Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate scientists want to be “stewards of grief, to hold the hand of society as we enter the unknown space of the climate crisis“.
Scientists need to face both facts and feelings when dealing with the climate crisis
I was taught to use my head, not my heart. But acknowledging sadness at what is lost can help us safeguard the future
…
Bearing witness to the demise or death of what we love has started to look an awful lot like the job description for an environmental scientist these days. Over dinner, my colleague Ola Olsson matter‑of‑factly summed up his career: “Half the wildlife in Africa has died on my watch.” He studied biodiversity because he loved animals and wanted to understand and protect them. Instead his career has turned into a decades-long funeral.
…
My dispassionate training has not prepared me for the increasingly frequent emotional crises of climate change. What do I tell the student who chokes up in my office when she reads that 90% of the seagrasses she’s trying to design policies to protect are slated to be killed by warming before she retires? In such cases, facts are cold comfort. The skill I’ve had to cultivate on my own is to find the appropriate bedside manner as a doctor to a feverish planet; to try to go beyond probabilities and scenarios, to acknowledge what is important and grieve for what is being lost.
…
It has taken me a long time to come to terms with my climate and ecological grief, but swimming through it is the only way forward. One role environmental scientists can play is to be “stewards of grief, to hold the hand of society as we enter the unknown space of the climate crisis,” as my friend Leehi Yona so beautifully wrote when the IPCC’s 1.5C report launched. As scientists, we have had much more time observing the decline of what we love. We are further down the line of where we all must get to as a society, facing hard truths and still finding ways to be kind and resilient, to do better going forward, to get through this together. We still have so much we love at stake that is worth fighting for.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/24/scientists-facts-feelings-climate-crisis-sadness
Whenever I read something like this I get this kind of yech feeling, like I’ve just received an unexpected and unwanted random hug from a stranger. You know, the quick look to see if they have any obvious indications of mental or physical illness, the quick check to make sure your wallet is still in your pocket.
Let us just say I’m not in a hurry to hold your hand and let you lead me, Kimberley.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is my policy to get as far away from stupid as I possibly can. Stupid scares the bejesus out of me.
I can’t watch live TV anymore. The stupid is flowing like water.
W O W … O M G …
1/2 the animal life has died in Africa? Say it isn’t so Joe, say it isn’t so.
4 words only…
Where Are The Bodies??
With over 1,100 mammalian species and 2,600 bird species consisting of tens of millions of mammals and billions of birds, the carcasses MUST be stacking up and rotting away someplace
Now if he/she means that 1/2 of the animals born since he/she took their post … well that sounds about right given the average lifespan of most animals
It does not mention species. On the WWF website it shows population size has gone down. Which is possible as the human population has increased and needs more land to feed.
The quotation from the ‘Kimberly’ opinion piece referenced,
“that 90% of the seagrasses .. are slated to be killed by warming”
suggests that it is the supposed, and/or projected, species loss that is generally being fretted about here.
Fretful, non-productive moaning either way, really. As to species loss, it’s clearly a lie, but if we were talking population reduction of some of the mammals, say, well yes, animals and likely trees in some areas have made way for humans. Is this new, or especially alarming? Greenery, trees, etc. have increased overall, partly due to more CO2, should we be sad about that as well?
I have obtained a satellite dish and only watch the English versions of 24 hour international news from multiple countries other than America and Britain. Nothing is worse than a news idiot that has only enough intelligence to present stupidity as wise, proven, established facts. The person(s) that sign(s)s their checks has only more profits in mind. If you follow the media company’s owner’s money and motivation it will be discovered that they are doing worse damage than any climate change apocalypse. Some, such as Soros, just do it for political power entertainment and maybe some weird sexual gratification. Plenty of new ways for such personal sexual perversion chemistry appears to have emerged in the newest breed of liberal humans. I am starting to cringe when I hear people use the phrase “put lipstick on a pig”. Someone (avid golfer) showed me a gif of the ass of a pig walking along in a thong and my first thought was, “those dam liberals have no conscience moral bottom”.
Chan,
having played a rotten round yesterday, could you link me to that pig walking down the fairway please? I could do with some swing coaching.
Thanks
Yech is the correct feeling.
I prefer Greta. The name is much shorter than Kimberley.
I prefer Greta too, she’s barely an adult and has been misled and used. Prof Kimberly Nicholas is a mature and supposedly clever women and has no excuse for talking such drivel.
What happened to Greta over the past several months? I hope she’s getting the help she needs.
no shes still sh*tstirring
show us the bodies …
Sounds like Ola Olsson should be tried and prosecuted if it happened on his watch.
exactly! and WhoTF is HE?
I used to teach Environmental Science and, as a scientist, I would research the material. First, leave out island ecosystems, as they are patently already endangered, being that there are limited populations and virtually no migration. That said, a survey of the literature showed that only 6 species had gone extinct in 100 years among the birds and mammals and none of them were from climate change or habitat loss. In fact, during the last 100 years, we discovered 15 species that we thought were extinct, so we are up 9 species.
The predictions and “firm” statements that 1000s or millions of species are going extinct every year is from horribly tortured and abused computer programs. My favorite is the program that predicts how many species will go extinct before we even detect them. Read that last sentence again. You can put in any numbers you want, as it is talking about species that simply do not exist in the real and adult world.
The other starving animals ate them. Wildlife buffet.
This should be a fun thread to come back and read later!!
See ya then,
Bob
What is this obsession by “climate scientists” to seek publicity for themselves by putting out pap that would be hard-pressed to get published in Women’s Weekly?
(but I guess if The Weekly turns you down, The Guardian is your next stop)
If you don’t advertise your product, no one will buy it.
And only the most truly brain-washed and gullible will even bother looking at it even then..
I think one can guess which alleged scientists read NYT or Washpoo while simultaneously watching recorded soppy soap operas.
So, what’s the biggest problem for wildlife in Africa? Depending on the species, it’s poaching, hands down.
The problem with CAGW is that it blinds people to the real problems with the environment.
There’s this other thing. Why aren’t polar bears extinct? Because they controlled hunting, that’s why.
Why doesn’t controlling poaching work in Africa? Because the people are poor and they have no other way to make money, that’s why.
It’s been said a zillion times already, so here’s a zillion and one. Prosperous people look after nature because they can afford to do so. What’s a necessary condition for prosperity? Cheap abundant energy is a necessary condition for prosperity.
Michael Shellenberger, Michael Moore, Patrick Moore, and even James Hansen have all commented on the negative environmental effects of renewable energy. Why is nobody listening?
CommieBob, you are right about controlled hunting, among other issues for wildlife sustainability. However, I’m guessing KImberly wants to re-introduce grizzly bears into the Sierra Nevada Mountains (between Kalifornia and Nevada), don’t allow hunting, and writing the hikers eaten off to population control.
Indeed there is a goal to convert 75% of N America back to woodlands. That is why, over the protests of many states, Ted Turner was allowed to introduce wolves to the NW states. Not only wolves but the largest of the species and then had them protected from being hunted or killed for poaching livestock. The goal is simply to drive 30,000 ranchers off their lands.
Do not forget the teacher in Iceland who took a group of students out camping and one student was attacked and killed by a polar bear. All the teacher had was a rusty 22 rifle, which would really only tick off the bear. Can you say 44 magnum?
Nuts to that. I don’t want the bear anywhere near close enough to use revolver. I’d say a 300 Weatherby magnum is more to the point.
A 44 magnum can also be a rifle. It is famous as a handgun because of Dirty Harry Callahan played by Clint Eastwood.
Hmmm, yes there are a few carbines bored to take a .44 calibre pistol round … Like the now discontinued Ruger 44. However they’re not even close to a stopping power of a 300 magnum rifle round. The Weatherby rifle round packs 4,195 foot-pounds of energy @ur momisugly 500 yards. The Ruger 44 packs only 1,015 foot-pounds of force at the muzzle.
Mostly sharing calibres between carbine and revolver made a lot of sense during the cowboy era, but not so much any more.
What about a Barrett 50 cal?
Now there’s a weapon. That thing is more like an artillery piece than a rifle. The shock wave alone can kill you, with a near miss. With a muzzle velocity exceeding 2800 f/ps using a 661 gr. bullet or over 4000 f/ps using a 360 gr. tungsten round + sabot, they develop something like 11,000 foot pounds. That brute can cut a man in half.
However at close to $10,000 and weighing in at +30# they’re not one’s 1st choice while strolling in the Arctic.
I’ve got to hand it to you Yanks – no one could say you don’t know your way around a gun. Us Brits have trouble telling the dangerous end from the safe end.
Actually, I’m a Canuck and our government is gradually neutering our gun ownership. Besides some of the finest guns in the world are made in England … Purdey, E.J. Churchill, Holland and Holland to name only three.
“Indeed there is a goal to convert 75% of N America back to woodlands.”
with all these extra solar panels it is not going to leave much room for humans. Or is that the idea?
I think theyre planning we go camp out under the solar panels so they can say everyone has a roof/shelter overhead…/s
And a job – cleaning it!
Not /sarc, unhappily.
Auto
Because cheap, abundant energy leads to more liberty and booming middle class, and all that is anathema to their real goal.
You are so right there, humans will do anything to survive. History has shown us that people ate their own children whilst desperate and starving under Mao’s regime . Indians mutilated their own children and sent them begging when the country was under socialist rule and famine reined. Cheap reliable power is the keystone to building a prosperous, healthy society which ironically produces less offspring.When humans are secure they have the mental and physical space to appreciate our beautiful complex planet and the sentient beings we share it with.
What an idiot, she is.
Yeah, you would think she could’ve faked a sad face for the photo.
You mean that’s her real teeth?
I guess they should have allowed her to look into a mirror before snapping the shot.
Scissor,
Over three years ago I postulated that the mean weight of human teeth of those born after 1980 was growing larger each year. There is abundant photographic evidence. Even our own family offspring display the effect.
Sherrington’s Postulate is that this growth is caused by higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Just like the greening of plant life.
Geoff S
I believe your conclusion may be incorrect – it’s all down to the fork; since the fork was invented, teeth no longer needed to meet at the front to tear the food and we developed an overbite (actually quite true if you check historic paintings). With nothing to grind against, front teeth are getting larger over time. All I need is $50,000 grant money to research this hypothesis. sarc
See the current Prime Minister of New Zealand for the results of this trend. Quite horrifying.
You always go right to denigrating someone based on their looks. Low class.
At least time to buy a new watch.
She sounds fun.
“Read more…”. No thanks. I’ve already puked enough.
She’s written a book if you change your mind! Sarc
I wonder if it burns well so when it is reduced to pennies to clear it could actually be of use.
How many elephants did Allen Savory slaughter in the name of global warming?
It was 40k, but it wasn’t because of global warming. He believed elephants were causing desertification. He was wrong.
I don’t know this story. Did he have a finder’s fee deal on the ivory?
At least he learned from the mistake, he wasn’t alone in blaming elephants for desertification. He found a method to restore desert to bush-land in his native Zimbabwe and now lectures around the world promoting the method in applicable areas.
His before and after photos are very impressive, his story is worth looking up.
Thanks for the response. I’ll try to find the time.
Edit: already started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory
So why quite the notoriously left and obviously unhinged Grauniad then.
Gawd, don’t give it oxygen.
I can’t watch nature documentaries anymore. They all devolve into vehicles to shame me for living.
They’ve been doing that since I was a child. I was taken to the Chicago Zoo, and in there there was a set of bars with the label, “the most dangerous animal of all”. Yes, it had a mirror behind it, reflecting all the people looking through. This sort of propaganda has been going on since at least the first world war.
This is typical leftist self loathing, emotions are more important than facts.
Remember, they vote that way too.
If in fact “Half the wildlife in Africa has died” (which I tend to doubt) it’s because of human encroachment into their habitat. Plus hunting for “bush meat”, poaching for ivory, cutting firewood etc. etc. Climate change has nothing to do with it. At all.
The grief-burdened Ms Nicholas is “associate professor of sustainability science” at Lund University. A meaning-free job description if there ever was one, well suited to one who apparently practices post-science science, where emotions and abstract intellectual constructs take the place of observable facts and logical conclusions.
.
To stay on that academic gravy train she’ll need to keep preaching the faith.
Human encroachment is right. Many African countries’ populations are doubling every 20 years. A few months ago, all the lions were moved from a section of the Serengeti game reserve to make room for crops and houses. As I recall it was 3000 sq miles. There were protests, but they were ineffective. How long before the Serengeti becomes an urban slum?
Never. Population growth is not a simple exponential function – Malthus was wrong.
Malthus just wrote what he saw out of his window; he lived in a busy city so mistakenly believed there were lots of people everywhere. Junk science yet again.
Scientist? The ever evolving propaganda machine.
Who said “useful idiot”?
Powered by Carbon based fuels, nuclear, and hydro – – rich nations with rich people can protect environments and wildlife, and even bring near extinct animals back.
Does she not know this?
If she pays the bills, I’ll lead her around and show her the truth.
There was an encouraging story on the radio yesterday (local MSM affiliate, so it must be true). Some years ago, the condor was almost extinct in the US – maybe 20 breeding pairs left in the wild. Through the efforts of captive breeding programs here in California, they have been releasing condors into the wild. After 100 years, California condor could return to northwest – ABC News (go.com)
Maybe humans aren’t bad for nature – maybe we don’t always cause extinction (just a little sarc there).
Nature will come up with replacements. Not to worry.
Carbon dioxide causes absolutely everything in the entire universe.
the new Satan
*everything bad.
Electric cars, solar panels and windmills are the cause of all righteousness.
If all this really happened on her watch she must be crap at the job and should join the BBC eco-drivel team.
If she is not living in the US, she should move here. Moving will assuage her grief since the Climate Reference System has clearly established that the Lower 48 are not warming, at least not since 2005
Lund University is in Lund, Sweden, near Malmo.
Just call it what it is! Neurotic drivel! We get bombarded with this kind of crap day in and day out on wide ranges of subjects. Half of what they call “news” today is neurotic drivel spewed by the neurotics.
The Left creates a very neurotic society.
Antidepressants are sometimes prescribed for the psychological sort of nihilism. The political sort is to be despised.
We’re watching a daytime non-stop soap opera; As The
World TurnsClimate Changes or maybe it’s Days of Our (Remaining) Lives.Just like the old soap operas, you get drawn into the good characters and hate on the baddies. (“Oh no! That miserable rat bastard! Dump him, dump him!”)
And a major part of the story line was to, at a few points in the show, get the viewer to reach for the box of Kleenex tissues.
.
.
Kimberly Nicholas has presented the tear-jerker segment of the never-ending Climate Change soap opera.
.
.
Tune in tomorrow for the next installment where the Virtuous Renewable Energy people will confront the No-Good E-v-i-i-i-i-l Caaaahbon Cabal, lead by a handsome, intelligent Climate Scientist (an actor, not a real one, but he plays one on TV) in the Fight to Save The Planet.
Oh, and instead of running out and buying laundry soap, you’re supposed to run out and buy Carbon Credits.
Hmmmmm…… how many extinction events were there before Hoomans came into the picture? Let me consult my iron concretion fossils, the shrimp and the alethoptera leaf, and get some feedback from them….
Well, out of all the species that had died off by the end of the Carboniferous period, we still have dragonflies, horsetail reeds, centipedes, shrimp, sharks, spiders, protozoa of all sorts, and these are only a few that go back those several hundreds of millions of years.
I’m not running out of “victims” here just yet. And this was all before mammals ever arrived, too. Anyone got any other suggestions?
I am more and more convinced that the people who present themselves as some kind of expert about climate-something (or other), but who indicate clearly that they have no sense of reality of what has actually happened on this planet, are either doing/saying what they do/say to get attention, or so mentally constricted that they actually believe their own nonsense. It is difficult for little old me to imagine being so narrow-minded and unobservant of reality that someone like her believes the nonsense she’s spilling out.
She needs help, all right. But wrenching someone from this kind of pseudo-religious conversion that disconnects her from reality is nearly impossible.
Note, I said “nearly”, not “completely”.
Cry me a river.