction of the economies, especially in the 3rd world, are worth it for the effects which might, and might not, be garnered? 6. Green policies have added $500 a month to the cost of building a new suite in an apartment building in Victoria BC. This money could have been used in many productive ways. Doubling the thickness of walls to prevent heat loss, making windows much smaller, diminish the living space of families. This is being done because of the crisis we are in. Supposedly. Can you not see none of this helps? But all of it takes value from families?
I don’t wish to argue with you here, so I’ll just point you to the videos of Tony Heller, who is barely still on YouTube. Most of his videos show how the temperature data is either inaccurate to begin with, or have been corrupted.
To me it’s obvious that the climate change hysteria is a top-down agenda. Watch a few of Tony’s videos and you’ll see how science has been hopelessly corrupted in service of power and money.
'Tony Heller, a birther (something to do with Obama?) who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym "Steven Goddard," wrote a blog post that claimed "NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934." After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was "fabricated" or "faked." On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that "the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s" but scientists had "faked the numbers".
Global warming myths can never be permanently killed. Once debunked, a climate myth will go into a state of hibernation, waiting for enough time to pass that people forget the last time a scientific stake was thrust through its heart. The myth will eventually rise from the grave once again, seeking out victims with tasty, underutilized brains to devour – every zombie’s favorite meal.
And so we have the long-debunked conspiracy theorist myth that scientists are falsifying temperature data to conjure global warming and frighten the masses. The story goes that in the raw temperature data from the continental USA, the hottest year on record is 1934. In the data adjusted by scientists, 1998 was the hottest year on record in the USA, until that record was broken in 2006 and then shattered in 2012 (1934 comes in 4th). The raw data are the gold standard, so this proves that climate scientists are falsifying data, right?
Wrong. Really, about as wrong as humanly possible. Scientists make adjustments to the raw data to remove factors that we know introduce biases and false trends. For example, temperature stations were once observed and data recorded in the afternoon, but later the observations switched to the mornings. Since mornings are colder than afternoons, that change introduced a cool bias into the raw data. Other factors that require adjustments include changes in the temperature monitoring system instrument setups, and the movement of temperature stations from one location to another.
Scientists have put substantial effort into accounting for all these changes that introduce known biases in the raw data across thousands of temperature monitoring stations. It’s not a vast conspiracy to trick us into buying solar panels; it’s just good science, which even contrarian climate scientists don’t dispute. In fact, when we compare raw and adjusted temperature data across the surface of the whole planet, the difference between the two is barely noticeable.
Yet we suddenly have Christopher Booker at The Telegraph and Fox News' Sean Hannity claiming that climate scientists are ‘fabricating’ and ‘manipulating’ the raw temperature data, despite the fact that even most contrarian bloggers see right through this myth.
So what happened? Shauna Theel at Media Matters documented the path that this zombie myth took, starting from a fringe denialist blog, making its way up the conservative media echo chamber ladder until it reached media outlets like The Telegraph and Fox News that purportedly care about factually accurate reporting.
Let’s take a few more shots at this zombie myth to see if we can send it back to its grave, temporarily.
Scientists make adjustments to remove known biases in the raw data. Average surface temperatures over the continental USA have indeed warmed by more than 1°F since the 1930s.
Even if you don’t trust those adjustments, raw and adjusted global temperature data are nearly identical. The USA represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface.
On top of that, the warming of the atmosphere only accounts for about 2% of the warming of the planet as a whole. The oceans account for more than 90% of global warming, and have been heating up at a rate equivalent to 2 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second since the 1950s, and 4 per second over the past decade.'
I've added in the July ocean temperatures to the post.
Even the US conservative Antony Watts (of whatsuppwiththeclimate) says '…while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word "fabrication" implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn't exactly the case. "Goddard" is wrong is his assertions of fabrication (and corruption!). I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better. I also pointed out to him that his initial claim was wronger than wrong, as he was claiming that 40% of USCHN STATIONS were missing. Predictably, he swept that under the rug, and then proceeded to tell me in email that I don't know what I'm talking about. Fortunately I saved screen caps from his original post and the edit he made afterwards.'
That's a cut and paste job, with no additional discernment. And it uses charged words like "denier" and "conspiracy theorist", which merely give the commenter license to ignore the opposing arguments and shut off their brain.
I'm done here. Jo was good with the Covid stuff, but this global warming hysteria is ridiculous and completely off base.
Bono, I don't agree with Jo on Veganism but I still read his Substack. We're all here to learn and disagree, respectfully. I think Jo does a good job of that. Peace out and hope you stay.
Speaking of which, I am no longer trying to change minds in real life or on the internet. Instead, I prefer to embody and manifest my convictions, and if people are ever genuinely interested or curious enough to have a discussion I will entertain that. Otherwise, I just pray for everyone to make the most of their gifts and make some progress toward enlightenment before this life is over.
Arguments simply keep people divided and make both sides dig in even deeper to their respective positions. It's obvious that Jo has her position and I have a different one in opposition to hers, and reading more posts on this topic isn't something I want to spend time and energy on.
I am pro freedom and free will, while the climate agenda as I see it seeks total control over all resources - natural and human - and over all human conduct, hence it runs counter to freedom and free will.
Even if the program were based on facts and reality I would oppose it because it does not even propose real solutions beyond schemes that will cause mass hardship and starvation, but like "public health" policies structured around viruses that don't even exist those policies are based on total fraud. I cannot abide by that.
I find your 'even if the program were based on facts and reality I would oppose it because it does not propose real solutions' very interesting, it is the crux of the matter.
I am not proposing any solutions! I present the evidence, people present counter evidence, all I have seen so far have already been discounted. However, if someone says that even if they are convinced of the reality, that they accepted my evidence, they would still oppose/deny it on political/policy grounds and not scientific facts/reality then there is nothing more I can do.
I use terms anti-vaxxer and climate denier because they are just shorthand though technically derogatory. The term anti-vaxxer however covers so many people; those opposed to vaccines on science grounds (they don't work and are unnecessary) and/or those oppose who them on political/ personal freedom ones. I also don't mind being called a virus denier, I just say show me the bloody virus. if someone is called a climate denier I don't think they should be prissy, they should say show me the bloody climate. I am showing them the bloody climate! If they chose to be blind to the science on political grounds that is clearly their prerogative.
My blog is about science. I object to being told that I'm being controlled because I chose to live a certain way and accept human made climate change. It does not make me part of an agenda to control. I find it very worrying that climate science and a control agenda are becoming synonymous in people's minds. The true, objective, unbiased gold standard science that we are striving and fighting for ( I hope if I discovered things I don't want to accept or don't like I would still write about them) is mutually exclusive with having an agenda.
Hey Jo. Great post. I agree with everything here. Especially respecting the scientific method. Unfortunately that's not what we have today. We have industry capture that has bastardized it. I will take issue with one thing you said. You acknowledge that we all have our biases. I think perhaps you have yours when it comes to Veganism. I totally respect your dietary choices. I was vegan for 7 years. I chose to eat meat again for health reasons, and on the advice of my Lyme doctor. I do believe it's been helpful to me. Here's where I think YOU may have that blind spot you write about, due to your bias on meat eaters. I know several local farmers here in Boulder Colorado who practice organic regenerative farming. That's where I buy all my animal products, including eggs. I firmly believe that we humans can eat animal products in a healthy and sustainable way. But less of it. As an accompaniment to meals. Not a 24 ounce steak or a half pound burger with bacon and cheese UGH! It costs more to buy animal products this way and that's OK with me. I also realize that the additional cost is prohibitive for some. But that shouldn't be a reason to stop. And.... the downstream effects of eating cheap food costs us a lot more in health care. My concern in watching the debate on climate change is that so many good intentioned people, yourself included feel the need to comment on other parts of the debate that may turn some people off, which only hurts the cause of stemming the climate emergency. The opposite of this is someone like Michael Shellenberger who I think is a great advocate for free speech and against toxic woke culture run amok. But his book Apocalypse Never is a terrible, poorly researched and illogical book, IMHO. So he loses people like me who want to support his free speech crusade but don't want to give his anti-climate change crusade any oxygen. Anyway, soldier on my friend. Your work is needed in this chaotic information landscape.
Thank you David, yes I of course have a vegan bias, but that does't mean to say the health and other benefits of plant based are not supported by the literature!
I know some in the covid debate who don't talk about other issues to not put people off for example Dawn and David who wrote 'what really makes you ill' are vegan but only focus on the virus issue. For me it's all or nothing. I'm not going to censor myself. I don't mind if I put people off. The scientific method itself is what I'm arguing for, wrenching it back from politicians and industry and applying it to everything.
Interesting you say about Shellenberger, Eric Brookes has written some interesting things in Notes about how Shellenberger framed himself as a free speech advocate, getting into the twitter files slipstream, but is actually a proponent of fracking and nuclear undustry intent on rubbishing wind power. And when Eric Brookes pointed this out Shellenberger blocked him. So, so much for free speech.
Thanks Jo. Yes, Shellenberger is a hypocrite. That's why I stopped reading his work. Regarding the health effects of veganism. I know you and I can't solve that question here. I wouldn't even attempt to. But....what I will say is this. I personally feel better when I eat some animal protein that's organic and grass fed. I also believe that we all do things that impact the planet in harmful ways. Every time I get in my car, I know I'm damaging the planet. That's why I bought an e-bike (I LOVE it!) and do a lot of my grocery shopping now on it. But I still drive bc it makes my life more enjoyable and a little easier. If I am to acknowledge your POV, which I'm not (HA HA) I'd still eat some animal products bc I think it's good for me and I enjoy it. I've also come to peace about the ethical aspect. But that's another discussion, not here. Again, I totally respect and admire your choice, but I do firmly believe that if everyone were vegan, it wouldn't change the equation much. But I do believe in organic regenerative farming practices and people eating A LOT less meat. That, to me is more important. Thanks. BTW, I'd never ask you to sensor yourself. Never!!!!
Marc, I do fear that the ruinous and criminal actions of our government at the behest of big Pharma, related to Covid have damaged the reputation of science. But........I don't think that the scientific method should be discarded. Science has brought civilization many beneficial things. So has medicine. It is undeniable. The old adage "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" really applies here. If you want to look at who stands to benefit from the science of climate change, look no further than the Coke brothers (brother now). Do you not think that climate change deniers have a HUGE stake in this game. People like James Hanson and Michael Mann started sounding the alarm in the 1980's and had nothing to gain at the time by speaking out. In fact, they were ostracized. Yes there are financial interests behind some of the debates. Wind and solar industry as two of the biggest. But.......science doesn't ALWAYS follow the money. Sometimes money follows the science. And that's OK. Look at the auto industry. When pushed by science to make cars with better gas mileage or electric, industry followed. We could debate data points like floods in China til the cows come home but it wouldn't get us anywhere. This is not the forum for that. Long form debates by people on both sides need to come together and expose their ideas to critical challenge. I've yet to see that. Thanks.
Yep! That's the world we live in. The twitter world. No thoughtful discussions like the author and I engage in. BTW, I really enjoy his writing, which is long form. Do you not like George and Donny's substack? If not, then why are you here? Doesn't make sense to me what you said. Huh???? And BTW, I was making a joke, not trying to say he shouldn't post short missives. I guess you didn't get the humor (-:
I really liked G&W's substack. Used to. They are way underinformed on this current topic and it's a big turn off. So I post to hopefully get them to deepen their understanding of how the world really works.
That's great Greg. So you do prefer long form discussions? If so, what are some of your objections to Jo? I've challenged her on veganism and the environment, respectfully. We've had a good back and forth. I love Substack for the opportunity to discuss and learn. I'd encourage you to keep reading and commenting. That's how we all learn. Peace.
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… asshole.”
False data leads to false conclusions. Most everything presented as Data is Skewed by the $$$ or perspective behind it. So, I can't buy into your conclusions because I don't believe you are using accurate data sets.
It should be obvious to most that if the use was serious about climate change they would close just a few of the 800 military bases around the world. They can do that in a heart beat, it. will take years to reduce consumption of meat, not that we should.
They are up to something far more sinister. Neo Feudalism, now we become the slaves and make phones and electronics for the billionaires.
But it may have something to do with Geoengineering.
I’m out. ✌🏽
There are a lot of very smart people who DON’T believe there is a warming problem. You and many others think there is. All of us have looked into it deeply. Over time one side will be proven to be correct. My questions then are, 1. Do you think it is fixable? 2. Do you think it is catastrophic, or merely ‘uh oh, this isn’t good’? 3. Do you think the minuses outweigh the pluses? 4. Will life in Canada be worsened or bettered by 1.5 degree C warming? 5. Do you think the destruction of the economies, especially in the 3rd world, are worth it for the effects which might, and might not, be garnered? 6. Green policies have added $500 a month to the cost of building a new suite in an apartment building in Victoria BC. This money could have been used in many productive ways. Doubling the thickness of walls to prevent heat loss, making windows much smaller, diminish the living space of families. This is being done because of the crisis we are in. Supposedly. Can you not see none of this helps? But all of it takes value from families?
There is more data out there than you have consumed. Stuff like this: https://www.globalresearch.ca/direct-energy-weapons-create-forest-brush-fires/5828967
I don’t wish to argue with you here, so I’ll just point you to the videos of Tony Heller, who is barely still on YouTube. Most of his videos show how the temperature data is either inaccurate to begin with, or have been corrupted.
To me it’s obvious that the climate change hysteria is a top-down agenda. Watch a few of Tony’s videos and you’ll see how science has been hopelessly corrupted in service of power and money.
This is one such video that shows James Hansen’s involvement in climate fakery: https://youtu.be/hsCwZu3nvoM
Hi BM,
'Tony Heller, a birther (something to do with Obama?) who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym "Steven Goddard," wrote a blog post that claimed "NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934." After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was "fabricated" or "faked." On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that "the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s" but scientists had "faked the numbers".
Global warming myths can never be permanently killed. Once debunked, a climate myth will go into a state of hibernation, waiting for enough time to pass that people forget the last time a scientific stake was thrust through its heart. The myth will eventually rise from the grave once again, seeking out victims with tasty, underutilized brains to devour – every zombie’s favorite meal.
And so we have the long-debunked conspiracy theorist myth that scientists are falsifying temperature data to conjure global warming and frighten the masses. The story goes that in the raw temperature data from the continental USA, the hottest year on record is 1934. In the data adjusted by scientists, 1998 was the hottest year on record in the USA, until that record was broken in 2006 and then shattered in 2012 (1934 comes in 4th). The raw data are the gold standard, so this proves that climate scientists are falsifying data, right?
Wrong. Really, about as wrong as humanly possible. Scientists make adjustments to the raw data to remove factors that we know introduce biases and false trends. For example, temperature stations were once observed and data recorded in the afternoon, but later the observations switched to the mornings. Since mornings are colder than afternoons, that change introduced a cool bias into the raw data. Other factors that require adjustments include changes in the temperature monitoring system instrument setups, and the movement of temperature stations from one location to another.
Scientists have put substantial effort into accounting for all these changes that introduce known biases in the raw data across thousands of temperature monitoring stations. It’s not a vast conspiracy to trick us into buying solar panels; it’s just good science, which even contrarian climate scientists don’t dispute. In fact, when we compare raw and adjusted temperature data across the surface of the whole planet, the difference between the two is barely noticeable.
Yet we suddenly have Christopher Booker at The Telegraph and Fox News' Sean Hannity claiming that climate scientists are ‘fabricating’ and ‘manipulating’ the raw temperature data, despite the fact that even most contrarian bloggers see right through this myth.
So what happened? Shauna Theel at Media Matters documented the path that this zombie myth took, starting from a fringe denialist blog, making its way up the conservative media echo chamber ladder until it reached media outlets like The Telegraph and Fox News that purportedly care about factually accurate reporting.
Let’s take a few more shots at this zombie myth to see if we can send it back to its grave, temporarily.
Scientists make adjustments to remove known biases in the raw data. Average surface temperatures over the continental USA have indeed warmed by more than 1°F since the 1930s.
Even if you don’t trust those adjustments, raw and adjusted global temperature data are nearly identical. The USA represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface.
On top of that, the warming of the atmosphere only accounts for about 2% of the warming of the planet as a whole. The oceans account for more than 90% of global warming, and have been heating up at a rate equivalent to 2 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second since the 1950s, and 4 per second over the past decade.'
I've added in the July ocean temperatures to the post.
Even the US conservative Antony Watts (of whatsuppwiththeclimate) says '…while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word "fabrication" implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn't exactly the case. "Goddard" is wrong is his assertions of fabrication (and corruption!). I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better. I also pointed out to him that his initial claim was wronger than wrong, as he was claiming that 40% of USCHN STATIONS were missing. Predictably, he swept that under the rug, and then proceeded to tell me in email that I don't know what I'm talking about. Fortunately I saved screen caps from his original post and the edit he made afterwards.'
Jo
https://skepticalscience.com/zombies-devour-telegraph-fox-news-brains.html
Brilliant response Jo. This is why I love reading your work. Bravo to you sir!
Brilliant?
That's a cut and paste job, with no additional discernment. And it uses charged words like "denier" and "conspiracy theorist", which merely give the commenter license to ignore the opposing arguments and shut off their brain.
I'm done here. Jo was good with the Covid stuff, but this global warming hysteria is ridiculous and completely off base.
Peace, out.
Bono, I don't agree with Jo on Veganism but I still read his Substack. We're all here to learn and disagree, respectfully. I think Jo does a good job of that. Peace out and hope you stay.
Thanks for the positive thoughts.
Speaking of which, I am no longer trying to change minds in real life or on the internet. Instead, I prefer to embody and manifest my convictions, and if people are ever genuinely interested or curious enough to have a discussion I will entertain that. Otherwise, I just pray for everyone to make the most of their gifts and make some progress toward enlightenment before this life is over.
Arguments simply keep people divided and make both sides dig in even deeper to their respective positions. It's obvious that Jo has her position and I have a different one in opposition to hers, and reading more posts on this topic isn't something I want to spend time and energy on.
I am pro freedom and free will, while the climate agenda as I see it seeks total control over all resources - natural and human - and over all human conduct, hence it runs counter to freedom and free will.
Even if the program were based on facts and reality I would oppose it because it does not even propose real solutions beyond schemes that will cause mass hardship and starvation, but like "public health" policies structured around viruses that don't even exist those policies are based on total fraud. I cannot abide by that.
Thanks for following until now Bono's Mullet,
I find your 'even if the program were based on facts and reality I would oppose it because it does not propose real solutions' very interesting, it is the crux of the matter.
I am not proposing any solutions! I present the evidence, people present counter evidence, all I have seen so far have already been discounted. However, if someone says that even if they are convinced of the reality, that they accepted my evidence, they would still oppose/deny it on political/policy grounds and not scientific facts/reality then there is nothing more I can do.
I use terms anti-vaxxer and climate denier because they are just shorthand though technically derogatory. The term anti-vaxxer however covers so many people; those opposed to vaccines on science grounds (they don't work and are unnecessary) and/or those oppose who them on political/ personal freedom ones. I also don't mind being called a virus denier, I just say show me the bloody virus. if someone is called a climate denier I don't think they should be prissy, they should say show me the bloody climate. I am showing them the bloody climate! If they chose to be blind to the science on political grounds that is clearly their prerogative.
My blog is about science. I object to being told that I'm being controlled because I chose to live a certain way and accept human made climate change. It does not make me part of an agenda to control. I find it very worrying that climate science and a control agenda are becoming synonymous in people's minds. The true, objective, unbiased gold standard science that we are striving and fighting for ( I hope if I discovered things I don't want to accept or don't like I would still write about them) is mutually exclusive with having an agenda.
Jo
Hey Jo. Great post. I agree with everything here. Especially respecting the scientific method. Unfortunately that's not what we have today. We have industry capture that has bastardized it. I will take issue with one thing you said. You acknowledge that we all have our biases. I think perhaps you have yours when it comes to Veganism. I totally respect your dietary choices. I was vegan for 7 years. I chose to eat meat again for health reasons, and on the advice of my Lyme doctor. I do believe it's been helpful to me. Here's where I think YOU may have that blind spot you write about, due to your bias on meat eaters. I know several local farmers here in Boulder Colorado who practice organic regenerative farming. That's where I buy all my animal products, including eggs. I firmly believe that we humans can eat animal products in a healthy and sustainable way. But less of it. As an accompaniment to meals. Not a 24 ounce steak or a half pound burger with bacon and cheese UGH! It costs more to buy animal products this way and that's OK with me. I also realize that the additional cost is prohibitive for some. But that shouldn't be a reason to stop. And.... the downstream effects of eating cheap food costs us a lot more in health care. My concern in watching the debate on climate change is that so many good intentioned people, yourself included feel the need to comment on other parts of the debate that may turn some people off, which only hurts the cause of stemming the climate emergency. The opposite of this is someone like Michael Shellenberger who I think is a great advocate for free speech and against toxic woke culture run amok. But his book Apocalypse Never is a terrible, poorly researched and illogical book, IMHO. So he loses people like me who want to support his free speech crusade but don't want to give his anti-climate change crusade any oxygen. Anyway, soldier on my friend. Your work is needed in this chaotic information landscape.
Thank you David, yes I of course have a vegan bias, but that does't mean to say the health and other benefits of plant based are not supported by the literature!
I know some in the covid debate who don't talk about other issues to not put people off for example Dawn and David who wrote 'what really makes you ill' are vegan but only focus on the virus issue. For me it's all or nothing. I'm not going to censor myself. I don't mind if I put people off. The scientific method itself is what I'm arguing for, wrenching it back from politicians and industry and applying it to everything.
Interesting you say about Shellenberger, Eric Brookes has written some interesting things in Notes about how Shellenberger framed himself as a free speech advocate, getting into the twitter files slipstream, but is actually a proponent of fracking and nuclear undustry intent on rubbishing wind power. And when Eric Brookes pointed this out Shellenberger blocked him. So, so much for free speech.
🙏🏽
Thanks Jo. Yes, Shellenberger is a hypocrite. That's why I stopped reading his work. Regarding the health effects of veganism. I know you and I can't solve that question here. I wouldn't even attempt to. But....what I will say is this. I personally feel better when I eat some animal protein that's organic and grass fed. I also believe that we all do things that impact the planet in harmful ways. Every time I get in my car, I know I'm damaging the planet. That's why I bought an e-bike (I LOVE it!) and do a lot of my grocery shopping now on it. But I still drive bc it makes my life more enjoyable and a little easier. If I am to acknowledge your POV, which I'm not (HA HA) I'd still eat some animal products bc I think it's good for me and I enjoy it. I've also come to peace about the ethical aspect. But that's another discussion, not here. Again, I totally respect and admire your choice, but I do firmly believe that if everyone were vegan, it wouldn't change the equation much. But I do believe in organic regenerative farming practices and people eating A LOT less meat. That, to me is more important. Thanks. BTW, I'd never ask you to sensor yourself. Never!!!!
Marc, I do fear that the ruinous and criminal actions of our government at the behest of big Pharma, related to Covid have damaged the reputation of science. But........I don't think that the scientific method should be discarded. Science has brought civilization many beneficial things. So has medicine. It is undeniable. The old adage "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" really applies here. If you want to look at who stands to benefit from the science of climate change, look no further than the Coke brothers (brother now). Do you not think that climate change deniers have a HUGE stake in this game. People like James Hanson and Michael Mann started sounding the alarm in the 1980's and had nothing to gain at the time by speaking out. In fact, they were ostracized. Yes there are financial interests behind some of the debates. Wind and solar industry as two of the biggest. But.......science doesn't ALWAYS follow the money. Sometimes money follows the science. And that's OK. Look at the auto industry. When pushed by science to make cars with better gas mileage or electric, industry followed. We could debate data points like floods in China til the cows come home but it wouldn't get us anywhere. This is not the forum for that. Long form debates by people on both sides need to come together and expose their ideas to critical challenge. I've yet to see that. Thanks.
Hey Tim. Be a conservationist. Add all your comments in one post. Otherwise you're wasting energy, heating the planet. (-:
I like his method better than the 4 page narratives you post.
Yep! That's the world we live in. The twitter world. No thoughtful discussions like the author and I engage in. BTW, I really enjoy his writing, which is long form. Do you not like George and Donny's substack? If not, then why are you here? Doesn't make sense to me what you said. Huh???? And BTW, I was making a joke, not trying to say he shouldn't post short missives. I guess you didn't get the humor (-:
I really liked G&W's substack. Used to. They are way underinformed on this current topic and it's a big turn off. So I post to hopefully get them to deepen their understanding of how the world really works.
That's great Greg. So you do prefer long form discussions? If so, what are some of your objections to Jo? I've challenged her on veganism and the environment, respectfully. We've had a good back and forth. I love Substack for the opportunity to discuss and learn. I'd encourage you to keep reading and commenting. That's how we all learn. Peace.