After reading the article, I remembered that 'Climate Wars' had predicted these problems and the threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and India. I picked up the book again, now ten-years-old, and read its introduction. It seems more accurate now than it did when I read it. Here is the book's summary of 2045:
SCENARIO ONE: THE YEAR 2045
Average global temperature: 2.8 degrees Celsius higher than 1990.
Global population: 5.8 billion.
Since the final collapse of the European Union in 2036, under the stress of mass migration from the southern to the northern members, the reconfigured Northern Union (France, Benelux, Germany, Scandinavia, Poland and the old Habsburg domains in central Europe) has succeeded in closing its borders to any further refugees from the famine-stricken Mediterranean countries. Italy, south of Rome, has been largely overrun by refugees from even harder-hit North African countries and is no longer part of an organised state, but Spain, Padania (northern Italy) and Turkey have all acquired nuclear weapons and are seeking (with little success) to enforce food sharing on the better-fed countries of northern Europe. Britain, which has managed to make itself just about self-sufficient in food by dint of a great national effort, has withdrawn from the continent and shelters behind its enhanced nuclear deterrent.
Russia, the greatest beneficiary of climate change in terms of food production, is the undisputed great power of Asia. However, the reunification of China after the chaos of the 2020s and 2030s poses a renewed threat to its Siberian borders, for even the much reduced Chinese population of eight hundred million is unable to feed itself from the country's increasingly arid farmland, which was devastated by the decline of rainfall over the North Chinese plain and the collapse of the major river systems.
Southern India is re-emerging as a major regional power, but what used to be northern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh remain swept by famine and anarchy, due to the collapse of the flow in the glacier-fed Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers and the increasingly frequent failure of the monsoon. Japan, like Britain, has withdrawn from its continent and is an island of relative prosperity bristling with nuclear weapons. The population of the Islamic Republic of Arabia, which had risen to forty-million, fell by half in five years after the exhaustion of the giant Ghawar oil field in 2020, and has since halved again due to the exorbitant price of what little food remains available for import from any source.
Uganda's population, 5 million at independence in 1962, reached no million in 2030 before falling back to 30 million, and the majority of the survivors are severely malnourished. Brazil and Argentina still manage to feed themselves, but Mexico has been expelled from the North American Free Trade Area, leaving the United States and Canada with just enough food and water to maintain at least a shadow of their former lifestyles. The Wall along the U.S.—Mexican border is still holding.
Human greenhouse-gas emissions temporarily peaked in 2032, at 47 per cent higher than 1990, due largely to the dwindling oil supply and the Chinese Civil War. However, the release of thousands of megatons of methane and carbon dioxide from the melting permafrost in Arctic Canada, Alaska and Siberia has totally overwhelmed human emissions cuts, and the process has slid beyond human ability to control. The combined total of human and `neo-natural' greenhouse-gas emissions continues to rise rapidly, and the average global temperature at the end of the century is predicted to be 8 or 9 degrees Celsius higher than 1990.
The above description does seem more likely than when I read it, five years ago.
For example, Britain's drift into becoming a right-wing, fortress island nation with a disintegrating democracy is well under way. There is even talk at the moment of our duplicitous and amoral Prime Minster invoking the Civil and Contingencies Act, a form of martial law, to make sure that we leave the European Union. He recently suspended Parliament, talked of anyone who disagreed with Brexit as a traitor and generally stoked hostility and division. Also, the construction of the Mexico Wall is accelerating, greater numbers of African refugees are attempting to enter the EU, and meeting with increasing hostility, particularly in Italy. Southern Europe is suffering terrible droughts and forest fires. The only problems I can see in the introduction that aren't already under way are those in China. This may be due to intelligent long-term planning by that country, or simply control of the research into those areas; it's hard to tell. Overall, the trends described in the book are pretty much spot-on.
Many readers may think that the predictions described in 'Climate Wars' are extreme; they may prefer to think that there'll only be a gradual change in our condition on this planet. Unfortunately, history tells us that this is a common mistake. Many people invariably think that sudden, worsening changes will never occur. For example, the prospect of Donald Trump becoming president of the United States was regarded as ridiculous by many people, six months before he did become President. The prospect of a Second World War was regarded as unthinkable by many people in Europe in 1934. Five years later, it was fully underway. People tend to disbelieve that something bad will come soon, often because they don't want it to happen, or because they don't like change. Alternatively, they don't believe the dark prediction because they have an overly-flattering view of human-nature.
In conclusion, I think that 'Climate Wars' is very much a realistic assessment. This is not a great surprise, partly because a lot of its source material was military predictions. The world events of the last ten years, as far as I can tell, have fallen closely in line with its predictions. I therefore think that its long-term predictions are likely to occur. On that topic, I've recently written about the critical need for all of us to begin building very large habitats for our long-term survival on this planet and my motivation to do this has not waned. I'll continue to write on that matter in the foreseeable future.
Air conditioning, not surprisingly, is therefore a disaster when it comes to climate change. Not only are fossil fuels being consumed to power these air-conditioners but air-conditioners are also net heat generators. All the heat they remove from a room is simply pumped out the window, along with the waste heat created by running the motor and pump. Cities therefore become doubly hot in heatwaves, as the ambient heat, magnified by concrete, tarmac and glass, is boosted by the air-con heat output. It could all be so different. All we need to do is change how our buildings are designed and a lot of our heat problems could go away. The ground under our feet is always around four degrees in temperate, summer or winter. This is how ground-source heat pumps generate power. We therefore don't even need refrigerators if we live in a house; keeping food in a hole in the ground, one that is protected and insulated and easy to clean, can do the job. We're destroying our environment not because of necessities, but because of luxuries.
For anyone who needs reminding of how grim our future will be if we don't make drastic changes, here's a good short video about the ticking methane bomb.
Some readers may be concerned that beneath the video on YouTube is the comment 'RT is funded wholly or in part by the Russian Government'. This, in truth, is irrelevant, as the science in the video is factually correct, according to a vast number of scientists and my own research on the subject. I wanted to mention this because I am concerned that such an addition to the video's web-page could make some people, particularly in the West, believe that climate change is a false fact cooked up by the Russians. I wonder if the people who instigated these sorts of warnings thought about this consequence?
I've mentioned before in articles on Climate Change that the biggest obstacle to stopping climate change is a mental one, for every indication of success for a person in our civilised world is synonymous with having a big carbon footprint. Owning a big car, owning a big house, going on holidays abroad, owning a large dog, flying everywhere, owning lots of foreign goods, having many children, all these things are the trappings of a 'successful' life. In comparison, all the things that go with a sustainable lifestyle, cycling, second-hand clothes, mended clothes, local holidays, one child or less, no flying, all these things are synonymous with the life of a low-achiever, a loser. Greta therefore has the unenviable task of telling literally billions of people that they must live the life of a social failure, a bum, in order to hopefully save their planet.
1) Should I have children and inflict a life of hardship and climate chaos upon them? For that is what will happen to the vast majority of people in the next half-century. Fortunately, some people are openly discussing this matter and deciding not to have children. It is still a personal decision, with many difficult aspects to consider, but as long as people are thinking about it, that's progress.
2) I must still do my best to limit my negative effect on the planet for my own peace of mind. The fact that climate change is now a runaway train doesn't mean that our acts aren't important. We still have to look ourselves in the mirror everyday and I think we will all review our lives after they're over. Our personal acts are of great importance to us personally because they tell us what we are as moral and spiritual individuals. To use an analogy, there are seven billion people on our planet, so one death seems insignificant, but it's still wrong to murder someone.
3) Seven billion people are not going to survive climate change. In a century's time, our planet will only support seventy million people, or seven million people. Which few will survive? The remainder of this article tries to answer that third question. Read More...
If we follow the current, accelerating temperature changes, in fifty years time, no one will be able to survive outdoors in Australia for any significant length of time and the vast majority of its agriculture will be gone.
Fortunately, we, as individuals, still have the freedom to do the right thing and reduce our contribution to climate change. This is good news because climate change isn’t just a collective challenge, it’s a personal challenge and we can’t escape that. We’ve come into this world and we have the freedom to make choices and those choices stay with us; we will know what we did. There will be no absolution, no priestly forgiveness if we chicken out of our obligations. If we choose to not make an effort to help save our planet, because we like fancy goods and cheap holidays abroad and a big car etc, then in the future, when we see the devastation of our planet caused by such selfish decisions, we are going to hate ourselves. No one can escape this result. Any attempts to argue that our personal efforts are irrelevant don't work. To show the truth of this, here's an example:
A colleague once said to me 'what's the point of limiting my carbon footprint, there's seven billion people on this planet, it makes no difference!' I replied, 'so it's okay then if I kill you?' He was shocked and said 'no, of course not!' I replied that according to his logic, he's only one of seven billion people, so it's irrelevant if I kill him or not. He didn’t like the argument but it’s still true. His life might seem irrelevant on a global scale, but it’s still precious to him. In the same way, our efforts to help save our planet are very important to us. Read More...
Unfortunately. I think we are now too far down the climate-catastrophe path for amusing slogans, media campaigns, political lobbying on renewables and suchlike. The tipping points have been passed and it’s clear the fossil-fuel banking system has adopted a ‘business as usual until martial law is declared’ approach.
Instead, I think we need to start planning how some of us are going to survive beyond 2100. The only communities that will survive on Earth in the next century will be ones either living underground or in domed habitats. Therefore, it is vital that we begin a process of making sure that there are domed habitats to move into. Read More...
"Although Hillman has not flown for more than 20 years as part of a personal commitment to reducing carbon emissions, he is now scornful of individual action which he describes as “as good as futile”. By the same logic, says Hillman, national action is also irrelevant “because Britain’s contribution is minute. Even if the government were to go to zero carbon it would make almost no difference.”
Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too. Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation? “I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined published reports of increased stress protein levels and DNA strand breaks due to EMF interactions, both of which are indicative of DNA damage. We also considered antenna properties such as electronic conduction within DNA and its compact structure in the nucleus.
RESULTS: EMF interactions with DNA are similar over a range of non-ionising frequencies, i.e., extremely low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF) ranges. There are similar effects in the ionising range, but the reactions are more complex.
CONCLUSIONS: The wide frequency range of interaction with EMF is the functional characteristic of a fractal antenna, and DNA appears to possess the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self symmetry. These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF in the environment, and the DNA damage could account for increases in cancer epidemiology, as well as variations in the rate of chemical evolution in early geologic history.
In other words, the researchers found that DNA is a lot like a radio antenna, in that it can pick up electromagnetic signals, which then alter its behaviour. What’s more, DNA also has loops within loops, which means it can pick up electromagnetic signals in multiple frequencies.
There are many thought-provoking potential consequences to our DNA being fractal antennae. For starters, as the above paper mentions, there are ‘published reports of increased stress protein levels and DNA strand breaks due to EMF interactions, both of which are indicative of DNA damage.’ In other words, there’s evidence that our DNA is very sensitive to e/m signals and will actually suffer damage if the wrong signals are beamed at it. There is an awful lot of radio-frequency traffic in our world today, particular from wireless or phone masts, and there’s evidence that it’s not good for biological organisms, as this science paper states. To be honest, the logical thing to do would be to develop a full understanding of radio-frequency signals on the DNA of living creatures first, and then stick up masts everywhere, but that’s clearly not happening.
There is another thought-provoking consequence to the above paper, something that no one has talked about yet, as far as I know. According to the science paper mentioned at the beginning of this article, DNA is surprisingly good at picking up RF and ELF signals and then altering its own functioning as a result. Not surprisingly, hitting DNA with crude or random RF signals of high intensity will trigger damage within the DNA. This is a lot like hitting a set of skilfully arrange tuning forks with very loud notes of random frequency. A lot of the time nothing will happen and some of the time a fork will overload and smash to bits.
But what if we knew exactly what RF signals to send? If that was the case, we could beam a host of carefully chosen RF signals at the DNA and it wouldn’t just do nothing, or break. Would it instead play like a musical instrument? Would it alter its genetic information in a specific way? Would it produce specific proteins, neurotransmitters or perhaps even viruses? Read More...
I’ve encountered the Hindu belief in the Yugas before but I didn’t study it because of several views I had at that time:
1) In the West, we’re always told that our history is one of development from nothing and that it will simply go on forever in a positive direction. This is drilled into us in our school lessons, in media articles predicting the future, in our politicians and scientists’ speeches, in our science-fiction, etc. It’s a tempting and plausible viewpoint.
2) I could see no indication that there was anything on Earth or in the cosmos that would drive the cycle of destruction and rebirth described in the Yugas. Our human race will certainly go through cycles of self-inflicted boom and bust but these, I thought, most likely won’t be total destruction and they won’t follow a regular pattern. Natural disasters that devastate us also won’t follow a regular pattern but be random events. History tells us that this happened in our past, so our future should unroll in the same way.
3) The time spans described in the Yugas are huge. To quote Wikipedia, ‘Most interpreters of vedic scriptures, as Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami and his recent disciple Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada believe that Earth is currently in Kali Yuga and lasts 432,000 years.’ Nearly half a million years is a very long time, too long to feel that its changes are imminent or recent.
4) I could see no reason to believe that, from the ashes of a massive destruction, a new race of humans would emerge that were physically, mentally and spiritually superior to the humans living before that destruction. It would seem more likely that the survivors would be worse, not better.
The above four points, put together, seem to make a convincing case that the Yugas, a cycle of destruction and rebirth, of a slow disintegration of qualities in humanity that is only halted by a massive, global catastrophe, is a ludicrous idea.
But my more recent research has made me think again. The reason for this can be explained in the following steps: Read More...
Dr LaViolette postulates that our galaxy's centre does not contain black holes, as per the current civilian scientific view, but instead contains extremely active stars that periodically burst out vast waves of particles and energy. This theory is explained in detail in his book Earth Under Fire. He explains that the reason our planet has a precessional cycle of roughly 26,000 years is because these periodic bursts occur every 26,000 years, and to a smaller extent in simple fractions of that time, and these bursts have entrained our planets precession movement, like someone periodically pushing or pulling on a spinning top to encourage it to oscillate with a certain frequency. 26,000 years might seem like a long gap between pulls but, for example, if the age of our solar system was a year, it would be a pull every three seconds.
According to Dr LaViolette, this periodic 'flick' that entrains our planet's precessional cycle, known to the Ancient Greeks as a Great Year, occurs through a gravity wave. The periodic, massive energy burst from the centre of our galaxy contains both a high-energy particle component, a high-energy electromagnetic radiation component and an intense gravity wave. As he explains in his book, Earth Under Fire, we received such a blast about 12,800 years, half a precessional cycle ago. This blast brought disastrous conditions to our planet, including a bombardment of meteorites and vast amounts of black, interstellar dust pushed into the inner part of our solar system, dust that is usually kept away by the solar wind. He believes that this event is synonymous with the Younger Dryas Impact event and it brought a period of abrupt cooling to our planet, lasting a thousand years, before our ice-age cataclysmically ended about 9,800 years ago. Read More...
The video reminds me of a famous quote from H.G.Wells:
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race."
Unfortunately, the flip side is probably true too:
"Every time I see an SUV in the high street, I think we're doomed."
Agriculture is a brutal use of the natural environment to create single crops, usually ones that are carbohydrate or starch based. The clearing of land and the ploughing of the soil erodes and denudes the soil, eventually causing dustbowls, run off, desertification and other habitat collapses. Agriculture is also a system which benefits a few (the owners of the grain) and stunts everyone else (the agricultural labourers). Compared to hunter-gatherers, which have a varied and healthy diet, agricultural communities consist mostly of malnourished people crippled by their diet and the back-breaking labour of ploughing, sowing and reaping. As Jim Marrs said in one of his books, no sane humans who switch from hunter-gathering to farming; It's like going from freedom to chained slavery. The only way humans would have made the switch is if they were forced to make the switch.
I don't agree with everything Richard Manning says in the interview. For example, scientific papers in well-regarded journals have pointed out that the extensive and very specific genetic changes required to turn Homo Habilis into Homo Sapiens cannot possibly have occurred in the time-frame stated in the text books. There are only two solutions to solve that conundrum; humans have been around far, far longer than the official figures (currently 200,000 years) or they did not evolve naturally from Homo Habilis. In other words, we are a hybrid creation.
Apart from that, I fully agreed with most of what Richard said and I definitely recommend the video, although you might find it drags a little after the first half hour.
“The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” - Genesis 2:15
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” - Genesis 3:4
Eve eats the fruit and likes what she’s eaten. She persuades Adam to eat from it. The fruit awakens them to the knowledge that they are naked. God is angry at the Serpent and Adam and Even and banishes them from the Garden.
Many, many of us read this story as children, but some of us must have thought it a bit odd. Questions that leapt into my mind were: ‘what sort of crazy god is that? What kind of a God would put two people in a garden and say ‘eat whatever you like but don’t eat from that tree ‘cos it’ll kill you,’ when, in fact, all it did was make one embarrassed about nudity? What’s more, why on earth would a supposedly compassionate god banish two people because they ate a fruit that made them not want to be starkers? To be honest, the Biblical Garden of Eden story is plain weird. It feels like a messed-up, third-hand story that suffers from a serious bout of Chinese Whispers.
It’s therefore very interesting that there exists an ancient text that gives a different and much more logically consistent version of the Garden of Eden story. The text is known as the Secret Testament of John or the Apocryphon of John. It is an ancient text, probably from the century after Christ's death. It is at least as old as the gospels of the New Testament, most of which were written at least a century after Christ's death, but unlike them, it was not chosen by Bishop Iraneus to form the New Testament. Instead, the early Roman Catholic Church tried to destroy it. Fortunately, a few copies survived.
Here’s the Apocryphon of John’s version of the Garden of Eden story: Read More...
Some readers might conclude that such cold weather shows that fears of global warming are unfounded, or perhaps highly exaggerated. Tragically, this latest weather phenomenon, a mass-movement of cold air south, from the Arctic, is an indication that the opposite is true.
“It’s about trust and confidence. There are people who feel that being a Freemason and a police officer is not necessarily a good idea. I find it odd that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons.”
In my experience, it’s very unusual for any person in a senior role in the UK to criticise the Freemasons. Some might say that this because the Freemasons have only a minor influence in our country. Unfortunately, White’s comments indicate that a very different problem is present; that Freemasons have a very strong influence in at least one major organisation in our country. It has been common knowledge for a long time that the Freemasons are rife in Britain's police force, its judiciary, its civil service and its military. If this is correct, then Freemasons have a great deal of influence and control over the running of British society. Is this something we should be worried about? Read More...
‘I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to my death your right to say it’.
In other words, we must value free speech more than eradicating unpleasant comments. Free speech doesn’t just refer to the right of people to say popular things, it is a right for people to say whatever they want to say. Some jewish and secular people in the U.K. may be offended by Livingstone’s comments but he is stating a well-documented historical fact; Hitler did do a deal in the early 1930’s that helped Zionists settle in Israel. Whatever the implications are of this event, it did happen.
“So the key question is not how we weather them [the problems listed so far] but how – if this is possible – we avert them. Can it be done? If so what would it take?” Read More...
Alternative 2: The relocation of a fraction of humanity into underground bases and subterranean cities.
Alternative 3: The establishment of human colonies on the Moon and Mars.
In the rest of the previous blog article, I explained that the programme makers of Alternative 3 insisted that it was meant as a fictional programme. I do believe them but in truth, that's unimportant. What's now important is the question; 'Are Alternatives 2 & 3 in that programme actually underway?' Let's investigate… Read More...
The programme then moves into an even more sinister area. Senior scientists in the UK admit to the investigative reporters that mysterious but extremely powerful groups at the top levels of government have worked out that the Earth is heading for a climate collapse due to the greenhouse effect (note that it is in a programme broadcast in 1977). These groups have concluded that in the next century-or-so, only a small fraction of the current human population will be able to live on Earth’s surface, due to the climate collapse. Read More...
It might be tempting to think that human population growth isn't as extreme as the one described in the video. Unfortunately, it is. Here's a graph of human population levels in the last ten thousand years, courtesy of Wikipedia:Read More...
Jim Hansen, the famous American climate change scientist, is highly critical of the Paris agreement. He said in a recent Guardian newspaper interview:
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
It's worth noting that the earlier commitment in the draft agreement to phase out fossil use between 2050 and 2100 was abandoned. In other words, even an agreement to stop burning fossil fuels long after the major negative feedback mechanisms will have kicked in was abandoned. This is in the face of concerted requests by major business figures to phase out fossil fuels by 2050.
In some ways, the naive and wishful reactions to the final agreement by major charities in the last hour is worrying in itself. To quote the live feed from half-an-hour ago:
Avaaz: “a turning point in history, paving the way for the shift to 100% clean energy that the world wants and the planet needs”
WWF UK: “We have a clear vision in the strong long term goal; mechanisms to address the gap between that aspiration and the countries’ current commitments; and the foundations for financing the transition to a low-carbon future.”
Greenpeace: “The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history. There’s much in the text that has been diluted and polluted by the people who despoil our planet, but it contains a new imperative to limit temperature rises to 1.5C.”
Fortunately, some of the charities are a little less dewy-eyed and a little more practical:
ActionAid: “what we have been presented with doesn’t go far enough to improve the fragile existence of millions around the world”
350.org Co-founder Bill McKibben, said: “Every government seems now to recognize that the fossil fuel era must end and soon. But the power of the fossil fuel industry is reflected in the text, which drags out the transition so far that endless climate damage will be done. Since pace is the crucial question now, activists must redouble our efforts to weaken that industry. This didn’t save the planet but it may have saved the chance of saving the planet.”
But again, it's only the words of politicians. As I said in my earlier blog article, we can all make an effort ourselves to work towards a better planet. We can treat climate change as a personal challenge and do what we can to reduce the collective effect. It's not important how significant what we do is globally but how significant our effort is to us, so that we can be proud of ourselves, knowing we all made our own personal effort. The importance of this came home to me again this morning when I watched a short video on the BBC by the British astronaut Tim Peake, talking about the special perspective on Earth that he gained by going into orbit. I found it both emotional and meaningful. Enjoy.
Hansen’s book is excellent for anyone who wants to be convinced of the depth of research that supports the climate change reports and predictions. Unfortunately, it isn’t the easiest read and I found it sluggish at times. Hansen also, I think, makes the mistake of apportioning blame to different groups. There seems little benefit to this strategy, as one of the biggest problems of the 'humanity and climate change' situation is one shared by nearly everyone; the vast majority of people on Earth who can burn fossil fuels do burn them, and in large amounts. Also, the ecological catastrophe that is approaching will punish everyone. We’re effectively all in this together.
'Fast food hit' (13th May)
But rather than looking at our future from an emotional and ethical point of view and get depressed, why not look at our near future as a great opportunity for a science fiction story? We don't even need to create any weird aliens, sinister secret government groups and hidden, powerful cults for our story, we can simply make use of the aliens, sinister government groups and hidden, powerful cults that many people say already exist on Earth. If you want useful sources on these topics, try the writings of Peter Levenda, Jim Marrs, Richard Dolan and Mark McCandlish. We can even throw in some 'super-powers'. For example, in an earlier blog post, I described my experiences when I tried remote viewing. A lot of people don't believe this ability is possible, but I certainly experienced an information gathering ability that was way above chance, and RV has a highly developed history, so I'm comfortable with it. Also, scientifically, RV is fine, at least if you accept the consequences of the Influence Idea. Read More...
1) We're all going to die.
This isn't much of a prediction, as no one lives forever. I'll try and be a bit more specific.
2) Climate change is going to wreck the environment of our planet and the global population will be reduced from seven thousand bazillion people to a bus queue by the end of 2200 AD
In 'The New North - the world in 2050', Laurence C. Smith reports on this topic with a wealth of solid evidence and researched information, but in a strangely unfocused way. In places, he approaches the topic from a personal perspective, making it the book a little less dry, but he seems less concerned about the environmental effects of the burst of new mining and oil drilling and more about the economic opportunities. Read More...
For a long time now, wind power has been criticised as being an eyesore and an inefficient and hopeless method of power generation, but these criticisms are fast looking ridiculous. For example, wind power is Denmark is so successful that it is meeting their entire energy needs during periods of the year! They constantly monitor and display the output in the country and the net difference between energy produced and energy consumed (source: energinet.dk):
It's tempting to say that the worsening of the climate in recent decades has been less than expected and this indicates that perhaps the predictions are excessive and hysterical. Unfortunately, there's a very simply reason why they've been relatively mild; our oceans have been soaking up a lot of the CO2 we've been producing. According to recent measurements, they can't soak up much more, so in the next few decades, warming effects will be far worse than we've experienced up to now. If we collectively make a big effort only when we experience those effects, it will be too late. Tipping points will have already been passed (sea ice melt decreasing reflective albedo of arctic, permafrost melting causing methane release) that will produce more warming in a vicious cycle that we will not be able to stop.
In all honesty, I think climate change cannot be stopped. Fossil fuels have become the backbone of global civilisation, we have thirty-five time as many people as were living at the time of Christ and the majority of people on this planet are not change their lifestyles one iota to reduce their carbon footprint. Perhaps the best way to approach this tragic scenario is as individuals. If we individually decide to cut back our carbon footprint, by avoiding cruises and flights around the world (if possible), by having less children (a major carbon footprint decision!), buying gadgets second-hand, lowering the heating of our homes, cycling and walking more, living closer to work (if possible), sharing houses with others (if possible), repairing our clothes rather than buying new ones, then at least we'll feel at the end of our days that we personally made an effort and have nothing about which to feel ashamed. That's my hope.
"In her article exploring whether dolphins live up to their reputation for intelligence, Caroline Williams tells of being forcefully rebuffed by a dolphin after attempting to connect with it (27th September, p46). In this era of climate change, the possibility that dolphins don't want to be friends with humans makes them seem more intelligent and emotionally developed than ever."
The mention of climate change led me to think about its connection with another recent topic, Milgram's Experiment. For a long time, many psychologists have been deeply unhappy that Milgram's Experiment seems to show that most people would willingly cause pain and death to an unfortunate target if they were gradually coaxed into it by authority figures. Humanity isn't like that, they say, people aren't that bad!
But a form of Milgram's Experiment is going on as we speak. It started a while ago when some people were coaxed into hurting a living target in return for personal reward. The level of harm they inflicted was slowly ramped up. They willingly continued to harm the target, even though they could see how it was suffering. Now, the experiment has reached the stage where the people involved are inflicting lethal levels of harm on the living target. Yet, they are still continuing even though they profess to be concerned about the target's welfare. The experiment I'm talking about is climate change. The living target suffering is the Earth's biosphere and the people concerned are, well, nearly every affluent individual on the planet.
Perceptive creatures, dolphins.
There would have been more but I only had my creaky old mobile phone with me and its battery life is geriatric. I was planning to carry an inflatable globe (see earlier post) and was on the point of buying one in the excellent map shop near Covent Garden on Long Acre when I noticed that it was made in China. Hmm. Buying a lump of plastic carted half-way around the world to use as a symbolic prop in a climate change demonstration didn't seem quite right, so it stayed on the shelf.
Best quote of the day comes from the actress Emma Thompson whose advice on the threat of climate change and the urgent need for serious action was both accurate, succinct and charmingly direct:
“Unless we’re carbon-free by 2030 the world is buggered.”
This Sunday (21st September), there will be a climate change march in London and other cities to promote and highlight this huge and incredibly important issue. A lot of different organisations are taking part, including Friends of the Earth, Population Matters and the Campaign against Climate Change. The march is along the Embankment from Temple Place, starting at 12:30pm and will end up in Parliament Square. The whole event should wind up around 3pm. For more detailed info, check out the websites of the various charities etc that are involved or click on the picture above. I've heard talk of all sorts of fun activities during the march, including a samba band, so it might even be fun!
I'll be taking part. I'm hoping (if I can find one) to carry an inflatable Earth with me. It'll make a good symbol and if I get bored, I can bounce it up and down like a beach ball. ;-)
It'd be great if lots and lots of people come along. Although it might not end climate change overnight, or even possibly make any significant change, it's still worth doing. You could even help to reduce the effects of climate change for entirely selfish reasons, as I chatted about in this earlier blog, but you could also do it because you want to be a person who stood up and made an effort. Later on, when things get tough and people start asking questions, you'll know that you tried. That could be a really good feeling to have.
Here's a great article from Jarvis Cocker in today's Guardian newspaper, putting forward his thoughts on Sunday's march.
Here's a more general report from the Guardian, including comments from a host of celebrities.
For those of you who might be motivated by watching a programme about the forthcoming worldwide climate change march on Sunday, here's the official documentary:
For everyone else, please come. It really, really, really, really is important!
Being an environmentally minded bloke, as well as an advocate of workers’ rights, I wanted to try and buy something that might tick at least one of those boxes. After browsing the web, I found a bag made from 100% recycled PET plastic from bottles. ‘Hooray!’ I thought, ‘this looks good and is environmentally responsible. I can buy with a sound conscience!’
But after another minute’s thought, I changed my mind. I realised that, for me in England, a recycled-plastic laptop bag made in China is about as environmentally responsible as a solar panel on an oil rig. Read More...
The fact that the developed world (who are doing nearly all the CO2 generation) are carrying on with their day with minimal attempt to reduce their fossil fuel use, in spite of all the evidence of climate catastrophe, is like passengers on a runaway train checking the lunch menu. People! This train is out of control and heading downhill! We’re all going to die and leave our grandchildren orphaned if we don’t do something! No, I don’t care that the steamed mullet is off this week! Neither do I think it’s spiffing that our increasing speed means you’ll get to the next stop quicker! We’re accelerating towards a hairpin bend and will soon be plunging down a mountainside in a ball of fire and twisted metal! No, I am not being negative! No, we cannot assume the railway company is going to fix the problem in the next quarter of a mile by remote bluetooth diagnostics! We have to do something ourselves! Read More...
December has been and gone and it’s now 2013. The world hasn’t ended (phew!) although, when you think about it, with the extensive and thorough scientific information that shows us that our climate is heading inexorably towards planetary Armageddon, the world as we know it has just ended; it’s just that the process will take a couple of centuries, rather than 24 hours. Civilization is officially kaput, there’s just a bit of reshuffling to be done in the next 200 years to get it all in place. Read More...
A news article has appeared in this morning's Independent newspaper reporting that methane has now been discovered bubbling up from the open arctic ocean, appearing through cracks in the thinning ice. To quote: Read More...
Unfortunately, I read an article in the Independent at the very beginning of this year which I think is of huge significance. In the article, to quote, 'Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.'
“The number of people in the UK who do not believe in global warming has doubled in the last two years, according to a poll from the office of national statistics. Does this represent the common sense of a British public who can see the claims of the climate alarmists dissolve before their eyes?”
It’s an interesting choice of phrase, common sense. Common sense is a very important skill to have. Read More...