A Year and 200 Posts Later!

I hadn’t realised it until just now, but a year ago yesterday – the 12th of January – I published my first post on the MothIncarnate blog;

Business as Usual; The Dead Horse and Juggernaut of Climate Change.

At the same time, this is also post number 200!

I can’t say that I’m overwhelmingly happy with my progress. I’ve managed to have a little over 10, 000 visits in the previous year, or an average of 30 per day (although whilst working on the Innovation is Key project, I had the bulk of my visits – the best day of which reached 170 visits, thereby skewing the actually visits per day by a fair amount).

I actually started out this blog assuming that most people were beyond doubt over Anthropogenic Global Warming and I hoped to reinforce this by discussing related issues… However, I found myself being sucked into the public AGW debate like so many others.

After a year engulfed in that dog fight I can safely make the following points;

  • it will not stop until climate gives it us an undeniable kick in the arse (maintaining a debate, btw, doesn’t mean that there is valid uncertainty in the reality of AGW),
  • it is such an entrenched, pointless battle that no matter how much more certain we are following new evidence that is increasingly available, positions cannot be changed,
  • only one journalist is required to dismantle the work completed by hundreds of scientists,
  • it is more about a love-to-hate than the topic itself.

Anyway, I wish that I had done more Warm Fuzzy Forecast and Business As Usual 2.0 comics over 2010 than I had, but somehow the topic itself and the needless debate drained much of my motivation. With any luck, my new angle and contribution to the new blog under construction by Mike and myself should provide a new positive spin that should feed also into my comics.

Therefore you can expect much more enthusiasm regarding the natural world and how our species interacts with it, because that is the forgotten angle on all things environmentally related – optimism. In what can only be compared to school yard childishness, pro-business-as-usual individuals have worked hard to bring down anyone who thinks differently. Look at, for instance, the deplorable ridicule of David Suzuki by loathsome characters such as Laframboise. Think back to any blog in which you’ve tried to comment on the positive possibilities that face an innovative future or on the worrisome state of any environmental issue where you face such ridicule.

This is the best tool they’ve got; pessimism. I won’t stand for it any more nor will I entertain it. I have but this short life and I plan to do what I can so as my grandchild can be left a world that is as full of wonder as that I knew – those who scoff can do so elsewhere.

11 thoughts on “A Year and 200 Posts Later!

  1. Congrats on 200 posts! That’s a lot of time investment, but I hope you’ve found value in writing it. I know I’ve enjoyed reading it. I look forward to seeing your more optimistic slant on things; your WFF and BAU had some classic insights in them. Sometimes just laughing at them is the best way!


  2. Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Unfortunately, despite all the progress science has made, some are addicted to ideology and resistent to reason. All one can hope for is that a continued exposure -that’s where you come in- to reality will cure the it’s-all-a-conspiracy-virus.



    1. I’m hoping to move beyond the debate (if we can even call it that) and instead focus on the positives of innovation. Injecting reason alone is, as far as environmental / climate concerns go, a depressing message – excuse enough to support denial. I hope to instead say, “Sure, we’ve made many mistakes, but so what – we’ve learnt from them. We can become more prosperous if we wish to face this realisation head on.”


  3. Happy Birthday 🙂 (Still is here)

    Totally sympathize … a lot of my unscheduled “sabbatical” was spent ruminating these very issues. All the best wished and hopes for the new direction.


    1. Cheers,

      your recent post, Skewed views of science and other bits, included great videos that has left me thinking about one flaw in my approach – the self-labelled climate change sceptics. They assume themselves to be sceptics because they’re not yet convinced by the evidence and we tend to supply the evidence hoping this will sort out the problem, but it doesn’t. The truth of the matter is that they have one of two options; either they leave it to the professionals and, just as they would with their selected GP, trust the conclusions provided by the trained individuals, or; do the hard-yards to earn the relevant understanding and then critically assess the evidence that is available. So far I can safely say that I have not met one self-labelled climate change sceptic that has done either. As you, I and many others in the blogging community have come to realise, you simply cannot have a meaningful conversation with this type of person because they refuse to adhere to the rules of critical reasoning.

      So what can we do? Personally, I won’t entertain them at all any more, but will continue to provide the evidence as it comes in and also focus on how we can meet the challenges ahead with real case studies.

      Keep up the great work on Greenfyre – it’s a great resource!


    1. It’s not a bleak outlook, just unfortunately entrenched ideology.. btw, Mike and I are hard at work on this new open blog – hopefully we’ll have something better formulated in the coming weeks!


  4. Great works. I’ve enjoyed your posts.

    And am looking forward to your new work.

    Your call on deniers is spot on. They’re just liars offering the same set of lies on an endless loop (and they know they lie for I can’t get 1 to stand in front of a co2 laser, dang it, so no fun either)


    1. You’re not wrong – you should read a newbie on “History Deniers vs. AGW Deniers”, – Elsa. Her (assuming it’s a female) bent is that the theory of AGW is debunked by the global temperature anomaly “plateaux” in the mid 1900’s. As CO2 concentration increases, so must temperature – but the real kicker here is that by including other factors of climate (most noticeably solar input) we unfairly mislead people into thinking this is due to CO2, when we know there was a mid century plateaux… Hence the loop you were talking of. In Elsa’s mind, we should disregard the impacts of other climatic factors and thus leave CO2 unable to explain anything – rendering the theory of AGW meaningless. How could you explain the force demonstrated at the wheel, without including the engine or gravity without mass or or that net statics of a bowl or water without the supporting bowl?
      It’s painful and endless..
      Cheers, btw – it’s always good to know my work struck a cord as often as it roped in the mad hatters of unreasonable climate change doubt. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s