'Unprecedented' melt sinks hope for Arctic ice recovery

Mon, 2008-08-11 12:30Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

'Unprecedented' melt sinks hope for Arctic ice recovery

The Canadian Ice Service is warning that the disintegration of Arctic Ocean ice cover may be worse this year than last - which, until now, was the worst on record.

The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reports :

Arctic sea ice extent on August 10 was 6.54 million square kilometers (2.52 million square miles), a decline of 1 million square kilometers (390,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 780,000 square kilometers (300,000 square miles) of last year's value on the same date and is 1.50 million square kilometers (580,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Comments

I full-on love humankind, and I’m darn partial to a host of individual humans, as well (you can put yourself on that list, by the way).

But … BUT! … well, you can imagine where I might go with the next part and who (Monckton/Singer/Solomon/even Gary) might be on the other list …

Fern

“Wow, Richard, I wish I’d said that!”

Oh the humanity! Your blushing cheeks aside, Fern, this is one of the left’s and green’s most foolish political viewpoints: the old ‘population reduction’ argument. Western European’s birthrates are below replacement levels. Specific cultural and racial groups are, however, increasing at pace - cultural muslims from Bangladesh and Pakistan, and Africans for example.

So who should reduce their birthrates, Fern? Bangladeshis? Somalis? Or liberals living in western democracies? Shall we lead the way by example and see how, say, islamic countries follow suit?

You guys really have a love of self-flagellation and a death wish for our way of life. And to think I escaped the brutal Iranian theocracy to find people like you who want to commit cultural (as well as economic) suicide.

Well meaning (as always from greens) but shoulder saggingly depressing stupidity. TimM

Are we quite sure that Timm is not Rob? Is there an echo in here?

Fern Mackenzie

Fern

The guy Rob must be an interesting guy, alas I’m not him.

Playing the man and not the ball as usual. TimM

I’m convinced; it’s Rob. The vanity is obvious.

If it’s not rob, it’s his twin sock…

Tommeeee

Who is this great sage, Rob? I’d like to meet him.

I’m missing a sock…..

Oh, and what’s your point?

Yep, that’s what I thought. TimM

It’s rob.

If it isn’t him, it might as well be, and who cares anyway? Just another blowhard out to make mayhem. They’re everywhere.

Fern Mackenzie

Is that you, Tommeee, hiding behind Fern’s skirts again?

I can see ya, ya little rascal!

Don’t be afraid, Tommee, I won’t hurtcha. You can come out of there little fella.

I’m one of those real scientists, you see. That’s right, the ones they didn’t want you to know about. Wait Tommee, wait….

Don’t………

run…..

away…..

I just wanted to tell you something……

something beautiful…..

we’re all going to be Ok, you see, Tommeee, we aren’t melting like they told ya….no…..wait…..

damn…

Well, bye, bye, Tommee, come and see me again, when you’re all growed up. TimM

From what?
I should point out that no one has called me a little rascal for at least 50 years and not quite 40 of those years have been filled with doing “growed up” things, such as earning a living.
Running away is not an option.
Your witticism is rather misplaced.

If you are supposed to be a real scientist telling me “something beautiful”, why do you hide behind (NOT VERIFIED)?
Pretty lame…

Hey Tom

“Your witticism is rather misplaced.”

(shoulders sagging) the world is such a dark and humourless place these days. I humbly withdraw my witticisms.

“why do you hide behind (NOT VERIFIED)?”

Very good reasons: life and death, in fact, Tommee boy -(sorry, I mean Tom, forgot you were all growed up.)

Check the other posts on this page, I can’t be bothered to have to go through it again (sorry).

“Pretty lame…”

Bad news, Tom, eloquence isn’t your strongest point.

Still, I shall endeavour to view your posts with an open and enquiring mind.

Best Tim

Make no assumptions about what I may or may not be hiding behind my alleged skirts. You don’t know me well enough to make that call.

Fern Mackenzie

oops – posted twice

VJ

“The vanity is obvious”

Really? How? Hey, VJ, I’m a devlishly handsome guy, I don’t deny it, but how can you tell?

Is it a sixth sense, like how you can just close your eyes and you know, JUST KNOW! that the world is melting unless we act RIGHT NOW!!(trademark Hansen 1988-2008)

Do you have a point, VJ me old mucker? I note that you never respond directly.

Very odd.

Let me know if you need any help with your homework. TimM

It isn’t about who needs to stop reproducing. It’s about recognizng that the planet can support only a limited amount of life. There are LIMITS. Get that through your head, and then we can have a conversation.

Fern Mackenzie

So, you’re arguing that European populations = good; brown, black or Muslim populations = bad. “Our way of life” = good; Bangladeshi, Somali way of life = bad. You seem to be saying that the world is not overpopulated; it’s just overpopulated with “wogs.”

You know, I celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the death of the Soviet Union with everyone else. I was as eager as the next capitalistic (small ‘c’) democrat to see the end of fascistic planned socialism.

But in the last 20 years, I have come to mourn the concurrent death of small ‘l’ liberalism. In particular, I long to go back to a time when someone would have been embarrassed to write down and distribute this kind of blatantly racist twaddle.

Ah, the patronising racism of a self-loathing liberal, Richard. An unreconstructed racist at that. Most liberals can hide it a bit better than you.

I’m Iranian, as I previously mentioned. And was born a muslim. I’m an immigrant to the west. I escaped a brutal and vicious regime to the freedom, decency and tolerance of England and the USA.

I face the death sentence in Iran for apostasy. Do you know what that is, Richard? It means I committed the crime of sending my children to a Christian school. Which isn’t allowed if you’re born muslim. The death sentence applies to my wife and children too. Which is nice.

So you can stop your spit flecked rant at me right now. I have fought racists and bigots all my life and I’m not going to have a morally self satisfied dinner party bigot like you resort to calling me a racist because you don’t want to answer a question. Pulling out the racism accusations, Richard, is disgusting and cowardly.

And before you accuse me of using the same tactic, I didn’t mention race. Not once. You did, and you accused me of abhorrent bigotry. I asked a straight question. If your honest answer troubles you, then that is a matter for you.

Do you believe that all cultures and ideologies are equal? Child murders in muti magic killings? Hey, just adding to the great culture pot, right? Islamic executions of gay people? Why, it’s just sharia law, nothing to see here. Smothering baby girls in Bangladesh? Just folk following their cultural norms?

Islam, for example, Richard, does not recognise race. It is an ideology. If I disagree with islam, I disagree with the ideology for reasons that I’ve given. Please try not to confuse ideology with race again; it’s truly ignorant, and a bigoted trait of self-loathing liberals. Er, like yourself.

It’s nothing to do with race, Richard. It’s to do with culture and ideology. I don’t care if you are brown, white or green. I do care if you consider beating your wife is Ok. If you think that forced marriages by 13-year-old girls are tickety boo. If you’re a white supremacist in the KKK, that’s not Ok with me, how about you?

I assume that you’re the kind of guy who when you’re caught out in your bigotry pleads: “but I have lots of black/ gay/ Asian friends!”. I bet they’d be disturbed to see the reality of your style of patronising bigotry.

Richard, your immediate resort to the racist card is sadly predictable and a common tactic to shut down debate. Similar to your AGW ‘debate is over’ shtick.

I’m afraid I’m a brown(ish) guy, (whoooooo!) and I’ve had a lot of racist grief both here in England and in the USA. The worst racism of course is exemplified by your comments above, but hey, ho, I’ve learnt to live with it. Give me a red neck any day. At least if they are bigoted they don’t clothe it in the veneer of intellectual respectability.

Now answer the question. Who do you want to have fewer children?

Luv TimM

I don’t see any racism in Richard’s response, but now that we know something of your background, I can see that you have reason to suppose that it might be there.

Your question: who should stop having chlidren? There is no simple answer to that question. In my own personal view, people should be encouraged to do no more than replace themselves, ie: leaving one person behind to take his/her place when we shuffle off this mortal coil. If every couple had just two children, zero population growth would stop the rampant growth & we could catch our breath. In cultures where large families are still the norm, education about birth control (and easy access to it) and population issues would encourage women to take charge of their own bodies and make the changes. I think it is also a matter of personal responsibility that people need to recognize the problem and take it seriously as citizens of the world. This transcends boundaries – political, racial, cultural – and calls for international co-operation at the same level as AGW. The fact that it is extremely personal and wildly controversial means it’s also a huge challenge. I don’t have all the answers, but I am looking.

Does that answer your question?

Fern Mackenzie

Fern

I admit I was annoyed at Richard for immediately tarring a serious issue with the race card. That’s why some of these issues remain taboo, and we don’t get any further forward.

Your views are entirely reasonable. And if everyone else was as reasonable, then we wouldn’t have a problem.

“This transcends boundaries – political, racial, cultural – and calls for international co-operation”

But alas, I think that that is impossible. There is currently a clash of civilisation against barbarism being played out not just in my home country, and the middle east, but right across the west. And the totalitarians on the islamist side for example, openly encourage their adherents to have as many children as possible. To gain power by numbers if you like.

International co-operation won’t work if only one side plays by the rules.

I also think it’s worth noting that there are cultural values of the west which have made it so free, prosperous and successful. The last thing I want is to import are the ideologies of hate that I escaped from. And make no mistake, racism and hate are not a western monopoly. That’s why I asked who Richard wanted to have less children. Because if one side stops having kids, and the other side continues apace, then we risk replacing a free and prosperous culture with one that could mean enslavement, particularly of women.

It’s an uncomfortable subject, but immensely important. TimM

We are in agreement on quite a lot. Now if we could just sort out the AGW thing …!!

Fern Mackenzie

Fern

“We are in agreement on quite a lot. Now if we could just sort out the AGW thing …!!”

Agreed! You are a skillful diplomat!

And you may be right on the AGW theory, I have said before that I’m open to persuasion. But your side has to be open to rational debate too. It may be that somewhere between my viewpoint and the IPCC’s absolutes there is an answer. I’m just not convinced by the current arguments, and I’m troubled by the holes in the theory. I’m also troubled by the politicisation of science which effects me directly. Scientists are afraid to voice their doubts, and that’s never a good thing.

More than that, I worry that some of the policies based nominally upon AGW theory will harm the poorest and weakest on the planet. Bio fuels spring to mind.

But if the facts change, (and our understanding of the science is improving at a rapid pace) then I’ll change my mind. I only ask that you are prepared to do the same.

Is that fair? TimM

If you had done me the courtesy of reading my first comment, you would have noticed this:

“Then, we should concentrate on building capacity in the developing world to the point that THOSE populations also peak and perhaps even decline because women start choosing to have fewer babies, not because whole populations are being wiped out in war and pestilence.”

I think that answers your subsequent question with absolute clarity: I want “women” to have fewer babies and to do so out of personal choice.

The women in many highly developed, relatively wealthy and democratic countries (counting Russia as an exception, perhaps on all three counts) have chosen to have so few babies that cultural nationalists in those countries are screaming about the population crisis being one of decline. (That decline would also be an issue in Canada, were it not for an immigration policy that welcomes - in my view, too few - immigrants from other parts of the world.) I am firmly of the view that if women in every corner of the world are given a significant degree of personal discretion and a legitimate hope that their children will actually survive into adulthood that those women will also choose to have fewer children.

You may well call me “a morally self satisfied dinner party bigot” (which, even lacking the hyphen in self-satisfied, is a wonderful bit of invective), but your argument falls down, badly, when you say, “I didn't mention race. Not once.”

This, for the record, is from your comment - the first mention of race or religion:

“Specific cultural and racial groups are, however, increasing at pace - cultural muslims from Bangladesh and Pakistan, and Africans for example.

“So who should reduce their birthrates, Fern? Bangladeshis? Somalis? Or liberals living in western democracies?”

 As for your own racial, cultural or natural heritage, why should I care? I was not taking an issue with your skin color; I was recoiling from your argument - and I still do.

I don’t believe Timm is in fact a scientist, based on his vagueness of his claim to be a scientist and his claim that scientists are afraid to speak up; and I don’t see a particular reason to believe any of the rest of his story, which, as you noted, is irrelevant anyway.

Richard

Your suggestion of taking a shower is partly fair - I apologise for the vehemence of my previous post. To be labelled a racist is a very raw nerve with me, as you saw.

With respect, I suffer the threat of execution for myself and my family, whilst you suffer the possibility of being slightly politically incorrect. It ain’t the same, Richard, believe me.

My point is that political correctness often means that uncomfortable truths are simply responded to with ad hominem attacks of ‘racism’. That’s what you reflexively spat out at me, despite what you may wish to believe. Isn’t that the truth? Really?

You’re semantically right of course that I mentioned ‘race’, but it saddens me that you don’t recognise the difference between a factually correct statement about a ‘specific cultural and racial’ group, and racism. (for the avoidance of doubt, Somalia’s birth rate is in the top five in the world at nearly 7 per mother compared to 1.5 for Canada - well below replacement rate).

“were it not for an immigration policy that welcomes - in my view, too few - immigrants from other parts of the world”

And here is where your utopian argument falls down. Are you saying that you are happy with all immigrants, including those who are misogynistic, illiberal, and racist? Those who, because of cultural and ideological chains have utter contempt for your culture and way of life? Because the ‘all cultures are equal’ viewpoint is extremely dangerous. You can decide who shares your values, and welcome them as such.

My eight year old niece in Iran has to cover her head to go to school, “so that men are not sexually tempted by her” according to her head teacher. Is that a culture you’d happily import to Canada? Or is this proper debate something you’d rather avoid? I don’t blame you if you do, it takes a lot of guts to stand up for some of these things. I mean that.

What was it you said? Something like immigrants = good, indigenous = bad? Do you now see how horribly politically correct and bigoted that stance is? Remember I’m an immigrant who loves the west!

And here’s the crux, Richard. Decent a fellow as you clearly are, you make no distinction between horrific ideology (culture) or decent culture. We’re all the multiculti same according to you. And frankly that offends me.

And while that may play well to your politically correct gallery, I watch honour killings of young girls, I see young gay men hanged, and I look into the eyes of my young children who will never see their iranian family again, and I wish for brave men and women, not well meaning right on folk who don’t know what it means to have your life threatened.

Platitudes. Gestures. Things to make you feel good. That’s where you’re at, Richard. Even on AGW, you know that India and China will never agree to cut emissions, don’t you? You all know that. So it’s all gesture. Do you understand what realpolitik is? Sorry, I know it hurts, but it’s the truth.

“As for your own racial, cultural or natural heritage, why should I care?”

You shouldn’t care about my skin colour, Richard, that bit you got right. You should care about my culture. That’s what you should judge me on. The only thing.

“I was not taking an issue with your skin color; I was recoiling from your argument”

Much easier to ‘recoil from my argument’ than stand up Richard. Do you also recoil from honour killings, and sharia law? Gay executions? Apostasy? Not easy is it, Rich? Doesn’t follow the PC norms you’re used to.

I still respect you though, Richard, although we disagree fundamentally. I respect you for this blog. Know why? Because, unlike the human rights quangos who are anti free speech in Canada, your blog takes it on the chin and dishes it out in equal measure. At least you do that.

Best TimM

Your apology was close to gracious.

Couple of things, for the record:

Nobody has ever threatened my family and I am horrified that someone threatened yours. And if it makes me naive, utopian or (here, imagine wretched spitting) liberal to be proud of my country for having ultimately offered you a safe haven, sue me.

I never said ANYWHERE that all cultural traditions are of equal value and quality.

I never said “immigrants = good; indigenous = bad,” and I can’t imagine how you were able to imagine such an interpretation.

And if you would like to change the subject from overpopulation to honour killings, sharia law, gay executions and apostasy, it sounds like you and I could go for a very pleasant cup of tea and not wind up throwing the china.

But, as to the question of whether I “know that India and China will never agree to cut emissions,” we’ll have to disagree.

Again for the record, I don’t even think they should HAVE to cut emissions until we in the wealthy west begin to show them the way - just as we did so successfully with the 1980s CFC campaign to save the ozone hole.

As in that example, I actually think that we should be investing some of our economic advantage in research (rather than burying it, with our reputation, in the tar sands and coal beds of North America). That way, we might discover something cool that we can use to “chill” the planet AND that we can sell to China and India (at a reasonable profit) thereby enriching several more generations of Canadians and Americans (and Britons and Australians and any others who get on board). My children and yours would thank us for it.

The argument that China and India won’t do anything to save the planet, and therefore we shouldn’t do anything, either, presupposes that they are at least as stupid as we have proved to be over the last 10 years. I really hope for something better.

And back, briefly, to the touchy issue that got us so decidedly off track, I don’t think any of this is about race. It would disappoint me terribly if you assumed that I am very like George W. Bush merely because we’re both white guys. Similarly, it’s not the done thing to judge Nelson Mandela on the record of Robert Mugabe or, God save us all, Charles Taylor. Venal, selfish, stupidity is, in my experience, colorblind.

So, when I say there are too many people in the world - and that it’s stupid to stand around idly while the population rises by another 40 per cent - that, as narrowly described, is what I mean. When I offer, as my solution, the suggestion that we change our economic model so we don’t rely on population growth in the west, and then we start working on the rights of women in the developing world (your endangered eight-year-old niece prominent on the list), that’s what I mean.

I’m saying, for example, that it would be insane - in an unsustainable world - for us to try to protect our culture or our way of life by trying to out-reproduce people in different political or cultural jurisdictions. That was Mao’s solution and we know where it led. 

So, let’s start afresh. You don’t put words in my mouth and I won’t snarl back in anger. If necessary, we can get Fern to come in and sort us out. There may yet be a host of things on which we can agree.

Cheers,

Richard

An incredibly eloquent response.

I still disagree with some of your points, but I do so respectfully. I wish I had your faith on India and China’s emissions reduction.

“just as we did so successfully with the 1980s CFC campaign to save the ozone hole.”

I was one of the team who initially worked on replacing chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) with their safer, more environmentally sound replacements hydrofluorocarbons (HFC’s). A very interesting research project for a young scientist, as I was then.

May I apologise for the ferocity of my earlier posts, I made the mistake of not understanding my opponent and of making far too many assumptions. Perhaps you did the same to some extent.

I also think that we would probably find far more to agree on than disagree on over a cup of chai, even on AGW.

“So, let’s start afresh. You don’t put words in my mouth and I won’t snarl back in anger.”

Agreed. I’m off to take the cold shower you suggested!

Best TimM

Timm, Richard, et al…

One of the things that gives me great satisfaction about the global warming fight is that the people who are doing battle, and who know the issues deeply, also understand that global warming is intimately tied to issues of social justice.

Not only do we in the western world have to clean up our act, we have to stop exploiting other countries in the developing world, remove ourselves from the economic-growth-no-matter-what-the-cost mindset, and make a real and concerted effort at bringing social and economic justice to countries that are now hopeless and bereft and devastated.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution - the revolution that made western nations exceedingly wealthy. To the extent that we are rich, we can thank modern production methods. To the extent that global warming has already occurred, we can blame our modern production methods.

The developing world has had very little hand in creating the global warming that has already occured. Until recently, China and India didn’t possess the economic engine to create significant carbon emissions. They do now, but their culpability pales in comparison to ours, and they shouldn’t be forced to do anything while we pollute with impunity, and destroy their world in the process.

But if we accept our responsibility, if we act with care and concern for all humanity, I do have faith that we can bridge this divide. And if the other large emitters still don’t join us in the fight, then we will stop doing business with them. (One third of China’s emissions, for example, as created to produce good consumed in the western world).

In a few small ways, it’s already happening. One company that I know about is producing a small, cheap stove for India so people there no longer have to cook using fuel sources (like dung) that throw black soot in the atmosphere. Another is creating a cheap LED lighting system that is powered by a small solar panel; more than 25 percent of the income in India’s poorest regions is spent on kerosene to provide night time illumination. The companies launching these initiatives are doing good, and making a profit.

If we start addressing these issues of inequality and poverty, our moral standing will improve. We won’t just be lecturing other countries; we’ll be trying to help them. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t. But it’s the only way to end this impasse.

And if we’re not so afraid of losing access to oil, if we have energy independence (which even right wingers think is a good thing) then perhaps we will finally gain the courage of our convictions, and start fighting for the rights of women in the Middle East, among many other important issues.

Cheers,

SLS (also another Richard)

Smartlikestreetcar

“If we start addressing these issues of inequality and poverty, our moral standing will improve.”

True. Alas, I think there will always be those who, due to idealogical baggage, will implacably stand against us whatever we do. Winning their hearts and minds will not be easy.

Nevertheless, SLS, thanks for a great, thought provoking post.

Best TimM

Dear Richard Littlemore,

It is important for me to say that I, too, have three wonderful children, now grown. The decisions to have three children and no more were made before I recognized the colossal threat to humanity that could soon be confronted as a consequence of the explosive growth of absolute global human population numbers in our time.

I am going to read your post again with the expectation of finding something in it with which to disagree. On first reading, everything you report makes good sense. My only wish is that we were not in such complete agreement.

There is good reason for grave concern if what you and I are seeing and reporting is somehow a fairly adequate representation of how the world the human species inhabits actually works. On the other hand, it would be pleasing to learn that a fellow of advancing age and waning faculties like me, who is unprepared, poorly equipped and inexpert about the matters we are discussing, is mistaken about the things which you and I are perceiving and saying. I hold onto hope things might turn out just that way.

Sincerely,

Steve Salmony

Quite so.

I’d love to think that we humans could continue to play out this global Ponzi scheme and that no one would ever be left holding the empty bag.

Really, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could reproduce endlessly and at no net expense?

Wouldn’t be be great if we could continue to deplete ocean  fish stocks, killing off cod and tuna and snapper always confident that some as-yet undiscovered or unappreciated new species would fill the void?

Wouldn’t it be fabulous if we could harvest the energy (in the form of fossil fuels) that the earth has stored over millions of years and burn it in the least efficient ways imaginable, spraying a host of chemicals into the air with impunity?

Wouldn’t it be great if Gary was right?

But just in case Peter Pan and Tinkerbell don’t show up in time with that magic powder, I think it’s prudent to keep a wary eye to the future - and to count our blessings that we are not alone.

Cheers,

Dear Richard,

Yes, I count among my many blessings that there are people like you who are possessed of clarity of vision, coherence of mind, a capacity for intellectual honestly, an uncompromised fidelity to science and the courage to speak out loudly, clearly and often.

Because the reality of the global political economy as a Ponzi game {as you have so incisively identified it} is denied by the economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and many talking heads in the mass media, and because this global pyramid scheme is “the only game in town” for the time being, it is difficult to determine from whence comes the support for our unacknowledged perspective or our unwelcome entreaties to change the artificially-designed, manmade, soon to be patently unsustainable economic colossus into a sustainable construction. Somehow marginalized people of like minds need to find effective ways to organize. We move forward not only by stating the obvious but also by acting ably and humanely on the world stage where we will need to make a place for ourselves.

Keep going, Steve

Steven Earl Salmony

“Yes, I count among my many blessings that there are people like you who are possessed of clarity of vision, coherence of mind, a capacity for intellectual honestly, an uncompromised fidelity to science and the courage to speak out loudly, clearly and often.”

And people wondered why I initially thought this was a satirical blog spoofing well meaning alarmists.

Steven, your posts make me laugh out “loudly, clearly and often”

Good luck to you. TimM

And not supportive of alarm. Sorry http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

You do not understand the difference between free speech and spreading dishonesty. All you AGW deniers hide, both literally (using anonymous identities) and figuratively by saying that anyone who condemns your dishonest rantings as being against free speech. Lying in many areas is a crime. Unfortunately, in other areas, for example, politics, it is allowed and in fact encouraged.

Science does not believe in lies therefore, if you really are a scientist, you are doing a grave injustice to the discipline.

I don’t know if you are ZOG or not (I don’t even care) but you deniers all seem to fit the same mold.

AGW is too important a problem for clowns like you to come in and play games and use your games to try and convince people that it is not real and is not happening.

Try reading some scientific papers instead of the AGW denier junk you are addicted to.

Ian Forrester

I take very grave exception to TIMM’s use of the term “onanist”. It is completely unacceptable for him to use such sexual terms in describing anyone, especially since he is unidentifiable. If he was to add his name to those filthy comments then there would be legal action taken against him.

Please remove his filthy comments from this thread.

I am fed up with the way anonymous posters are allowed to trash the reputations of the sane people who comment on this blog. You should use the same criteria as “letter to the editor” i.e. identity must be provided.

Ian Forrester

Thanks Richard

Ian Forrester

I had missed the wanker reference or would have deleted it sooner. For the record, I also deleted a post with a Farsi phrase, for which I can’t find a translation (or a translator) on short notice.

Folks, this is an English-language website: for the convenience of its readers, please stick to English or provide a translation. We at the DSB are, if anything, too liberal about what we allow to remain in the comment queue. Let’s try to help us protect that policy by making it possible for editors to actually read what you post.

As to the level of discourse over all, and especially to your suggestion that we tighten up our policies, we’re arguing about it in-house and will keep you posted.

As you may have noticed, we banned Rob for rudeness and slander and I’m seriously getting close to spam-blocking Gary. He’s taking more and more time to say less and less.

In fact, Gary, if you’re listening, take this as a warning (you get two): bring information; bring links, criticize specific points (on point); and park the invective. Any post that says nothing more than” AGW has ended; get over it.” will be deleted forthwith, and if I have to delete more than three of them, I’m hitting the spam blocker and you’re done.

And TimM: you have shown yourself capable of engaging reasonably; and your evil alter ego has edged forth in pointless snarls that are patronizing, insulting and entirely without content. Tipping over into talking about someone’s sexual habits is WA-A-A-AY over the line. So, that’s a warning for you, too. And, like Gary, you go out on the third strike.

Cheers all,

It’s difficult deciding how much moderation to apply to any website with a comments section. Rest assured that however DeSmogBlog decides to handle it, someone will complain a lot. :)

But DeSmogBlog has a right to set its own rules and anyone who doesn’t like it has a right to start their own website to complain about it. No whining about censorship.

Richard

I’m in transit and replying via my blackberry, which I’m crap at. English is my second language, so please forgive any spelling mistakes, I don’t have a spell check. .

Of course, I’ll take the rap on the knuckles with good grace. It’s your blog after all.

In my defence I was responding to someone who questioned my parentage, background and integrity in the most offensive manner. Indeed, ian’s very first post was incredibly offensive, and I’d had no communication with him, he insulted me out of the blue. And after some of the things I’ve been through, I considered that that wasn’t cricket.

So, with respect, I ask you, if your parentage and integrity were suddenly attacked would you stand by, or respond?

I responded, I thought with humour. But clearly not humourous enough!

I note, Richard, that whilst you thank Ian, who called me a worthless human amongst a plethora of deeply personal insults„ I am yellow carded for responding with the polite form of wanker. I of course accept that I probably went too far in my responses. But the truth is that you thanked him whilst chastising me. That makes me feel like I’m playing against a loaded deck.

It’s your blog, Richard, your rules. I make no complaint. But I’m left feeling that there’s one rule for warmists, and another for sceptics. Which, I guess is fair enough.

On the matter of me writing in farsi, I did so because someone questioned my parentage. In fact, whenever I’ve responded as an evil alter ego, it’s always for a reason, Richard, there’s always been a point there somewhere.

just because some on this blog are happy to dish it out, but are too thin skinned to take it doesn’t mean that you should be quite so unevenly handed.

Nevertheless, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed engaging with you and many others on this great blog, I’ve learned, and changed some of my opinions. Perhaps, I hoped to make some of you think slightly differently too. That, I think, is the beauty of robust human communication.

I respect you, Richard, and I respect many of your regular posters. You’re good people.

Alas, I guess it’s time to get me coat!

I wish you the very best. TimM

Your claim that your parentage was questioned is disingenuous to say the least. You wrote your Farsi phrase to me after I suggested you were not telling the truth about being a scientist and that therefore there was no need to believe the rest of your background story. I believe those posts have been deleted; however, that’s no excuse for mis-stating what was said.

You told me not to have a woman translate the phrase, which suggests that it was obscene. No gentle teasing there. You have been acting like a jerk all over the place, and very much like Rob’s type of jerk. And you are no scientist.

VJ

Quick response:

“…therefore there was no need to believe the rest of your background story”

It may be semantics, VJ, but I took that to be a flippant attack on my background and integrity. My response was undoubtedly ungracious, but so too, I would suggest, was your attack on my character.

“You have been acting like a jerk all over the place,”

Ok, I apologise.

“and very much like Rob’s type of jerk.”

VJ, I still don’t know who Rob is, is it too much to ask that you don’t lump me in with someone whose views I’m unaware of? Attack my arguments by all means, and as robustly as you wish, but may I ask that you don’t attack my character vicariously through association?

In amongst the robust debates I’ve seen on this blog, I’ve also seen many acts of skilful diplomacy from all sides. It’s an area in which I clearly have much room for improvement. So in that spirit, how about we start over? You tone down your attacks on my background and integrity, and I’ll try to stop snarling like a ‘jerk’ every time I perceive a sleight.

And to avoid any future conjecture about my background, I’ll avoid mentioning it unless directly relevant or solicited.

Is that fair? TimM

When I was a boy, we were taught that each generation had responsibilities to assume and duties to perform with regard to the acknowledgement and acceptance of the challenges that are present at that time, so that the next generation can have a chance at a better life. Under no circumstances, would it be correct to pose as willfully blind, hysterically deaf or electively mute in the face of any challenge, as many too many in my not-so-great are doing in these days.

What has happened to the misguided leaders of my generation? So many in the elder generation have determined to let the looming challenges in our time fall into the laps of our children. At least to me, today’s leaders show an astonishing unwillingness to examine the prospects of a good life for those who directly follow us, let alone coming generations.

After my single, not-so-great generation finishes the `missions’ (ie, fools’ errands) the leading, self-proclaimed “masters of the universe” among us have set before the human community, what resources will be left for our children to consume; how many more people will have to share what remains of the dissipated and degraded resources; where will they find clean air to breathe, clean water to drink? I shudder when thinking about what our children might say about what we have done so poorly and failed to do so spectacularly, all for sake of selfishly fulfilling our insatiable desires for endless material possessions and freedom without responsibility…….come what may for the children, coming generations, global biodiversity, the environment and Earth’s body.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001

Steven

I’m replying via blackberry, (I’m flying on business) so sorry for being brief.

I gently, but unforgivably, teased you before, and I want to apologise. Although I disagree with some of what you say, you clearly are sincere and have great conviction. You,re obviously a good man.

I simply want to ask you for a favour. Please forgive me my flippancy, and forgive me if I offended you. I meant no harm.

Best wishes TimM

How could one generation go so wrong? Here are some of the ways.

First, the leaders in my generation of elders wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, of increasing per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers; our desires are evidently insatiable. We choose to believe anything that is politically convenient, economically expedient and socially agreeable; our way of life is not negotiable. We dare anyone to question our values or behaviors.

We religiously promote our widely shared and consensually-validated fantasies of `real’ endless economic growth and soon to be unsustainable overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities, and in so doing deny that Earth has limited resources and frangible ecosystems upon which the survival of life as we know it depends.

Second, my not-so-great generation appears to be doing a disservice to everything and everyone but ourselves. We are the “what’s in it for me?” generation. We demonstrate precious little regard for the maintenance of the integrity of Earth; shallow willingness to actually protect the environment from crippling degradation; lack of serious consideration for the preservation of biodiversity, wilderness, and a good enough future for our children and coming generations; and no appreciation of the vital understanding that humans are no more or less than magnificent living beings with “feet of clay.”

Perhaps we live in unsustainable ways in our planetary home; but we are proud of it nonetheless. Certainly, we will “have our cake and eat it, too.” We will own fleets of cars, fly around in thousands of private jets, live in McMansions, exchange secret handshakes, frequent exclusive clubs and distant hideouts, and risk nothing of value to us. We will live long, large and free. Please do not bother us with the problems of the world. We choose not to hear, see or speak of them. We are the economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the many minions in the mass media. We hold the much of the world’s wealth and the extraordinary power great wealth purchases. If left to our own devices, we will continue in the exercise of our `inalienable rights’ to outrageously consume Earth’s limited resources; to recklessly expand economic globalization unto every corner of our natural world and, guess what, beyond; and to carelessly consent to the unbridled global growth of human numbers so that where there are now 6+ billion people, by 2050 we will have 9+ billion members of the human community and, guess what, even more people, perhaps billions more in the distant future, if that is what we desire.

We are the reigning, self-proclaimed masters of the universe. We enjoy freedom and living without limits; of course, we adamantly eschew any talk of the personal responsibilities that come with the exercise of personal freedoms or any discussion of the existence of biophysical limitations of any kind.

We deny the existence of human limits and Earth’s limitations.

Please understand that we do not want anyone presenting us with scientific evidence that we could be living unsustainably in an artificially designed, temporary world of our own making….a manmade world filling up with gigantic enterprises, virtual mountains of material possessions, and boundless amounts of filthy lucre.

Third, most of our top rank experts appear not to have found adequate ways of communicating to the family of humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the rapacious dissipation of Earth’s limited resources, the relentless degradation of the planet’s environment, and the approaching destruction of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the human species, when taken together, appear to be proceeding at breakneck speed toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort unless, of course, the world’s colossal, ever expanding, artificially designed, manmade global political economy continues to speed headlong toward the monolithic `wall’ called “unsustainability” at which point the runaway economy crashes before Earth’s ecology is collapsed.

Who knows, perhaps we can realistically and hopefully hold onto the expectation that behavioral changes in the direction of sustainable production, per human consumption, and propagation are in the offing…..changes that save both the economy and the Creation.

Dear Tim M,

Sorry for having overreacted. It is a function of advancing age, waning faculties, awesome challenges and little time, I suppose.

Your reply to me is uncommon.

Since 2001 when I began the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, I have become too accustomed to being assaulted for the things I report. Admittedly, my communication skills are woefully inadequate, which surely has something to do with the way my missives are received.

Anyway, thanks for your last comments. Injecting humor is really important in discussing matters of such colossal import. I have simply misunderstood and, therefore, misinterpreted your efforts to “lighten the atmosphere.”

Sincerely, Steve

This new study below proves that Arctic ice is not melting. How do you answer that one?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4492

(Notice: No armchairs were harmed during the execution of this research.)

PS. Thanks to the group for small favours. Until today I had never even heard the term “onanist”. It might be better known among members of clubs who interested in this sort of thing. Nonetheless, I am grateful for having learned a new word.

But I’m not sure if a certain person sees the funny side, Dan.

best TimM

Pages