The Native Iowan

I am going to take stand here. A stand that will undoubtedly catch flak…

I’m taking a stand against group-thought.

As I look around me I see more and more group-thought-processing. And I doubt people really understand what I mean. It’s a small thing that becomes a big thing when we aim to suppress thought or speech that is disagreeable to me or my “group”.

And I think such is cancerous.

I think of niece of mine. Hers is a multiracial family. A while back we were discussing the erroneous thought that young black males are 4000% more likely to be shot by police than young white males. The facts are clear on this topic, and we talked it through shared info and agreed on the facts. Yet my dear niece stated that she “can’t say that in public”. Basically, I interpret this as her saying her group-thought-process wont allow the facts to be raised.

So sad.

Group thought comes in many forms and shapes and sizes. Group thought is part and parcel to our communal conditioning. Our societal indoctrination.

Again, sad… yet required in many ways.

But I hear my faithful readers ask what prompted this verbiage, this missive from the proclaimed centrist…

I was involved in an online discussion which started with this post:

OK… allow me to voice my concerns… The post starts in a group-thought-leading manner. How can anyone dare stand up and disagree with an opener like this? You’d have to be stupid to think climate change is NOT man-made. You’d have to be “one of those” … and even as one of those, you are required to have a heart and “take action”…

I know I am being simplistic but I fear the facts show that climate change is the norm of nature and that its been taking place much longer than mankind has been attempting to interfere.

I just watched an interesting discussion on “The Bolt Report” with Ian Plimer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

Well worth hearing what this guy has to say.

So, like I said… I know I am being simplistic but I fear the facts show that climate change is the norm.

And, of course, mankind does interfere with nature. We produce heat in many ways. Enough heat in a small space can change the immediate climate. Consider a green house. A basic definition of changing climate for a need or want or by accident.

Our many herds of domestic animals produce heaps of body-heat and methane.

All the concrete we lay for roads and parking lots and bike paths and basketball courts all absorb heat and retain such for slow dissipation, which does indeed affect the climate of that immediate location.

Air-conditioners roar on roof tops and create loads of heat.

I know a highway near me where tens of thousands of cubic meters of vegetation has been ripped up in order to create a better road system. Trading the cooling effect of vegetation and shade for concrete.

But the comments as posed in the referenced post are exclusive. Designed to attract those who agree and repulse dissenters.

Kinda a definition of group-thought, me thinks… attract like-minded and reject dissenters.

This post I take exception to…

1. It starts in an accosting manner. This starts challenging anyone to argue with the fact that a) climate change exists, and b) climate change is not man-made. It presupposes that anyone reading this agrees initially and primarily with both a) and b). And if you do you not, you are still promoted to take action.
2. It states “Solomon Islands Fact File”… I must ask what and where is this “fact file”? Who manages it? What facts does it file? But by gratis of its title the weight of the comment is worth more than, say,  if its publisher was the National Inquirer or the Solomon Star. It is misleading.
3. On checking I find the Solomon Islands Fact File is a FB page. I can’t see who operates the page but I suspect it to be the SIVB.
4. This particular posts states as fact that “five islands have disappeared under water”. The five islands named are “Kakatina, Kale, Rapita, Rehana and Zollies”.
5.  I find that this is a 2016 story which was picked up by a number of press-services. Now it resurfaces in a 2018 fact file.
6. As near as I can determine, Kakatina is indeed underwater but I can’t tell what historic elevation was. Kale is listed as being at 10m elevation. If in recorded history, this island is noted as being 10m high, well hell, once it has disappeared underwater we’d all have noticed. Rapita is the same, it’s listed as being at 15m elevation. Rehana I can find no reference to. Zollies I cannot find refs.
7. Indeed, names and such may make my search ineffective but I can see where this report came from, note it is not current and perhaps was never really news, but rather views, observations and opinions of a scholarly kind.
8. For every published disappearing island report there are published reports of islands growing naturally. A casual search of “Pacific islands growing not shrinking” offers a lot to read through. A quick look and I find a 2018 report… https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html 
9. I have no real horse in this race. Other than considering myself a thoughtful and informed person, I work hard at sifting fact from the fiction. If I find something questionable, I question it. And I hate the smell of sensationalistic reporting.
10. My alarms rang when I read this article. It was too cute.  And I tend to call BullShit. As much as I call group-think.
11. It is my opinion, and the way this started is wrong… its insulting to think everyone must think the same. The attitude of the article rubbed me wrong… how dare any one disagree… “Even if (as some believe) climate change is not man-made” … sure, lay down the gauntlet and challenge anyone to argue with the group-agreed-thought… and then… “perhaps we can take action to reduce its tragic impact.”
12. It’s not that I do not think the rise in sea levels in some areas is a problem, nor that erosion on many islands is a problem, nor that certain factors lead to islands growing as well as shrinking. I am just against sensationalistic reporting and group-agreed-thought.
13. I have had a good look at the report which initiated this “news article” … http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011
14. I note they state  “(5%–95% uncertainty range about the projections) “.
15. And such made me laugh. Sure, base you decisions in life, your judgment of others and your moral code on less than factual reports found on a “fact page”.

Go team go…

Smiles