In times like these, when one is relentlessly bombarded by ever more absurd claims, whether on the non-existence of genders and races, the need for ‘whites’ to compensate for conquests made by their distant ancestors, or the dangers inherent in saying ‘hello’ to a woman, it is not only natural, but absolutely necessary to maintain a sceptical attitude – to use a euphemism – towards the news descending from the echelon of official media or ascending from the chaos of the world wide web. Every thinking person knows that the powers-that-be have taken deception to a scientific level, and that the masses, having lost their character of peoples and become amorphous conglomerates of drifting individuals, are not always capable of critical analysis.
It has become clear that even universities have lost their credibility as providers of independent information, as testified by those professors who lose their tenure or prestige for findings that do not line up with the official narrative that the powers-that-be wish to enforce as the new dogma.
Therefore to feel lost and skeptical in our day is not only understandable, but completely reasonable.
The obvious risk that such an attitude implies is, however, that one may end up disbelieving even the news and facts that are actually true, and downplaying, even ridiculing, information that is in fact of vital importance.
In no field is this more evident than in the environmental issue. The little news that filters through the official media, which is almost invariably about climate change, seems to aim at frightening the masses by conjuring up images of seas swallowing up New York City, or of polar bears desperately clinging to the last scrap of ice.
It is no wonder that such a sensationalistic, theatrical approach to the problem is either met with uncritical fanaticism or scorn and derision. The people who identify as ‘liberal’ usually accept this narrative because it provides them with an additional excuse to attack everything they hate, whether it be ‘patriarchy’ or, more reasonably, imperialism; the people who identify as ‘conservative’ usually reject this narrative because they fear that all of this climate change talk is nothing but a scam on the part of the usual suspects to levy more taxes and exercise more control.
Both approaches, however, happen to be mistaken. Yes, ‘liberals’ are correct in stating that the environmental issue is indeed extremely serious; however, climate change is just one facet of it, and not even the most vital. Yes, ‘conservatives’ are correct in stating that the usual suspects want to exploit climate change for their perceived gains; however that does not mean that climate change is not actually happening.
Let’s look at the facts objectively and disprove both the misconceptions of the ‘liberals’ and those of the ‘conservatives’.
The first necessary observation is that so-called ‘climate change’ is the current obsession of environmentalism. If one had to form an opinion based wholly on the official news, one would inevitably conclude that the CO2 we produce with our industrial activities is the one and only problem facing the planet, and that the obvious solution is to cut emissions and convert to sources of energy that are deceivingly described as ‘green’. The need to cut CO2 emissions has become such a compulsive mantra that any thinking person cannot but wonder what is the real motive behind such ostentatious good will; nor can one help but notice that the profit involved in the conversion to ‘green’ energy is staggeringly enormous, as is the amount of central control that such transition would need in order to succeed. It is no surprise that the techno-financial apparatus is using climate change as a golden opportunity, both to reap huge profits and to march even faster towards global technocratic governance. The vast environmental crisis, which the powers-that-be have chosen to reduce to the picture of rising seas, affords the perfect excuse. Extinction Rebellion, weather it be the creature or the unwitting instrument of the high echelons, seems pushing for some form of directorate that will assume control of energy sources – presumably until the crisis is over, more likely forever. Their plans should be transparent.
The mistake that the less attentive ‘conservative’ commits, however, is to conclude that climate change is therefore a concoction with no real basis, or at most that it cannot be as serious as such hypocritical, corrupt movements would have us believe. This kind of thinking by association rather than by arguments is a feature of the current political and cultural landscape, and is clearly encouraged as a powerful form of mass control.
The unfortunate reality, though, is that climate change seems to be proceeding even faster than what is officially presented. Temperature records keep being broken worldwide, and almost no day goes by without new findings forcing researchers to review previous models, which regularly turn out to be too conservative.
Any scepticism on temperature reporting is understandable yet puerile, when one considers that most of the ice remaining on the North Pole is now one meter thick or less, whereas it used to be two to five meters as recently as 2012. Greenland is melting even during the winter. For the first time in recorded history, this summer the sea off the coast of Alaska was completely ice-free, and local temperatures were higher than in Britain. Antarctica is losing 300 square km of ice every year, and the melting is increasing fast, with deep cracks fracturing glaciers into chunks the size of countries. The fertile area of Australia is getting thinner and thinner, and large numbers of cattle have to be sold or slaughtered for lack of water and forage. Half of the fertile land of Iraq has been lost to drought. In the summer of 2018 Latvia and Lithuania had to declare a state of emergency, France had to shut down four nuclear reactors to avoid overheating rivers, and the Netherlands saw the longest drought ever recorded. This past summer vast portions of the US Midwest were not replanted due to flooding. The list goes on, growing with every passing day, and yet the problem will not seem relevant to the average consumer as long as the supermarket shelves are stocked. The fact that crop yields are decreasing worldwide, also as a consequence of climate change, is unknown to most, and is even explained by some ‘conservatives’ with the bizzarre claim that, while all ice on Earth is melting and there are few glaciers left, a new ice age is approaching.
The absurdity of such claims should surprise no one, because personal motives determine human thoughts much more than facts do. Rather than facing the daunting challenge of re-organising one’s values and lifestyle, it is clearly much easier to embrace some reassuring but utterly nonsensical fairytale, such as the notion that burning 100 million barrels of oil every day doesn’t make a dent in the heat balance of the planet. Like any drug addict, the modern consumer will claim that the drug is actually good, that the more CO2 the better for the plants, despite experimental science informing us that, past some percentage, CO2 is not beneficial to plant growth at all, and that furthermore an excess of CO2 even diminishes the nutrient content in rice and other crops. Not to mention the damage that the CO2 is causing to the oceans, which have grown by now so acidic that most shellfish can no longer develop properly.
Climate change is therefore a reality, and should actually be designated with a far more effective name, such as ‘planet overheating’.
The mistake that brings together most of both ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’, however, is not what they believe about climate change, but their common failure to consider a whole host of other even more pressing environmental issues, as dire as they are almost unmentioned. Most ‘conservatives’ deny climate change, most ‘liberals’ are fixated with it, both choose to ignore that there is even worse in store.
It is striking to see, in a world where the interconnectivity of the economy is commonplace, how few realize the interconnectivity of living things and habitats on this planet. Modern life certainly removes man from the realities of the natural world, to the extent that many city dwellers have never seen a real hen, let alone a boar, and few stop staring at their phones to observe the workings of an ant.
But even when the complexity and interdependence of the biosphere is to some extent understood, a powerful motive makes any discussion of its ongoing devastation inconvenient: to stop and deal with the devastation we are wreaking would not reap profits for the techno-financial apparatus; it would, on the contrary, force extremely painful decisions. The choice of the powers-that-be is consequently to ignore it altogether, and they are unsurprisingly followed in this by movements like Extinction Rebellion.
Within the limits of this short essay, I will mention just a few facts that barely scratch the surface of our current multiple assaults on the planet. But before I do it is essential to note that we are not discussing predictions; we are rather registering what has already happened. This is not a hypothetical future, it is the actuality of recent and current events.
It is a marvel of the modern age that the sample of issues I am about to mention can be at the same time so evident and so disregarded: an ominous sign of how former humans, by now mostly reduced to consumers, have lost their ability to understand, even to perceive, the world they live in. I am persuaded that some will demand evidence to prove each point; and my response is that if thousands of scientific papers and pieces of news emerging daily, or even the experience of everyday life, have completely escaped the senses and attention of the enquirer, no referral to articles or publications would be helpful. Indeed in a sane world the following list should not surprise anyone, and the sobering fact that it actually does is precisely what spurs my efforts.
1) Chemical, electromagnetic, and radioactive pollution
We keep producing thousands of new chemical compounds that are alien to the natural environment, yet neither producers or consumers seem to wonder where they end up, and what their effects are. Even our sunscreen contains oxybenzone that damages aquatic life, and 750,000 tons of cigarette butts per year introduce 4,000 different toxins into the environment. Thirteen million tons of plastic end up in the oceans every year; in 2018 the Arctic Sea was found to contain 12,000 microplastic particles per litre; 90% of fish birds have plastic in their stomach, and so do the creatures in the Mariana Trench. Fracking pollutes the aquifers, 100 million barrel of fossil fuels are burned every day, and 5G is being implemented regardless of the damage it causes to cell structures.1 No technical solutions are in sight for the Fukushima reactors, which keep releasing tons of radioactive water into the Pacific every day.2
2) Ozone depletion
On the current course, this factor by itself has the potential of terminating life on Earth. Again, no prediction, but fact: the ozone layer is now already so thin that UVC radiation, the last band before X rays, has started to reach the ground.3 If you notice that the sun rays feel particularly hot and piercing on the skin, this is a fact, not an impression. Do you know what is the main cause of ozone depletion? Keep reading.
3) Deforestation and habitat destruction
Never before in history had the development of new infrastructure been as fast and on such a massive scale as in the present. What is left of tropical and boreal forests is being devastated to build new highways, railways, ports, and airports, while the top soil is being eroded or paved over. In June 2018 alone, 1,100 square km of Amazonian forest were cut clear.
Unprecedented fires are ravaging not just the Amazon, Indonesia and central Africa, but even Siberia, Canada, and Alaska.4 The trees that are still alive are burning away, and in many cases they do not regrow. Do you know why? Keep reading.
4) Oxygen decline
The oxygen content has started to decline, both in the oceans and the atmosphere, faster than the rate at which CO2 is increasing. The differential is due to a decrease in forested areas and, above all, plankton mass. The consequences of deoxygenation on humans and life in general are bound to be felt more and more.5
5) Geoengineering
Currently the most destructive factor of all: in our delusional attempt to stop climate change we are intentionally injecting in the atmosphere some twenty million tons of nanoparticulate every year, through the insane global-scale operation whose academic term is ‘geoengineering’ or ‘solar radiation management’. The nanoparticulate used for geoengineering contains light-reflecting aluminium, barium, strontium, and plastic polymers that are contaminating the soil, the water, and the air, causing the die-off of insects and trees, and a dramatic increase in Alzheimer’s, autism, and other neural diseases in humans. The particulate also acts as incendiary dust that makes forest fires more severe and harder to extinguish. Most importantly, it is the major cause of the destruction of the ozone layer.
We see geoengineering in action almost every day when we look up, and are foolishly made believe we are seeing some unusual water vapour that ends up blanketing the whole sky. Our ancestors could notice the tiny movements of distant stars; we fail to realize what’s happening a few miles above our heads. Have you noticed those trails at all, Extinction Rebels? Any thoughts, Greta?
Apparently not. Nor are any other environmental agencies saying a word about geoengineering, or about any of the ongoing assaults on our planet that cannot be turned into profits for the ‘green’ industry. If it were not for the heroism of independent researchers like Dane Wigington, detailed information on geoengineering would not be propagated to the public at all.6
That we should be panicking is therefore certainly true – but certainly not about New York going under water. The few interconnected issues I randomly and inadequately mention above threaten nothing less than decimating life on Earth.7 By the time the sea rises enough to become an issue, most life may already be gone. And no, it’s not just about the photogenic polar bears or the royal penguins, whose main colony has declined 90% since the 1980s. It’s every living things everywhere, from the soil bacteria to the great whales, from the deepest ocean to the garden of your house.
Six billion trees are lost every year, and the ones that survive are mostly dying off. Have you ever stopped to observe the ill-looking leaves and the branches falling off the trees around you? No, it’s not just the trees by the parking lot. Whole forests even in inaccessible areas are essentially already dead although the trunks are still standing.
Over the last fifty years, pelagic fish have declined by 90%, terrestrial fauna over 40%, earthworms 83%, and plankton (the main source of atmospheric oxygen) 40%; we now catch one third of the fish we used to catch in the 1950s, despite going far asea; fisheries are closing down one after another. The ocean dead zones now cover 246,000 square km; most of the coral reef has gone, and toxic algae blooms are becoming widespread from Florida to the Baltic Sea. That the formerly thriving oceans are becoming stratified, oxygen-deprived toxic environments inhospitable to life is a reality experienced and known by fishermen and researchers – not by the average consumer of canned tuna and breaded cod, who is even unaware of eating microplastics along with the fish.
Meanwhile the number of insects has declined 80–90% on the whole planet, including in the few still untouched tropical forests. Have you noticed at all how few insects dirty your windscreen? No, it’s not just insecticides, and definitely not climate change. The bees that are dying by the billions are found to suffer from symptoms similar to Alzheimer’s, in likely connection to the aluminium used for geoengineering.
Not a day goes by without some officially ‘inexplicable’ animal mass die-off, whether it be aquatic mammals getting stranded on beaches, flocks of birds falling from the sky, or cattle dropping dead in the fields. Life is unmistakably being eradicated.
The fact that the average ‘liberal’ believes the official version, obsessing over climate change and sea level rise and explaining everything through that lens, should come as no surprise given the notorious naivety of the self-identified ‘Left’. But the arrogance with which the average ‘conservative’ dismisses not just the reality of climate change, but the whole multi-pronged catastrophe we are inflicting upon ourselves, is somewhat more sobering, when considering that it was historically the self-identified ‘Right’ that instituted the first environmental protections. In contrast, the modern average ‘conservative’ suspects any scientist who sounds the alarm on the ongoing disaster of being a corrupt shill directed by the powers-that-be to spread alarmist propaganda, when the reality is actually the opposite. The already exceedingly conservative studies produced by most scientific institutions are routinely watered down before being presented to the political class and the general audience. The researchers who sound the alarm actually have a hard time being heard. Professor Peter Wadhams, who has spent much of his life in the Arctic, is nowhere near a public figure and media darling. His concerns about the end of ice and his suggestions on how to try and mitigate the problem are equally ignored. Professor emeritus Guy McPherson is routinely ridiculed for his proposition that human extinction may occur in a matter of a decade. The extent to which his calculations are accurate is not the point; what is remarkable is that the average ‘conservative’ perceives such claims as outright scams. He is facilitated in this by the fact that movements like Extinction Rebellion twist the original message of the scientists in the direction favoured by the powers-that-be. Guy McPherson is a case in point: while predicting near-term human extinction, he nonetheless stresses the fact that reducing the burning of fossil fuels, dirty coal in particular, would paradoxically increase global temperatures in a matter of weeks, due to the consequent reduction of the aerosol masking effect, also known as ‘global dimming’. The gist of his message is therefore that we are in a catch-22 situation, with no clear solution in sight. Curiously enough, though, only the short-term extinction part of the message has filtered through to public attention; the part that negates the alleged salvific effect of cutting CO2 emissions is never mentioned. Why is half of his message being withheld? Obviously because converting to ‘green’ energy makes business, whereas acknowledging the complexity of the predicament does not.
But of course the average ‘liberal’ unconditionally embraces any simplistic worldview which allows him to scream in public and feel morally superior, while the average ‘conservative’ is all too happy to use such childish fanaticism to prove that environmental claims are politically motivated scams.
Besides relishing the obvious inadequacy, hypocrisy, and opacity of the environmental movements, the average modern ‘conservative’ makes up any sort of ridiculous excuses to avoid facing the evidence of the ongoing devastation. He will point out for example that we still do not know how many species there are, so that it is therefore impossible to establish what percentage is being wiped out. Assertions like this don’t seem to be embarrassed by their lack of connection with reality. By what logic should we assume that the destruction we inflict only affects the species we know, but not the ones yet undiscovered? Do the bombs dropped in a war only kill the people carrying identity cards?
Others ask how such a tiny percentage of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere can cause so much heating, while they apparently never wonder how a minuscule amount of plutonium could kill any number of people. The shocking stupidity of similar remarks makes one wonder whether the dumbing-down side-effect of the aluminium particulate used for geoengineering is already at work.
Even when the ongoing disaster is somehow acknowledged, it is usually argued that it would be impossible or undesirable to give up the comforts of industrialized life – as if it was desirable or even possible to give up the air we breathe or the land that supports plant growth. Worshippers of technology, who abound even among self-described ‘conservatives’, never question their irrational dogma that the technology of tomorrow will remedy the damages caused by the technology of today, despite the historical evidence that damages actually build up and expand, far from self-remedying.
Such loss of wisdom says a lot about the extent to which ‘conservative’ culture has steered away from actual traditional concerns towards the exclusive care for the conservation of one’s bank account.
This obviously represents a detachment from the realism of our ancestors, who knew that the soil they tilled was their ultimate wealth. By what stretch of the imagination, through what kind of self-delusion have we come to assume that we can survive the destruction of life on this planet? What mental disease brings us to regard ourselves as separate from nature, rather than a part of it? We even use the term ‘environment’ as if it was something that surrounds us, rather than the very substance we are made of.
Are we so accustomed and attached to the current techno-financial paradigm that we’ll keep destroying our habitat and ourselves to pursue imaginary numbers?
The answer to this question is, probably so. And it may be too late anyway. But if anything can still be salvaged, it will only happen if we face the dire reality rather than seeking comfort in delusions. It is high time to stop being the pawns of big business, in one way or another; it is high time to look for real facts. Dear ‘liberals’, no ‘green’ energy will save us: we don’t need new ways of repeating the same mistakes. Dear ‘conservatives’, no obstinate denial will save us either: let’s resume the wise habit of conserving that which enables us to live. The environmental issue is deadly serious – despite Greta Thunberg.
References
1See http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/.
2See https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/helen-caldicott-the-fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-continues-unabated,10019.
3See https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/transdyne-corporation-reveals-deadly-ultraviolet-radiation-reaching-earths-surface-300622373.html.
4See https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Images/ImageLibrary/DAT_4505427.html.
5See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5138252/.
6See http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/.
7See https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/30/e6089.full.pdf.
An excellent and overdue article. I would put habitat destruction/ fragmentation as the primary environmental threat. It’s proceeding exponentially and ravages plant and animal species worldwide.
I’m surprised there is no mention of (6) Overpopulation. Population is still growing by leaps and bounds, particularly in Africa, the Muslim world, and some parts of Asia such as India. This is a major driving force behind all the other forms of environmental destruction. The Earth could probably support one billion people living in an advanced industrial society. It can’t support ten billion, and that is where we are headed. Certainly the current mass immigration from African and Muslim countries into Europe is currently driven more by overpopulation than by global warming.
Bob, in a previous discussion this was mentioned by some commentators. India and China are obviously the largest contributers to environmental damage and people in the West are made to believe that it is their responsibility to fix it. Grandiosity and delusion at its best.
Unfortunately, the author was not willing to entertain this as a valid point and the discussion turned out to be similarly unproductive and petty as this one. I agree with the commentators above that a contribution on this whole topic with well-researched and properly scaled arguments should be written by someone who has deeper knowledge on it and does not publish anything here with an irrational compulsion to be right, but to have a constructive debate.
@Brad
I wonder if your false statements are due by simple inability to comprehend or by some sort of will to prevail, as if your self esteem was being challenged, or both. It is not true that I did not acknowledge the obvious role of overpopulation, nor is it true that the points I illustrated are irrational or a product of superficial knowledge. By stating so you are ironically showing the limits of your own understanding. Please do carry on with more “petty discussions”, and keep ignoring all the points I made to wake up the insouciant. In that way you will certainly save the dying trees and stop the spraying of nanoparticles on us all.
@Bob W
As you may notice, the list includes some of the major aspects of environmental damage, not the *causes* of environmental damage. Overpopulation is not environmental damage, rather a cause of it.
A much needed article in our modern clown world. Ignoring the circus in the comments, I am curious about the glaring silence given to the question of superbacteria formed from our overuse of antibiotics, and its connection to animal agriculture – which itself connects to many of the issues you have stated.
Flamel, yes, yet another problem to be addressed. Do you have particular recommendations? It seems that another of approaches are possible, depending upon your analysis. (1) continue the cat -and-mouse pharmaceutical game; (2) Reduce urbanization that creates proximity for transmission as well as the stress of unnatural urban life and employment; (3) if identifiable, eliminate toxicological weakening of the immune systems of the population; (4) accept a different makeup of mortality demographics; and (5) educate people on sanitation, hygiene and appropriate use of antibiotic therapy and create a widespread consciousness about the problem. I make no claim that this analysis is exhaustive (unlikely given declining IQs). Feel free to push this tin can further down the road.
@LeFlamel
It would be clearly impossible to compile an exhaustive list of all the damage we have been inflicting on our own habitat, nor was this the purpose of the essay. Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, P.S. re: KR Bolton’s queasiness about opening articles up for comment. Kerry, I put my vote in for the messiness of open commentary, of course regulated for extreme trash talk, vulgarity and groundless defamation. That is, I hope we can go through a period of learning and that we can in common develop some nice instruments for improving all of our conversational skills. As I mentioned, I think that I may have a few beginning ideas for a new “Roberts Rules” for public conversation and probing discourse aimed at examining objectively defined hypotheses.
I am thankful that social media for one thing, nonetheless. It has brought clearly into the beam of the microscope that human communication declines sharply from what it should be, that is, conversation. In fact, it always has except in elite circles. Now we have the chance to at least recognize and accommodate for the fact that the general public does not do mush real talking and listening. In fact, I am not sure how many people would genuinely understand what I meant by that comment about conversation–what it is and how to engage in it.
I moved to a small town almost a year ago. It is my first experience of immersion in rural life. I love it. I love the people too—because one must love them, which is not a bad reason at all, if initially an imperfect virtue. Anyway, I digressed a bit. At the early morning coffee shop I notice the same tendency among farmers and other townspeople: it is a type of communication (or limited communication) that is a sparring without sparing. It is based on insecurity and an over-personalization and possession of a pet hypotheses above all others. The trick of multiple working hypotheses that well-educated men and women are supposed to employ is not operative. It is probably not really operative even among the degree holders. (Give me time, I have only been here a year, after all. I have great expectations based on the capacities of these hard-working and intelligent folks.) This pattern of rough and combative communicative behavior appears on Twitter and elsewhere. It is encouraged and modeled by Presidential debates, banter -filled sitcoms and social media.
When I use to be active on those types of SM sites, I tried to tamp that stuff down. I was rewarded with only slight followings, though I do believe that Twitter had a ceiling on my ability to attract followers.
You bring up Konrad Lorenz. I was somewhat influenced by Lorenz through my thesis mentor who had interaction with KL. In recent years I have explored and am attempting to expand upon Lorenz’s work on mobbing. In particular, I am interested in the manipulative and malicious use of organizational mobbing by governments and those organizations of governance which Michael Rectenwarld cleverly refers to as ‘governality’. It is my belief that this is a deliberate refinement by HR, management and legal teams for ill of a phenomenon originally described for therapeutic purposes. Thus, the ever-solidifying bureautyranny of the technocrats relies upon purging anyone not onboard with their agenda and who are capable of mounting significant intellectual threats. The same is true for the academy, journalism, seminaries, etc., of course. It is just like the Soviet, Stasi and Maoist, purges, only now more subtle and finessed (for the time being).
I do feel that Lorenz was a bit unnecessarily pessimistic. I think that he was undergoing an Operation Paperclip-like rehabilitation for the oligarch’s purposes, and so some of his political ruminations have a kind of 1960ish – 70ish clunkiness for my current taste.
No doubt, we can all make better progress on environmental matters if the Left would quit misusing and abusing ecological and environmental affairs for cheap gains. Rightist reactionism is also frequently trite and block headed. It really is time for adults to take charge and say, “Enough!”
Apparently in addition to a lawyer with one client and a doctor with one patient, there is nothing more troublesome that a scientist deprived of a laboratory. And fertile, too, I would like to think. I am working on a model of a testing system to augment, if not replace, one of EPA’s standard methods called the WET test, or ‘Whole Effluent Toxicity’ test. My former state agency made sure try and “discourage” this effort. The travails of the a world ruled by bureaucratic obesiants is beyond expression. Again, it is a failure of conversation. It is a failure of conversation because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect that agencies are designed to capitalize upon.
To begin to conclude this slightly rambling response for which I must beg forgiveness, I think that KL did a good job of bringing up (eight) important points for discussion. Much of the deleterious effects of “Man” that he describes I would attribute to the deleterious effects of the plutocrats to a disproportionate degree. Like racial relations in the U.S., which were seemingly developing well without provocation from above, it seems that the intricately related levels of society would work well without the pernicious meddling of the self-appointed pinnacles of humankind. Their version of “sustainability” is a false one, riddled with self-serving features, thinly veiled. There is a type of sustainability, a “eusustainability” (sorry), that can indeed be designed if we can succeed in getting the Buffet, Gates, Musk, Soros, Bezos, Rothschilds, & Co. to take the beer and chips and go sit in the back.
In keeping with Lorenz, we need to put to death a wrong type of competitiveness, not between companies which is necessary, but a pathological competitiveness against the masses, against the naturally evolving future, the type of thing that is praised as “disruptiveness.” This disordered competitiveness is generated by an anti-market Leviathon of horrendous totalitarian characteristics and dimensions. In my innovator’s circles, I thought I would lose my mind if I heard one more young kid parrot that gibberish of “disruption.” What the adults in the game need to do is champion “techno-traditional integration.” Indeed, it should be a design feature in the same way that plant systems must, now (thanks to Western values) plan for waste treatment, recycling and restoration after use. Thus, advances need to be given preference based upon the ability to dovetail with what exists, what preserves traditional family life and local flourishing. This is no neo-Luddite regression. I love technology, blinking lights and new devices—serious devices for industry, farm, hospital, transportation and so on. There are ways to think about this which enable us to benefit ethnostates and international stabilization, development and trade. Naturally, this will require as-yet-feeble systems and awareness in the financial, intellectual and technologic al communities. …lots to do, time to get busy.
Thanks for tolerating this long comment.
This exchange raises an interesting theoretical question of whether practical matters, such as those involving scientific data, can be addressed in terms of principles or first things without much reference to primary technical literature. I once asked a philosopher how he manages his database of literature for the purposes of citation in papers. He responded that he usually does not cite much. It is clear that both technical and non-technical rhetoric needs a proper forensic forum. We need a separate “Robert’s Rules of Order” that apply to our discussions. Just as certain mathematical functions, when graphed, approach but fail to intersect lines called asymptotes, many discussions in social media approach the state found on Twitter of zero-sum, bickering. (Might we call those lines of non-resolution and non-intersection, Twittertotes?) I am not saying that we have reached this barrier of infinitesimally ever-smaller progress here, but I am seeing the tendency of the curve and I am wondering. This is a great topic and clearly it garnered quite a bit of interest. I would be more than happy if all of the Commenters above, regrouped and took another have at it again, with lances aimed at the topics, not at the other horsemen. We all struggle to understand the problems themselves, after all.
Well put. It is a problem that I have seen with dismay in journals run nonetheless by some highly educated individuals, and I asked John at the start whether Arktos Journal should even have a readers’ forum, having seen how it descends; which seems to be an intrinsic character of social media. ‘Backward’s’ article should surely be the starting point of a dialogue on ecology and environmentalism from the Right, and while the causes of climate change remain debatable, surely not open to question by anyone on the Right are the consequences of globalization, and conversely the manner by which the system responsible for environmental degradation, as is often the case, comes up with supposed ‘solutions’ such as ‘green credits’. Maybe a good starting point is Konrad Lorenz’s ‘Civilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins’.
To all the interesting questions the commentators asked, the author gave zero answers. Instead he reverted back to insults, antagonism and personal attacks.
I understand that the author has been asked to publish his arguments after his previous abilitity to prove his point on an argumentative basis.
After another futile attempt on behalf of the author to engage with critical comments in a respectful manner, I personally would prefer to do without such ‘contributions’. There are certainly many competent writers on this topic who have more maturity, poise and decency to engage in interesting debates, and who can – I am very sure of that – defend their viewpoints on solid scientific grounds. The informative and insightful variety of comments alone has already demonstrated this fact.
*inability to prove his point
If you want a comprehensive addressing of your concerns over climate change. Then look no further than Potholer54/ Peter Hadfield on youtube, Instead of asking the author a whole bunch of research articles and correlative studies, which is not possible since many dont even agree on basic principles of physics and climate dynamics. All the plain vanilla fake conservative arguments coming from people like Ben shapiro, Steven crowder, Tim Ball, Tony Heller etc have been thoroughly addressed and even refuted in his videos arranged properly in separate playlists
Nobody asked him for “a whole bunch of research studies”. Civicus Novus provided some good references for both sides of the argument, did not seem to have been such a difficult task. Likewise, we usually don’t comment or reference trivialties coming from conservative mouthpieces like Crowder, Shapiro ect. There is a reason, this Journal is part of the Deep Right. We discuss various things here and opinions more than often diverge without anyone resorting to attacks or insults to prove his point.
Commentators also asked other questions that remained unanswered. But first and foremost, which you seem to have overlooked, I was talking about the lack of etiquette in the author’s handling of questions and comments.
@Ben
If you were expecting me to reply to every single point raised by those commentators who failed to read attentively and peruse even the few sources I provided, I’m sorry to say you were misguided. I’m always glad to discuss further with the interlocutors who correctly understood what was explained and are able to argue consequentially, but not so with the ones who display more arrogance than logical capabilites. Neither am I worried if I sound insulting to the insulters. Given that you are obviously free not to read my contributions, your irritation looks to me quite puzzling.
Ecology is a science. Environmentalism is a political enterprise designed to drive government policy.
What ecology would tell you is that planetary climate changes. It has in the past and it will in the future *whether there are humans around or not*.
For anyone who thinks the world is undergoing increasing heat, I commend to you Tony Heller’s YouTube channel or https://realclimatescience.com/.
He’s a careful, empirical scientist who examines the *evidence* presented by climate alarmists to support their claims.
Humans could do better with regard to treatment of the natural world, but it’s not altogether clear that Westerners could do *that* much better and no one else in the world really cares.
No sacrifice by the West to save the environment is going to mean anything because of the ‘free rider’ problem in virtually any voluntary agreement.
I recommend Potholer54 / Peter Hadfield on youtube, a geologist by training, who has addressed all of Tony Heller’s arguments, one by one , which forced Tony Heller to retract a lot of his original claims which should make one suspicious of his research methodology and path to conclusions .
@HamburgerToday
I am sorry to say that your comment aptly illustrates the silly denial I describe in the article above.
@Civicus Novus
I find your critique of Guy McPherson in many ways incorrect, however the article hopefully makes it clear that the point is not about the validity or invalidity of his claims.
The fact that scientific institutions are generally slow and conservative in their estimates is actually well-known, as even outsiders can see that such clunkiness is inherent in the way they function.
And yes, tenured professors can certainly say a lot of nonsense and keep their positions, as long as they are in line with the official narrative.
The article included some links to scientific sources which for some reason did not come through. I will try and remedy that, so you will have an opportunity to change your mind on the seriousness of the substance behind my assertions. It sounds like you have met a lot of improvised “environmentalists” with little scientific knowledge, so your dismissive attitude does not surprise me.
Why do you react so defensively to constructive critique? The previous comment was not dismissive towards the points you have made, it simply commented on one of your references with a well-known valid claim in the scientific community. Yet you lash out with some retaliatory remarks without giving any depth or elaboration to underly the strength of your argument, assuming things you cannot know about this person.
Many existing scientific models on the points you have made are still in a hypothetical state, i.e. not all of them are conclusive. I do agree that it is important to bring them to people’s attention. In the same breath, it is important to state that McPherson is known for having very inconclusive results. Does that mean that I met the same “improvised environmentalists” as the person who commented before? It is actually quite condescending to say something like that to someone you have never met and know nothing about in regards to his professional background. I find arguments in this journal very informative, your defensiveness takes me aback though. It is usually not part of it.
Dissent is a good way to gain knowledge but I have to admit that I personally find the way you deal with critique very petty, to the point where it undermines your effort of bringing this important topic to the forefront.
Your remarks paradoxically exhibit the very traits you denounce. It is probably not good practice to intrude in conversations when one ignores both the background and the interlocutors.
“The fact that scientific institutions are generally slow and conservative in their estimates is actually well-known, as even outsiders can see that such clunkiness is inherent in the way they function.
And yes, tenured professors can certainly say a lot of nonsense and keep their positions, as long as they are in line with the official narrative.”
This is complete nonsense. Why make such obviously uninformed claims? I happen to be in science. May I ask what your background is?
I am glad to be as “obviously uninformed” as the numerous scientists who lament the situation. Your attitude in fact proves our point.
More balanced than our previous discussion, with many good points that are undisputedly important. However, I see where you get your – sometimes ad verbatim repeated – ideas from. Here’s my comment on them: in the ecoscientific community, McPherson is not taken seriously, as you have rightly mentioned. The reasons are valid though: 1) all his predictions have failed so far (he predicted extinction already three times, it never came to pass) 2) all his publications offer very spurious or insufficient to no evidence for his fatalistic predictions. Sometimes they just consist of rants directed at his detractors, who are criticizing him on valid scientific grounds 3) he has gathered a group of young depressed and anxious people who are, deeply steeped in nihilistic attitudes towards life, awaiting the end in a cult-like fashion. The allegation that ‘conservative data’ (however obscure and vague this is) is being supressed also comes out of his mouth and which you as well have unreflectedly (?) mentioned in the comments before. Why can McPherson do this? Because he has tenure. Professors don’t lose tenure because they publish results that don’t agree with the mainstream, as you have suggested. It does not work that easily, that’s why tenured professors can say a lot of nonsense and keep their positions. It is the ones without tenure who are stripped of their titles, research grants and jobs in a matter of days or months.
So with all the important issues we face, we should still always examine the data that is presented to us.
There are many scientists who are not being talked about in a controversial manner because they just do their job in a conscientious way and still offer valued insights about where we stand in terms of the destruction of our environment.
Well Written , While the left is co-opting environmentalism under its belt with its alarmist propaganda , the mainstream right wingers- Neocons and neolibs are actively engaged in doing the bidding of Big Oil companies via think tanks and lobby groups , paying the least attention to any aspect of environmentalism or preserving nature in any form. Might also add an honorable mention of Allan Savory being one of the leading ecologists who stressed that if we could restore atleast 50% of the grasslands all over the world, using a planned livestock grazing called Adaptive Multi Paddock (AMP), the carbon can be stored in the soil restoring its fertility even in the arid regions and bring back the greenhouse emission to pre industrial levels enabling a timely transition to renewables for energy needs in the future in a feasible manner.
Rahul
The views of the scientists on possible solutions are varied and often conflicting, as the complexity and uncertainty of the models make it inevitable. Some traditional common sense might in the end be more effective, if only we managed to break free of our religion of Money and Technology.
Well, AMP grazing strategy is indeed a traditional holistic practice of using abundant cattle and other livestock to mimic the age old predator – herd relationship in the grasslands . It was how a lot of pastoralists in the past operated with their cattle ,finding pastures in different parts of the region they lived in . This process of circulation allowed the soil to rejuvenate in enough time and kept grasslands thriving. AMP is a technical abbreviation coined in the view of the term “holistic” being quite vague and confusing. I would definitely recommend looking into the work of Allan savory and his foundation that promotes regenerative practices and a shift from industrially produced meat and food products to locally grown food and grass fed free range cattle for meat and dairy
Good article on matters that need addressing by the Right, as the actual heir of ecological perspectives, despite some recent efforts by the Left to introduce some obscure allusions by Marx about human ‘metabolic rift’ caused by industrialism. Haeckel coined the word ‘ecology’ while Konrad Lorenz and Alexis Carrell provided a corpus of material that offers a Rightist perspective on environmentalism. As the author alludes, it was regimes of the Right that enacted environmental laws, while Marxism sees human-made ‘laws of social production’ as being able to shape the environment with impunity.
@K R Bolton
As the urgency of the environmental question will become more and more apparent, it would indeed a grave mistake to let the “Left” capitalise on it. Now more than ever it is essential for any traditionalist movement to take position against the techno-financial paradigm and for an organic relationship between Man and the natural world.
I found this article very interesting. Might you write any articles or books on environmentalism Mr Bolton? I’d love to hear more from you on this.
@Matthew Wills
I was actually replying to Mr Bolton, sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I might write more articles; in the meantime I recommend you peruse http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org, as it contains references to all the major environmental problems we face.
I agree. A contribution from Kerry Bolton on this topic, also from a historical perspective, would be very interesting. I am looking forward to it, Mr Bolton.
Good content, I would find myself much aligned with this.
However I don’t think its unreasonable or illogical that an ice age would come after all the ice has melted.
Think of the currents which circulate around the planet and bring nutrients as well as heat and cold.
Directly opposite newfoundland is Ireland which rarely gets snow or ice yet newfoundland is pretty much tundra. This is because fo the North Atlantic drift.it keeps Ireland and Britain warmer.
Now when we think about water the specific gravity, the salinity etc salt water is more dense than fresh water and the fresh water could push down these currents which would cause cooling. But I still don’t want to say that’s a fact, its not its just a possibility.
It may well be wrong but the climate is always changing slowly, the world is overpopulated especially Africa and Asia.
Lots of problems it may be a godsend
@Tomas Sablić Bastable Mac Lochlainn
It seems likely that we have already triggered feedback-loops that will maintain the upward trend of global temperatures regardless of which energy policies we choose. An example of feedback-loop triggered by the loss of ice is that thawing diminishes the albedo effect, thus increasing the amount of heat that is absorbed by the ocean; the more heat is absorbed by the ocean, the more Arctic ice melts, and so on. Another feedback-loop is between thawing of permafrost and methane release, which once again amplify each other.
Who are the ‘average conservatives’ you are talking about? On the left we have a number of prominent idiots talking a lot of nonsense, but I am not familiar with any known conservative who straight-out denies climate change.
“if thousands of scientific papers and pieces of news emerging daily, or even the experience of everyday life, have completely escaped the senses and attention of the enquirer, no referral to articles or publications would be helpful” – I don’t agree with this. I would have appreciated, if not references regarding the well-known ‘facts’ you stated, then at least some more names of scientists who warn with legitimate findings besides McPherson and Wadhams. Maybe you would be willing to add.
I must admit my envy towards someone like you who is not aware of “conservatives” denying climate change -and much worse. I assume you never listened to any of Trump’s speeches, to name one?
The article indeed contained some links which did not come through; that will be soon corrected.
I did not ask you to for an assessment of whether I have met conservatives who deny climate change or not. I am politically informed enough to know what Trump says on these matters, just like everybody else probably does who reads essays that are published here.
I asked you to specify your generalized claim of “arrogant conservatives” who deny the existence of climate change, i.e. who study it – not those who just have an opinion about it. This was a serious question. I also don’t consider sceptics to be straight-out deniers and neither should you. This makes for bad logic.
The references you provided are a random collection of news articles and scientific journal articles with no cohesive line of argumentation. Most of them address geoengineering, not ecological science. The former requires change on the political level and reflects things we discuss here in broad length. By the way, one journal article talks about the loss of oxygenation in a time frame of millenia (!), not the next couple of years.
So once again, instead of giving an evasive answer, could you state actual names of additional scientists that corroborate your arguments?
@Takita Jones
Until you learn to read articles, scientific papers, and comments attentively, any discussion is pointless.
@Takita Jones
There is not really one, at least not someone who upholds it scientifically. It would be unintelligent to do so in view of the inconclusive models we have. I work for a European institution where such calculations are made. The crux of the debate essentially revolves around the work of the IPCC and their published findings.
For instance, you might find the debate between William Schlesinger and John Christy interesting (both are qualified climate scientists) regarding the IPCC reports’ scientific integrity and how much of the findings are actually fueled by political or public consensus, in other words, beaurocrats and the political spectrum. The IPCC composition is very contested in view of that, with only 20% being scientists and 70% government affiliates. Another dubious organization producing findings is the AAAS.
Then there are the questions regarding irradiance, which is currently the best bet, at least scientifically. Regarding CO2 and how the theory is derived, I would recommend looking into Rory Spencer, if you have access to any institutional or university database. Regarding the differences in temperature produced by various models, look into Kevin Trenberth and Fasullo. All this literature is peer-reviewed and gives you a good variegated insight of where we stand, with both sides being defended and all the pros and cons to it.
@Takita Jones
Regarding my first sentence: I meant there is no so-called conservative scientists who straight-out denies anything. This generalized statement speaks for itself. Are there deniers based on opinion? Of course. But I believe that was not your question, if I understood you correctly. There are just sceptics, as you have correctly stated yourself.
Great, thanks! Pretty much what I was looking for