Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:40 p
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 28, 2020 at 10:56 am
Paul Plante says :
J sounds like many of us older people here in America who are still mired in HOLOCENE era thinking, where facts once did matter, who are foolish enough to think that facts still do matter, when they clearly don’t, as in little Greta, “THE SCIENCE AUTHORITY,” telling the Davos crowd of rich dudes, “No political ideology or economic structure has been able to tackle the climate and environmental emergency and create a cohesive and sustainable world, because that world, in case you haven’t noticed, is currently on fire,” when the world is hardly on fire, and in fact, where I am it is snowing and the only fire in sight is that which I have going in my stove to keep me warm and to keep my water from freezing.
So even though it really is a blatantly false statement that the world is on fire, when it isn’t on fire at all, just the most fire-prone place in the world right now is living up to its well-established reputation as the most fire-prone place in the world by being on fire, because Greta said the world is on fire, well, it is, and we people who think it isn’t because we look out our window and see snow, will just have to adjust our thinking to see the world as Greta sees it, because she has true vision and we don’t, being adults, as we can see from the little girl’s stirring speech at Davos on January 21, 2020, to wit:
I wonder: What will you tell your children was the reason to fail and leave them facing a climate chaos that you knowingly brought upon them?
That it seemed so bad for the economy that we decided to resign the idea of securing future living conditions without even trying?
Our house is still on fire.
Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour.
end quotes
That is why nobody is waiting around for a bunch of stuffy old geologists to get around to finally realizing “our house is still burning, ” because the inaction of the geologists in proclaiming the “AGE OF THE ANTHROPOCENE” is fueling the flames by the hour, which takes us back to the Cape Charles Mirror archives on the subject of “contrived science,” where again the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” such as the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, which screamed out at us that the IPCC, which is a political lash-up prostituting science to create HYSTERIA in the public at large to make them “tractable” and therefore, easy to manipulate with falsehoods, warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems, and focus in on a phrase the IPCC uses to scare us with, that being “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” which is yet more bull****, especially that word “anthropogenic,” a totally-contrived political term, as we can clearly see by going to an article in the Brit publication The Guardian entitled “The Anthropocene epoch: have we entered a new phase of planetary history? – Human activity has transformed the Earth – but scientists are divided about whether this is really a turning point in geological history” by Nicola Davison on 10 Jun 2019, to wit:
It was February 2000 and the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen was sitting in a meeting room in Cuernavaca, Mexico, stewing quietly.
Five years earlier, Crutzen and two colleagues had been awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for proving that the ozone layer, which shields the planet from ultraviolet light, was thinning at the poles because of rising concentrations of industrial gas.
Now he was attending a meeting of scientists who studied the planet’s oceans, land surfaces and atmosphere.
As the scientists presented their findings, most of which described dramatic planetary changes, Crutzen shifted in his seat.
“You could see he was getting agitated.”
“He wasn’t happy,” Will Steffen, a chemist who organised the meeting, told me recently.
What finally tipped Crutzen over the edge was a presentation by a group of scientists that focused on the Holocene, the geological epoch that began around 11,700 years ago and continues to the present day.
After Crutzen heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time, he lost it.
“He stopped everybody and said: ‘Stop saying the Holocene!’”
“‘We’re not in the Holocene any more,’” Steffen recalled.
end quotes
Now, speaking as an engineer, here, which is a totally different breed of cat from a “scientist,” such as this Crutzen dude who heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time and flipped out and lost it, yelling at the people around him to “Stop saying the Holocene,” I would say the dude sounds like a dangerous lunatic who might be better off being institutionalized somewhere safe, but at the same time, and this is based on experience with the trade, there is absolutely nothing which prevents a dangerous lunatic from being a scientist, so there it is, which takes us back to The Guardian, as follows:
But then Crutzen stalled.
The outburst had not been premeditated, but now all eyes were on him.
So he blurted out a name for a new epoch.
A combination of anthropos, the Greek for “human”, and “-cene”, the suffix used in names of geological epochs, “Anthropocene” at least sounded academic.
end quotes
So the term the IPCC uses is an un-scientific, political term pulled from straight out of the *** of someone who might well be unhinged, but that does serve as any kind of bar to the IPCC using the bull**** term to scare people with, since that is how the IPCC needs people – frightened out of their wits and unable to see the SCAM going on here, which is a big money transfer scheme in the guise of “fighting global warming,” which takes us back to The Guardian for more of that story, as follows:
A few months after the meeting, Crutzen and an American biologist, Eugene Stoermer, expanded on the idea in an article on the “Anthropocene”.
We were entering an entirely new phase of planetary history, they argued, in which human beings had become the driving force.
And without a major catastrophe, such as an asteroid impact or nuclear war, humankind would remain a major geological force for many millennia.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that those assertions aren’t based on any “science,” or “scientific findings;” to the contrary, they are based solely on the emotional “feelings” of someone who may well not be all there, which takes us again back to The Guardian:
The article appeared on page 17 of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme’s newsletter.
At this point it did not seem likely the term would ever travel beyond the abstruse literature produced by institutions preoccupied with things like the nitrogen cycle.
But the concept took flight.
Environmental scientists latched on to what they saw as a useful catch-all term for the changes to the natural world – retreating sea ice, accelerating species extinction, bleached coral reefs – that they were already attributing to human activity.
Academic articles began to appear with “Anthropocene” in the title, followed by entire journals dedicated to the topic.
Soon the idea jumped to the humanities, then newspapers and magazines, and then to the arts, becoming a subject of photography, poetry, opera and a song by Nick Cave.
“The proliferation of this concept can mainly be traced back to the fact that, under the guise of scientific neutrality, it conveys a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency,” wrote the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk.
end quotes
And seriously, people, if you were pulling off the SCAM OF THE CENTURY, which is what this IPCC global climate crisis crowd is doing, and you needed people petrified with fear and unable to think straight while you are fleecing them, why would you go for less than a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency?
Getting back to the genesis of this horse**** term “anhropogenic,” The Guardian continues as follows:
There was just one place where the Anthropocene seemed not to be catching on: among the geologists who actually define these terms.
To many geologists, accustomed to working with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the notion that a species that has been around for the blink of an eye was now a genuine geological force seemed absurd.
Few would deny we are in a period of climatic turmoil, but many feel that, compared with some of the truly apocalyptic events of the deep past – such as the period, 252m years ago, when temperatures rose 10C and 96% of marine species died – the change so far has not been especially severe.
end quotes
As I have said elsewhere, compared to the climatic “hands” the earth has dealt people at various times in its long, history (humans have in fact been on earth since before 2000 when millennials think the world was created just for them), we really have it being fairly benign, but hey, that is just me.
Getting back to the genesis of the political term “anthropogenic”:
At a meeting of the Geological Society of London, in 2006, a stratigrapher named Jan Zalasiewicz argued that it was time to look at the concept seriously.
With a mounting sense of apprehension, Zalasiewicz agreed to take on the task.
He knew the undertaking would not only be difficult but divisive, risking the ire of colleagues who felt that all the chatter around the Anthropocene had more to do with politics and media hype than actual science.
“All the things the Anthropocene implies that are beyond geology, particularly the social-political stuff, is new terrain for many geologists,” Zalasiewicz told me.
“To have this word used by climate commissions and environmental organisations is unfamiliar and may feel dangerous.”
end quotes
And the use of the term has everything to do with politics and media hype, and absolutely nothing whatever to do with science, and yes, it is indeed quite dangerous for these politicians on this IPCC to be turning people’s heads inside out with contrived pseudo-science to scare them and render them unable to think or question, which are basic citizenship requirements for any democracy to be able to function properly as opposed to being a despotism or tyranny, which this IPCC will be if only it can trick and fool us American citizens to come on board and surrender our collective futures to them to manage, which is the “social-political stuff” that the IPCC really is all about – redistribution of wealth, by them, which takes us back to The Guardian, once again, for more, as follows:
One of the loudest critics of the Anthropocene is Stanley Finney, who as the secretary-general of the IUGS, the body that ratifies changes to the timescale, is perhaps the most powerful stratigrapher in the world.
When Finney first came across the term “Anthropocene”, in a paper written by Zalasiewicz in 2008, he thought little of it.
As the Anthropocene working group gained momentum, he grew concerned that the ICS was being pressured into issuing a statement that at its heart had little to do with advancing stratigraphy, and more to do with politics.
end quotes
It has everything to do with politics, which is driving this train, and nothing to do with “science,” at all, to wit:
Academics both inside and outside geology have noted the Anthropocene’s political implications.
In “After Nature,” the law professor Jedediah Purdy writes that using the term “Anthropocene” to describe a wide array of human-caused geological and ecological change is “an effort to meld them into a single situation, gathered under a single name”.
To Purdy, the Anthropocene is an attempt to do what the concept of “the environment” did in the 1960s and 70s.
It is pragmatic, a way to name the problem – and thus begin the process of solving it.
Yet if a term becomes too broad, its meaning can become unhelpfully vague.
“There is an impulse to want to put things in capital letters, in formal definitions, just to make them look like they’re nicely organised so you can put them on a shelf and they’ll behave,” said Bill Ruddiman, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.
A seasoned geologist, Ruddiman has written papers arguing against the stratigraphic definition of the Anthropocene on the grounds that any single start-date would be meaningless since humans have been gradually shaping the planet for at least 50,000 years.
“What the working group is trying to say is everything pre-1950 is pre-Anthropocene, and that’s just absurd,” he told me.
end quotes
And I believe that absurd is a very accurate scientific term for this CHARADE going on here, which takes us back to the narrative, to wit:
Ruddiman’s arguments have found wide support, even from a handful of members of the working group.
Then, in late April, the group decided to hold a vote that would settle, once and for all, the matter of the start-date.
Working group members had one month to cast their votes; a supermajority of at least 60% would be needed for the vote to be binding.
The results, announced on 21 May, were unequivocal.
Twenty-nine members of the group, representing 88%, voted for the start of the Anthropocene to be in the mid-20th century.
end quotes
And that is how the term “anthropogenic” as used by the IPCC, the Democrats in this country and Greta Thunberg, came into existence, people – it was pulled straight from the *** of one scientist who might not have been mentally stable, and made mainstream by the HYSTERIA-MONGERING media!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/i ... ent-223903
Paul Plante says :
J sounds like many of us older people here in America who are still mired in HOLOCENE era thinking, where facts once did matter, who are foolish enough to think that facts still do matter, when they clearly don’t, as in little Greta, “THE SCIENCE AUTHORITY,” telling the Davos crowd of rich dudes, “No political ideology or economic structure has been able to tackle the climate and environmental emergency and create a cohesive and sustainable world, because that world, in case you haven’t noticed, is currently on fire,” when the world is hardly on fire, and in fact, where I am it is snowing and the only fire in sight is that which I have going in my stove to keep me warm and to keep my water from freezing.
So even though it really is a blatantly false statement that the world is on fire, when it isn’t on fire at all, just the most fire-prone place in the world right now is living up to its well-established reputation as the most fire-prone place in the world by being on fire, because Greta said the world is on fire, well, it is, and we people who think it isn’t because we look out our window and see snow, will just have to adjust our thinking to see the world as Greta sees it, because she has true vision and we don’t, being adults, as we can see from the little girl’s stirring speech at Davos on January 21, 2020, to wit:
I wonder: What will you tell your children was the reason to fail and leave them facing a climate chaos that you knowingly brought upon them?
That it seemed so bad for the economy that we decided to resign the idea of securing future living conditions without even trying?
Our house is still on fire.
Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour.
end quotes
That is why nobody is waiting around for a bunch of stuffy old geologists to get around to finally realizing “our house is still burning, ” because the inaction of the geologists in proclaiming the “AGE OF THE ANTHROPOCENE” is fueling the flames by the hour, which takes us back to the Cape Charles Mirror archives on the subject of “contrived science,” where again the word “contrived” is taken to mean “having an unnatural or false appearance or quality: artificial, labored, as in a contrived plot,” such as the AP NEWS article entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, which screamed out at us that the IPCC, which is a political lash-up prostituting science to create HYSTERIA in the public at large to make them “tractable” and therefore, easy to manipulate with falsehoods, warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems, and focus in on a phrase the IPCC uses to scare us with, that being “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” which is yet more bull****, especially that word “anthropogenic,” a totally-contrived political term, as we can clearly see by going to an article in the Brit publication The Guardian entitled “The Anthropocene epoch: have we entered a new phase of planetary history? – Human activity has transformed the Earth – but scientists are divided about whether this is really a turning point in geological history” by Nicola Davison on 10 Jun 2019, to wit:
It was February 2000 and the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen was sitting in a meeting room in Cuernavaca, Mexico, stewing quietly.
Five years earlier, Crutzen and two colleagues had been awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for proving that the ozone layer, which shields the planet from ultraviolet light, was thinning at the poles because of rising concentrations of industrial gas.
Now he was attending a meeting of scientists who studied the planet’s oceans, land surfaces and atmosphere.
As the scientists presented their findings, most of which described dramatic planetary changes, Crutzen shifted in his seat.
“You could see he was getting agitated.”
“He wasn’t happy,” Will Steffen, a chemist who organised the meeting, told me recently.
What finally tipped Crutzen over the edge was a presentation by a group of scientists that focused on the Holocene, the geological epoch that began around 11,700 years ago and continues to the present day.
After Crutzen heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time, he lost it.
“He stopped everybody and said: ‘Stop saying the Holocene!’”
“‘We’re not in the Holocene any more,’” Steffen recalled.
end quotes
Now, speaking as an engineer, here, which is a totally different breed of cat from a “scientist,” such as this Crutzen dude who heard the word Holocene for the umpteenth time and flipped out and lost it, yelling at the people around him to “Stop saying the Holocene,” I would say the dude sounds like a dangerous lunatic who might be better off being institutionalized somewhere safe, but at the same time, and this is based on experience with the trade, there is absolutely nothing which prevents a dangerous lunatic from being a scientist, so there it is, which takes us back to The Guardian, as follows:
But then Crutzen stalled.
The outburst had not been premeditated, but now all eyes were on him.
So he blurted out a name for a new epoch.
A combination of anthropos, the Greek for “human”, and “-cene”, the suffix used in names of geological epochs, “Anthropocene” at least sounded academic.
end quotes
So the term the IPCC uses is an un-scientific, political term pulled from straight out of the *** of someone who might well be unhinged, but that does serve as any kind of bar to the IPCC using the bull**** term to scare people with, since that is how the IPCC needs people – frightened out of their wits and unable to see the SCAM going on here, which is a big money transfer scheme in the guise of “fighting global warming,” which takes us back to The Guardian for more of that story, as follows:
A few months after the meeting, Crutzen and an American biologist, Eugene Stoermer, expanded on the idea in an article on the “Anthropocene”.
We were entering an entirely new phase of planetary history, they argued, in which human beings had become the driving force.
And without a major catastrophe, such as an asteroid impact or nuclear war, humankind would remain a major geological force for many millennia.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that those assertions aren’t based on any “science,” or “scientific findings;” to the contrary, they are based solely on the emotional “feelings” of someone who may well not be all there, which takes us again back to The Guardian:
The article appeared on page 17 of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme’s newsletter.
At this point it did not seem likely the term would ever travel beyond the abstruse literature produced by institutions preoccupied with things like the nitrogen cycle.
But the concept took flight.
Environmental scientists latched on to what they saw as a useful catch-all term for the changes to the natural world – retreating sea ice, accelerating species extinction, bleached coral reefs – that they were already attributing to human activity.
Academic articles began to appear with “Anthropocene” in the title, followed by entire journals dedicated to the topic.
Soon the idea jumped to the humanities, then newspapers and magazines, and then to the arts, becoming a subject of photography, poetry, opera and a song by Nick Cave.
“The proliferation of this concept can mainly be traced back to the fact that, under the guise of scientific neutrality, it conveys a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency,” wrote the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk.
end quotes
And seriously, people, if you were pulling off the SCAM OF THE CENTURY, which is what this IPCC global climate crisis crowd is doing, and you needed people petrified with fear and unable to think straight while you are fleecing them, why would you go for less than a message of almost unparalleled moral-political urgency?
Getting back to the genesis of this horse**** term “anhropogenic,” The Guardian continues as follows:
There was just one place where the Anthropocene seemed not to be catching on: among the geologists who actually define these terms.
To many geologists, accustomed to working with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the notion that a species that has been around for the blink of an eye was now a genuine geological force seemed absurd.
Few would deny we are in a period of climatic turmoil, but many feel that, compared with some of the truly apocalyptic events of the deep past – such as the period, 252m years ago, when temperatures rose 10C and 96% of marine species died – the change so far has not been especially severe.
end quotes
As I have said elsewhere, compared to the climatic “hands” the earth has dealt people at various times in its long, history (humans have in fact been on earth since before 2000 when millennials think the world was created just for them), we really have it being fairly benign, but hey, that is just me.
Getting back to the genesis of the political term “anthropogenic”:
At a meeting of the Geological Society of London, in 2006, a stratigrapher named Jan Zalasiewicz argued that it was time to look at the concept seriously.
With a mounting sense of apprehension, Zalasiewicz agreed to take on the task.
He knew the undertaking would not only be difficult but divisive, risking the ire of colleagues who felt that all the chatter around the Anthropocene had more to do with politics and media hype than actual science.
“All the things the Anthropocene implies that are beyond geology, particularly the social-political stuff, is new terrain for many geologists,” Zalasiewicz told me.
“To have this word used by climate commissions and environmental organisations is unfamiliar and may feel dangerous.”
end quotes
And the use of the term has everything to do with politics and media hype, and absolutely nothing whatever to do with science, and yes, it is indeed quite dangerous for these politicians on this IPCC to be turning people’s heads inside out with contrived pseudo-science to scare them and render them unable to think or question, which are basic citizenship requirements for any democracy to be able to function properly as opposed to being a despotism or tyranny, which this IPCC will be if only it can trick and fool us American citizens to come on board and surrender our collective futures to them to manage, which is the “social-political stuff” that the IPCC really is all about – redistribution of wealth, by them, which takes us back to The Guardian, once again, for more, as follows:
One of the loudest critics of the Anthropocene is Stanley Finney, who as the secretary-general of the IUGS, the body that ratifies changes to the timescale, is perhaps the most powerful stratigrapher in the world.
When Finney first came across the term “Anthropocene”, in a paper written by Zalasiewicz in 2008, he thought little of it.
As the Anthropocene working group gained momentum, he grew concerned that the ICS was being pressured into issuing a statement that at its heart had little to do with advancing stratigraphy, and more to do with politics.
end quotes
It has everything to do with politics, which is driving this train, and nothing to do with “science,” at all, to wit:
Academics both inside and outside geology have noted the Anthropocene’s political implications.
In “After Nature,” the law professor Jedediah Purdy writes that using the term “Anthropocene” to describe a wide array of human-caused geological and ecological change is “an effort to meld them into a single situation, gathered under a single name”.
To Purdy, the Anthropocene is an attempt to do what the concept of “the environment” did in the 1960s and 70s.
It is pragmatic, a way to name the problem – and thus begin the process of solving it.
Yet if a term becomes too broad, its meaning can become unhelpfully vague.
“There is an impulse to want to put things in capital letters, in formal definitions, just to make them look like they’re nicely organised so you can put them on a shelf and they’ll behave,” said Bill Ruddiman, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.
A seasoned geologist, Ruddiman has written papers arguing against the stratigraphic definition of the Anthropocene on the grounds that any single start-date would be meaningless since humans have been gradually shaping the planet for at least 50,000 years.
“What the working group is trying to say is everything pre-1950 is pre-Anthropocene, and that’s just absurd,” he told me.
end quotes
And I believe that absurd is a very accurate scientific term for this CHARADE going on here, which takes us back to the narrative, to wit:
Ruddiman’s arguments have found wide support, even from a handful of members of the working group.
Then, in late April, the group decided to hold a vote that would settle, once and for all, the matter of the start-date.
Working group members had one month to cast their votes; a supermajority of at least 60% would be needed for the vote to be binding.
The results, announced on 21 May, were unequivocal.
Twenty-nine members of the group, representing 88%, voted for the start of the Anthropocene to be in the mid-20th century.
end quotes
And that is how the term “anthropogenic” as used by the IPCC, the Democrats in this country and Greta Thunberg, came into existence, people – it was pulled straight from the *** of one scientist who might not have been mentally stable, and made mainstream by the HYSTERIA-MONGERING media!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/i ... ent-223903