Please read this early post of mine Global Warming: A hoax or a reality? as it describes how discouraged I was when I decided to delete my very successful environmental blog. After over a year of putting up with the asinine and unfounded, specious and fallacious comments of climate change deniers I threw in the towel.
An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming – the world’s climate is changing – and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame.
In the new enlightenment, the reason we are driven to become one with the life-process is not merely to experience some form of mystical oneness with everything. We strive to become one with it for the biggest reason there could be – so we can ultimately take responsibility for where it’s going. –Andrew Cohen
Here is the evidence that the climate change deniers, whom I am firmly convinced have their heads so firmly jammed up their anal canals that they haven’t been breathing anything but methane for years on end, are denying exists.
Global Warming Breaking News: China eyeing perks of ice-free Arctic
STOCKHOLM (AFP) China has started exploring how to reap economic and strategic benefits from the ice melting at the Arctic with global warming, a Stockholm research institute said Monday.
Chinese officials have so far had been cautious in expressing interest in the region for fear of causing alarm among the five countries bordering the Arctic, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said.
“The prospect of the Arctic being navigable during summer months, leading to both shorter shipping routes and access to untapped energy resources, has impelled the Chinese government to allocate more resources to Arctic research,” SIPRI researcher Linda Jakobson said.
Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States are already at odds over how to divvy up the Arctic riches, claiming overlapping parts of the region — estimated to hold 90 billion untapped barrels of oil — and wrangling over who should control the still frozen shipping routes.
Most Europe-Asia trade now travels through the Suez Canal.
Diverting this traffic through the famed Northwest Passage, which according to different predictions could become ice-free in the summer months any time between 2013 and 2060, would cut travel distance by 40 percent.
“To date China has adopted a wait-and-see approach to Arctic developments, wary that active overtures would cause alarm in other countries due to China’s size and status as a rising global power,” Jakobson said.
China has no Arctic coast and therefore no sovereign rights to underwater continental shelves, and is not a member of the Arctic Council which determines Arctic policies.
“China’s insistence on respect for sovereignty as a guiding principle of international relations deters it from questioning the territorial rights of Arctic states,” according to SIPRI report “China prepares for an ice-free Arctic“. PDF
GLOBAL WARMING AND CORPORATE GREED
Is the Movie Avatar Becoming A Reality? Will the Corporate “Personhood” (Thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court decision Jan 21, 2010) have to seek the riches of far away Planets and Moons once they’ve depleted the Earth’s resources?
A tip of the hat to honorarynewfie
See also: Global Warming in China: New Documentation
So readers, what do you think about this turn of events?
ian in hamburg
March 25, 2010
I’m surprised twice here. That you had an environmental blog – I didn’t know that – but that you’d actually delete it! Why, if it was successful?
.-= ian in hamburg´s last blog ..A look back at two weeks in Egypt =-.
timethief
March 25, 2010
Hi Ian,
I think if you click through to the posts you will get an idea why. It was a very busy blog and I was stressed out and ill. I received many troll comments and I decided not to devote any more of my time on it.
Colo001
March 25, 2010
I am curious in light of the scandal going on with the alledged faking of global climate reading (Etc) how you currently feel about the current state of global warming. I do not have a horse in this race as what I feel about this is pretty irrelavent. Just would like the opinion of someone with an attachment to the Green cause.
Thanks
Have not set up a blog
so if you find the time, desire or energy i would love a response via email
thx
timethief
March 25, 2010
The Question: To Act or Not to Act?
So here’s the reasoning in a nutshell.
Activists warn: Destruction if we don’t act now.
Skeptics warn: Severe economic harm if we do.
Either choice to act or not to act brings with it a risk if your choice turns out to be a mistake.
Given that understanding, which risk would you rather take:
(1) take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about,
(2) or don’t take big action now, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the scientists warn us about.
Which is the more acceptable risk: the risk of taking action, or the risk of not taking action?
I favor action now. Which choice do you make?
Tom
April 29, 2010
No contest !
Which is more important: Economics or The Planet (and the myriad of creatures that live on it and have taken millions upon millions of years to develop) ?
Or to put it another way… Nature (billions of years of), or Money (a couple of thousand or so years of) ?
p.s. Thanks for the “Tip of the hat” Timethief
timethief
April 29, 2010
I agree – no contest!
P.S. You’re welcome Tom :)
Lana
April 6, 2010
I’m surrounded by ignorance & decriers here in the conservative South. We had freakishly cold & snowy weather this past Winter, causing some of them to snort derisively about “global warming,” lacking even the basest knowledge that, indeed, that was EXACTLY the problem. It’s little wonder I’ve sought out few new friendships since moving here.
.-= Lana´s last blog ..New Life =-.
timethief
April 6, 2010
@Lana
When I met right wing nutbars online I was surprised by their lack of basic reading and writing skills. Moreover I was amazed that they had no clue that the so-called arguments they presented were fallacious and in some cases specious. The time I spent at BC confirmed that there are a lot of ill educated and highly opinionated people down south who don’t seem to comprehend that any opinion that isn’t based on fact lacks credibility. I know junior high kids in Canada who are by far brighter than the souths’ college graduates. Consequently, I give thanks I was not born way down there where ignorance seems to be endemic.
G
July 12, 2010
I am agnostic about this issue though I am highly suspicious of the mass-movements on both sides and I think that the focus on carbon is dangerously narrow. We should stop polluting so much, period. We won’t do this because we demand continual economic ‘growth’ and we have no way of achieving this cleanly. If we merely stop producing as much CO2 while continuing to churn out plastic crap, we can all pat ourselves on the back but we’ll only be creating different kinds of pollution.
The carbon trading scheme does seem like a way to keep poor countries poor. Rich/savvy nations and companies will exploit the hell out of it.
What do you think of this graph? Far as I can tell, it uses universally accepted information (from multiple overlapping sources) and shows that there was up to 20 times the level of CO2 when tyrannosaurus rex was running around. The global ecosystem was much richer then than now.
[http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Phanerozoic%20Carbon%20Dioxide.jpg]
timethief
July 15, 2010
I’m astonished that you have pointed to the “dinosaur farts theory” and yet proclaim to be agnostic. Over 90% of the world’s scientists are in agreement about global warming. It is our reality, yet you think quacks who promote junk science ought to be given credence. On that I’m afraid we shall have to agree to disagree.
“Dino-farts” Rohrabacher, the US politician and member of the House of Representatives is Dana is well known for popularizing the idea of dinosaur flatulence causing global warming.
Re: my question(s) above: Which is the more acceptable risk: the risk of taking action to reduce carbon emissions, or the risk of not taking action? It seems you favor taking no action. Thanks for your opinion which is the opposite of my own.
G
July 17, 2010
I wasn’t referring to dino-farts at all. Sounds like a crazy theory. I think volcano-farts, on the other hand, are significant.
The argument that it is better to act just to be on the safe side is very poor logic. Actually, I think it’s dishonest logic – it’s a cheat’s way of winning an argument. As is saying “90% of people agree with me”.
I think we should follow a robust strategy of reducing ecological impact in general rather than focusing on one particular bogeyman while everything else goes to hell. Even if the climate-change lobby is right about everything, this is still just one problem among many.
Say an obese person, addicted to food, gets most of their calories from Coke. Is the best solution to switch to Diet Coke? No – it does not address the behaviour or prevent the person seeking calories elsewhere.
We have a greedy, venal society and an economics that demands continual ‘growth’, even if what is produced is not useful or sustainable. We should address that and see CO2 for the peripheral issue it is.