• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

More alarmism 'Ecological grief':Greenland residents traumatised by climate emergency (1 Viewer)

Ah yes, more stonewalling, name-calling, adhom BS.
Trump, Duterte, right leaning hunter-geeks, and 'marketing schemes' aside...not a single reply to my posting regarding Greenland and the cyclic nature of climate change there.

Not one person willing to a address that this 'unprecedented' event has happened in the past and long before the possibility of AGW existed.
Pawns.

Mainly people don't respond, I suspect, because all of this has been gone over time and time again and all the denial tropes have been thoroughly debunked. I'm not willing to waste my time arguing with you. But, I will point out that no-one who accepts the findings of climate scientists would suggest that the climate hasn't changed in the past. The point is that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are at unprecedented levels and, additionally, it is the rate of change which is the real problem for species as they are unable to adapt or shift to compensate. Goodbye.
 
Bored, checking on new posts, and ran into this old thread (which to my surprised, I participated in)...interesting that it's still going, if "round and round" counts...

So let me put this straight: you start a thread with a post which is in itself formulated in a know-it-all, condescending fashion and then feel somehow offended when people don't respond with kindness and willingness to engage in fair discussion? Are you genuinely that impervious to irony, or is this just your communication strategy?

You know, it's getting old. And it's not only the climate change question, it's a huge assortment of topics. People like you come with specific cherry-picked arguments, obscure sources, rush conclusions and derogatory wording (here, you really did not hold yourself using "alarmism" already on the topic) and if people are not willing to engage with all that, they declare victory, what really is the point of this at all? You aren't gonna convince anyone sane about anything with this kind of posting and you make it clear that you aren't even looking for your views to be challenged, so really, why?
Sounds like a good description of many of the more obnoxious "regulars." We're only missing one other person in this thread to make it a full house of the usual provocateurs.

As to the overall topic where the thread is going, I personally can't give a rat's ass about the fate of humanity as a whole and I do not care what happens on geological timescales. I am not even that moved by extinction of species - I do sometimes even drive emotionally loaded "conservationists" crazy with that heresy, but I am pretty sure that a particular animal is fully oblivious to the fate of its species as a whole. I do, however, care for people - and to a slightly lesser extent for animals - as in the collection of individuals and specimen that happens to be alive in this unfortunate time and we are clearly and undoubtedly ******* up things for them, on timescales of decades, so why not try to do something about it?
While I can't agree as a whole, I can certainly respect that outlook/opinion and it still cuts to the heart of the matter.

While I tend to agree that AGW, or something similar, is a "thing"...even if I ignore that, I can't really say I think all the crap we're putting into the air is smart and a good thing to continue doing. I also think "sooner rather than later" is a good way to approach fixing it.

In some ways I worry more that maybe AGW is a "thing" but there is some other "thing" even more urgent we have no clue about and it'll be way past too late to fix THAT thing.

We're treating the planet like a giant experiment without understanding completely even a fraction of what is actually going on...that's bound to bite us in the backside unexpectedly sooner or later; that's how life works.

But...it looks like as a species the only thing we agree on is to do next-to-nothing* (which means: continue destroying and poisoning everything, even ourselves) and hope for the best. I truly hope the "deniers" are correct at this point...


*I know there are lots of efforts to "do something" (especially certain cities, counties, states, countries) but the net result has still been towards the "negative" when taken as a global whole.
 
It's a marketing scheme! ;)

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/

The transition from Icelandic monochrome winter to super-green summer is pretty incredible. You can literally see the country change colour from south to north on a day-by-day basis.

Nons(ci)ense in the OP aside, it does raise an interesting point that I'm curious to hear you opinion on Chosun - for a culture that is more strongly rooted in nature than our Western one I presume there is a stronger attachment to the ecological status quo, or in other words a narrower tolerance (expressed culturally/emotionally). Would you agree with that? And if so, how does 'positive' change impact? One could argue that a warmer climate in Greenland is a good thing (Russian scientists allegedly considered global warming a positive thing back in the day) - but the impact on the Inuit's traditional lifestyle is significant. And as the article points out not necessarily experienced as a positive thing.
I know very little about this but am curious to hear your thoughts.
Thanks,
Joost

Yes indeed ! Thanks for the link to that interesting article :t:

aYL1b0O_460s.jpg

Joost, speaking from an 'Aboriginal' perspective I wouldn't agree with your statement as phrased. What there is strong attachment to is the 'health' of the land - both physically and spiritually (actually they are one and the same). Actually, even that is a bit of an inaccurate phrase, as it is not so much 'attachment' as embodiment - thus there is no separation between spirit <-> land <-> people. I believe that one day Quantum Physics may get this fully worked out, though I don't know if that will come in our lifetimes. Of course for spiritual keepers (lore men) , initiates, and culturally connected Aborigines even that concept of a future discovery is strange - considering that they exist in the 'everywhen'. From a western perspective, considering we are beyond the limits of science (current knowledge being merely a subset of reality) you could most easily think of it as magic.

Science is yet to discover the true length of inhabitation of Aborigines (currently put at 65,000 to 120,000 years ago) , but there are dreaming stories of 'stars that fell from the sky' (to make Wolfe Creek crater - perhaps up to 350,000 years ago?) , and I have recently met many remotely located (from each other) elders who all tell me that we have been here "forever". As such, Aborigines would have seen vastly different landforms and environments and climates - from lush remnant Gondwanan forests to the deserts of today. From Glaciation to significant Sea inundation dividing large parts of the country to fallen sea levels and land bridges. From Volcanic activity, to the more acknowledged droughts and flooding rains. They may have even experienced 'nuclear winters' after meteorite explosions etc. They also would have co-existed with Megafauna for 10's and 10's of 1000's of years if not much longer.

As such, as a people they would have seen and adapted to a lot of change - some of it quite sudden ! Mostly though it would have been on timescales long enough that it may not have been noticed during individual lifespans. The lore and culture though spans throughout time. One of the prime tenants is to 'listen to the land' and live in harmony with it. Look after the land that looks after you - that 'is' you. That is how I would term any 'attachment'.

Of course the converse is also true - look for example at the damage done to the Murray-Darling Basin (as I have detailed in that thread) - the damage to the land physically damages the people too. It is a very serious issue (quite apart from the elements of cultural genocide).

As far as changes (even those that may be viewed as 'positive') to the Greenland/Iceland, or other Northern Hemisphere areas go, I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on those. It would be fascinating to hear from Indigenous Elders from those cultures on the matter. As I am exploring in the "Indigenous" thread, it really comes down to a different mindset - one of taking only what is needed and preserving the health and sustainability of the land (not saying that there aren't examples throughout history where that hasn't gone pear shaped) vs a very Capitalist and exploitative mindset of taking what you want - and hang the ongoing natural asset base tomorrow ......

I hope I've been able to answer your query somewhat. No doubt what I have been able to express is also a mere subset of the total truth. I recently came across this meme. I quite like it :)

207792_10151373807301113_764129978_n.jpg



Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun, I am no expert on the Aborigines but is the inference that they have been around on earth longer than most others? Seems to me that they simply remained "primitive" and that they did not change and advance their skills and knowledge like most of the northern races.

Could it be that they lived how they did because they had not the "drive" to move forward.

Den
 
Chosun, I am no expert on the Aborigines but is the inference that they have been around on earth longer than most others? Seems to me that they simply remained "primitive" and that they did not change and advance their skills and knowledge like most of the northern races.

Could it be that they lived how they did because they had not the "drive" to move forward.

No, not lack of drive but lack of contact with the great technological and other developments taking place in the outside world in the centuries and millennia prior to contact with British imperialism. It was the Australians’ bad luck, shared unfortunately with aboriginal populations on other continents, that by then the cultural gap was too great for them to successfully compete. Similar catastrophes, now mostly long forgotten, would have occurred throughout human history when one group acquired an edge over another. Think of the poor Neanderthals, for example. . ..

The rest is just New Age mysticism. Quantum physics, forsooth!
 
Last edited:
Chosun, I am no expert on the Aborigines but is the inference that they have been around on earth longer than most others? Seems to me that they simply remained "primitive" and that they did not change and advance their skills and knowledge like most of the northern races.

Could it be that they lived how they did because they had not the "drive" to move forward.

Den

Den, I am not greatly schooled in the western sciences in that area. I believe there is quite some debate over the origins of man and much is still to be revealed. I don't know if you have seen this post in the Dark Emu thread - but the link there puts forward the position that rather than being out of Africa, the evolution pathway is out of Australia. https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3881820#post3881820

As I mentioned above, elders consistently mention being here forever.

It is through a very western/modernist lens that the notion of "primitive" arises. As are the terms "advancing skills and knowledge". Much of the story of Aborigines has been told through the distorted lens of colonialism (which apart from the inadequate lens they were viewing it through, was also deliberately twisted to suit their agenda).

The sophistication of Aboriginals is not widely known (other than in the cultural performances aspect). Sophisticated spiritually, sophisticated laws and governance, and sophisticated in sustainable harmony.

I would ask who is the more "primitive" - those who would destroy the earth as the modern world has ? Or those labeled as such by those very same destructors ?

I think you are right in a round about way and by referring to "drive" that you are getting to the gist of it. However, this has to be understood in the context of the Aboriginal peoples living 'in' enlightenment (the dreaming /'light' - as might be understood in Buddhist terms to give relational context) , and also that the law /governance system, and harmony /sustainability largely resulted in peace among the many Aboriginal 'nations'. An egalitarian civilization of collaboration instead of competition. Contrast this to 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'.

I find it fascinating to see original pictures of Aborigines upon first contact - to a man, woman, and child they are healthy and fit - looking like Olympian athletes. There were no 400lb (as we see modern obese people) aborigines needing to be carted out of their dwellings. Such dis-'ease' can only come from a spiritual disconnect, as well as changed lifestyle/diet. Something to ponder ....... :cat:



Chosun :gh:
 
So let me put this straight: you start a thread with a post which is in itself formulated in a know-it-all, condescending fashion and then feel somehow offended when people don't respond with kindness and willingness to engage in fair discussion? Are you genuinely that impervious to irony, or is this just your communication strategy?
... as in the collection of individuals and specimen that happens to be alive in this unfortunate time and we are clearly and undoubtedly ******* up things for them, on timescales of decades, so why not try to do something about it?
Oy. Blah, blah blah. Where's the substantiated science? Nothing of value here about Greenland
...
The thread and position is nonsense of course, but such is the case with any climate change denial.

And the idea that climate change is cyclical is valid, but dig into the science regarding rates of change, etc. It's really not hard to find good science about it.
Meh. Really? Prove it. YOU dig into the science. This whole Greenland thing is a massive inconvenience for the AGW religious faithful.
At least Joost made an attempt here.
 
Good work, Joost. Except (perhaps) for a perfunctory “don't-have-time-at-the-moment-but will-read-them-when I do”, a 3-gun salvo like that should scare off our rancher friend for a good long time.

Ha! Comedy gold coming from you! You've admitted as much several times. You refuse to read anything presented as anti-AGW.


:king:
 
Ha! Comedy gold coming from you! You've admitted as much several times. You refuse to read anything presented as anti-AGW.

Well, yeah, but that’s just me. . ..

I’ll be very interested, by the way, in reading your critique of the 3 articles Joost posted the links for earlier in the thread. He did so mainly for your benefit, you know. You’ll find them very hard going, I’m sure, but it would very rude of you not to give us at least some feedback after all the trouble he went to on your behalf.
 
Last edited:
Oy. Blah, blah blah. Where's the substantiated science? Nothing of value here about Greenland

Meh. Really? Prove it. YOU dig into the science. This whole Greenland thing is a massive inconvenience for the AGW religious faithful.
At least Joost made an attempt here.

:clap: Joost!!
 
Well, yeah, but that’s just me. . ..

I’ll be very interested, by the way, in reading your critique of the 3 articles Joost posted the links for earlier in the thread. He did so mainly for your benefit, you know. You’ll find them very hard going, I’m sure, but it would very rude of you not to give us at least some feedback after all the trouble he went to on your behalf.

Litebeam, I am indeed still waiting. You can't demand something, ignore it when it is provided, then criticize others by saying they didn't provide it. I selected these papers because they specifically address your main points about 'unprecedented vs precedented' rates of change and the 'regional vs global' point of view. There is a lot more literature along the same lines, and the good thing is that you can go and check the raw source data yourself (in case you're worried about data doctoring).

A specific criticism on your insistence that those who accepts the settled science are "religious faithfuls": the guy who made that graph you posted at the start of your thread is on record saying that the Bible is a great source for past climate reconstruction and future prediction. Just saying ;)

J

P.S. I also posted an extensive review article on the Greenland ice sheet dynamics and history in the parallel AGW thread. Scroll back to the spat about Judith Curry, Greenland glaciers and sea level rise. It's the one Ed dismissed as irrelevant because it was about...Greenland ;)
 
Last edited:
@Chosun: many thanks for the thoughtful reply and providing a very different perspective from the ones I would normally encounter. We agree on many points and I enjoyed the meme. Back on topic (sort of) it would indeed be interesting to get an Inuit perspective on all this, though I fear it won't be very positive.

J
 
@Chosun: many thanks for the thoughtful reply and providing a very different perspective from the ones I would normally encounter. We agree on many points and I enjoyed the meme. Back on topic (sort of) it would indeed be interesting to get an Inuit perspective on all this, though I fear it won't be very positive.

J
Joost, it is difficult to convey the Aboriginal perspective /being in the limited terms of western understanding. Perhaps the most useful framework is the 'ancient' Buddhist one of Enlightenment (though scientists probably won't like that ! :) originated some ~2650 years ago. A couple of thousand years ago - that's cute ! :) even that came from Aboriginal mythology /dreaming.

I quite like this explanation in the wiki article as one of the more relatable: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_religion_and_mythology
"It is always integral and common... that the Law (Aboriginal law) is something derived from ancestral peoples or Dreamings and is passed down the generations in a continuous line. While... entitlements of particular human beings may come and go, the underlying relationships between foundational Dreamings and certain landscapes are theoretically eternal ... the entitlements of people to places are usually regarded strongest when those people enjoy a relationship of identity with one or more Dreamings of that place. This is an identity of spirit, a consubstantiality, rather than a matter of mere belief...: the Dreaming pre-exists and persists, while its human incarnations are temporary."[20]

An Aboriginal generalisation:
Aboriginal specialists willing to generalise believe all Aboriginal myths across Australia, in combination, represent a kind of unwritten (oral) library within which Aboriginal peoples learn about the world and perceive a peculiarly Aboriginal 'reality' dictated by concepts and values vastly different from those of western societies:[21]

"Aboriginal people learned from their stories that a society must not be human-centred but rather land centred, otherwise they forget their source and purpose ... humans are prone to exploitative behaviour if not constantly reminded they are interconnected with the rest of creation, that they as individuals are only temporal in time, and past and future generations must be included in their perception of their purpose in life."[22]

"People come and go but the Land, and stories about the Land, stay. This is a wisdom that takes lifetimes of listening, observing and experiencing ... There is a deep understanding of human nature and the environment... sites hold 'feelings' which cannot be described in physical terms... subtle feelings that resonate through the bodies of these people... It is only when talking and being with these people that these 'feelings' can truly be appreciated. This is... the intangible reality of these people..."



They are in a state of enlightenment and perpetually connected to the spirit and place of the land.

I came across this picture on the interwebs which illustrates things quite nicely .... https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...633&id=1436614396390388&fs=1&focus_composer=0

Screenshot_2019-08-17-01-01-05-1.jpg





Chosun :gh:
 
Could it be that they lived how they did because they had not the "drive" to move forward.
Not so sure where we are now is entirely "forward" if we have sacrificed our planet, and possibly our own species, to get there.

One of the sci-fi tropes I enjoy is when a species is shown that has a higher level of technology than humans, yet still lives in harmony with nature.

So imagine if you will a society that valued nature first above all other concerns, who took slower steps and a different technology road, to go forward? What if the internal combustion engine was seen for the polluting thing it is and someone said, "y'know, let's wait until we can make something more efficient, less polluting, or even non-polluting..."

Of course, I always ALSO wonder: did they always revere nature, or did they go through a phase like us, almost screwed everything, and then were forced into an ephiphany and changed course to where they are now?

For want of a backstory on say, the Nox. |:D|
 
Not so sure where we are now is entirely "forward" if we have sacrificed our planet, and possibly our own species, to get there.

One of the sci-fi tropes I enjoy is when a species is shown that has a higher level of technology than humans, yet still lives in harmony with nature.

So imagine if you will a society that valued nature first above all other concerns, who took slower steps and a different technology road, to go forward? What if the internal combustion engine was seen for the polluting thing it is and someone said, "y'know, let's wait until we can make something more efficient, less polluting, or even non-polluting..."

Of course, I always ALSO wonder: did they always revere nature, or did they go through a phase like us, almost screwed everything, and then were forced into an ephiphany and changed course to where they are now?

For want of a backstory on say, the Nox. |:D|

Please tell me that you don't have an automobile?! Horrors! How do you transport yourself from one place to another without assuming the roll of complete hypocrite?
 
Good work, Joost. Except (perhaps) for a perfunctory “don't-have-time-at-the-moment-but will-read-them-when I do”, a 3-gun salvo like that should scare off our rancher friend for a good long time.

I read all three, tried too anyway.....you digest this:
"Here, we use seven different statistical methods to reconstruct GMST over the past 2,000 yr (1–2000 ; Table 1). The methods range from basic composite-plus-scaling (CPS) and regression-based techniques (such as principal component regression (PCR) and regularized errors in variables (M08)) frequently used in past reconstructions, to newer linear methods (optimal informa-tion extraction (OIE) and a Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM), for example) and techniques that account for nonlinear relations between proxy values and temperature (pairwise comparison; PAI) or combine information from proxy data and climate models (offline data assimilation; DA). All procedures use the same input data-set (ref. 21, Supplementary Fig. 1) and the same calibration dataset for the reconstruction target, the infilled version25 of HadCRUT419. "

I was pleasantly surprised by this submission however: "Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions"
This article only reinforced what many suspect, volcanic activity posed (s) the biggest threat to our climate. The article also alludes to sun flare activity as an 'x factor' in all of this. Again, many of us suspect the sun as the biggest contributor in recent climate change.

To his credit Joost put forth an effort here. The rest of you just supplied more rhetorical bullsh*t.

Nons(ci)ense in the OP aside....i
How is the fact that Greenland was at one time so warm that people successfully farmed the region only to be frozen out and displaced in mere centuries nonsense? Why is it nonsensical to question the similarities in these events?

The fact is that Greenland has seen massive temperature swings over the last millennia. The latest warming may be exactly what the island has experienced before.
It seems odd to state it, but these swings may be normal!

None of us were there and can say for certain. To state that this latest event is the by-product of cow farts or exhaust pipes is pure speculation.
 
I read all three, tried too anyway.....you digest this:
"Here, we use seven different statistical methods to reconstruct GMST over the past 2,000 yr (1–2000 ; Table 1). The methods range from basic composite-plus-scaling (CPS) and regression-based techniques (such as principal component regression (PCR) and regularized errors in variables (M08)) frequently used in past reconstructions, to newer linear methods (optimal informa-tion extraction (OIE) and a Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM), for example) and techniques that account for nonlinear relations between proxy values and temperature (pairwise comparison; PAI) or combine information from proxy data and climate models (offline data assimilation; DA). All procedures use the same input data-set (ref. 21, Supplementary Fig. 1) and the same calibration dataset for the reconstruction target, the infilled version25 of HadCRUT419.

C’mon now, be fair! I warned you that you’d find the articles heavy going, you can’t say I didn’t. If you had a background of reading peer-reviewed papers on subjects such as this one, you’d know that a paragraph or 2 on methodology is commonplace.

I was pleasantly surprised by this submission however: "Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions"
This article only reinforced what many suspect, volcanic activity posed (s) the biggest threat to our climate. The article also alludes to sun flare activity as an 'x factor' in all of this. Again, many of us suspect the sun as the biggest contributor in recent climate change.

“What many of us suspect”. Really? “Many of us” who? Your fellow scientific illiterates pursuing anti-environmental agendas?
 
Last edited:
Thanks to global warming, Greenland's natural resources are becoming increasingly available and Greenland's soil is becoming more valuable. Nobody is traumatized, unfortunately.
According to some information available in the internet, Trump is attempting to buy Greenland. This suggests, that contrary to appearances he believes in global warming. But probably it is far too late for buying Greenland. This should be done before global warming, when Greenland appeared to be worthless. Maybe a referendum ? What residents of Greenland prefer - to live in the independent country, be be a Danish colony or one more state of the USA.
By the way - perhaps Greenland will become a Viking dream - really green land they searched for and died out there.
But obviously that is catastrophic for the nature.
 
Last edited:
. . . Maybe a referendum ? What residents of Greenland prefer - to live in the independent country, be be a Danish colony or one more state of the USA..

If Greenland were ever to be “acquired” by the US there’s very little chance of it ever achieving statehood, at least in the present stage of the world. The best it could hope for is self-governing colonial status like Puerto Rico’s and we know how that’s been working out under the Trump administration! Fortunately, the Danes and Greenlanders both have rejected Trump’s attempts to discuss a “sale’’ with the scorn they deserve.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top