CO2nsensus? - A Response To @kennyskitchen and @elamental

in blog •  17 days ago

CO2NSENSUS.png

It's my fourth day on steemit and I've encountered my first serious intellectual challenge here. @elamental of Earth Deeds fame has shared with me a thorough 2-part article by @kennyskitchen debunking the mainstream 'consensus' on climate change science, specifically the human-made, CO2 analysis. I'll admit, my instinctive reaction was to roll my eyes. "Oh great. Another mindless conspiraloon out to sabotage the deep green movement..."

Determined to rise to the challenge though, I read Kenny's articles and was pleasantly surprised, not just by how thorough they were but also by how much I agreed with their analysis.

Here are Kenny's two articles;

GLOBAL COOLING! No, wait... GLOBAL WARMING!! Ah, um... CLIMATE CHANGE!!! Just be afraid & give us more power!

So, we've seen that most #ClimateChange "science" is complete BS... Why is the agenda being pushed? And by whom?

No Platforming?

Before I begin, it bears mentioning that there have been calls recently to 'no-platform' all climate science deniers, refusing to debate with them at all. Some of my personal heroes and sheroes, including the incredible Dr Caroline Lucas MP have signed an open letter in which they explain why they are refusing to lend their credibility to debating climate change skeptics. I can understand where they're coming from. In my lifetime the debates around climate change have been unbearably frustrating; biased in favour of the skeptic perspective against all reason. The signatories to the letter claim that there is nothing substantive to debate with the skeptics, whose position is funded by the fossil fuel lobby.

I've never supported no-platforming and don't think I ever will. The only circumstances in which it's appropriate are to prevent the incitement of violence and hatred. There is the argument that climate change denial does incite violence to the planet, by advocating more burning of CO2. What is problematic about this argument is that the perceived violence is now so widespread and normalised that it requires no incitement. Indeed, the only way to stop it is to 'win', (or resolve) the debate.

No-platforming stinks of intellectual cowardice and prevents learning, so when I received this challenge today, I knew I had a responsibility to respond to it as fully as I possibly could.

'Scientific' Consensus

One of the most significant points from Kenny's first article is how the focus on 'scientific consensus' is absurd, given that consensus is not by itself a scientific method. "the scientific consensus used to be that the earth was flat". Pretty much every scientific breakthrough ever has, by definition, required a rejection of consensus by an individual, or a small minority of rebels. Furthermore, the #CimateGate emails, the doctoring of data, and the 'hockey stick' graph do all lend themselves to the notion that the 'consensus' might be illusory and that some sort of conspiracy is probably at play.

The second article was the most compelling. It details some of the many other ways in which humanity is destroying the biosphere, some of the individuals, corporations and mobs responsible for this destruction and ends with a list of Kenny's conclusions, which I'll cut and paste here;

-begins-

  1. CO2 is not a pollutant
  2. Most "climate science" is complete fraud
  3. The biggest polluters on the planet are the military, animal agriculture, and companies like Monsanto
  4. No matter the problem, more government is NEVER the solution
    a. Government is simply the use of violence & coercion against others instead of taking responsibility to change your own life
  5. The Earth is not warming (at least not linearly, different regions are all warming & cooling separately)
  6. The Earth is not overpopulated, we can easily feed everyone a well-balanced diet, and eugenics is ALWAYS immoral (not just when the Nazis did it)
  7. For the first time in history, we have the ability to share the truth faster & wider than the system can spread its lies
    EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO CHANGES THE WORLD! Here are some big things you can do to make the world better
    a. Stop paying taxes
    b. Eat a organic, non-GMO, vegan diet (growing it yourself is best)
    c. Stop taking in corporate media of any kind
    d. Begin practicing radical personal responsibility, stop acting like a victim or outsourcing responsibility for your actions
    e. If someone is trying to convince you to be afraid, chances are they are planning to take advantage of you somehow

-ends-

CO2nsensus?

The only really significant bone of contention I have with this list (and with Kenny's general analysis) is their first point, regarding the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. From 'my side' of the debate, this question has been pretty much 'settled' since the Exxon papers leaked. #ExxonKnew #ShellKnew

Exxon Knew

I've been tracking fossil fuel industry (military industrial complex) propaganda for years now. Exxon publicly pioneered climate science back in the day but stopped publishing their findings in the 70s, once it became clear (to them at least) that the industrial scale of CO2 emissions would likely lead to the abrupt and dramatic changes to Earth's climate which we are witnessing today. They deployed the same PR firm and the same tactics as Big Tobacco had done, namely sowing seeds of doubt in consumer's minds about the certainty of the science. A recent analysis conducted by Carbon Brief investigated 900 recently published scientific papers, all of which cast doubts on climate change or speak against it. They found 9/10 of the most prolific authors were in some way connected with Exxon Mobil.

The net effect of this decades long PR campaign has been to keep industrial society dependent on the oil wells pumping and the coal fires burning, while preventing the growth of sustainable, renewable energy technology and markets.

For these reasons and many more, I believe that CO2 is most likely a pollutant, which is not only accelerating climate chaos but which is also ruining people's health by making the air so toxic that it's causing instances of respiratory disease to rise and life expectancy to fall, dramatically, in all the world's major industrialised cities.

Apart from this though, I thought the rest of Kenny's analysis was pretty much spot on. In spite of disagreeing with their conclusion on CO2 emissions I found the reasoning behind it very interesting, if not entirely persuasive.

Summary/Conclusions

If the scientific consensus on CO2 is correct, (as I believe it probably is) it doesn't make any of the rest of Kenny's observations any less correct. Particularly prescient is their research on methane, which is one of a great number of factors which could yet prove more significant in the long term. Some of the projections regarding the potential release of methane that had until recently been trapped in arctic permafrost are particularly dire.

I can agree to disagree with Kenny regarding CO2 emissions, given that I agree with so much of the rest of their analysis. I find it extremely interesting that we should have so much parity on green issues, yet fall into opposing camps because we generally disagree on this one aspect. It makes me wonder if the CO2 angle has been deliberately exploited to create unnecessary disagreements and schisms amongst greenies who might otherwise have been natural allies.

Whether or not these schisms are deliberate, I feel both our camps are left weaker for it.

Ultimately, the 'human-made', CO2 causality aspect is just one of so many causal factors behind the 6th Mass Extinction that it would be foolish not to talk to each other because we disagree on one analysis. While I'm currently inclined to believe the CO2 human-made hypothesis, none of my positions are fixed. To quote Caroline Lucas, "none of us have the monopoly on wisdom"...

I'm glad I took the time to read @kennyskitchen 's articles. I hope this response to them was useful.

Here's a short documentary I made last year, articulating the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, A Second Notice. CO2 emissions are just one of many aspects covered in it.

https://d.tube/#!/v/ann-narkeh/ajo2trn4

annnarkehmedia.com is quite good.
Join the #ExtinctionRebellion

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
Loading...

Thank you! Always great to see open minds at work. So thank you to @kennyskitchen to: you've both made this a very interesting read :-) For what it's worth: I'm completely neutral about the A in AGW and don't presume to be able to discern between lies and truth in this highly complex issue. I lean toward it being mostly propaganda though. But: that doesn't take away from the fact that we should pay a lot more respect to the earths natural environments. Like @kennyskitchen already said and repeated by you: the planet is not overpopulated, but we do massively overproduce and overpollute.

Welcome to Steemit, and keep up the good work! :-)

·

Cheers!
What's AGW?

·
·

Anthropogenic Global Warming. :-)

·
·
·

Ah, of course!

" It makes me wonder if the CO2 angle has been deliberately exploited to create unnecessary disagreements and schisms amongst greenies who might otherwise have been natural allies."

This is something I believe the government is using on many fronts, and is exactly the same situation with flat Earthers (I actually had one of them call us "globe-heads lol). Many of the flat Earthers I have come across seems to be aligned with my values in every other way, and are otherwise conscious, rationally minded individuals. I will admit that when I come across flat Earthers of this type, I question whether or not I want to involve myself with them, despite how much else we may have in common. This is a great point, and could possibly apply here as well... provided your disagreement is correct. I personally cannot say for sure, and really I do not think any of us can yet,but you make compelling points for how CO2 may actually still be a pollutant. Discourse about this will hopefully lead us to the real truth of this matter.

·

I can't believe there are sincere flat earthers who sincerely believe the earth is flat.
I think it's at least partly just committed cryptic comedians, trolling everybody.
It's possible (not likely) that there are corporate, statist elements using flat earth to troll truthers and free thinkers and (more importantly) to absorb them in pointless discussions, thereby wasting their time.

I think if anybody actually buys flat earth theory, they're in an extreme minority of an already pretty extreme minority.

I've only ever met one flat earther IRL, who seemed harmless and nice enough.

I wouldn't invite him round for tea though... :/

·
·

There are many flat Earthers on Steemit, many of them are great Steemians too... you know... minus the fact that they think people can fall off the edge of the earth.... or think that it goes on forever.

·
·
·

Sure. I don't have a problem with flat earthers. Like I said, the only one I've met IRL was a nice bloke.
I just don't really want to waste any of my time and energy on it.
Because personally, I think it's bollocks.
I could be wrong but I don't think I am.
And there we go, I've already managed to waste a couple of minutes thinking and writing about it!
:s

·
·
·
·

HAHA! Nice, yea I agree. Its cool if people want to think that, as long as they also respect my view of the Earth being almost spherical... but I still want to see video of the edge of the earth to back up their theory though lol.

·
·

Hi Ann, and welcome! You're an awesome writer, and clearly have an awesome heart as well!
I'd like to very gently, kindly and with absolute respect suggest patience and allowance of flat earthers. Kenny has chosen to stand aside from this one, as it tends to be used to divide us, and it indeed is, and I agree with his sentiments. However, without formally choosing one camp or the other, I think it worthy of investigation. I'm not currently in the FE camp, but when the bulk of rather weak evidence (probably planted) is brushed aside, there are several bits of (anti-heliocentric) evidence I find quite compelling. Just as importantly, if not more, as we've been lied to about virtually everything, why would the nature of the planet we live upon be necessarily treated any differently, particularly when the benefits to the control structure (of the concept of a virtually limitless number of habitable planets created randomly by some chemical big bang strongly suggest that all, including ourselves are random, created by accident, finite, unimportant little whelps whose one-shot-only lives are largely meaningless), are utterly immense? And our meaningless little selves had best listen carefully to those much smarter whom are in control for good reason, lest our little lives be made miserable (or even lost) for our lack of common sense and wisdom.
The benefits of this scenario to a minuscule power structure bent upon continued domination over an entire planet can be breathtaking. So do I think it's flat? I don't know. What I do know is that I can find a plethora of reasons for known liars to have lied about this one as well.
I take no exception whatsoever to your dismissal of FE'ers, with respect I'd just like to see more folks such as yourself look a little deeper, as I currently am.
Why so much hot air from me about something that barely registers within your article? Sorry, it's because I'm in the process of writing my very first article as a member of Earth Tribe about this very subject. Not so much about the specifics of the shape of our world, more about why it's important, in the event we've been lied to yet again. We all know the winners write the history, so why would they treat the geography any differently, especially when it promises to perpetuate their structure? A lie of this magnitude would arguably be the biggest of all, which is why I feel it's worthy of discussion and investigation. If proven to be the case, it'll completely unravel the entire body of lies, top to bottom.
There may possibly be very important reasons that anyone approaching Antarctica without official government business (or on a controlled 'tour') is sternly warned away by military vessels from any of dozens of the world's military forces, as part of the Antarctic "Treaty".
In love, peace, appreciation and respect,
and in welcoming you warmly and sincerely,
-Logan

·
·
·

Hi Logan.

Sincere thanks for your kind words and for welcoming me so warmly.

Respectfully though, flat earthers don't need my permission (or allowance) to do their thing. Personally, I investigated the 'theory' quite thoroughly as a small child using elementary scientific rigour and was able to deduce even then that it was just a pointless weirdy bollocks idea.

Humanity has infinitely more pressing concerns at the moment, (the collapsing everything and so on).

I don't want to waste any more precious time which I don't have and won't get back on something which interests me not in the slightest. So, respectfully and politely I reject your calls for me to 'allow' and 'be patient' with flat earthers.

Any future correspondence on this 'idea' (such as it is) will be graciously ignored. Do feel free to get in touch with me about pretty much anything else though.

Kind regards.

Ann
annnarkehmedia.com

·
·
·
·

Understood and acknowledged.
In respect and friendship,
-Logan

·
·
·
·
·

Cheers.
Respect and friendship backatcha.

ah you have your discussion going :). congrats.
has endlessly happened here of course already from both sides but nice to see a courteous debate.

I only wish to drop this pdf concerning Rockefellers and ExxonMobil.
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8/2009/nevarockefeller032309-14a8.pdf

have a good time!

Thanks for all the upvotes steemians!