Those Who Do Not Listen

Recently, kk made this comment on my "Hey, Climate Change Deniers" post:

What I am saying is that the statistical sample that is being used to push the man made global warming case is too small.

Talk to youer community college econ guru and ask him about the statistical sample size used for the man made global warming crowd.

If I have a contrary view, you seem to respond to my comments with personal attacks.

Climatatic fluctuations are a natural occuring event. Through history, climate has always varied and always will. 100 years of climate data is like a grain of sand when compared to the actual age of the earth. A few years ago global warming was being blamed for causing our increase hurricane activity. The past few years have seen decreased hurricane activity, and now that is being blamed on global warming. Sorry, but they can't have it both ways.

I am getting a little tired of arguing and am about to just tell kk, "okay, kk, all those climate scientists and politicians, Nepalese, Virginians, Africans, indigenous, etc., they are all wrong and you are right," simply because I am getting tired of this argument.

First, let me take offense to you calling my friend, James Craven, who has a Ph.d. in economics and is not a "community college econ guru." Jim is the head of the economics department at Clark College in Vancouver, WA. He has also been offered a position at Xinua (sp?) University in China to teach their Ph.D. students economics, a position offered to only 4 people in the world once a year. It is the at least the second time this position has been offered to him. Jim is also the Solicitor General to the Blackfoot Traditional Government, wrote the Blackfoot Constitution and the indictment of the U.S. and Canada for the crimes of genocide against the Blackfoot Nation. He was also a judge on the child sex abuse tribunal in Canada (the U.S. still refuses to admit that they raped Indian children). He has also taught law and is an expert in indigenous and international law. He is currently editing a book he wrote on the genocide of Indians and how it is connected to U.S. economics. Here is his website. So, as far as that little snide comment goes, "community college econ guru," go f*** yourself.

Personal attack? Yes, I do take these things as personal attacks. It is not only you I get this type of response from, nor only this subject. I have toned down quite a bit, to be honest, after getting fired from Boydstun Metal Works in 2003 the day that co-King George started his illegal war against Iraq. I spoke out against the war, constantly, to everyone, and pointed them to various facts, figures, etc., to do their own research and prove me wrong. The only thing I got stumped on at the time was when some fella came up to me and said that Iraq had purchased some weapons grade uranium from Africa. I had not heard of that at the time, but looky at what came of that, eh. Proven lie. I didn't think it was possible at the time, because of the heavy regulation in the nuclear industry, and it turns out that it wasn't. Iraq didn't purchase the uranium and the documents were fabrications.

Fast forward to today, I rarely talk about anything other than work and acceptable conversation at my current workplace. Recently, I stepped across that boundary a little bit and told a fella I assumed because of his looks (long hair, scraggly goatee) that he was somewhat of a lefty. When he asked me what I was doing for Thanksgiving, I told him I was doing a radio show called "Genocide Cover-Up Day." I told him of the document stating that the first annually celebrated Thanksgiving was for killing Indians. "I DON'T BELIEVE THAT!" "Even with documentation?" "I don't believe that!" He later informed me that I am not to say anything bad about cops in front of him, either. He Loves his men in blue. I have recently watched a video of cops beating, torturing, and murdering citizens for a common crime, not respecting coppers authority. Then there is the Brotherhood of the Strong here in Portland where cops have the backs of their buddies for any criminal activities they perform. And, well, I have a long list of information on those criminal organizations as well. But, I don't say anything because that could put my job in danger. I'm an at will employee, not union, and therefore can be fired for any reason at anytime.

So, that is why I take things like your comments personally. I'll probably get over that soon enough, as I grow to understand that there are many folk one cannot have a sharing of knowledge with. Heck, I've learned a lot from you in our conversation on this subject. I hadn't heard of the "Midieval Warming Period" nor have I heard of the increase in ice in Antarctica. I looked them up, and the Midieval Warming Period was only over Europe according to the studies done. Why, I wonder? You claim it was just natural. I assume you mean that whatever possible environmental causes that may have been produced by men in that area at the time are irrelevant. What is your proof on this? What does it have to do with the subject at hand (nothing according to the scientists)? You seem to state it as proof that the current climate change crisis is not caused by man. It is natural. You seem to insinuate that humans, especially civilized humans, have no effect on the natural environment.

I have heard of things like the Little Ice Age, but have not really looked into it. Sometimes wording of these things can be misleading. I may or may not study this. Again, what does this have to do with climate change today? You seem to be insinuating that since there were weather changes in the past that civilized humanity has no effect on their natural environment. That is like saying Indians killed each other in the past, therefore the U.S. genocide of Indians is OK today (yes, people actually do use that argument, unfounded as it is). You pointed me to the Harvard study on the Little Ice Age and the Midieval Warming. I haven't looked, yet, however, but I wonder if their conclusion is that since there are possibly naturally occurring climate changes in history that the current climate change is not caused by industrial and civilized humans because humans seemingly have no physichal effects on their surrounding environment.

Back even 20 years ago, I remember it being an unspoken agreement that when the issue of salmon destruction and possible salmon recovery on the Columbia River, that the issue of the dams was not to be brought up. We had the salmon wars in the '60's and '70's when the "never do anything bad or illegal" cops were beating the shit out of Indians, aka "Red Niggers." Why? Because anglers and their supporters alleged that it was Indian fishing that was depleteing the salmon. How did they come up with their conclusions? Because Red Niggers were fishing. Not the fault of the dams. Nor was it the fault, as it was actually found to be later, of the flouride dumped in the Columbia and its estuaries by the numerous aluminum smelters in the Northwest at the time. It was Red Niggers, and many anglers still believe that today. Few still look at the dams. Not the fault of man, the fault of Red Niggers, who aren't really human.

I have seen a video some 15 years ago of a Kwakiutl stream in Alaska that was being cleaned up. It used to have thousands of salmon come up it every year, but the stream was damaged by logging (which I'm sure you can explain that it wasn't), and the salmon runs were reduced to zero. In the third year of the clean-up process, they got some 400-500 salmon. It was crazy watching the salmon follow the three men up the stream as they cleared the way for them. It was like their memory was returning. Most amazing thing. Last I heard they were getting runs up to 40,000. There is a river near Chico, California that many activists keep industry away from and it is the only river that has runs in the tens of thousands every year in California.

Statistical sample? What statistical sample? I do remember about 20 years ago when I first started hearing about climate change, then called global warming, that the temps were rising rather slowly, blah blah blah. I didn't give a shit. Didn't sound like anything to me. What I did know, however, is that industrialization does have an effect on the environment to its detriment. Dams on the Columbia for example. Global blah blah blah...WHATEVER! However, the science I'm reading has nothing to do with the statistical sampling. It has to do with the shit in the atmosphere, and not just the excess of carbon, but far more serious shit up there as well. This shit has an effect on the climactic weather. I listen to what the sceintists say because I've heard how their data is gathered, what they do with it, how they figure out what it means, etc. Then I listen to the stories of the people. Some streams in Virginia folk used to be able to feed themselves off of from the fish 30 years ago. Those fish are GONE! now. Floods in Nepal where the folk there have only memories of snow in the winter, they now have rain. This, too, in the last 30 years. I've read stories of the old Indian folk from the Siletz rez that state it used to snow heavily every year, it is a rare year to have snow and even rarer for it to stick in the area these days. I watch the receding glaciers. etc.

You come here and say that climate change has happened allegedly naturally in the past, therefore the current climate change is not happening, and if it were, it is not manmade. You state that the statistical sampling is too small. Let me remind you of a statistical sampling you did fairly recently. Remember my post about the LOL woman being on her knees was sexist. Your statistical sampling to prove me wrong...you asked two women friends. You did not take into consideration the way their lives are lived or how they perceive the world and how it influenced their decision to inform you that a woman on her knees is not sexist, but that is what they told you. How many women are their in the world? A couple of billion? Yet I'm wrong because two women you know whose lives I know nothing about tell you it is not sexist. Did you ever ask them to get on their knees before you? I'm kinda curious if they did and whether or not they still considered a woman on her knees (notice that men in advertising are never on their knees) is not sexist.

There are questions that I have repeatedly asked that you are not answering. Why are there meetings like that in Copenhagen? Why are polticians wasting their time and our tax dollars trying to gain dominance over this issue to protect the environmental destruction they are going to continue to do? Why, if climate change is a lie or if it is NOT manmade as you seem to allege, are they even having these meetings? Why? Can you tell me, kk, why they are having meetings about a LIE!? I've looked into the information you've passed on to me, will you offer me the same consideration, or is your intellect so superior that your conclusions are simply unchallengeable?

Why are there so many scientists coming out that climate change is real and caused by industry for the most part because of the actual shit in the atmosphere is there because of industrial output? How can they be so wrong and you be so right? You insinuate that scientists are so stupid that they base their whole study on a statistical sampling. However, the scientists I read about and listen to haven't even discussed a statistical sampling. They discuss what is in the atmosphere, how it got there, and the effect it has or can possibly have. You state that scientists have found climate changes historically and your conclusion, not theres from what I can see, states that therefore climate change does not exist today or if it does it is not manmade. It happened in the past, therefore todays alleged climate change is a lie or at the very least not caused by industrialized civilized humanity.

Then there are the issues of how climate change is effecting folk, communities that live much closer to the land than I, are now having greater difficulties in sustaining themselves. They say that weather patterns have changed so drastically that these changes have damaged villages, killed people, effected animal and plant species, etc. All of this in the last decades especially. Either they are lying, or it is just a natural occurrence and all the data scientists and that these folk are stating is either wrong or fabricated.

The receding glaciers on Iceland, in the mountains, etc., not proof, at least not to you. The fact that scientists state that the Antarctic ice increase is part of climate change, you aren't listening to. The fact that parts of the Antarctic have melted means nothing to you. The fact that the Arctic ice has receded so much that ships can now pass over North America from one ocean to the other means nothing to you.

Your main insinuation which you have thus far backed with very little evidence other than historical information with no studies into the possibilities of why said climate changes occurred, are the basis of your conclusion that civilized/industrialized humanity has nothing to do with the current climate change (should it actually exist) and that it is a completely organic incident. Personally, I need something more, but I don't believe you will come to this discussion with more.

I do take these things personally, and I apologize for that. That will change soon enough because, really, kk, if you're right, no big deal, if I'm right, those scientists are right, those politicians are right, those living closer to nature are right, there ain't nothin' gonna be able to be done about it anyway.

Last night Shusli and I had a discussion that we believe that nothing can be done anymore. We believed, even up to a few years ago, that we could change the world, turn it into a better place. Now, we see that there is nothing to be done. Climate change is still gonna happen. Genocide is still gonna happen. Economic collapse is still gonna happen. There will probably be a massive die off of humans and all forms of flora and fauna. Now, we are trying to figure out the best ways to survive this when it happens. All we have to go on is that it is gonna happen. The U.S. economy and thus the global economy is in a shambles, the natural world is being destroyed, the U.S. is going to continue its genocidal behavior until the very end. If we survive this shit, how do we survive it? What do we do now? And I am hearing the tales of more and more one time hardcore activists that they have stopped because they believe the same way. I wonder if that is why there are hadly any protests (in the states anyway) anymore? I don't plan on making a study of it, but I do plan on gathering the stories of more and more folk that have and have not given up the fight.

So, like Mike Ruppert, there will come a time when I will just stop arguing. It's coming, It will be here soon, but I still cling to that crazy idea a bit that I can somehow make a difference. That we can all somehow make a difference and create some sort of positive global change, but really...ain't gonna happen.

So, there you go, kk, my long response to your comment.

One last thing, the science on the hurricanes, I haven't looked into, and neither, obviously, have you. I listened to it at one point a few years ago, but it became a blah blah blah issue to me. Personally, I do believe you can have it both ways. I do believe nature can be effected by humanity. We are all connected. "Mitakuye Oyasin," everything is related. But there again, I don't dismiss them out of hand. To me, that is like someone coming to me stating that their spouse beats them on average once a month, but most of the rest of the time they are rather nice. Can they have it both ways? Can they be treated nice and beaten by the same person? The answer is yes. So I don't simply dismiss shit out of hand because it doesn't seem to make sense to me. I could look into, but I probably won't.