Home | About | Donate

What Corporate Media and the Neolibeal Establishment Can't Admit About the Climate Emergency

Absolutely totally gets the cigar. Atcheson earned my respect on this issue long ago, which is why this little thing is puzzling.

Here’s a sad story about practically my favorite environmental columnist, Dahr Jamail. I was reading a long summation of his, in which appeared some discussion of Greenland. Jamail claimed that observers say the 2019 melt season in Greenland will be the worst ever - with a link to a video by Jason Box. I follow this kind of thing, I know who Jason Box is, so I was surprised to hear the news that Box had already called it. Unfortunately, Box didn’t say what Jamail implicitly claimed he said. Box said that 2019 is likely to be a record melt year, not that it will be.

Sigh. Just a little mistake. But Jamail is accidentally lying – something I’ll remember for a long time. Rachel Carson and Elizabeth Kolbert set a standard for scrupulous triple-checked accuracy when writing about science. Without it, comprehension and cohesion is all shot to shit. In matters of science, writers need to earn and keep the trust of well-informed readers. It’s worth the trouble.

Atcheson, if he’s worth his salt, will either stop voicing his (apparently unsubstantiated) hunch about permafrost methane, or else start backing it up. Just show me the data. Not too much to ask for.

:-))) This is there very reason why I go with Arctic-News Blogspot and Paul Beckwith, they are in the weeds. In the past I have liked some of Jamail’s work but the two of them and others are looking for readership and not looking for the nitty-gritty why of things. Personally I have a “thing” about Atcheson, it goes way way back but I will give him a cigar.

Beckwith is not well-respected in the scientific community, as you’re probably aware. The list of premature announcements of doom from him rivals that of some apocalyptic cults.

I know, I live outside of the box, Beckwith, McPherson and all of those at Arctic-News are my, not hero’s, or idol’s, maybe guide posts? Yep, that’s it, guide posts because they are willing to take steps and maybe fall down but stand up again to try again. Science isn’t stone, it is a working theory and we can see that being put to test and task through them. The “scientific community” is cautious and is timid and not really my cup of tea. I’d rather explore the bleeding edge than be cushy soft in the middle.

Too bad. I don’t blame you, as the scientific establishment has hoisted itself on its own petard with so many corrupt fields, across the academic spectrum. Psychology is the state-sponsored science with the slimmest grip on actual scientific practice, and the sorriest record of astonishing routine outrages.

But that doesn’t mean I need to drop the scientific rigor to which I attempt to discipline my own mind. Atmospheric science happens to be a field in which international cooperation remains an indispensible backbone – consequently it’s been the field most difficult to totally corrupt. (You might have heard my case that the IPCC works like a governmental guided missile aimed straight at atmospheric science.) Or as someone once said (usually misattributed to I forget whom): You’ve got to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

When a Christian apocalyptic mystic announces next Thursday will be it, and then is forced to announce God’s correction of his previous misunderstanding… that sort of business is so routine in that milieu, nobody notices. Scientifically minded people will carefully examine Paul Beckwith’s explanation (if there be one) of his previous misunderstandings.

On my site I use both sources to get at some balance but like Greta, I want those in power to panic, us poor slobs to get angry and then maybe some action. Maybe, I am not holding my breath.

1 Like

Bullshit doesn’t balance. Mix truth with truth: out comes truth. Mix in some bullshit, and it’s all bullshit.

Well…what is your opinion of my work so far. Seems to me to be factual.

See above. Some truth, some bullshit equals you know what, imho.

Well since my site hasn’t been visited in quite some time according to my stats page I guess that says it all.

I’m a creep, please forgive me. Sometimes I write too quickly and forget my manners. (Also I get rattled when the CD robot nags me not to talk to the same person too many times!)

I did visit your site when you shared it awhile back, and I was honestly disappointed to see references to disreputable sources. For someone like me, who cares about scientific legitimacy, there are certain names and sites which are clear red flags betraying low standards of truth. You’ve put a lot into this, and mixed in some weird stuff, imho. But your effort appears honest to me. I think I owe you a more detailed, serious review of specifically where the site fails.

If you’re interested, re-post your URL and I’ll find time to go there and write that. If you don’t care to hear about my problems with Beckwith &c., that’s okay too.

(I’m keeping pretty busy lately animating Arctic storms for the benefit of my fellow searchers out at Arctic Sea Ice Forum, where mainly serious folks hang out.)

thanks, no thanks

1 Like