Closing the Circle
John Michael Greer is always worth a read. His blog posts come out every week (Wednesday in the US) and this week's was particularly good, so I thought I'd post a link:
Closing the Circle
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Deniers Expand
Well, with the polls showing that less and less people appear to "believe" in climate change or the human factor, despite overwhelming science, I guess I should not be surprised that Tim Gamble has joined those ranks, good and proper.
Having dropped his sustainable futures blog (a brand that covered many years) for a future forward blog that lasted a couple of months, if that. It's now gone, though he still runs the modern victory movement blog and a silverleaf strategies blog. In the short lived future forward blog, he seemed to be jettisoning the notion of sustainability, in favour of a rosy high tech future (if that blog's raison d'etre is anything to go by). On the future forward blog, he also posted an entry about a Phil Jones interview (who is at the centre of the so-called climategate situation); an entry that could have come directly from the Daily Mail (UK newspaper) and badly misrepresents what Phil Jones said. Someone with a modicum of critical thinking might have checked whether the Daily Mail story was a fair representation of the interview. See here and here for more considered thoughts on the interview.
The sustainable future brand lives on through facebook, though there are no wall entries since before Christmas. He also has his own, personal facebook page, but there's not much there that is public, concerning his thoughts on sustainability and environmental issues. There's not much at his MVM ans SS blogs, either, though he posts more frequently there (but to a very sparse audience and without a comment facility).
It's a shame. Tim did, at least, do research but it was all geared to what he either already believed or what he wanted to believe. Tim wants a sustainable high tech society, with people growing their own food in a forest garden, with a personal space port in the corner. As he's now almost a fully fledged climate denier, despite what he has occasionally claimed (I don't recall his ever posting a rebuff of the the various "optimistic" stories he's ran over the last couple of years), there seems little hope that he will fare any better than the majority of the population in seeing the converging environmental and resource problems that will likely result in collapse, without such awareness.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Sustainable Future becomes non-Sustainable
Well, Tim Gamble's blog has, apparently, "evolved" to Future Forward. There is no explanation for the change and, indeed, why all of the posts of the previous blog are now inaccessible (though it looks like many will eventually be reposted, in some form, on the new blog). I've asked a question about this in the comments of one of his first few posts on the new blog.
I wonder if he is now not focusing on sustainable solutions.
There may be some hints in his guiding principles.
"Nature and people" implies that people are separate from nature. This is not a trivial point because a lot of the problems we face derive from the notion that humans are, somehow, the pinnacle of evolution or that the earth is here purely for humans or that humans have the innate right to dominate all other life on the planet, in whatever way they see fit. Until we see ourselves as just another species, we're unlikely to solve our problems or reach sustainability. Tim still appears to champion permaculture principles but maybe that will be jettisoned too, in time.
"Facts and reason" is a good principle but we need to look at all the facts, not just the ones we like. For example, his posts on the leaked UEA emails suggests a biased view, when none of the emails disproves the climate science that goes on across the globe by hard working and, mostly, honest climate and environmental scientists. And none of the few dubious actions suggested in any of the emails were actually carried out or resulted in any cover up. But this side wasn't seen in his posts. Another example is the post on SBSP, which completely ignores any potential environmental impacts (perhaps because the impact assessments haven't been done) or the likely mult-decadal time-scale of the project.
"Optimism is preferable to negativity". Consequently, I expect only to find optimistic posts from him. This guideline can give what William Catton Jr refers to as inaccurate word maps (in his book Bottleneck). We need accurate descriptions of our situation, in order to come up with meaningful strategies. Consequently, negative views are just as important as the optimistic ones.
"Human Civilization is worth saving". This is a huge assumption and deserves a considered analysis. Books like William Catton's "Bottleneck" or John Zerzan's "Against Civilization" can provide a different perspective that open minds should be willing to take on board. If it turns out that civilization isn't worth saving, then that would make his blog less than useful. So big assumptions need to be verified rather than just taken for granted. He refers to himself as a researcher, so that should be his next research project - validate the assumptions used as his guiding principles.
Well, Tim Gamble's blog has, apparently, "evolved" to Future Forward. There is no explanation for the change and, indeed, why all of the posts of the previous blog are now inaccessible (though it looks like many will eventually be reposted, in some form, on the new blog). I've asked a question about this in the comments of one of his first few posts on the new blog.
I wonder if he is now not focusing on sustainable solutions.
There may be some hints in his guiding principles.
"Nature and people" implies that people are separate from nature. This is not a trivial point because a lot of the problems we face derive from the notion that humans are, somehow, the pinnacle of evolution or that the earth is here purely for humans or that humans have the innate right to dominate all other life on the planet, in whatever way they see fit. Until we see ourselves as just another species, we're unlikely to solve our problems or reach sustainability. Tim still appears to champion permaculture principles but maybe that will be jettisoned too, in time.
"Facts and reason" is a good principle but we need to look at all the facts, not just the ones we like. For example, his posts on the leaked UEA emails suggests a biased view, when none of the emails disproves the climate science that goes on across the globe by hard working and, mostly, honest climate and environmental scientists. And none of the few dubious actions suggested in any of the emails were actually carried out or resulted in any cover up. But this side wasn't seen in his posts. Another example is the post on SBSP, which completely ignores any potential environmental impacts (perhaps because the impact assessments haven't been done) or the likely mult-decadal time-scale of the project.
"Optimism is preferable to negativity". Consequently, I expect only to find optimistic posts from him. This guideline can give what William Catton Jr refers to as inaccurate word maps (in his book Bottleneck). We need accurate descriptions of our situation, in order to come up with meaningful strategies. Consequently, negative views are just as important as the optimistic ones.
"Human Civilization is worth saving". This is a huge assumption and deserves a considered analysis. Books like William Catton's "Bottleneck" or John Zerzan's "Against Civilization" can provide a different perspective that open minds should be willing to take on board. If it turns out that civilization isn't worth saving, then that would make his blog less than useful. So big assumptions need to be verified rather than just taken for granted. He refers to himself as a researcher, so that should be his next research project - validate the assumptions used as his guiding principles.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
The Denials Continue
Tim Gamble, on his so-called Sustainable Future blog has just published snippets of articles or blog posts that comment on the recent hacked e-mails incident. What has become increasingly more usual is Tim's uneven-handed approach. Here is a comment I made to that article, though, as yet, it has not been approved:
Tim Gamble, on his so-called Sustainable Future blog has just published snippets of articles or blog posts that comment on the recent hacked e-mails incident. What has become increasingly more usual is Tim's uneven-handed approach. Here is a comment I made to that article, though, as yet, it has not been approved:
I'm not sure why this particular set of comments was put up here but there are some very odd beliefs..
Shikha Dalmia's thinks the email theft was from the Hadley Centre when it was from a department at the University of East Anglia. An early report did, erroneously, give the Hadley Centre, and maybe that simply stuck in Shikha's mind. It's a shame Shikha didn't attempt to check the story.
Neal Boortz claims that "much of the information they've been fed about a warming world has been manufactured and faked". This is pure fantasy. He gives no detail about what he has surmised from one email from one climate science group that gives cause for concern but actually resulted in no false data.
I find it remarkable, Tim, that you have hardened your line considerably as a climate change denier, from merely appearing to have some doubt about the severity. Otherwise, why not print comments about the other side of the story? About how 3 of the 4 emails (out of about a thousand) had quite reasonable explanations and about how only 1 gave rise to some concern and at least 2 inquiries but which, so far, do not show that the science is wrong.
So, in a area where it is very difficult to find a peer reviewed scientific report that counters the IPCC assessment (though others suggest the situation is likely worse than those projections), you choose to continue promoting the idea that climate change is a big scam and absolutely nothing to worry about. For someone who supposedly supports sustainable approaches, I find this remarkable.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Climategate?
From what I've read on the matter, it looks like only about 4 or 5 emails out of nearly a thousand got the denial lobby all worked up. Of these, only one appeared to give genuine cause for concern (the others having, at least for now, plausible explanations). That one was about a request to delete emails. It looks like, as it turns out, the request was not actioned (as the existence of the email will attest) and other potential dubious actions turned out to cause no information to be hidden (like the apparent attempt to keep a couple of papers out of the IPCC report, which weren't left out).
So, all in all, it's looking like a storm in a teacup (though the outcomes of those inquiries could alter than interim conclusion), except for there being a case for Chris Jones to resign.
It's unfortunate that even some who claim not to deny AGW have jumped on board to claim this might show that the climate science isn't settled.
From what I've read on the matter, it looks like only about 4 or 5 emails out of nearly a thousand got the denial lobby all worked up. Of these, only one appeared to give genuine cause for concern (the others having, at least for now, plausible explanations). That one was about a request to delete emails. It looks like, as it turns out, the request was not actioned (as the existence of the email will attest) and other potential dubious actions turned out to cause no information to be hidden (like the apparent attempt to keep a couple of papers out of the IPCC report, which weren't left out).
So, all in all, it's looking like a storm in a teacup (though the outcomes of those inquiries could alter than interim conclusion), except for there being a case for Chris Jones to resign.
It's unfortunate that even some who claim not to deny AGW have jumped on board to claim this might show that the climate science isn't settled.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Resource Scarcity - The Acquisition Strategy
Sometimes, a strategy of acquisition is touted as a means to deal with resource scarcity. This might be rebuilding resources on earth or acquiring them elsewhere.
Insofar as climate change is a manifestation of resource scarcity (due to de-forestation restricting the carbon sinks) re-forestation can help. Growing your own food can also help replenish soils (if it is done in a permacultural way). But acquisition is not a permanent strategy, since we live on a finite planet. The only way acquisiton makes sense, as a long term strategy, is if resources are imported from other worlds. Since we don't know for certain whether that will ever be possible, then acquisition should not be a primary strategy for sustainability. If sustainability cannot be achieved by living within the resource budget of the earth, then it may never be achieved. I hope it can be achieved and that should be the primary strategy. Indeed, since there is no way of knowing whether an acquisition strategy can be successful (long term), I would suggest that such a strategy be put on the back burner until we find that living within the resource budget of the planet is just not possible. If it is, then we can use that stable base to examine other strategies, knowing that we always have a fallback position.
Sometimes, a strategy of acquisition is touted as a means to deal with resource scarcity. This might be rebuilding resources on earth or acquiring them elsewhere.
Insofar as climate change is a manifestation of resource scarcity (due to de-forestation restricting the carbon sinks) re-forestation can help. Growing your own food can also help replenish soils (if it is done in a permacultural way). But acquisition is not a permanent strategy, since we live on a finite planet. The only way acquisiton makes sense, as a long term strategy, is if resources are imported from other worlds. Since we don't know for certain whether that will ever be possible, then acquisition should not be a primary strategy for sustainability. If sustainability cannot be achieved by living within the resource budget of the earth, then it may never be achieved. I hope it can be achieved and that should be the primary strategy. Indeed, since there is no way of knowing whether an acquisition strategy can be successful (long term), I would suggest that such a strategy be put on the back burner until we find that living within the resource budget of the planet is just not possible. If it is, then we can use that stable base to examine other strategies, knowing that we always have a fallback position.
Global cooling?
There is no trend that shows cooling since 1998. In fact, the NASA dataset that includes the Arctic, shows 2005 as the warmest year. See realclimate.org for more info on this.
There is no trend that shows cooling since 1998. In fact, the NASA dataset that includes the Arctic, shows 2005 as the warmest year. See realclimate.org for more info on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)