Global Warming/Climate ChangeMusical Interlude

Frosty the Snowman

A sad tale, told to beautiful music. Please spare a thought for Frosty the Snowman this holiday season. His future looks bleak.


  1. it’s looking like the coldest year on record craig
    there is talk about a mini ice age starting,I have no info but it definitely feels like it where I live
    california and australia are also getting snow
    any ideas why australia is getting snow in it’s summer months ?

  2. did you find this map on the internet ?
    looking back on my life I have been witness to many climate change events,both cold and hot
    As far as I know the planet is a complex system of energy patterns that no expert or internet junkie can predict, but I find it entertaining watching everyone trying to make others believe their view of what is going on with the climate,from so called experts to greedy corporate politicians
    climate change has become a lucrative business and like the war industry will continue to grow exponentially
    the funny thing is that the production of so many “green” products which are made using the dirty industries causing the destruction of the environment to reduce co2 emissions rather than the permaculture method of restoring eco systems, are based on the “evil” co2 that is essential to support the increased plant life the planet used to support
    roll on the day enough people wake up to the global con we are being fed day after day to increase the tax income of the elite

  3. I’m sorry Tony, but you’re right, you, as you said at the beginning, “have no info”. I’d recommend you read the article I linked to, posted only a day ago on this site. Your saying “did you find this map on the internet?” makes it obvious you didn’t read it. You might also want to read many others in our ‘Why Permaculture/Global Warming/Climate Change’ category (see the ‘site categories’ section on our sidebar.

    This would be another good read:

  4. I did read it and understand that there is climate change occurring,I would be an idiot to say that, the point is that a consensus of politically and financially motivated fear mongers are earning a lot of wealth through the marketing of “green” products
    anyone mentioning adapting to the changing climate like our ancestors did ?
    permaculture seems to be one way to work with nature rather than exploit the masses for a lucrative profit

  5. Yes, we do need to adapt to climate change Tony. We also need to remove root causes for it, so as to mitigate the worst impacts as soon as we can. You won’t see Prius or solar-powered MP3 player adverts on this site, and you won’t see us promoting “politically and financially motivated fear mongers” either. I’d prefer to deal with the realities of the ecological disaster that is the human race, and analyse where we went wrong, like here for example (pasting link, once again):

    Yes, indeed, working with nature is the way to go – like reinstating nature’s services, which we’ve systematically undermined over the last 500+ years. I’m not sure where “exploiting the masses” came into this conversation. It’s not something I subscribe to. For example:

  6. Tony,

    ad “adapting like our ancestors did”: the geophysical processes we are responsible for – releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a fast rate – are something our planet never has experienced before. Our best estimates are that change is happening about two orders of magnitude faster than it ever would naturally. That is the key issue here.

  7. My comments are not directed at you or the website craig and the “did you find this map on the internet?” was a term I took from one of your articles I tried to use in a jovial way
    I am just expressing the observations I have concerning the world myself and everyone has a different opinion/view and obviously this view is changing constantly
    the monbiot article did have a word that sums up the speculation on climate change and it is one that seems to be ignored by a lot of people and that word is maybe
    even our scientists admit they don’t have enough data to be certain of anything and the shock tactics of politicians and media using inconclusive data do not help us to adapt to a different paradigm of global equality and stability

  8. CO2 levels in the atmosphere increases with 2 ppm a year, and will within 30 years reach 450 ppm. When The Himalayas rose 50 million years ago CO2 increased to 1000 ppm, and inland ice didn’t exist. Because of the weathering of the rock the CO2 levels decreased, and 34 million years ago the inland ice of Antarctica was created. That time the CO2 levels were about 450 ppm.

    Fact is that humanity is jumping 34 million years back in time, using just a couple of hundred years on this achievement. How can anyone expect nature to cope up with such madness?

  9. can you define climate change for me ?
    it has been changing since the start of the universe and is also occurring on every planet in our solar system, so how would I know
    the cause using the complexity of the climate and even forces we do not see. with the limited instruments we possess suggests we are missing major elements to the jigsaw puzzle of life that can never be included in any calculation
    the idea that we can stop/reverse something we have no way of understanding fully is daft and why try ?
    maybe all we have to do is remove the climate to cure the climate change debate(a little attempt at a joke),but the more we let the elite corporations convince us that we have to fix the climate through buying new “green” products is a sure way to destroy it sooner than later, shame they have the pr machine and media in their pockets
    I personally cannot and will not be able to answer the question you asked but a return to a simpler life seems to be the best move forward for the planet
    changing the attitude of the population from greed to need would be a far better way to spend our energy and could also have a side effect of removing the fear that is prevalent throughout the world
    for the record, I have never flown in a plane
    the last holiday I had was in 1983 which was with my family,we travelled to spain from the uk by train
    I mention this because of the huge amount of excess shown by the ipcc and the political classes who are the greatest hypocrites in the whole debate
    maybe permaculture will become mainstream through example and the climate will be looked on again as beneficial to us all rather than a threat to our existence
    this is my opinion at this moment in time and I may change my mind if I still have ice in my greenhouse in june :)

  10. Yes Tony, we have the right to be wrong:

    “In principle, in relations among equals, people have a right to be wrong.

    Often it is only by being wrong for a while — trying on an opinion that doesn’t fit — that one comes to realize what is truly right. Without the freedom to be wrong one is often in tension, discontent with the present, wishing for a different way.

    When I think you are wrong and I am right, the question is not “How can I make you change?” but rather, “Given our different opinions, how shall I move forward peacefully?”

    Practical tip: If we disagree and I think you are wrong and I am right, it works well for me to say my opinion but it doesn’t work well for me to talk down to you or think bad of you. It works well for me to hear your opinion with a genuine desire to understand but it doesn’t work well for me to shut you down or write you off.

    Let us acknowledge our different opinions but move forward anyway. Rather than stall and fight, let us either live with our differing opinions for a while, try on more opinions, and continue our dialogue with mutual respect; or let us go our different ways in peace.

    Just like you have a right to be wrong, so do I, and it works well to be always mindful that perhaps I am.”


    Further, I can’t really see that corporations support climate activists and science:

    “Clients in the oil and gas industry unleashed a fury of lobbying expenditures in 2009, spending $175 million — easily an industry record — and outpacing the pro-environmental groups by nearly eight-fold, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

    Some of the largest petroleum companies in the world together spent hundreds of millions of dollars in various attempts to influence politics during the past 18 months

    ExxonMobil, the industry leader in 2009, spent $27.4 million in lobbying expenditures that year — more than the entire pro-environment lobby.

    And in July, congressional debate on global warming stopped cold.

    In other words, Goliath whipped David.”


    “Today CAN Europe [1] released a new report [2] based on an analysis of publicly available campaign finance records, definitively proving that polluting European companies are funding climate legislation blockers in US politics. Their overseas support is all the more galling because the same companies argue that additional emissions reductions in Europe cannot be pursued until the United States takes action.”


    See also:

    – Outside Groups Spend Millions of Dollars on Messages Targeting Embattled Congressional Candidates:

    – Launches ‘Fueling Washington’ Series Exploring Oil and Gas Industry’s Political Influence:

    – Climate Scientists vs. Congress (Video):

  11. Øyvind Holmstad gives a fine example of the fear based assumptions I mentioned earlier
    maybe co2 is not the driving factor behind the climate and if it is , how are we going to stop the planet spewing copious amounts from volcanoes
    I read that the iceland volcano emitted more co2 than all of the co2 reduced by mankind in the past 10 years
    the planet will surprise us like that when we think we have the answer ;)

  12. Duane, the point is that climate change makes it colder in Scandinavia and UK because of new wind patterns:

    “Winter 2009-2010 showed a new connectivity between mid-latitude extreme cold and snowy weather events and changes in the wind patterns of the Arctic; the so-called Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern.”

    “In December 2009 (Fig. A7b) and February 2010 (Fig. A7c) we actually had a reversal of this climate pattern, with higher heights and pressures over the Arctic that eliminated the normal west-to-east jet stream winds. This allowed cold air from the Arctic to penetrate all the way into Europe, eastern China, and Washington DC. As a result, December 2009 and February 2010 exhibited extremes in both warm and cold temperatures with record-setting snow across lower latitudes. Northern Eurasia (north of 50° latitude to the Arctic coast) and North America (south of 55° latitude) were particularly cold (monthly anomalies of -2°C to -10°C). Arctic regions, on the other hand, had anomalies of +4°C to +12°C. This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern and has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years.”

    Read more in this report:

    The situation is extremely critical because the heating of the Arctic will release huge amounts of methane (a climate gas 20 times stronger than CO2) and laughing gas (a climate gas 300 times stronger than CO2) from the permafrost:

  13. Duane – see this:

    Tony – it might be hard for you to understand, but I’ve heard the same tired old arguments you’re stating (with no references by the way) for years now.

    Let’s put it another way…

    If the climate has been stable for as long as historical records show – stable enough for the last several millenia of human agriculture to function – then do you think that our climate might possibly get influenced a little by having up to 80% of the earth’s primary forests destroyed over a mere few centuries by human activities? Do you think we can make that kind of wholesale destruction and systemic biological intervention without the earth’s systems ungoing abrupt change?

    Take this further – what if we destroy ALL primary forests, and ALL biomass. Will this have no effect on climatic systems?

    I, again, refer you to The Biology of Global Warming and, in particular, the report I introduce there. If you feel that pulling the rug out from underneath Gaia will have no effect on climatic systems, then I fear you’ll fail as a permaculturist. Indeed, permaculture is about observation and acknowledgement of natural systems, and learning to work with them. If you think we can destroy the basis of biological systems and get away with it, without consequence, then you’re living in a kind of denial that gives the rest of us great cause for discouragement.

  14. Tony, I’m not an expert in anything, as I never entered a college, but I’m sure the creation of the Himalayas generated a lot more CO2 releases to the atmosphere than the relatively small Island volcano last year. After the erection of the Himalayas the CO2 levels increased to 1000 ppm. Maybe human impact never can release as much CO2 as the volcano activity during the rise of the Himalayas, but the half of it is surely quite serious enough.

  15. One consistent thing about people who refuse to believe man has anything to do with climate change is they fully believe any story that gels with their preferred belief. They rarely provide references for their statements, but state them as fact anyway.

    I’ve been over the volcano thing time and time again, but it keeps resurfacing.

    Have a look into it, be objective, and quit wasting people’s time:

  16. Craig, when I study your link it makes me unsecure about if it was the volcano activity or the withering of the rock that increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to 1000 ppm during the creation of the Himalayas.

    I thought it was the withering of the rock that absorbed CO2 after volcano activity, but maybe it was contrary and CO2 was released from the rock? I don’t have the article where I read this here, but I’ll see if I can find it at the library to check it out. Or maybe Thomas knows it?

  17. Guys, being Xmas, and needing to unbuckle the straps holding me to this computer chair, I’m going to have to leave you all to this riveting conversation for now. (Excuse the cynicism, as I’ve been over this same old ground too often now to get excited about repeating it for every new visitor.) I’d encourage those who think man cannot influence his environment to do due diligence on every argument you’re considering posting here. Don’t dishonour yourselves…. Our readers are not all stupid.

  18. Knighter, how do you tax starving people? Surely, climate change will undoubtedly make millions starve. I would rather say these millions to die are paying the heavy “taxes” for our abuse of fossil fuels. The really bad news is that peak-CO2 will occur at bottom-oil.

  19. I see a lot of conclusions being made over how wrong I am but I must point out that I have not had any answer or opinion about climate change
    I do stress concern more over the destruction of the environment than the natural processes our planet is going through such as the many active volcanoes throughout the planet that erupt unpredictably, which also carries more harmful gasses into the atmosphere
    every breath the 60 billion human beings release contains co2 and obviously this is a very large amount of co2
    Why reduce co2 when it encourages plant growth and food yields ?
    why do we think we should try to change the climate ourselves ?
    maybe you are all right and we are doomed by the hand of big oil who have the one thing that keeps our present day civilization working away at destroying the environment.
    The moment the tap is closed, we will all find out what real catastrophic change feels like
    maybe we are at a climate change moment/event at this time and we are lucky enough to witness it and maybe it will cause a shift in values of our species
    this maybe also an evolutionary change in our species
    maybe if you are not open to accepting change then you are wanting to live in the past,which maybe possible,but I’ve no idea about things like that
    migration seemed to be our ancestors way of survival,but with the division of our people (the human population of the world) we have restricted the natural process of adaptation to climate changes and with the infrastructure we have built for oil based industry, it’s a hard thing for huge landmass owners (corporations) to give up their excess for the good of the population
    I have been visiting the site for over a year and have made comments before, craig must have forgotten my previous comments
    The impression I get from this thread is that I have to be convinced and made to understand I am wrong and must believe what the consensus have to say
    anyone understand the word maybe ?
    maybe you are right and maybe I’m wrong but maybe were all right or maybe we’re all wrong
    there’s enough nuclear arsenals around the world to render this thread purely academic

  20. Øyvind,

    rock weathering decreases CO2. What basically happens is that carbonates such as CaCO3 and MgCO3 go into solution, so we get Ca++ and Mg++ cations. What are the corresponding anions? Evidently, OH- can counterbalance some of that charge, and so can CO3– and HCO3-.

    There is very little CO3– at reasonable pH values, and also little OH-, which means that for every Ca++, there will be two HCO3- anions. (Just look at the content analysis shown on a typical bottle of mineral water.) The carbon in one of these came from CaCO3, the other one comes from the atmosphere – i.e. we absorb about one molecule of CO2 per unit of CaCO3 destroyed by carbonate rock weathering.

    With silicates, the issue is even more straightforward, as there is no carbon to start with, and we end up with hydrogen carbonate – evidently, this must come from the atmosphere.

    What complicates matters a bit is of course that this balance is not a 100% thing – for extremely low atmospheric CO2 levels, one would indeed find that carbonate rock weathering basically leads to a Calcium hydroxide solution plus more CO2 in the atmosphere. One can calculate these things from equilibrium thermodynamics – using the law of mass action.

  21. Craig,
    I wanted to say thank you so much for joining the PRI team in 2009. The blogs are incredible, and such an upgrade from what they were before. Thanks for all you do for permaculture.
    Happy Holidays.

  22. Sorry Tony, but you’re all over the place. Maybe my comment was too wordy. I’ll cut to the chase again, but with even less words. Please answer the following question:

    Do you think that our climate might possibly get influenced a little by having up to 80% of the earth’s primary forests destroyed over a mere few centuries by human activities? Do you think we can make that kind of wholesale destruction and systemic biological intervention without the earth’s systems ungoing abrupt change?

  23. Thanks Cathe’ – it’s been my pleasure (most of the time!) :)

    What really pleases me is to see that we are making a difference, and permaculture is moving from the fringes to front and centre, as it needs to be. And while the mainstream are still stumbling about in a drunken stupor, still waking up to where we’re at, we’re bringing concrete benefits to the people who have already been struggling and who already have had a good grasp of reality.

  24. Thank you Thomas! I see it must have been the withering of new rock from the rise of the Himalayas that were the main source for the extremely high CO2 levels in the atmosphere 34 million years ago, and maybe some volcano activity too. It’s no need for me to look for this article now, as the answer is obvious. Thanks to this knowledge I don’t have to make a fool of myself in further discussions about this topic.

    What is the difference now is that the increases of CO2 levels this time happen very rapidly. The Himalayas used millions of years for what humanity uses just a few hundred years, and nature has no change to keep up with this race and make the necessary evolutionary adaption.

  25. Sorry Thomas, for some reason a read increases, while you wrote decreases. Then what I remember from the article I read from this topic is correct, and the link Craig pasted is wrong. Then it must have been volcano activity during the rise of the Himalayas that increased CO2 levels, and the weathering of the rock decreased it.

    I’ll try to understand some of the chemistry of your post later, because I think it’s important to show climate skeptics that when the climate scientists have data and understand what happened 34 million years ago, why should they don’t have a clue today?

    Also these data make our situation worse, because from what I know we don’t have so much new rock to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere today as that time. Anyway I think this process would be too slow to save us.

    As the Andes Mountains of South America are quite new, maybe these still absorb CO2? Do you have any data about how much CO2 the Andes Mountains absorb of CO2 a year? It’s probably hard to calculate, but it should be interesting to know if this process has some serious contribution in CO2 reductions.

    Sorry again I didn’t read your answer to well before my last comment. I think it’s important to understand this rock aspect, as I think to remember it’s an argument by the deniers that CO2 levels will be balanced out by the absorption from the rock, also CO2 levels in the oceans, or carbonate acids.

    Yes, I’m sure I’ve heard this from the deniers, that acidification of the oceans is no problem, as carbon will be absorbed by the rock in the oceans and balance out.

  26. Ooops. It’s actually of course CO3–, not CO3- above; all the rest of the argument stays as it is.

    By the way, of course rock weathering does not fully counterbalance our excessive atmospheric CO2 input – CO2 levels are rising fast, after all.

    Some people indeed do talk about “artificial rock weathering” to recapture our excess atmospheric CO2 release, see e.g. this article:

    To that, I can only respond: do a few order of magnitude calculations on the level of effort this would require. Does anyone seriously believe – to roughly give an idea of the proportions – a small country such as the UK could straightaway and within just a few years set up a rock processing economy that handles ten times as much material stuff as the entire U.S. export economy at peak times?

  27. craig
    I am not disputing environmental damage has an influence on the climate
    I am disputing the co2 emphasis of a universal cause that is being exploited by our political classes in order to increase their tax revenues
    the FDA in america have classified co2 as a toxin, do you agree with this ?

  28. Hi Oyvind – what part of the article I linked to is wrong?

    I’m not sure you’re reading it correctly, but let me know. The article is not stating that rock weathering is increasing CO2, it was talking about CO2 being released from rocks subject to intense heat – WITHIN volcanoes and hot springs.

    …this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs

    This is not rock weathering (weathering being the impact of wind, rain, oxygen, etc.).

  29. Tony – the destruction of up to 80% of the world’s primary forests does three immediate things.

    1) It releases the CO2 held in the lignins of the trees and other biomass that make up those primary forests. These go into the atmosphere.

    2) The destruction of those trees and other biomass exposes soil that held vast quantities of CO2, in the form of stable humus, and which now begins to also pour into the atmosphere, particularly as the soil is turned and exposed to oxygen and the subsequent hyperactivity of micro-organisms that excess oxygenation causes. Turning the soil is largely inevitable, as that’s why people destroyed the forests in the first place – to gorge on virgin soils, since they’d depleted them elsewhere through mismanagement.

    3) The destruction of those trees and other biomass removes their services (converting C02 into oxygen, and storing the CO2 in their bodies and in the soil).

    Now, you earlier mentioned that CO2 is a positive – that it increases plant growth. This is a myth. At least it is when you look at the big picture.

    Without reading a tome of scientific material, anyone with half a brain will have to acknowledge some simple facts:

    1) Before we started wholesale slaughter of our primary forests on a large scale (remember, at the time of Christ we only had 3% of the human population we have today, so our footprint was minimal until the middle ages when our populations in certain countries began to go on the hockey stick incline, and after which we reached our first billion in the 18th century, and have since multiplied this seven-fold in the 200 or so years since), most of the earth was covered in original forest, bush, grasslands, wetlands, etc. These plants thrived! Please explain how they thrived as they did, if, as you say, we need to release more CO2 now to get plants to grow better. Surely they were starving back then, no??? Obviously not….

    2) If the climatic balance we currently have within our biosphere is all just peachy as far as CO2 is concerned, why are our oceans absorbing too much CO2, and becoming increasingly acidic as a result? If trees and plants are just eager to absorb all the CO2 we can throw at them, why are they not doing so – why are our oceans getting CO2-saturated?

    Ocean acidification is serious business. If plankton populations plummet, we could see the collapse of the entire food chain.

    Tony, you don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes here to know there’s definitely something amiss on the CO2 front.

    Now, getting to your questions – you are doing what too many do. You’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let me take Knighter’s comment, as it takes yours, and makes them very succinct:

    climate change = big tax for starving people

    Think about this. The first part is talking about climate change. This is wholly connected with biological, chemical and atmospheric processes. The last part is about taxes – economic impacts and political issues that affect us. Now, can it be that because some (politicians, industry, economists, etc.) are making use of the situation to capitalise on us, that we are throwing out what is otherwise obvious science?

    If I told you that to cure your syphilis you should bathe in the blood of a million freshly squeezed millipedes, and that was the only option available to you, I’m sure you’d tell me that millipede blood was not a cure at all. That’s fine. I’m sure it’s not a cure either. But, you, and Knighter, are going one step further than just rejecting the ‘cure’ – on top of saying that millipede blood won’t cut it, you’re also denying you have syphilis at all, in what seems to be a frantic bid to ensure the cure is not forcefully applied.

    Perhaps this reaction is because people are now so disconnected from politics, and feeling so unable to control the ‘powers that be’, that they feel centralised cures will be applied regardless of your thoughts on the matter. Instead of just rejecting the proposed cure, we deny the disease as well, even though it’s very real. We feel it’s our only recourse. If only enough of us will shout “no, we’re fine – we really don’t have a problem to deal with at all. Just stay out of it, please!!!”

    You said:

    I am disputing the co2 emphasis of a universal cause that is being exploited by our political classes in order to increase their tax revenues…

    Analyse your sentence, please. First half – climate. Second half – politics. You’re denying science because of tax. That’s not science. That’s denial.

    Just because industry is working for its own ends, and not yours, and just because our ‘leaders’ (politicians) are held firmly in the grip of industry, doesn’t mean we should deny the situation we’re in. That doesn’t make the problem go away. We need to get real, be objective, and propose holistic soltions. That’s what I’m constantly endeavouring to do, and when people come along and say ‘climate change isn’t real because politicians are bastards’ it doesn’t help at all. It’s just plain stupid.

    And, to take this one step further – really have a look around you, and you’ll see that, actually (in fact), climate change is a major thorn in the side of both polluting big business who don’t want to stop what they’re doing, and the politicians who’re in their pockets, and politicians who are really salesmen, selling themselves to voters (they don’t get voted in by making difficult, long term choices and investments…). The only ‘winners’ here (temporary as it may be) are the ‘green’ industries offering feel-good, slightly-less-bad alternatives to the status quo. “Yes, go buy a Prius – one for every member of the family! – and you’ll be able to drive like in Steven Spielberg’s Twilight Zone, with flowers popping up on the side of the road as you drive by.” These are cashing in, as are the carbon traders I rail against (see my 3rd comment in this thread for example), but the reality is that big polluting industry doesn’t have anything to gain from this but headaches – which is why they’ve been financing the promulgation of the kind of bullshit denial we’re seeing here.

  30. Oh, forgot to answer your last question. Is CO2 a toxin. No, it’s not – in the right proportions. Just like cayenne pepper is not a toxin, but if it’s the only thing I eat, it’ll kill me.

    We had stable CO2 levels for millenia. We do not any more.

  31. another question I have is what caused the last mini ice age ?
    with co2’s harmful effects being emphasised so much by everyone on a permaculture forum,I was wondering why there is no joy and thanks being given to the useful resource it is
    Maybe there are some positive sides to our future,but it looks like the consensus here is that we are all doomed
    maybe an emphasis on how to use this abundant co2 using permaculture would give the message of hope rather than the “end of the world is nigh” that constantly gets discussed (also shown in the terror video you can scare your kids with shown above)
    I know a lot of people don’t like this question but how many flights have the posters on this forum had in their lifetime and have any of them stopped so as to show by example what we all need to do ?
    to continue using the very thing that is causing the supposed destruction seems hypocritical to me
    the shock and awe tactic that the criminal elite politicians use work fine for controlling populations but trying to scare people into behaving responsibly is utter insanity
    my views are completely diverse and “all over the place” because I am trying to share broader ideas,including the very social structure that we live in

  32. sorry craig,I missed your last post
    yes you are relying on a lot of factors and also a lot of if’s,buts and even maybes,so I’ll leave you and your friends torture yourselves into the next disaster scenario you create from your extensive data mining
    I prefer to remain optimistic about the future and with the huge amount of awareness about the corrupt system and mentality of the population becoming more aware of their “wage” slavery and reliance on big industry to provide for them
    eventually everyone will want to produce their own supply of food which will free them from their reliance on big gov combined with big corporations (Mussolini’s description of fascism and what we have in every country on our planet)
    but carry on with the co2 argument all you wish,as I said before, I have no intention of getting into debates and have simply asked some questions
    please stop assuming anything about me or my intentions and maybe you’ll be able to relax

  33. Craig,

    I get there impression that quite a fundamental issue is obvious to most readers of this blog which may not be obvious to you: Tony has not yet reached a level of understanding that would allow him to discern between “we are in a dangerous situation and have to do something about that” and “we are all doomed”.

    So, I doubt how fruitful any attempt to discuss this issue with him actually could be. Maybe he’ll learn sometime that there is a world of a difference between these ideas.

  34. Thank you Craig! I’m reading wrong again, it’s my entire mistake. Surely, CO2 being released from very hot rock during volcano activity seems logical.

    It’s really good I’m not a professional expert, and then I should have lost my job after all the mistakes I’ve made in this discussion.

  35. Thomas – yes, accumulating facts that might apparently be depressing, is not doom and gloom. Truth is truth, and that’s it. Accumulating every facet of truth enables you to see the clearest picture of what needs to be done. Some tend to shy away from anything that looks potentially overwhelming. I’d rather separate fact from fiction than create my own unreal fiction to suit my personal desire of what truth should look like. Unless we really understand the situation we’re in, how can we possibly design our way out of it?

    Oyvind – no problem (or, “no worries”, as they say in Australia). I really appreciate that you’re objective, and not clinging to pre-conceived ideas. That’s the true mark of someone who is on the learning path. Remember the old Chinese proverb – “Man who ask many questions is silly man for five minutes. Man who ask no questions is silly man whole lifetime.”

    Tony – no problem. Continue on your learning path. Ignore such questions as I asked, like how destroying the bulk of CO2-absorbing, oxygen-giving biomass would have no impact on climatic systems (especially given their role in the evaporation/precipitation cycle, etc.). Ignore my questions over why our oceans are acidifying. Ignore my questions over how to deal with facts presented….

    Tony, I live by the philosophy of absorbing facts. If I can’t change them, I don’t panic about them (if I can’t do anything about them, why panic?), but instead try to change the things I can, where I can. Understanding the difference is important here, of course.

    You’ve assumed I’m talking doom and gloom, just because I’m willing to analyse reality. Don’t shy from reality, just because it looks ugly to you. Otherwise you’re living in a dream. You can’t design your way out of a dream.

    I am not torturing myself into a disaster scenario. I’m trying to understand exactly what’s happening, and why. This is true of many of our readers and contributors. Together, with this understanding firmly grasped, we can work with available resources to change course. This site is full of articles and videos that share positive ideas for change. These desires to change course are from a very real grasp of why we need to make this change.

    There is nothing to fear from truth Tony. In the end, what else do we have? Join the dots….

  36. ‘Tony has not yet reached a level of understanding that would allow him to discern between “we are in a dangerous situation and have to do something about that” and “we are all doomed”.

    So, I doubt how fruitful any attempt to discuss this issue with him actually could be. Maybe he’ll learn sometime that there is a world of a difference between these ideas.’

    Boy, aren’t we full of ourselves!!!!

    Have humans affected climate change? Yes
    have cutting downs the forests changed climate? Yes
    Will restoring ecosystems re-change climate? Yes
    Do we need to reduce, reuse, recycle? Yes
    Can permaculture save the world? NO!!! according to some we need Wall Street

    Why do people who talk about helping the planet and people think the we have to rely on Wall St., Goldman Sacs, and other “business as usual” to save the world thru “carbon credits”

    seems the little people are doing just fine

  37. some people are taking my words personally on this site and that’s ok
    I repeat, I have not been here to debate or change your minds, I was just asking questions
    I like the idea of permaculture and find great encouragement from the work of sepp holtzer
    you must all know that the climate problem you see is not a people problem but a greed over need problem and trying to change the climate without addressing the issues of wealth worship and government corruption which are at the root cause of the destruction of ecosystems
    You are obviously right if you believe ALL your data is accurate and complete
    Craig, my comments/questions were not directed at you personally and the replies I get are coming across that you all have a complete understanding of the climate systems of the planet and I should be happy that such a superior minded group like you will save the planet
    thank you for going to all the trouble of spending your lives in such a noble manner and I look forward to seeing the fruits of your intellectual superiority in action
    no point keeping things simple from what I’ve read,the more people think they know, the more respect they seem to expect from others
    I repeat the “did you find this on the internet ?” quote again, because all the references and links are from the internet and just because you link to them does not mean they are accurate or honest

  38. Tony, you started this comment thread, and we’ve simply been trying to address your statements. Please don’t twist this around just because you find yourself in a corner due to your own unsubstantiated and incorrect statements.

  39. I’m sorry craig that you posted the frosty the snowman propaganda video
    It’s almost as damaging for kids as the one showing psychopaths blowing up children
    you answered my question the best you could,but don’t be upset if I refuse to believe them unconditionally like trusting children may believe these manipulative propaganda films
    myabe you should question yourself over this matter of influencing children in such a way and save me the trouble of having to point it out
    pr and marketing is always harmful and using the same techniques as the corporations only justifies their actions

  40. Well, we are all full of Memes, and to restructure our Memes is a painful process, because we then have to rearrange the neurological structures of our brain. People use to cling on to their Memes, no matter how obvious it is they are wrong, because this is much more comfortable than to rearrange your brain:

    To be honest I’m very grateful for the great work Craig is doing on this blog, trying to fight and rearrange the parasitic Memes spread by mainstream media, our governments and schools!

  41. Tony, you refuse to answer any question I put to you (like do you think removing 80% of the earth’s primary forests would have no impact on the earth’s climate? And, how did all the historical flora thrived with much lower CO2 levels, in face of your verbiage that plants need more CO2 to grow more? etc. etc.).

    In contrast, I have taken time to answer all your questions. Your opening statement was that it’s looking like the coldest year on record. You provide absolutely no proof for this! I shared facts that show it looks like 2010 is either going to be the hottest, or will tie for that status.

    You asked me “any ideas why australia is getting snow in it’s summer months ?” I answer that also.

    You said above “I repeat, I have not been here to debate or change your minds, I was just asking questions.”

    No problem – except, when I answer your questions, you don’t acknowledge the answers, but start shifting around like a house in sand.

    You keep making blanket statements with no real point or purpose.

    I’d love to know where the hell you get your ‘facts’ from?

    You complain if I provide links on the internet. But you’re happy to just make statements and expect me to accept them, with absolutely no scientific source for them.

    I have no idea what you expect from us, but unless you can actually talk sense and stay on point, there’s no point discussing anything with you.

  42. sorry craig on the coldest year typo,should have been winter
    never mind, just being a bit of nuisance showed me that that you have a long way to go convincing people with the attitude you all have to scepticism
    now the new Zeeland temperature data has been corrected to actual rather than faked readings, you might question the validity of the rest of your data and motivations of the scientists
    I cannot answer your questions with the lack of reliable data and you should be more careful of what you read yourself

  43. Thomas

    I came to think about an old discussion, when I stated this fact, which I’m sure I have from a serious source even I can’t remember which:

    “Also, in the example above with the hydro power dam, the carbonizing process will only take place from one side. Because concrete submerged in water cannot reabsorb CO2 from the air.”

    When submerging concrete in water stops the carbonizing process, shouldn’t the same thing happen with limestone and rock on the bottom of the oceans?

    Is the claim from the ocean acidification deniers’ completely false when they claim carbon acids in the sea will be balanced out because the carbon will be absorbed by limestone and rock underneath water?

    Maybe the carbonizing process simply is impossible to take place underneath water? Then their whole argument is a big fake. If you know anything about this I should like to know.

  44. “At the moment, I can’t think of a profession I’m less envious of than that of the American climate scientist. Consider: The climate science community’s years of meticulous study, research, data collection and modeling — not to mention its cautious, much-deliberated-over policy guidelines — are met with what? Certainly not our thanks. Nope, instead, climate scientists get labeled fear-mongers, liars, hoax-makers, greedy grant-seekers, and worse, largely as a result of industry interests who deem their findings inconvenient.” –

    Tony, “motivations of the scientists?” Probably they find it hard to find any motivations at all these days, with the world full of “useful idiots” running the errand of these kind of guys:

  45. Øyvind,

    ad “Is the claim from the ocean acidification deniers’ completely false when they claim carbon acids in the sea will be balanced out because the carbon will be absorbed by limestone and rock underneath water?”

    Well, measurements do clearly show that the oceans are indeed acidifying – I wonder how one can maintain the claim that the extra carbonic acid input would be balanced if evidence shows it actually is not.

    Actually, carbon is removed from seawater by sedimentation of carbonate rocks at a rate of about half a gigaton of C per year. This roughly equals the rate of HCO3- leaching from soils into the ocean – according to the Soil Science textbook by Brady and Weil.

    As the corresponding diagram is quite useful, I’ve uploaded it for now to:

    while this is copyrighted material, I think this certainly is well within fair use guidelines.

  46. both sides have their own propaganda Øyvind, I choose to be open minded and optimistic for our future by living the best way I can
    I care for the planet and know that maybe if we don’t stop destroying it we may end up killing ourselves over the scraps
    I’m sure that you believe everything you choose to believe,but also consider the opposite may be true or even there are aspects of truth in both sides which you can use for your own
    understanding from equally limited and flawed sources
    Since I have chosen to use maybe logic things have become easier in my life,I suggest you find out what maybe logic and belief systems (b.s) are and then you will maybe understand my outlook

  47. Thank you very much Thomas! At least I have something to show to now, and I know the carbon absorbed by ocean rock is equaled out by runoff from land based rock. This is very useful information.

    The climate deniers’ obviously think ocean acidification is the next lie, as they think climate change has now been proven false. Anyway it’s very hard to discuss with these people, because they have their heads full of data it’s very difficult for a layman to prove incorrect. Just like those denying evolution, their theories are very fanciful and rich of details.

  48. Tony, about climate change and ocean acidification there are two possibilities. A: It is mainly manmade, and the consequences are too serious not to take action. B: It is part of natural cycles in nature and has nothing to do with human impact.

    About science there is nothing which is relatively, a fact is either right or wrong. Of course we can’t understand every aspect of complicated issues, like evolution, big bang or climate change, just like we can’t find every decimal of Pi. But I’m sure they have come to 3, 14159 by now, and for me this is enough.

    If I should not accept climate science I find no reason to accept evolution or big bang either. I find no reason to reject the data Thomas showed me in the link above. I’m sure this is from an abundance of data collected and interpreted by a lot of top scientists all over the world.

    Personally I can’t see any other reason for denying these facts than economical aspects, and that people feel offended about that our lifestyle is not sustainable and cannot be defended.

  49. Øyvind
    you baffle me, you want to discuss something you believe in and I didn’t even mention oceans
    obviously everyone here only want to talk about their own reality tunnels and I seem to be out of sync with the rest of you
    enjoy your life Øyvind and please actually try to comprehend other peoples statements rather than assuming what they mean
    please tell me you live free from ALL oil based products,otherwise you could be taken as a hypocrite

  50. Tony,

    just for clarification: If you write “both sides have their own propaganda” – what precisely are the “two sides” here?

  51. Tony, I admit my reality tunnel is extremely small; actually it’s only 10/11000000, which means consciousness /subconscious. This is a reality for all of us, and something like “free thinking” doesn’t exist.

    Secondly, if I should try to live free from All oil based products I should die immediately. The eggs I’m soon going to eat are oil based the same with the milk and the bread. Even the organic carbonados I’ll have for dinner are wrapped in plastic and transported by oil. In fact I look upon myself as an entire oil product; actually I’m made of oil! I’m just as artificial as a bottle of bottled water! This is why I HATE my life!!!!

    Of course I’m a hypocrite! We are all hypocrites unless we find our self under the social control of an in-group and the strong evolutionary powers of the handicap principle (the social side of it). Finding our self living under modernistic boundaries we’ll all suffer the hypocrisy implicit in “the tragedy of the commons.”

    We’ll, all those who deny the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere also deny that CO2 has anything to do with the acidification of the oceans.

  52. Tony, “something you believe in?” Do you mean with this that the greenhouse effect is a kind of religion? Because this is a phrase I see repeated in every second article from the climate deniers, that global warming is a new kind of religion and has nothing to do with science. Probably they try to link the greenhouse effect with New Age.

  53. Øyvind,

    you write: “In fact I look upon myself as an entire oil product; actually I’m made of oil! I’m just as artificial as a bottle of bottled water! This is why I HATE my life!!!!”

    This is important – I have to say something about that.

    There are a number of good things we should do but cannot due to the present circumstances. There is no point in hating oneself for behaviour which is imposed upon oneself. An example: there are numerous reports of muslims having been forced to eat pork in various (very different) circumstances – e.g. here:

    In such a situation, when they had no choice, should the muslims hate themselves for having eaten pork? I think not.

    Of course, there are different ways of “hating oneself” – a number of fat people, say, hate their body for what it is – fat.

    Maybe one way to see it is this: what’s the point in hating oneself if there are no tangible consequences in the sense of making substantial progress towards an improvement of the situation?

    The opposite attitude of “ah, I cannot do anything about that” is perhaps just as problematic. Tony Blair when asked if he would lead by example on emissions reductions by renouncing long distance vacation flights? “That would be impractical.”

    I think that it is very important to have a sound idea what those things are we can do something about, what those are we cannot, and especially what those are where we actually can do something highly effective even if we normally may not think so(!) – the last category is by far the most important one. Once you are aware of this, plan. Where do you want to be in five year’s time, where do you want to be in two year’s time, and what are the next actionable and effective steps to get there?

  54. Øyvind, I take things “with a pinch of salt” myself and I was taken in by all the hype surrounding both sides of the global warming debate
    Maybe the most pressing thing we all should consider is the huge class divide in the world and the fact the ruling class are the ones you should be getting upset with
    Using the resources, including oil, would maybe be environmentally friendly if the small mafia style cartels were not permitted to rule us through the total power systems they have in place
    Awareness of this over the details of planetary environmental harms may turn the attitude of the whole population to a more sharing attitude towards the abundance our earth provides
    the warmist/denier attitude of some people is exactly what our current rulers rely upon
    divide and conquer works in many ways, maybe if you and your friends would realise there are no sides for the “common people” and get on with exposing the hierarchical system of control we have above us, the environment will take care of itself in it’s own time

  55. Yes Thomas, if I were not married I should have run far away into the countryside living a completely self-sustaining life by now. For me it’s no problem to live for weeks without meeting another person. The problem is my wife; she is scared for the dark and cannot live in a solitary place. And she cans neither driving nor skiing. It’s like Dmitry said in one of his essays, if you are just two people it makes it more difficult to prepare for collapse.

    First I hope one day to free myself from the dishonor it is to know you are a simple oil product, secondly I want my wife and daughter to live in a kind of community where they can survive the day of collapse and the Norwegian Oil Fund loses its value. That day the state will not be of much help anymore, and you’ll depend upon the community where you live. Hopefully we have 10 or 20 more years to prepare here than in the USA?

    The best would of course bee if my country skipped capitalism and replaced it with in-groups and permaculture. I hope for this, but I don’t expect it. But we could surely do it, as we don’t have any foreign debt it should be easier for us than many other countries. But when I know we consume more per capita than in the USA, Australia and Japan, I doubt that people here should like to change this lifestyle.

    Yes, Tony, I completely agree with you that it’s very important to get rid of our hierarchical system and replace it with a system of in-groups. You are perfectly right on this!

  56. Global Warming is an intolerant religion
    “Thou Shall Have No Other Belief on This Message Board”

    The green hijack of the Met Office is crippling Britain
    The Met Office’s commitment to warmist orthodoxy means it drastically underestimates the chances of a big freeze, says Christopher Booker

    Climate Science Coalition Vindicated
    Monday, 20 December 2010, 9:50 am
    Press Release: Climate Conversation

    Climate Science Coalition Vindicated

    BoMshell: feeble support from Aussie peers

    NIWA has abandoned the official national temperature record and created a new one following sustained pressure from the NZ Climate Science Coalition and the Climate Conversation Group.

    Learning by candlelight

    History of Encounters with the Sky Dragon

  57. Duane,

    as the discussion accompanying this article clearly shows:

    you are not at all interested in coming to a deeper understanding of the nature of the present situation. Trying to get a good idea of what’s going on – what the important relations and effects are – is what is at the heart of scientific inquiry.

    But what do you do? You persistently keep on ignoring all physics – not just concerning climate, but also about far more fundamental things, such as how gravity works. You ignore even the simplest physical reasoning, evade questions that would show the problems with the ideas you fancy, and then just move on to the next thread.

    But please, please – I beg you, do by all means continue to spread your nonsense all over the web! I’m sure you are way more effective in shaping public opinion that any conscientious scientist who spends most of his time doing actual research ever could be.

  58. thomas said:

    “you are not at all interested in coming to a deeper understanding of the nature of the present situation.”

    I am interested, that’s why I look at all sides.

    “Trying to get a good idea of what’s going on – what the important relations and effects are – is what is at the heart of scientific inquiry.”

    I agree, that’s why it’s important to look at all sides of the issue.

    “But what do you do? You persistently keep on ignoring all physics – not just concerning climate, but also about far more fundamental things, such as how gravity works.”

    Why don’t you comment on the way gravity works on the climate as explained in the above article “Learning by candlelight”

    here’s another for you:

    from someone who actually know weather
    Joe Bastardi European Blog
    Joe Bastardi’s Europe Column
    POSTED: 10:19 a.m. December 27, 2010

    “I want to explain to you why the idea now being put forward by the AGW crowd that the cold is being caused by global warming is out of touch. You folks, the big thing you should be concerned about is the total energy of the lower troposphere of the Earth, a shadowy measurement at best. There is no reliable way to measure that. And without proving that there is feedback, that is meaning an accumulation of energy that cannot escape, there is no way to say there is global warming for sure.

    I am going to give you an example of this, and this is why I get incensed at people that try to use every single event that occurs as an excuse to say man is changing the climate in a way that is demonstrable or destructive.

    You see, it takes much less energy to heat cold, dry air than it does warmer air, or water. The rise of temperatures to 10-20 degrees ABOVE normal over Greenland, where temperatures are normally brutally cold, is not nearly as big a deal in the total energy budget of the Earth, as the drop of 3 F in the tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures. In fact, I would venture to guess that the global temperature is not “suffering” at all. A drop of 10 F in temperature in a place that has a normal of 45 is more impressive energy-wise than a rise of temperatures of 20 degrees in a place where the normal is near 25 below zero. And without that buildup of excess energy, there is no true increase in the global temperature. In fact, looking at what is going on now, we can see that the OPPOSITE is occurring.

    I suspect a lot of the people in the AGW camp KNOW what is about to happen. With all the visibility given to this argument, it’s only a matter of time to when people notice the up and down in relation to the ENSO, and will demand that the natural cycle theories are given their day in court.

    Now for my posting on

    being out of touch with “your reality”, here’s a few articles

    Stephen Hawking’s Radical Philosophy of Science


    What Happened To Academia? – Part 1

    What happened to academia? In 2008, Terry Eagleton, formerly Professor of English Literature at Manchester University, wrote:

    “By and large, academic institutions have shifted from being the accusers of corporate capitalism to being its accomplices. They are intellectual Tescos, churning out a commodity known as graduates rather than greengroceries.” (Eagleton, ‘Death of the intellectual,’ Red Pepper, October 2008)

  59. Duane,

    I think we both agree that one of us holds quite absurd ideas about physics. The one thing we don’t agree on is who that is.

    Actually, I have confidence in most readers of this blog to make up their own mind about this – and there is no point at all in trying to convince you of anything.

  60. I found an article today from a climate denier showcasing some of their arguments. It’s too complicated for me to translate most of the claims, but I’ll try for a few:

    1) Climate varies because of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, which has 60 years cycles:

    2) Further the climate is regulated by Pacific decadal oscillation, which, from what he claims, we are now entering a cold period of 25 – 30 years. See:

    3) Greenland had a warmer period in the years 1930 – 1940 than today, and the off melt that time was larger than today.

    4) In the last part of the 20th century the sun had one of its “Grand Maxima” of the last 11.000 years, with increased radiation and high magnetic activity. Between 1985 and 1995 the radiation increased utterly because of fewer clouds, six times more than a theoretical effect from CO2. The change can be explained with variation of wind patterns and that the sun’s especially strong magnetic field reduced the cosmic radiation and thereby the amount of clouds. On other planets and moons without human impact there were also observed increased temperatures at this time.

    5) Satellite observations of outgoing radiation from earth show that CO2 has far less influence than earlier presumed. Also the postulated IPCC effect with an utterly increased effect from water vapour, 1, 5 – 4, 5 times larger than for CO2, is neither registered by the satellites.

    6) El Nino resulted in the warmest year by now in 1997/98, with short peaks around 2002 and 2007.

    Conclusion: Human impact on climate is of minimal importance, natural patterns are dominant.

    From an article in Dag & Tid, December 24, by professor in petro-chemistry, Ole Henrik Ellestad.

    My problem as a layman is that it’s too difficult for me to counteract these claims made by a professor and climate denier.

  61. Øyvind,

    I’ve so far only looked into the first item you listed:

    1) Climate varies because of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, which has 60 years cycles:

    It is actually quite interesting to take a look at the 1994 Schlesinger-Ramankutty paper in which this first was discussed. Basically, what they do is to take observed temperature data, account for the known effect of greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols, and then study the remaining temperature variation – which shows this oscillation.

    The first paragraph of their paper after the abstract summarizes what they do:

    For prescribed greenhouse-gas (GHG) and anthropogenic-sulphate-aerosol (ASA) radiative forcing, the global-mean temperature changes simulated by our simple hemispherically resolved climate/ocean model for a range of climate sensitivities Delta-T-2x, are compared to the IPCC-observed global-mean surface temperature changes over 1858-1992 (ref. 1); the Delta-T-2x which minimizes the r.m.s. error is determined. The ASA radiative forcing, characterized by its value in 1978, Delta-F-SO4(1978), is chosen to minimize the r.m.s. error between the simulated and observed interhemispheric temperature differences. The simulated global-mean temperature changes are than subtracted from the global-mean temperature changes to reveal what is not caused by GHG and ASA radiative forcing. The resulting detrended temperature changes (Fig. 1d) indicate the presence of a non-random, oscillatory component.

    In other words, this “multidecadal oscillation” is an effect on top of the effects of GHG and ASA.

    A bit further into the paper, we find the two sentences:

    The oscillation revealed in Fig. 1 has not been reported in the previous SSA studies of the global surface temperature anonaly data of Jones et al. This is because those analyses were performed on the non-detrended data. To demonstrate this, we (…)

    So, in other words, if one does not include the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the data analysis, this oscillation is not even visible, because it gets overshadowed.

    How anyone could spin this particular research article as providing evidence against the man-made climate change from greenhouse gas emissions is beyond me. That’s pretty much the opposite of what it actually says.

  62. Divide an conquer is what they say,this endless cyclical climate debate is moot.

    Who cares about climate change it’s a useless debate and you should all feel ashamed of yourselves for indulging in this endless useless to and fro.

    How about staying in the present,presently Warren Bush is appealing for funds to do worth while work in Africa,clearly he is a man with great skill and his efforts could literally change thousands of lives and make a real difference,how much support does the story get not much,not even a bloody well done or a good luck or a what can I do to help.

    I find it hard these days to direct the general public to this website because I feel it has been over run with this type of rabid debate.

    If you people spent half the time you spend in front of your computers busting out intellectual arguments on a real effort to support work that needs to be done now the world would be a better place.

    You all have that power but you refuse to use it,instead it’s my dick is bigger than yours,look at my link ,my source is better wa wa wa wa.

    Imagine if you all got on the phone now or wrote some emails or reached into your own pocket took some action,not just for Warren but in general.

    The argumentative amongst you will no doubt counter this with we educate people through these debates,I am sorry the time for chat and high brow is over.

    The facts are simple most of the worlds hungry,sick and all this fact mongering quite frankly makes me sick.

    I challenge you to use your unique talents for something more than this,to spend some time each day on a personal project like Warren has.

    You have got to do something otherwise you are no better than the people you are endlessly crying about.

    I never saw in the design manual a chapter on pissing and moaning or on sign waving.Permaculture is a design science,not some platform for clowns to perform on.

    It’s like throwing rocks at a tank,piric.
    It really feels like Permaculture is being high jacked by a lot of talkers and fear mongers.

    Lets work on the present in the hope for a brighter future.
    Come the revolution you guys are into the compost heap with the rest of clowns.
    Fernando Pessoa

  63. well said Fernando
    if you read my posts,you’ll notice I was trying to help these people wake up myself
    we all have to show by example the alternative lifestyles needed to wake up the ignorant
    my point of not using or reducing oil products being an example where self sufficiency plays a big role
    from my experience it involves hard work and maybe the posters on this board are agoraphobic

  64. Fernando,

    whoa whoa, after 70+ messages on this thread, you join the discussion with:

    “If you people spent half the time you spend in front of your computers busting out intellectual arguments on a real effort to support work that needs to be done now the world would be a better place.”

    How many good and useful things you could have done instead of spending all that time in front of your computer reading through that lengthy discussion?! Oh, of course, that’s a sinister imputation, as you already do do that. Now guess what.

    I find it quite interesting that such – well, let’s take them for what they are – insults come up just as a prominent academic is caught red-handed deliberately mis-representing scientific evidence (assuming that Øyvind’s claim about the newspaper article is correct, that is).

  65. Fernando – I’d recommend you get down off your high horse for a moment, and put pen to paper to contribute something of value to this site (i.e. submit the kind of articles you’d like to see in the world).

    Looking back through your comments, I see you’ve been accused of being ‘holier than thou’ by other commenters here before. I also note that you have some areas that you’re very passionate about, and others you’re not. You must learn that this works both ways – some people will be passionate about aspects of our many global dilemmas that you are not.

    If you’d have us not discuss climate change, would you also have us ignore peak oil? Soil erosion? Water contamination? Ocean acidification? Biodiversity? etc. etc.? If you don’t like the conversation thread, no problem, that’s your call. Just don’t assume that because the people here are discussing climate change that they’re not also doing something about the situation, and don’t expect them to bow to your directive to quit discussion in areas that don’t happen to suit you.

    For myself, I’ve created and developed this forum where people can discuss any and all aspects of our world problems, and their solutions, for the benefit of the global permaculture community, and the human family in general.

    As well as presenting and discussing problems, I’m continually sharing any positive news I can get my hands on, and even go to great lengths to visit any beacons of hope (projects) where I am sure they’re doing great things but where I fail to get them to report on it themselves. I often do this at risk to my health and even life.

    Again, get off your horse, and tell us all about the positive things you’re doing and learning.

    In the meantime, we will continue to discuss climate change, and all other issues pertinent to the survival of the human race.

    I have visited many people and places where they are directly suffering from the impacts of climate change, and where the implementation of permaculture systems are made all that much more difficult because of the overwhelming heat, overwhelming cold, floods, droughts and crop destruction from the afore-mentioned and the now-radical migrations and inbalances of insect and other species, that are a result of it. Raising awareness of their plight, and the mechanics behind it, is an important aspect of my work. I’m not going to quit it to suit your current position on your particular learning curve. Get used to that.

  66. I am sorry Craig,I should have put in a disclaimer regarding you.In fact I believe your work is very important and have followed it from when you first entered the scene.I also realise that with your work you have helped raised the profile of permaculture,and risked your health,family and I am sure that you are not in it for the money.I naturally thought that you wouldn’t include yourself in with the clowns.You are making a real difference and your energy levels are amazing,enviable and beyond questioning.
    Actually Craig you would be the poster boy example of how to use your unique talents in the world to make it a better place.

    Thomas your paranoia is amusing,I won’t dignify the rest of your argument.I guess it’s your form of dissonance so I will leave you to your intellectual cocoon.
    Best wishes Fernando Pessoa

  67. Well, thanks Fernando, nice of you to say, although I need to add that I know a little of what Thomas is up to, and I know he’s also doing what he can to make a difference. I’ll do the ethical thing here and not share personal info on these aspects, but I’m appreciative of Thomas’ work to educate/train/guide the people within his sphere of influence. We need more like him as far as I can see.

    Fernando – I have no idea what you do, but if you’re doing great stuff on the ground somewhere, then feel free to send through blog posts we can share with a very attentive crowd. We all need all the inspiration we can get. Me included.

  68. Sorry, man-made climate change is a lie. People is it as a lie. Here in the US it is looked upon as a Al Gore money-maker.If Permaculture wants to be more widely accepted and respected, don’t connect yourself with this. Man-made climate change is just one more way for politicians and corp. to suck money and take power over us. There are plenty of real problems. Peak oil, third world population growth, monsanto/GMOs, and here in America, freedom to grow food{S510}. If however, you want to stay in a small niche market, making profit from selling classes and dvds to “the already converted”, please go on. If you really wish to help people to provide healthy food for themselves, while helping the land, give up on the pushing of a power plan that everyone I speak with sees as another “stick it to the common man” plan. When I try to talk and permaculture 90% have no idea about it. They start some web checking and come back and say, “sorry, not interested. I didn’t know you were a hippie liberal.” These same people are against what politicians of both parties here are doing. These are people that are against corp. that they now realize have sucked this nation almost dry. These are people that want to be able to be more self-sufficient and grow organic food for themselves. There are so many areas where all of us could agree and work together to grow and accomplish so much more. If however things are kept dogmatic, well don’t expect the preaching to be heard by most.

  69. Yeo-Thomas,

    it’s all very simple: the question of what is going on with the climate is way too important to be taken lightly.

    I think we agree on that. We just cannot afford to be very wrong on this one.

    So, shouldn’t it be very concerning for all of us whenever claims are made which turn out – as soon as one looks into the issue and checks sources – either mis-represent measurements, or mis-represent what other people actually found in their work, or mis-represent the scientific method itself? Regardless of what “side” would “benefit” from such “propaganda” – this always is a problem, as the issue is just way too serious.

    I don’t care what “side” deceptive claims appear on – I’d like to get rid of all of them. Let me be very clear about this: there certainly are dishonest scientists who try to gain personal advantage from the way they spin this issue. I do accuse Fred Singer of grave misconduct against the scientific code of ethics, for example – the charge being fabrication of evidence. But equally, I do accuse the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) of serious misconduct (they do identify anthropogenic climate change as a serious threat and so do I) – my charge being abuse of the professional expert role, specifically concerning their 08/2009 report “Geo-Engineering Giving us The Time to Act?”

    So, if anyone wants to label me as belonging to some group, that better should be the “we won’t tolerate demonstrably false claims to spread widely and poison the process of finding out what actually is going on” group.

  70. Yeo-Thomas,

    let me be very clear about one thing: I certainly don’t like the idea of those who got us into fossil fuel dependency using the danger of the situation that emerged w.r.t. climate change to strengthen their grip even further – perhaps “Chutzpah” is the only term that might roughly describe that situation.

    But don’t be fooled into believing this to be an issue of Permaculture “falling into the trap of believing something made up by Al Gore to do his cronies a favour”.

    Let’s hear Bill Mollison on his views about the issue – here:
    (Part 2, starting at 8:15)

    Q: How is permaculture relevant to what’s been described as “the Global Warming Crisis”?

    A: Oh, you wouldn’t have had it if you all did Permaculture, because you wouldn’t be buzzing around in hundreds-of-horsepowers vehicles all day along, which everybody seems to be. It was just a shift of faith that humanity went through, and it was ridiculous, really, when you think about it. All you gonna do in America is to stand on one of these Freeways and see — god, this is madness — it’s like a giant fire that everybody’s caught in.


    [On Australia]
    It’s not just that we cannot use coal, we cannot dig coal and export it either! So, for us to become sustainable, we’re gonna stop exporting coal – now, not one of our politicians would even dream of doing that, because that might take some of their power away. And they are ephemeral creatures, politicians, as long as they are on the top for the time that remains it’s all that matters.


    We’ve already lost all the world’s ice, you know – can’t stop that. And that means a 70 meters rise in the end of the sea level.

    Pretty much the only thing that’s changed about Bill’s perspective on the issue since his courses from the 80’s and also the Designer’s Manual is that we now will have more CO2 in the atmosphere than we would have otherwise, and he takes that into account.

    My impression is he got the issue with the role of *all* our politicians in this quite right.

  71. Thank you for your work on this site Thomas! Most scientists don’t go outside their small little boxes, and very few take part in discussions with “everybody people” on the ground. I must run now, as we got a lovely doughter yesterday. Happy New Year to all!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button