The Manpollo Project

[nolawitch58]

I've spent the better part of the afternoon and evening watching every single video in the links from The Manpollo Project website. They were all made by the same science teacher who did the one in my post several posts back. My suggestion is that you bookmark the link and watch them in batches. Since YouTube has a time limit of about ten minutes per video, you should watch the groups and expect to spend several hours and exercise brain cells that haven't thought about science since you got out of high school. It's the least you can do if you plan to be alive for the next couple of decades.

I began viewing to get comfort that I was doing everything in my power to mitigate against the horrors hinted at in the first video. Even though I know I do more than the average person to recycle and curb consumption, I came away feeling my efforts have been inadequate. I will increase my personal efforts and encourage others to join me in bailing lest the boat sink. If I feel I owe it to the planet--I who have no progeny to feel responsible for, what do those of you who do have children feel comfortable leaving them?

A little over two years ago as I sat listening to the shrieking winds of Hurricane Katrina outside my home, I was reminded of the power of nature. I've always known its power. As a child growing up in Indiana, I saw buildings whirled to pieces by tornadoes. In my lifetime, I've seen blizzards, ice storms, dust storms, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and beautiful, warm, sunny days that make the dark side of the weather seem distant and improbable.

As with so many other things in life, our relationship to the climate can be either benign or malignant. If we pollute our drinking water, we cannot be surprised if it poisons us. If we pollute our air, we cannot be surprised when it chokes us. If we negatively impact the climate, we shouldn't be surprised when it adapts and bites us on the ass. We cannot poke a grizzly bear with a stick and not expect to be mauled.

Like a lot of people, I halfway expected there to be more equal resources on both sides of the argument. That the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of climate change really irritates me. Everytime you read or see a story in the news about climate change, isn't it written to give equal credence to both sides of the argument? That's journalistic laziness. That makes me mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore (as Howard Beale said in Network). When I see articles in the Times-Picayune or online or on TV, I'm going to write those letters to the editor and bitch them out for their dishonesty and laziness. Do they hunt down those quacks in Mexico with the Laetrile treatments to "balance" articles about current advances in oncology? Do they contact the Flat Earth Society every time they do an article on NASA? I'd like to know why they go out of their way to give the benefit of the doubt to the ones with the least amount of credibility when it comes to something of such enormous importance as climate change.

The media really doesn't have our interests at heart anyway. As in Network, the news divisions are no longer expected to be paragons of journalism. They're now expected to make money. That's why they waste so much of your valuable, dwindling time with bullshit, such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, the corpse of Anna Nicole Smith and all the other useless topics they grind out in the 24/7 news cycle. When I started in college, I was a journalism major. We were told that it was our job to make the important interesting. With few exceptions, the state of so-called journalism has made the interesting important and left the truly important issues along the wayside. Climate change has such catastrophic ramifications, it's irresponsible for the news media to give it fewer column inches and minutes than the banal derangements of vapid celebrities.

I keep wondering why I care. Certainly I don't care personally about your children. Somehow, it bothers me that you would be upset if your son or daughter was living in a hellish future that made our most repulsive filmmakers dystopian movies seem tame. Maybe I only care because you care and that's good enough for me. I'm also honest enough to say that I selfishly do not wish to spend my "twilight years" in a hardscrabble kind of life. Hell, it's even possible that when the shit hits the fan, the authoritarian governmental system that would supplant any republic, democracy or parliamentarian construct would deem it necessary for all those who were over the age of sixty years old be euthanized for the common good. As the resources got scarcer, the age limit might go down to fifty, then forty, then thirty and it won't even be as pretty as Logan's Run.

This is my manifesto, my vow that I will not go quietly or gently into that howling abyss, nor will I let others without even their own interests at heart drag us all there. I challenge any of you who care even a miniscule amount to watch every single video that teacher made. It's the least you can do after he went to all the trouble that the news media refuses to bother with. The tide may be changing, and frankly, I'd rather be on the side that did whatever it could to prevent the catastrophic change rather than with those who deny climate change is even occurring. And arguing whose fault it is exhibits childish "not me" behavior rather than adult "let's clean up this mess" pragmatism. What's the worst that could happen?

Comments

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Are they just lazy gits or what, though? I mean, you're walking the walk, big time. Though I don't always comment on your journal, I've gotten a kick out of watching your business grow and the artwork on the truck was just the cherry on top of the more robust treat beneath it. I know you enjoy it too, but you could have been a lazy chickenshit and let your dream stay in your head alone. The satisfaction of being out on the cutting edge of a paradigm shift has to be bigger than the fears of even making the attempt.

I fixed the link. I know you're hella busy, but watch those things in chunks. I'm going to send the above post to all the people in my email contacts who aren't on LJ tomorrow. Tonight, I'm knackered and my head is full of information.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

I'm going to watch these videos. I've even bookmarked them in del.icio.us. Your outrage about 'even' coverage got me thinking- I think that the major problem with climate change is probably the religious establishment. They would rather pollute and populate the world and send it into ruin to hasten Jesus' return than to follow one of the earliest divine commands in the Bible: to have stewardship (not dominion) over the world. Stewardship means taking care of. They're falling down on the job.

As far as pop culture goes, I noted while in line in the grocery store last night no fewer than six magazine covers with articles about Britney Spears' latest meltdown. Four of them were cover shots, the other two had it as a sidebar. I sometimes wonder if that's deliberate- if we get enough people focused on one addlepated tramp's trainwreck lifestyle , no one will notice that we're having tornadoes in frickin' January in places who don't usually get them until May.

I am starting to see the need to rig up a media center setup in the main room of my home in order to do housework and watch stuff like these videos at the same time.

Have you explored the Ted Talks (http://www.ted.com/) yet? They're a treat.

[patrixa.livejournal.com]

I will bookmark and watch the "Manpollo Site" and also "Ted TAlks" because I like to stay informed. My father-in-law, back in the '50's and '60's got us on the bandwagon for healthier lifestyles; his major concern was water shortage and overpopulation. These still resonate today. I understand the need for ecological conservation -- used cloth shopping bags long before they were stylish, conserved electricity forever (budget,mainly), been using fluorescent lights for years, too. Oh, and support financially many groups hoping to ecologically improve the world. I do what I can.

My husband's cancer may have been caused from his early lab work on finding ways to correct air pollution via asphalt chimney exhaust (4 others in his group of 6 died from cancer, although they were not the same cancers). He also did research on power plant safety and other empirical research all aimed at bettering the world. I am very aware of what is happening to our environment. I do my best to live with the changes and to slow them down as much as a person can.

As a realist, I understand that the earth has cyclic, severe climate changes, eons old, of which nothing we do will change or stop it. For my progeny, I hope and have faith that hopeful tales from what we call science fiction (including what the Bible calls the last days) can come true, i.e., travel to another planet OR remaking this one. My father said, many times: "If people can imagine it, write it, than people can find a way to make it happen." He was not surprised at any space travel, wonderful or horrific, that occurred in his lifetime. I believe that to, I have faith in human survival. Will it be great, painless? No,it won't. Life is just not that way. Will it be God-directed? Could be, but I doubt it. Can humans stop climate change? Doubt that, too. Through hope and hard work we can perhaps slow it down or learn to live with the changes.

My major point: I have faith that humans WILL find a way to survive. It won't be easy but then, life for most is not easy. I will do what I can to help ease the situation by the way I live now. It takes thought, but is not difficult, to live efficiently and economically. Anger doesn't help me; hope does. More people listen to me now than did when I kept my anger. If knew that years ago, I probably wouldn't have a pacemaker now. Determination isn't anger; I think that is what we need now.

And I thank you for the post as continuing to learn keeps my hope alive.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Don't you wish people had been more receptive thirty or forty years ago? I remember hearing some of the predictions back then. When I passed along those predictions, I was pooh-poohed by many acquaintances. No matter. I did what I could and continue to do so and will now increase my efforts.

I disagree with you on the anger part. It DOES help me and I think it functions as an impetus in society. If Candi Lightner hadn't gotten angry that her daughter was killed by a drunk driver, do you think MADD would exist or that DWI laws would have been enacted and strengthened? Do you think that the police and society would have started on the road to leaving gays to enjoy their social lives in peace if it hadn't been for the Stonewall Riots? How did it work out for women being "allowed" to vote before Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony got fires in their bellies about the injustice? Civil Rights? End of the military draft?

Anger is energy and what comes of that energy, good or bad, depends on the way it's focused. Nobody ever changed the world who was content with their lot in it.

[patrixa.livejournal.com]

I like the last sentence. I wonder if we are just using the terms "anger" and "determination" to mean much the same thing. I was once a very angry person, but not too effective, the anger used me up... that is, until I learned to channel it. All those points you make (except allowing women the vote; I'm not that old) were important active parts of my life, especially the last two. And I still haven't stopped. In fact, my sisters often joked that if I suddenly disappear, they'll know why. My husband was even investigated by the FBI in the 1960's.

Not being angry doesn't mean being content. When I learned to control my anger, I found I accomplished more, i.e. I became determined to accomplish my goals. Anger was the flash-point, determination was the fuel.

What I think is we both know that wishing doesn't make it so. The goals we want will be served best by long-lasting emotional, mental and physical strength, whether we call it anger, determination, or gumption!

[slamlander.livejournal.com]

I have one problem with the bait-and-switch premise but that won't change my view. The logic error he's making is subtle and annoys me. He should know better. He's mixing Human Causation (Anthropogenic) with Global Warming. One, Global Warming, is provable. The other, Human Causation (Anthropogenic), isn't and may even be false.

Where this makes a difference is all about what can be done about it. Basically, if we can't cause it then we certainly can't mitigate it, which is where this yahoo is dangerous. Trying to mitigate something which we cannot effect is wasted effort and we cannot really afford to get this too wrong.

Once you take that into account you quickly realise that according to his simplified thinking, we have to start evacuating coastal areas now, which is the correct answer. But, it's not going to happen overnight and worst case estimates are for sealevel rises of 5-8m (16-26 ft.) per century. Yes, either turn NO into an island, learn to build dykes, or abandon it now.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

How do you infer that if we can't cause it, which I don't accept as true, we can't mitigate its negative effects? That's not true on other levels of human existence. We don't cause snow, but we mitigate its negative effect by creating shelters and warm clothing. We don't cause rain, but we mitigate its effect by using umbrellas. We don't cause pests, but we mitigate their effects with mousetraps. I think you're grossly underestimating humanity's impact on the planet. We ARE bigger than we think.

Well, he's got a point.

[apweiler.livejournal.com]

Mitigating non-human-caused climate change would be something entirely different from mitigating human-caused CC. I mean, the main way of mitigating AGW that most are suggesting is reducing CO2 emissions - but if CO2 doesn't cause climate change, then that's not going to help. I think that's what Slamlander is getting at.

That said, of course human CO2 emissions are what's driving climate change. No, I can't argue that case, I'm just going to say that if you're going to go against the consensus of the entire climate science community, you'd better have some pretty damn good qualifications and experience in climate science. Then, you might be worth listening to. Although I'm still going to accept the consensus, simply because I don't have the time to evaluate every theory and paper for myself, and I do have some (possibly misplaced) faith that on the whole, the scientific process works...

Re: Well, he's got a point.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

The chart of CO2 levels rises at the same dizzying level as the population rises during the second half of the Twentieth Century. That's one more way to verify that humans are causing the problem. In fact, the loss of wilderness habitat, pollution, depletion of resources and large-scale landscape changes are all hallmarks of human activity on the planet. We dam the rivers, which changes the ecosystems upstream and downstream. We build bridges, which entice people to relocate to places across the rivers from their workplaces. Seriously, after that huge island that they built in Dubai, how could anyone deny that humans have a major impact on the planet? We change the environment all the time.

And I'm more inclined to accept the judgment and analysis of the scientists with the AAAS and the NAS than the armchair skeptics.

Did you read my comment?

[apweiler.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It pisses me off quite a bit when people think that reading a few "Climate Swindle!!!" web pages or a popular "science" book qualifies them to question the research of people who have devoted their entire career to researching the global climate. No, I'm not a climate scientist. That's why you shouldn't care what I say about climate change. Just listen to those who know what they're talking about...

But then, as a budding scientist (maybe), I find that offensive in a number of fields, creationism being another good example. No, reading the Bible and/or a book by Michael Behe does not qualify you to criticise the research of people who have spent decades of their lives studying evolutionary biology.

Re: Did you read my comment?

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you and adding to your argument.

I don't understand how otherwise intelligent people are willing to accept SOME scientific conclusions but not others. Do they argue with the actuarial tables when they buy their life insurance? I can see some toothless Bubba in Hooterville having trouble with larger concepts, but people who work within complex systems should have more of a clue.

"Huge" Dubai island...

[kelli217.livejournal.com]

Compared to Madagascar? Not so much. Compared to Manhattan? Not so much.

But an impressive bit of civil engineering.

Re: "Huge" Dubai island...

[tomo2k.livejournal.com]

There's five of them...

Three "palms" of various sizes, a fish-splash thingy and a Mercator projection of the entire world done in small islands.

The construction industry in the UAE is terrifying - the Burj Dubai is still going upwards - I think they have around 10 floors left, but they still won't say how tall the building is finally going to be.

A good place for discussion and clarification

[patrixa.livejournal.com]

Well, the science community is not 100% united on the cause(s) of the warming; it could be a natural cycle made worse by humanity, but I've been reading papers pro and con for awhile. BTW, in 1991, the local HS was already preparing papers on where would our town be if the ocean raises by 3ft. Not very reassuring. I was convinced we needed to move inland and to a higher elevation, which we've all done -- my immediate family, that is. Family branches "don't waste their time" I'm told, "thinking about it."

Because there is yet no true consensus of reasons, only measurements to show what changes are taking place, we do not know, with certainty, what humans can do to change it. Which is why, I will follow what makes sense to me, keep an open mind, learn what I can and try to educate others with what I learn. My fear is that not enough people will pay attention until it is too late. my hope is that ways to keep life possible will appear;although I do not think all will survive. Guess I'm a darwinist at heart.

Before global warming took precedence, my concerns were the world was running out of basic resources: water, agriculture, animals, all the elemental stuff needed for humans to survive. The nuclear clock was also very scary to contemplate.

Oh, and strange contrary weather patterns are not new. In 1974 or 75, MA's cold wintry Christmas season didn't exist; for more than a week temperatures were quite high and the holiday was 74 degrees. I've also seen, in the 60's and 80's snow in May and June. "The Grapes of Wrath" was written about a real drought in the 30's, not a fiction. The 1600's were a mini ice age for the northern hemisphere and is partially responsible for the difficulty of the Pilgrims. A warming pattern in the north was evident in the time of Leif Erickson.

Therefore, while I will work for better life and world ecology, I will not view the world as hopeless; but I"ll also pray I am making good choices. Peace and may this discussion continue and teach us what we need.

Re: A good place for discussion and clarification

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Isn't 90% from the IPCC good enough for you? You can't really expect 100% certainty from science when its very nature is to be skeptical. If a fire marshal said there was a 90% chance of your kids and grandkids being killed by a fire due to the conditions of their surroundings because they hoarded a bunch of clutter and ignored lit candles, wouldn't you accept that as an alarming possibility? Wouldn't you implore them to stop hoarding, clear out the clutter and stop leaving unattended candles everywhere? The ones who demand a 100% certainty and claim they have 100% certainty are no better than the religious nuts who claim their version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the right one.

Weather changes, but trends can be measured and predicted. When I was a kid, tornadoes didn't hit the Midwest until Spring. The ones a few days ago and the ones in November of 2006 are freakish and harbingers of a bigger climactic issue. People don't get off their dead asses and do something unless they think the shit is hitting the fan. A healthy sense of alarm is a good survival instinct. If humanity doesn't heed this alarm, it seriously doesn't deserve to continue to exist.

Re: A good place for discussion and clarification

[patrixa.livejournal.com]

If you read all of what I wrote, you ought to see that I am not expecting a 100% certainty before I act on or about the possible, even probable, consequences of global warming. Such dire warnings for change are not new, although nowadays the causes are better pinpointed. My mantra, which has probably annoyed many the last several years, has been to simplify so as to live ergonomically. If more people did, there'd be far less waste.

My move to a higher elevation was based on warnings from early '90's predictions re the rising sea level (which, at a 3' rise, will flood my then town, leaving the house we then owned -- atop a hill-- on an island). I certainly have paid heed to that warning, echoed today, by doing what I can (for examples, see my 1st entry to this affray) including moving. I cannot stop it no matter how much I want to, I can only react to it. The area to which I moved, besides being at a higher elevation -- mountain chain foothills -- is one from which I can walk for all my needs thereby lessening how often I need to drive which means I fill my car, at most, once a month. From the depression days of my parents, I recall and follow this slogan: "use it up, make it do or do without." Recycling was a necessity then as now. What makes you think I've not paid heed to the warnings or haven't learned, discussed and written about them? I follow closely what my elected officials, at all levels, do and let them know if I think they are doing enough -- actually I have been doing it for as long as I can remember. What have you done, are doing? Being angry is not enough. You need to put that anger to use in positive ways.

Some weather trends can be predicted and measured, but not all. e.g. in 1956, Worcester MA, my hometown, had it's one and only unexpected-until-it-was-practically-on-top-of-us-tornado; earthquakes also can and do happen here in NH with varying degrees of predictability. The 1970's weather I mentioned before was also surprising. The weather of the past century was in hindsight the start of the cycle we appear to be entering.

I do not, however, accept that humans are 100% responsible for the climate changes nor that humans will be able to solve it any time soon, if ever. My hope is that we can manage these problems so life does not disappear.
In some ways, the when and by whom caused global warming are immaterial -- it's done. What is important is what gets done with the information we have. If we cannot stop it, and it's not clear we can, can we alleviate it? How? Can we insist what we "know" onto peoples who "know otherwise?" Will there be wars over this? Will GW be an example of "Survival of the Fittest?" And, something I've wondered about: what if this is NOT the first time it's happened to the world? Some shared ancient histories of nations and lands so physically far apart makes me wonder. That's why I am not angry but hopeful.

Oh, and what with the string theory re tinier-than-a-quark particles shaped sort of like elastic bands, who knows -- maybe the FSM is true? (p.s.,my tongue is firmly in cheek, but who can really say what is true regarding [any] god?)

[loosechanj.livejournal.com]

That the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of climate change really irritates me.

But is it on the side of it being the human race's fault? I never hear anyone say that.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

The IPCC says it is. They actually adjusted the certainty down to 90% that it's human caused from the 95% they wanted to use due to an abundance of caution. Science will never give you 100%, even with such well-established principles as gravity.