FACT: We face an existential threat to or species from catastrophic climate change which occurs because of our pollution and is happening far faster than most scientists had hoped for.
FACT: This catastrophic climate change can occur within decades fuelled by feedback loops built into the biosphere which will make vast parts of our planet uninhabitable to sophisticated civilisation.
FACT: We have waited too long to stop climate change, it is now becoming a run away event and only radical adaptation can be adopted to survive it.
FACT: Most of the political spectrum are corrupted to the vested interests of those doing the polluting and the current political establishment are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
FACT: As the climate deteriorates and gets worse citizens will panic and be forced to join civil disobedience like Extinction Rebellion and forcibly be arrested and force Governments to change as their judicial system becomes too blocked to function.
OPINION: Only a revolutionary political movement with a focus on sustainability, a rejection of neoliberal economic growth models and a war footing economy focused on protecting what we have is the only way forward.
The denial of climate change and the quack science used to peddle it must be eradicated with the same zealotry we amputate cancer. Our politicians are too frightened of the corporate vested interests that profit from pollution so those politicians need replacing.
Earth Day is increasingly a choice between a funeral or revolution.
Martyn,
Thanks for highlighting our most important issue we and our future generations all face ahead.
As I reviewed the NZ media news from 6 am today on RNZ, TV one and news hub, all were absent of any discussion on Climate change, and full of Labour Party “face-saving” batter from NZ’s ‘Easter scrooge’ Grant Robinson’s banter about “we can’t do everything at once” as he changes the narrative to ‘it will take three terms’.
In six years we will be impacted by higher sea levels and storms that will be flooding all coastal cities and suburbs, destroying lives and property by then.
Wake up Grant Robinson, you just look so stupid!!!!
So Grant Robinson is clearly just a glorified bean counter + gatekeeper for the Global banksters we can see it clearly now.
He must go now and retire from being a failed Finance Minister and replace him with a bold Finance minister so we can again show Labour as a Government that wants to become a global leader on Climate change.
Read this: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Published in… 1989. Apparently we only had 10 years then to change things or face catastrophe. My Point? Doom and gloom sells papers and gets clicks. Always has, always will.
My prediction based on historical evidence from the last 30 years: In six years everything will be very much the same as it is today. Feel free to revisit this post in 6 years time (OR take a screenshot). if I’m wrong, I’ll unreservedly apologise.
Or. Just maybe, Nitrium, we knew less in 1989 than we do today? Kind of stands to reason that our science would be stronger now than 30 years ago.
Or, maybe, it isn’t. This is my entire problem with climate “science” – it isn’t testable (which is the key requirement for the scientific method in order to prove a hypothesis) until nature starts matching the models. So far, climate scientists have been wrong every time on their coming decade climate change predictions. They remain undeterred (unsurprising, since they’ve thrown their entire careers into it), so the looming climate apocalypse headlines continue, while no climate apocalypse actually occurs (and won’t imo). The prevalence and popularity of apocalyptic film and TV generally should leave little doubt that this stuff sells. Doesn’t make it true though. You’d almost think there was some sort of government/media/financial agenda surrounding this stuff, huh?
So plotting data into the future then watching that plot accurately reflect what has taken place is not testable.
Replication of outcomes is also a scientific process in testing hypothesis.
Our dismal denial of information is not just in the area of climate but many other areas related to humankind’s impact on the planet and all life this world as we know it.
try 1972 are a date warnings were published and over 30 million copies sold.
Our plotted path is so close to that warning and the data produced that denial is stupidity.
Reviewed many times by Universities and scientific institutions since.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse
Your final warning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz9wjJjmkmc
What do you need ?
I think a whole bunch of scientist would disagree with your assertions, Nitrium. One of which is that the increase of CO2 and temperature is an observable, measurable phenomenon. I’m not sure how you’d want to “test” increasing carbon dioxide causing increasing temperature; energetic weather patterns; and ocean acidification. Do you actually want to see CO2 reach 500ppm and a temperature increase of 3 degrees just to see what will happen? (ref: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters)
Atmosphere-ocean climate modeling studies do exist (ref: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html). You just need to look for them.
In fact, NIWA’s new supercomputer does just that;
ref: https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/high-performance-computing-facility
Ffs, Nitrium, are you still shilling for the fossil fuel industry???
At what point do you understand that your weird distrust of science is making you look foolish???
Its not a conspiracy mate. No conspiracy could involve 99% of scientists and institutions like NOAA and NASA
Humans simply don’t operate that way
The White House leaks like a frigging sieve and you expect thousands of scientists to hold a secret???
Get real
First you call me a “gun nut” and now you claim I’m “shilling for the fossil fuel industry”. If you want to conduct an honest debate with me, don’t open with an utterly untrue ad hominem. But you don’t really want an honest debate, do you?
For record, I have literally zero connection (work, financial, or friends/family) to the fossil fuel industry. I approach everything from a neutral position and with common sense. And yes, I definitely play the Devil’s advocate, because if you can’t address counter-arguments then you should seriously consider if your current position is correct.
Yeah Nitrium, I can’t imagine why some scientists keep pushing this story.
Maybe we should ‘follow the money’:
“Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
In short this is a vast boondoggle that benefits large swathes of academia and media.
😉
No follow the money Andrew.
Oil
Grant Robinson talks of growth.
Growth is a bankers lifeblood. Over 5 billion profit extracted from NZ last year and that’s after they have hidden all they can in off shore havens.
Grants is the bankers man but not the only one.
Everybody is contributing to CO2 production, and methane, Not just the government. Every individual would have to work out for themselves how they are going to live without producing any. At least not more than we individually produce by breathing and digesting.
Everyone will need to grow their own food walking distance from home. No airline travel, No car. School at the nearest not the chosen within walking distance. The cities can’t remain the main places people live.
It isn’t going to happen Martyn. You are not going to make the changes you would need to in your life to make your contribution and no elected government will get into power and force you to, or me though I don’t live in a city and can easily grow my own food.
Our best hope is that the scientists (some) have made a miscalculation through inadequate information.
D J S
David,
You are living in hope that the scientists are making wrong calculations are you?
This is your mistake sadly they are right, so best face the hard cold reality that all coastal regions will be inundated with sea levels rising and flooded.
I saw it in Florida and the coastal regions in EU and now on east coast NZ so get it right CC is now impacting on us all.
David much of the data shared at the IPCC is down played and modified in the reports so the main message cannot be seen.
If error is present which I think is unavoidable, then prepare for much worse than what is offered in continuing IPCC reports with each one admitting the earlier report was too conservative.
My conversation with IPCC reports writers on three occasions have left me with little doubt that political forces are at play to hide important information and perspective agreed to by the scientist.
Climate alone is only a part of what humans are changing and a bigger picture has significance far wider than climate.
Fossil Methane release for example is not quantified or given recognition yet may well be a major tipping point we are experiencing now.
The IPCC focus is too narrow and so misleading.
None of it is good.
“Our best hope is that the scientists (some) have made a miscalculation through inadequate information.”
Thats your BEST HOPE??? That scientists have miscalculated???
Fuck me. Is there is no end to human denseness???
It’s your best hope too MJOLNIR, Nothing’s going to slow our fossil fuel use except running out of it.
D J S
God help us all if thats what its going to take David
At that point we can kiss goodbye to most, if not all, our coastal cities
David what you are outlining is NO HOPE.
That is what the younger generation see and why they must revolt.
The hope is that NO HOPE can be set aside and BAU is under increasing attack.
We have little to loose in fighting “NO HOPE”
I encourage you.
The power of community is cohesiveness in the face of starvation
Cuba has shown us the way.
No hope is off the table.
The kids are our hope and we must support them and become activists building a community against BAU.
The politicians won’t go there so they must be forced to or replaced.
Correct, David Stone.
It’s all virtue signalling. Very few will voluntarily return to some 3rd world style existence for a bumper slogan “save the planet” (maybe).
No. Going. To. Happen.
I think many on the far left see this as a means to bring down neo-liberalism. Huh? Think it through – socialism won’t be able to CONSUME, either. Who’s going to support that “alternative”? No one. It’s just the same dreary 3rd world existence with more state control.
Thankfully, AGW is mostly political noise, not science.
Your joking?
Its not just global warming but a combination of that and many other changes that will soon no longer support humankind’s devastation of the supporting environment.
Consumerism as we know it in the West is not universal and has bot been over time.
The Earth is finite and cornucopia may be the only retreat for some.
It’s quite true that we are wrecking our environment in many ways other than producing excess CO2. In fact that might be the least of the damage we are doing. But I return to my earlier comment. We have to act individually in our own lives to make the changes. And everyone is leaving it to the government which can’t and or other people who won’t because it isn’t convenient or economical. Do you drive an electric car? and do you have solar panels to charge it up with?
D J S
David, I very much agree with most of what you say.
BUT
Choices of convenience or economy are both luxuries for a limited sector of present populations and such waste cannot continue with 7 billion in a finite world where overshoot is present well beyond resources.
Most people will do little to change their footprint as they live in an infrastructure that confines options.
Tinkering will help a little and perhaps increase awareness but may not slow the steady of increase of oil consumption and CO2 / GHG emitted by human activity.
Electric cars are a joke as the idea of cars continuing is ridiculous and highly improbably for much longer.
The shape of our communities will change if we are to attempt survival for a decade of so.
Humans will live where food is available. Transport is too resource consuming as is using oil to produce food..
Rail may help in the short term providing we build our food supply to use this type of more efficient distribution system. Rail can be run with steam produce with wood and a Kiwi has recently prototyped such a possibility.
But in a longer run such an overhead will not be likely.
Solar panels take oil to produce and that is on on top of our increasing present consumption. Very limited production can be planned for such a short term system. The working life span of PV calls for replacement infrastucture.
PV and wind cannot replace oil so we need to adjust our energy hunger.
Energy harvesting is what has enabled the mess we face. More of it will produce more problems as a consequence.
Humans need to live with much less dependence on harvested energy. Industrialisation is another key problem.
It looks that collapse may be the only motivation for change as so many can’t see what is taking place now.
Oil is not a fossil fuel. It is abiotic.
http://www.bucksworld.net/Imgs/bloggage/AnatomyConJob-Ebook.pdf
Pure heresy Helena !
Interesting link, The idea of a source of hydrocarbons that did not originate from living things should not be too controversial though. The elements and compounds essential to life were presumably here for life to utilise in it’s development. Living things did not create carbon / calcium etc . So it should not be too radical to question whether there might still be some of those materials around that have not ever been taken up by a life form.
D J S
I like it Helena.
Funded by the Heartland Institute.
Full of fundamental errors but readers who swallow that stuff possibly would not notice.
The LTG sold many times the copies and the LTG predicted nothing.
The report presented the data from the computer model as at 1972..
That data has been reviewed many times by scientific organisations and recently Melbourne university.
The data appear to be remarkably reliable over 40 years after publication.
Oil and coal deposits formed over long periods in the crust, are referred to as fossil deposits.
As we use them as an energy source by burning them that have been labelled “Fossil Fuels”.
That has little to do with how they were formed or accumulated.
Helena.
Here is your author. a Scientology “finance” adviser and fiction writer..
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/top-scientology-financial-adviser-preaches-moving-money-offshore-1043176
“Wiseman says he left Wiseman & Burke in 2006 to pursue a career as a writer (under his pen name John Truman Wolfe, he has published a series of private-detective mysteries, including one about a boutique Beverly Hills bank specializing in loans for Hollywood clients). He also tends to a market research agency called On Target”.
Wiseman or John Truman Wolfe doesn’t understand the subjects he raves about and that is obvious in the first few sentences in the so called expose’.
Bugger
Well I still go with the Russian theory.. abiotic https://www.decodedscience.org/origin-crude-oil-petroleum-biotic-abiotic/54008
Both theories have some validity it seems and it may well be that both processes of oil formation may co-exist.
The abiotic theory of oil formation did not originate in Russia not the USSR. It has a long history and fascinating roots.
But how oil is formed is largely irrelevant to our Human activity of filling the atmosphere with CO2 from carbon stored in large reserves embedded in the crust.
Red herrings like future of oil supply maybe debated but do not address any solution about reducing CO2 or GHG emissions.
We could not burn the known oil reserves without forcing massive methane release and run away temperature escalation well out of any hope of Human control by any means.
So how much oil may be there is really irrelevant.
I may add that both both theoretical processes of oil formation in the earth’s crust are processes that take geological ages not humankind existence time spans.
There will not be more available for humans than what there is now and we can’t use all of that anyway.
So another red herring is introduced within the thinking that abiotic oil may “save us.”
I remember during WWII we could not buy a range of groceries without Govt issued food coupons.
That stopped the wealthy buying up large a filling their cupboards leaving little for others and creating a black market driving up prices.
Governments have a role that is vital
Controlling supply and distribution so price is not just a market issue but a community issue.
I back community not markets.
Dog eat dog is the other option.
The same with housing.
The climate IS BEING CHANGED by the 0.1% … by the same people who said we must go to war to kill our fellow man.
Climate change … okay whatever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf4N3ylWZt8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wgkfRbVBEA&feature=em-uploademail
…
And while the school children obediently repeat the “information” about climate change given by the “finest scientists” and gather their peers around them for support, what is deliberately omitted by all media is that in the children’s hands, classrooms, homes, and overhead on towers is the very science which will kill them NOW and the immediate next generation … WiFi.
But no…let’s distract with info about future destruction and never mind learning about the NOW. After all, didn’t our own sirjokey speed up WiFi into classrooms so kids can download faster!! Of course, he did. Great fellow with everyone’s interests at heart.
Teachers armed to the gills with WiFi could get their students to research climate change themselves. They might come up with different opinions https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/brutal-meme-destroys-al-gore-and-climate-change
…
Who is making money from the climate change meme? My bet, same people who made money from taking the ANZACs into battle.
Is that the oil giants.
No. It’s the owners of the oil giants
Protocol III Methods of Conquest
It can be taken out of their hands.
Question posed by Martyn was Revolution or Funeral?
Ignorance meant NZers missed the revolution boat.
Funeral..seems so https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBIqucxEtEM&feature=em-uploademail
…
#WEDONOTCONSENT
LOL. I love it .
Another American selling stuff.
Having a garden and as much garden as you can manage is probably your best bet.
Water collection is a must and if your serious then get out if the city and into a small sportive community. Building community is where the hard graft lies but that is an essential task if survival is seriously contemplated as a goal.
You may well know about the only modern day example of a community where oil supply was suddenly cut to less than one eighth.
They survived because of community efforts and a supportive government assisting the formation of cooperatives. You may well note that Oxen, horses and donkeys became the best source of “power” to mechanise agriculture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6xoKmnYq8
The main point is that open minded solutions and community cooperatives are not controlled by money or power
Comments are closed.