Think Or Swim - Latest Comments

Re: Doom with a view? Trap tightens on our diminishing prospects

TimmyB — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:35:59 -0000

We believe precisely what we want to believe. No more, no less.

Re: Doom with a view? Trap tightens on our diminishing prospects

Carthyart — Wed, 16 May 2012 08:02:27 -0000

Thanks John, feel welcome to share article - I did a shorter version of it for the US Hercircle site - women's engaged creative practice and activism here http://www.hercircleezine.com/... too.

I think there is value in looking at ecocide in general, rather than say climate change, if for the only reason it sidesteps the debates about climate change. Climate change is also so incredibly abstract, if people began to recognise the ecocide all around them instead in their everyday lives.... wishful thinking on my part though :-)

Re: Doom with a view? Trap tightens on our diminishing prospects

John Gibbons — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:10:46 -0000

Hi Cathy
Thanks for dropping by. I've started reading your '10k years of ecocide' piece, very interesting indeed. Liked the opening quote from Derrick Jensen as well. There is little question but that what we call the ecological crisis is at its roots a crisis of human culture, ie. who are we, what is our relationship to the earth, our fellow creatures and the rest of nature. The idea of humanity as being separate from nature is a dangerous conceit. We'd be less inclined to destroy the natural world for a quick buck if we saw ourselves as part of that world. Delusional thinking and magical thinking has been a feature of humans since our earliest days. Sadly, our slow, faltering evolution towards rationality has failed utterly to keep pace with our ability to harness the god-like energy that fossil fuels have (at least for now) placed in our collective hands...

Re: Doom with a view? Trap tightens on our diminishing prospects

John Gibbons — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:04:56 -0000

No argument here. If you put the word 'population' into the search tool on this site, you'll see it's been covered, fully and frankly, many times over. That it didn't make it into Michael's article, I guess he's best placed to answer that. For the record, I agree that overpopulation is an integral driver of the ecological and resource crisis that confronts humanity. I also accept that many in the green movement are squeamish about addressing it (sometimes, for very good reasons).

Re: Doom with a view? Trap tightens on our diminishing prospects

silverfazor — Wed, 16 May 2012 06:41:26 -0000

Good article but why no mention of the main problem-over population? Why cant we face up to the fact that there are far to many humans on this earth and do something to tackle human reproduction. Smaller families mean better education, better standard of living for all and a better chance of tacking the climate change problem. Smaller families also leads to a falling demand for scarce resources such as claen water. It appears to be non PC to face up to this fact and the major religious orders should start to take a role here. Joke!

Re: Doom with a view? Trap tightens on our diminishing prospects

Cathyart — Wed, 16 May 2012 05:16:36 -0000

Hi John

Many thanks for re-posting Michael's article - I hadn't seen it. An excellent summary.

In my own way I have been attempting to look beyond climate science to get a clearer 'picture' of humanity's all pervasive ecocide across all aspects of the biosphere: its ecosystems, hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere etc. I'm coming from another perspective, from visual culture, and I can't help often think that there is little mainstream discussion on trying to understand how humanity got to this point. In saying this, I come from a background in biology too, so while there maybe some genetic drive for any given species to over-exploit its environment, I'm much more interested in the cultural 'stories' that civilization has told itself, in estranging itself from nature that sustains all life, over the millenia.

I've been reviewing how some scientists are starting to group all the indices of biospheric change and also the new viral video that is being promoted in recent months 'welcome to the anthropocene'. I offer some critical, but very exploratory ideas in my article 'the anthropocene: 10,000 years of ecocide' which might be of interest http://ecoartfilm.com/2012/05/...

Re: An interview with Irishenvironment.com

John Mashey — Sun, 13 May 2012 02:35:54 -0000

(off-topic, post since no email handy, delete):
If I recall aright, Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney are Irish, although I'm not sure where they live these days.If they are still over there, you might be interested to note that:

a) They are both Heartland Experts who spoke/Attended Heartland's ICCC-1 in 2008, so they'd know the Heartland folks, like Joe Bast.

b) Heartland has had an intereting time of late, i.e., BillboardGate.

c) Although they have a <href="http: "="" 05="" 07="" 2="" 2012="" climatewire="" eenews.net="" public="">been losing funders, they are standing firm. Not all of its experts are: Benny Peiser got himself delisted within a day. Anyway, one wonders what McAleer and McElhinney think, if they are still there?

</href="http:>

Re: To save lives, we must first abandon hope

John Gibbons — Fri, 04 May 2012 05:24:23 -0000

Micheal, feedback appreciated. I suspect if you removed the word 'growth' from the language, RTE, Dáil Eireann, the ESRI and economists everywhere would struggle to complete a sentence. It's repeated so often, it's beginning to take on the qualities of a mantra, an incantation to quieten the angry gods. The word itself has lost all meaning. The climate juggernaut is coming down the tracks alright, but system inertia means we're only feeling the breeze rather than the hurricane thus far. But I do believe you are correct: electromagnetic civilization is as fragile as it is complex, and it will most likely collapse in an ugly, dangerous mess well before the full impacts of climate change come home to roost. For most of humanity, getting through the next 5, 10, 20, 30 years is, I suspect, going to be tougher than it's been for centuries.

Re: To save lives, we must first abandon hope

Mícheál — Fri, 04 May 2012 03:01:39 -0000

Very good article. Every now and again it can be some what comforting to come onto websites like this and realise that there is a handful of sane people out there who actually see the bigger picture. But of course we shouldn't worry, as the experts keep telling us the only solution to our growth caused problems, is eh, more growth, but of course it will be sustainable, which of course makes me despair at how ludicrous a suggestion this is. Unfortunately, given the general fixation with growth and how unpopular a controlled contraction would be, the only thing that I can see saving us from the worst of climate change is a (disorderly) collapse of the global economic system brought about by the permanent decline in production of oil and other fossil fuels, which all indications suggest is only be around the corner. But I suspect that even long after this reality our many so called 'experts' will be praying to God's of growth.

Re: To save lives, we must first abandon hope

John Gibbons — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:32:17 -0000

Good point, Jo16, you really got me there.... followed link back to your website, and was interested, though unsurprised, to see the the Holy Bible informs your, er, insights into climate science. Personally, I find said old book more than a little worrying, especially when it repeatedly commends, among other things: slavery, torture, murder, rape, incest, mass slaughter, indiscriminate vengeance, the murder of 'witches' (i.e. women) and a whole host of other Iron Age nonsense. But don't let me put gobbledygook in your mouth, when your website (short, weird extract below) does such a good job for you:

"This website aims to show that climate change, despite the claims of advocates, is not anything new. The Bible states clearly that ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1). The climate system did not just, evolve, is not just a glorified accident. It was spoken into existence by God. Even those with a simple grasp of Scripture understand this. As Creator, therefore, God can be trusted to take care of this planet. Colossians 1:17 states ‘And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist’. Despite the views of extremists like Al Gore, the climate is not an inconvenience, because it is the product of a holy God. Evidence has shown that the earth has warmed and cooled before, at times even warmer than the current temperatures. If man cannot control the climate, he declares the climate out of control. But God is in control of the Climate. Genesis 8:22 states ‘While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease’. Every 12 months the summer and winter come around. Day and night religiously follow a set pattern. Here we see the perfection of God’s Creation. By Him all things are kept together.Our climate is simply not out of control, but following the divine order in which it was created. Of course man does have a tiny effect on the CO 2 concentration in our atmosphere, but this concentration is ridiculously small for all the attention it gets. Don’t be duped by media programming - The Climate system is maintained by the Almighty God who created it. He controls all things."

Amen and hallelujah Jo16 – see you in Hell! (or is it Purgatory. Or Limbo? Hard to keep up, they keep changing the makey-uppy rules)

Re: A warning from history

Jo16 — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:48:30 -0000

Thank God Ireland doesn't believe in your warped ideas, John.

Re: To save lives, we must first abandon hope

Jo16 — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:45:57 -0000

John lad, CO2 concentrations have risen .008% in the last 200 years, from .03% to .038%. Who on earth are you trying to fool?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re: Inside the dark Heartland of climate denialism

Jo16 — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:39:06 -0000

I have absolutely no respect for brainwashed people like John Gibbons who believe everything they see on TV. Fair play to Heartland for standing against the tide.

Re: To save lives, we must first abandon hope

John Gibbons — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:20:33 -0000

Thanks Eric, feedback appreciated, as always. I'm afraid the die is cast in terms of humanity's very limited ability to stand back and perceive the true nature of the sustainability and climate crises coming down the line. And even for those who do, the awareness of just how deep trouble we're in can be paralysing. Resolving this crux would take all the nations and peoples of the world coming together to act unselfishly to address an existential planetary crisis. Nothing like that has ever happened before. What are the odds this time?

Re: Septic tanks: another nettle in the long grass

European poker site — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:51:18 -0000

European
poker sites that are licensed inside the EU are able to offer their citizens
tax-free poker winnings; this is a great tax law that benefits players and
implements the policy of open borders. But the law regarding gambling providers
is taking another turn; with separate licenses in every EU country and even
look-in in some countries (France). Is this in line with EU values and legal
according to EU law?

Re: To save lives, we must first abandon hope

Econroy — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:58:38 -0000

Very good article, John. Like you I'm not sure what we mean by green growth and sustainable development. Everything in society is geared to economic growth and increased consumption. When I read that oil finds off our coasts are good news, that farmers can massively increase meat production in new CAP and fishermen should aspire to catching more fish etc.I despair if we will ever resolve the crisis of climate change and resource depletion. Climate change is with us now and all I hear is pleasure at the unseasonable weather this week. Nobody is tumbling to the bigger picture, despite clear warnings from thousands of scientists and commentators like you. Therefore I'm quite despondent that we will ever address the issue head-on in a timely manner.

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

John Mashey — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:33:04 -0000

Good comments. In US, most of the th think tanks that do climate anti-science larened the dobut trade from helping tobacco companies in the 1990s.
See Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, p.,9: all marked with red T have tobacco involvement, and you can see some of the payments on p.39, followed by accounts of the efforts put forth. Heartland's Joseph Bast defended "Joe Camel" and then begged for more money.

Naomi & Erik were on the right track with the tobacco connection in MoD, but the tobacco connection turns out to have been far more pervasive than they realized.

I also recommenda book by Robert Proctor, a terrific historian and expert on tobacco history in particular.
See Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. I've done a review of what may be the definitive book. I thought I kenw this truf moderately well, but I learned a lot.
I repeat just one of many horribly-fascinating quotes (p.114), from
Bob Herbert's interview with David Goerlitz, the "Winston Man."
'Goerlitz
then asked whether any of the company's executives smoke and got this
answer: "Are you kidding? We reserve that right for the poor, the young,
the black and the stupid."

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

denis — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:06:15 -0000

Thank you for the info on fracking Fred-----I hope that by the time they go for that gas [ and they will ], the technology has improved.
Otherwise, I`m with you for a total ban, however I wouldn`t hold my breath on that one.

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

Fred — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:37:39 -0000

"we better make sure that it is fracked in the least damaging way possible"Ho ho ... you’ve been conned mate – that’s an impossibility based on an absurdity; but it’s how the debate is being led and how the consent is being manufactured. Two points here:1. Even in a wasteful society, fracking is the equivalent of eating the other passengers on a shipwreck. 2. Even in a wasteful society, fracking makes little economic sense.FRACKING – THIS IS A FALSE DEBATE – THERE IS NO “SAFE WAY” TO DO IT: You reckon fracking is OK, "provided we do it right". That's exactly the line from the recent Texas Univ propaganda - much touted in Irish media as an "independent" report, but which was written by an old bloke "Charles Chip Groat" who pulls in c half a million dollars a year from his role on a oil and facking company("!). Some independence; but their line is no longer brazenly to deny pollution outright, which they did initially - rather to say that ‘yes there is a bit of pollution, but we can deal with it and you can trust us to do the right thing etc". Shale fracking is a toxic business; and the dirtiness of their underground bombing methods typically are presaged by the dirty nature of their propaganda. US fracking companies have been revealed routinely to use former military psychological operations, or “psy ops” specialists, to deal with ordinary local people inside frack zones, whom they describe as "insurgents" (CNBC, Nov 2011).It is not possible to frack in a non-damaging way. Moorman's "no chemicals" promise is mendacious and technically absurd. Chemical-free racking has never been done before. Mr Moorman originally said they'd "be sending down truckloads of stuff". Just as he originally said there'd be "3000 jobs", now reduced to "maybe 600". Further, Moorman's little company would not be doing any actual fracking - it's a two-bit operation with a limited track record and their end-game is being acquired by a large player - on whom Moorman's opportunistic promises will not be binding. Moorman’s last company, Southwestern Energy, currently is embroiled in a multi-million dollar fracking pollution court case in Pennsylvania. Fracking apologists such as Duke downplay the chemicals aspects and stress the water / chemicals ratio. A more accurate way to describe “fracking” would be to call it “underground dirty bombing” – that’s literally what they’re doing. The volume of fluid in a hydrofrack can exceed three million gallons, or almost 24 million pounds of fluid, about the same weight as 7,500 family cars. The fracking fluid contains chemicals that would be illegal to use in warfare under the rules of the Geneva Convention; and even miniscule amounts are toxic, both in water and in air. Fracking apologists also tend to omit that the back-flush fluid can be highly saline and contain naturally occurring radioactive isotopes. Cabot Oil, a Texas company with operations in the Eagle Ford Shale, recently agreed to pay $4.1 million to Pennsylvania residents whose water wells were contaminated. 70% of residents surveyed in the North Texas town of Dish complain of breathing difficulties, and formaldehyde levels at a Titan Engineering site in North Texas were recorded at levels known to cause breathing problems, levels one investigator characterised as “astoundingly high.”2. Even if it was possible to frack in a non-damaging way, that wouldn't happen either. The EPA can’t even manage water quality as it is. FRACKING IS NOT NECESSARY (UNLESS YOU THINK MAKING MOORMAN RICH IS NECESSARY) I have no issue with conventional oil or gas drilling. The risks can be managed. A hydrofrack is by contrast effectively a large underground dirty bomb, using material banned in warfare under the Geneva Convention. Are we off our rockers here even to be considering this rubbish? The recent oil find off Cork and the probability of significant conventional oil and gas finds off the West coast are what we should be focussing on. The Irish govt should set up an Irish Statoil to exploit these areas properly. And Irish farming (premium food to China), Irish pharmaceuticals, Irish renewables and Irish IT have never looked better. Future generations will probably see wars fought over clean water – the very resource that Duke suggests we deplete (do you have any ideas of the effect of fracking even on water supplies – and who’ll pay for it?), endanger or destroy forever to add a few millions to Richard Moorman’s bank account. Together with tourism (which will also be hit by turning the best parts of our countryside into a polluted Mad Max zone), those are the long-term prosperity areas for Ireland. By contrast, fracking is a get-rich-quick stunt for a few foreign chancers; a last chance saloon escapade that despoils a country for the many for the over-remuneration of an undeserving absentee few.One of these frackers or their cynical and selfish cheerleaders will be living inside a frack zone any time soon. Until such time as they cares to subject his family to the kind of long-term disruptive misery that he currently wishes to visit upon the culchies of Ireland, I’d suggest we retain a little scepticism about the motives and ethics of frackers and their local stooges.

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

Coilin MacLochlainn — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:46:49 -0000

Great article, John.

Just to change topic here a bit: climate
scientists have frequently said that carbon dioxide concentrations in the
world's atmosphere must begin falling by 2015 or climate change will pass some
tipping point and become irreversible and runaway. But it looks like we won't make
it: the carbon dioxide concentrations are continuing to rise, year on year, even
with the recession, and with slow progress on switching from fossil fuels to
renewables, and with China and India's continued growth. This means that, if
the world is going to do anything to save itself from total disaster, it will
have to start taking carbon dioxide out of the air.

The good news is that it is actually
possible to do this, though it would have to be done on a massive scale to make
any difference. I don't have recent data, but back in 2010 it was reported that
researchers in North America had perfected a 'carbon tree' type of device that
might do the trick, if deployed in sufficient quantities. A carbon 'tree' would
be perhaps as high as a three-storey building, and if 60 million of these
devices were constructed around the world they would mop up enough carbon
dioxide not only to bring us back to safe levels but even make possible a
return to pre-industrial levels. This would reduce the greenhouse effect to
such an extent that global temperatures would fall back to healthy levels. And
all this could be done while still burning coal, oil and gas, though I'm not
advocating that we continue using these. I'm not sure how many carbon trees Ireland
would have to agree to build as part of such a global project, but I'm guessing
50,000 or more. We managed to build far more houses than that during the boom, so
it would be possible.

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

denisk — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 05:48:04 -0000

Harsh, yes John, but I am really only trying to point out that what we now consider to be "normal" is anything but, and we have reached such a degree of dependance on fossil fuel that we have become almost completely blind to the consequences of our way of life.
We travel internationally to seek work in other countries-----all that is based on the exploitation of natural resources, the end use of which will only lead to yet more increases in our output of Co2.
Most jobs are Co2 producers-----it would probably be much more environmentally friendly to be on the dole, and do some voluntary work of a social or agricultural nature in our own country.
We are going to have to rethink our whole way of life and the rationale we apply to being alive on this planet, and it would be better to start on this while we still have some relatively cheap energy available to build a sustainable and self sustaining infrastructure.
We need to be making these plans now, and educate the next generation to enable them to be able to have happy and meaningful lives in our own country in the future.
Got a bit away from your article here----it was excellent and frightningly informative about the new religion of Anti Science.
To end-------- that shale gas will be fracked sooner or later, but we better make sure that it is fracked in the least damaging way possible, and that the resultant gas is used in the most responsible way possible ie not just to prop up our consumer society, but to make a lasting contribution to our New Begining.

Re: When science and special interests collide

John Gibbons — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:08:29 -0000

Coilin, yes, I had read Nordhaus' surprising contribution recently, and he was bang on the money - unexpectedly - about the methodology of denialism (you may have spotted that I segued some of his observations into yesterday's IT piece - I always prefer where possible to quote 'conservative' figures to support an environmental point, it helps to de-politicise people's response.

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

John Gibbons — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:04:49 -0000

Denis, I know where you're coming from here, but it's a little harsh to suggest that if you accept any aspect of our fossil-fuelled civilization, you have to accept everything, without exception or discrimination. I do think that some technologies are so egregiously dangerous - i.e. additional risks on top of their inevitable emissions - that we should at least fight to have them curtailed while also fighting Nimbyism on issues where the science is actually pretty favourable - nuclear energy and GMOs are two cases in point, as Paul Nurse, president of the UK Royal Society pointed out recently.

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

John Gibbons — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:00:32 -0000

As soon as I hear 'Phelim McAleer' I reach for the sick-bag. An ex-Murdoch hack, he has had a good grounding in anti-environmental propaganda. That he is now being payrolled by the lying liars at the Heartland Institute is about right. Fracking is highly profitable, so anything (eg. efforts at regulation or concerns over water table contamination) that threatens this profit stream needs to be attacked and ridiculed.

The fact that the (Bush-dominated) EPA completely exempted fracking from regulation in the mid 2000s (assuming my facts are correct here?) underlines the fact that they weren't going to allow bad news about the environmental wreckage to get in the way of 'good news', ie. billions more for the energy corporations, the ones who fund US politics and finance anti-science think tanks or 'sceptic tanks', as I prefer to call them, given the sewage they produce.

Re: Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit

John Gibbons — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:52:37 -0000

Interesting points Eric. Would the IT have chosen to publish this piece if framed mainly as a climate change article? Can't say for sure, but my hunch is: probably not. On the other hand, the Tobacco Strategy is accessible to an audience that may not be very well tuned to climate issues (i.e. 98% of newspaper readers), and this offers a way of explaining how the systematic corruption of science is a old problem. Since most people fully accept that tobacco is dangerous, they may be interested to know that this Tobacco Strategy is in fact a playbook for all manner of denialism. If you 'get' the tobacco-science swindle, you're far more likely to have a heightened index of suspicion in future when you hear similar arguments being made to dispute climate science.

In summary, a detour from my usual climate-heavy offerings? Yes, but a useful one, I would argue. Feedback, both directly and via Twitter, tends to concur.