Just this week these type of long and verbose spam comments are being caught by the WordPress spam catcher. I am curious as to why the sudden burst of activity – over past years I have not seen much claiming a Facebook origin. Posting them as examples in case other bloggers are seeing similar rubbish coming in.

IKookiee
facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405564381 x
d.pleastrieciv@gmail.au.com
213.159.241.22
Submitted on 2012/03/08 at 3:18 pm

If you think science and facts based on past eencriepexs is the only way to change, don’t read any further, you will only think I’m a dreamer and not aware of the hard road we need to take to solve any of this. It still appears that any solution, while recognising that reductions everywhere are necessary, is still missing a vital point that is one of connection to ourselves first. One that allows recognition not reaction. While I wholeheartedly agree with a cradle to cradle’ full cycle approach to commerce’, unless we as a world community of people first recognise our own separation from who we are in-truth, the energy we emit through reaction (anger to, greed, need, denial of, defence of etc) will continue to add to global warming. Huh, another crack-pot here? Science can record heat emissions from a person, multiplied by how many billions of people on earth, is it feasible that it would create a momentum of energy? Do we actually believe that our energy’ and reaction to matters doesn’t contribute at all, whether it’s one persons anger, or a full scale war between countries? There is no consequence here?Be individual for sure, but if we don’t first meet each other by expressing from our truth and stop doing what we’re doing and start doing what is needed, our planet will never respond positively to any energy of reaction the pattern of misuse will continue as before and the doubters will say, see I told you it wouldn’t change anything.It (just) takes a collective shift in consciousness first, so the greater good is honoured and there are individually, more people interested in good than bad we just need to connect.

Kiran
facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405561401 x
k.sieclien@nic.tv
109.230.216.225
Submitted on 2012/03/08 at 12:20 pm

Andrew: Great post as usual. This is the crux of the climate eolbrpm reducing GHG emissions amounts to providing a global public good, and we all tend to prefer to free-ride on the efforts of others for this type of good. In the end, very little gets done; at least according to most economics texts. But our conventional understanding of public provision of public goods/commons management has been changing for some time, especially because of the work of Elinor Ostrom and colleagues (as well as many others). While her work has focused on fisheries and irrigation management in closed communities, I wonder if some of the same principles might apply in a global context? In particular, I wonder if the `solution’ to the climate eolbrpm might emerge gradually from a slow build-up of reciprocal actions to reduce emissions, rather than in some grand-daddy climate treaty agreed to by countries that make up most of the world’s carbon emissions? If so, then seemingly small actions like Australia’s mooted cap and trade system might in fact be a catalyst for action in other countries. After all, it certainly seems plausible to me that Europe’s ETS which on it’s own will do little to affect global temperature likely has played a role in shaping discussions in Europe. And it seems plausible that if Australia AND Europe have a climate policy, that pressure within Canada will increase in this dimension.Although `rational countries’ might not think this way, this is the general feature of the cooperation that has emerged in many of the commons management challenges that Ostrom has studied. So although your carbon-tax paying driver is unlikely to shift others’ behaviour, perhaps highly visible actions like adoption of a national carbon policy could shift other countries’ behaviour. Given the dim prospects for a global treaty, it’s a nice hope anyway

Khan
facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405576314 x
g.drieblos@apache.biz
216.105.91.4
Submitted on 2012/03/08 at 11:35 am

As much I admire Donna Haraway for lfinitg a veil on the objectivity of the scientific process, the trouble with the Truth in the AGW issue is not within science as such. A simple check where the relevant sandstone establishments, the various National Science Academies et all are standing on this issue, confirms they are all pointing into the same direction. Further, constructivist approaches, such as OOO, are indeed a handy form of knowledge representation, if you are at home in a constructionist world. Well the average punter is not, and to succeed in solving this problem we need universal human collaboration.In its foundation, AGW is not an environmental problem. On the overall Earth time scale, life has sprung back in terms of diversity and complexity with renewed vigor and splendor following the seven odd cataclysmic wiping of the earths face. However, without Climate change mitigation humans will be most likely living at worst in a Mad Max or at best a Blade Runner scenario, according to Robert May, past President of The Royal Society and Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Head of the UK Office of Science and Technology. The voice of science is clear, it tells us there is a high probability that we are on an unsustainable trajectory and it would be a very good idea to drastically reduce CO2 emissions to avoid the likely hood of any major adverse effects on our lifelyhood. If someone can not accept this, then they should not wear seat belts or take life saving medications for a start. For these measures are based on comparable scientific process and probabilities as AGW science is. This is why I would argue AGW is a human problem as opposed a to an environmental.As such, the human threat to itself on a global level is nothing new. At least since ICBMs and multiple warheads have reared their ugly heads, we humans have the potential to wipe the face of the earth with only cockroaches remaining. However, in this case there is a fundamental difference, there are only a limited number of people with their hand on the red button and their humanity and integrity has so far prevailed. Where as in the AGW issue, literally all of us have our fingers on the trigger. This does present a rather unique situation and problem in human evolutionary terms and is at the base of most deniers cognitive obstacle of epic proportions. It is the failure to recognise, that we collectively have the potential to substantially threaten our own existence and the responsibility to avoid such rests with each individual. What is so hard to swallow about that? Shouldn’t it be common sense? This is not to say that some people, anyone in leading or very public positions, are in particular required to do justice to that position and act with integrity. For we are not just pushing the physical boundaries of the global climate, the unprecedented population growth and a host of other massive changes in recent times, are very likely soon to reveal additional fronts of human limitations within which we all, as individuals and as humanity, have to learn to live for better or for worse.Thus I make my case for truth as in individual and public integrity and thank you Mark for giving me the opportunity to do so with this timely thread.