Saturday, 6 December 2014

AMEG press conference on the methane emergency


THIS is the most IMPORTANT video I will ever share on my timeline.

This is why I write about climate change at the SF Examiner and why I share posts about methane and climate change. I have been writing about this for 10 years. THIS IS HAPPENING NOW. 

These scientists, educators, physicists, engineers and professors are at the COP20 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Peru, Lima right now trying to get people to understand what the people of this planet are facing. 

I personally know some of them, and know them to be of the highest integrity - THIS IS the most serious thing ALL OF US are facing. If you have children and grandchildren and care about all life on this planet you need to watch this and share it with every single person that you know. 

We have now been told by mainstream media just within the last couple of days that without intervention we/our kids/our grandchildren will not be able to survive. This is happening NOW, it is not some far-off prediction, it is NOW. Please. ‪#‎climatechange‬ ‪#‎methane‬ ‪#‎COP20‬ ‪#‎UnitedNations‬

"This year of stalled talks and baby steps toward action have all but ensured that we will pass the previous do-not-pass benchmark of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by 2100. 

Now, The New York Times reports, the negotiators’ objective is to stave off atmospheric warming of 4 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit, or roughly 2.2 to 5.6 degrees Celsius, by the end of the century, at which point, experts say, Earth may “become increasingly uninhabitable.”

---Dorsi Lynn Diaz

Lima Climate Change Conference - 
December 2014
Press briefing

Lima, Peru
Thursday, 04 December 2014

Abibimman Foundation: United Planet Faith & Science Initiative

To watch this important video GO HERE


  1. I am incredibly proud of our friends in the Arctic Methane Emergency Group and that I have finally heard the word Methane mentioned in Lima. If not for these brave crusaders the elephant in the room would have been ignored.It is a complete freaking disaster that we are now confronted with a need for 'geo-engineering' after 150 odd years of geo-engineering which we have been doing with the burning of fossil fuels. John Nissen was brilliant and obviously very moved,Paul as always heart felt. John Nissen said " This is the most important day of my life", I believe this could be the most important link ever on my timeline. We have all been collectively, within our means, trying to raise the alarm, yet I am sure it will be to no avail. The story of our species has always been too little , too late. C'est la vie, so be it, let's go down , screaming from the rooftops; METHANE.

    1. here here ~ That comment says everything I could possibly say were I smart enough to think of it all.

  2. I agree, Kevin. PLEASE, PLEASE SHARE THIS WIDELY WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND NETWORKS - as if our live depended on it (which they do1)

  3. Robin, I agree with the desire to save our planet, but I vehemently disagree with the simplistic free will concept of "change your mind change the world theme."

    The spontaneous generation of ideas is as unscientific as the spontaneous generation of maggots.

    UPFSI Theory of Change Diagram v6

    Here is a glaringly open display of cultural idealism (ideas drive events both personal & cultural).

    It is filled with pleas for developing our critical "will" to act.
    It is unscientific mentalism.

    Behaviorist B. F. Skinner spent his entire life opposing such free will & mentalism.

    Arguing as a cultural materialist, Harris is the greatest opponent of the UPFSI's "free will" theory of change.

    Here is Marvin Harris's "behavior conditions ideas" rebuttal.

    The issue is not the operant status of mental behavior or thought—rather, it is the relative importance of behavioral versus ideological innovations in cultural evolution, and that is why the analogue of psychological cognitivism is best described as cultural idealism, and not as cultural cognitivism. The cultural idealist position is that sociocultural evolution is directed by ideological innovation—I refrain from saying “determined” for reasons to be given in a moment.

    Cultural idealists posit new attractive thoughts arising for some reason within the minds of certain individuals, which are propagated and transmitted. These thoughts become so-called templates for behavior, which is therefore allegedly modified to correspond with the revised ideology.
    Not content with spontaneous ideas as directives of cultural evolution, cultural idealists subscribe to the further complication of extreme relativism, of which I do not think there is a parallel for among psychological cognitivists.
    Suffice it to say that cultural materialists posit objective knowledge as a totally approachable form of behavior potentially available to human beings regardless of cultural differences. But to come to the most relevant point for behavior analysts, cultural materialism holds that the direction of sociocultural evolution is probabilistically determined by the consequences of behavioral innovations with a cost–benefit for production and reproduction—the probability that an innovation which arises from the infrastructure or the structure or superstructure or ideological subsystem will be propagated or transmitted is determined by whether or not it results in a more favorable or less favorable balance of productive and reproductive costs as measured by the varying currencies previously mentioned.
    The first point to be noted with respect to the idealists' paradigm is that it is essentially indeterminate, since it lacks any selection principle to account for why certain ideas rather than others are materialized and incorporated into a particular cultural repertoire at a particular time.
    Implicit in most idealist approaches is the conviction that cultural evolution is dominated by stochastic processes, such as the random appearance of great leaders or the arbitrary appeal to certain symbols, rules, and rituals.

    The hopelessness of this fact is of course multiplied many times over when idealists reject the possibility of achieving objective knowledge about what actually happens in other cultures, according to the testimony of a community of (scientifically) trained observers.
    Also, idealists' explanations of cultural phenomena frequently take a form that is analogous to the explanation of operant behavior, by appeals to preexisting mind-sets.
    Complete article;

  4. Did John Nissen say "cooling the arctic will be quite simple" ?? (in the last minute of the vid)

    I'm sure he knows much more about it than I do, but I find it difficult to take seriously
    anyone making such a claim.

    The scale, the money, the energy involved, the logistics--cooling the arctic
    sounds far fetched, if not an outright fantasy. If that's our best hope, I'm waving a white flag.

    1. Just to make it clear - I am with
      Guy McPherson with this one 101%. Our predicament comes from human civilisation and spraying stuff into the atmosphere is not going to improve anything. For all that this press conference was HUGELY significant because amidst the denialism of the conference here was someone telling it how it is with the melting of the Arctic ice.

      Reflecting on this it seems to me that geoengineering is as much part of human karma as anything else humanity has done.does to destroy the planet. At this stage of the proceedings our collective fate is sealed.

  5. Does anyone have a vimeo or youtube link for this? I could only get audio on my firefox and safari mac. And I did google it but nothing came up.

  6. Robin, I hope that you will be able to read the Harris piece.