A “Town Hall” Discussion in Chico, California, Part I

The following, embedded video was shot and edited by Marc Haneburght based on a discussion in Chico, California. It is the first of at least two parts. The event occurred on 4 May 2016, and was arranged by Peter Melton, who also facilitated the discussion. Big thanks to Marc and Peter.

 

Friday, 17 June 2016 I was interviewed by Carol Rosin for American Freedom Radio. The two-hour conversation is archived here and embedded directly below.

 

Thanks to Joe Thomas for the graphic embedded below

Global impact of transportation

This site is focused on evidence and response relating to near-term human extinction. No personal attacks directed at other commenters are allowed, direct or implied. All such attacks will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators. If commenters want to engage in private discussions, they can request a moderator forward their email address to another individual here.

The house rules:

0. Two comments max, per day, in the current thread. Unlimited posts allowed in the basement (previous) threads. All posts, wherever they are, must follow the remaining three rules.

1. No libel. Learn the law as needed, starting here.

2. No attacks on classes of people, including racism, antisemitism, and misogyny.

3. This site is focused on evidence and response relating to near-term human extinction. No personal attacks directed at other commenters are allowed, direct or implied. All such attacks will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators.

Note: in order to make rule 3 workable, it will be enforced strongly. Very likely, nothing even remotely crossing the line will be allowed. If a comment violates rule 3 in any way, the entire comment will be deleted, regardless of remaining content.

Interpretation and enforcement of the rules is at the discretion of the moderators. These changes have been discussed and agreed upon by all mods. Thanks for your continuing consideration.

Thanks to Crawford’s Attractions for initiating a fund-raising campaign in support of speaking tours. It’s here. We’re also seeking volunteers to support my speaking tours this year. Details are provided beneath the “Coming Events” tab atop the page. If you are able to help, please send a message to booking@crawfordsattractions.com
______

Catch Nature Bats Last on the radio with Mike Sliwa and Guy McPherson. To listen live, tune in every Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time, or catch up in the archives here. If you prefer the iTunes version, including the option to subscribe, you can click here. We’re on Stitcher, too.


As always, the schedule of topics for forthcoming episodes of the radio show is posted beneath the tab at the top of the page titled, “Radio Archive and Recent Video.” Please help us out, especially with episodes that focus on criticism of climate scientists and activists by sending your contributions to Mike at mikeyjonsliwa@gmail.com. The next of these shows is scheduled for 5 July 2016. We will be joined by independent journalist Cory Morningstar.

From Kevin Hester comes this message: Professor Guy McPherson will be touring New Zealand in November 2016 talking about Runaway Abrupt Climate Change. Regular updates are provided at KevinHester.Live and Facebook events will be created as the date draws near.

McPherson’s latest book is available in audio, and can be purchased here. Ms. Ladybug and Mr. Honeybee: A Love Story at the End of Time is intended for ages 11 and up.

Comments 86

  • Thanks Guy; it’s nice to see that your message is making it out to the (more or less) mainstream increasingly.

  • A new study by 14 climate scientists say the area between the Tropics of Cancer and the Tropics of Capricorn will suffer serious permanent catastrophic consequences by 2020. Their findings will soon be published in the journal Science. As of now there are only 65 million refugees last year. Get ready. If you think the refugee problem is bad now, just wait a few years.

    http://lokisrevengeblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/tropics-to-explode-in-4-years/

  • Thanks Guy,for the 2 presentations,both enlightening,it was really great to hear you stepping out,speaking your mind with plenty of time, and taking on many, many, issues with Carol Rosin.I really like the way you keep bringing it back to earth, from a biology perspective..it brings things back to the root,and draws people in.. “agriculture on the brink” and the evidence of this and all the other issues.
    I really look forward to be part of the New Zealand tour in a few months.

  • Extinction means that not only do you have terminal cancer, but your children, grandchildren……….also have terminal cancer. No descendants. After several billions of years of relatively quiet evolution, we have become the cancerous growth that sets the ecosystem back a few hundred-million years. We embarked upon this evolutionary path long before our brains could even think about it and we’ve now reached the terminal phase. This many technological cells amassed in dense tumors can only exist by continuing to derive nourishment and dump pollution into the ecosystem body. Like a cachexic cancer patient, positive feedbacks will eventually bring the ecosystem down without further human interference. Even today the human RNA strive for exponential growth to maximize their “enjoyment” of the disease process right up until the last human opioid molecule bonds to the last human opioid receptor and the lights of human metabolism go out forever.

  • I read the article about Shakhova retracting her declaration. One paragraph said “There is, then, no solid evidence to back the idea of a methane bomb and past climate records suggest there is no cause for alarm. 
“Is it right to be alarmist? Is it right to be too conservative? There are problems with both, so you want to get it right,” says Crill. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, otherwise it’s going to undermine credibility and slow down our ability to actually make the decisions that we are going to have to make as a society.”
    Anyone who thinks society made or makes decisions is totally out of it, anyway. Who cares if we are going to be all dead within 30 or 35 or 62 years? (all of us writing here today will be gone anyway) With NO ocean but a vinegar soup, NO plants whatsoever with temperatures degrading all proteins, who/what is going to survive in those conditions?
    Being either alarmist or conservative will not change the facts. Only massive human casualties on the scale of millions in a very short time will make a difference in the psyche of humanity. When is it going to happen? Contrary to a sudden burst of huge quantity of methane (which absolutely nothing I read convinces me is impossible), the sudden death of huge numbers of humans is imminent.
    Here in Montreal, the air is hot, unbreathable and thick. I went out yesterday and just became extremely swollen in no time, like if kidneys were not functioning properly. When the electricity will fail, we will be toasted in no time. At 120F, like in the US southwest now, I read (cause I am not allowed to know if I did not read it somewhere) that the grid cannot cool and will hold only for so long. “They” in fact are asking “people” not to use their appliances during the day today. Like if rich “people” who paid for these appliances have any intention of not using them when and as much as they want.

  • Somehow these seem appropriate

    Best Wishes

  • James ~

    “After several billions of years of relatively quiet evolution, we have become the cancerous growth that sets the ecosystem back a few hundred-million years.”

    several billions of years of relative quiet? oh, not really! this place is chaos.

    Great Oxygenation Event

    “The increased production of oxygen set Earth’s original atmosphere off balance.[8] Free oxygen is toxic to obligate anaerobic organisms, and the rising concentrations may have wiped out most of the Earth’s anaerobic inhabitants at the time. Cyanobacteria were therefore responsible for one of the most significant extinction events in Earth’s history.”

    Extinction Event

    “Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty.

    humans, cyanobacteria, comets and asteroids, flood basalts, continental drift, supernovas and gamma rays, pole flips, ice house and hot house…

    Earth is anything but quiet. not even close. we got here because of all of that. was all of that random craziness “ecosystem setbacks?”

    who knows what will arise from this latest chaos, but it seems to me like it is just more drama, in a very long history of drama.

    an interesting take from John Lilly, courtesy of Feed Jake:

    “I realized that the universe is effectively benign; it may kill you but it will teach you something in the process. . . .”

  • This one’s for you Mo.

    Best Wishes

  • I saw on Youtube that Prof. Peter Wadhams and Prof. David Wasdell both came to the same conclusions and even cited Dr. Natalia Shakova and Dr. Igor Semilitov as being leading researchers on this topic. So its not just Shakova. They also have complained of harassment by unknown persons attempting to run them off the road ect.
    I think the harassment would be a good indicator that they are not only spot on , but also very credible.

  • Record temperatures for June expected in N.Z. today and tomorrow.

    Yesterday, Radio NZ devoted just eight minutes to a discussion of methane. It was clear that the host,one of this country’s leading broadcasters knew little of the subject.
    I sent an angry text. It’s all so damned depressing.

  • Soothe a troubled mind with Chet Baker and Bill Evans. This is a classic

  • 44 south.

    I used to believe in Radio NZ but then recognised RNZ is just another agency of ‘the empire’, and as such has the prime agendas of promoting business-as-usual and of keeping the masses uninformed/misinformed and complacent. And like most organisations, it is populated by know-nothings who use manipulation and censorship to promote the agendas of empire.

    Even though it is supposedly non-commercial, can you imagine Radio NZ starting each day with an atmospheric chemistry report highlighting the utterly disastrous trajectory commercial activity has put us on, and reminding listeners on the hour every hour that our current living arrangements are unsustainable and are doomed to collapse in the not-too-distant future?

    I used to get angry about RNZ reporting but don’t anymore because I stopped listening to the business-as-usual crap churned out by RNZ about 10 years ago…..after I personally discovered the extent of the manipulation and lies.

    Guy managed to get a foot in the door, once, in 2012. I’d be quite surprised (shocked) if it ever happened again, especially now that we have a government which has become overtly fascistic and is actively promoting ever-faster environmental destruction.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the disastrous dominant set of living arrangements continues to push atmospheric chemistry in the opposite direction to that necessary to prevent even faster overheating:

    Daily CO2

    June 19, 2016: 406.94 ppm

    June 19, 2015: 401.67 ppm

    Up 5.27 ppm.

  • I have just finished reading Susan Johnson’s 2008 book Hold Me Tight, Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love for the fourth time in about the past one and one-half years. (Based on attachment theory, Susan Johnson developed emotion-focused therapy for couples, proven about 75% effective with a low relapse rate in a number of clinical outcome studies. Below, I have copied seven paragraphs from the last chapter. This relationship attachment focus makes much more sense to me as a way to live my last few days than living them in anger and rage. “For most of us, on our deathbeds, it is the quality of our connection with our precious ones that will matter most.”:

    “Learning how to nurture the bonds of love is an urgent task. Loving connection provides the dependable web of intimacy that allows us to cope with life and to live life well. And that is what gives our life meaning. For most of us, on our deathbeds, it is the quality of our connection with our precious ones that will matter most.

    Instinctively, we know that those who grasp the imperatives of attachment live better lives. Yet our culture encourages us to compete rather than connect. Even though we are programmed by millions of years of evolution to relentlessly seek out belonging and intimate connection, we persist in defining healthy people as those who do not need others. This is especially dangerous at a time when our sense of community is daily being eroded by an endless preoccupation with getting more done in less time and filling our lives with more and more goods.

    We are building a culture of separateness that is at odds with our biology. We know, as Thomas Lewis and his colleagues state so well in their book A General Theory of Love [short, excellent, easy read!], that if we ‘feed and clothe a human infant but deprive him of emotional contact he will die.’ But we have been taught to believe that adults are a different animal. How ever did we get here?

    Psychiatrist Jonathan Shay in his book on the trauma of combat, Odysseus in America, reminds us that there are ‘two momentous human universals’: that we are all born helpless and dependent, and that we are all mortal and we know it. The only healthy way to deal with this vulnerability is to reach out and hold each other. Then, calmed and strengthened, we can walk out into the world.

    The attachment perspective recognizes that our need for emotional connection with others is absolute. Thousands of studies in developmental psychology with mother and child, research on adult bonding, and the investigations of modern neuroscience confirm that when we are in close relationships, we are truly interdependent. We are not like separate little planets revolving around each other.

    This healthy dependence is the essence of romantic love. The bodies of lovers are linked in a ‘neural duet’. One person sends out signals that alter the hormone levels, cardiovascular function, body rhythms, and even immune system of the other. In loving connection, the cuddle hormone oxytocin floods lovers’ bodies, bringing a calm joy and the sense that everything is right with the world. Our bodies are set up for this kind of connection. Even our identity is a kind of duet with those closest to us.

    The quality of the love we receive puts us on a certain track. Assess how safely connected to Mom one-year-olds are when put in the Strange Situation [research room], and you can predict how socially competent these children will be in elementary school and how close their friendships will be in adolescence, according to Jeff Simpson of the University of Minnesota. A secure connection to Mom and the closeness of these early friendships also forecast the quality of these individuals’ love relationships at age twenty-five. We are our relationship history.”

  • Milendia,

    Much of what you wrote about in your comments resonates well. Shakhova never has been ready to endorse the notion that methane represented an end-of-life scenario for the entire human species, although she did mention that her analysis of methane emissions did not look good.

    As far as many of the doom-and-gloom proponents on this site whose only outlook is apocalyptic, there are others whose views of a terminal event for the human species as the result of climate changes are not set in concrete. No matter who predicts an NTHE happen to be, the reality of its possibility may be far from a done deal. But if the personal experience of having seen how change is difficult for our species when it comes to doing something to save our hides, the prognosis for effective changes that would be of benefit for us regarding greenhouse gas emissions, even if that were possible, are pretty thin.

    I well remember Helen Caldicott having organized hundreds of marches against the existence of nuclear weapons in the eighties, and even one march in which there were over one million participants, but which resulted in absolutely no changes whatsoever in the nuclear weaponry of humankind. We are much more aware of the probable consequences of a nuclear war than we are about the effects of climate changes, and yet that knowledge did not move our doomsday clock scenario one iota in terms of doing something about it. In fact, I would be surprised if for example anyone in your city, other than those who work in the nuclear weapons industry, would even have mentioned nuclear war to anyone in the past year, other than that which may have been reported in the media.

    We are like frogs in a pot in which the water is coming to a boil, but since we have been inured to the reality that nuclear weapons are here to stay, no one even brings it up in fer of being ridiculed. And so the chances that we will do something significant in terms of solving climate changes, especially by those in political milieus, are between slim and none.

    I too lived in Montreal for many years and the humidity can be stifling. The Lachine Rapids that saturate the air, combined with hot and humid air masses result in extreme humidity factors, and there is no place to get away from it. I went back for a visit a few years ago and the downpours (twice) which came across the city at one point within just a few days were something I had never experienced in the 35 years I lived in the city. If those events were the result of climate changes…. not good!

  • I enjoyed the video but who was screaming in the background? It was very hard to concentrate on Guy.

  • Immediate Dismantling (Early Site Release/DECON in the US): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Final dismantling or decontamination activities begin within a few months or years, and depending on the facility, it could take five years or less to cooling ponds then cask & containment per The CRYSTAL RIVER fast-track example now in process.

    TOM JAMES – Thanks for asking. I have always greatly admired every aspect of GUY McPherson’s work & personal advice, therefore I sailed away from Empire to return to doing volunteer ranger work at a small nature park on the beach of Nicoya Costa Rica.

    By helping the JASON group as a field researcher, they are providing some much needed funding to keep bulldozers from turning this beach park into a Marriott golf resort. Personally I’m still very interested in seeing a first phase of nuclear plant decommissioning because phase one shut down & containment is technically a bit better form of containment rather than full out radioactive explosions and catastrophic core meltdowns….LWA much appreciation to you, as always, but the extent of our research and task is only to find ways to reduce the initial meltdowns. LWA, you know me on a more personal basis, so you know I’m only trying to ask this question on behalf of my more restricted professional connection to a JASON group member.

    Personally it is sad and true that there is nothing much more we can do to contain the radiation beyond giving it a 5 to 10 years cooling head start. Any advance amount of shut downs & cooling is still biologically better FOR THE FUTURE of OTHER SPECIES than over 400 completely uncontained meltdowns.

    MIKE D. – You are correct WHEN not “If”. In the near future the Pentagon is preparing for abrupt climate change as a highly probable impending impact event that will increase all aspects of warfare.
    http://www.nuclearEnergyInsider.com Global DECON plans this Oct 3 2016

    http://www.NEI.org we are only seeking a fast-track solution for reactors in the 0.1% chance of BIOSHIELD – Contagion Action Plan release reducing half of the global population.

    SHALLEL – I love the space elevator idea. Obviously I’m just the basic plastic litter trash man down here, nearly off the grid, but that is the best use for non-rocket waste into space which is already full of satellite junk. Everything under the sun shining appreciation on you.

    LIDIA – The Entomb option is going to be used very soon in Puerto Rico. (I was just reading the approval on NRC) Graphite & gunnite mixed into the cement shield. Maybe that will give the fungi & Applied Molecular Evolution GMO tardigrades a chance to thrive once the compound cracks and lower levels of the radiation are released. MO Flow is one of my favorites in cyber space, so maybe he will eventually blue beam it into the mind of this radiation wary ranger that we were supposed to refine all these radioactive materials for some future “wheeties” I simply refuse to accept at the risk of the rads eating the atmosphere first.

    No place on the entire internet like NBL. LOVE reading everyone for as long as the Jason Society or who ever other allows us to remain.

  • Kevin, you may well be right re RNZ to which I have been tuned for the past 40 plus years; but prior to my becoming internet able they did inform me on climate change and associated topics, usually via recycled BBC items but also interviews with Lovelock, Kunstler and finally Guy.

    I have txt and emailed angry missives so often I suspect I am now on a “don’t read” list.
    Being an early riser I often hear climate related news that I never hear again in more civilised hours. It’s bloody annoying to say the least, so I can understand your position.
    Not sure how much longer I can tolerate any involvement with anything other than what I do here.

  • “I realized that the universe is effectively benign; it may kill you but it will teach you something in the process. . . .”

    Which offers no reassurance at all unless there is some sort of continuity. But the pronouns can get tricky.

  • @ Mark Austin

    RE: Spent nuclear fuel rods

    I’m sure there are at least several technical reasons why this idea wouldn’t work.

    Instead of utilizing the Sun’s gravity, maybe we could use the Earth’s? How about encasing pieces of fuel rod in heat resistant metal and lowering them into a magma chamber? The high mass of the uranium would cause the cases to sink down through the magma possibly.

  • 44 south.

    To be specific, when living in Auckland I contacted David Steamson, who had a weekly ‘Auckland Issues’ slot, and pointed out that with Peak Oil imminent, Auckland needed to stop sub-dividing land for yet more high-density housing and instead needed to prepare for a time in the near future when oil would be expensive or unavailable. That was Part 1. Part 2 involved a visit to the Ranui ‘sustainable village’, a tiny patch of ‘community living’ in an ocean of suburbia. I pointed out Ranui was not sustainable, but that as the end of the matter as far as RNZ was concerned. Problem dealt with. Move on. When I visited the Auckkand Office ‘everyone’ ran for cover.

    Wayne Moat (afternoons) did not want to know when I pointed out to him that tourism was unsustainable and led to inordinateky high CO2 emissions.

    I contacted Chris Laidlaw (Sunday show) in the early 2000s amd pointed out his agenda of consumption, tourism, corporatized sport etc. was unsustainable and anti-environmental: he didnlt want to know, of course. And in 2006 he did a slot on ‘NZ’s energy future’, in which he spent the best part of 2 hours chatting with carefully selected guests without ever mentioning Peak Oil. That was about the end of the line for me as far as RNZ was concerned.

    Of course Kim Hill did not want to know when I subsequently contacted her about the true nature of the economic system and where it was leading…….”Shut up.” “Go away.”

    I understand Robin Westenra had the same response when he contacted RNZ with respect to Guy’s most recent visit to NZ.

    Thus we see how a few individuals were able to control the narrative of an entire nation -well almost.

    And now all the chickens are coming home to roost -a collasping economy AND a collapsing environment.

    By the way, I’m 39 south.

  • .
    SCIENCE
    WHY NOT JUST DISPOSE OF NUCLEAR WASTE IN THE SUN?

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/why-not-just-dispose-nuclear-waste-sun

    ———————————

    CAN WE DISPOSE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN VOLCANOES?

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/can-we-dispose-radioactive-waste-volcanoes

  • Okay, I can’t stand it anymore. Why do people, such as Paul Beckwith especially, say something to the effect that…. oh, well, climate change, may cause this and that, the nuclear plants may melt down and spew some stuff, but Hey, all is not lost, at least we won’t be going extinct folks…. Gee, don’t be such so sad….
    I say, since WHEN… is it NOT A TERRIBLE THING….. that millions or billions of people will DIE…. when all this goes down…. AND WHO ARE ALREDY DYING DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE…. How is not a bad thing.. .and a horrific thing… that some people will have to watch their children STARVE TO DEATH BEFORE THEIR EYES….. oh, but hey don’t worry we won’t go extinct folks… so cheer up… oh, it will be bad.. gee… but hallelujah… we won’t go extinct…

    I have heard and see and read this type of nonsense be fore… well, I don’t give a crap about the hair splitting… whether we just loose a few billion people or if we go extinct…. I THINK IT ALL SUCKS…
    so PAUL.. AND ALL YOU OTHER SUGAR COATERS… stop trying to make everything rainbows and puppies with your… .”oh, we aren’t going extinct folks, so be happy… I’m am p*ssed at this bull. People are going to be suffering… even him. We all will, whether we go extinct or not.


  • @Wanda Harding

    ” People are going to be suffering… even him. We all will, whether we go extinct or not.”

    Uhm, I learned, that there is no life without suffering at all. Birth is suffering, the first teeth cause suffering, dying causes suffering. So, to me, it’s not just about “going to be suffering”, but suffering has always been part of my life as it is part of millions, if not billions of people’s life. Life = Suffering (and some joy too, if you are lucky). Btw:

    IF the materialst, rationalist modern scientists are right and there is no- thing (don’t know what that is at all) after death, well, then suffering completely ends with death 🙂 … if they are right 😎

  • Hear! Hear! Wanda, that’s always been an irritation of mine as well, those accepting that we are all SOL so they admit maybe 99% of humans die BUT ( contained in this but is “it won’t be me” of course) we are clever and will adapt (never mind current CO2 levels persisting for at least the next 1000 years, never mind the worst mass extinction event requiring 30 million years for complete ecosystem recovery). Suppose it took an order of magnitude less time for recovery to occur post this 6th mass extinction, that would still be on par with the entire run of our genus (let alone our species).

    Oh well, I am sure Paul is clever enough to devise a scheme to keep those nuclear subs up and running for 100,000 human generations…..

    So on the note of the science finally catching up to the reality far too little/too late:

    “Current warming will reduce yields unless maize breeding and seed systems adapt immediately”

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3061.html

    From the abstract:

    “The development of crop varieties that are better suited to new climatic conditions is vital for future food production1, 2. Increases in mean temperature accelerate crop development, resulting in shorter crop durations and reduced time to accumulate biomass and yield3, 4. The process of breeding, delivery and adoption (BDA) of new maize varieties can take up to 30 years”

    Oops.

  • You know, there’s an awful lot of nuclear waste, and putting anything in space takes tremendous resources. Just saying–

    Best Wishes

  • MARK AUSTIN – great that you are back, you add ALOT to the discussion.

    Would you tell us the likeliest scenarios you see unfolding (that you able to tell) along the nuclear waste/war, bio-terror and natural disaster NTE timeline.

    What keeps the President/Pentagon up at night?

    Thanks!

  • .
    The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories

    http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

    To qualify for the list, a large number of scientists at any given time must have subscribed to the particular theory before it was eventually discarded.

    ————————————–

    Here’s another of Paul Beckwith’s videos – Climate System in a Nutshell – which describes an incredibly complex system that we are just beginning to understand.

    It’s not difficult to see the direction we are headed – *abrupt climate change* is here now and we can see some folks catching hell already. But to believe we can predict the final destination – where we will arrive and when, may be an effort in futility — another theory on the list.

    Or not. YMMV.

  • Looks like 2016 just kept the record by a bit … it is turning away from the 2012 record now, trying to continue its heretofore record year (NSIDC).

  • Daily CO2

    June 20, 2016: 406.82 ppm

    June 20, 2015: 402.27 ppm

    Up 4.55 ppm.

    …………………………………………………………

    Japan confirms Artic sea ice cover is marginally below that of 2012, and is declining at a similar rate.

    http://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html

    …………………………………………………………

    Such a lot is going to happen ‘by 2030’.

    ‘The European commission is currently assessing its options for regulating car emissions. These are due to deliver a large chunk of the bloc’s overall 40% emissions cut by 2030, as pledged at last year’s Paris conference.’

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/21/cars-buck-downward-trend-of-eu-carbon-emissions

    …………………………………………………….

    Of course phony environmentalism is ultimately all about money. And jobs.

    ‘Coral reefs are a key attraction for tourists to the Maldives, where visitors are one of the key drivers of the local economy. The government is sensitive about the impacts of global warming on the islands’ reefs, fearing that people will stop coming if the reefs are in danger.

    Ibrahim said the government and the private sector were conducting research into reef health, with a view to helping the reefs recover from their bleaching. But the future survival of the reefs would be dependent on the world keeping to the limits on carbon agreed in Paris.

    “It is important that we keep anthropogenic impacts to a minimum at the critical time of recovery,” he said. “We intend to widen the scope of environmental impact assessments of developments on reefs so that project activities that impact corals and coral reef habitats will be minimised.”

    On the other hand:

    ‘Coral bleaching event now biggest in history – and about to get worse’

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/21/coral-bleaching-event-now-biggest-in-history-and-about-to-get-worse

  • Having been personally fixated on climate science for nearly thirty years, I would argue that Shakhova et al., is almost solely responsible for putting the ‘Near’ in Near Term Extinction. Without their field research from 2008-2010, I suspect the concept of NTE would not exist to the extent it does today. Yes, there is plenty of available evidence showing that abrupt climate change is very much in effect, and “inferring” that NTE could be……..well, near.

    Again, this is something many people around the world have been watching approach for decades, where each passing year has brought us ever closer to the tipping point(s) we are now witnessing.

    However, it wasn’t until after Shakhova et al., released their paradigm shifting research showing the exponential rate of change in methane hydrate release from small trickles to 3m wide plumes to kilometer wide plumes within a span of only three years, did many within the climate community start to accept that we were well past the point of no return, and the notion of NTE was more or less cemented, whereby, Malcolm Light and Guy McPherson becoming two of the primary proponents of this theory as a direct result of Shakhova’s research.

    Virtually no one had either her field research credentials or decades of experience, especially within the ESAS. There was almost no one with the credibility to counter their research at the time, other than a few climate modelers (Archer and the like). Therefore, her research was considered highly credible, credible enough in fact, to consider it sine qua non for our understanding of our current climate situation. With the discovery and release of their data, virtually forty years of climate research and theory was practically obliterated overnight in the minds of many, including myself. The impact of their research can’t be overstated enough for those who had been following the data up to that point. Many of us abruptly realized that not only had the entire climate community failed in accurately assessing the rate of change, but with the release of their research, it dawned on us that we were way beyond even the worst of the proceeding worst case scenarios. I can think of no other direct research/evidence that has so convincingly created and supported the theory of NTE than Shakhova et al.

    Yet on NBL, which is the only blog dedicated to the subject of NTE, nary a word has been written about the supposed renunciation of Shakhova’s earlier claims concerning the imminent release of 50 gt of methane, other than one small paragraph from the proprietor of this site?

    As well, the 2014 field research from the International research expedition SWEUS-C3 that found no exponential methane degassing from some of the very same areas Shakhova had studied four years prior. If Shakhova’s implications were true, shouldn’t that expedition have discovered even higher levels of methane in both the water column and surrounding atmosphere.

    Why yes they should have discovered that, but they didn’t. Not only is Shakhova’s research being questioned by many climatologists, but now, by one of the most recent and thorough arctic research expeditions in the very same area. And now Shakhova herself is claiming that she never made statements about the imminence of 50 gt of methane, which she clearly did.

    How is this not THE MAJOR STORY on this site?

    While the threat of NTE is very real, it is becoming increasingly self-evident that we human’s simply haven’t the capacity to accurately predict such large scale phenomena, especially when such predictions infer all of humanity will be dead in less than fourteen years.

  • JIMBOT, I just copied and sent your good idea. I added a request to see if there was a way for the Navy to connect nuclear disposal canisters to the project in progress attempting to drill into the magma mantel of the Earth.

    TOM JAMES – Good question. I’ll see if I can copy and post some specific concerns from a Rand report for the CIA. The only thing keeping me up is a nice full moon, beach park volunteers try to keep human predators from disturbing the sea turtles laying eggs.

    Dr. Ralf Guldner of the German Atomic Forum called for faster selection of waste repository sites as Germany is on track for total decommissioning.

    Due to expected events connected to climate change, the UK is also planning total decommissioning by 2022 depending on Brexit results this week.

    PLEASE remember, many events like 911 were planned and attempted with the first garage bombings. Most warfare is extensively planned and calculated even if some of the operations are never used.

    Many thanks to GUY and everyone on NBL

  • Daniel and others fixated on Shakhova’s work,

    Had you been paying the slightest attention, you’d have noticed that my recent presentations focus on moistening of the upper troposphere. Equilibrium between global-average temperature and moistening of the upper troposphere is complete within a few weeks.

    “Other feedbacks” are added into the equation, but there are many of them. Firing the clathrate gun is unnecessary to ensure loss of habitat for humans on Earth long before 2030.

    But, of course, most people here pay attention only to themselves and irrelevant distractions, not to the rapidly accumulating evidence.

  • A couple of hours ago it hit 103 degrees F where I live (in Colorado). The previous record high for this date was set in 2007. It was 93 F.

    This is really happening, huh?

  • Besides, I think most here would figure Shakhova got the 2:00am phone call (just like here in the US) and softened her story in the interest of her career.

    Really, I doubt NBL needed that particular datum, among all the others.

  • Guy, I think you should clarify your most recent statements on this blog, especially exactly what you mean by:

    ‘Firing the clathrate gun is unnecessary to ensure loss of habitat for humans long before 2030.’

    Are you suggesting there will be no habitat for humans in what is currently known as the southwest of the USA long before 2030, or are you suggesting there will be no habitat for humans anywhere on Earth long before 2030?

    Also, the wording ‘long before 2030’ implies many years before 2030, i.e. loss of habitat by 2025 or even before then.

    For what it’s worth, atmospheric methane has been creeping up but in the last year or so the rate of increase has increased, according to this:.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#/media/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

  • kevin moore, apparently this statement isn’t sufficiently clear: “Equilibrium between global-average temperature and moistening of the upper troposphere is complete within a few weeks.” Not years. Not decades. Weeks. The great acceleration is locked in.

    I’ve revised my comment to indicate loss of habitat for humans on Earth. Here’s the story, as written in a paragraph at the top of my long essay:

    The Great Dying wiped out at least 90% of the species on Earth due to an abrupt rise in global-average temperature about 252 million years ago. The vast majority of complex life became extinct. Based on information from the most conservative sources available, Earth is headed for a similar global-average temperature in the very near future. The recent and near-future rises in temperature are occurring and will occur at least three orders of magnitude faster than the worst of all prior Mass Extinctions. Habitat for human animals is disappearing throughout the world, and abrupt climate change has barely begun. In the near future, habitat for Homo sapiens will be gone. Shortly thereafter, all humans will die.

  • I would disagree that Shakhova has such responsibility for shaping perceptions regarding the methane. For one thing, there was a lot of research by 2008 on methane in the Arctic, and numerous climate scientists calling out an alarm.

    “In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[14] identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one of the most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The US Climate Change Science Program released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of the risk of clathrate destabilization, alongside three other credible abrupt climate change scenarios.[15]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

    So, I have difficulty understanding how Shakhova’s research from 2008 to 2010 had such an impact. And I distinctly recall that methane plumes went from approximately half a meter to a meter across in one year, to a kilometer across the next year. The following year the Arctic Ocean looked like champagne. It was an enormous change that caught many, many people’s attention, and kept their attention, too.

    I would disagree with most of the value judgments made by Daniel to support his criticism of Dr. McPherson. Nor do I see that there is some kind of responsibility on Dr. McPherson’s part to reconcile Dr. Shakhova’s retraction with what everyone else understands or is presumed to understand. I think he has done exactly as he should with such information; he includes the retraction where and when appropriate in his own work that cites Dr. Shakhova. If there is some greater obligation, I don’t see it. ”

    For example, this: “If Shakhova’s implications were true, shouldn’t that expedition have discovered even higher levels of methane in both the water column and surrounding atmosphere.”

    I don’t understand why Dr. McPherson should be obligated to explain Arctic methane research at the level demanded. If findings are valid, he incorporates them into his work. If they aren’t, he retracts based on the latest information. I don’t see that he’s responsible for more.

  • Nemisis,

    Uhmmm… there is a difference between “suffering” from something completely natural, such as teething… and something that is the result of someone’s… greed and power mongering. Now, something I have been processing is, whether or not, our species was actually truly capable of not allowing our psychological short falls, to be our down fall. Is it, or was it, part of our DNA… to become a power mongering, power worshipping, greedy species. Well, I know someone on another thread who would wholly disagree with that… I am not sure. This is something I am wondering about. I actually do not think so. I want to “believe” that we have/had it in us to be something different and that just SOME of us were so bad it brought us all to this point and probably farther down the line…. to extinction.
    I take it you consider all this ….experience just part of the grand picture. That we were not suppose to be better than those who loved money and power so much, regardless of better advice/ knowledge being presented to them, that they were willing to just bully their way forward with the will to get what ever they wanted.
    I am at a place a bit different from a few years ago. I have been extremely angry about it all…. still am, but in a different way. It’s a process, for me anyway. I am seeking some kind of Peace.
    So, as for suffering, I do think that there are always or mostly, CHOICES…. in those instances that are completely natural occurrences. Again, you must consider the situation that has developed with fossil fuel use, as a natural occurrence that no one could have done any thing about. Otherwise, I don’t see how you can compare it with a natural occurrence and say, “oh, well, so some little 4 year old is starving or died from dirty water.” ….
    AND, IT IS NOT THAT THE LITTLE FOUR YEAR OLD IS GOING THROUGHT THAT, BUT THAT THE HABITAT THAT SHE AND HER FAMILY RELIED UPON… WILL NOT COME BACK FOR ANY HUMANS TO USE IN ANY NEAR FUTURE. NOT IN OUR OR ANY GENERATION ANY TIME SOON. That’s the point. The choices made, were choices that create a consequence that can and will end much of life on Earth. It will end much of the planet that was here and was able to sustain life. Soon, it won’t be able to. Not much anyway, it any at all.

  • Someone quoted Frank Herbert(Dune trilogy) recently. Another interesting quote from that read:

    “It’s not that power corrupts, rather that it’s so magnetic to the corruptible.”

  • I planted garlic this morning.
    I laid out sixty odd of last years best cloves in a grid pattern, and pressed them into soft damp soil with my thumb.
    I couldn’t even attempt this last year, the ground being semi frozen after a big dump of June snow.
    By the time I stopped for a coffee at ten thirty, you would swear it was a spring day in late September.
    By midday I was down to a t shirt and sweating.
    God knows how long we’ve got,but I will be planting garlic every year until I can’t.

  • Mark Austin

    Thanks for your kind reply.

    About two years ago on here RE proposed an idea which got shot down, which involved burying the rods at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. His idea involved a type of torpedo-like casing designed to develop a high rate of spin as it descended through the water column. I suppose it would have a spiral drill type nose cone ( a la Jules Verne haha ) in order to drill into the mud using the accumulated angular momentum.

    He was roundly pooh-poohed for the idea, since it could potentially pollute the all oceans for eternity, but as an emergency scenario to buy time ( maybe a few thousand years ) it might actually have some merit. His idea was the casings could be made to be very long lasting and would eventually be subducted under the overlying tectonic plate.

  • Jimbot,

    Really????? Oh, let’s poke the giant and see what happens…. Isn’t that what we have already done?…

  • Wanda Harding,

    As I see it, the key to making RE’s suggestion worth considering is how long lasting the casings could be realistically designed for ( within a doable budget ). If they lasted for hundreds of thousands of years, then most species would have time to evolve resistance to higher radiation levels ( or not ). Also they might begin to become part of the substrata beginning sedimentary rock formation. Of course it would be an entirely hypothetical experiment for our species.

    David Icke’s take on the situation is that we’re terra-forming the planet for the reptilian multi-dimensional aliens, who prefer a higher background radiation level.

  • Guy

    It should be noted: “The only thing that stops a bad clathrate gun is a good clathrate gun.” (look into that)
    also
    I have thought for quite awhile now that if I know this stuff, “they” surely do. You have said as much yourself. These days I have come to realize “they” cannot and will-not allow “themselves” to know what I accept.
    I kept thinking, “What am I missing?”
    Hell, many of the “they” I refer to are a lot smarter than I.
    “There lies the rub!”
    “They” are able to do mental gymnastics that I cannot.

  • I suppose that’s one of the benefits of sustaining a blog supported by a constant stream of newcomers, few remember or even know the sequence of events that preceded their awareness.

    If you are unaware of the impact Shakhova’s research had on the “climate community”, then you probably weren’t paying close attention to the science prior to 2008, especially given Lovelock’s infamous book—the first on the subject of near climate related extinction—had just come out a year earlier. Given that the majority of Guy’s presentation is presenting others research, I’m not aware of any other field research more germane to the subject of NTE over the last eight years than Shakhova’s.

    There are specific moments in time that act as a catalyst in triggering a sequence of events. It is difficult to look back unaware of the timing of those specific moments and understand what exactly lead us to our current understanding. Suffice to say, Shakhova’s research was an absolute mind bomb when it came out.

  • mod note

    Wanda ~ reminder on the two post rule. thanks!

    ~ mo

  • full moon solstice segues to summer – love to all:

  • A short quote from the documentary movie, “Deep Water” about Donald Crowhurst’s fatal attempt to sail non-stop solo around the world in 1968. It applies to MUCH human thinking, valuing, and reasoning today, and of course it applies throughout our history as a species as well:

    “…and reality started to set in. And the reality wasn’t quite as perfect as the idea. This is why ideas are dangerous.”

    Ah, but we so love to confuse the symbols that we construct inside our heads, our ideas, with the realities that exist outside. We often fervently invoke and believe in magic: the idea that the language and the other symbols that we feel so proud of constructing inside our heads—and that we so often find so useful, especially in denying death (for example, “My soul, my consciousness, my spirit will live forever”)—necessarily correspond with the reality outside, which they only symbolize. “I deeply, sincerely believe it, so it must be true.” We usually believe what makes us feel good right now, and of course a huge percentage of humans does exactly that. I felt shocked to read this concerning Americans a few years ago:

    “In a 2007 survey of more than thirty-five thousand Americans conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 92 percent reported belief in the existence of God. Two thirds viewed their faith’s sacred texts as the word of God; 74 percent believe in heaven and an afterlife. More than two thirds (68 percent) believe that angels and demons are active in the world, and 79 percent believe that miracles still occur today as [they presumably did] in ancient times.”

    The archaeological research at Göbekli Tepe and Ḉatalhöyük in Turkey suggests that this human propensity for dualist thinking (the idea that non-physical “realities”, forces, or entities supposedly exist in the universe), so popular throughout our history as a species, and remaining massively popular today, appears to have led directly to early hunter-gatherers gathering in large numbers, subsequently inventing agriculture in order to provide the concentrated food needed by such large gatherings, and the development of Earth-killing civilizations. (See The Worm at the Core, On the Role of Death in Life by Soloman, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski.) As Ian Morris describes so well in his wonderful book Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels, How HumanValues Evolve, agriculture thus provided a huge energy availability boost, from 4,000 to 8,000 kcal/person/day for foragers to about 35,000 for agriculturists, thus allowing for the much more rapid development of early technologies. Over about 10,000 years this much greater energy availability provided by agriculture led eventually to the use of fossil and nuclear fuels and our present (very short-term!) energy use of about 230,000 kcal/person/day—and “…the reality is not quite as perfect as the idea. This is why ideas are dangerous.”

    So, it seems certain that agriculture allowed the development of Earth-killing civilizations, and that access to fossil fuels turbocharged the civilizational processes. But what led to the development of agriculture? Very likely dualist thinking with its powerful effects on our individual and group decision-making, especially related to our terror of death, which prompted a number of groups of early humans around the planet to gather in larger than semi-nomadic, family groups. As popular as the idea remains, and as much as it subjectively seems to us to happen, it remains most likely that no such thing as “free will” exists. Our thoughts, our beliefs, tend strongly to “flow” in ways that give us as much relief as possible as quickly as possible that have immediate, calming effects on our many fears and anxieties. (We know this relief effect technically as “negative reinforcement”. Negative reinforcement does NOT mean punishment as so many people believe and mistakenly use the term!) This neurologically hard-wired principle of immediate emotional relief that occurs as a result of certain thoughts—an important form of self-gratification—-may, while importantly adaptive in many situations, serve ultimately as our most fundamentally important weakness as a species.

  • Dear TOM JAMES – All night trying to protect turtles, and thinking of how it’s my nature to want to give you everything. I’m just like a sea creature trying to survive on this shifting shore. Per your request my heart of the sea wants to pour out the entire NSA data base. Just like I gave my real social security number and who my father really is (defense spending) to Mo upon his request. Mo knows everything only because I’m literally a mutate human born from Nevada Test Site side effects in 1962. I don’t always understand human secrets & boundaries. My nature is to flood you with a tsunami of info from the Pentagon and presidents.

    Tonight I am the great dying. I was nobody when I passed thru Guy’s class at UofA . The invisible man GUY was not meant to remember. Tonight I die here on this Costa Rica beach, where like a sea turtle, I returned. GUY will never have enough evidence of any of us because we are only passing students or unread comment in the grains of sands of Guy’s NBL hours glass.

    Before I sailed from D.C. (then Florida) Carolyn came to visit me. She checked all my ID’s & took photos then she drove to visit Guy at the mud hut. Guy is a very kind person who warmed his guest trailer for her that cold March. Yet, in a car ride with other people Guy dismissed her I-phone evidence of me, because I am a nobody. A photon. An invisible wave compared to GUY’s bright stardom at UofA long ago. Happily, I’m very used to being a nobody. A Forest Gump. unobtrusively, I once worked for Spielberg and later Obama. To the great stars & professors our physical lives do not exist. But just like an old sea turtle we swim and experience life and cry salty tears. Cry for joy for being here. Only one night like this one for us species who shared it together. In the circle of life, we co-exist.

    Of course it is impossible for the evidence of our lives to matter to the Greek gods, to the political stars. Yet once upon a time Obama was just a boy on the poor side of pearl harbor. He still has fears & deep cares that haunt him late at night.

    Possibly in the ultimate truth, stars like GUY and my father and Mc Cain and “Titanic” James Cameron will come full circle to realize people like myself and Carolyn were recording them. Carolyn drove back to Florida to tell me all about her time with GUY. All of GUY”S actions mattered to her & I. In great cities like Dubai and New Delhi we have lost all contact with seeing the rare summer solstice full moon. But the last of us out here on the edge of extinction are so thrilled to simply be alive. We will vanish in the comments of men like GUY who can’t remember us to begin with. The stars, The dark matters. The tiny electrons that composed this passing movement in the moonlight. The truly free radicals. The ones who compose the energy feeding the cold fish & silent stars.

  • Watched the video, read the comments.

    First impression.

    I can almost hear Guy think that every time a bell rings, a demon gets its wings.

    The circle of chairs reminds me of an AA meeting.

    The discussions reminds me of a Business As Usual Anonymous.

    Second impression.

    Peter Wadhams says that feedbacks now outweigh emissions 3 to 1, that for every carbon atom emitted results in 3 atoms of carbon feedback emissions. This alone renders the methane bomb moot. It’s like trying to figure out which drink rendered you unconscious after binge drinking all night.

    Important questions I would like answered.

    I haven’t read the ridiculously resilient long essay in a very long time, I cannot seem to locate it on your page. Please help.

    Please explain the tropospheric moisture-temperature correlation and its significance in plain English so that us six-pack guys can understand.

  • Mark Austin,

    Thank you for what you do and what you share – there are many on NBL who realize and appreciate the depths of your insights. Your posts are unique

    As I drink my coffee I wonder …

    How long will this experiment last?

    7.4 billion heat generating humans – most who want more, faster, now


  • @Wanda Harding

    ” I don’t see how you can compare it with a natural occurrence and say, “oh, well, so some little 4 year old is starving or died from dirty water.” ….”

    Aha^^… and now please tell me, where and when exactly I said that :-)… see, I just can’t remember comparing a natural occurence with “some little 4 year old child starving or died from dirty water”… I actually never did.

    ” So, as for suffering, I do think that there are always or mostly, CHOICES…”

    Ok, I second that, but it’s contrary to Doctor Guy McPherson’s statement, that human beings don’t have any free wll, right? No free will = no choice.

    After all, I just wanted to say that while some at NBL are desperately waiting for suffering and human extinction sometime in the future, others experience suffering and death NOW already, not in 2030.

  • i ran into a friend, have not seen for a while today,he told me he had been in hospital recovering from strain of leukemia”the doctor told me if it had been one more day it would have been too late”…”I cherish every day now,its wonderful, it is like i have been reborn.I can tell you i was not thinking of my bank account,i was only focused on my loved ones”… we stood and talked and laughed,and talked and laughed, for over an hour without knowing time,as the traffic rooooared past, in such a rush to get to the red traffic lights.

  • I’ve posted the next piece of video from this venue. It’s here.

  • I second R.C’s question:
    “Please explain the tropospheric moisture-temperature correlation and its significance in plain English so that us six-pack guys can understand.”

  • As Earth warms, more water evaporates. Warm air holds more moisture than cool air. On this planet, most of the water vapor is found at 8,000 to 13,000 meters above the surface. This water vapor traps heat. As the heat is trapped, more water evaporates. As more water evaporates and becomes water vapor, more heat is trapped.

    It’s a classic self-reinforcing feedback loop. It’s fast, too, as I’ve indicated. The Guardian explains here.

  • @ Robert Callahan
    Any gas containing three or more atoms traps infrared radiation and prevents it from going out into space. Since H2O has three atoms, it is a “greenhouse gas.”
    Warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, so any temperature increase in the atmosphere will cause more water vapor to be in the mix, trapping more infrared radiation (have you ever been near a fire and said “the fire isn’t that bright, but it sure is hot,” that heat is infrared).
    They say that for each 1 degree rise in atmospheric temperature caused by CO2 and other non-water vapor greenhouse gases, increased water vapor in the air will contribute another degree of warming.
    Troposphere:the lowest region of the atmosphere, extending from the earth’s surface to a height of about 3.7–6.2 miles (6–10 km), which is the lower boundary of the stratosphere.
    I hope this helps

    Best Wishes

  • @ Guy
    Sorry if I was stepping on your toes. I didn’t know . . .

    Best Wishes

  • izzy ~

    pronoun trouble? just remember the rule: “I before we, except after she.”

    and then this one is handy, too:

    This Is It

    This is It
    and I am It
    and You are It
    and so is That
    and He is It
    and She is It
    and It is It
    and That is That
    O it is This
    and it is Thus
    and it is Them
    and it is Us
    and it is Now
    and Here It is
    and Here We are
    so This is It

    ~

    another from James Broughton, for Mark:

    Dance of the Godbody

    I saw the Rhythm of the World rise out of the sea
    I saw the waves roll back the sands overturn
    the breathing of the tides become a swimmer dancing
    I saw the Godbody come ashore at the western sea

    I had gone to the ocean in despair of the earth
    despairing of the men who rule and set the rules
    men afraid to trust afraid to caress
    but quick to abuse condemn and slaughter

    Then I saw the Swimming Dancer hurdle up the beach
    rippling the world in the wind of his motion
    The cliff the tree the cloud the mountain
    everything pulsed with the flow of his running

    As I ran to catch up with him
    I bumped headon into a giggling multitude
    clods drones stumbling generations
    all humanity fidgeting blindly in his train

    On your toes! he cried Keep in step with the cosmos!
    You are all performers in the ballet of everything
    and I am your choreographer for whatever move happens
    I am everyone’s dancing master till the end of tempo!

    When he had vanished into the weather of the world
    I knew then and forever how hubbubs can harmonize
    At the edge of the world I met the Invisible Maestro
    and the music of his dance keeps singing in my days

  • When is it morally OK to let go? (mo, hope I’m not breaking any rules with this long rant/question:

    I’ve been involved with efforts to stop the spread of the never ending march of various “invasive species” for almost 20 years.

    This “fight” or whatever else it can be called (how about— “attempts at preserving diverse habitats vs. monocultures caused by invasive species —-usually spread by human activity”) is taking a huge toll on me and others I work with; spiritually, mentally and physically (work your fingers to the bone and what do you get: bony fingers!).

    The latest threat is an aquatic invasive species named hybrid eurasian water milfoil (HEWM) that humans have spread via boats/motors. It is engulfing once diverse lakes, choking out everything in it’s path—– all because some dumb ass, selfish fishermen/women didn’t take the time to clean their boats before going from one lake to the next when they were warned about the consequences if they did not do so (i.e. they could spread invasive species).

    Generally I’ve found that most people (with a few exceptions) that live on or visit the lake(s) don’t give a damn unless the invasive species is directly in front of their precious “lake front property”—– in which case their property values will plummet. Or it hurts their chances of catching the “big one” they want to mount on their wall.

    They don’t care about the effects on all the creatures that will be snuffed out by human spread invasive species. Nor do they think about the further damage done due to knee jerk, short term thinking that prompts the use of various chemical methods of treatment (i.e. 2-4 D in this particular case). In any case, human induced rapid climate change is exacerbating the spread of invasive species and it will only get worse.

    Attempting to get people to care or to think carefully before inundating the lake with chemicals that kill everything (except the hybrid eurasian milfoil which survives and then some) is getting to be too much. I’m so sick of it . . . . . and tired. And (OT) if I see one more turtle that was intentionally run over for the fun of it I think I could go off the deep end (whatever that looks like ?). It has become unbearable to visit places that still have turtles that get killed by cars during egg laying season.

    But in the midst of Guy’s information provided here on this site, there is a sense of relief (kind of). It should be noted that I do not particularly relish this relief but . . .
    I can give up and let go because it doesn’t matter at this point—-it is a losing battle.

    Right?

    Sounds like I’m asking for permission. Maybe I am.

    but . . .

    People get mad when you give up—– they’ll tell you (the giver upper) that you are a counterproductive, damaging “doomer” that is making things worse. They say you might as well be a climate change denier or a troll.

    My hands and shoulders hurt after 20 years of pulling, chopping, sawing, lopping and hauling invasive species.

    Most people I’ve had to deal with over the years are such f-ing selfish idiots (venting is helping) that it would be a relief to give up and never have to talk to anyone like them again. 10 years ago, if someone would have told me I would come to this point, I would have been furious with them and told them they were crazy for I would never give up . . . because there is hope!

    2016:
    The lake flora/fauna will die in the not too distant future even if I stop trying to keep invasive species at bay. All the turtles will die too. And everything else will die including the maddening people who laugh when they run over turtles and smile hopefully when they dump 2-4D granules into the lake and kill everything but the HEWM.

    But I fear giving up will set a bad example for my daughter . . . . .
    Damn. I’d see a psychologist but if I told them my thoughts about NTE they might lock me up!

    When is OK to give up and let go? Might have to move to a soul killing city so as not to be in the proximity of all these dying ecosystems that are on the fast track towards death, thanks to homo sapiens.

  • @Caroline
    When I went outside this morning there was a big slider laying eggs in my yard. After she was done, I dug them up (keep the eggs in the same position as you find them–don’t turn them over), and I’ll incubate them in moist vermiculite, and I’ll release the hatchlings after the yolk sacs are completely absorbed. You do what you can, and that’s the best you can do. Don’t despair, what you do makes a difference.

    Best Wishes

  • Your comment made my day Feed Jake! I’m so cranky over this. I can only imagine what it must be like for Guy (and others) who deal with this (ignorant/closed minded humans) on a regular basis.

    Best of all, your suggestion to help turtles is one that doesn’t include contact with any other humans—-just wonderful turtle eggs, moist vermiculite and hatchlings! And you’re helping the turtles; between nonhuman depredation on the eggs and human’s killing the turtles it amazes me how many are still hanging in there.

    Thank you.

  • The problem is space and time.

    “Our phenomenal world consists of the activity of the activities of matter and photons: the theatre of this activity is space and time. Thus the walls of the cave in which we are imprisoned are space and time; the shadows of reality which we see projected on the walls by the sunshine outside are the material particles which we see moving against a background of space and time, while the reality outside the cave which produces these shadows is outside space and time.” – Sir James Jeans, physicist

    Quantum mechanics has proved that the only real world is the quantum world. Let the sunshine in.

  • mod note

    Caroline ~ you are absolutely not breaking any NBL rules with your post.

    “most people” is not a class of people. technically a “class” has to be well defined, such as “most people under 5 feet 6 inches tall”, or “Seventh Day Adventists”.

    for the purposes of the NBL rules, classes can be loosely defined, such as “short people” or “religious people”.

    so any comments like “short people drive me crazy” or “religious people are sheep” would not be allowed under rule 2, as they are attacks on classes of people involving abusive, disrespectful or unnecessary language.

    however, feelings that someone may have about a class of people could certainly be allowed, if they do not verge into an attack, as above. a statement like “learning about the beliefs religious people have makes me very uncomfortable” could certainly be allowed. that is clearly not an attack, just a statement of feelings where there is clearly no abusive, disrespectful, or unnecessary language.

    and you are not personally attacking any individual commenter or groups of commenters in your post.

    so all good there. and thank you for such a heartfelt post.

    I am sorry to hear about your burnout. each in our own ways, we are all coming to terms (or not!) with what we are experiencing all around us. you have my deepest sympathies.

    I love what Feed Jake said ~

    “You do what you can, and that’s the best you can do. Don’t despair, what you do makes a difference.”

    ~ mo

  • @Caroline
    Glad I could help. If you look on websites, there’s a lot of different ways to hatch reptile eggs. Vermiculite always works well for me. You want to spray the vermiculite every so often as needed. I let the surface dry, and just keep the eggs moist, not wet. They say 78-81 degrees Fahrenheit is ideal, just don’t let them get too hot or cold. I’m just going to leave mine in the shade on the porch under some weighted down hardware cloth to keep the raccoons out.

    http://www.turtletails.net/raisingbabyturtles/tour8.htm

    Best Wishes

  • What I see in Daniel’s posts are value judgments. If I were to remove all the evaluations and unsubstantiated value judgments, there would be hardly anything left written.

    For example: “Without their field research from 2008-2010, I suspect the concept of NTE would not exist to the extent it does today. Yes, there is plenty of available evidence showing that abrupt climate change is very much in effect, and “inferring” that NTE could be……..well, near.”

    When I produced evidence of one of many publications in 2008 that associated methane release with abrupt climate change, evidence that indicates that Daniel’s comment – value judgment, opinion re the importance of Shakhova’s 2008-2010 work – his response is more opinion.

    “I suppose that’s one of the benefits of sustaining a blog supported by a constant stream of newcomers, few remember or even know the sequence of events that preceded their awareness.”

    The fault is mine and the site’s for being supported by “newcomers” who don’t remember/know the facts. Ad hominem. I thought we were asking for more than that from the commenters here. I thought we were expected to discuss evidence. Opinions regarding the importance of something are NOT evidence.

    “If you are unaware of the impact Shakhova’s research had on the “climate community”, then you probably weren’t paying close attention to the science prior to 2008, especially given Lovelock’s infamous book—the first on the subject of near climate related extinction—had just come out a year earlier. Given that the majority of Guy’s presentation is presenting others research, I’m not aware of any other field research more germane to the subject of NTE over the last eight years than Shakhova’s.”

    Opinion of the “impact” without any evidence to support it, again, due to others “not paying attention”. More ad hominem. Daniel’s opinion re Shakhova’s research is his opinion.

    “There are specific moments in time that act as a catalyst in triggering a sequence of events. It is difficult to look back unaware of the timing of those specific moments and understand what exactly lead us to our current understanding. Suffice to say, Shakhova’s research was an absolute mind bomb when it came out.”

    More opinion and hyperbole without evidence. I’m disappointed this entire response was allowed to remain on the board.

    Understand what exactly led to our current understanding? Exactly? That’s a bit of a reach. And, whose understanding do you want? There are plenty of understandings available to choose from, and if you don’t want your own understanding based on evidence, you are free to adopt someone else’s.

    Who is “our”? You speak for yourself only unless you can provide evidence that someone else shares your opinions. Until you do, I hope the enforcement of rule #3 puts a stop to your personal devaluing of others and the substitution of opinion and ad hominem attacks for discussing issues.

  • mod note

    ogf, all of your points are astute, accurate, and well taken. thank you very much for taking the time to look at these matters carefully. those are indeed all heavily opinionated points Daniel is making, and they really have nothing to do with discussing the evidence.

    “I thought we were asking for more than that from the commenters here.”

    we are indeed. I think/hope this is becoming very clear. you have just added significantly more clarity to the idea.

    “I thought we were expected to discuss evidence.”

    yes. very much so.

    “Opinions regarding the importance of something are NOT evidence.”

    quite true. my strong desire, and I’m sure I can speak for Guy as well on this point, is for the evidence to be presented and discussed, on the merits of the evidence itself. if there is fault to be found with the evidence, then the discussion should be aimed at specific faults with the data, methods, and/or conclusions drawn. if there is merit to be found in some evidence over other evidence, then again, that merit has to be discussed on its own terms.

    the idea that we can make “facts” out of just what evidence or studies are more influential than others is in the realm of opinion, unless that opinion is solidly backed up by more factual evidence, such as citation counts, or other “impact” analysis, for papers or studies.

    thanks again for taking the time to make these matters more clear, ogf.

    ~ mo

  • correction: When I produced evidence of one of many publications in 2008 that associated methane release with abrupt climate change, evidence that indicates that Daniel’s comment – value judgment, opinion re the importance of Shakhova’s 2008-2010 work – *is not accurate, and that abrupt methane release was being discussed at length by 2008,* his response is more opinion.

  • .
    mo – goose – gander

    those are indeed all heavily opinionated points OGF is making, and they really have nothing to do with discussing the evidence.

  • Bob S ~

    what? ogf is making a higher level point about the expected rules and behavior on this site. there is absolutely no need for her to publish this point as a paper in a major psychology journal for her points to be completely valid in the context in which they are made.

    just as there is no need to have the NBL site rules adjudicated by the legal system in the USA.

    you are making a category mistake.

    ~ mo

  • I analyzed ad hominem fallacies competently, something Bob denies. I provided evidence. Here, I’ll do it again.

    Daniel wrote: “Without their field research from 2008-2010, I suspect the concept of NTE would not exist to the extent it does today.”

    To which I pointed out that, I produced evidence of one of a number of publications in 2008 that associated sudden methane release with abrupt climate change and rapid rise in global temperatures, evidence that indicates that Daniel’s comment is not accurate, and that sudden methane release was being discussed at length by 2008.

    I gave evidence to support my disagreement. Bob, like Daniel, offers only judgment and opinion, and his judgment is not in the least based in any kind of truth, and certainly not with any respect for valid argument standards. It’s just an attack for the sake of attack.

  • mo –

    without all the fancy semantics –

    Daniel asked for clarification of evidence that has been prominent in the NTE circles – for trying to clarify the evidence he’s labeled a *denier* and *hater* and told to go find the answer himself!!!!!

    The a post is dedicated to bashing Daniel for having an opinion — followed by a *moderators* post praising the post attacking Daniel.

    IMO (if opinions are allowed), Daniel deserves better. He’s dedicated much of his life exposing environmental crimes of empire – he has sacrificed much for the common good. While I don’t always agree with Daniel — he has proved his dedication with a life of action. For this he deserves our respect.

    Now if we were talking about the whether electric cars are worth the price — then ho-hum who gives a shit? But we’re talking about NTE – about the murder of every living thing on the planet. Should we blindly follow our host into the abyss ? Or should we try to understand WTF is happening.

    Days long passed when 2 posts reined we spoke of our experiences confronting the idea of NTE. We defended our host and were thankful to finally be getting more than the the same old lies. We sought the truth.

    Now, it seems the truth has taken a back seat to the *message*, and I see this as a net loss for us all.

  • mod note

    “Without their field research from 2008-2010, I suspect the concept of NTE would not exist to the extent it does today.”

    ogf ~ thanks for clarifying the fact that you did provide evidence to back up your rebuttal of Daniel’s quoted remark. that is totally to the point.

    the point is about categories, as well. if Daniel is claiming that this specific field research was that vitally important to the concept of NTE, that “I suspect the concept of NTE would not exist to the extent it does today”, I would expect there to be something cited, or an “impact article” linked, or anything along those lines, to support this kind of claim. that is a fairly strong a claim re NTE, the science, and the conclusions. without a real foundation of evidence the claim is entirely in the category of “one person’s strong opinion.” (regardless of the wiggle room “I suspect” verbiage)

    Bob S ~

    “Now, it seems the truth has taken a back seat to the *message*, and I see this as a net loss for us all.”

    I disagree. I believe the case for NTE, as laid out in Guy’s long essay, is right there for examination and debate. that debate is about evidence, and needs to continue in that fashion.

    roundabout attacks on the credibility of the messenger, where opinions about the value and weight of the evidence are presented as “facts” and then used to undercut the message (NTE), are what we are trying to firmly get away from here.

    if one wants to debate the quality, impact, merits, etc of specific evidence, or the importance of this or that piece of the puzzle/evidence, I am afraid one is obliged to really look at the details of the case, and stick with facts. (all other considerations will always have to take a back seat.) that kind of thing takes lots of time.

    ~ mo

  • mod note

    Bob S ~

    “The a post is dedicated to bashing Daniel for having an opinion”

    ogf did no such thing here as “bashing,” and your comment here is a personal attack. ogf’s comment was respectful across the board, well thought out, well argued, and backed by the evidence of her own previous actions.

    I am going to leave your personal attack as is, along with the rest of your post, as I need to make something super clear.

    if there is any remaining doubt, we are asking that a very large part of the tone of what has been going on with the NBL comments section be firmly changed.

    This is IT, right here:

    “This site is focused on evidence and response relating to near-term human extinction.”

    evidence and response regarding NTE, and having this discussion, with a foundation of respect, as laid out in the NBL rules.

    tons of emotional stuff that may want to be presented here, couched as “fact” but in reality laden with anger, disrespect and unnecessary language, and directed at other commenters, or specific classes of people, is no longer going to be allowed here. ever. it is either that, or the comments will be closed.

    in many of those cases, if the commenter is able to dispassionately retreat, and look at what they want to say from a more objective fashion, they will either decide it cannot be said within the bounds of our rules, or it simply needs more research.

    take the time, either way. that’s our overall request. we want the discussions to happen, regarding evidence and response. thanks for your continuing consideration.

    ~ mo

  • As I feared when the new comment rules first went into effect, it seems like everything’s now being overly policed. Obviously, it’s not my space nor my decision. Given how the new standards have been applied, I actually have no idea if this comment breaks any of the rules. But out of the two comments below, the first one seems more egregious and rule-breaking than the second one, yet only the second one was criticized. I’m not in favor of deleting/censoring either one, just that it seems like the rules should be applied equally regardless of who makes the comment. Also, if this is going to be a place devoid of all opinion/emotion, it’s going to get boring quickly. Prepare to lose visitors (if that matters to you).

    Comment 1: “But, of course, most people here pay attention only to themselves and irrelevant distractions, not to the rapidly accumulating evidence.”

    Comment 2: “Without their field research from 2008-2010, I suspect the concept of NTE would not exist to the extent it does today.”

  • mod note

    babajingo ~

    no, you are not breaking any rules. and yes, the rules will be applied equally, to all. but really, there isn’t going to be a debate on the NBL rules. they are clear, and enforceable.

    I believe Guy is noting the obvious. people are in general thinking about themselves first and foremost, in effectively all cases. they have a need to say something or do something, and they do. and basically anything that isn’t involved in either preparing for the soon to be VenusEarth, or just enjoying Being in the now, is some kind irrelevant distraction or another, at least in my book.

    but specifically in this case, I think Guy is pointing to the irrelevant distractions of making something out of the evidence, or the process of concluding on NTE, that just isn’t there.

    also specifically in this case, I believe Guy is saying “is your personal need to vent right now, in a certain way, greater than your need to dispassionately consider the details, and comment that way?”

    for comment 2, this has already been parsed accurately, IMO.

    ~

    but, please note. this is all about one thing: time.

    Guy no longer has time, nor desire, to give over this blog to the whims of unrestrained commentary, and hope for the best.

    the mods absolutely do not have time to put the effort into doing things that the commenters themselves are asked to do, before typing merrily away.

    the whole “opinion and emotion means we have to have disrespect, anger and battles to the death” is totally a red herring. emotions and opinions are completely allowed. the problem is, *some* people need to put other motives ~ very destructive motives, whether they appreciate that or not ~ first.

    the idea for rules is simply to contain that, remove it, and allow the healthy motives to have the floor.

    ~ mo

  • Unfortunately, there is no defense when other people will NOT respect the truth, or sane boundaries, which includes making others responsible for things for which they have no responsibility. There is no effective counter, or at least no effective counter that doesn’t have huge drawbacks, for purposeful and willful disregard of the measurable truth/reality/facts.

    As for comment #2, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it – when it is removed from the context of the overall post. Nothing at all. But comment #2 should not interpreted in isolation, specifically because it is used as if it is evidence to support separate criticisms.

    I addressed comment #2 as one example to support my *disagreement* with the criticisms in the post because it is foundational to the validity of other establishments within the comment.

    It really is very simple. We are expected to discuss, or debate or argue climate disruption and NTE.

    We can disagree with others on NTE if we wish, so long as we provide reason for our disagreement, and that reason is a valid, evidence-based justification.

    For personal judgments about music, feelings, and many other kinds of judgments we make in conversation, we don’t need evidence to support those.

    What I did was debate the stated importance and stated timing of the research in connection with the effect of the “could occur at any time” statement in the ***Shakhova interview***, something that occurred two years after the research period cited.

    I supported my disagreement with evidence, clearly showing that concepts that were claimed to have been a result of research done 2008-2010 were already well established by 2008. I also pointed out that while I did provide evidence for my disagreement, the response I received was pure personal devaluing.

    “I suppose that’s one of the benefits of sustaining a blog supported by a constant stream of newcomers, few remember or even know the sequence of events that preceded their awareness.”

    Where is the evidence in this comment regarding the importance of the subject research between 2008 and 2010? Where is any discussion of it? I can’t find any. It’s not there.

    Why such substantively different comments are so difficult to distinguish in quality, I do not understand. All of them are glaringly obvious to me.

  • I should have written, the differences are glaringly obvious to me.

  • I quoted this response, “I suppose that’s one of the benefits of sustaining a blog supported by a constant stream of newcomers, few remember or even know the sequence of events that preceded their awareness.”

    I asked, “Where is the evidence in this comment regarding the importance of the subject research between 2008 and 2010? Where is any discussion of it? I can’t find any. It’s not there.”

    I want to add, what was there? What was said? “benefits of sustaining a blog supported by a constant stream of newcomers,” who don’t have the correct knowledge, according to the writer. This is a not just an attack on the people he disagrees with, but also on Dr. McPherson for all kinds of vague but clearly implied shortcomings.

    How does anyone miss this stuff? Help me understand why it’s so difficult to understand, because I cannot.

  • mod note

    ogf ~

    “This is a not just an attack on the people he disagrees with, but also on Dr. McPherson for all kinds of vague but clearly implied shortcomings.”

    you are correct. and Guy pointed this out to me as well. it was entirely my mistake for approving that comment.

    as mentioned though, the new NBL rules, interpretations of the rules, and so on, is not really the subject we are asked to focus on from this point onwards.

    recent public discussion and input has been appreciated. from here on out, I would ask that any further commentary on these matters be discussed privately.

    ~ mo

  • Dualism is the distinction perceived between “I” and “not-“I””. As long as there is any entity that one can identify as “I” or “not-“I”, one remains in dualism.

    Jason Box said pretty much what Natalia Shakhova said, but he used American idiom: ” Wer’e f@#$%d!”. After that he moved (or in more colorful language, “made like a horseturd and hit the trail”) to Denmark. Natalia Shakhova may well have used even more colorful Russian idiom, but we ain’t privy to that. Perhaps someone like Dmitry Orlov could help us out on that one…

  • “you are correct. and Guy pointed this out to me as well”

    Of course, he did. Guy gets a lot of things, and I love that about him. 🙂