5 Filters

Media Lens 'climate change', vs Daily Skeptic, somewhat of a poll of 5F posters

I used to be a global warming/clmate change true believer. I would down rate James Corbett because of his climate change views. You see I first read about it back in the 80’s and thought I had the grounding to understand the situation scientifically, based on the ice core samples from Antarctica showing the jump in CO2 starting with industrialization. I imagine everyone here knows the background.

Now, especially since covid, I’m no longer a believer, neither am I a non believer, I suppose I’m agnostic and think, at any rate, that the issue is used obviously by the elite gangster class to justify their morph into ‘sustainable green fascism’ and at the same time prevent action on obvious pollution etc.

I’d like to poll, sort of, the opinion here. Do people think the Al Gore’s book and film and predictions therein were accurate and well meant?

Here is the latest Media Lens and a recent post from the Daily Sceptic, two opposing views about media and climate change


I don’t recall ever watching the Al Gore film but if asked to decide which of those two articles was pernicious fear porn then count this reply as one unequivocal vote for the David’s. I seldom visit the site these days so far has it fallen and so quickly. Their contention that the mainstream media is ignoring “climate crisis” (the phrase is used twice, as are quite a few synonyms eg climate breakdown) is derisory. Fully onboard with the XR ‘expressive dance and being photographed’ pantomime.

I used to be a great deal more sympathetic too @Everyman but as seems to be the norm these days the loudest and shrillest voices on climate just never know when to stop. accuracy of their claims is not even the point it seems, just relentless repetition and yelling.

This film covers some very salient issues

Even as a vegetarian of forty years I find the anti-meat hysteria discomforting, though I do tend to think that this documentary is broadly accurate… BUT very manipulative in a lot of its tactics.

The link between meat consumption and obesity is IMHO just as spurious as the notion of calorie control. One reason why people may overeat is that the body is not signalling that it’s nutritional needs have been met. This is because the crap many of us are eating is so degraded by chemicals, and glyphosate-resistant engineering, etc, that the nutritional density is disastrously low. Shoveling in twice as much may still not be meeting our nutritional needs.

But look over there: a charging point for electric cars! We’re saved.


With great timing The Cogent published this piece today. I’d certainly endorse this:

Without a bone of contention for the government, today’s activists are essentially doing for civil society what lobbyists do for politicians. What should be a dichotomy of opposing ideologies is an entanglement of vested interest. For the first time in history the polarising ideals of ordinary people and the predator class have been lumped together, the former doing the official bidding of the latter.


Right K: over-eating but starving is a real - and big - thing these days, amongst the over-prosperous Pampered Twenty Percent. That and chronic under-exercise of physical effort, leading to a chronic flab epidemic, and all the associated ills. Junk food as part of a junk life is the cause of that.

To answer E’s request: To begin with, I too was a troobleever. But then reservations began to stack up. And just lately, the gross derelictions of professional and ethical duty by so many unigrad-technocrat bourgeois, particularly over the covid swindle, has heightened the public sense that ‘scientists’ (the pure priesthood) and ‘the science’ (the impeccable doctrine) may not be as lillywhite as we used (were indoctrinated) to think. This past two years we’ve been watching the extraordinary phenomenon of two radically-opposed interpretations of events, where both factions are convinced - to the point of “I’d rather fight than switch!” - that their head-on contradictory stories are the right one. This sort of idiot certainty, always begot of emotion rather than reason, with a large measure of rote indoctrination and applied-psychology manipulation added, bedevils the unigrad-technocrat mindset in particular.

Where I stand now is… in a quandary:

Obviously, you can’t watch an absolutely unmistakable human population-overshoot episode, caused and heavily-empowered by the Industrial Revolution, begin to tear huge masses of long-sequestered fossil hydrocarbons out of the ground and burn them into the atmosphere, whilst at the same time devastating the forest, prairie and soil-community life-systems which regulate atmospheric gases, without seeing - with some certainty - that this is going to shake up the Earth’s homeostatic balance eventually.

Of this, I think we can be confident. But…

There’s always the same problem when trying to foretell the trajectory of complex, inherently-probablistic systems: you can’t do it! In principle! Probablistic processes simply cannot be predicted with anything more than relative degrees of probability. Certain knowledge of an already-set-in-stone future, though perennially popular amongst those swept away by the seductions of dogmatic certainty, is simply not possible; on first principles of basic post-quantum-mechanics physics. The pure Scientific Method doctrine of permanent open-minded scepticism is the only logically impeccable stance; about climate shift as much as about anything else. We don’t, and we can’t, effing-well KNOW what’s going to happen!

I’ve lived long enough to be able to enter - fwiw - a credible piece of anecdote: there’s no doubt that the climate in Britain is a little bit warmer and more clement than it was eighty years ago; I’ve watched that happen. In this time of my dotage, I no longer have to make prudent provision for extended periods of frosty, snowy, icy conditions each Winter. They’ve ebbed. And Spring comes earlier now; in fact the seasons where I live have now telescoped into: Long rather dry Summers; and extended Autumns, often reaching right across into long, cold-starting Springs, without any real Winter interlude at all. I used to see white Christmases. I haven’t seen one at all for the past decade or so.

So far, so credible. But what is coming?

Paleontology/geology suggests that there have been times in the past of life on Earth when the mean global temperatures were ten or more degrees C higher than they are now; with life thriving effulgently throughout. There have also been times - Snowball Earth, and the Younger Dryas spring to mind - when the mean was significantly lower. And the same Record of the Rocks says that the climate is ALWAYS on the move; there is NO single long optimum level from which we vary at our peril. It’s always varying. Ice Ages visit regularly, then pass. Evolution copes.

There’s also that awkward paleontological suggestion (I don’t know enough about it to call it an established fact) that atmopheric CO2 concentration has been falling slowly but steadily for millions of year, to the point where, before the start of the Industrial Revolution, it was getting dangerously close to the limit where photosynthesis - the food-source of nearly ALL life on Earth - simply stops from CO2 starvation! (That’s why commercial greenhouse growers flood their glass-houses with extra CO2 - for extra, bigger, more fulsome crops. That’s why NASA has said lately that increased CO2 recently has lead to an apparent re-greening of much of the Earth…)

Wojja think? Did Mam Gaia decide to prompt her naked-ape child to do our current tearaway as a handy mechanism to let loose a bit more CO2 into the atmosphere? And if you don’t think she’s that sentient, I have a bridge I’d like to interest you in… :slight_smile:

The bottom line for me now is this: of course something is going to change; it always does, especially when knocked sideways by a planetwide population-overshoot episode, exacerbated by the exploding lemmings’ unprecedented tearing out of the guts of the planet’s crustal rocks.

But how exactly that sideways helter-skelter is going to pan out is simply beyond our means to know. Anyone swearing that this is not so, and that they know with certainty that planetary catastrophe is almost on us - “unless…” (fill in the rabid certainty de jour)… anyone toting such a spiel is simply the current heir of the Jesuits’ autos-da-fe, the witch-burners, and all the other wankers who have stroked, and continue to stroke, themselves with the assurance that the are the custodians of a god-imparted GREAT TRUTH! which all must heed and obey.

They don’t know, any more than the rest of us do. Just about the only thing of which we can be pretty confident is that there is a passage of white-water rapids just ahead; probably extending for quite a while… The Long Descent.

A word about energy: I guess I don’t need to spell out in detail my oft-asserted statement that it’s the master resource, of all the resources we use now. In a nutshell: nothing gets made, no processes get powered, no economy can function without a reliable, continuous stream of energy; from somewhere. Preferably high-density, if you want any hope of maintaining anything like the current hitech lifestyle of the P20P.

The big problem today is that we have a grossly-over-swollen human population, whose lives are supplied by an agricultural and economic system that has been built - fatally - on the back of large and steadily-increasing use of fossil hydrocarbons as its main driver. This can’t continue; peak oil - and indeed peak all-hydrocarbons - never went away, and is now on us again with an enhanced vengeance (no, it’s not just ‘Ukraine’; it was always going to happen anyway, whatever the proximate-cause trigger might be).

And there is a really intractable problem:

There are - literally - no substitute energy sources which can maintain our current profligate splurge; literally zero. (This is telling the story without diverting into all the fantasy alternatives sources which are supposed to save us, such as ‘renewables’ - which are not renewable, relying as they do, absolutely, on constant feeds of fossil-hydrocarbon fuels to give them the energy subsidies without which they’re non-starters.)

Population growth has happened in tight, unwavering lockstep with the growth of per-capita energy use. Global GDP likewise. That per-capita is now - inexorably - headed down again. With it will go our overshot numbers, and our hitech industrial civilisation. We have no choice about this, I believe.

But in the meantime, our current bloated numbers have to be sustained with something. When you tell people that there is literally no credible alternative to the current big fossil-hydrocarbon splurge, they’re going to opt to keep it going for as long as possible. Anything else would be a mass-suicide pact; which people are just not going to undertake.

Buckle up life-jackets! Paddles at the ready! (Whitewater) Shit Creek, here we come! :face_with_open_eyes_and_hand_over_mouth:


I’m a carbon lifeform, and we can exist on this planet because the plants take in CO2 and give out the oxygen we need to breath. All this zero carbon stuff is so potty it’s beyond belief.

In a similar vein, look up some photos of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia, or the rain forests in South America, or the North Slope in Alaska, or fracking (anywhere), it goes on and on: the total rape/destruction of nature for corporate profit. Again, climate change is just a load of PR rollocks to cover-up this destruction.

Not that I have strong opinions about this…


I know it’s often stated, yet it’s worth mentioning again that a few hundred years ago they were holding ice fairs on the frozen river Thames. Many hundreds of years previous to that the Romans were growing grapes in the north of England. These are well-proven historical facts. The climate does change, and I would venture that it’s all to do with the cycles of the sun.

With regard to human influence, the Krakatoa eruption in 1883 was the biggest volcanic explosion in recorded history. Krakatoa belched out a thousand times more CO2 than anything humans have done combined since the start of the Industrial Revolution.


Bang on.

I don’t know the area well but Dartmoor is a place where Something Happened, and quite densely populated areas supported by transhumance just didn’t work anymore. The area of Merrivale shows clear evidence of quite intense lowland/winter occupation with tightly clustered hut circles. In the summer the same folks were miles away, up in the hills.

But then that stopped being successful and people moved away.

So what happened?

It may simply have been overshoot, as @RhisiartGwilym very eloquently details earlier in this thread, or it might have been some climate tipping point, a bit of both. Maybe some nasty bastards from Kernow chased them all away… though more likely Wessex.

Deforestation - caused by people - was very likely a factor in many areas.

I really don’t know and that’s actually the point. I’m comfortable with that and deeply suspicious of those who claim that, actually, they know, and here’s The Science. Since 2020, as I think is a common theme at 5filters, this suspicion has crystallised into deep paranoia and you know what? As a survival technique I think it has a lot of validity.

Decades ago I had this vivid dream. The Loch Ness Monster had been found dead on the shoreline. it was very sad. Not so much that the creature had died, but that too, but because it seemed the mystery was solved. There’s a lot to be said for not knowing, it really chips away at our arrogant beliefs about control and management and human supremacism.


Don’t forget the Younger Dryas episode about twelve thousand years ago. Triggered, it’s now suspected, by a big fragment of a disintegrated comet (whose debris is still visiting the Earth’s orbit twice a year, btw…), leading to a sudden marked drop in global mean temperatures; then ended about twelve hundred years later by another fragment strike from the same cluster. That seems to have lead to a lot of food-getting patterns being changed drastically - such as abandoning seasonal transhumance, for example.

That was re-established widely in Europe after the end of the YD, though. In Cymraeg, we have words for Winter home - ‘hendre’ meaning ‘old town’ - and Summer chalet up in the mountains - ‘hafod’ from ‘haf’ - ‘Summer’. Transhumance was still going on until quite recently in the Cymreig mountains.


Good questions there @Everyman , and some good points from everyone.

I think that it’s worth unpicking some of the points that you make, and that get somewhat lumped together in the articles you linked to as well as in the general discussion on this subject.

(1) CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere at an extremely rapid rate. There is no question about this - is a plain, measurable fact. Further, the evidence is very strong (I’d say overwhelming) that the vast majority of this is due to human activity. Volcanos and the like all come in a far second (or third) place in comparison.

(2) CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat down here on the surface and in the oceans. The more CO2 the more heat gets trapped. Again, this is totally uncontroversial. The science is rock solid for this and had been rock solid for more than a century.

(1) and (2) together don’t really seem to be up for debate to me. I’ve never seen a credible rebuttal to either point.

Mixed into this are discussions around extinctions, global warming, sea level rise etc etc. All this comes into the category of projecting (1) & (2) into the future. As Rhis points out, predictions of complex, nonlinear systems are tricky and of varying degrees of trustworthiness.

Continuing, it seems undeniable that many species of plant, animal, insects etc are going extinct as a result of various types of human actions. Does it qualify as a “mass extinction”? No idea. And frankly so what? Is it ok if we are killing off multiple species, but not quite at a rate that qualifies as a mass extinction? Clearly not.

Finally, despite the inherent difficulty in accurately modelling the details of nonlinear complex systems (the subject of my MSc, incidentally), some general trends seem pretty certain. More heat at the surface and in the oceans definitely means less ice at the polar caps, higher sea level, hotter temperatures on land (at least in many places), larger and more devastating forest fires, and more water evaporating into the air, meaning stronger storms and hurricanes (including more snow storms in winter), more flooding etc etc.

The IPCC, which makes some sort of attempt to model and predict these things consistently underestimates how bad things will get. Reality is always tracking the worst case scenario, and has been for about 40 years now. That’s not going to get better any time soon.

Sure, life has survived much worse than this in its long history on this planet. Animals and plants have struggled through some very harsh times. No doubt life will continue and perhaps even end up thriving down the line. This variety of human civilisation, on the other hand, seems completely incompatible with the changes coming down the line. Large portions of our current population, living mainly around disappearing coastlines, will not survive. Mass climate migration away from the coasts, away from unbearable heat in places like the middle East and the Indian subcontinent, away from desertification and drought (like the west coast of the US) is unavoidable. What other reason is there for “fortress Europe”? They know what’s coming …

Our entire economy, based on non-renewable energy and perpetual economic growth is not going to survive.

In my opinion this is exactly why the elites are doubling down on authoritarianism. They know this is not sustainable and they plan to survive while they throw the rest of us under the (hydrogen powered) bus as needed to prop up whatever they can of the system.

As the film that @KarenEliot links to points out, the green “industry” is nothing more than a smokescreen. There is no way to keep this whole thing rolling, like it or not. Derrick Jensen and co have made a similar film/book called “Bright Green Lies” that covers very similar points.

Personally I find the work and approach of Jem Bendell and his notion of Deep Adaptation invaluable. As far as I can see, his ideas around the “four Rs” are the only approach that makes any kind of sense in these times, and dovetail pretty nicely with the ideas of JM Greer and even Paul Kingsnorth.

Anyway. That’s more than enough babble from me.



And right on cue, I came across this report today that once again shows our actual, lived and measured reality is progressing along a trajectory far worse than that of our climate predictions.

In the new study, Chemke and his team compared climate model simulations with current storm observations. Their discovery was bleak: It became clear that storm intensification over recent decades has already reached levels projected to occur in the year 2080.

This happens a lot with our climate models. It also happened with the famous Limits to Growth model. Our civilisation (and green tech solutions in particular) are about to learn from the wisdom of Mike Tyson - “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”

1 Like

I remember being taught about the Greenhouse Effect 40+ years ago…

You mention @PontiusPrimate hotter temperatures on land. To chip in an extra £0.02 I’d point to the built environment as a factor. Tear down vegetation and tarmac every inch of the land surface, or build shitty houses and other heat absorbing structures, then the bottom few metres of every column of air in urban areas are going to result in elevated readings. And obviously the critters that used to scurry about are wiped out and the next level up the food chain is stressed, and on it goes.

We certainly are being thrown under the bus, and the elite will be watching from New Zealand I imagine.


Yes, the impact of human activity on the planet goes far beyond the simple CO2 increase. The built environment (and the mining, concrete, energy etc that goes along with it) is a catastrophe all of its own.

But we can’t discount the CO2 either…

What a complex web

1 Like

If you’re feeling a bit depressed don’t read what follows…

In 1965 a BBC commissioned documentary called The War Game was made.

It is a docudrama based upon a supposed nuclear attack on the south east of England. It was written and produced by Peter Watkins with commentary by Dick Graham and Michael Aspel.

The War Game was never broadcasted (the authorities thought it might frighten the horses too much) and remains banned just about everywhere. If interested you can find the full docudrama here (not for the faint hearted)…

My obvious point is, that with the war in Syria, and now the war in Ukraine, we have come closer to nuclear annihilation than ever before (much more so than the Cuban Missile crisis), particularly since we now have complete lunatics/imbeciles in government and civil society is totally corrupt.

I’m not sure how ‘climate crisis’ or ‘covid’ or the more equally ridiculous ‘monkey pox’ stacks up against this.

Except that if there is an ever more likely nuclear exchange, sure we will have climate crisis and disease.

As always, beam me up Scotty.

1 Like

This reminds me of a line in a terrible but somehow horribly good Nick Cage film called Lord of War. Our hero (Cage) is in some unspecified African country run by a psychopathic war lord (somehow the war lords in the US or Europe never appear in such movies) and after getting drunk and drugged ends up having sex with a young African woman. In the morning he starts freaking out asking the woman if they used a condom and wasn’t she worried about AIDS? She shrugs and points out the psycho in the courtyard below and basically says “why should I worry about something that could kill me in a few years when there are so many things that could kill me tomorrow?” Cage looks at her but has no answer… Incidentally the film has a strong Ukrainian connection, and also possibly the best opening sequence of any film I’ve ever seen in terms of raw emotional impact.

On the subject of nuclear war, I’m halfway through this conversation and I’m so horrified I don’t know how to describe it. Nuclear weapons are so, so, so much worse than I thought. Some terrifying shit. The whole concept of dial-up yield, and the launching of a single missile with up to 14 warheads that can each be anywhere from 300 tonnes to 300,000 tonnes TNT equivalent is appalling beyond words. (The largest conventional bomb used by the US is 1 tonne, and the bomb on Hiroshima was 15,000 tonnes TNT equivalent. A single modern missile could hold 14 bombs potentially each 20x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb… We are all insane)

PP, that is a fascinating video you’ve posted. Thus far I’ve only been able to watch the first fifteen minutes of it, because it’s very late where I am and I need to get some sleep. I’ll return to the vid tomorrow.

But I will add a quick note about how, basically, an H-bomb works. A fusion reaction requires incredibly high temperatures (an H-bomb is a fusion bomb). The way they achieve this is to build a fission bomb into the warhead (a fission bomb is a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The fission bomb goes off first, and it creates the incredibly high temperatures that allow the fusion bomb to detonate.

This all happens in fractions of a second. You won’t notice it while you’re being vapourised/incinerated.

You only need one fission bomb in the warhead to set off an H-bomb, but just for laughs the Dr Strangeloves will put in 2 or 3 fission bombs, to ‘greatly increase the yield’. Again, this all happens in fractions of a second.

I once got lost on Salisbury Plain and drove past a place called Porton Down.

The hairs stood up on the back of my neck.


I once got lost on Salisbury Plain and drove past a place called Porton Down.

I lived in Warminster for quite a long time. As the crow flies it’s not far from Porton Down at all. Bang next door to Imber, Bratton tank ranges, and all sorts of other sinister shit, to use the technical term. Lots of UFO sightings too, the town was the home of Arthur Shuttlewood. My dad was in his spotter posse for a while and saw some wild things while night fishing.

The following mashup kind of brings it home to you…


If you’re not familiar with the site PP this is a place where one can get really deeply immersed…

The opening ‘Arrow Cam’ sequence does sound pretty cool.

1 Like

“perpetual economic growth” As I said about this, the only way an economy “grows” is by becoming more efficient, what has happened to the word “economy” is an exemplar of the corrupting power of “surplus value” (Nb. to a Schumachian any owner of a private business must be offering a “singular” expertise that is of value to the employee -unionised or not-), the extraction of which grew exponentially during the Industrial Revolution.

Quote; "…““unsustainable economy” is an oxymoron” No? I thought about this…many would argue (and many on the “left” also), that “short-term” “profit-taking” exploitative economies exist…but do they? Can we truly call them “economies”? For one thing; “how long is your piece of string?” We define economies by describing relationships (they are “relative”), there is a chronological imperative concerned, one cannot (surely), argue that a 5 year “un-sustainability” is an economy whilst a 3 month one is not!

Economy, of-course, also can be “of effort”, in other words efficient…there is no “economy of effort” in an inefficient system, therefore, we can argue that any economy that is not sustainable does not exist!

If one “economises” one makes one’s actions more efficient…literally one creates an economy.

One can argue that the economy existed for a five year period…but one cannot say it was “un-sustainable” for the same period…period

…and, therefore, sustainability is a necessary component of economy

The system is “open ended” (#opensource), it is emergent

Quote; "Words Based on the Eco- Root Word

Following is a list of words based on the Eco- Root Word:

1. Ecoactivist: One who actively opposes the pollution or destruction by other means, of the environment.
2. Ecobabble: Using the technical language of ecology to make the user seem to be ecologically aware.
3. Ecobiology: The study of the relationships of organisms to their natural environments.
4. Ecobiosis: The conditions pertaining to a mode of life within a specific habitat
5. Ecocatastrophe: Major damage to the environment, especially when caused by human activity
6. Ecocentric: Centering on the environment
7. Bioecological: A reference to the interrelationships between plants and animals and their abiotic enviro ments.
8. Bioecologist: Someone who favors, or specializes, bioecology; such as, an ecologist.
9. Bioecology: The science of organisms as affected by the factors of their environments.
10. Ecocidal: Designed or tending to destroy the environment.
11. Ecocide: Destruction or damage of the environment
12. Ecoclimate: The climate as an ecological factor; the climate of a habitat.
13. Ecocline: Reflecting ecological conditions in general.
14. Econometrician: A student of, or specialist in, econometrics.
15. Econometrics: The branch of economics concerned with the application of mathematical economics to economic data by the use of statistical methods.
16. Economics: The study or the social science of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems which include material goods and financial resources.
17. Economist: Someone who studies, works, or is an expert in the field of economics." All about Eco- Root Word: List of words based on Eco- Root Here we can see how closely related the notions of ecology and economics really are, this seems to indicate that the Industrial Revolution (esp.), saw a perversion of the language describing transaction/exchange in order to underpin a Socially Darwinistic notion of human evolution, allow this exploitative model to gain ascendency and fulfil (esp.), capitalism’s imperial “manifest destiny”. It may, therefore, be the case that a misapprehension of the nature of economic theory has stemmed directly from the exploitation of non-renewable resources." https://www.arafel.co.uk/2021/06/a-dangerous-conflation-socialism.html

1 Like

Wow, what a lot on info! Amazing. Actually this has made me want to re-watch the film.it had a lot going for it… The scene where Cage visits his “uncle” in Ukraine and walks down row after row of tanks was impressive. I remember wondering at the time how they were able to get that shot, only to find out later that this was the armoury of an actual, honest to god arms dealer, and all those tanks were really for sale. Mind boggling

And the opening sequence is something. It’s on YouTube.

1 Like

Yes I watched it last night. The sound effect at the end is nasty