Poles apart - Pole shift vs Climate change vs Reality
This is a response to @ecoknowme comment on one of my blogs on 'climate change' - with reference to one of his blogs on pole shifts :)
https://steemit.com/science/@shelbi/a-question-about-climate-change
Pole shift Shmole shift - I have to say 'What'. I think of it as entertainment news, and something one might take a general interest in ... Really that's the way I feel, same as climate change. I know that such an attitude will always get a negative response, as if to say 'What - you don't care !' Of course I care, but I have to prioritise those things, else my time here will expire, and my life will have amount to nothing.
When I wrote 'a-question-about-climate-change', it was just that - a question. Everyone talks as if they know one way or the other, and they don't and cannot possibly know. The data and its presentation proves that to be the case. The climate change argument is naive to say the least, but also scientifically baseless. My concern was rather that there was a concern, and it begged one question, hence the title. The question was with respect to Co2 and what its level should be as a percentage of our atmosphere - and the fact that - that question has never even been asked, let alone quantified, tells me that we are dealing with a straw man, because that's the first question to be asked, that would precede any investigation, or assessment or hypotheses and/or action, and I'm comfortable arguing that omission with anyone - I don't have to jump on a train going one way or the other, because there is no destination in that argument.
I have a rule of thumb - its not completely reliable, but usually applies. The rule is, if politicians or ecologists or economists, astrophysicists et-al, tell us to worry about something, then that's the thing we should be least concerned with. But if they tell us we should not be concerned about something, then that's what we need to be concerned with. The devil is in the detail of course, but the principle is quite reliable. The rule pans out this way - its a socially conscious spectrum, from those things highest in our social consciousness to those things lowest. Its a spectrum of priority. High in our priority are things we see in the daily news or message releases around the world every day. It may be about the economy, or stock values, it may be about taxes, or who we should vote for. It may be about justice and criminality or international affairs, trade wars or real wars, terrorism, climate change etc. But there are things we don't see from the news or message services at all, and these are the things of their lowest possible priority, so low in fact that they aren't even discussed or presented. The other end of the spectrum are those things that are topical and discussed and presented to us on a daily basis.
To illustrate my point, we could take what is arguably one of our most considered issues in the news media today, which is that of terrorism. You can ask opinions from anyone, and the general consensus is that terrorism or terror attacks are on the rise. But statistics don't demonstrate this to be an accurate perception. With 126,713 terror related attacks and 216,915 terror related deaths in the decade 2006 to 2016, we can see (in the graphic below) that the trend for terror attacks is actually down. We see a decline in this activity by some 50% between 2006 to 2012, a resurgence in 2014 and again the subsequent reduction to 2015. The overall trend in other words, is of a reduced activity. The death toll for terror related activity as an average, is 1.7 per event, or 34.7 deaths per day globally. We might compare to this the statistics for poverty related child mortality for the same period, which shows an average of 13,698 deaths per day. (child meaning 5 years and under)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/202864/number-of-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/
Now I know that this is a simplistic viewpoint, and I'm fully aware that there are many aspects to how one arrives at such statistics, and what exactly they represent, but a few paragraphs of 'Blog' cant really touch on that. My point however is a simple one. When we have 34.7 deaths per day globally due to terror related incidence, and 13,698 poverty related child deaths per day globally, I have to wonder about our priorities.
Relating the above to my social spectrum analogy, as my rule suggests, we hear everything about terrorism, day in day out year in year out - yet when was the last time child mortality and poverty was brought to our attention. The most horrific statistic - that which is so devastating to the populus, to the tune of between 5 and 7 million deaths per year in children 5 years and under, is the one least mentioned, whilst the statistic that is the least devastating of the two, causing some 216,915 deaths per year, has the highest profile. Now of course I'm not suggesting for one moment that we should ignore terrorism, but its just one of the many things we juggle in our world. I'm simply making a point.
I have raised this argument many times with people, and there is a sort of intellectual recoiling or cognitive dissonance when its brought to bear in an argument. Of course no one wants to be a denier of child poverty, and no one wants to wriggle out of it, it just doesn't look or feel good, so instead they take the argument 'Oh well there's not much we can do about that', and probably, not having ever given it any thought, they are sincere. But they are wrong. Poverty related child mortality is something we can very much do something about. What we are talking about there is Pneumonia, Diarrhoeal Disease, Malaria, Malnutrition, hygiene. All of which are identifiable, manageable and curable, and only a lack of will and action that prevents the solution. Contrary to that would be the terrorist issue, where we can be seen to spend so much of our energy - 'battling the war against terrorism', to a geographically diverse minority of the worlds population, having nearly as many causes as they number militia, with a hugely diverse and largely unpredictable pattern of operation - somehow seems to make more sense to people.
Anyway, I seem to have made a rather large mountain out of a mole hill here, and this blog is a huge digression from the original question posed by @ecoknowme 'Anyone know anything about pole shift'. So, Pole shift Shmole shift I say :) But its interesting, I should say that. I'm not running to the hills yet, its just one of so many things we really have no say in, or any knowledge of what it may mean for us, like so much of what we are submerged in, in this reality - we're just along for the ride.
"I'm not running to the hills yet" and I'm not thinking of starting a diet :D I agree, there are so so so many more things we could and should concern ourselves with in these times of misinformation and deception from vested interests. The things that give me pause though are topics that while statistically unlikely, are still of great concern in the odd chance they happen. Infections diseases, asteroids falling on us, fluxes in the sun causing EMP bursts like the one a century or so ago when there were only a few wires to get toasted. There is a negligible chance we will actually see such things happen in our lifetimes, but if they did happen, they could affect millions or billions so they seem to warrant hefty funding from big organizations and institutions just so we have an idea of what normal is and what abnormalities we might have to prepare for, and how. your terrorism example was apt.
I know @ecoknowme , its a crazy reality, and if everyone were like me, we'd probably have very little to discuss, so I suppose I'm a bit of a freeloader in that respect wtf, I guess we're discussing it now :)
There's nothing wrong with ignoring the entire climate ordeal. Honestly I've done the same myself. Not because I don't care, but because the only thing we as individuals can do is be informed and prepared (along with being environmentally responsible, of course).
Obviously, the polluting of our air with poisonous gases by the burning of fossil fuels etc, can and should be eliminated. As you said, "The rule is, if politicians or ecologists or economists, astrophysicists et-al, tell us to worry about something, then that's the thing we should be least concerned with" (terrorism, Russian hackers, etc).
Taking things further, the MS scientists are warning of climate change, or "global warming" via CO2 emissions. Changes in solar activity, which in turn affects our magnetosphere, are more likely causes for this and any other detectable "climate change" we see in our future. These changes, in fact, are probably leading us towards a much colder climate in the near future (the exact opposite of what they warn us about).
Either way, I suspect man-made CO2 or other greenhouse gases will likely remain the scapegoat for more "carbon-tax" type regulations. And I agree, we're just along for the ride. Great post!
ty 4 ur comment @jschindler - I think I could have put it better by simply saying my eyes are glazing over. I think I'm more concerned with those things we don't know. Unknown - unknowns :)
Careful now, you start thinking critically and you won't drink the koolaid.
It makes perfect sense that taxing us for plant food, I mean carbon emissions, will stop the production of carbon. Geez, it's not like every living being expells it when they breathe.
Actually @aboutyourbiz I think Oxygen is the real issue - we need a hefty tax on O2
tax both. gotta be safe