I understand your statement that complex systems are hard to accurately forecast, but Kit is on another planet of BS when it comes to scientific matters.
100%. In the last year or so OffG really has painted themselves into a corner, to the extent that I’m increasingly suspicious about their motives. The zealotry and the tone are egregious and the tendency of moderators to butt in and ridicule below-the -line contributions (@RhisiartGwilym has been on the receiving end, as I recall) seems to signal a party line that’s being defended.
It’s not that I think the site has been got at, though I do wonder (a generous contribution from some think tank or other?) but that it has so clearly become just another place to go and argue online. Instead of actually doing something. I guess pandemia was a factor in this, what else was there to do when stepping out your door was potentially going to get you fined?
Edit: quote added at top so it’s clearer which post I’m focusing on.
That sounds very like where I was about two months ago. I’m glad you’re feeling better. It took me an extra two weeks to get back into “eating a whole tub of ice cream territory”(I’m more of a salty snacks type, though, so crisps are my gluttonous fetish).
Meantime my sister has had much the same symptoms, which she had called flu, and likewise her 17 year old son, but that was covid. The distinction based entirely on one of several lateral flow tests that showed two red lines. Posted to Facebook natch.
PS: There’s a theory amongst the lollers in the Groves of Academe that Homer - if he really was just one person - was possibly a surgeon. It’s been remarked often just how detailed his knowledge of physical traumas seems to be, as shown by the descriptions in both Iliad and Odyssey. He also invokes a range of remarkably vivid poesy to describe the moment of death: the departure of the soul - as if he’d witnessed that himself often as a doctor. Your given example, E, contains an instance of that, as well as of injuries described with precision.
Well spotted, K. Off-Gs mods have been moved a couple of times to argue with me, after seeing one of my btl posts. I must have nettled something.
They really don’t like the idea that there’s a population-overshoot going on with hom-sap. And they don’t seem to cotton to the idea that one can see this as an obvious fact of reality, without necessarily being amongst the eugenicists, just because you call a spade by its right name. The ideas: “I despise and reject eugenics; but yes there really is a natural, spontaneous overshoot going on”, taken together, seem to cause real cognitive dissonance in poor Sophie!
They also seem to lean towards the mystical cornucopianism of Matthew Ehret and like-thinkers: technology and the mythic, indescribably-inventive human imagination, if only it would be applied benevolently, could ‘save the world’ whilst simultaneously accommodating many more billions of humans, all living in peace and prosperity… Yeah, right!
Still, I find Off-G well worth a look. Plenty of solid, good stuff. They seem like authentic alt-commentators right now; I don’t get any aroma of them being bought and steered, like say ‘The Intercept’; not yet, anyway. And Catte in particular doesn’t strike me as one easily bought - or easily threatened.
Just for the record, I’m still a big fan of Off Guardian and read just about everything they post. For example, here’s their latest connected with ‘climate change’ or if you prefer, climate change.
Is this actually linked to climate change? It looks like it’s concerned with Nitrous Oxides (acid.rain problems) and.river pollution, rather than climate change and CO2…
Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s Government says the emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which livestock produce, must be drastically cut back close to nature areas, which are part of a network of protected habitats for endangered plants and wildlife stretching across the EU.
Nothing about carbon or climate. Looks like an anti-pollution policy to protect waterways and prevent acid rain and other toxic effects. It also looks (as I said to Rob) like part of the eat less meat agenda.
Cheers
PP
PS I found it quite amusing that after I said
to Rhis above, you corroborate one of Kit’s pieces with an article from… The Daily Express!
I have no clue about the Daily Express, I’ve never read it in my life. It’s oddly difficult to find out exactly what is going on in the Netherlands, they talk about ‘emissions’ which is generally connected with the climate change issue, but as you said this seems to be about other emissions.
This article says 'The ruling coalition wants to cut emissions of pollutants, predominantly nitrogen oxide and ammonia, by 50% nationwide by 2030."
But then the farmers connect it with industries generally seen as a cause of climate change
“Farmers argue that they are being unfairly targeted as polluters while other industries, such as aviation, construction and transport, also are contributing to emissions and face less far-reaching rules.”
I was joking around about the Daily Express. It just struck me as amusing. However, much like Kit, it’s not a very reliable source on anything scientific.
Regarding the story, there are other emissions from livestock (like methane) which do contribute to climate change, but these were not mentioned. It is the case that industrial, large scale meat farming is disgusting and enormously polluting, so I’m not surprised that it’s being targeted. Plus there is a definite agenda to make people eat leas meat, so that’s in play too.
I don’t see an immediate connection to climate change though. Climate pollution, yes, but global warming, no.
One of the sure fire things you can say about the Express is that as soon as we get past the autumn equinox they will start to spew out terrifying click bait about the harshest impending winter since records began. That’s if you shredded all the records on February 1st that same year, ignoring last year’s click bait headlines, those the year before, ad infinitum.
I may be arrogantly ignoring a more nuanced approach within the articles, but never having clicked the bait I cannot say.
The problem with this one is the cloth eared use of “emissions” when, indeed, the Dutch government’s stated intention is to reduce run-off water that leaches this year’s Bad Chemical into the soil. The real agenda is probably more about reducing the viability of farming except at massive scale by the Agrichem multinationals. Like in the US, UK, India, and most everywhere. But that’s a guess.
It’s an absolutely knee-jerk canard of the Brit trash-rags: Every Winter: “OMG! This weather is absolutely devastating! There hasn’t been anything this bad since - last Winter!”
It’s a ritual excuse for not spending any resources preparing adequately for Britain’s - reliably mild - Winters. Just muddle through, whilst exclaiming “OMG! OMG!”
Hello, I assume somebody will read this though I’m tagging onto an old quite info rich thread.
My topic is this: I raised my agnosticism on the climate change issue with a friend and he made a very valid point that the Energy Companies were behind ‘climate change denialism’ (a term I abhor by the way).
My question is this: Can anyone point to any recent evidence that the Energy Companies (BigOil etc) are PROMOTING the climate change agenda? Or, recent evidence that they are resisting the climate change agenda?
Yes, I’m a bit lazy and haven’t done a lot of research on the topic myself. But maybe somebody here can quickly direct me to the best and most current articles on the subject of BigOil and Climate Change.
If you want to cut the history of oil the link to climate change starts in the text here:
PART TWO: OILIGARCHS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
" > Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable."
On paper, it would be almost impossible to find a less likely candidate for “Godfather” of the modern environmental movement than Maurice Strong. A junior high school dropout from a poor family in rural Manitoba struck hard by the great depression, Strong’s meteoric rise to the heights of wealth and political influence is itself remarkable. The sheer number of environmental organizations that he founded, conferences he chaired, campaigns he directed and accolades he received over the course of his career is even more remarkable: Organizer of the Stockholm Environmental Conference, founding director of the United Nations Environment Program, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, founder of the Earth Council and the Earth Charter movement, chair of the World Resources Institute, commissioner of the World Commission on Environment and Development, and board member of a bewildering array of organizations, from the International Institute for Sustainable Development to the Stockholm Environment Institute to the African-American Institute.
But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.
To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends…"
However my anecdotal view is that while big oil would like to push back against the climate change agenda, the pressure on trans bs, and meeting ESG targets is unavoidable. Remember that ESG comes from Larry Fink of Blackrock and their control is everywhere including big oil.
I recall an advertisement I saw quite recently that had one of the energy companies speaking out both sides of their mouth, saying - in effect - we did use to be utter cynical bastards but we’re really doing our best and spending ever such a lot on solar panels and that. It wasn’t S.Hell as far as I recall but their greenwashed website is quite a piece of work.
After many decades now of not mentioning the slavery I’m sure in not so many years companies like these will be pretending never to have had anything to do with icky stuff
Exactly. And you may remember in a similar vein, (not sure if it was before or after the ‘Deep Horizon’ oil rig fire in the Gulf of Mexico) but BP changed their entire branding to sunny yellow and green logo, green buildings, etc. We poison the oceans but we really are green!
Hi @LocalYokel , I wonder how many of these felled trees were sold off as fuel so that the release of carbon dioxide didn’t drag on over decades to the detriment of future generations!
I wonder also what the lifespan is for the average windmill given the number of battery implosions that have rendered these bird killers useless! How many times would they have to be replaced for the carbon footprint, produced by the removal and disposal of the defective ones together with the creation and erection of new windmills, to exceed that of the fuel source the windmills were supposed to replace? Or does this occur with the original windmill?
