A while ago I wrote the following on Reddit:
I used to think people would “figure it out” when they see the effect. But what happens in reality is that as the effects get worse, the pain from admitting you were wrong becomes greater, as the implications become more clear. Most people will go into their graves denying it. We’ll see endless theories about elites using HAARP, climate activists starting forest fires, wind turbines changing the weather and killing the birds, etc.
And I want to revisit this, considering the United States has now had its highest death toll from forest fire in over a century. The official death toll in Maui stands at 114 right now, but it seems likely hundreds more have perished.
The immediate gut instinct of low status white males is to blame their favorite pet peeves: Diversity, corruption, bureaucracy, laziness, incompetence. And I’m sure corruption and incompetence play a role. But in this sense, the whole thing is similar to COVID. Yes, this virus mostly kills the elderly. But the dice are now loaded. It’s like your lungs are playing against a DM who now rerolls his dice whenever he has a bad roll.
COVID kills people who are already sickly. But the problem is, that it turns healthy people into sickly people. And similarly, climate change first tends to kill in places that are already fragile. But the problem is, that it also makes places fragile.
The general pattern you see with most big disasters that happen to people is that there is a chronically escalating problem and then direct factors that reveal the chronically escalating problem. Some people are eager to look at the direct factors that triggered the acute crisis, others are more eager to address the chronically escalating problems simmering underneath.
Imagine your grandmother falls on a crooked pavement and breaks her hip. You can blame the city for not properly maintaining the pavement. But the underlying chronically escalating problem is that your grandmother’s bones are thinning due to old age. And had the city fixed its pavement, the underlying problem would have revealed itself in a different time and place.
You can actually see this illustrated in Maui. The most direct factor would be the warning sirens that did not work. Had the warning sirens worked, we may have treated the Maui disaster the way we treat the ongoing fires in Canada that require tens of thousands to evacuate: As just another climate-change fueled background disaster in our lives.
But before the massive fires killed hundreds of people, Maui was already dealing with the consequences of the changing climate. The fires could spread so rapidly, because of invasive grass. This invasive grass could take over the island, because people abandoned their agricultural fields.
Maui was once home to food forests, before colonization. With many different edible plants growing together, you prevent soil erosion and maintain moisture in the soil and vegetation. The problem with food forests is that they require a lot of human physical labor to harvest the crops. They are incompatible with the logic of capitalism.
Once the island was taken over by colonizers, they replaced the food forests with cattle ranches and monocultures. These methods of food production then erode and degrade the soil on a volcanic island with steep hills. So eventually, you have to abandon the land, as the harvests will fall short.
With the land abandoned, the invasive grasses can then take over. These grasses are optimized for modern climatic conditions: They are able to use brief moments of extreme rainfall for rapid growth and know how to survive through periods of severe drought. That’s the globally emerging pattern: Rain continues to fall, but when it falls, it now falls all at once. And these invasive grasses love that.
Unfortunately, the native vegetation of the Hawaiian islands doesn’t. The grasses spread fire to the remaining native forests, which perish in the fires. Then the grasses take over those once forested lands. These fires that the grasses cause, allow them to take over the entire landscape. The result is this:
The fire in Maui did not emerge from nothing. It’s part of a pattern seen across the Hawaiian islands, of increasingly large burned areas. Africa has areas like that too, of wild grasslands that just have regular fires. These fires are becoming less common now in Africa, as the land is increasingly used for agriculture. But as these grasses spread to other places, where they now have an advantage because of changing rainfall patterns, they bring those fires with them.
As a result of these problems, we’re seeing large fires emerge in ecosystems that are not used to them, like the Canadian boreal forests and the islands of Hawaii. The Canadian forest fires in particular are a huge problem, because the trees serve to protect the peat underneath from drying out. Once Canada loses its trees, the peat beneath will become vulnerable to fire too. We have only just seen the start of the nightmare.
When a peat fire burns, you can’t really extinguish it. These fires can burn for months underground, meaning that people will have to leave their homes and can’t return for months, because the air will just be too dangerous to breathe in. And of course, they release massive amounts of greenhouse gasses.
Canada has 384 billion ton of carbon stored in its peatlands and other soils. Humans have released 425 billion ton of carbon through fossil fuels up to 2017. In other words, natural ecosystems have plenty of carbon stored, that they can start releasing once humans run out of fossil fuels to burn. And worst of all, it won’t necessarily be released as CO2. A lot of this carbon will be released as black carbon, which sticks to snow and absorbs sunlight, leading to 1000 times as much global warming per unit of mass as CO2.
Considering it takes thousands of years for peat to accumulate, there won’t be some other part of the world that will compensate these natural emissions for us once the peat starts burning. This is the sort of stuff the climate models by economists like Nordhaus never take into consideration: Positive feedback.
Any proper consideration of positive feedback turns climate change from an economic problem to throw into a model, into a civilization ending event. It also reveals the absurdity of the 2 degree target Nordhaus came up with that began to dictate global climate policy, which is not based on an understanding of the climate system, but based on conservative assumptions from economic models. By the time policymakers realized the danger they moved to a new target of 1.5 degree, but by then it was already too late.
To stabilize the climate system, it won’t be enough to stay below 1.5 degree Celsius. You can already see in Canada today, that at current temperatures severe droughts emerge that cause natural ecosystems to collapse that contain vast amounts of carbon. Stabilizing the climate system and preserving the Holocene conditions that enabled civilization would require reducing atmospheric CO2 to at most 350 parts per million, perhaps even less.
But thanks to Nordhaus and his ilk, this is what we were left with:
Still no word from you about the lower limit of 140 ppm CO2, where all plants die. What do you suggest as optimal CO2 value under consideration of the lower limit? 150 ppm CO2?
Humanity has to aim for 280-350. Above that results in hothouse Earth, below that leads to another ice age.
But these are theoretical concerns. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is easy. Reducing atmospheric CO2 is much harder.
In the world of engineering they often use fourfold safety, for good reasons.
From the view of a technician the optimal value is therefore:
140 ppm CO2 * 4 = 560 ppm CO2
You’re so retarded, you’re making me consider just turning off all comments.
why don’t commercial greenhouses boil up when they get flooded with co2 to promote growth – aren’t they a perfect “microcosm” (they even call it greenhouse effect)? why isn’t it then used to heat greenhouses in colder climates??
i do agree on global 1-child-policy & reforestation to improve overall humidity cycles (and thereby avoid all observed weather extremes in general and give space to co-species), but co2 seems to be a great hoax to grab cash&control when NON-physical workers like Gates, Schwab, vip activists etc (ALL politicians as well) still fly around the world (especially in PRIVATE jets and not commercial) participating in unnecessary AND resources wasting meetings (housing, catering and let alone the needed sex workers and health concerns regarding covid, monkey pox and whatever the next pandemic provides) when everything they “do” could be done in facetime from their home office, never having to leave their house or 15min area…
apart from that: why the infantile leftist style to exclude differing thinkers from commenting (having to agree to either or condition before posting)??
For the last number of years I have been following the work of Ivor Cummins, who correctly predicted the harms that would be produced by the ineffective lockdowns and the overzealous COVID response from global governments. He is excellent at analysing data in a non-biased manner, as he has an extensive multi-decade background in complex problem solving throughout his engineering career.
He was recently giving an interview in which he briefly discussed the data and modelling regarding climate change. He starts discussing the topic at 11:00 in this video:
https://youtu.be/eep2YoTOqK4?si=6QbXzqae1Pozgpkt
I would appreciate your response to something that he says at 13:24. He explains that the warming effect of carbon dioxide has a logarithmic “leveling off” once you get up to a concentration of approximately 400 ppm. This seems to contradict the “runaway warming” caused by amplifying positive feedback loops that has been predicted by scientists such as James Hansen. I had not been aware of this potential phenomenon until now. Is there any truth to it? I thought that I’d ask my all time favourite LSWM guru, the one, the only, Mr. Rintrah Radagast.
Why do you even listen to these morons in the first place?
The warming effect from CO2 is measured per doubling. The problem is that although the direct warming from every additional unit of CO2 diminishes, the internal feedback of the system continues, leading to further increases in atmospheric CO2 content.
And just as 2 degree celsius fever is normal whereas 4 degree celsius fever can kill you or cause permanent brain damage, the damage to human civilization from every additional degree of global warming we suffer is bigger, as more and more of planet Earth’s land surface enters the zone of recurring temperatures too hot for human survival.
I don’t understand why it is so difficult for you people to understand that these ugly libertardian right wing LSWM morons are decadent cowards who are willing to sacrifice planet Earth for their own daily material comforts.
They are the first people to flee in a war once the neighboring tribes show up and in the old days we would have thrown them out to fend for themselves.
What you people basically are, are a bunch of dudes living in Constantinople in 1330 and listening to some low status white male guru who tries explaining to you that living under Ottoman yoke would actually be a pretty good thing.
The guy is a coward, a weakling and a traitor.
“But he brings up pretty convincing arguments, maybe the Ottomans would actually be pretty nice to us? Do you know how much we would have to raise taxes to keep the Ottomans out?”
The fact that you people are so eager to listen to these right wing conservatard cowards, as the ecosystems are collapsing around you and the world is consumed by flames, suggests that you yourselves are cowards too.
It’s also worth noting that Cummins was dead wrong on covid. He proclaimed it was over in the summer of 2020.
It would have been and we not vaccinated a large portion of the population in the middle of a pandemic
Apologies, my master guru. I’ll try and be less retarded next time.
“The LSWMs who comment here literally have worms in their brains, they are beyond salvation.”
Wait a second. You’re telling me that the horse dewormer isn’t working?
“I would appreciate your response to something that he says at 13:24. He explains that the warming effect of carbon dioxide has a logarithmic “leveling off” once you get up to a concentration of approximately 400 ppm.”
Ya, you get that argument easily from absorption spectroscopy, it’s worth looking at it but it won’t yield very much considering peat, methanhydrates, agriculture, deforestation etc
Also, I have another question for you, if you don’t mind. You regularly attend protests organised by the “Just Stop Oil” Extinction Rebellion and Animal Rebellion protest movements. The people who organise and attend these demonstrations tend to be far-left, some of which you have (presumably) befriended. Do they know about your website? Are they aware of your views on the lockdowns, vaccines and transgenderism? If so, have you been ostracized by these people? Have they tried to “cancel” you by preventing you attending the protests?
>Have they tried to “cancel” you by preventing you attending the protests?
Not going to answer all your questions, but Extinction Rebellion doesn’t do “canceling”.
The speaker at a training I attended explicitly stated that it fundamentally doesn’t matter what your politics are.
It also doesn’t really matter to me. They can be blue-haired wokies, it’s fine with me.
Considering my commenters here show up arguing that the fire on Maui was fake or some video with a bald LSWM who thinks he found the silver bullet against the elitist global warming hoax, I will assume the climate activists have a higher average IQ than my own audience unless they explicitly say want to go around neutering the goth kids.
Not arguing against your CO2 point, just throwing in some stuff that MAUI may not be the best example.
http://mileswmathis.com/maui.pdf
Yeah that guy argues in that same pdf that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were fake too.
Can you people just stop dropping total AIDS in my comment section please?
Can you people just move back to zerohedge.com or some other LSWM hangout space if you’re all this stupid?
You’re literally proving the point I made at the top:
Most people will go into their graves denying it. We’ll see endless theories about elites using HAARP, climate activists starting forest fires, wind turbines changing the weather and killing the birds, etc.
And so you jump in here literally arguing that the fire is fake based off some retard who thinks the nukes dropped on Japan are fake and the fire in Maui is fake because the dust from the city burned to the ground is white instead of black.
Do you realize you’re the kind of idiot who is not supposed to have the right to vote?
From your PDF:
>I have been told this must be a directed energy weapon, or DEW; but no, until further notice my default assumption is this is CGI. It is possible they burned some of the lesser buildings there the rich people didn’t want or need, but in my opinion there is almost no chance the entire town was flattened like this.
>Wildfires don’t work like that, burning right down to the ocean, even hitting the docks. Remember, there is almost always a breeze coming in from the ocean, which would push any incoming fires back.
>So the films we are seeing are either CGI or they are staged somewhere else or they are filming very limited areas. Edited in the right way and backed up by these fake before/after images from above and some fake interviews, they can make it appear the whole town is gone. But for myself, I wouldn’t believe it was until I saw it with my own eyes.
>I had just about finished this paper when I tripped across something big. It may not be a Rockefeller or Rothschild, or even Larry Ellison. It may be. . . Oprah. She already owns thousands of acres on Maui and has been adding to her total a lot in the past decade. This Newsweek article of August 10 admits she owns more than 2,000 acres, and the video there shows the wildfires just happen to originate on or very near her farms in Kula, on the northwestern slopes of Haleakala:
Do you realize how humiliating it is for me, to write this article and to have idiots like you show up, linking to some schizophrenic LSWM off his meds, arguing that the fire is fake and a land grab by Oprah Winfrey?
You realize that when you look at this and think “well I guess the fire is fake”, you’re just no longer in touch with reality right, that you have completely become captivated by a low status white males echo box that is going to diverge further from reality everyday from now on?
There’s no survival benefit to people to admitting they were wrong, once a certain point is reached. Because of the dire situation they are now in, all of their energy is taken up with existence. It takes a lot of mental effort to go back and look at what one was thinking and look at how one was wrong and then change. That energy is better spent persisting in the moment, and planning for the near future; the far future will have to take care of itself. That is what is selected for in humans; survival in the moment and reproduction. Not looking back at mistakes, except really crude and obvious and recent mistakes. You have to be in a really safe spot to have the luxury to look at past mistakes, and consider the distant future. So it’s not that the pain from admitting one was wrong is too great (although you’re right that it would be if anyone actually did it); it is that it just takes too much time and effort. Any spare bit of energy will be spent on chasing a brief pleasure. Also, it takes a lot less energy to justify one’s past mistakes, no matter how lame one’s justification is, than to see, admit and change.
You’re probably right. They don’t have the ability anymore to climb out of the cognitive hole they dug for themselves.
One reason you are getting so many moronic posts re the climate is that the people who are posting were right about one Gigantic Thing, which was the shots. Everyone’s brain is fried. We can’t really believe that our government was quite so stupid and corrupt as to fund the research and then to push the garbage shots and that so many cretins went along and that the end is nowhere in sight. I do think covid will end up being even worse than the shots, but still these posters were right about something truly significant, when most people weren’t. So all dumb theories look promising now. There is a wild flailing about for another big thing to be right about.
Maybe ADE will be that thing?
“In a sign that scientists still don’t fully understand how some COVID-19variants manage to evade the immune system, a new Ontario study has found that retirement- and long-term-care home residents infected during the first Omicron wave were 20 times more likely to get reinfected by the virus than those who avoided a prior infection.
The surprising finding by researchers at McMaster University runs counter to the prevailing wisdom that a previous COVID infection affords protection against future infections, at least in the older adults who participated in the study.” (from the Toronto Star, Aug. 21st)
It wasn’t that the ones who caught Omicron were older or sicklier and thus more likely to also catch the next strain; those qualities were held constant.
(note: that quote from the article is confusing because of course people who avoided Omicron (and presumably other variants) necessarily couldn’t be reinfected; they could only be infected)(but what they’re trying to say is still clear)
I am not sure what you are after here, all the LSWMs have to realize they are the baddies. Then we can all sing Kumbaya, go vegan, plant breadfruit and taro, and live happily ever after.
“Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate organization known as the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which has an “ambitious target” by the year 2030 of “0 kg [of] meat consumption,” “0 kg [of] dairy consumption,” “3 new clothing items per person per year,” “0 private vehicles” owned, and “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.”
C40’s dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which was published in 2019 and reportedly reemphasized in 2023. The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization, and its American members include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.”
THINK WE LSLIQWMS ARE GOING TO STAND FOR THIS?
I don’t want an expensive electric car with $40,000 batteries. I don’t want to cover my roof in toxic solar panels that will only last 10 years. I don’t want you telling me I should be thrilled with windmills that are killing birds and whales.
SNAP OUT OF IT, quit crying like a bitch, and give me your solution!
Another inspiring post…
A conservative, traditionalist, conservationist person, would probably subscribe to this one (at least) <> and following paragraphs.
If we weren’t that secular and self-destructive, we would consider:
1) fasting
2) voluntary poverty
3) labor in farms made of…
4) …edible-fruit trees like fig-trees, pommegranates, carob trees etc.
It might not be enough to save the planet, but we would save our humanity and fall fighting.
oops. I meant this paragraph
> Maui was once home to food forests, before colonization. With many different edible plants growing together, you prevent soil erosion and maintain moisture in the soil and vegetation.
(and subsequent paragraphs)
The destruction of Lahaina by a giant fire, and the 911 scale deaths it caused, is the Climate Disaster the MSM has been dreaming of, the thing they were trying to imply could happen with their dark red weather maps of Germany at 28C, and reports that some straw set alight in the middle of a field in Britain.
Why it is not everywhere, and they won’t even admit that the 800 “missing” are all dead?
Because this fire was caused by Climate ideologues in the government. Whether Climate is real or not, is beside the point. If they could make the argument this mass death event were due to Climate, even if it were a very sketchy and dishonest argument, entirely unconvincing to anyone paying attention, they would have done it.
Instead they not talking very much about Lahaina, which proves they know that they dunnit.