A riddle for the uncritical
What is mostly blue, round, very old, retaining water, and not as cool as it used to be?
We used to think that the Earth was green but then we discovered it is mostly covered in salty water.
We used to think the Earth was flat but then someone pointed out that ships disappear over the horizon and come back again, so we decided it must be spherical.
We used to think that the Earth was only 6000 years old but had to re-think that idea when faced with overwhelming evidence that it is in fact very old.
We used to think that human activity could not possibly affect our environment but then we discovered that agricultural chemicals poisoned soils and rivers; and industrial pollution caused acid rain.
We used to think smoking heroin and tobacco was sophisticated but then we discovered that neither of them is actually very good for you; both of them being highly addictive and likely to kill you if you smoke either of them for too long or too often.
We used to think that hydrocarbons were the answer to all our problems and that they would provide us with cheap energy for ever but then the basic Laws of Physics intervened and we realised that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
OK, so here is the story (of reality) so far:
– The Earth is not flat; and it is not just 6000 years old.
– Businesses tend to invent things that make money; but that does not mean they are a good idea.
– Cheap energy is a myth; and if you doubt it then your government must be subsidising it too much.
Now things start to get a bit more “tricky”:
Here’s a question for you – Who is it that has a track-record of being found guilty of manipulating science in order to confuse people, perpetuate doubt, preserve the appeal of their product, and avoid taking responsibility for the adverse consequences arising from the use of their product – is it scientific researchers in dozens of the World’s top Universities or top executives of dozens of the World’s biggest multi-national corporations? (N.B. It is not a trick question – the most obvious answer is probably the right one.)
“May you live in interesting times” – An ancient Chinese curse
I really do think we are living through momentous days at present; we have the UK Government’s chief expert on climate science admitting for the first time that limiting average global warming to less than 2 Celsius may no longer be possible and we have the areal extent of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean reaching a record-breaking minimum… And yet, we have oil companies like Gazprom and Shell insisting that this is nature’s solution to our fossil fuel shortage… Are they insane or what?
As I said at the beginning of my previous post, our environmental problems are not the product of an over-active imagination; the result of a predisposition to being a doomsayer; or the fictional preamble to an insidious plan for worldwide authoritarian government – they are real.
When, against all the odds, the RAF managed to succeed in persuading Adolf Hitler not to invade the UK in 1940, Sir Winston Churchill famously remarked: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”. If Churchill were alive today, I think he might say:
Never in the history of human commerce was so much… spewed to so many by so few.
It took nearly over 50 years to get tobacco companies to admit the truth they had suppressed – that their product is not good for you.
It has now been almost 25 years since the fossil fuel industry decided to pursue identical tactics to prevent harm to their business interests; and in so doing they have almost certainly guaranteed that the harm their industry has inflicted upon the Earth will be much greater, longer-lasting; and harder to mitigate.
Saying “we will adapt” is just not good enough. Anyone who says such a thing is at best guilty of wishful thinking and, at worst, probably on track to be eventually found guilty of crimes against biodiversity… For the record, although it would be rather poignant for it to be set up somewhere like Madagascar, I think it would be more practical for the International Biodiversity Crime Commission (IBCC) to be set-up on land reclaimed from the sea in the Thames Estuary (in place of the Mayor of London’s crazy idea for a new airport).
However, let us not get ahead of ourselves here: Before anyone can be accused of crimes against biodiversity, it will first of all be necessary for business leaders, politicians, and journalists to stop lying to themselves and anyone who will listen (and sadly a large number still do) – in a valiant but ultimately futile attempt to prevent the sunlight of reality from dawning upon the landscape of their scientific understanding.
The Earth is not flat, it is very old, and it has liquid water on its surface because the Greenhouse Effect is a reality. However, this greenhouse effect has now been enhanced by the addition of 40% extra CO2 and, since the Laws of Physics are – unlike historical performance of the Stock Market – a pretty reliable indicator of prospects for the future, the Earth is warming up.
This may well be the end of story but, unless you want it to turn into a nightmare, we need all people everywhere to accept the nature of reality; and start taking action to:
– Minimise our wasteful consumption of non-renewable resources and energy.
– Eliminate business and economic practices that encourage over-consumption.
– Live within our means and start paying-off our currently mortgaged future.
– Educate women in poor countries to eliminate excessive population growth.
So, yes, Turkeys will have to vote for Christmas.

Cannabis may be even worse, it turns people into mental retards, one more just published scientific study shows… BTW, the Indians thought the Earth was immensely old. So the 6,000 years in another bible induced craze…
It is Lamarck who studying mollusks and other invertebrates (his word) founded biology (his word) and showed the Earth was infinitely old, while demonstrating evolution, 50 years before Darwin. Of course, Lamarck was a French research professor, so, in Anglo-Saxonia, best ignored.
I posted an essay on the record low Arctic ice, http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/record-arctic-melt-down/
It attributes blame where deserved, and brandish a solution. And also why it’s not chosen.
PA
Patrice Ayme
29 August 2012 at 00:50
Thanks for those wise words, Patrice. I think I saw the same research reported on the BBC yesterday.
Young Earth Creationism (as we know it today) was a 20th Century invention (a bit like “smoking is not bad for you” and “we are not damaging our environment”), that is why it gets a mention here… As I understand it, Lamarckianism is centred on the idea of punctuated equilibria – which is far more likely to be closer to the reality of evolution than the gradualism of classic Darwinian thinking. Ultimately, I may have exchanged my Intelligent Design chips for Theistic Evolution; but I am still in possession of no hard currency. I therefore remain deeply sceptical of anyone for whom evolution is a substitute for conventional religion; because evolution is merely a theory that fits the facts and, in this particular branch of science, facts are about as rare as rocking horse do-dah.
Thanks for the link to your piece on the Arctic metdown, I will try and read it soon but am still in the middle of trying, without spending too much money, to sort out my car: It must be taxed by Friday but it failed its annual test (MOT) for roadworthyness last week. Whereas it must pass this MOT before I can tax it… Oh, and someone drove into the back of my car at a junction last Friday too. So now I have to deal with insurance companies as well (fortunately the damage done is not an automatic MOT failure)…
Martin Lack
29 August 2012 at 09:29
J-B Lamarck was an immense biologist, and even geologist; he was the first to demonstrate the earth’s immense age, a subject that had thoroughly confused the Greeks.
Lamarckism as a mechanism for evolution was just a detail in Lamarck’s works. However, he was made fun for it in France. Lamarck was very much in evidence, as one of the world’s first pure research professors. And the church, revitalized under the dictator Napoleon, hated him. He died in poverty, ignored. There is no more excuse to ignore him now.
Wallace used to accuse Darwin to just have stolen all of lamarck’s ideas. Darwin’s daughter is on the record telling her dad to reply to Wallace. But Darwin stayed silent, and kept on financing the empoverished… Wallace. Darwin was great, but much less so than Lamarck.
Although Darwin was an advocate of haphazard natural selection (breeding itself was 10,000 year old), he was also an advocate of Lamarckism. We now know both are happening.
PA
Patrice Ayme
29 August 2012 at 19:36
If one wants to put the Earth, the Milky Way and our Universe into some sort of context, then do watch the latest BBC Horizon programme, How Big is the Universe, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf Trust me, the results are beyond comprehension in a most beautiful way. There’s a clip on YouTube, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLybjnWA5UM
Paul Handover
29 August 2012 at 05:41
Miracles will never cease, Paul! I actually saw this programme when broadcast; and yes it was excellent. This is off-topic so may have to be pursued via email… However, I am astonished at the willingness of Cosmologists to invoke ideas like multiverses to avoid the for a primary cause (although saying “God did it” does rather leave them with nothing to investigate!)… Seriously though, how can they say they think the Universe is infinite based on the curvature of the surface of the limits of the observable universe AND then tell us that their are multiple universes occupying that very same space (i.e. beyond the limits of the observable universe)? Answers via email please…
Martin Lack
29 August 2012 at 09:37
With all due respect, multiverse sing-songing is pure BS. I have already written against it. At least semi-implicitly, as found in:
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/deflating-big-bangs-inflation/
Patrice Ayme
29 August 2012 at 19:40
TANSTAAFL, indeed. You get what you pay for; and anything free is worth what you pay for it. (Which can be misleading, because if you think you’re getting a bargain, you probably haven’t yet been served the final bill; the one with all the hidden extras.)
Another good article, Martin, though I think it could be improved by a shave and a haircut (less is more). Nice Churchill misquote: better than mine, I think
pendantry
29 August 2012 at 16:35
Thanks Colin. Anyone like me bemused by the acronym TANSTAAFL needs to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
Martin Lack
29 August 2012 at 16:40
“Eliminate business and economic practices that encourage over-consumption.”
I remember becoming quite sad during the breakout of the 2008 recession because people were finally consuming less (yeah for the environment!) but it was making the economy worse (No!). It was then that I truly understood that our economic system was in complete at odds with the protection of our natural systems.
Oh, and the answers to your questions are:
1. The Earth
2. The fossil fuel industry
jpgreenword
2 September 2012 at 13:57
Thanks JP. I was not aware that the 2008 recession had ended yet.
Oh, and you missed question 3 – “Are they insane or what?”
Martin Lack
2 September 2012 at 15:34
Oops! The obvious answer is “Yes. Yes they are.”
jpgreenword
2 September 2012 at 23:22