The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Dozens of Extinctions from the Australia Wildfires, But That’s Not the Worst

So a few humans got killed, and a lot of property got burned, but the real losers were the animals.

“Hundreds of species have been affected by these fires,” Legge says. “That includes many dozens of threatened species; some of these will be brought to the brink of extinction as a result of this event. And if they’re not made extinct by this event, I think this is the beginning of the end for them. Because this event will reoccur. It’s awful. It will be ecosystem collapse in a lot of cases. And we’re not exactly sure what we’ll end up with at the end of it all.” (my emphasis)

So here’s the thing: What is happening in California, the Pacific Northwest, Australia, the Amazon, and elsewhere is that the climate is changing.

Bit of a surprise, right? I mean, it’s called “climate change” for a reason.

But this means that the plants and animals that are in these places now, which have been adapted to a particular climate, which means not just temperature but rainfall, will no longer be viable. They will be removed. That’s just how this is going to run.

Now, if we were going to stop here, or even just continue a bit, whatever. It’d be awful, we’d lose biodiversity, but we’d recover.

But as the interviewee, Sarah Legge, notes later on:

Obviously, the driver here is climate change, leading to extended drought and high temperatures. Australia is looking at 3 to 4 degrees of warming. I’m frightened to even imagine the country in that scenario. If this fire event is what we experienced with 1 degree of warming, what on earth are we going to be experiencing at 3 or 4 degrees of warming?

Yeah. Only one-third to one-quarter through this. The worst is yet to come.

Note the bolded text in the first post “Because this event will reoccur.” This isn’t the last fire in Australia, or elsewhere.

There will be less dramatic reshaping of climate. Rains that don’t come, maybe even monsoons that don’t come. Less water or more water. Local areas will have wildly variable temperature changes–arctic temperature increases are already at three to four degrees celcius.

This will effect us and our agriculture. We grow crops in latitudinal bands, modified by soil and water availability. As those change, we’re going to have huge spikes in the prices of crops, and eventually (and eventually may be rather soon), famines. We tend to grow monocrops without genetic variability (corn, rice, wheat, etc.) Vat-grown food, which industry is pushing, is still going to require vast monocrops (though much of it will be algae), and much of it will still be vulnerable to these sorts of changes.

We’ve only just started this process. So far, very few humans have died, but the plants and animals are taking the brunt.

But that will change.

Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.


AOC Is Actually Serious About Building Progressive Power


Open Thread



    All true, but what do we do both as individuals and as part of a collective in the midst of this unfolding apocalypse considering the political constraints with which we are strapped? In America, for example, Bernie and the progressive faction of the Dem party wax pollyanish about this issue without being forthright about their chances of accomplishing any of their agenda precisely because they are hampered by their very own party which answers to the plutocracy.

    Not to mention but I will, the Dem party had its chance and it has never delivered just as it has never delivered on universal healthcare after allegedly trying for the past fifty or more years. Considering the election of Trump has ushered in a new political era that now transcends parties and renders them obsolete, an new era of direct oligarchic rule, our best bet, in America at least, is to support the most benevolent oligarchic and it’s clear and rather obvious Bloomberg, in a choice between Bloomberg or Trump, is by far the most benevolent oligarchical candidate and he has a better record on climate change than any Dem candidate running in this election or any election. He’s put a knife in coal and now, after reassessing, has committed to putting a knife in natural gas via fracking. He has a plan he’s laid out as POTUS to do this using a similar strategy Trump is using to dismantle any and all regulations; The Blitzkrieg strategy.

    There will be no revolution. Progressives will always be token in the Dem party and this younger generation doesn’t have the capacity or motivation to revolt. Bloomberg ending coal and natural gas may not be enough. In fact, I know it won’t be enough but it’s well beyond anything any other candidate can or will do and I’m certain Bloomberg isn’t, and never would be, a Putin stooge. In fact, Bloomberg’s climate change activism will greatly diminish the power of Putin and Russia considering all Russia has to offer the world in value is fossil fuel.

    Bloomberg 2020


    If you’re serious about climate disruption as Nader calls it, then Bloomberg is the best chance to do anything significant about it because he’s already done something about it so he has a track record of positive results. Bernie and Warren are a net to catch stray progressives and bait & switch them to Biden at the last minute and Biden is and would be terrible related to climate disruption or related to anything really including social security.

    But only Bloomberg and Biden did better than Trump among that 19% of voters who said they would consider voting only for someone other than the president. Among that group of voters, Bloomberg got 49% to Trump’s 30% in a head-to-head matchup against the incumbent. Biden got 48% to Trump’s 39%.

    Bloomberg also does better with white voters (Trump 48%, Bloomberg 43%, with 9% undecided) than any of the other candidates while doing just about as well with black voters. And while all of the Democratic candidates are doing far better than Trump in metro Detroit, it is Bloomberg (58%-34%) doing the best — in part because, according to the poll, only he and Sanders lead Trump in Macomb County, which helped deliver the election to the president four years ago.

    Bloomberg leads Trump 51%-41% in Macomb, according to the poll, and Sanders 49%-45%. Because of the smaller sample size from one count, however, the margin of error would be far greater than 4 points, and should be taken into account.

  3. highrpm

    “without being forthright about their chances of accomplishing any of their agenda precisely because they are hampered by their very own party”
    i’d restate it, imprecisely because there’s no $$$ … the author william voegeli does a better job of precise presentation than the present suite of big program’ers who are itching for the center seat at the big control panel.

  4. Ché Pasa

    The oligarchy will rule no matter who is president. Surely that’s obvious by now. While the oligarchs have their factions, they are not political party factions. Any oligarch can assign themself to any party or no party and change parties at will. It’s what they do; it’s who they are. They are beyond party politics, and they rule the parties, just like they rule the country through their various handmaidens and agents in office. We, the Rabble, have very little to say about it. Ignoring us is also what they do.

    Trump would not be in office were his presence there not pleasing to a significant faction of the oligarchy. His 2016 EC win was definitely a surprise, but it’s worked out well for the ruling class. They’re not displeased, not at all. Why should they be? He’s been looking after their interests like nobody before him. Right? That tax cut — which wasn’t just his doing but that of the entire governing class — was golden. Hardly anything like that in the history of thieving by the ruling class. They’d keep him on just for that alone.

    But the way he spins up and divides the Rabble into fighting one another over… well, what, really?Honesty? Decency? Brown people? Toilets and lightbulbs? The looming climate emergency? Slaughtering (literally and figuratively) the Enemy du Jour? Just keeping them fighting one another is the key. Doesn’t matter over what. So long as they’re at one another’s throats, they won’t be inclined to turn their ire onto the operators of this little goon show, right?

    The oligarchs would keep Trump on for the Show Business of his reign too. They like it just fine.

    But his deterioration is obvious (all presidents deteriorate in office, have you noticed?) and potentially dangerous to people who matter. A replacement is necessary. Whether it would be God-botherer Pence or some Democrat, who can say? None of the Democrats so far quite meet the criteria for rule. Pence could probably do it, but he’s creepy and not entertaining at all.

    So will the replacement be one of the oligarchs? A real one, not a pretend one like Trump? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. Our oligarchic class has shown itself not fit to rule directly. They’re better at pulling the strings of their puppets who actually serve in office. Or even better, who actually run the permanent government. Nevertheless, these are apocalyptic-crisis times. Direct rule from On High may come out of necessity.

    Crisis has led to every political paradigm shift in US history. It is doing so now, though we may not recognize it yet. The Australian fires, following on so many other massive fires in Canada, the US and elsewhere in the North, South, East, and West, together with the tsunamis, meltdowns, earthquakes, hurricanes and typhoons, droughts, floods, and volcanic eruptions have shaken complacency just enough to precipitate the shift underway. Hope says it will be a positive shift. Reality suggests otherwise.

    Reality shows it’s more than climate change. Much more.


    The oligarchy will rule no matter who is president. Surely that’s obvious by now.

    Of course that’s obvious by now, but with indirect oligarchical rule, that process has been muddled at best and it’s created a political class that stifles and stymies effective action. With direct oligarchic rule, that muddling can be mostly eliminated. Of course, that can be good and bad like everything else, mostly because with direct oligarchical rule, things can and will get done much quicker and if those things are bad, well, the bad comes fast & furious as Trump has proven. One thing is for certain, this trend to direct oligarchical rule is not going away. The horse is out of the barn. You can try to ride the horse that’s escaped, but shutting the barn door or pretending it wasn’t open and the horse escaped is akin to burying your head in the sand. No doubt, party apparatchiks will ignore this observation and dismiss it and marginalize it. Afterall, it means their day in the roasting sun is done, so for them this new era is the end of their existence as they knew it. It will be time for them to find a new job. I suggest grave digger.

  6. scruff

    but what do we do both as individuals and as part of a collective in the midst of this unfolding apocalypse considering the political constraints with which we are strapped?

    You ignore the political constraints -in fact you should ignore the political avenue entirely – and take direct action to degrade the infrastructure that is causing the problem, to the greatest extent that you can, as many times and as often as you can. You do this because the only thing that really matters going forward is the integrity of the biosphere and all the eco-relationships within it, and as a member of that biosphere you have a moral and ethical responsibility to materially care for your relations who are not as powerful as you are (which is almost all of them) and protect them from the evil behavior being perpetrated upon them.

    This is the only good answer to your question, and despite that fact it is the least popular of all possible responses to your question. Very few people like this answer, and those who do are typically the type of “loose cannon” idiots who should least be taking this answer to heart, because they are motivated by the emotional reward of rebellion, danger, violence or some other indicator of psychological damage, and not motivated by better condition outcomes that they won’t personally feel. Every other option that will be floated in response to your question is a distraction tactic; a delusion into which we all enter willingly in order to avoid at all costs the possibility that we might actually have to take responsibility for our own lives and place in this world and maybe actually do something for once.

    Bloomberg isn’t going to save the world (neither is Bernie, to my chagrin). You can vote for him if you want, but the history of democratic political action towards saving the world is one of greenwashing facades and worsening material conditions. You can vote with your dollars for Elon Musk and all the other genius technologists, but the history of technological advances towards saving the world is one of slightly improving metrics in one area hiding worsening metrics in other areas. None of this is going to miraculously change just because the “right” person got elected, or the “best face” is currently in the news protesting climate change. Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are the flailings of avoidance; the deeply felt fear-based avoidance of recognition that someone needs you to get up off your ass and actually help them and not just vote for them to be helped or talk about them being helped and how great that would be.

  7. bruce wilder

    People — even scientists in many cases — tend to think linearly, to project the future as a straight vector from some present, to imagine 3 degrees as simply more than 1. The world does not do linear.

    Climate change will be more chaotic than linear, more wild swings. And, ecologies that have been near steady states for millennia will not handle chaos well. Chaos will exacerbate the already-started mass extinction event that is on-going.

    And, the first response of the political animals will be to “adapt” by doing more of all the things (especially use of fossil fuels) that created the chaos.

    Oddly, if the process was faster, we humans could better wrap our pea-brains around it and possibly respond somewhat effectively, but the process is slow enough relative to human lifetimes and the swings wild enough that it will be hard to gain consensus or bury denial.

    We cannot take our collective foot off the accelerator and get a recognizable result. This is a problem.

    And, climate change from additions to the carbon cycle cannot be effectively handled by any but global restraint. This is a very big problem.

    Adaptation to the consequences of climate change can be organized, as can some kinds of climate engineering, at the cost of adding to the chaos. This may be very, very big problem.

    Finally, climate change is one consequence of processes that have many aspects beyond the addition of carbon to the active carbon cycle. It is much worse than the linearity of add-carbon, up-the-heat. It is depletion, microplastics, pesticides, detergents accumulating, and the sheer weight of 7+ billion people and their waste everywhere.


    You ignore the political constraints -in fact you should ignore the political avenue entirely – and take direct action to degrade the infrastructure that is causing the problem, to the greatest extent that you can, as many times and as often as you can. You do this because the only thing that really matters going forward is the integrity of the biosphere and all the eco-relationships within it, and as a member of that biosphere you have a moral and ethical responsibility to materially care for your relations who are not as powerful as you are (which is almost all of them) and protect them from the evil behavior being perpetrated upon them.

    I’m doing all of that already to the extent the system allows it. If I do any more, I will be homeless. On the street. Dead within five years. Most of may be on the street either way at this rate.

    So, individually, I’m doing everything I can and that has resulted in reducing myself and my footprint to pretty much nothing without being homeless. I have no 409k. I have no job, and let’s face it, if you have a job you are contributing directly to climate disruption because most jobs if not all feed the system that not only pours CO2 into the atmosphere but that also degrades and destroys the planet in a myriad of ways.

    Of course Bernie or Bloomberg aren’t going to save the world. A vote for either is a vote out of principle. A vote for posterity, but posterity and principle is pretty much all we have now except for “f**k it.”

    I intend to vote for the person who would and could do the most related to climate disruption at this point. That person, aside from Bernie and let’s face it Bernie is not going to make it, is Mike Bloomberg. It’s an anti-revolutionary choice, of course, but there will be no revolution so it really doesn’t matter whether the choice is anti-revolutionary.


    None of this is going to miraculously change just because the “right” person got elected, or the “best face” is currently in the news protesting climate change.

    I never said that nor did I imply it. But shutting down coal-fired powered planets and gas-fired power plants isn’t just protesting climate change. Bloomberg has substantially evolved on this issue. He has been open to reassessment and I see no reason to believe that will change. He’s willing to do and can do what Obama couldn’t do and wouldn’t do because Obama was beholden to big dollar donors and he had his deferred emoluments to consider.

    If the Dems are so concerned about Putin, the best way to neutralize him is to take his pocketbook away. Diminishing fossil fuel use is taking Putin’s pocketbook away and yet the Dems wont do it. Why? Because like Trump, Putin is useful as a foil to them. Plus, to take Putin’s and/or Trump’s pocketbook away is to take their own pocketbook away. They’re willing to gamble the stewardship of the planet away for political power and deferred emoluments. For their place at the banquet table of our destruction.

  10. The article “Fake News: “The idea that “greenies” … would oppose measures to prevent fires … is simply false.”” @ makes the following claim, but offers no proof or references for it:

    “In Australia, green efforts to turn the bushfires into a political point scoring opportunity for their climate action agenda are backfiring horribly.”

    Does anybody know of polling related to this claim?

    Taking a superficial look, it appears that Australian volunteer firefighters aren’t blaming climate change. “Scientist David Packham on what’s really causing the bush fires” @

    Since their lives are on the line, I imagine their opinion carries a lot of weight with their fellow citizens.

    But I know next to nothing about Australia, hence my question.


    The smoke was so bad inside the building, it affected sensitive electronic equipment. MRI machines wouldn’t function. I’ve seen video footage of people jogging in this shroud of smoke. People are insane. How could you jog in that/this? It’s likened to smoking a carton or two of cigarettes and more than mitigates any positive health effects from jogging. I’m someone who runs, but I would never run in these conditions.

    On Friday morning, as the bushfire death toll ticked over 20, Robson performed a Caesarean delivery.

    “The mum could smell the smoke,” he said. “She said, ‘I don’t feel so good about all of this’ and I said ‘to be honest I don’t feel that good either’.”

    Robson, the former president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, reflected on how different the atmosphere was in birthing suites back in the year 2000.

    “When I would deliver in 2000 you felt that this baby would face abundance and there was this optimism,” he said. “We had all been through this stupid Y2K bug thing and there was this sense that we were on the cusp of something really great… There was a sense that people could solve big problems but that sense seems to be very ephemeral, it has evaporated.”

  12. BlizzardOfOzzz

    I have to admit I was surprised by some of the hard-core Nazi policies adopted by the Dems recently, such as the absolute ban of colored people from their debates, canonical inferiority of females, and the proposed abolition of the Jewish nation/race (?). However, thinking some more about the climate emergency, I now understand: we just don’t have time. The majority of American voters are still swastika-waving, white-hood-wearing fascists, and unfortunately we need their votes, or by the next election planet earth’s surface will be the same as Venus, totally uninhabitable.

    I expect the Dems to lurch even further right after the primaries, as they seek to outflank the Hitler clone currently occupying the White House. Now you may think it impossible to get to the right of Adolph Drumph himself, but when you consider the man’s oft-evinced softness (“lowest black unemployment”, pandering to the Zionist regime), you can see how the eventual Dem nominee will easily be able to carve out an even more extreme-right position. As a bonus, some of the policies involved this flanking maneuver will be advantageous in their own right, in the all-important question of CO2 emissions: the physical elimination of the carbon-intensive population of the swarthier races, and the absolute subjection of industry to the sole discretion of the President/Reichsfuehrer.

    I know that many of my comrades here will find this projection unlikely, or unpalatable, but please remember that the future of all life on earth is at stake in this upcoming election, and vote accordingly!

  13. Willy

    On cue, it’s the heroic metamars! (and his screwy sidekick Bliz)

    I’m hoping they’ll flesh out this theory that “climate change” is a plutocratic-led hoax. (scientists everywhere need to know)

  14. Jeremy

    @450 – There is nothing “to do”.

    We shall simply bear witness to this unbearable predicament.
    I realise that this sounds nihilistic, but it the truth – and the truth hurts.

    We are living through the “great acceleration” – and with a global population that is growing at a million new souls every four days this is only going to get worse. Far worse.

    Green, techno-hopium is not going to save us, let alone mitigate a small fraction of what is coming.

    Stay nimble economicaly, prepare yourself both physically and emotionally, build community, learn new skills, keep family and friends close – and love every minute of every day as if it were your last.
    It soon will be.

    Here’s climate scientist Paul Beckwith explaining that the loss of albedo resulting from the imminent Arctic “blue ocean” event will result in a global warming that is equivalent to one trillion tons of CO2: 40% of ALL Emissions thus far.

    Problems have solution, predicaments don’t.

  15. Willy

    Blasphemy Jeremy. Arctic pleasure cruises are now common and safe. The Inuit need the money. Sources tell me they were tiring of ice and polar bears all the damned time anyways. Just wait. metamars should be arriving soon to explain the real root cause of this cursed hoax.

  16. Jeremy

    Willy – Haha! Love it!

    See, love solves everything 🙂

  17. highrpm

    @ scruff,
    “as a member of that biosphere you have a moral and ethical responsibility to materially care for your relations who are not as powerful as you are (which is almost all of them) and protect them from the evil behavior being perpetrated upon them. ”

    the plants and animals. i choose as a lover of nature to live richly,

    There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
    snow, seasons, distance and dirt roads: SSDD
    “Be not deceived; G-d is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7)

    no car. no tee bee. internet, yes. i chose to minimize my own carbon footprint. an exception in this inner city neighborhood. of obeseoes and low lives, cig butts and fast food litter tossed everywhere, uncut lawns, unmaintained old houses, junk cars sitting on the lawns, much monosyllabic background noise, the f word the most frequently used monosyllabic expression. trash everywhere. mostly only myself with my bucket walking my block picking up the litter. the plants and animals. they are the weaker and dissed innocents. i feel a kinship with them. much more than the sordid underclass homo sapien dwellers in this inner city section. (can’t bring myself to even call it a neighborhood.) they chose to make offspring in the midst of chaos. fine. they can feed, cloth and shelter them, sans my help. frankly, who of the present suite of washinton d.c. boomers chooses to live desiring little? none. not even the great sainted bernie boy. talk is cheap.

    yes, i expect not to live even 5 more years. thank goodness.

  18. scruff

    I’m doing all of that already to the extent the system allows it.

    I thought I struck a sufficiently grave tone to communicate my intention properly, but clearly I did not. Let me clarify: if what you’re doing is allowed by the system, you are not doing enough. It is in fact precisely the kind of things that the system explicitly (and implicitly, in some cases) disallows which are required in order to effect meaningful change in the trajectory of the future. That is why the system disallows them. “If voting could change anything, it would be made illegal” goes the quote, and so the corollary should be something like, “If you want to successfully change something, expect to become a criminal”. One day sooner than I’d predict the accurate description of social reality will be “If you want change, you are a criminal”.

    If I do any more, I will be homeless. On the street. Dead within five years. […] I’m doing everything I can and that has resulted in reducing myself and my footprint to pretty much nothing without being homeless.

    Your personal consumption footprint is almost entirely irrelevant in societal context. If you were a jet-setter who owned a hundred mansions in the most energy consumptive suburbs in America but also were successfully destroying extractive infrastructure on a monthly basis, I’d still celebrate you. In fact, if expanding your footprint would allow you to do more towards degrading the infrastructure, then you should expand your footprint. The common social prescription to reduce personal consumption is one of those willing delusions we intoxicate ourselves with in order to feel like we are doing something when we are doing very little if anything at all. Whether you drive or walk is completely meaningless as long as the infrastructure that allows people to drive remains in place. Any abdication of access to fossil fuels that you engage in merely allows someone else to use them. Industry in particular will gladly take up any resource consumption slack you give it, because that is one way it makes money.

    I want to be clear: my response was not meant as a personal criticism of you; I don’t know you or what you’re doing and I probably don’t care. When I wrote that response, I was talking to you, and to every other reader of these comments, and to Ian, and most especially to myself. The kinds of actions I am pushing for in my earlier response are the sorts of things that very probably none of us are doing, and for good reason. That doesn’t make them unnecessary. That just makes us all very good at rationalization, and very bad at being brave. Me just as much as anyone else.

    shutting down coal-fired powered planets and gas-fired power plants isn’t just protesting climate change […] Bloomberg […is…] willing to do and can do what Obama couldn’t do and wouldn’t do because Obama was beholden to big dollar donors and he had his deferred emoluments to consider

    No, it’s less than protesting climate change. Protests would be more meaningful, because they channel and reflect emotion back into people’s awareness, and emotion has the best chance of leading to motion.

    Bloomberg has no willingness or ability to do what Obama could or would not. It’s not about donors, it’s about the underlying structure of how the society supports itself, materially. It doesn’t matter if Jeff Bezos himself runs for president and says that he can change things because he doesn’t need anyone’s money. A person with all the combined wealth of the thousand richest people in the world cannot protect themselves from the public outrage they would incur from doing what actually needs to be done, because that would be to reduce the society’s use of energy. The working class is no more willing en aggregate to deliberately powerdown than the billionaire elite are.

    If the Dems are so concerned about Putin

    The only relevance that Putin or Trump have to the long-term future is that they currently have access to nuclear weapon launch codes. That’s it. Their money – whatever the source – is irrelevant in the bigger picture. These people do not lead society, they are following society; they are rich and powerful because they are giving society what it wants. They are the people crowdsurfing atop the hands of the audience and you, the Dems and virtually everyone else in political commentary sees them as being super-people who can fly and whom the audience is desperately trying to touch. No, these people – the elite – are just the best embodiments of the social forces working beneath them. If Trump dies tomorrow, the society that produced him would produce another of him, because that society needs to be able to willfully and confidently ignore the consequences of their actions. If Putin died tomorrow, the society that produced him would produce another him, because that society needs to be able to willfully and confidently ignore the violence that must be perpetrated to win them greater access to energy resources.

  19. @BlizzardOfOzzz

    That was awfully funny. When rational discussion is impossible, sarcastic humor is far superior to malicious insults. For one thing, it won’t raise your blood pressure. (An important consideration in an aging population; with crummy, overpriced “healthcare”, to boot.)

    As your reward, here is a sort of right wing youtube comedy station: Even if you’re not a right-winger, you can enjoy the barbs thrown in the direction of more extreme liberals. At least I hope you can.

    P.S.: You’ve misspelled “Oz”

    I’ve heard Jordan Peterson say that creatives tend to be liberals, because both creatives and liberals bear more of the psychological trait of openness.

    Nevertheless, some right wing oriented comics are the exceptions that prove the rule.

  20. Hugh

    From a précis of a review of the scientific literature on wildfire risks.

    “Overall, the 57 papers reviewed clearly show human-induced warming has already led to a global increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather, increasing the risks of wildfire.

    ‘This has been seen in many regions, including the western US and Canada, southern Europe, Scandinavia and Amazonia. Human-induced warming is also increasing fire risks in other regions, including Siberia and Australia.

    ‘However, there is also evidence that humans have significant potential to control how this fire risk translates into fire activity, in particular through land management decisions and ignition sources.’

    At the global scale, burned area has decreased in recent decades, largely due to clearing of savannahs for agriculture and increased fire suppression. In contrast, burned area has increased in closed-canopy forests, likely in response to the dual pressures of climate change and forest degradation.”

  21. Ché Pasa

    Ian has an appropriate focus on the animal decimation and extinctions under way as a result of the Australian bushfires, appropriate because it’s visible to the public — and often horrifying — whereas the Sixth Great Extinction Event that’s been going on for decades now has largely been “invisible.” Oh, if you know it’s going on, it’s quite visible, but most people are oblivious.

    The fires are wiping out entire subspecies, but equally disturbing to observers are the myriad animals left habitat-less, the many domestic cattle and sheep incinerated, the horrifying injuries of the survivors. This is apocalyptic, there’s no doubt about it. A vision of Hell that can’t be brushed aside, even by such glib and giddy sub-optimists as Scott Morrison. No, he’s safe — enough — for now, and so are most Australians, but… the Reaper will surely come for them as well, and it won’t be to lift them to Heaven as they so passionately believe.

    The Apocalypse is happening with increasing frequency in more places, affecting more and more people, systems, environments and animals. This is no doubt one of the dreams of the Disruptors. They don’t fear it, they welcome it, because there’s always money to be made and power to be consolidated under crisis conditions. If the crisis comes on its own because of climate change or what have you, so much the better.

    It’s a perfect test for the New Model Social Darwinists. The worse conditions become for the masses, for the animals, for the useless eaters, the better off the Darwinist, Dominionists, and Disruptors will be.

    No wonder they’re giddy.

    In the end, of course they’re not better off, but in the end, they don’t care.

  22. Stirling S Newberry

    Offf topic:

    Laser printer inventor dies.

  23. A coalition of former fire chiefs in Australia want to talk to the government about climate change:

    While noteworthy, I’m more interested in what firefighter rank-and-file have to say. Since proper fire management makes their lives safer, no matter how much attribution can be laid at the feet of “climate change”, I’d find it bizarre that a normal, non-Greeny types WHOSE LIFE IS ON THE LINE, IN THE SHORT TERM, would not be at least as interested in proper fire management as they would be in climate change.

    Likewise, I’m more interested in what Australian firefighters in rural areas have to say than urban firefighters.


    Hey scruff, I’m awaiting pics of your various missions to physically disrupt & destroy the system that is decimating the planet. Pics of you demolishing the Burj Dubai Khalifa, for example. I won’t be joining you. Whilst not enough, my approach is ethically and morally sound and grounded in principle, short of suicide/euthanasia which isn’t out of the question by the way. I have abstained as much as I can abstain from contributing to the effort to destroy the planet. I know it doesn’t make a difference. It would only make a difference if everyone did the same, and that’s never going to happen. Your approach gives those who are hellbent on destroying the planet, the ones who benefit the most from it and who involve themselves in all manner of machinations to keep the status quo hierarchical arrangement in place, exactly what they want — further pretext for profit and control. You destroy, they rebuild, and in the rebuilding they increase their profit. As Che Pasta has said, they make money off of anything and everything we do, and this is why we must do nothing, quite literally. Abstaining, withholding our cooperation and contribution, is our best, and most moral, bet amidst this Apocalypse Now.


    highrpm, kudos to you for choosing to be “poor” and abstaining. I know you haven’t done what you’ve done for the kudos, but I’m giving you kudos nonetheless. I agree with you and scruff too, that planetary destruction, the sentiment of it and all the concomitant behaviors that accompany that sentiment, transcends class. Your description of the part of town where you live, highrpm, reminds me of a photo I saw a year or two prior. It was a photo of Palestine and Palestinians engaged in a fracas with Israeli soldiers in a highly populated part of Palestine just beyond a section of the wall. It showed both sides of the wall. On the Israeli side, it was pristine and clean. Not ostentatious or sterile, mind you, just well-kept. On the Palestinian side, it was disgusting. Trash and litter was everywhere. It was a pig sty. The Palestinians are not alone in this. This is the message society teaches us. To be poor, is to be an undignified pig and so the poor abide by that propaganda and mostly are undignified, sloppy messes. Being poor doesn’t have to be undignified, but all too often it is. We need to change that and you and I are doing our part. Amidst the apocalypse of climate disruption, consciously choosing to be poor is the moral choice. It’s the dignified choice. Being poor with dignity is the answer to how to manage the unfolding calamity. If enough do, the traditional message that being poor is undignified and poor people are pigs will be reversed and it will be those who choose to live in excess who will be the undignified slobs that we already know they are. It’s time to get some Steinbeck out and read it again, methinks.


    The fact we live in a society that withholds medical care from those who can’t afford it yet tells the same people it’s taboo and illegal for them to take their own life is a society built by and for the devil. It is an evil society that seeks to maximize suffering and destruction. This is our society. It is evil. Any intelligent person can’t help but come to this conclusion.

    I’ve been keenly focusing on euthanasia these past few months and past few years actually. It’s absurd there are laws against this. Making this illegal is pure evil. Sure, the laws related to it are changing in some states, but considering the Apocalypse Now of climate disruption, this should not only be legal, but those who choose to terminate their lives early should receive compensation that goes to their family and/or friends and they should be lauded as heroes for helping to save the planet.

    I believe that my next venture and purpose may be to help people die with dignity amidst the climate disruption apocalypse. Nothing could be more satisfying than depriving the vampires who set up this society, and who own it and manage it, from sucking more psychical and physical blood. I want to starve them. Won’t you join me?

  27. scruff

    Hey scruff, I’m awaiting pics of your various missions to physically disrupt & destroy the system that is decimating the planet

    I specifically and explicitly wrote that I am as much at fault as anyone I would criticize for inaction. Did you not read that? Or perhaps you didn’t give any thought to how insanely stupid it would be for someone who was doing what I’m saying should be done to discuss details of it in a public forum like this one. Or perhaps you’re just lashing out emotionally, trying to discredit my description of reality by casting aspersions at my character. None of these would be good, but I’d prefer it if you just didn’t read what I wrote, because at least then you would be reachable in principle.

    Your approach gives those who are hellbent on destroying the planet […] exactly what they want — further pretext for profit and control

    What do you mean by “my approach”? If you mean the approach I am suggesting to be necessary, then you are incorrect, because my approach is not being enacted, and the planet destroyers are taking their profit and control regardless. If you mean impotently calling for illegal action in the comment section of a little-known website, then again, no, I only express my despair this way occasionally, and again the profit and control is underway every day. The important part is that when an abuser tells you that you made them do this to you, that’s a lie; they were going to do this to you as soon as they saw that you were weak enough that they could get away with it, and fighting back was the only chance you ever had.

    You destroy, they rebuild, and in the rebuilding they increase their profit

    This is the most important line in your response, because even though it is entirely incorrect, it is incorrect in such a way that shines light upon what vulnerabilities the system actually has.

    The “rebuilding” you speak of is an act that requires energy inputs, and energy available to be used as inputs has been falling for a long time. If your proposal were true, for example, I would expect that in the event of a natural disaster – let’s say Hurricane Katrina, the “costliest natural disaster in U.S. history” according to Brittanica – the response of those who want more profit and control would be to rebuild quickly in order to capture more profit and control. As far as I am aware, the actual response was not so impressive; the “rebuilding” has never been finished, city population levels are still lower than they were before, money flows through the area are lower, the infrastructure is still less capable than it was before and so on. Of course, even if the outcome were the one I would predict from your hypothesis, that would still mean that energy spent rebuilding NOLA would be unavailable for use in other areas, such as expanding deforestation, the making of more plastics, etc. Yes, I am describing a war of attrition, or the strategy of insurgents occupied by a stronger force. If your description of reality were true, those concepts would not hold any weight, because they would never have worked. But they do work; they are working even now.

    Abstaining, withholding our cooperation and contribution, is our best, and most moral, bet amidst this Apocalypse Now

    Is this true of someone who decides to rape and murder your children, as well? Would you stand back and let them continue, finish up? No, in that situation I expect you would actually fight to defend the ones you love. Only when the victim in question is the natural world at large do we cast withdrawal as being moral and yet still claim to love the natural world.

    Again – because I’m not sure you really heard me the first time – this is not a personal attack against you. I typically like your commentary; in this case I simply find your despondency… dangerous.

  28. Well, though I still remain mostly ignorant about details of fire management (and intend to remain so ignorant), nevertheless, I hereby do declare that the notion of the current brushfire catastrophe in Australia to be due mostly from climate change is a damnable derangement.

    It reminds me a bit about laying the blame for increased kidney failure amongst some agricultural workers on climate change, when there was no reason to believe that, if they were hydrating properly, with clean, unsweetened water with electrolytes, and perhaps avoiding or scaling back their activities on the hottest of days, there’d be any blip in their rate of kidney disease. Any more than we see amongst Australian outdoor tennis players, e.g.

    My basis for this declaration is the chart shown @ , viz., . Right above it appears the text,

    “The graph and table below show the situation in Western Australia in recent years – an increasing number of disastrous bushfires. These data are slightly out of date but will be updated for WA at the end of the 2019-2020 fire season. The graph demonstrates how a well designed and implemented fuel management system virtually eliminated large bushfires from 1961 to 1995.”

    I came upon this website via an interview @ sky tv @

    The interviewee points out that aboriginal bushmen were doing fire management for 100’s of generations, before recent times.

    I don’t know how deranged and manipulated Australian society is, but my guess is that it’s similar to the US. Hence, rational, detailed debates, complete with cost/benefit analyses (of climate change mitigation vs. historically proven fire management), are unlikely to occur.

    Therefore, I’m gonna guess that the most useful strategy for so-called “climate change deniers” is to non-maliciously make fun of the CO2 catastrophists.

    If I was a comedian, looking to work this angle (say, e.g., on the politically incorrect youtube channel “Comedy Unleashed”), I’d make fun of the racism of the CO2 catastrophists, since they obviously think the bushmen were too stupid to manage fires. They were just lucky, for 100’s of generations! Why don’t they do something useful, like opening casinos?

  29. Willy

    So is metamars using the tired old humor link as hominem dodge (while chimp-hugging an obvious racist), to escape a detailed explanation of his own assertion?:

    I’d always assumed that carbon taxation was the main plutocratic goal behind CO2 catastrophism, but maybe the kleptocratic rabbit hole is much deeper.

    You said it. I didn’t.

    Please. I’d really like a more detailed description about how all of this is happening.


    The system is all-encompassing, scruff. It not only surrounds, but it also permeates. Even the homeless are part of the system. In fact, the homeless are a feature of it every bit as much as Trump is a feature of the system. Fighting the system is contributing to the system. Absent not being part of the system, i.e. committing suicide/euthanasia, the best bet is to contribute as little to the system in every aspect of your life while minimizing your personal suffering. This doesn’t mean checking out. Checking out is going homeless and giving up on everything and everyone entirely. Euthanasia/Suicide is a wiser and more dignified approach than going homeless. I’m at the level or stage that’s directly prior to going homeless or committing euthanasia/suicide. I’ve maintained at this level for a while now but I’m intelligent enough to know it can’t and won’t hold much longer. Then it’s lights out for me and I’m fine with that. It’s my choice. I choose not to contribute to this evil system and my early death will be the consequence of it. What I regret is that this same evil system that tortures your existence keeps the ratcheted wrench tight until you are fully gone meaning it won’t even allow you to take your own life, a life it considers valueless outside of a meat sack to torture, in a dignified manner. Instead, the evil system wants you to suffer even when you decide to terminate your worthless life. It wants you to pay your violent dues to the very end and shoot yourself in the head or slit your wrists or jump off a building or a bridge and it prefers you to take as many with you in the process as you can. You have to admit, it’s sick. Diabolical, actually.

  31. Hugh

    What the wildfires in Australia show is that even large areas of land and the environments they contain that we thought were relatively safe from climate change, at least in the near to mid term, aren’t.

    And then there is this from NOAA and NASA:

    “Earth’s warming trend continued in 2019, making it the second-hottest year in NOAA’s 140-year climate record just behind 2016.

    “The world’s five warmest years have all occurred since 2015 with nine of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2005, according to scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

    “It was also the 43rd consecutive year with global land and ocean temperatures, at least nominally, above average. ”

    And then there is this: climate change can now be detected in daily weather.

    “Whereas locally measured daily mean temperatures can fluctuate widely (even after the seasonal cycle is removed), global daily mean values show a very narrow range.

    “If the distribution of global daily mean values from 1951 to 1980 are then compared with those from 2009 to 2018, the two distributions (bell curves) barely overlap. The climate signal is thus prominent in the global values but obscured in the local values, since the distribution of daily mean values overlaps quite considerably in the two periods.”

  32. DMC

    “Climate is what you expect. Weather is what actually occurs.”


    Great point, Hugh. Rising sea levels get all the press, but it may very be wildfires that do the most damage in the interim. Remember this? It was only three years prior. It won’t be the last time for the Southeast United States. These fires were unprecedented in modern history. If it was JUST arson, there would have been numerous wildfires since 2016 but there haven’t been. It was because of severe drought conditions. Up In Smoke is taking on a whole new meaning.

  34. Willy

    Hugh, everybody knows that NOAA and NASA are in cahoots with the CIA and FBI. One must only listen to St. The Donald (and maybe Jordan Peterson) for they’re on a mission from God.

    Climate scientists prone to “openness” only have peer review to keep such a terrible thing disciplined. But Jordan Peterson, psychologist by trade, uses the power of peer persuasion to debunk scientific consensus in one fell swoop. And maybe just a bit of well-funded rationalization.

    Pay no attention to all the Peterson debunkers, for they’re all in league with Satan. Take no time to be “openness” enough to carefully consider all sides of an argument, for you too shall become in league with Satan. One must fight these demonic bicycle company forces arrayed against the meek fossil fuel good.

    So endeth today’s gospel lesson.

  35. Willy

    I see it myself. As my area changes from an oceanic climate to mediterranean, moisture reliant and ubiquitous natural plants which once grew like weeds, like the western hemlock and sword fern, are dying. En masse. Most pacific madronas are long gone and bigleaf maples are becoming diseased.

    There’s no way this could be caused by climate change. I blame the arsonists, who we all know are also sneaking around poisoning stuff. And warming up the arctic to boot. And also monkeying with NASA and NOAA charts. Only plutocrats could be funding such a large operation.


    Australia’s severe persistent drought is due to a weakening jet stream that causes stalled conditions. Those conditions can be excess rainfall that results in catastrophic flooding or hyper expansive high pressure domes that cause severe drought and super heating. This trend is only going to worsen. The planet is increasingly going to burn and flood. Burn and flood. Burn and flood. Burn and flood.

  37. @Willy

    “Please. I’d really like a more detailed description about how all of this is happening.”

    It’s not your fault if you missed half the memo. Because, by “half the memo”, I mean one of the two posts I made in the recent diary “An Australia Picture Worth Those Thousand Words”

    That post never made the light of day. And it contained actual links to the the source material referred to in a subsequent post, that did appear.

    The second post contains the following:

    “Two of my comments are still in moderation, but the second one refers to “greta the swede, or gretinizing the global media” by Trifkovic (which I’d skimmed part of, back in Nov) and (via Trifkovic) “THE MANUFACTURING OF GRETA THUNBERG – FOR CONSENT: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE NON-PROFIT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX” by Cory Morningstar.

    I haven’t read the latter, at all. It’s up to 5 parts.

    Trifkovic says “In the media-ignored real world, the very foundations which have financed the climate “movement” over the past decade are the same foundations now partnered with the Climate Finance Partnership looking to unlock 100 trillion dollars from pension funds.””

    So, if you’re interested in documentation for the claim about using climate change catastrophism as a lever to “unlock 100 trillion dollars from pensions funds”, you’ll have to read the Morningstar series. I haven’t read them, but am relying on Trifkovic’s opinion.

    Feel free to elaborate on what Morningstar (or possibly Trifkovic’s reading of Morningstar) got wrong. Of course, I expect neither you nor to do any such thing. Neither of you shows any interest in examining the “meta” of claims regarding climate change. This is a nifty way of creating an intellectual cocoon. Which has the nice, additional benefit of allowing you to avoid any serious inquiry into the science, itself. That would require much more work, especially if you don’t have a science background.

    N.B. Another comment of mine has not seen the light of day on this diary, either. It referred to the interview, on Sky TV, of a scientist associated with From this website, “The graph and table below show the situation in Western Australia in recent years – an increasing number of disastrous bushfires. These data are slightly out of date but will be updated for WA at the end of the 2019-2020 fire season. The graph demonstrates how a well designed and implemented fuel management system virtually eliminated large bushfires from 1961 to 1995.”

    See “‘We are staring down the barrel of a firey future’ says bushfire specialist” on youtube.

  38. different clue

    Economic historian John L. King once wrote a fascinating little book called How To Profit From The Next Great Depression. People who thought the title meant it would be a detailed cookbook about how to “profit from the next great depression” would have been disappointed. Actually, the book was about the history of credit collapse depressions in America, what lead to them, what followed from them, etc. And why/how the next one is being set up to occur. The last page contained one little set of classic instructions about how to preserve some money-wealth in a form which would enable one to pick up distressed assets in the long grinding post-crash phase.

    Why would I reference that book here? Somewhere in it, John L. King offered the little saying:
    “him that is not surprised when the future comes, lives very close to the truth.” Whomsoever is least surprised over the next 2-5 decades as the climate “works itself out” will be the people revealed to have been living closest to the truth all along. Darwin will reveal who those people are over those next 2-5 decades.

    Mankind is beginning its Long Death March through the Valley of Selection. Darwin’s discards will fall out along the way. Darwin’s select ( if any) will emerge at the far end of the Valley.

    Climachange is either real or it is not. If it is real, it is either all natural, all man made , or somewhere on the gradient between those two Poles of Possible Causation. I have already offered my best understanding of what I think the picture is.

    A shark either exists or it does not, irregardless of who “believes in” it and who “denies” it. I have decided to live my personal and political life as though the shark exists. Now . . . a shark may have suckfish free-riding on its body. The existence of suckfish does not prove the NON-existence of the shark. The salesmen of Thunberg are the suckfish free-riding on the shark of man made global warming. They are NOT the shark, and their existence and money-grubbing agenda is NOT proof of the shark’s NON-existence. I don’t think the forensic analysts of the Thunberg-Industrial Complex have said that the existence of the Thunberg-Industrial Complex proves that man made global warming does not exist.

    Bushfires in areas deprived of proper prescribed-burn fuel-reduction maintenance are a real thing. The fires in Southeast Australia are not bushfires. They are forest fires, burning in areas which were not part of any traditional fire-ecology region. Some are burning in areas of heretofore moist or even rain-ish forests. Climachange drought has made them dry enough to be fuel-beds for any arsonist’s spark. The same is true of recent fires in the moist rain-ish parts of Tasmania which have burned down some ( hopefully not all) of the Tasmanian blue gums which are supposed to be among the tallest hardwood trees in the world.

    So who is right? About what? Let Darwin decide.

  39. different clue


    In a world of nefarious conspiracies and the evil cabals who run them, it is no longer a useful default position to dismiss a theory of events on the basis of its being “conspiracy”.

    That being said, the Occam’s Razor concept might still be useful in seeking causes for the creeping death of unrelated tree species all over the world. A purely amateur blogger who was concerned about creeping tree death and creeping forest extermination did her best amateur research and offered her best estimation of the results and the meaning on her Wit’s End blog.
    And here it is.

  40. different clue

    I have suggested now and then that a way be provided for people to offer actionable survival information here in these comment threads. I don’t think that will happen any time soon. It may happen some day.

    So where might such comments begin clumping up? Perhaps in the appropriate threads over at Naked Capitalism. One of the guest bloggers at NaCap is named Jerri-Lynn Scofield. Many of her posts are about “what we can do” about one thing or another. The threads to such posts seem a perfect place for people to contribute weaponizable disseminationizable information about particular aspects of survivalizing, conservation-living, etc. If enough people place such comments there, and enough other people hunt for such comments there, the growing existence of such comments there will become a self-feeding self-amplifying reality.

  41. Ten Bears

    Fascinating …


    Mankind is beginning its Long Death March through the Valley of Selection. Darwin’s discards will fall out along the way. Darwin’s select ( if any) will emerge at the far end of the Valley.

    With the advent of civilization, natural selection was replaced by unnatural selection. Nature would never have selected for this latest group of “survivors.” In fact, this unnatural selection, weaklings that the “select” are, is responsible for the strong possibility of the premature extinction of human and many other species as well if not most life on the planet as the Australian wildfires is proving not to mention the Sixth Great Extinction.

    For example, look at Donald Trump. Do we really believe nature selected this incoherent befuddled orange dildo? He’s an invalid for all intents and purposes. An invalid who has had everything done for him his entire life. An invalid who cannot do anything for himself and yet he is the leader of the so-called free world. No, Donald Trump and most of us for that matter, was not naturally selected per Darwin’s theory. He, most of us, were unnaturally selected to serve the burgeoning borg and to exemplify what it means to be human in the precarious remaining moments of civilization before civilization is no more.

    At this point, I don’t want human to survive this. Human should go extinct. Human has proven, via civilization and unnatural selection, that it cannot socially and psychically evolve and nothing proves this more that human despoiling the nature that spawned it. Human failed the test. Now it’s time to accept the consequences and go peacefully with as much dignity as can mustered all things considered.

  43. Ten Bears

    Easy there five-oh, I understand how you might feel such, I wrote your original code, but some of us humans might harbor a certain sentimentality about surviving. Not that’ll argue your point (you know, if you put your hat on just so), I’ve long argued we are at an evolutionary iteration, a cusp, and we’ll necessarily grown thicker skins. Billions are going to die rude, mean and generally unpleasant deaths, and it won’t necessarily be the strong, or the well-provisioned, who survive.


    “At this point, I don’t want human to survive this. Human should go extinct.”

    I was saddened to read this, though not surprised.

    I normally dedicate the end of my meditations to “holding in the light” a few people, typically including my sick brother. Today, I held only you in the light. (I had a lousy meditation, so you probably felt nothing. 🙁 . What can I say? Learn to meditate, yourself! You certainly won’t be worse at it than I am. 🙂 )

    I believe you recently referred to a wife. If that is correct, may I suggest that you discuss this with her? It’s quite possible to have a pessimistic view of humanity’s prospects, yet still cultivate a life-affirming purpose and attitude.

    E.g., ten bears states that “Billions are going to die rude, mean and generally unpleasant deaths”, yet still respects some survivalist forces.

  45. Willy


    First you lied about Thunberg saying she can see CO2. Bad move if you’re trying to build credibility. The projective shaming doesn’t help either, on top of all the other faux pas done around here with regularity. Best leave that to cult conservatives.

    But lets ignore all that for now.

    Trifkovic speaks of a “troubled”, “lonely girl”, otherwise not worthy of any attention who suddenly becomes a Soros-funded darling because of the machinations of people who want to raid pension funds. Without concrete proof, I’d say we’re heading deep into Alex Jones territory. I don’t have time for that shit.

    The idea that pension funds will most certainly be raided to build carbon fighting mechanisms, seems about as plausible as corporations employing Dr. Goldfinger to raid Fort Knox because Pussy Galore has a moneymaking idea. Anybody can say anything, but as always, concrete proof is needed.

    But should shit hit the climate fan, I wouldn’t discount that possibility. But then, such a thing would discredit every denier who ever denied that climate change was happening, wouldn’t it?

    A good smoking gun for this well-planned nefarious plutocratic plot might be Exxon raiding its pensioners funds to finance the building of their proposed carbon capture machines. Has anything like that happened yet? The best I can find is a few pension funds and insurers promising they’ll rebalance their portfolios to ensure their investments are more carbon neutral. That’s hardly a raid. But of course, we’ll keep these things in mind in case anything develops along nefarious lines.

    As I’ve said many times before, since humanity has never been down this road before I’d have to rely on proven experts to address the amount of “climate panic” we should be experiencing. Alex Jones will have to wait.

  46. Willy

    Sorry different clue, but metamars has me convinced that Soros-backed Thunbergers are creeping around people’s backyards poisoning plants, for the ultimate purpose of stealing their pension funds. You’ll have to be more logical.


    Isn’t Alex Jones one of Trump’s many illegitimate children? I wonder what Alex has to say about his dear old dad collaborating with the so-called deep state? The shame, boss, the shame.


    MACA — Make America China Asshole

    Not that it matters. Quantum computing will put an end entirely to any notion of privacy if climate disruption doesn’t get us first.

  49. Ten Bears

    I used to refer to our ‘cousins’ of a couple million years ago, some of whom were large, pastoral creatures that looked a lot like Klingons though vegetarian, grazers that didn’t make it; and another branch of the family tree: not quite more than rodents just down out of the trees, quite possibly with still a bit of a prehensile tail but none-the-less looked a lot like we do. Omnivores, pack animals hunting the periphery, they were, would eat anything, and they made it. They became us.

  50. different clue


    I only have the logic I have. I did the best I could.

  51. @willy

    “First you lied about Thunberg saying she can see CO2.”

    First, you lied about me lying. I did not lie, even if it’s true that Greta Thunberg didn’t say what her mother said of her, and we can lay the blame for attribution 100% at the feet of her imaginative mother. Feel free to engage your superior intellect to explain how this could be.

    “Trifkovic speaks of a “troubled”, “lonely girl”, otherwise not worthy of any attention who suddenly becomes a Soros-funded darling because of the machinations of people who want to raid pension funds. Without concrete proof,” blah blah

    Trifkovic speaks of an “evidently troubled” and “apparently lonely” girl. Both of which are fair characterizations, assuming you apply sufficient common sense to realize “lonely” is unlikely to CURRENTLY apply, now that she is a celebrity.

    “otherwise not worthy of any attention who suddenly becomes a Soros-funded darling…”

    The word “Soros” appears 3 times in the Trifkovic article. Trifkovic points out that a Greta advisor named Luisa-Marie Neubauer is a member of a Soros funded group, and implicitly calls her a Greta “handler”. AFAIK, there is no reason to doubt the Soros connection. “handler” vs “advisor” may be more a matter of opinion, but hardly the crux of the article. However large such a distinction may loom in your mind……

    ” because of the machinations of people who want to raid pension funds. Without concrete proof”

    A-h-h-h-h, I’ve already mentioned that I haven’t read Trifkovic’s 5 part source article. The proof – concrete or otherwise – should be in those articles. (Actually, it’s now up to 6 parts.)

    You’ve now annoyed me enough to skim/read parts of 2 of the articles. You are not going to waste your precious time and stellar intellect on delving into the details of the $100 trillion dollar unlocking claim, but for anybody else who might be interested, you should probably start with “THE MANUFACTURING OF GRETA THUNBERG – A DECADE OF SOCIAL MANIPULATION FOR THE CORPORATE CAPTURE OF NATURE [ACT VI – CRESCENDO]”

    Search for the text: “In the article “Philanthropy Teams Up With Institutional Investors to Fight Climate Change,” published on September 7, 2017, the need for a new approach that will unlock capital for new climate infrastructure at scale is highlighted:”

    (I’m loathe to provide links, since that seems to trigger the “place in moderatio”n function).

  52. Willy

    Rationalization, much?

    I’ll wait and see how your plutocratic theory plays out. I have no doubts whatsoever that if it doesn’t play your way, you’ll simply try to find another one.

  53. You’ve unsurpassed even yourself! Please don’t tell Morningstar of your devastating critique. It may hurt, too much.

  54. Willy

    And delusional. You can have your openness with quacks. I’ll stick with the experts.

  55. Ten Bears

    Why are you so threatened by a teen-aged girl?

  56. Why did you find 9 bears inadequate? (Or even 8, for that matter? Even 7 bears should have sufficed, and with a lower virtual carbon footprint.)

    If you can only answer this question, I’m sure the community will be eternally grateful for your incisive debunking of Morningstar.

    We wouldn’t want any doubts about Greta to fester, now, would we?

  57. Willy

    As I am understanding Morningstar, she claims that the climate crisis is even worse than we are being told in many ways, but the solutions being pushed to fix it will do no such thing and will only make things worse, while further enriching plutocratic “green capitalists” racing for new riches.

    Well, fucking yeah. Conservatives have ensured that sociopaths who have the very best noses for money and power, will ‘get there first’ unimpeded and screw things up the way they always do. First get rich creating the problem, then get rich coming up with solutions which are worse than the problems they’ve created.

    Does this mean that metamars is now in league with the climate scientists?

  58. Ten Bears

    Well, in retrospect three out of five were really rather humorous, four were barbequed and one to this day dances. Too much for you? Uh-huh, thought so. And I don’t know fuck about “Morningstar” – is that some kind of hippy-dippy newspaper, the Brit’s version of the Village Voice? Naked Capitalism?

    For the record: it was given to me fifty years ago by some smart-assed third louey at Pearl, who noting my Me’tis background and that it rhymed with my “christian” name thought it would be a good call-sign for the helicopter unit I was assigned to in-country. Stuck with me through twenty years of civilian helicoptering, ten years of college and grad school and twenty more years on the Internet. What’s your story?

    She’s just a little girl, not much more than a feather in the wind.

  59. wendy davis

    @ Ten Bears:

    no, she’s not a hippy dippy; she’s elle provocateur on Twitter, part of the Wrong Kin of Green collective.

    i’ve followed her since the days that counterpunch had carried her comments, then later i’d posted a lot about her/their compromised NGOs and human rights organizations, the non-profit industrial complex, including bill gates, of course. she follows the money in many respects, including gates, funding sources of naomi klein, bill mcKibben,

    with my current eye/brain configuration, it’s been all but impossible for me to read her series on greta thornburg: so many different sized and colors of fonts, so many mages…but back in the day i was glad to feature diaries about them, including the images.

  60. different clue

    Just before Colonel Lang terminated the comments function at his blog, a guest blogger named Walrus , who lives in Australia, wrote a post about the current fires. Between the post and a few comments, there were some following-in-sequence thoughts from man-made global hotting accepters, doubters, strictly-arson theorists, and climate-change-potentiating-arson’s-effects theorists, including someone claiming a history of rural firefighting whose observations may be considered land-based knowledgeable.

    I will copy-paste the relevant running-sequential paragraphs or comments and then give the link to the post for those who wish to read it all.

    ” The cause of these fires? Australian drought and the highly inflammable nature of the Eucalyptus tree – coupled with the forest management fantasies of inner city liberals who won’t allow anything like the levels of fire reduction burning as practiced by our Aborigines for thousands of years. The greenies can’t handle simple logic; Eucalyptus forests shed fuel all the time. You can have little “cool’ fires every five years to clean up the fuel or a big fire every few decades, but you eventually will get a fire. You do the maths.” <–from the Walrus post itself . . .

    I do not know about the history of eco-politics in Australia as against in America. I know that in America fire-suppression, including the total suppression of traditional "Indian burning" for habitat maintainance, was begun decades before the emergence of any modern greenie movement politics here. And it is the greenies who have begun saying " give Indian burning a second look".

    So I can only wonder when fire suppression began in Australia . . . and when greenie politics began . . . and which came first and by how much. And how your Australian greenies feel about the concept of Aboriginal burning.

    I have also read that the part of the Blue Mountains which is the national park has traditionally been considered rainy forest if not outright rain forest. If what I read about that is generally correct, then was the Blue Mountains rainy forest ever within the zone and scope of Aboriginal burning?

    If it was, then the same theory applies. If it wasn't, then how normal is the dryness in that particular area which has set it up to be such a good fuel bed?

    But those are things to think about when safety and leisure return. For now I hope you-all can keep all the smaller fires separated and apart. Because as Australia goes, so goes California. And then the rest of the West.

    Posted by: different clue | 03 January 2020 at 08:21 PM

    Walrus, Be safe & thank you for your work. I just read a story on Summit.News:
    "Australian police say arsonists & lightening to blame for brush fires, not climate change." The damage to people, their homes & wildlife is heartbreaking. So much
    of the rainforest in S. America is burned intentionally to make way for farming
    & development & yet the climate change advocates only laser focus on fossil fuel.

    Posted by: elaine | 04 January 2020 at 02:35 AM

    My sister lives in Gippsland, she is safe but dealing with smoke. She was incensed by Morrison's actions and statements. Here:

    "This (article)tells you more of the background.liam just sent me photos of friend visiting inlaws at mallacoota, showing the next door burning down and trying to fight the fire coming over fence.they are still stuck there with 2 yo and 4 yo, supposed to get out by air but adf cldnt land because of smoke and choppers busy being used to evacuate omeo.
    So dont even give any airtime to this bs about the crisis being due to inner city progressives or greenies not allowing burn offs! This is drought due to climate change, temps in 40s and summer only getting under way."

    Morrison's government on the bushfires: from attacking climate 'lunatics' to calling in the troops

    Posted by: oldman22 | 04 January 2020 at 10:16 AM

    ( to whoever said its strictly arson, different clue said . . . )
    "Arson should be stamped out fast, and so hard that wannabe-arsonists are too scared to arsonise.

    That said, the question arises . . . arson can start the fire. Or so can a stray spark-ember from a grill. Or a car with a hot muffler parked in muffler-height dry grass. But if a longer-hotter drought than normal has made a bigger area of woody vegetation dryer than normal and hence a better fuel-bed than normal if/when the stray ignition source arrives, that is a problem beyond just the ignition source.

    Some of that problem could be pre-mitigated with controlled burns every so often so fuel beds don't develop to oversized amounts to begin with. Fire suppression all over the American West has left forest with huge amounts of fuel ready-to-burn with any spark. Its like a bunch of natural organic H-bombs are just quietly sitting out there in the woods. And climachange is worsening that particular problem by preventing the normal super-deep kill-freeze days which would normally kill the resting bark beetles and/or some of their eggs over the winter. So milder-winter unkilled bark beetle populations have reached plague status in some of the Western forests, leaving several billion dead trees standing in place waiting to burn.

    Once the Australians get the fires put out or otherwise controlled and have the time and leisure to think long-range about fire-adaptation, might new designs of fire-proof houses be worth considering? Houses made of rock, cement, concrete, etc.; with zero wood or paper or plastic or any other flammable item of any kind permitted in the construction? Ember-proof steel roofs, etc?
    Steel thermal heat-reflective fire-shutters ready to pull down over every window to keep the passing flash of flame-front infra-red heat rays from entering the house through the glass window? Etc.?

    And if government mandating for such housing re-design would be considered intrusive, perhaps lenders and insurers might take it upon themselves to quietly privately refuse to lend for non-fireproof houses and refuse to insure non-fireproof houses in the future.

    Posted by: different clue | 04 January 2020 at 02:36 PM"

    ( someone who DID rural bushfire fighting in Australia said in response to my comment . . . )
    I’ve found both of your posts thoughtful and potentially productive ‘different clue’. Back in the 50’s and 60’s when I was doing winter cool burns as standard practice, as were my neighbours it wasn’t too difficult and if things got away those neighbours would pile in to recover the situation. Our ridge lines had a dry side and a wet side based on orientation and way down in the bottom was leech country, permanently wet. That is no longer the case, as you suggest everywhere is dry and flammable, there are numerous instances where classified rain forest has burnt for the first recorded time. Back when we also had the luxury of a good four months to utilise in hazard reduction. This year we had less than eight weeks of,permit free burning and in my area a total fireban from August. In addition to barely time to scratch the resources needed in manpower and machinery to do a hazard reduction burn over thousands of hectares are simply not there, it is all way beyond the capacity of the volunteer Rural Fire Service sheds never mind the local Bushfire Brigades I first knew. As you suggest a whole new paradigm is needed in both organisation and resourcing we can but hope that there is follow through once this national emergency has passed

    Posted by: Johnb | 05 January 2020 at 12:15 AM"

    And the link to the whole post and thread itself is . . .

    so there you go.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén