• Podcast

    2020: The Year Everything Changed

    David Collum's verbal Year In Review synopsis
    by Adam Taggart

    Wednesday, December 30, 2020, 4:24 PM

Listen On Your Favorite Player:

Listen - Apple Podcasts Listen - Google Podcasts Listen - Spotify Amazon Music
Listen - Stitcher Listen - SoundCloud Listen on Castbox Download MP3 Audio

Whether or not you’ve already enjoyed reading David Collum’s encyclopedic Year In Review — a particularly impressive tour de force this year given the craziness of 2020 — you’re sure to love this live exposition of its highlights.

Chris sits down here with Dave to dig more deeply into several of the more significant and salacious themes, as well as wander down a few entirely new avenues of thought.

This discussion is a true end-of-year treat, completely free-ranging and unscripted, and given the massive spectrum of topics to address, notably longer than our average podcast.

Enjoy!

Related content
» More

142 Comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 5:09pm

    #1
    funkflex41

    funkflex41

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 2

    0

    funkflex41 said:

    wont play.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 5:11pm

    #2
    funkflex41

    funkflex41

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 2

    2

    funkflex41 said:

    wait.. it did. you rock chris.

    does pfizervaxx contain mneon green basepairs? and what might this suggest to you? bio n tech... or tech in bio?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 6:45pm

    #3
    Nate

    Nate

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 05 2009

    Posts: 545

    10

    wow!

    I've been part of peak prosperity for more than a decade and place this podcast as the best Chris has ever done.  Two super bright people talking about what really matters.  Unscripted.  Just wow!  Suggestion to the clan - listen, think, and process what they have said.  Act accordingly.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 6:59pm

    #4
    whoknew79

    whoknew79

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 17 2011

    Posts: 44

    8

    Aliens

    At this point, climate change might be my only mainstream viewpoint left. But, even on that topic I think abrupt climate change is likely; so I guess that I'm not so mainstream on that.

    It's conversations like this, that remind me that I'm not alone in the world. So thank you.

    Aliens:

    I have devoted very little thought to aliens in my life. So, I found it strange and noted it when the first public mention of aliens came from someone on the Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2016 election. Next, was the release of the tic tac videos from the Air Force. Two public events is interesting, but it still could be noise. Then we had the NYTIMES article and then Trump's son asking him about aliens during a campaign father's day interview. At that point, there was something to this. Then, my mind starts asking questions. Take the emotional reaction out of this. It doesn't matter if  I don't want aliens or I do want aliens.

    Now, we have the Israeli interview and part of the Covid Relief bill is a 180 day deadline for information on aliens. Could they be preparing us for something? I remember listening to a campaign speech from George W. Bush during the 2000 election. Seemingly out of the blue he mentions Iraq. I remember thinking how strange to hear about Iraq. What was that all about?

     

    On a completely different note, at some point during his first four years as president, I had seen enough. I decided that everyone in my family and beyond was going to get a copy of 1984 for Christmas. I went to my local book store in Central Vermont and ordered 12 copies of 1984. Free gift wrapping was included. When I arrived to pick up the books. The clerk handed over 1 large rectangular present. I mean, I know I'm a little off, but I'm not crazy enough to give 12 copies of 1984 to one person.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 8:12pm

    #5
    MGRS

    MGRS

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 28 2013

    Posts: 125

    8

    Collum makes my happy new year

    Hearing Collum banter with Chris is pretty much my favorite thing to close out the year.  Wish we got more of it throughout the year, or maybe just a bigger dose at year end.   I could listen to this for days.

    Happy new year, all!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 8:47pm

    #6
    sticknjrgj

    sticknjrgj

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 1

    7

    Ugh

    Wow, what a shame. There's clearly some nuggets of quality information here, but you just can't ignore this guy pushing pizzagate/qanon propaganda, pushing anti-masker propaganda, being a bootlicker, being a climate-denier, scoffing at the idea of owning cryptocurrencies, pushing anti-vaxxer propaganda, oh and of COURSE Bill Gates is the Devil as well. I really wish it was possible to find quality information without having to wade through all this vomitous right wing excrement to get to it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 9:10pm

    #7
    RocketDoc

    RocketDoc

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 28 2013

    Posts: 32

    3

    Austerity

    Frankly I can do austerity(not poverty) and recommended it at a think tank in DC in 1978.  India had a pc income of $200/yr, and Mexico $2,000/yr. and the USA (and Europe) $20,000. It would have to be a roughly egalitarian, small is beautiful, limits to growth set of solutions over the next 50 years that would permit some semblance of justice for an international system, not growth. The Great Reset is merely the improved messaging for that effort. Back then we needed plenty of innovation and increases in productivity and greater efficiency to deliver sustainability.  The USSR was a staggering dinosaur and a country no one wanted to live in so we needed LESS, not more, military spending.  Our leadership was selfish then  and they are being selfish now as they look for solutions that maintain their control and privilege.  Leaders should  share the work and the experiences of the people they lead or they are oppressors and should be removed. They are trying to make an unworkable system work.  If we don't want to talk about citizen engagement or the politics of revolution then we need to get busy in our garden....I am very grateful for Chris' herculean efforts at doing both.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 9:38pm

    #8
    wannabe_cantillionaire

    wannabe_cantillionaire

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2020

    Posts: 24

    4

    wannabe_cantillionaire said:

    Outstanding interview Chris, asked all the right questions and made many excellent points. Thank you so much Chris and Dave for putting this together and being so generous with the knowledge share!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 9:57pm

    #9
    David Henry

    David Henry

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Sep 20 2019

    Posts: 89

    0

    buffering problems

    Video plays (kind of)  but stops every 20 second to buffer. Will try again later.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 10:12pm

    #10
    Redneck Engineer

    Redneck Engineer

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Mar 16 2020

    Posts: 162

    1

    high five

    Great discussion to wrap up this dumpster fire of a year.

    2020 in a nutshell: https://youtu.be/qmb5ENInqVk

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 10:36pm

    slivergod

    slivergod

    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 1

    12

    slivergod said:

    He didn't mention pizzagate or Qanon once though? You are just making stuff up to slander this dude, at least use valid criticisms.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 30, 2020 - 11:47pm

    #12
    Bomber

    Bomber

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 2

    2

    What if?

    Hi Chris. Have you looked at the double dynamo modeling of the sun done be Professor Valitina Zhorkova. She has claimed for sometime that 2020 solar cycle 25,26 are going to be the Eddy Solar Minimum. That because of reduction in the length of growing season and movement in growing zones because of reduction of solar forcing on the magnosphere will allow the jet streams to wonder resulting in a global famine of be the year 2028 80% of countries will only be producing 40% of the food of today. Then in solar cycle 26 after 2030 is when it is going to get really bad.

    So ask you the question why did the university of Queensland vaccine make people test positive for HIV. What will this virus and the vaccine do to our immune systems.

    Why is Dr Gates own nearly every patent in Solar Radiation Management, Dimming the sun with stratospheric sulfides deposits. What is his intentions.

    Why are these oligarchs so heavely invested in synthetic protein technology like they are waiting for a gaint pay day. What is it they know that we do not.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 12:48am

    #13

    Afridev

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 11 2013

    Posts: 156

    5

    On 'Build back better'

    Just some background. 'Build back better' has been around for a while. The slogan appeared in the Disaster Risk Reduction/ Resilience 'sector' of humanitarian work. I encountered it around 2010.

    The idea behind it was to, if something came down because of a shock/ disaster, not restore it to how it was before (and maintain/ restore the same vulnerabilities), ensure that what is restored is able to better withstand shocks/ disaster/ disruption. That approach does make a lot of sense...

    Some background under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Back_Better

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 1:20am

    #14
    miller

    miller

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 03 2019

    Posts: 1

    10

    miller said:

    I don't always know why I comment, since I have no idea if anyone will read it. But I've been trying to convey to people the core of the problem, as I see it. The question is not what kinds of problems we have. In many cases, it's not even necessarily a question of convincing enough people to agree about what the problems are. The greater question, in my opinion, is how to coordinate. A tricky question, considering Americans don't hardly ever go outside. And even if they do, it's just to shop or eat at a restaurant. So I've been trying to convince people that the most important thing is to get enough Americans in the same place at the same time and agree about things that need to change, and actually make changes. So I've tried to advocate meeting in parking lots, which would enable a critical mass of people to coordinate. Sure, it's winter right now, so it's a little bit of a tall order at the moment, but I've tried to push this idea. I think I've even had limited success. We can complain all we want about all the myriad problems in our country, but nothing gets solved if you're just yelling at your television or your radio. You need to get outside and meet people in person. NOTHING will change if we don't solve that particular problem, absolutely NOTHING.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 2:45am

    #15
    RandomMike

    RandomMike

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2020

    Posts: 194

    2

    If you impede the water flowing in a stream

    with rocks, by the end of the day, there will be less water that flowed downstream than if the rocks were not there. It's called a dam, it makes a lake behind directly related to how much the dam has impeded the flow.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 2:54am

    David McKenney

    David McKenney

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 25 2020

    Posts: 99

    6

    Kicking the can

    ...and eventually ALL the water flows down the stream.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 3:41am

    #17
    Robert Lowe

    Robert Lowe

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 31 2020

    Posts: 2

    1

    Asimov on exponential growth

    One of the best short pieces on exponential growth is Isaac Asimov's "The End".  Published in Penthouse in 1971.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 3:46am

    #18
    Robert Lowe

    Robert Lowe

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 31 2020

    Posts: 2

    0

    Asimov on Climate Change

    Asimov also published on Climate Change. The villain in the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NiWM5lxL1mkJ:climatestate.com/2018/08/25/the-villain-in-the-atmosphere-by-isaac-asimov/+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari
    It is old, but captures the main points.  You might both find it worth a read.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 3:48am

    whoknew79

    whoknew79

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 17 2011

    Posts: 44

    19

    whoknew79 said:

    I used be caught up in the left/right divide.  I used to consider myself a progressive, which is very left. It wasn't until the 2016 election when the democrats nominated Clinton that everything broke loose for me; I knew enough not to vote for Hillary. Since then, it has been truly eye opening. When you watch your team from the outside, you see things that you never would have seen if you were in the huddle.

    If you are interested in truth...

    if you don't want your emotions clouding your rational mind...

    if you are comfortable with being completely wrong on a topic because you know that realizing that you are wrong means that you are getting closer to the truth...

    then   step away from the political game. Get your chips off the table. Watch. Watch both sides. Neither one is good and neither one is bad. Be careful of your source of information.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 3:51am

    #20
    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 580

    11

    Only rob the banks; that's where the money is

    @planfortomorrow said:

    What I will be stuck on for a while is how are they going to take the Great Reset world wide.

    It's not clear to me they need to, or plan to; at least, not directly. I notice that it's the First World, the Western World, that's in the cross-hairs. We are the countries that can't seem to get a handle on the "pandemic" despite having the better medical resources and regimes. Second and Third World countries seem to have figured it all out and are functioning much more effectively on the triple measures of incident control, treatment protocols and hospitalization rates, and economic continuity.

    If I were conspiratorial, I might think the WEF bigwigs are only interested in controlling the countries where the money and technology is located; not so much the less developed and less wealthy lands. We need to feel the "pandemic" so we accept the Reset. If the bigwigs control the North and West, they control the lion's share of the world's assets, and can live high on the hog without needing to try to manage the entire globe.

    In addition, whoever controls the North and the West exerts incredible power, which can  be used - as the USD and US military is now - to coerce the poorer, weaker countries into suitable compliance without exerting direct control.

    Keep costs down to keep profits up. It's not personal; it's just business.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 4:02am

    whoknew79

    whoknew79

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 17 2011

    Posts: 44

    3

    Masks

    The other day, my wife and I drove to the bank. As we were getting ready to go in, I realized that I had forgotten my n95 mask at home. She lent me an extra cloth mask that she had. The same type that almost everyone wears. That was the first time that I had worn one of those.  No wonder people say that masks don't work. Wearing that thing was a joke. I can't imagine that thing protecting me in any meaningful way. I'll stick to the n95.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 7:41am

    permiegirl

    permiegirl

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 01 2020

    Posts: 16

    11

    Miller said: You're absolutely correct!

    I completely agree with your assessment about making any meaningful changes.  I don't think it's by accident that modern life promotes a lack of community.  Can't help thinking that when radio and TV became popular they didn't sugar-coat what they were doing and called what you listened to/watched "programming".  Perfect storm of isolating people and brainwashing.  And current media has brought that to a whole new level.  We've lost the ability to meet up, discuss, and act meaningfully about just about anything.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 8:15am

    #23
    macro2682

    macro2682

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2009

    Posts: 388

    1

    Question for Chris re: Johns Hopkins Report

    Chris,

    The Johns Hopkins student report which you referenced was redacted by the university due to inaccuracies.  My wife shared that with a heavy eye roll after I showed the report to her.

    Were the students wrong?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 8:35am

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    2

    ugh, ugh

    Perhaps check out the "All the news that's fit to print" New York Times or ABC News.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 8:53am

    sand_puppy

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2736

    19

    Redacted Johns Hopkins Report

    Hi macro2682

    My understanding is that the article in the John Hopkin's school paper was by a student, but the seminar that was being reported on was presented by a professor to faculty and students.  Thus the research and presentation itself was not "by a student."

    About 3-4 weeks ago a discussion (VTGothic) and video link (mememonkey) were posted here and several of us listened to the original professor's hour long lecture and saw the graphs and followed the source links back to the CDC website source documents.  (Sorry I don't have the link)

    The article may have been removed from the John Hopkin's school newspaper, but the professors presentation and conclusions themselves seemed very well documented.

    The conclusions:  Total deaths were not increased during the pandemic.  Deaths listed as being due to non-COVID causes (heart disease for example) were decreased.

    This is compatible to the observations by richcabot posted yesterday about the Oregon state death number in the year 2020 being consistent with past years total death rates.  Despite the pandemic, total death rates in Oregon were stable year-on-year.

    So:

    1)   it was not a students presentation, and,

    2)  it was not redacted due to inaccuracies.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 9:39am

    #26
    French connexion

    French connexion

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 26 2020

    Posts: 252

    4

    Thank you and Happy New Year

    Wow  That was like going to the movies. Great entertainment.

    Energy, producing wealth, rigged markets - something, in your content, for everyone.

    Surprisingly you didn't talk about the American elections - or maybe I missed it. Although you did a great job discussing how difficult it is to discern what exactly is happening - with the intelligence of not giving your own conclusions.

    The Great Reset - I have often though it was something Jim Sinclair started - as in a post Bretton Woods World - now with the Build Back Better (Creative Destruction) maybe the Great Reset is something to genuinely fear? But that is why I like this site - open minds beat autocratic simplistics.

    We watched The Grapes of Wrath last night. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 10:38am

    #27

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    8

    Climate Change

    Dave - You're pissing me off with your opinion on climate change.

    If you're in your chemistry lab and your pouring shit into a flask, and you don't know what it will do, then stop pouring until you do know.

    We are on track to possibly lose all arctic sea ice by the September low within a decade.

    Here's a quick list that could happen: (or I mean, is already happening)

      • Loss of sea ice in the arctic → broken up jet stream, seasonal patterns
      • Long periods of either heat waves and droughts, or cool and monsoon like rains
      • Collapse in industrial farming → mass starvation
      • Unstable polar vortex → arctic blasts, vortex shifts over Greenland
      • Accelerated Greenland and Antarctic ice melt → Sea level rise → mass migrations
      • Drought, heat waves, whole regions going arid → Mega fires → mass migrations
      • Mega storms, mega flooding → insurance system collapse, local economies that do not recover, mass migrations.
      • Wet bulb conditions near the equator → mass migrations north
      • Locals will resist mass migrations → open conflicts possible
      • Chaos and global civilization break down

    You know this math:

    If we heat the ice:
    Q=mLf → 1.0kg * 334kJ/g
    334kJ is the energy needed to melt a kilogram of ice
    No temperature change!

    For the same energy and same 1 kg of liquid water:
    Q = mC(T2-T1) → 334kJ = 1.0kg * 4182J/kgºC * dT
    dT = change in Temp = 79.8ºC
    Big temperature change!

    Here is what do we know about climate:

    • Basically the last 100 years, no significant temperature change.  We’ve been melting the ice.
    • After sea ice melts…  well the math says things heat up quickly.
    • Our climate system is very complicated.
    • Fossil fuel burning dumps ~35 billion tons of C02 per year into the atmosphere, about 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere (Source: EIA)
    • Pre industrial C02 levels were <300 ppm.  Currently C02 ppm is at ~415 and climbing.
    • 90% of the extra heat is going into deep oceans and melting the poles.
    • The polar regions are warming rapidly.
    • Melting permafrost is set to double the total amount of CO2 humans have released.
    • CO2 levels are causing ocean acidification and changing the chemistry of the enter system.
    • Sources:

    My opinion:

    • Many people have chosen to believe climate change is not a man made problem, or it’s just too complex.
    • Can they prove things will turn out just fine, Nope!
    • If I’m in a hole, shouldn’t I stop digging first?
    • If we mess this up, there is no Planet B.
    • My vote, those same people can be sent to experiment on different planet.

    -Travis

    Travis: Before you get pissed off you might try reading what I wrote about it last year. I dug pretty deep into the subject and what I found were profound conflicts, enormous fraud, and inexcusable lies by both activists AND scientists. If it is real and a crisis, they have blown it badly because they lost me. Three years ago, I was a believer. I am not now a believer. It was quite a lot of work to figure out the problems. I am not alone. Prominent scientists are denouncing it as hoax. Those who say no credible scientists would sign off on denial is one of the big lies. Read my that section of my Year in Review from last year and torch it if you wish.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 10:42am

    #28
    proff_chaos

    proff_chaos

    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 14 2020

    Posts: 1

    3

    Time Well Spent

    Thank you guys, fantastic discussion. *Another great yearly review by the Professor as well. Thank you both, and all the best for 2021.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:07am

    odaydrums

    odaydrums

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 31 2020

    Posts: 2

    2

    CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!

    If you want to really care about climate change please check the Grand Solar Minimum

    History is your teacher

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:07am

    David Collum

    David Collum

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 24 2008

    Posts: 28

    7

    It is healthy

    to write down your thoughts, and I read it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:11am

    odaydrums

    odaydrums

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 31 2020

    Posts: 2

    0

    wont play

    mine is very laggy and keep getting the buffer wheel I think it might be Chrome and their OS most likely the cookies that Google love soooo much track track track

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:16am

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    4

    travissidelinger said:

    I have.  Solar forcing does effect climate.  But it's a small factor.  CO2 is the elephant in the room.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:24am

    #33

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    5

    Grand Solar Minimum

    So for those out there focusing on the grand solar minimum, please explain this.  If the sun has been dimming, then why have we not seeing more ice formation for the last 50 years, when instead we have seen just the opposite?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:36am

    richcabot

    richcabot

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 05 2011

    Posts: 285

    3

    Disappearance Of Flu

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2020/12/30/mysterious-disappearance-of-flu-in-san-diego-prompted-call-for-audit-of-covid-records/#more-230936

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:39am

    #35
    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 580

    5

    Re: Johns Hopkins Report

    @macro2682 wrote (comment #24):

    Chris,

    The Johns Hopkins student report which you referenced was redacted by the university due to inaccuracies.  My wife shared that with a heavy eye roll after I showed the report to her.

    Were the students wrong?

    @sand_puppy replied (comment #26):

    About 3-4 weeks ago a discussion (VTGothic) and video link (mememonkey) were posted here and several of us listened to the original professor's hour long lecture and saw the graphs and followed the source links back to the CDC website source documents.  (Sorry I don't have the link)

    Thanks, for remembering sand_puppy.

    @macro2682: Here is the link to the PP discussion sand_puppy referenced that I started: https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/zero-excess-deaths-from-covid-in-u-s/ . For the record, several days after Johns Hopkins censored the article from the student newspaper, they re-released it under accusations of censorship. Dr. Briand reaffirmed the accuracy of her work.

    Here is the video presentation by Dr. Genevieve Briand of Johns Hopkins (also linked in comment #22, by mememonkey, in the above linked PP discussion). It is worth watching and evaluating for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TKJN61aflI&feature=emb_logo

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 3:51pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    3

    Azimov in Penthouse

    I tried to read that article but got distracted.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 6:07pm

    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 398

    8

    climate change

    Travis, your detailed comment made much logical sense to me.  So I looked at last year's World in Review, which also contains great detail and good arguments.

    I think that the crux of this matter is that climate change has been hijacked by political actors (including many so-called scientists) for their own purposes.  As usual.

    Anything important, including man made changes to climate (which I think all agree is happening, at least to some extent no matter how small or large) is mangled by political advantage takers.  MOST of the information deluge brought to us from the internet is partisan.  As usual.   Dave Collum's very extensive commentary on this last year 2019 describes his frustrations with the takeover of science by the majority of people who look at "science" as merely another tool for money, power or control (my interpretation- I am not quoting him here.....).

    Here is a quote from him, however: Sincere climate scientists deserve our sympathy. The serious ones are trying to get it right despite being surrounded by a cacophony of intellectual goulash. Stepping out of line—contesting any aspect of the climate change story—risks serious pain and suffering. Science has become a political football. Signing off on climate change immunizes you from criticism, but tripwires are everywhere. Science is hard enough to get right under the best of circumstances, let alone when barraged with conflicts. I doubt I could negotiate these waters.

    I note here that all science theories are wrong and 'science' is a never ending quest to improve our understanding of the universe.  Most science discussions are packed with copious, extreme disagreements, which are necessary, and a good scientist will simply change his mind with better data.  If the discussion lacks serious disagreement, such discussion is not a scientific one but instead a political one.  So grab your flag and enter the battle!  As for me, I am walking away.

    Presenting a large verbal expression/challenge of the subject matter "Man made global warming (or climate change), true or false!!!" as a discussion topic only serves banal selfish needs of the utterer and doesnt advance anything.

    Dave Collum stated 2 years ago that "“If I had to bet a paycheck, I would bet anthropogenic global warming is real. If I had to bet ten paychecks, I would bet that we are going to do the experiment despite the best intentions of those who worry.”

    I think that we can all agree with that.....

    last year he said that

    Sucking carbon-sequestered fossil fuels from the ground and burning them will, necessarily, alter the CO2 cycle. The climate is always changing and sea levels rise and fall, but both appear to be on the rise to varying degrees and depending on the time frame (20 versus 20,000 years). Humans have also been beating the crap out of the flora and fauna ever since we formed our first mobs and satisfied our Quest for Fire. Critters in our way adapted or died. This blue orb of ours has finite resources, and, as physicist Albert Bartlett would say,… “’Sustainable growth’ is an oxymoron”

    For most people (myself included) trying to understand even a tiny narrow view of any science topic requires a lengthy full time long endeavor.   Reality is like that.  With this in context it seems like a reasonable strategy to sit back and examine the non-objectivity of certain actors in this new political arena.  They are doing the work for us and we have to discern truth by how they do it.  Thus pointing out deceitful actions by "scientists" has value.

    I agree with Dave's 2018 comment on this subject.  I expect my descendants to migrate north (maybe mountains in Hokkaido) and perhaps long term descendants to migrate to Antarctica.  My ancestors faced such migrations and did well.  Big freaking deal.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 7:16pm

    #38
    Netlej

    Netlej

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 09 2020

    Posts: 119

    5

    AGW

    I stopped watching after his comment on climate change, "I'm not buying it". Well its not for sale so that is an ignorant statement. Climate change is an ongoing scientific study that began 200 years ago when experiments were done in a lab proving CO2 increases global temps. Climate change is also not a belief system any more than gravity is. Yes CC is as real as gravity, deal with it.

    Everything single activity humans engage in generates a waste stream, even dealing with all of our waste streams generated waste streams. You are right to say we have been hammering the environment. You just seem ignorant of the ramifications. We are killing off everything on the planet including habitat for humans and of that effort AGW is by far the biggest. The rate at which allllll of this is happening is an order of magnitude faster than ever before in the history of the planet. This is the factor that most dismiss but is spells disaster for all life on the planet.

    Scary I know. So go find your "scientist" friends who will tell you that it just isn't so so you can sleep easy.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 8:05pm

    David Collum

    David Collum

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 24 2008

    Posts: 28

    13

    David Collum said:

    The climate-industrial complex is upwards of a trillion dollars per year conflict of interest. If climate change proves to be a flawed theory, it all goes away. When you mix politics and science you get politics. The climate change debate has become hopelessly polluted. Declaring that not to be true serves no purpose.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 8:32pm

    #40
    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 398

    12

    climate change has a sales price

    Thanks, I was just about to say that.  As an IP attorney dealing with some new projects over 15 years ago I noticed that international bankers (starting with Lord Rothschild- I am not making this up) decided to make money by creating a global carbon trading system, wherein they would skim and get something from every human on the planet.  Some of us thought that this was a better alternative to large wars that the bankers were financing both sides of.  No more war! Just global control.

    Climate change is the biggest set of financial transactions out there.  I would like to see someone with knowledge opine on how climate change may  be the monetary justification for destroying the US economy.  I really think that this question/financial consideration will come up as a major topic in Davos.

    I could go on but do not have a dog in this fight.  I watched science get skewed by money/politics over the years while in academia, industry and then as a patent guy working only on the highest priced "intellectual" ideas.  Nixon set off a weird science stampede by suddenly allocating money for cancer research and tons of people with no relation with cancer or even biology were experts with meritorious research. George Bush set off weird science with head fake "fuel cells!" research funding that was going to solve the end of oil crisis.
    People dont realize that most "science" is broken ideas that get abandoned.   Einstein had so many crackpot ideas after winning his nobel prize that younger physicists avoided him.  An industry ("science" has become an "industry" in America) that comprises mostly broken ideas that are sifted as modus operandi is ripe for political based sales.
    Everything is for sale buddy.  Even your waste streams, which are priced according to their effects on the environment.  What is that you say?   We're all gonna die?  OK take my wallet, my lifestyle, my country my future.  This high price is worth the sale.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 9:52pm

    #41
    LivFree

    LivFree

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2021

    Posts: 1

    3

    Year in Review followed and printed for years

    Disappointed Uncle Dave as I have always called you.  Although I have not read the review yet I see next to nothing on what’s really important and the most important issues 2020.

    The Plan for the Globalist, Deep State with CCP and the RINOS and Democrats with the World Economic Forum to use COVID to steel the election, usher in the Globalist agenda, reset the world economies, destroy small businesses and usher in the NWO.  From first glance I see nothing in Dave’s year in review 2020?

    stealing the Country’s election on the path to destroy Americans freedoms and the Constitution is what matter most.  To ignore it is willful ignorance or fear of man.

    LF

    upstate, NY

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:18pm

    #42
    David Henry

    David Henry

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Sep 20 2019

    Posts: 89

    7

    climate change as a US security threat?

    Travissidelinger--amazing summary of anthropogenic climate change. Personally I think it's probably years too late to avoid the worst effects, as self-reinforcing feedback loops are probably contributing more than we can offset right now (barring some miracle technology). I think we're on the Titantic at this point, but it's worth remembering that some people found life rafts and for those who didn't, going down with some dignity and maintaining politeness 'til the end was still better than the alternatives.

    So what if climate change is real, keeps getting worse and someone just happens to mention that the country that has historically produced the greatest greenhouse emissions and also one of the few to leave the Paris Climate Treaty is .... the US.

    I read about huge anti-US protests in Pakistan a while back because the country was flooded. Huh? I didn't get it at first. Imagine you're dirt poor, flooded out of your house, and it's happening worse and more frequently. And imagine maybe your local government blames the US beyond what they can strictly prove because it directs anger away from themselves. I don't think we have to imagine this. It's happening with increasing frequency, even if it's not reported in the US news at all.

    I think in the 5 to 10 year time frame we have serious risk of achieving vague pariah status as the world struggles with the increasingly severe effects of climate change, seeks to find funding to deal with the problem, and we respond by telling the world "tough luck." It is already generating tremendous ill-will towards the US and it has at least the possibility of catalyzing into an acute change in how the US is perceived by the rest of the world, impacting our security and standing.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:18pm

    #43
    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 802

    5

    AGW red pill

    An older friend of mine was married to an atmospheric physicist, years ago. He began sounding the alarm about AGW in the seventies, long before the idea gained traction in the mainstream, by at least a decade.

    So, yes, some science is bunk, particularly when it is based on more ephemeral subjects, but measuring carbon concentration in the atmosphere against rising global temps is clear cut. It's a problem. As far as politics having an outsized effect on science, so does private industry, like Big Oil.

    The oil lobby is still involved in muddying the waters, but is losing out to political interests that want to skim money off of carbon tax and trading systems. This doesn't mean that climate change is not the biggest problem we face. It just means that powerful interests regard every reality through the lens of generating profit.

    But Dave mentioned that the AGW debate literally sucks all the oxygen out of the room when it comes to environmental issues. We should be equally concerned with mechanical displacement of species, plastics, etc..etc...

    We can volunteer to take the environmental red pill by cutting back our consumption, or continue the way we have been living and be forced to eventually take it suppository style. Sorry, that's rude, but I think it's appropriate.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:35pm

    #44

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    10

    Climate Change

    Is there politics in climate science?  Is there self interest in funded projects?  Sure, how could there not be?  This is no different than what people do everywhere else.  I work at a largest research company, yup it happens every day.

    So what do you do?  Same as everything else.  You have to understand enough of the science to know when you are seeing bullshit or not.  Could they fake or skew their data?  Sure, that's why we peer review studies and have separate teams reproduce the findings.

    I am certainly not going to say I'm an expert on climate science.  But I've seen enough to understand there are some really bad things that could go wrong.  Do we know for sure what will happen, certainly not.  Do we know enough at this point to recommend a full stop while we study this further.  Absolutely!

    Should we keep selling toys with lead paint while we debate the science in court for 2 years.  No, you stop selling the toys.

    You want to go into the lab and experiment with chemicals.  Maybe you quietly do that for a while.  As soon as the owner of the building finds out you could potentially kill everyone.. full stop.  What are you doing and let's make sure it's 100% safe before you continue.

    What we didn't do 50 years ago when we first started to really ask these questions, the climate was full stop.

    35 millions tons of CO2 release per year is a huge fucking number (sorry for the language).  That's ~1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere per year.  And that does not include all the CO2 released from deforestation, soil degradation, cow farts, people's mouths, etc.

    Source: https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/other-statistics/emissions-by-fuel

    Yes, this case is special in that if we fully stop fossil fuels, there will be some economic pain to say the least.  But we should at least stop growing.  Let's at least ground all planes and all non-necessary releases of CO2.  Let's stop cutting down forests.  Let's prioritize nuclear power plants.  Farmers have to be part of the solution.  Listen to one of Gabe Brown's talks.  At worst leave the soil alone and carbon content goes up.  Will it get very political.  Will it be a shit show is like asking if humans are involved.  Absolutely.  I agree with Chris.  We come out and say, "We screwed up and here is our national plan.  CO2 ppm has to start reversing, and we can't let the arctic melt.  We have to do the right thing starting now, even if all our neighbors are not.  And we will hold our neighbors accountable.  We need everyone who can to start growing gardens and sequestering CO2"  If we can shutdown over covid, then we can certainly do the same over the air we breath.

    When it comes to prepping, I can prep for peak oil, I can prep for a virus, I can prep for zombies and mayhem.  What I cannot prep my family for is a climate that says "you get to be a new refugee every two years".

    Daves' comments on... it will be gradual and we can simply move farming north.  Well maybe some farming can move, but then maybe not.  What if it simply rains for 6 months straight and then turns 120F with zero rain for the next 6 months.  Or what if we get erratic severe weather where it's 120F with fire one day and only then to down poor with 80 mile/hr winds with hail the next day.  The current breadbaskets of the planet are so because they have the best soil and they fall within just the right weather patterns.  Those don't just migrate and feed 7.8 billion over night.  If we had only 100 million humans on the planet, we could probably manage some difficult climate conditions.  With about 7.8 billion and climbing, we do not have very good options.  Let's ask Adam, those fires were slow moving, right?  Let's ask Galveston Tx, it was just slow moving rain, right?  Let's ask residents in Australia, can't you just grow wheat in a different location?

    In climate science there has been a lot of study around tipping points.  The melting of the arctic is one of those tipping points.  And many others exist.  The climate system is really complicated.  A lot of things can go horribly wrong, and you can't just go "oops" and undo it.  Also we need to include there, has the planet ever had this much C02 released in such a short time?  Not that we know of.  On a climate scale, we are dumping C02 way too fast.  Stupidly too fast.

    Thus, I caution Dave and many that also think like him, that is very naive thinking.  Farmers can do a lot, but there are breaking points and limits.  Ecosystem have breaking point.  Trees, plants, and animals that have existed for a thousand years can't always just move.

    I personally love science.  Experimentation is awesome.  Mass large scale atmospheric experimentation on our only planet.  Nope, not okay with that.  People like me that are saying "hold on, time out here" are the sane ones.  The rest of you are dangeriously crazy.

    -Travis

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:35pm

    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 802

    0

    Livfree

    "The Plan for the Globalist, Deep State with CCP and the RINOS and Democrats with the World Economic Forum to use COVID to steel the election, usher in the Globalist agenda, reset the world economies, destroy small businesses and usher in the NWO. From first glance I see nothing in Dave’s year in review 2020?

    stealing the Country’s election on the path to destroy Americans freedoms and the Constitution is what matter most. To ignore it is willful ignorance or fear of man."

    Man, there is a lot to unpack there. What if, when the pandemic is finally over, the U.S revitalizes under a green strategy that ends up employing millions of people in jobs that pay relatively well?  Restaurants will reopen, manufacturing will ramp up and things may improve.

    When someone says, "globalism" I am never sure exactly what they mean. To some people globalism means more job loss, I guess--but under the rubric of the Paris accords, it could benefit many, while protecting small business.

    Livfree, things might just get better and you may find you have less of some kinds of freedom, but more freedom of a different kind.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 31, 2020 - 11:49pm

    #46

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    6

    Great Interview

    Just wanted to say, Sorry Dave I'm hammering you on the climate point.  The rest of your conversation with Chris and year in review is awesome.  Please keep up the great  work.

    -Travis

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 5:23am

    fredrieksen

    fredrieksen

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 2

    5

    Pro-Climate Change Agenda Makes no sense to me

    Yeah I get it - Scientists could be getting paid to make climate change look worse than it is... BUT then you have to look at the other side - I bet there's a HEAP more money in making climate change look less bad than it is. If a scientist was all about the money then they' make a lot more from established industries who can continue to make money by spewing CO2 into the atmosphere than they could get from industries that stand to make money in the future from slowing climate change. I get that there may be some fuzziness on either side but this idea that scientists are falsifying data for money and dramatically skewing the data towards a pro-climate change agenda, when they could made multiple times more money on the other side is preposterous. And then there is the models that are widely used and are being shown to have under-predicted the rise in temperatures vs actual data. So that idea doesn't make logical sense and the models back that up.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 5:26am

    #48
    fredrieksen

    fredrieksen

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 2

    0

    Where is CDC data on 3% Negative Outcomes on Vaccines

    Hi Chris - At 1:15:45 there is a discussion about adverse outcomes for the vaccines - can you please link that somewhere - I had a look - couldn't find it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 7:07am

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    6

    travissidelinger said:

    This came from Paul Beckwith, so don't quote me on this.

    Most of these climate research is done by passionate people that care very much about the quality of their work.  Just like everyone else, their reputations are on the line too.  Many of them complete a study and go "Here is the data and what this means".  And their funders then go "Oh my, we can't say that".  So they go back and cherry pick the data to produce a conclusion that is a little more "acceptable".  They then they take their findings to government officials where the politicians then say "Oh my, we can't say that".  Again the scientists needs to go back and "adjust their findings".  When a study concludes with there will be a 2 degree temperature rise by this date, the original draft release said "Entire continents burn" (I'm exaggerating there, a little).  At the core of climate research scientists are scared shitless, depressed, and demoralized.  They see the climate changes up front and know better then any of us what those changes mean.

    -Travis

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 8:34am

    Netlej

    Netlej

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 09 2020

    Posts: 119

    0

    Netlej said:

    Dave - That is a condemnation of capitalism, not of climate change. So by your logic if too much money is spent on something it becomes null and void?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 9:18am

    #51

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 363

    3

    Don't you know that for you and for me the world is a ghetto

    You must leave now. Take what you need, you think will last,but whatever you wish to keep, you better grab it fast. Yonder stands your orphan with his gun crying like a fire in the sun. Look out, the saints are coming through and it's all over now, Baby Blue.

    The highway is for gamblers, better use your sense. Take what you have gathered from coincidence. The empty handed painter from your streets is drawing crazy patterns on your sheets. The sky, too, is folding under you. All your seasick sailors, they are rowing home, all your reindeer armies are all going home, your lover who just walked out the door has taken all the blankets from the floor. The carpet, too, is moving under you.

    Leave your stepping stones behind. There's something that calls for you, forget the dead you've left they will not follow you. The vagabond who's rapping at your door is standing in the clothes that you once wore. Strike another match, go start anew and it's all over now, Baby Blue.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 9:36am

    #52
    T-Storm

    T-Storm

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jul 11 2020

    Posts: 7

    0

    Taxation is the ultimate goal

    Thank you Dave and Chris for the brilliant enlightenment time and time again.

    Specifically, Dave’s point about governments not being able to easily tax during deflationary episodes nailed it 1000%!!! The Fed is in bed with the government so it makes sense that their twisted policies are intended to create jobs for the sheeple slaves (so they can pay taxes) and also raise asset prices (that can be taxed for capital gains). The government exists to take from its servants. Then the tax revenues are used to strengthen their military force to keep the sheeples behaving and working and not acting out. The inflationary depression is guaranteed at this point for the desperate central planners, banksters and government officials.  Kaboom, the crack up boom is much closer now. Got gold? The fiat green paper money is mortally wounded. Gotta keep taxing the servants which can only be maintained with inflation.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 10:43am

    #53
    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    10

    COVID/2020 humor

     

    https://mcusercontent.com/2c458e6492c4924a16891bf22/images/819846cd-7f98-4422-a0ce-3fdbb7f30b87.jpg

    https://mcusercontent.com/2c458e6492c4924a16891bf22/images/5ab8c8b8-a068-440a-9f48-16cad0da9313.jpg

    https://mcusercontent.com/2c458e6492c4924a16891bf22/images/987eb12a-2524-4cae-98ed-a142c8c0a344.jpg

    https://mcusercontent.com/2c458e6492c4924a16891bf22/images/bd601155-740c-4204-b74f-4a9a1b826f89.jpg

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 10:54am

    Don Task

    Don Task

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2021

    Posts: 2

    0

    Don Task said:

    It disappoints me that Chris has built a great reputation on sound data and yet, when this CV Hoax has been completely exposed by Pulitzer winning journalist Jon Rappaport of nomorefakenews.com.  John shows how the CDC, Canada's health ministry, Britain's health service and now 40 countries have admitted under FOIA requests that CV has not been identified or isolated in ANY LAB!

    https://nomorefakenews.com/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 10:59am

    Don Task

    Don Task

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2021

    Posts: 2

    0

    Don Task said:

    Are you aware that Pulitzer winning journalist Jon Rappaport has blown many holes in this CV hoax?  To date, the CDC, Gov of Canada and Britain and now 40 other countries have admitted they have not isolated any CV virus due to FOIA requests?

    https://nomorefakenews.com/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 12:37pm

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 363

    2

    000 said:

    Yes, but, we can appreciate the patients and professionalism that Chris demonstrates on how to not identify with any of the list you mention. I too had those feelings but if I have to listen to the penetration of these memes into society (information dynamics is my hobby) then this is the place I will invest the most valuable asset all of us have. TIME. drip, drip, drip... the stadium is emptying not filling, there will be no flood bursting, just the cold silent emptiness of space.

    It's just two humans trying to find the tiger in the grass before being eaten.

    How do to move forward? (memorize your seed phrase, maybe look into HEX)

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 1:29pm

    #57
    brushhog

    brushhog

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Oct 06 2015

    Posts: 412

    3

    The elites who brought us covid...

    Are now promising a "dark winter", whilst simultaneously claiming "Russians" are trying to hack the power grids;

    WARNING! Global Cyber Pandemic Ahead. Dark Winter Op

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 1:34pm

    Pipyman

    Pipyman

    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 24 2011

    Posts: 150

    1

    I get the scepticism Dave

    However, I live in the midlands in the uk. Until the freeze over the last few days I had apple blossoms and blackberry canes growing. With all due, I think I can see climate change (weirding?) with my own eyes. I would suggest you grow more...

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 2:40pm

    #59
    richcabot

    richcabot

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 05 2011

    Posts: 285

    2

    COVID killed the flu

    Carl DeMaio calls for audit of COVID-19 data; only 36 flu cases reported

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 3:39pm

    #60
    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 802

    1

    Of course covid killed the flu

    Masking and social distancing will do that. I plan to mask up next winter, covid or no, because I don't want to get hit with a few nasty flu bugs I got in 2015 2016 and 2017.

    If I remember correctly, covid is more infectious than the flu.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 4:46pm

    #61
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    2

    Here's Some Ideas

    !- Forget about Climate Change. It is a waste of time and energy. You can't do anything about it.

    2- Forget about the Fed. You can't do anything about it. The vast majority of Amerikaans have no idea what it is or what it does. This site has been railing about the fed for 13 years. Has it changed anything? So Mr. Collum you shook your head and said you don't understand why they do what they do. Well there is an old adage which I am sure you are a ware of, "follow the money" . If you do that you will see that the Fed creates the money and it invariably ends up in the same place.....the banks. Many (maybe even you ) believe you as an Amerikaan citizen are a constituent of the Fed. You are not. Nor am I. The Fed's constituency is the banks, specifically the big banks. The Fed is a private corporation. No one knows who owns them. I sure as shit don't , do you?. Many guesses around. No auditing by the people. I assume you are smart enough with enough experience to know all of this , so I am perplexed as to why you would have questions as to their actions. They create money for their owners and Wall St. Seems pretty obvious.

    If you don't understand the system or the mechanismit is difficult tostart even thinking of solutions. Clearly Ron Paul had an answer. Also clearly the Amerikaan people were too stupid to vote for him. The point being much of the things you are puzzled about have an answer. That answer lies in sound money. Sound money creates different  parameters fo decision making. Easy money presents the decision making we see today. Those decisions are a completely logical response to money that starts losing value from the moment it is created. The time preference of money fosters long term thinking and saving rather than speculation in the stock market. sound money also puts a damper on consumerism thus easing resource depletion. Thus we ended up with a consumer society , short on savings and rewarded banks and speculators.

    Now your rather dismissive attitude towards crypto currency certainly demonstrates two facts. First you know nothing about crypto or the reason for its existence nor do you have any interest in learning about it.  You offer nothing in terms of solutions and seem comfortable with living out your golden years complaining about the status quo. The status quo is the legacy system of easy money. It is no surprise since the legacy system was designed to buy the votes of the boomers and you and 5 generations of Amerikaans have no idea what it means to live in a sound money system.

    I posted this on the other thread but you might consider reading "The Bitcoin Standard " by Safiedean Ammous who happens to be an Austrian economist.

    Happy New Year and good luck in 2021

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 01, 2021 - 8:46pm

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    1

    travissidelinger said:

    I think most here would support a sound money system.  My preference is crypto backed with gold.  James Rickards has discussed this.  supposedly the Russions and Chinise are alreadying planning such a system.  Basically you run your day to day transactions on a blockchain.  At the end of the month, if there is a difference then you need to exchange real gold to settle the imbalances between countries.  And you know they will pick a blockchain where they can controll the creation of new units.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:14am

    #63
    Gerrit de Wit

    Gerrit de Wit

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 06 2020

    Posts: 20

    3

    Disappointed

    We are at Peak Prosperity to get different opinions and try to connect the dots. We respect Mr. Collums opinion, but we are not convinced that he is right. We are disappointed that Chris did not debate with him about the use of masks. Chris has been promoting wearing masks from the very beginning and Mr. Collum tells us it is useless. At that point Chris should have at least countered that opinion telling why he thinks it is better to wear a mask. Or has Chris changed opinion?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:34am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 580

    7

    We who?

    @Gerrit_de_Wit,

    Who is the disappointed "we"? I'm not included.

    Seems to me the point of bringing someone on to express a different opinion - which differences you champion - means letting them speak. I don't think it's incumbent on an interviewer to take exception with every (or any) point of disagreement; rather, I think it is incumbent on interviewers to draw out their guest's perspective so that we listeners can best understand the guest's views, that we might draw our own opinions and conclusions based on accurate information. To that end, I think there is value in asking clarifying questions, even if sometimes in the form of a challenge - but such challenges are not for the purpose of refuting, nor to covertly inform the loyal follower of the correct way to understand the issue, but simply to create an opportunity (when needed) for the guest to fully explain himself. If his view is clear, nothing needs be said; and nothing should be said - when the occasion is an interview rather than a debate.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 6:05am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    travis

    Please provide data to support your statement " I think most here would support a sound money system"

    Please state why you think crypto alone is not a sound money system.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 7:31am

    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 5684

    6

    Re: 3% adverse events

    Here ya go:

    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 10:53am

    #67
    VincitVeritas

    VincitVeritas

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 02 2020

    Posts: 19

    3

    Who is this guy!?

    Many thanks again to PP for introducing me to another great thinker (Dr. Collum).

    Though I tend to disagree with the legitimacy of the stock market (as I see it as a money laundering operation and contributes to adverse GINI index/ wealth gap through intentional, generational economic disparities), Dr Collum takes the words out of my mouth on many topics.

    Again, I really feel at home here, I just wish the comment/forum format was more conducive to debate and conversation.

    Dr. Collum, if you are reading this:

    Though all of this propaganda leads us through many intricate rabbit holes, this boils down to a very simple concept.  I have mentioned this on PP before.

    This behavior is rooted in a truth that is not up for debate, yet many argue as if it is: humans, at the most basic level, are innately evil.

    It is merely the nurture aspect of our experiences that teach us how to behave otherwise.  The development and amelioration of our frontal lobe.  Some, however, are not afforded this basic aspect of growth as some are developmentally impaired in the physiological sense (pathologies such as sociopathy/psychopathy, narcissism, machiavellianism or all three combined).  I am convinced these are traits shared by all who are in positions of power in the modern day.

    I dont believe it was always this way, but over time, they have slimed their way upwards through any means necessary.  Corruption growing like the exponential spread of an emerging infectious disease over the course of ~80 years.  During this time, we are seeing what happens when we reach carrying capacity of global systems to bear the burden of aberrant, under-developed, subhumans being at the helm.

    Unfortunately, this is a worrisome predicament as genuinely good people often do not naturally seek power over others.  Organically grown, benevolent, leaders often are the ones who have the guts to analyze their own situation and choose the best path - status quo be damned.  This is not and has not been happening.

    We (us plebs) are coming to similar conclusions across many schools of thought now, which is bringing me hope.  Next the most important step will not be discovery or revelation, but resolution.  We have witnessed a rise in profane, r-complex-driven control systems and hierarchy - how do we dismantle it and remedy it's shortcomings to prevent this from ever happening again?  This is not only a first-world, western question of importance, but has also become one of global importance.

    I have some answers.  I hope everyone else does too.

    Nature abhors a vacuum.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 11:44am

    wannabe_cantillionaire

    wannabe_cantillionaire

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2020

    Posts: 24

    2

    wannabe_cantillionaire said:

    At that point Chris should have at least countered that opinion telling why he thinks it is better to wear a mask

    Chris responded, accurately in my humble opinion, that wearing masks helped buy us more time which allowed us to collect more data about this disease and consequently discover more effective treatments. He also mentioned later in the interview that one of the first things he advised his viewers to do back in January was buy N95 masks.

    Overall, one of the greatest strengths of PP is the access to intelligent, curious minds who have the courage to share their heterodoxical opinions. I really enjoyed the format and it would be amazing to have more regular fireside chats like this between David and Chris. I got a kick out of the times Chris would start to reveal his thoughts on a subject and David would immediately interrupt and excitedly try to guess what Chris would say, stealing his thunder 😀 . And conversely the times when Chris would gently lead David to a potentially controversial subject and David would just dive right into it without a care in the world haha

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 12:31pm

    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 398

    4

    crypto alone is not a sound money system

    Precious metals were the most valuable things on the planet because everyone wanted them irrespective of any notions about money.  They did not acquire valuation via political statements, or by social media.  The same media forces that control the narrative about hydroxycloroquine and ivermectin and cause intelligent thoughtful people to denounce these chemical substances as worthless (or even poisonous) for use against a virus also drive the narrative about valuation of a crypto that is also unmoored from reality.  What will those media forces do to bitcoin when they want you to put your money and trust into their new fedcoin next year?  There are an infinite number of things in the universe that are limited (like the bitcoin crypto) but only social media makes them valuable.

    Sound money is created by wealth creators and linked to real wealth, and not valuated by social media statements.  Tulip bulbs were the main focus of social media  attention in the 1630s, of limited amount (like some of the cryptos such as bitcoin)  but unbacked by any real wealth.

    People who shoot their mouths off in media confuse their own noise with the production of wealth. They can verbally slobber and spit their snot all over the blogosphere and push up valuation of their currency, be it crypto alone, a stock ownership paper, or tulip.  That is not sound.

    Sound money is backed by the production of real wealth.  The real bills doctrine is a way to link real wealth production with a sound money system  but people at this forum are unwilling to discuss this at all.  This may be because it is so much easier to sit in an armchair by a warm fire and keyboard chit chat about how advanced someone is because they are in touch with the latest science, which will solve all of our problems via implementation of their smarty new advanced idea.  Because of crypto science, it truly "is different THIS time!"

    I suggest that old fashioned principles still apply and "it is not different this time" due to "Science!!!"   A sound money should be backed by acts (and not the verbal diarrhea of social media) of the wealth creators. Gold backing is a good start for giving meaning and valuation to a crypto but I prefer to see a deeper and richer backing from investments in food production, energy production, medical services etc.  Why not use our computers for that?  Oh, it does not support armchair keyboarding free shit for nothing, but requires serious work so you won't do it?

    The real goods doctrine can be combined with crypto to make a labor backed real money system.  We need to get off social media and get our hands back into the soil and into the workshop.  A backed crypto could help us learn to work again and stop all this media hyperventilation that keeps us away from creating wealth.  A money or crypto backed by nothing is merely part of the blue pill experience.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 1:54pm

    #70
    DrZaius

    DrZaius

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 15 2012

    Posts: 5

    6

    Mask Wearing Contradiction

    In this interview, David Collum claims that mask wearing makes NO difference to Covid transmission.

    This completely contradicts everything that Chris Martenson has reported on the subject!

    There needs to be further discussion and explanation of this discrepancy.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 1:56pm

    smah

    smah

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 29 2020

    Posts: 4

    1

    smah said:

    Hmm Collum.  Another dose of fascist speak.  His 2020 summary is clearly where his sympathies are : "The rise of neo-Marxism on college campuses and beyond had become palpable. The most contentious election in US history pitted the undeniably polarizing and irascible Donald Trump against the DNC A-Team including a 76-year-old showing early signs of dementia paired with a sassy neo-Marxist grifter with an undetectable moral compass."   He has got it so wrong: It is the extremist right wingers that are the ones taking over the college campuses, and the last description of a Neo-marxist VP-elect is totally ridiculous. Also 81 million voters judged Biden competent compared to Trump's 74Million. I suspect that FBI will soon monitor who is logging into this site if persons like Collum are expressing their extremist views.  I do enjoy Adam Taggart's blogs which why I decided to register.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 2:20pm

    north-of-the-border

    north-of-the-border

    Status: Member

    Joined: Oct 13 2011

    Posts: 23

    1

    It's all over now

    I thought of this song last week and immediately had to play it. It suits the mood of these times to a T.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 2:31pm

    #73
    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    1

    the answer?

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 2:38pm

    VincitVeritas

    VincitVeritas

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 02 2020

    Posts: 19

    3

    I disagree

    I find your statement about the alt-right/ far right taking over college campuses a bit suspect and ludicrous.  Do you have any evidence of this, or am I eating troll bait?

    Time to disconnect from NPR, FOX, and or CNN...

    You defend marxism, yet you invest?

    Global collectivism ruled by big govt. will be the dawn of a new dark age that humanity might never recover from.

    Do you really want that future?

    Look beyond the TDS and try to understand it was never about him, it was about the ideas.  That is why people rallied around him like their lives depended on it.  It wasn't their lives and opportunity for prosperity they were thinking of, it was their progeny's.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 2:45pm

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    4

    smah, thinly veiled threats about FBI lists don't hack it here

    I, for one, love Dave Collum's YIR, the truth of what he says, and the intelligence, wit, and humor with which he says it.  If speaking the truth or supporting one who speaks the truth puts me on a list, well so be it.  Just remember.  Those lists can work both ways.  Stalin's "useful idiots" learned that lesson the hard way. 

    FWIW, I've been on a list for years.  I consider it a badge of honor.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 3:14pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    0

    Sorry Mots

    As Reagan said "there you go again" Yes gold has been used as money for millennia , but not all over the planet.  The myth extant here on PP is that , gold is the only "real money ever on the planet. Gold has value because people assign value to it. it has value because of its scarcity . Gold has value because of the energy input to extract it.

    Well duh Mots. All of those apply in spades to BTC. As a matter of fact the stock to flow model proves that BTC is more scarce than gold. Lots of items have been used as money in various places in the world. I suggest you study a little monetary history. Electrical energy is converted into cryptocurrency. Fossil fuels are converted into gold. Get it? If Peter Minuet had offered the Indians of Manhattan gold instead of beads the Indians would still own it. Gold had no intrinsic value to them. Cowrie shells were far more valuable in Africa than gold. Medieval Europe functioned on a monetary system of tally sticks.

    BTC  cannot be counterfeited. There are gold coins and bars of tungsten in circulation that are nothing more than gold flashed. How do you know that the custodian of your gold actually has it?

    You have carried on about the manipulation of the crypto markets , well care to discuss how JP Morgan manipulates the PM markets?

    Your silly comparison of tulips to BTC is quite passe now. Bitcoin on its own is sound money and far more useful than gold. Try moving off your island and taking your gold with you.

    When the dystopia which everyone here seems to be eagerly anticipating happens. gold won't be worth much. Cigarettes and alcohol will be far more valuable.

    You think there is something better as money than BTC? Where is it? Bring it on.

    When you produce it I will then change my stance due to new evidence being presented till then? meh

    For anyone interested in a rational discussion of sound money I recommend "The Bitcoin Standard" by Safiedean Ammous. Perhaps someday he will be a podcast guest? I doubt it.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 3:22pm

    #77
    Cheri French

    Cheri French

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 17 2020

    Posts: 1

    8

    Dr. Chris Martenson

    I’m watching this great exchange between you and Dave. I love it - a little scary - but I watch you all the time on YouTube. I just subscribed when you said that you could talk and tell us more on your website.

    Here’s what I want to tell you: My husband and I live in Guthrie, OK. We started Oklahoma Mini Mill 2 1/2 years ago. Our business was never effected by the pandemic. We had an ice storm that knocked out power in most of Oklahoma and to our business for 9 days - THAT hurt! But other than that, we roll right along. The animals still need to be sheared. Check out our website and our FB page. We aren’t getting rich but we are treading water, and our retail is getting stronger and stronger.

    If it comes to barter system, we’ve got it down pat!

    I want to say thank you for keeping us informed! Take care of yourself!

    Cheri French, owner/operator of Oklahoma Mini Mill

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 3:23pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    3

    Evil Raise its Ugly Head Again

    "Man is innately Evil" How very dogmatic Christian of you.

    I wonder if Mother Theresa agrees.

    Or if the Hindus believe that? Maybe the Sufis have a take on that?

    I am sure the native Americans have some ideas on that.

    Yep the Dreamtime of the Aborigines probably has some ideas on that.

    Happy New Year all you Evil peeps

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 3:56pm

    VincitVeritas

    VincitVeritas

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 02 2020

    Posts: 19

    4

    What is Good and Evil?

    Mr. Mast,

    I typically enjoy your posts, but can't say I liked this one.

    Evil is merely one word of many to describe that which seeks to make chaos or subvert virtue.  Destructive not creative.  You can easily replace this with whatever substitute suits your anti-Christian/religion stance and I'm sure you will arrive at a similar conclusion.  No need to argue the semantics of what evil means, I think it is a pretty universal concept.

    Tell me this...  does it usually take more effort to do the "right thing" or to do the "wrong thing?"

    Sad day when the word "evil" becomes a trigger word.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 4:08pm

    #80
    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    5

    Sorry Mohammed, I have to side with Mots

    I think his arguments are much more credible than yours.  And what he says about a labor backed system makes eminent sense.  Wealth should belong to those who create it, not those who manipulate it or manipulate those who create it.

    One of your oft repeated statements is that so and so (among whom I've been included from time to time) doesn't know anything about cryptos.  That may well be true.  I didn't know much about cryptos and still don't but I'm learning.  I've been doing a lot of reading, studying, and thinking on the issue and have much more to do.  But the more I learn, the more concerns I have.  Knowledge about BTC, for example, hasn't allayed my concerns.  It has instead caused the number of concerns I have to increase.  I keep looking at the naked emperor and wondering, what does everyone else see that I'm missing. 

    The performance of BTC has been outstanding and, believe me, I would love to participate in those gains.  And I fully believe even bigger gains are forthcoming if human nature is any indication (and, after all, it is human nature that drives markets more than anything else).  But I can't get around the fact that when I look at all the different pathways to participate, none of them meet my criteria for safety.  There are just too many things that can go wrong in too many different ways.  Also, I'm just flabbergasted that someone like Saylor would dump that high a percentage of his money into it.  Of course, he's a tech wiz while I'm a tech idiot but still, it strikes me as an incredibly huge gamble.  I guess I'm just too conservative and too tied to the tangible.  

    Besides, BTC and crypto, there are many other things I don't know a lot about.  I don't know a lot about Russian roulette, climbing into a tiger cage with bloody steaks tied to my body, jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, etc.  But I do know enough about them all such that the dangers of participating in those activities have convinced me that I am not yet ready to attempt any of them without some better form of "insurance".

    Other things that make me uncomfortable include all the online drum beating for BTC.  It reminds me of being at a convention of time share salesmen all saying this is the wave of the future.  And it is ... for them.  Also, the exponential climb at this stage is usually a good indication of at least a significant pull back in the near future.  You know, reversion to mean an all that  Then again, there is no accounting for the madness of crowds.

    Being pre-occupied with researching measures to save my life (which is much more important to me right now than investment returns or sound money or any of that), I've only just gotten around to ordering the book you've repeatedly recommended so we'll see if it can change my mind.  It certainly is a fascinating phenomena to observe.  My sense continues to be that the MOs (Malignant Overlords) are just letting this thing run as an experiment before they step in and take control.  Time will tell.

    Happy New Year to you.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 4:53pm

    #81
    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 398

    0

    "something better as money than BTC"

    Rice
    It has been a while but rice used to be money here.  It was THE number  1 energy source then and also supported life.  Could be easily counted and stored, and used reliably in sustainable communities like the sort we should be building instead of wasting time on social media. Best of all it wonderfully encouraged and rewarded real efforts to create real wealth, contrary to the free shit for nothing strategies that most people here are spending time on.

    Biggest drawback: not easy to instantly send long distances or carry large amounts with you safely.  But we are blessed with computers, commodity exchanges and cryptos to implement rice and other commodities which can eliminate those problems.

    But there is no free shit for nothing in an accurate, fair monetary system such as a commodity (food and/or energy) based crypto. So, the scabs who sit around dreaming how to steal other people's work product without making wealth themselves will continue rip off games with shit coins and muddy the crypto waters for the wealth creators.

    But I imagine that the wealth creators will eventually achieve a great commodity backed crypto that will run circles around crypto in its ability to facilitate economic development and prosperity.  It will benefit the wealth creators and it will be THEIR currency valued by their work, perhaps not yours. Commodity backed cryptos are also strictly limited, not by extreme energy wasting mining of bitcoin, but instead by how hard people work to create the commodity or labor (that is the point of the real bills doctrine that everyone refuses to discuss here).

    Here is a thought experiment: why dont the bitcoin "investors" live in their own world by themselves exclusively with bitcoin and stop interfering with the wealth creators.  The wealth creators live separately and use a commodity backed crypto to share their lives with each other.  The creators dont need the investors (using the real bills doctrine) and dont have to give them free stuff.  What happens?

    Anyone interested in discussing how "the real bills doctrine" can be used to build out a labor/commodities backed crypto?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:37pm

    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 802

    1

    Harris a Neo Marxist. OMG, Dave, please.

    Agreed. "Sassy neo-marxist grifter?" Biden and Harris are very status quo. The very best outcome of this last election is that the Trump base scared the dinosaurs on both sides of the aisle.

    Social justice warriors exerting all this "communist" control, is such an illusion, fed by Breitbart, Fox, Newsmax, etc... The current repuglicans and mainstream democrats, are war mongering Thing One and Thing Two.

    Trump may have been the necessary grenade thrown into a barrel of oatmeal to shake things up. That being said, right wing populista end up biting the very base that elects them. And that was the real threat, as his mandate would have become abundantly clear in the next four years, had he been elected.

    Many of the ideas embodied by Trump's base, coming from the libertarian right are compatible with ideas that come from the traditional libertarian left. The last thing the entrenched elite want is to highlight the similarities. They work doubly hard to exaggerate the heck out of the differences, as it enhances their power.

    Both libertarian right and left have to be emotionally detached and see beyond the propaganda that will keep the pitchfork crowd fighting the torch crowd.

    But kudos to his base for sticking up for themselves and making it clear to Washington that change is required or revolution is a certainty.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:38pm

    #83
    David Henry

    David Henry

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Sep 20 2019

    Posts: 89

    1

    bought 0.21 tulips today

    I tend to agree with Mots about these things, but I bought 0.21 "tulips" today, and also some other coins as well. To be honest, I dislike the idea of cryptocurrency, but there's lots of things in the world I disagree with but the world keeps on doing its thing and I gotta follow along to some degree. Wouldn't invest more than I'm willing to lose at this point.

    Adding to Mots point, 1 koku of rice (roughly 5 bushels), was enough to feed one person for one year and it became a kind of monetary shorthand in early modern Japan. Farmers who actually produced it were taxed at crazy high rates though, so I'm not sure rice was much better than gold, fiat, bitcoin, whatever. To misquote Shakespeare, the fault may not lie in our monetary system but in ourselves.

    I've ordered The Bitcoin Standard and will read it, hat tip to Mohammed. As well as two questions:

    1) Doesn't the continuing need for computing power add a kind of "maintenance" requirement that gold doesn't have? ie gold is always gold but if people decide to stop mining, then isn't that a problem for bitcoin?

    2.) Doesn't the relatively smaller transaction limit for bitcoin (vs. other coins like xrp for example) make bitcoin fine to store value but not really ideal to buy a pack of  gum with?

    Asking as an agnostic. I do like the *idea* of precious metals better than crypto, but being honest I'm not sure crypto is any more or less ethical than PM, fiat, or whatever.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:44pm

    #84
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    0

    Happy New year ao

    First and foremost I hope you are well.

    Second of all I am absolutely stunned that you would agree with Mots. lol

    There is really not much to unpack in what you wrote, sorry to disappoint you. the fact is both you and Mots do nothing but make assertions based on nothing but your belief systems. One of the main tents of this site as i recall is the need to back up assertions with DATA.

    So what little I have to unpack starts with your profession of ignorance about crypto. Now I would ask you what your intention is then to engage on the subject?  Then we move on to a "labor backed system" . WOW sounds impressive. It is until you actually unpack it. Labor is energy. If you are speaking of physical labor I am afraid you are eliminating a large part of the population. Actually you would be eliminating the owners of this site who derive income from their intellect. This country embraced slavery from its inception. Slaves were physical energy. Once energy slaves in the form of fossil fuels were harnessed then physical slaves became obsolete.

    I guess I have to go over some facts you missed in your rush to disagree with me. Gold is extracted using energy. It has value only as that given to it by people in relation to the cost of that energy and its scarcity. The main use for gold is jewelry. Not much of a necessity. Yes it is tangible (I will return to the value of tangibility later). Many things have been used for money through history. including giant stones that could not be moved.

    BTC is produced using energy. it has a value given to it by people based on the cost of that energy+ capital investment and scarcity. It is not tangible which gives it huge advantages over gold. Part of its value is derived from its immutability, its transparency and its portability. I cannot send gold around the world in a matter of minutes with negligible cost. As a currency there is no comparison.

    Now on to tangibility which you place great stock in. I will guess you know that 97% of USD are not tangible. I will guess you know that most people rarely touch money anymore. You and many have deep seated religious beliefs which are anything but tangible. I will guess that you experience love and other emotions which are not tangible. You carry on conversations online with people who are not tangible and this is going to get really weird with the proliferation of AI. You I assume believe in the constitution which is nothing more than a group of concepts which hardly anyone knows or pays attention to yet have some kind of value. Not really tangible. Point being you and many others ascribe great value to things which have no tangibility.

    You and most here on this site are boomers and as I have pointed out to MR. Collum it is no surprise that boomers have very little understanding of the digital world. The thing you are missing since you asked is the concept of decentralization, You were born into a centralized world. Your actions have been determined by what you describe as malignant overlords. You are functioning in a system not of your creation. It is an illusory system that has been forced fed to you since birth. I really don't care whether you ever get the BTC ethos or not. The millennials get it and it is their world. They are quite comfortable in a digital world. They understand that the boomers have screwed them out of their future. What are you missing? Freedom

    What is keeping you from getting it ? FEAR Every argument I have ever heard against crypto is fear based. Sorry not my bag.

    Bring some data next time.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:48pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    0

    David

    Read the book, then get back to me.I am no longer engaging in those sorts of discussions . Well if someone wishes to deposit some BTC in my acct. I will.

    BTW You agree with Mots out of agreement with his ignorance

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:58pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    VV

    You are the one being triggered here.

    You make a statement that I am anti Christian. Based on what?

    I happen to be a Christian ,Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Muslim, Jew , believer in the Great Spirit and the Aborigine Dreamtime to name a few.

    I don't enter your frame of reference. I do not share your belief system so to me I am speaking English and you are speaking Martian. We have no common ground to engage on the subject of evil which is a purely subjective human construct.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 5:59pm

    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 398

    4

    Happy New year ao

    Mohammed
    You missed my main point by ignoring the role of a real bills doctrine or the like to limit valuation without massive resource consumption.  Still no discussion or even acknowledgement of this concept.

    I prefer to live in a world where billions of watt hours are expended to create real wealth that we enjoy, and which limits the currency, rather than a world where billions of watt hours are consumed/diverted instead into completely mindless computer time merely to limit and verify bitcoin.  and, your argument "but its renewable solar" doesnt make sense to me.  what a waste of energy.  There are many low energy alternatives. Your old bitcoin science is kind of long in the tooth isnt it?

    I dont think you are listening.  Anyway I dont have more time for bloviating.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 6:05pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    0

    Bye Mots

    Enjoy your real bill utopia

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 6:06pm

    #89
    David Henry

    David Henry

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Sep 20 2019

    Posts: 89

    7

    Manners still matter

    I agree with Mots partly out of my quaint sensibilities (and yes probably some of my own ignorance too) but even more because he shows a humility and care for others even when he disagrees with them.

    I mostly disagree with DaveFairtex ('s politics), but I think he's a pretty logical thinker so I usually read his posts carefully and sometimes change my own beliefs based on his arguments. Since he goes to the trouble of writing the PM report, I think he's earned the right to rant some if he wants.

    But sometimes I see the "I'm right, so I can be rude" model (never in Mots or DF to be clear), and maybe that person is actually right, but "I'm right, but I'll still be considerate to people I disagree with" would probably work better yes?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 6:28pm

    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 802

    2

    What is good and what is evil

    Making chaos, subverting virtue=evil?

    Evil may best be described as a system out of balance, where chaos overtakes virtue. But the opposite is true as well. A system that is too stable, is at risk of stagnation, lack of unbridled creativity and not enough risk taking and people following moral dictates that may have superficial appeal but are at base, empty.

    Psychopaths become inter-species predators when their thrill seeking isn't channeled productively. And contrary to popular belief, a pure psychopath is a rare creature. The traits are arrayed on a spectrum.

    A truly evil person enjoys the pain of others. Not just the typical schadenfreude the average person feels when an adversary disappears down an open manhole cover. The truly evil enjoy the pain of people who they consider their friends or have a neutral relationship with.

    Those narrowly focused on the evil of others need to lift the hood of their psyches to observe what fuel their own engine is running on.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 6:38pm

    #91
    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 398

    5

    David Henry

    Davidhenry
    Just for the record, I agree completely with your paragraph above:
    " I bought 0.21 "tulips" today, and also some other coins as well. To be honest, I dislike the idea of cryptocurrency, but there's lots of things in the world I disagree with but the world keeps on doing its thing and I gotta follow along to some degree. Wouldn't invest more than I'm willing to lose at this point."

    I also bought a couple types of cryptos recently because I want the freedom to use alternative payments and I have to deal with this world.
    I am searching for the truth and often change my mind.  Perhaps the appearance of politeness arises from that.

    I am looking for a group that pursues labor/commodity backing of cryptos useful in small communities.  I expect that an erethrum based crypto has been built that already does this and wonder if anyone has such knowledge.  Perhaps such animal is the solution to the problems explored in Charles Hugh Smith's latest book.

    I want to repeat my earlier comment:
    "The same media forces that control the narrative about hydroxycloroquine and ivermectin and cause intelligent thoughtful people to denounce these chemical substances as worthless (or even poisonous) for use against a virus also drive the narrative about valuation of a crypto that is also unmoored from reality.  What will those media forces do to bitcoin when they want you to put your money and trust into their new fedcoin next year? "

    My prediction for 2021:
    Fedcoin or related digital or crypto-digital will roll out. The media will suddenly have stories about people who lost bitcoin because they did not leave it on an exchange and lost their wallet. The ads will teach that you should buy a fedcoin that registers your crypto or digital currency with a govt that loves you. You wont have to itemize or report this on your income tax form, unlike existing cryptos, because they already have it. People will be smiling and laughing in the commercials.

    2021 should be an exciting year.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 9:29pm

    #92

    davefairtex

    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2349

    9

    world of more or less?

    Here's a thought.  Going forward, are we going to have a world of more, or less?

    More electricity, or less?  More gasoline or less?

    If we're heading towards a world of less, then it is likely that things will become more localized, more focused on molecules rather than the intangibles, and that right now we are at or near Peak Bits.  Peak Internet.  Peak Phone.  JHK's World Made By Hand is coming next.

    That would suck for me, since I've definitely ridden the tech wave higher.  What will I do?  I'll have to find a new racket.

    Of course, the reverse is possible.  We might be entering a world of more - more energy, more technology, chips in our heads, etc.  But that won't happen if we stick with fossil fuels.  Or solar.  Or wind.  We have to find something new - some sort of "above unity" energy device.  Or the always-30-years-away fusion device.

    Without some sort of energy deus ex machina, we'll get a world of less.  And in such a world, Proof of Work might well be a luxury that the world of less can't afford.

    With gold, once you mine it, you own the molecules and they will be around forever.  It takes no energy to facilitate gold exchange.  Or to keep the value of a gold bar alive.  A gold bar mined in the days of Egypt are still here with us now.  It can be swapped at no energy cost at all.

    With bitcoin, that's not true; to maintain its utility (i.e. to execute a TX), bitcoin needs a constant inflow of energy to do that Proof of Work.  No energy input = no TX = no medium of exchange.  What's more, with no energy, you may "have" your bitcoins, but you can't get at them = practically speaking, no store of value.   All the features that MM talks about are correct - worldwide near-instant exchange, money created from energy, etc.  But it requires a constant inflow of energy to function.

    So if we are entering a world of less, we might not have the energy to spend on a bitcoin-type monetary system.

    I probably know more about the bitcoin codebase and how it works than most people here.  (Please raise your hand if you've written mining code - if you've run a mining operation, heck, if you've even run a full node - that takes minimal skill.  Just a big disk drive and a network.  I've done all that.)

    So I can check the "understands bitcoin" box probably better than most.

    In a world of less, I'm not sure bitcoin would survive.  Gold sure will though.  So will everything that uses molecules as a store of value.  Rice.  Whatever.  That's because, once mined, molecules are almost cost-free to transact.  They will do fine in a world of less.

    Me, I'm betting on above-unity energy.  I think something will happen.  But if it doesn't, I think bitcoin ends up dying from the better-things-to-spend-our-energy-budget-on syndrome.  And I have to find that new racket.

    There's a middle scenario too.  There might be a delay between now, and the above-unity energy device.  Those same weasels who are keeping cheap medicines from us that work in the middle of a pandemic are - I'm guessing - doing the same thing with energy.

    I mean - if they can pretend vitamin D isn't important, and that ivermectin doesn't work, they can do the same thing with a whole lot of other things that don't fit into their agenda.  Fossil fuels are centralized power.  They are an axis of control.  It allows the US navy to control the sea lanes, and by extension, the world.

    It would be bad to lose that axis of control, yes?

    Timeframe could be a decade out.  That's still lots of time for bitcoin to shoot the moon.  Bitcoin at a billion dollars per coin.  Why not?  But if we are talking about a rip-van-winkle trade, if we are entering a world of less, a requirement for a substantial and constant energy input for a Proof of Work to validate transactions every 10 minutes in a world-spanning transactional public database is probably not what I'd pick as either my store of value, or my medium of exchange.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 10:06pm

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    5

    Mohammed, thank you for your wishes

    When I used the term labor, I was not referring to just physical labor but any kind of work effort creating a service or good of exchangeable value that can be termed wealth.  I think you probably knew that but just in case you didn't, now you do.

    In terms of tangible, whoa my friend!  I think you know the difference between tangible vs. paper asset classes as opposed to other things in the universe tangible versus intangible  Way too many strawmen being thrown out here and, again, I think you are well aware of that but just in case you weren't, now you are.  

    In so far as data, I think you also realize that's a reductionist request.  I could respond with, "Where is your data?". But you and I both know that the universe is not defined by data alone.  There are simple facts, observations, and common sense that are data free but may be even more valuable than data laden information.

    But of course an argument for or against something financial would be fear based.  Fear and greed are what drive markets.  Your choice to buy BTC, for example, is based on fear.  Wanting sound money and decentralization is based on a fear of unsound money and centralization.  If you have no fear, you are quite unusual.  This is nothing personal but the only people who don't have fear are either ignorant or psychopathic.  That's not an ad hominem.  That's a recognized psychological science fact.

    As far as millennials being comfortable in a digital world, that is largely correct.  Perhaps too comfortable.  I know too many millennials who can't read a map to navigate cross country or a highway system, can't do simple arithmetic computations without digital assistance, can't research without the assistance of a search engine, etc.  In fact, I think many of them are floundering because of their overreliance on things digital.  They may understand software but an understanding of hardware is not their strong point.  How many even know how a smart phone works, from an electronics point of view, for example?  And let me know when you find an app on your phone that will fix your clogged up plumbing, your leaky roof, or your blown head gasket.

    By the way, the ability to send things around the world instantly relies on either undersea cables or satellites, both of which are specifically targeted in case of war.  What do you do then?  Bury your electrons in your backyard, lol?  Relying on a centrally sourced infrastructure for your decentralized world is frought with potential misfortune and seems rather hypocritical.

    In case you think I'm relying upon gold, I'm not.  It's just one option of a whole array of them.  But if it comes down to chosing between BTC and gold, I'll take 5,000 years of history over an exceedingly complex experiment that has a shockingly large number of potential failure points. 

    BTC has its strong points, to be sure, but the paucity of discussion of its weaknesses, deficiencies, and vulnerabilities is what concerns me.  No system is foolproof and incorruptible and no monetary system, in particular, will solve all our problems.  For every solution it provides, it also creates problems, some recognizeable now, some which will only become recognizeable in time.  To think otherwise is folly.

    FWIW, I think Mot's prediction for 2021 (which might be in 2021 or perhaps a year or two later) will turn out to be prescient.      

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 10:16pm

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    4

    AP, have you read Harris's book?

    If you haven't, go read it.  If you have and don't think she's a neo-Marxist, I'd like to know what your definition of a neo-Marxist would be.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 02, 2021 - 10:18pm

    AcadieQuebec

    AcadieQuebec

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 25 2020

    Posts: 45

    1

    3% adverse events for vaccine recipients & V-safe smartphone tool

    Thanks Chris for posting the info on adverse events (3% of vaccine recipients) in the US vaccination campaign as at Dec 18, 2020
    Here are 3 of the 8 slides in that presentation:

    I looked up more info on the CDC website - a Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers mentioned to encourage vaccine recipients to use V-safe. (page 8 of 30)
    https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download
    I clicked on the link and here is a description of that tracking tool:

    ''V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to provide personalized health check-ins after you receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Through v-safe, you can quickly tell CDC if you have any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Depending on your answers, someone from CDC may call to check on you and get more information. And v-safe will remind you to get your second COVID-19 vaccine dose if you need one.

    Your participation in CDC’s vsafe makes a difference — it helps keep COVID-19 vaccines safe.''

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vsafe.html

    PS I personally will try to get some ivermectin as use that as prophylaxis - but it is so hard to get some here in Canada.
    I don't plan on getting the vaccine.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 3:22am

    #96

    timeandtide

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 03 2010

    Posts: 63

    5

    Collapse now and avoid the rush

    What a brilliant interview. Thank you Chris and Dave. Serious stuff made memorable because of the irrepressible larrikin humour of Dave. A little poignant towards the end when Dave admitted there was not much fun in it anymore. The only thing that will save us is humour so please keep it up. Chris is so right - the best way for anyone to get through whatever is coming is to start collapsing (in the sense of reducing needs) now and building a supporting community of like-minded people.

    Happy New Year.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 5:29am

    Oliveoilguy

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jun 29 2012

    Posts: 1053

    11

    Food will be the next BitCoin

    I mine Food.....Not Bits.  Totally agree with your premise Dave.“If we're heading towards a world of less, then it is likely that things will become more localized, more focused on molecules rather than the intangibles.”

    If I was a chart guy I would plot the cost of “Mining (growing) food” over 100 years relative to some metric like “average income”.  My guess is that food production and cost represented a huge value in the past and not so much today. But.....how do you define food. I’d say that cocopuffs are basically poison and not to be conflated with organic oat cereal.

    My point is that growing healthy food is really hard. It requires lots of work for a very small monetary return. When people are hungry (coming soon to your neighborhood) food prices and values will increase and electronic digit values will decrease.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 5:46am

    RandomMike

    RandomMike

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2020

    Posts: 194

    1

    Phil Williams "2050" series SF books follow this discussion

    His novels address many topics in this thread, some paragraphs could be interchanged and no one would notice!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 5:56am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 580

    6

    Food could be the next Gold/Silver/Stock Portfolio too

    Oliveoilguy wrote,

    When people are hungry (coming soon to your neighborhood) food prices and values will increase and electronic digit values will decrease.

    Or, alternatively, because the dollar will not be worth toilet paper, food may be priced in satoshis. 😉

    That aside, I wholly agree that competency in food production should be high on every PPer's To Do list. Learning to grow organic, nutrient-dense food is not to be put off; mistakes are better made when survival is not dependent upon it.

    Bitcoin, or gold and silver, or playing the stock market, are all entertaining and good to do while they can be done - because energy might always be around, allowing us to store value and grow value vs. the dying dollar - but mastering food production (and preservation) is foundational. Core. First principle. When we grow our food we don't need any kind of money to keep eating.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 7:32am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    Best Doomer Site on the Internet

    PP is far and a way the best doomer site on the internet. (Disclaimer: I have not been everywhere on the internet).

    I absolutely reject the notion as presented here that we will have a world of less. We live in a Universe of abundance (at least I do).

    There are many bullshit scenarios proposed here for why BTC won't last. All of which if they come to fruition will result in Mad Max II. Paranoid much?

    China has already created an "artificial sun" . Energy is not an issue politics are. Nuclear energy is the answer as CM pointed out. It is doable and safe.

    As for ao he makes ridiculous pseudo assumptions about me and my motivations.

    Happy New Year and PS. a US CBDC is not going to happen this year. It is happening in China as I type.

    Thanks for all the laughs

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 7:51am

    davefairtex

    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 2349

    7

    mostly about scenarios

    Well if you aren't forecasting a world of less, then it is easy to understand why someone can believe that bitcoin will solve everything.

    But this future cannot be based on fossil fuels.  Or on wind.  Or on solar.  And you better have some good batteries.  And it will take maybe 20 years to retrofit the auto fleet.  And all that mining equipment.  And I'm not exactly sure how air travel works.  But maybe air travel isn't necessary?  Or maybe there is some other way of powering flight other than JP4?  Maybe hydrogen something-or-other?  Or maybe something from our friends in the flying-saucer land?  Post disclosure, maybe we get access to that?  If so, bitcoin will be the very smallest innovation we will see.

    Ultimately, your rip-van-winkle trade (i.e. where you choose to put your "stored value") is mostly determined by the scenario you see coming.

    I've noticed that intelligent people can differ on their views about what is coming next.  After all, its tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 9:10am

    Boomer41

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Nov 30 2008

    Posts: 177

    3

    Above Unity Energy Device

    Dave,

    The "above unity" energy device you speak of exists. It is the Thorium reactor, also known as LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor). Invented at Oak Ridge, a prototype was built and operated successfully in the 1960s.

    Hailed by the scientists as an ideal source of domestic electricity it was, nevertheless, shut down and demolished on the orders of Hiram Rickover, because it did not produce Plutonium for bombs.

    The LFTR is melt-down proof and can use the waste from existing Uranium reactors as fuel.

    You can read about it here:

    LFTR Overview

    Or watch a short video:

    Great old movie about the Oak Ridge experimental reactor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o&t=562s

    Boomer41

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 9:16am

    sand_puppy

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2736

    2

    A low energy condition should be visible approaching

    DaveF,

    I so agree that everyone is prepping for the future that seems most likely (or most frightening) to them.

    On the topic of a low energy future making BTC mining unavailable--I would imagine that there would be plenty of warning that this future was approaching--rising prices of gas, oil, coal, etc.

    In the same way that you use the premiums on large bars of gold and silver to signal market shortages.

    Seems to me that one could hold energy intensive cryptos and see ample warning of a low energy state approaching and exit ahead of the point where the world abandons cryptos.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 9:33am

    French connexion

    French connexion

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 26 2020

    Posts: 252

    3

    Comparing Deaths

    Hi SandPuppy, Best wishes for a Happy New Year

    I post this to show some comparisons in France - fire away with questions about the graphs if you need help.

    April was the big peak in France up to November 2nd.

    The over 65 crowd and more so for the over 85 crowd hve born the brunt.

    If you scroll down to figure 6 you can see the "excess deaths by month" - clearly April was the worst month.

    Figure 4 shows a break down for different age categories. Clearly the Swedish method - which was brought up in the dialogue - was the best method. We should not allow the economy to be shut down for the under 65.

    https://www.ifrap.org/etat-et-collectivites/etude-sur-la-mortalite-2020-comparee-aux-annees-anterieures

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 9:56am

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    3

    Mohammed, it's all about cycles and a long term perspective

    I know there's a popular New Age notion that we live in a world of abundance.  And presently, we do.  But sometimes we don't.  We have cycled between abundance and scarcity for thousands of years and will continue to do so.  Drought and flood, famine and plentiful harvests, Ice Age and warming periods, solar minimums and solar maximums, clear skies and skies filled with particulates from fires, volcanoes, celestial body impacts, man made pollution, etc., and more drive this particular cycle.  We don't have much control over most of these things.  The best we can do is roll with the punches by learning to recognize what the circumstances are, what the trend is, and how to best adapt, survive, or perhaps even thrive. 

    In so far as my "ridiculous pseudo assumptions", that's an interesting choice of words.

    I've learned over the years that the word "ridiculous" carries emotional weight.  Someone labels something ridiculous when it makes them uncomfortable.  And they typically become uncomfortable due to fear, a fear not uncommonly arising due to an introduction of cognitive dissonance into their life and a possible unsettling of a paradigm they thought was secure and stable.  But, of course, that perception of security and stability is an illusion, a comforting one for sure, but an illusion nonetheless.

    I have no idea what your term "pseudo assumption" is as compared to an assumption.  But any assumptions I made about you were based on what you expressed here.  If those expressions were bonafide, then the assumptions should be reasonably on the mark.  If the expressions were other than bonafide, then, of course, the assumptions would not be accurate.  I'm certainly open to correction about anything I may have unintentionally misrepresented about you.

    When I expressed agreement with Mots about a US CBDC possibly arising in 2021, you'll note I did say it could be a year or two later (or three, but it is coming)  Yes, the Chinese are ahead of us with a CBDC, a social credit system, etc. but I doubt very much that we will fail to implement our own in the not too distant future.  I can't see us failing to "compete" with them in this area.  The benefits to our government and the power structure are far too great.  In fact, I would not be surprised if our controllers were purposely hanging back in this area and letting the Chinese be the beta testers, so they don't duplicate the mistakes that the Chinese will inevitably make in an experiment of this magnitude and novelty.  I know that's what I would do if I were in their position.  

    Looking at the bigger picture though, I think much of this will come down to "Man plans, God laughs".  It is fascinating to see how, one by one, with accelerating frequency, prophecies arising from sources as diverse as the Bible, Edgar Cayce, the Plejarens, Native American traditions, and others all seem to be coming to fruition in this epoch.  We are privileged to be witnesses to an amazing time in history.  One wonders though if it's better to have front row seats or be up in the nose bleed section for this one.;-)  One thing for sure ... we won't be bored.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 10:12am

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    0

    travissidelinger said:

    Dave Fairtex - Thank you on the Bitcoin piece.  Very well said.  I don't know this for sure, but my brother who follows crypto a lot says that bitcoin could survive on 20% of the current energy it consumes.  Sure, there is a lot of duplicate race for the next coin, but.. can the entire ecosystem still function without that race for the next coint.  That's I don't know.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 11:44am

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    1

    Responce to Dave Collum

    Dave Collum,

    I was only pissed for about 3 seconds.  Sorry about that.

    I went back and read your items from 2019.  Just maybe you might be a little focused on politics?  I really don't follow the politics of climate change at all.  I just don't care.  We know it's bound to happen.  There are plenty of good scientists with high levels of integrity, and they are probably more likely to stay away from politics.

    Let's say I was in charge (scary thought, I know), and I put my stake in the sand on "climate change is coming, we better do something".  I tell everyone they need to limit their fossil fuel usage and suffer.  Then along comes hundreds of real complex weather patterns that are "inconvenient" to the picture I had painted (even though they may make sense, but are just too complicated to explain to most people).  Yes, this would be a political "problem".  So I can fully see the challenges, and thus expect to see behaviors with less integrity.

    "I only know what I know, and when I see something that doesn't make sense, that only proves there is something I don't know." - Travis

    Climate is a tough nut for humans.  It's so complicated it may be beyond our collective ability to navigate.  There are certainly people who have put in that 10,000 hours.  But unless we are willing to give them full control over our actions in relation to navigating our climate, then that doesn't really help.

    Unless there is proof these sciences are outright colluding to falsify satellite data, CO2 measurements, and other key finding; then okay, so what.

    We should simply do what we do with other industries.  Require separation of duties.  Have completely separate organizations provide duplication of the studies.

    I pulled out these two quotes from your 2019 post:

    > “It doesn't matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

    A complex dynamic system like our atmosphere is a little different.  You can have some  good hypotheses that could be 100% correct, but still very difficult to isolate and prove on their own, and may take hundreds of years of observations to be proven beyond any doubt.  For sure it might be wise to not get too hung up on any one climate hypothesis or module.

    > “Nobody on the planet—not one person—knows what will happen to the World’s climate and ecosystem 50 years from now. We are all guessing, some more than others.”

     

    Oh, I completely agree.

    This is why I got back on, there is no planet B.  We humans know we are doing things that are highly questionable and more likely dangerous (36 millions tons of CO2 in 2020, 35 million tons in 2019, etc).  Taking the side that we should provide actions are "bad" before we stop them is completely ridiculous.  Instead we should ensure our actions are reasonably safe first before we continue doing them.  Thus, we should drastically slow down our rate of CO2 release into the atmosphere and continue to study and model our climate system for the next 100 years.

    -Travis

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 12:14pm

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 363

    1

    000 said:

    The "cycles" narrative form is like many other forms, a short-cut for understanding the universe. Personally I don't believe in cycles, only spirals. Churning out turnings can help some folks get that dopamine hit we're all hooked on, so yea mon, "I walk down Portobello road to the sound of reggae I'm alive".

    The Resilience

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 12:15pm

    Boomer41

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Nov 30 2008

    Posts: 177

    4

    Fifty Years from Now

    What the world will look like fifty years from now is utterly unpredictable.

    Fifty years ago, I was a young engineer in the electronics industry, designing state of the art communications equipment. At that time something like a smart phone, and the infrastructure to support it, wasn't just science fiction - it was completely unimaginable.

    On the other hand, I believe we can reasonably predict that in fifty years time we won't be spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the present rate - for the simple reason that oil and other fossil fuels will be either all gone or prohibitively expensive. Which effectively means that the CO2 pollution problem is self-limiting. It won't continue because it can't.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 12:24pm

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 363

    2

    000 said:

    You are right, it will take 20 years to retro fit those autos, 4 sure--if all those cars have somewhere to go. Let the (consumer) commuter reformation begin! I have a manifesto! LOL

    Of course you know that piece of history is over the way the era of the steam engine and belt drive have ended.

    Mark you calendars, BTC $250,000 12/2021 And BTW did you know that a large percentage of the energy used to mind coins is from the excess electricity generated everyday that would otherwise be wasted? just like all that natural gas (methane) lighting up the Permian Basin at night. (it's so beautiful, I need a hanky)

    Bitcoin miners aren't stupid! They are forcing efficiency on the system. They like to make money too.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 03, 2021 - 11:38pm

    Grover

    Grover

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 894

    5

    Fossil Fuels' Life Expectancy

    Travis,

    Sorry that I'm late to the conversation... I was trying to think of a way to communicate without triggering emotional reactions concerning climate change. Boomer41 (post # 109) beat me to the punch. That's okay.

    I'm sure we can agree that the earth has physical limits - not infinite. I'm also sure we can agree that fossil fuels make up an exceedingly small portion of the system. I remember during the '60s reading an article that stated that the USA had enough reserves of coal to last 525 years (based on then-current consumption levels.) In the mid-2000 decade, I read an article basically saying that we don't have to worry about energy because we (USA) have 325 years of coal left (based on then-current consumption levels.)

    So, did we consume ~200 years of coal in ~40 years? Our consumption levels increased, thus reducing the amount in the ground more than was estimated in the '60s estimate and based on that increased annual consumption level, we had fewer years left. Obviously, the 325 yr estimate used the same inadequate math as the 525 yr estimate. I went looking for some recent information and found this:

    World Coal Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info)
    Coal left in the world (BOE): 4,309,828,522,168 (January 3, 2021 snapshot from the page's current estimate counter)

    Coal Reserves 1,139,471,430,000 Tons (short ton, st)
    5,458,633,478,739 BOE (barrels of oil equivalent)
    Coal Consumption 8,561,852,178 Tons (short ton, st) per annum
    41,015,519,747 BOE (barrels of oil equivalent)
    (Data shown in the table are for 2016. Counter shows current estimate.)

    The world has proven reserves equivalent to 133.1 times its annual consumption. This means it has about 133 years of coal left (at 2016 consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).

    Their estimate of how many years of coal we have left is based on the same simple math of the '60s and 2000 decade estimates. I'm not sure what current consumption is, but based on 2016 consumption of ~41 billion BOE per year and current estimate of coal left in the world of ~4.3 trillion BOE, we're down to 105 years of coal left in early 2021 (assuming that their numbers and estimates are correct. I was surprised to see such a marked decrease from 133 to 105 in 4 years. Perhaps some of the proven reserves were later moved to a different category. I don't know.)

    Here's the summary for oil:

    World Oil Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info)
    Oil left in the world: 1,486,373,365,793 (January 3, 2021 snapshot from the page's current estimate counter)

    Oil Reserves 1,650,585,140,000 barrels
    Oil Consumption 35,442,913,090 barrels per year or 97,103,871 barrels per day
    Reserves/Consumption 47 (years left)
    (Data shown in the table are for 2016. Counter shows current estimate.)

    Here's the link for natural gas:  World Natural Gas Statistics - Worldometer (worldometers.info) I'll just cut to the chase and say that as of 2017, there was and estimated 52 years of natural gas remaining based on 2017 consumption and proven reserves in 2017.

    The estimates are just estimates and subject to fudging for political gain; however, it should be obvious that the amount remaining to be consumed is a finite amount. How long the amount that remains will last is based on consumption levels. For giggles, I put the above oil information in a spreadsheet with a compounding yearly reduction of consumption of 2.4%. If we can do that, we'll (almost but) never run out of oil. Of course, the devil is in the details. How will the reductions be distributed? Who will verify the amount consumed and enforce the quotas?

    I hope you're realistic enough to recognize that fossil fuels are just too economically valuable to not consume. Does it really matter to your climate-change-model if we cut global annual consumption by half and subsequently consume for twice as long? The same amount of CO2 will be produced either way. It will just take longer. Also, since most of the food is grown using machines that consume fossil fuels, transported with machines that consume fossil fuels, processed with machines that use energy, refrigerated with energy, marketed with energy, and cooked with energy, is it possible to reduce annual fossil fuel consumption by half without starving a significant percentage of humans?

    You need to address near-term death and misery components associated with a "full-stop" or a "partial-full-stop" before blindly advocating that "feel-good" solution.

    As the fossil fuel data show, we don't have too much longer to figure this out before we run off the energy cliff. I wish we could start producing thorium reactors. Unfortunately, those who are more concerned with the current doings of the Kardashians simply can't be bothered to consider long term planning. Their votes count exactly as much as ours (in a fair system.) They'll be ignorant until it bites them in the butt, and then, they'll blame those in power for not taking care of the problems. By then, it will be too late.

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 7:36am

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    1

    travissidelinger said:

    Grove, great responce.  I didn't know worldmeter had those stats.

    >I remember during the '60s reading an article that stated that the USA had enough reserves of coal to last 525 years (based on then-current consumption levels.)

    Al Bartlett had explained it well.  The rate of compounding from exponential growth quickly shirnks that number.

    What those stats are not showing is the EROEI remaining in those supplies.  Humans will allows extract the high quallity easy to get stuff first.  The half that remains now is all low EROEI.

    > Does it really matter to your climate-change-model if we cut global annual consumption by half and subsequently consume for twice as long?

    Yes!  Because releasing that much CO2 that quickly is a shock to the system.  The planet can absorb CO2 over time through various mechanisms.

    >is it possible to reduce annual fossil fuel consumption by half without starving a significant percentage of humans?

    That's why I would recommand we prioritize regenerative farming and mob grazed herd animals.  See Allan Savory and Gabe Brown.  If we take care of our planet first, it can feed us, and soak up a lot of carbon at the same time.

    >By then, it will be too late.

    That's exactly where we are headed right now.  Climate change isn't something I can go "oops, let me just undo that".

     

    Here is the climate condundrum:

    • If the climate scientists are correct, really bad things could happen.

    • There is a small possibility things turn out okay.  Maybe we get a nice rain forest in Canada we can all go live happily in.

    • But, if we stop all fossil fuel burning, which ½ of the population gets to stop eating?

    • Climate change many already be set in motion.  Maybe there is nothing we can do anyways.

    • If we take action now maybe the worse effects could be averted.

    • If we keep burning fossil fuels then for sure we can keep feeding everyone for a little while longer.

    • Good idea or not, this what we are doing.  We are sleepwalking into the consequence.

     

    How about we take a world wide vote?  That seems fair in this situation.

    Maybe 3 different plans for everyone to vote on.

      * Do nothing, keep growing fossil fuel burning.

      * 1/2 stop on fossil fuel burning.

      * Full stop on fossil fuel burning.

    I'm no fortune teller, but I'm willing bet those with fossil fuel consuption will want to keep burning them while those without (aka the poor) will give a middle finger to the other half.

    And I'm not nieve about either the 1/2 stop or the full stop.  A full stop would be disasterous, and could easily be an 80% die off in the US.  I have no idea if my own family would survive.  But I personaly think the climate data is concerning enough at this point that we at least do a 1/2 stop.  But as we saw with Covid, we didn't all die back in March.  We don't need to be stupid about it.  All that matters is reducing CO2 and putting it back in the ground.

    Let's say we ground all planes.  We already know the world didn't end back in March.  Maybe you need a special permit to fly for critical persons or key parts.  Ya, sure some rich person will make some excuse they need to be on that list.  Just make it transparent, that's the best we can do.  Then lets take all those Boeing and Lockheed engineers and turn them to building thorium reactors.   All those layed off aviation workers, well they can make sandwiches for the engineers (I'm half kidding).  And the pilots, well let's build reactor simulators and you can start training to run reactors.  Sure, Boeing engineers are not trained for this, and sure their factories are designed plane parts.  There will be mistakes, so what.  I'm with Greta on this one.  Stop making excuses everyone.  Get it done.  The clock is ticking on this.

    Yes, we have some major challenges ahead of us.  But by far the biggest challenge we have is that key people are actively resisting change for their own petty reseasons.

    Just my two cents.

    -Travis

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 8:37am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    And The Solution For Climate Change Is What?

    Hint: There is none.

    Climate change has been going on on Earth for 4 billion years. It will be going on for a long time after there are no more humans around.

    Greta will rule the world in 30 years. You will own nothing. You will rent everything. You will not be eating meat. Everything will be delivered by drone. You will be happy. It will be a world of abundance for some and a world of scarcity for others . Just like it has always been. The more things change to more they stay the same.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 8:38am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    Hi Dave

    I like Yogi Berra too.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 9:10am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    Meltem Demirors: A Sort of Millennial YIR

    No matter what room this woman walks into she will be one of the smartest people in the room.

    Millennials get marginalized here. Boomers consistently diss them and have cannibalized them. They are the future. They have a valid perspective which is mostly absent here.

    Caution: Watch at your own risk.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 9:19am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    PS to MY Post Above

    I had the opportunity to tour Google HQ in NYC a few years ago. It was quite a revelation. The first and foremost one was there was not one gray hair to be seen. I got there when it was quitting time and I was in the lobby. I sat there as hundreds of Googlers left. They were all Millennials or younger. The people behind your Android are Millennials. The people behind all the social media are Millennials.

    They dominate the digital world which if you are reading this you are populating. The NYC complex stretches from 8th Ave to the Hudson River. It occupies complete city blocks. Of course with the pandemic it is probably empty, but it is an amazing construct.

    These are the future. The future is now.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 12:52pm

    pinecarr

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1296

    2

    Mohammed Mast, I feel so old after watching that video!

    Mohammed Mast, I feel so old after watching the "Millennial YIR" video, lol!  I got a healthy dose of inter-generational culture shock, that was both eye-opening and educational.  I guess I didn't even realize I had "boomer tunnel-vision" before!

    But it was fun, too, to get a glimpse of the world from these Millennials' perspectives.

    Keep 'em coming!

    PS Let me add my thanks to you and VT Gothic for the timely crypto educational links  over the last several months!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 4:10pm

    Grover

    Grover

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 894

    5

    Who Chooses?

    travissidelinger wrote:

    >I remember during the '60s reading an article that stated that the USA had enough reserves of coal to last 525 years (based on then-current consumption levels.) [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.]

    Al Bartlett had explained it well.  The rate of compounding from exponential growth quickly shirnks that number.

    What those stats are not showing is the EROEI remaining in those supplies.  Humans will allows extract the high quallity easy to get stuff first.  The half that remains now is all low EROEI.

    I'm glad you know of Al Bartlett's work. I was just trying to show a typical result of exponential growth. As an example of EROEI, I have a grove of fruit trees. When the fruit gets ripe, the easiest-to-reach fruit gets picked first. When it is all gone, we'll stretch or jump for the next easiest. Finally, I get out my ladder. By the time I get to the last bit of fruit on a tree, the birds have usually pecked it. Since I typically have plenty, I leave that to the birds. If I were starving, I'd expend the effort to get that last bit. (Look at the Peak Prosperity Logo tree. Imagine which fruit you'd pick first - it wouldn't be the fruit at the tippy top of the tree that takes the most effort to get.)

    As long as the EROEI is perceived to be positive (more returned than invested,) you can bet that we'll try to harvest. It doesn't matter if we're talking petroleum or fruit. A cheetah makes similar calculations when chasing a gazelle. It boils down to - why expend energy unless the expected reward is worth it?

    Since fossil fuels have such a dense energy structure, the question boils down to "how much work does it take to get it?" A small, isolated pocket of petroleum deep within the crust will take more energy to extract than could possibly be released. Since the energy reward isn't there, it won't be pursued as an energy source. It might be pursued for its medicinal (or some other purpose) qualities ... if the energy exists to go after it.

    The bottom line is that we'll extract and consume all positive EROEI fossil fuels. Who gets to do the consuming? I'll touch on that later.

    > Does it really matter to your climate-change-model if we cut global annual consumption by half and subsequently consume for twice as long? [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.]

    Yes!  Because releasing that much CO2 that quickly is a shock to the system.  The planet can absorb CO2 over time through various mechanisms.

    I think you're letting your belief that "CO2 is the enemy" cloud your vision. The atmosphere and oceans absorb CO2 emitted from all sources (including human's contribution.) We can and do measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Currently, those concentrations are ~ 415 parts per million. If you look at a graph of recent concentration VS time, you'll see a mostly steady increase over time. How is that a shock?

    Because you listen to the climate change chicken littles, you probably think that just a little more CO2 concentration will cause the system to tip over into runaway conditions. (Your writings certainly suggest this fear.) If it were completely unprecedented, you'd have a reason to take drastic precautionary measures. Fortunately, the earth has endured much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the past. Early in the Phanerozoic eon (started ~when trilobites first showed up in the fossil record,) atmospheric CO2 levels were approximately 7,000 PPM. Yet, we didn't have runaway global warming. Even if we consumed all the available fossil fuels at once (a real shock,) would we come close to approaching that level? I doubt it. What average earthly temperature would the climate models predict with 7,000 PPM CO2?

    >is it possible to reduce annual fossil fuel consumption by half without starving a significant percentage of humans? [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.]

    That's why I would recommand we prioritize regenerative farming and mob grazed herd animals.  See Allan Savory and Gabe Brown.  If we take care of our planet first, it can feed us, and soak up a lot of carbon at the same time.

    On average, we consume ~10 calories of fossil fuels to get 1 calorie of food on the table. Do you think the world can support more than 10%-20% of the existing population without fossil fuels? Could "regenerative farming and mob grazed herd animals" feed New York City's population from local resources? Where would they farm or graze? At what point does a city outgrow the ability for local resources to feed the inhabitants?

    Here is the climate condundrum:

    • If the climate scientists are correct, really bad things could happen.

    If they are not correct and we follow their recommendations , really bad things will happen to the general population. Do you really think that Klaus Schwab, co-founder of WEF, gives a rat's ass about you, me, or any of the "great unwashed" who fall in the lower 99% of the economic strata. He wants to bring on the Great Reset by 2030. They're going to be in control and we pay the price. They won't curtail their extravagant lifestyles. They're mainly focused on keep us from consuming their fossil fuels. Do you ever get the feeling that you're being played for a fool?

    • There is a small possibility things turn out okay.  Maybe we get a nice rain forest in Canada we can all go live happily in.

    Yep. That little forest will allow 7.8 billion people to coexist happily forever. </sarc>

    • But, if we stop all fossil fuel burning, which ½ of the population gets to stop eating?

    That's a really good question. (It will probably be 3/4 or more on the losing end.) Isn't that why people like us flock to Peak Prosperity? So we can figure out how to make the odds work better for us. Once fossil fuels run out, most of humanity will perish. It won't be pretty for most of us. Are you personally responsible for every person on earth? Your country? Your State? Your community? Your neighbors? Your siblings? Your immediate family and self? Just in case you think you're responsible for me, I take full responsibility for myself. At what point do you allow others to reap what they have sown?

    • Climate change many already be set in motion.  Maybe there is nothing we can do anyways.

    In a way, you are correct here. As I've tried to tell you, all the economically worth-to-extract fossil fuels will get dug up and consumed. It only matters by whom and when. There are sociopaths who will use every trick they can to win. That includes lying to us about the pandemic, climate change, etc. That includes shopping for scientists who produce reports favorable to the patron's objectives. (It's the best science money can buy.) You may not be old enough to remember the tobacco companies' scientists claiming there was no link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Why would anyone do that? Hmmm.

    • If we take action now maybe the worse effects could be averted.

    "Maybe" and "could" are fine reasons to undertake such a colossal endeavor. </sarc>

    • If we keep burning fossil fuels then for sure we can keep feeding everyone for a little while longer.

    We sure can. Meanwhile, lots of those people will produce even more people. (It's what we're genetically programmed to do.)

    • Good idea or not, this what we are doing.  We are sleepwalking into the consequence.

    You are correct. We're being sold a version of the truth. (That's what the tobacco scientists did as well.) You should look up the "Maunder Minimum," "Dalton Minimum," and the ensuing "Little Ice Age" using your favorite search engine. Isn't it logical to conclude that glaciers will grow during an ice age? What happens when the sun gets more energetic and heats up the earth? Now, suppose that coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution when fossil fuel usage increased exponentially - glaciers will recede and earth's temperatures will rise. What's the true cause and what's simply correlated?

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has continually produced forecasts that predict much warmer global climate conditions than have occurred. To their credit, they periodically have an assessment report where they modify models in order to better predict future global climate conditions. They currently are in the 6th Assessment Report cycle (AR6) which was originally due in 2022, but may get delayed due to Covid-19. Their Coupled Model Intercomparison Project has also been updated to CMIP6. One of the notable changes to CMIP6 is the inclusion of radiative forcing (solar activity (beyond total solar irradiance) and cosmic rays.) Papers I’ve seen using CMIP6 parameters show that the majority of cause for the 20th century’s warming was due to radiative forcing.

    How about we take a world wide vote?  That seems fair in this situation.

    You've got to be kidding - right? What percentage of the world's population would consider you to be filthy rich and undeserving of your wealth? What percentage would vote to take your property and livelihood for themselves? Would you abide by the results of that vote?

    Finally (for this post,) you should research some of the failed climate predictions over time. They all have dire predictions that are going to happen in the not-too-distant future - around a decade or more in the future. Remember when Al Gore predicted in the early 2000s that the Arctic would be ice-free by the mid 2010s? Why doesn't he get ostracized for making such a wrong prediction? What did he have to gain by making such a prediction? Oh, that's right. He was selling fear so people would pay to watch his movie. Hmmm.

    Just for grins, read this short article from 1989: “U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked” Here are the money quotes:

    A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

    The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

    Let’s see, 30 years from 1989 is 2019. (Usually, they use Celsius for temperature readings.) Did either of these happen? As they stated, that was the most conservative estimate. Why do you still naïvely believe them? Why do you want to force me to comply with their solutions? Have you stopped to ask yourself why they would propose such a solution? (Hint: Who benefits?)

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 9:49pm

    Dogbone

    Dogbone

    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 8

    0

    Thank You

    Best conversation I have heard all year on our predicament.  Kudos to David and Chris.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 04, 2021 - 10:24pm

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    3

    travissidelinger said:

    > Climate chicken littles

    Really?  Go troll somewhere else.

    So what if there climate  predictions where wrong.  It's an incredibly complex system.  Maybe it's not so wise latching on to any of those predictions.

    CMIP6, yup I'm following.  Basic smell test, grand solar minimum says we should be cooling.  Melting ice all over the planet and ocean temperatures show the planet is certainly not cooling.  Solar forcing is part of the system, it's just not the dominant facter right now.

    >Klaus Schwab

    No idea.  Why even say that?

    >Early in the Phanerozoic eon (started ~when trilobites first showed up in the fossil record,) atmospheric CO2 levels were approximately 7,000 PPM. Yet, we didn't have runaway global warming.

    We have completely different conditions now, let alone 7.8 billion people depending on the planet as is to survive.

    I stand by my predictions.  As the data changes, I will change.  We are on track to loose all sea ice in the arctic within a decade.  After the sea ice is gone things are very likely to get ugly, including the real possibility in collapse of most farming in the northern hemisphere.

    We currently cannot predict dumping 36 million tons of CO2 per year will turn out okay, and there is increasing evidence to suggest it will turn out badly.

    Yes, I think a world vote on this topic is very fair.

    Yes, I would vote to immediately start cutting CO2 as outlined earlier.

    -Travis

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 05, 2021 - 8:51am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    For PP Especially MOTS

    https://www.wired.com/story/a-25-year-old-bet-comes-due-has-tech-destroyed-society/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 05, 2021 - 8:59am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    The Horns of a Moral Dilemma

    I have my own thoughts on Climate Change which are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but it occurs to me we are faced with a moral dilemma.

    If one , no matter their personal opinion were to assume Climate change is caused by humans and is responsible for major environmental catastrophes, and we need to stop using fossil fuels immediately, what effects would that have of an equally catastrophic nature?

    Would we be able to feed 8 billion people w/o fossil fuels? How do you run a global economy w/o fossil fuels? Clearly alternative forms of energy are not in any scalable anytime soon.

    Seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 05, 2021 - 9:40am

    pyranablade

    pyranablade

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Nov 08 2010

    Posts: 250

    1

    Travis Said:

    Yes, this case is special in that if we fully stop fossil fuels, there will be some economic pain to say the least.  But we should at least stop growing.  Let's at least ground all planes and all non-necessary releases of CO2.  Let's stop cutting down forests.  Let's prioritize nuclear power plants.  Farmers have to be part of the solution.  Listen to one of Gabe Brown's talks.  At worst leave the soil alone and carbon content goes up.

    Oh Travis, if only people would listen to that kind of wisdom.

    Instead, our powers that be have done the opposite whenever given the chance. Case in point was the CARES Act. The Congress (USA) bailed out the airlines to the tune of (if I remember correctly) 10s of billions of dollars. And you know what? I never heard one Congressperson from either major party try to justify it. None of them ever said WHY we needed to bail out the airlines. And if we look at Big Ag or our forests, the same kinds of arguments can be made.

    So sad.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 05, 2021 - 11:13am

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    3

    Mohammed, here's a commentary on gray hair from the wisest man who ever lived

    King Solomon.

    Proverbs 16:31 Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained in the way of righteousness.

    And from the richest man of his time, Job.

    Job 12: 12-13  Is not wisdom found among the aged?

    Maybe the absence of grey hair and the wisdom of the aged is the reason Google has gone off the rails and has become an example of the antithesis of its motto, "Don't be evil."

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 05, 2021 - 5:10pm

    Grover

    Grover

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 894

    3

    What Drives Choices - facts or beliefs?

    travissidelinger wrote:

    So what if there climate  predictions where wrong.  It's an incredibly complex system.  Maybe it's not so wise latching on to any of those predictions.

    Travis,

    Computer models are only expected to get it close. When the models overshoot (as the CO2 models continually do,) wholesale tweaking is justified. As I stated, to the IPCC's credit, they are investigating alternative pathways to more accurately predict future climatic conditions on earth.

    I agree that it isn't wise to latch onto predictions (using methodology) that have proven to be horrendously wrong time and time again (and always wrong in the same direction.) Nonetheless, do you ever consult a weather forecast before venturing outside? I bet you do. Even if it isn't exactly accurate, it gives you an idea of what to expect.

    So, if you're not going to latch onto any of the predictions, how can you promote the idea that CO2 levels are detrimental to all life on earth? Don't you think we should improve the forecasting ability by examining all sorts of inputs to see if any make sense - or should we just stick with blaming CO2?

    CMIP6, yup I'm following.  Basic smell test, grand solar minimum says we should be cooling.  Melting ice all over the planet and ocean temperatures show the planet is certainly not cooling.  Solar forcing is part of the system, it's just not the dominant facter right now.

    Here is graph of sunspots versus years with a forecast for SC 25. As you should be able to decipher is that we're entering a period of reduced sunspot activity. We're not there yet. Have you noticed that the warmest day of the year rarely falls on summer solstice, but rather later in the summer. For similar reasons, there is a decade or two of lag between the grand minimum/maximum end and when temperatures respond. We're just starting to see that now.

    As far as SC 25 magnitude is concerned, I've seen forecasts that mostly predict SC 25 will be similar to SC 24. NASA is predicting reduced solar activity (as shown above.) Prof. Valentina Zharkova (as mentioned by Bomber in post #2) uses a double-dynamo-model of the sun to predict that we'll be in a grand solar minimum into at least 2053. This has profound implications for growing crops and those who eat those crops.

    On the other hand, I've seen another model (although I don't remember who to attribute it to, sorry) that bases their forecast for the next solar cycle mostly on the length of time the prior cycle existed. Since SC 24 ended earlier than expected, that modeler's expectation is for a stronger than average SC 25. Which will it be? We had an unexpectedly strong beginning to SC 25; however, that was short lived and we're back to a spotless sun. We should be able to make a pretty good guess concerning the strength of SC 25 in a couple of years.

    I noticed that you mentioned solar dimming in post #33. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Could you elaborate?

    >Klaus Schwab [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.]

    No idea.  Why even say that?

    I tried to find a neutral article for you to learn about this man. I looked at nearly a dozen. All were very extreme - with some exceedingly fawning and others exceedingly flaming. He's a lightning rod and wants to push his personal ideas on humanity (with him in command.) You would be wise to learn about him and his goals!

    Klaus Schwab says – You will own nothing in 10 years – Foreign Affairs Intelligence Council (wordpress.com)

    1. You’ll own nothing” — And “you’ll be happy about it.”

    2. “The U.S. won’t be the world’s leading superpower”

    3. “You won’t die waiting for an organ donor” — They will be made by 3D printers

    4. “You’ll eat much less meat” — Meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.”

    5. “A billion people will be displaced by climate change” – Soros’ Open Borders

    6. “Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide” – “There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels history”

    7. “You could be preparing to go to Mars” — Scientists “will have worked out how to keep you healthy in space.”

    8. Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.” – “Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten”

    "The Great Reset" is basically his idea. He and the members of the World Economic Forum (WEF - top 0.0001%) essentially want to destroy the existing cultural and economic infrastructure so they can "Build Back Better." Biden adopted this slogan for his campaign. Boris Johnson has the same slogan. Other world leaders use it as well. Is that just a coincidence? I don't think so.

    Point #1 says that you'll own nothing and be happy about it. In essence, the State will own everything and you'll just rent what you need. That sounds pretty good until you start to think about it. Isn't that communism? Have to read enough history to know that in communism, the plebes get screwed and the elite do the screwing. They claim that you'll be happy. Of course, if you complained in Stalin's Russia, you got shot. See - everyone's happy.

    They've been using catastrophic climate change as their issue to cause enough fear in the great unwashed in order to get the plebes to vote for them to save us. Even with the pain only a decade out, the potential pain wasn't immediate enough. Then, magically, we get the plandemic. All of a sudden, they have an immediate fear to instill into the plebes. Isolate yourself, wear a mask, and wash your hands.

    Bill Gates has been associated with the WEF for nearly 25 years. Bill Gates has been pushing vaccines to combat Covid-19 since early last year. (Are you aware of his "Event 201"?) Did he acknowledge hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, or vitamin D3 + zinc + quercetin to battle the virus? Nope! If there were an effective treatment, the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccines wouldn't have been issued. Those vaccines would have had to go through standard testing and approval. Of course, if an effective treatment were to exist, we wouldn't have to muzzle ourselves in public and we wouldn't need an untested vaccine.

    As I said in Post #118, once they are in power, they won't give a rat's ass about any of the great unwashed (us.) We'll be following their orders. They'll be the ones issuing those orders. They'll be the ones flying all over the world to meet with other "important people." In essence, they'll keep the earth's bounty of fossil fuels for their own purposes. Either way, it will get consumed.

    >Early in the Phanerozoic eon (started ~when trilobites first showed up in the fossil record,) atmospheric CO2 levels were approximately 7,000 PPM. Yet, we didn't have runaway global warming. [Travis' quote of Grover's writing.]

    We have completely different conditions now, let alone 7.8 billion people depending on the planet as is to survive.

    Actually, the atmospheric conditions aren't that different now compared to when CO2 levels were approximately 7,000 PPM. At that time, CO2 comprised 0.7% of the atmosphere whereas now, it comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere. The point I was trying to make was that the earth's atmosphere has experienced much higher concentrations of CO2 than we currently have. Yet, we didn't experience the runaway global warming that all the climate-change-______-______ warn us about. Geological evidence says it isn't a problem. What evidence do you have to say it is a problem?

    I stand by my predictions.  As the data changes, I will change.  We are on track to loose all sea ice in the arctic within a decade.  After the sea ice is gone things are very likely to get ugly, including the real possibility in collapse of most farming in the northern hemisphere.

    We currently cannot predict dumping 36 million tons of CO2 per year will turn out okay, and there is increasing evidence to suggest it will turn out badly.

    I certainly hope that you will change your mind when the data changes. I really don't hold out much hope. Even though the CO2 based climate models predictions continue to predict higher temperatures than what we subsequently observe, you still stand by your predictions. Hmmm.

    Dumping about 36 million tons of CO2 per year is about what we've been doing for the last decade. Before that, we dumped not quite as much, but still lots. The atmosphere responded with an increased concentration of CO2. Since fossil fuel consumption is the biggest manmade contributor, and since fossil fuels are rapidly depleting, isn't your worry a moot point?

    Yes, I think a world vote on this topic is very fair. [concerning continued burning of fossil fuels.]

    Yes, I would vote to immediately start cutting CO2 as outlined earlier.

    Travis, if your vote was just about your choices and didn't force me to comply with your choices, I'd be all in favor of letting you go about your business unimpeded. Did you open the link I provided for the radiative forcing? I'd bet dollars to donuts that you didn't. Why should you bother to read a couple of pertinent paragraphs? If you bury your head in the ground like an ostrich, nothing can hurt you - right?

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 05, 2021 - 5:35pm

    TWalker5

    TWalker5

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Mar 13 2020

    Posts: 110

    7

    Regarding Climate Change

    With due respect to Grover and Travis, who have made compelling posts, I personally don’t think climate change (CC) is worth the argument. The science is difficult for even intelligent people to fully grasp and the issue has become highly politicized.

    I believe that the environmental movement has really missed the boat with its continued drum banging for CC. There are so many very important, potentially existential, and often far more tangible environmental issues that are being almost ignored with the hyper focus on CC:  peak oil, the problems of plastic, the destruction of our soils, etc.  I think things like cutting plastic use and promoting regenerative agriculture can be “sold” much more easily to the general population than CC. The ironic thing is, if we substantially reduce plastics and destructive chemical Ag, we’ll cut greenhouse gasses proportionally.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 1:50am

    gyrogearloose

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 367

    2

    gyrogearloose said:

    Over the last few years as glaciers recede, there have been interesting finds in wide spread locations.

    Tree stumps and other plant matter has been uncovered as the ice disappeared.

    Carbon dating in the range of 3000 to 8000 years old.

    For the species uncovered to grow where it would need to be around 2 degrees warmer than present.

    Back then sea levels were around 2 meters higher than present.

    And in those times CO2 was 260-280 ppm

    A troubling inconsistency.

    Can the models hind cast and match the observed data?

    Cheers Hamish

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 9:24am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    1

    Once again ao

    You miss the point. You have a very narrow movie playing. Yes gray hair gives you wisdom to some extent. In our current state of affairs gray hair is fucking the young. Wise for them for the young not so much.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 10:25am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 580

    0

    Millennials fill me with optimism

    @pinecarr wrote:

     I feel so old after watching the "Millennial YIR" video, lol!  I got a healthy dose of inter-generational culture shock, that was both eye-opening and educational.

    It is indeed eye-opening to spend time in the Millennial world! Though I'm mid-60s, I've spent a lot of time there over the last couple years because it's the BTC world.

    Some of the brightest young minds are in the crypto world. And without doubt, the hope for the future is to be found among the BTC crowd of Millennials. At times I feel transported back to the bars and inns before the American Revolution, observing young bright minds hash out the philosophical underpinnings for the next iteration of social and political culture. Only, this time they're thinking globally.

    Hanging in the BTC Twitterverse fills me with hope for the coming First Turning. It's all going to be alright. The deep revolutionaries with strong libertarian convictions are  Bitcoin maximalists.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 10:25am

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    0

    Mohammed, once again

    You fall into the trap of the Hegelian dialectic and feed into a false narrative, fomenting another source of divisive conflict, that of young vs. old, and unfairly making the boomers the scapegoat.  Do you really think the average grey haired pensioner, just trying to get by, is the source of the plight faced by the Millennials?  What's next?  Saying the Jews are the source of all the problems on the planet?    

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 10:38am

    ao

    ao

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1562

    2

    VT Gothic, I agree

    The Millennials fill me with optimism too.  I have two of them for children and they are wonderful people.  I do have some concerns about them (which, right or wrong, has always been true about the older generation for the younger generation) but I have even more concerns about the Gen Xers who are coming up to bat.  That's a whole different subject though.  The problem with the Millennials and their relationship with BTC is that they are adopting and counting on a largely defensive strategy.  You don't prevail in conflicts with a defensive strategy.  Neither do you win conflicts if you don't truly know who your enemy is and target the enemy accordingly with effective measures.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 11:08am

    Netlej

    Netlej

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 09 2020

    Posts: 119

    1

    Netlej said:

    Gyro - Clearly Earth has gone through periods of hotter, colder, high CO2, lower CO2, all of which happens over thousands or even millions of years with wild highs and lows. Over the last million years or so these gyrations have leveled out more and more resulting in a fairly stable climate over the last several thousand years allowing for human development.

    At issue now is humanity has upset that stability by pumping ever larger amounts of CO2 at an ever increasing rate over a relatively short time.  The outcome is well understood, has been for over 200 years.

    You can try and counter gravity by not believing it and jumping off a tall building but the outcome will be the same as trying not to believe in AGW.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 11:42am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    0

    ao

    I think you and are are quite done.

    I don't have the time.

    Good luck

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 3:52pm

    gyrogearloose

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 367

    1

    Waffling past the point.

    I think that comparing co2 levels and temperature from times when continents were arranged differently falls into  logical fallicy categories.

    But in the last million years I  suspect that the changes in contenintal layout could be considered insignificant for this issue.

    For roughly the last million years we have been  in an ice age  where much of the USA, the whole of the UK, much of Europe is covered in ice sheets, interspaced with 10 to 15k year interglacials.

    Sort of half  way through this interglacial, when CO2 levels were much lower than present, it seems that it was much warmer than present.

    CAGW holds that CO2 is the primary temperature control knob.

    If that is true, how is it that a few thousand years ago there were forests where we now have glaciers.

    A theory is invalidated if it cannot explain a single exception.

    Warmer with lower CO2 would  seem to be an exception.

    So for CAGW to stand this anomoly must be explained.

    You "pumping ever larger amounts of CO2 at an ever increasing rate over a relatively short time.  The outcome is well understood, has been for over 200 years."

    Did you slip a decimal point? They knew of CAGWA 200 years ago????

    You "trying to not beleve in AGW"

    It seems that you are making a common believers error of assuming that I, like many CAGW skeptics do not belive the world is warming and it is not the cause.

    I ( like many skeptics ) agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and man is contributing to increasing its levels, and that the world has been warming.

    What I have yet to see sufficient evidence of is that man is the dominant cause of the warming or that the warming will be catastrophic.

    Cheers Hamish

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 5:39pm

    Quercus bicolor

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 586

    0

    those are local conditions

    What was the big picture climate like at that time in a global sense?  Also CO2 is not the only factor.  Orbital cycles on the order of tens of thousands of years are the prime driver of the cycles of ice ages and interglacial periods over the past few million years.  If I remember correctly, the orbital forcing towards warmth peaked about 5000 years ago.  Absent CO2 changes, we are due for another ice age sometime soon.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 06, 2021 - 9:10pm

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    1

    travissidelinger said:

    >So, if you're not going to latch onto any of the predictions, how can you promote the idea that CO2 levels are detrimental to all life on earth?  Don't you think we should improve the forecasting ability by examining all sorts of inputs to see if any make sense - or should we just stick with blaming CO2?

    Can you predict the current 36 million tons/year CO2 will turn out okay?  No, you can't.

    Our climate is a very complex dynamic system with possibly thousands of inputs and feedback loops.  We may never be able to fully module our climate system.

    We know the greenhouse effect.  We understand ocean acidification.  And there are many many other effects we understand.  Do we fully understand how these all interoperate, well no.

    We have very actually measurements of OC2 levels.  The primary driver of CO2 levels is human activity, mostly the burning of fossil fuels and changing land use.

    Like all systems with multiple inputs, they are very difficult to understand.  We know we are inputting the CO2.  We know we are causing measured CO2 levels to rise.

    In the scenario where we would like to keep feeding 7.8 billion people, dumping 36 million tons of CO2 year over year is NOT my idea of a good experiment to run.  It's experimenting!!  You and nobody else knows for sure that experiment will turn out just fine.  This is our only plant.  Mass experimenting with our atmosphere is a non starter.

    > s far as SC 25 magnitude is concerned, I've seen forecasts that mostly predict SC 25 will be similar to SC 24. NASA is predicting reduced solar activity (as shown above.) Prof. Valentina Zharkova (as mentioned by Bomber in post #2) uses a double-dynamo-model of the sun to predict that we'll be in a grand solar minimum into at least 2053. This has profound implications for growing crops and those who eat those crops.

    I'm not sure what you are concluding there.  Maybe global warming meets global cooling and we get a happy medium 🙂

    If only that was what we were seeing.

    > I noticed that you mentioned solar dimming in post #33. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. Could you elaborate?

    Solar forcing.  Same stuff.

    > Klaus Schwab

    Well if your plans are that widely known, something tells those are not the real plans, ,or you messed up royally.  I'm not that concerned yet.

    > As I said in Post #118, once they are in power, they won't give a rat's ass about any of the great unwashed (us.)

    We'll see on that one.

    >Geological evidence says it isn't a problem. What evidence do you have to say it is a problem?

    1. Well there is a huge amount of CO2 and methane locked up arctic permafrost.  If those were to release there is supposedly enough to raise CO2 several hundred ppm in a short period of time.

    2. We are headed towards an ice free arctic.  It's the cold ice in the arctic with a hot equator that maintains the jet streams.

    3. I don't know if we will have a runaway greenhouse effect.  It doesn't matter.

    4. What does matter is that we keep the same jet stream pattern that we have been used to.  If in 10 years the jet streams are bringing 6 months of rain and then 6 months of baking heat, we won't be able to grow crops.

    5. One study (I think it was 2014) of arctic permafrost found very large amounts of nitrous oxide locked up in the permafrost.  Normally we don't need to worry about nitrous oxide in soil as it's naturally broken down, except in the case where it's trapped and melts.  Out of that study they concluded there was many times the amount of nitrous oxide needed to wipe out all ozone on the planet, and that we should study this in much more depth.  Now I don't know if that will happen, but all life dead within a few years sounds like a pretty bad outcome that we should just maybe make an attempt to avoid.  (You seem to be more on the "hell, let's see what happens side")

    6. It's the rate of CO2 dumping and the rapid pace of climate change that are the biggest problems.  If we moved to 7000ppm of CO2 over a period of 70000 years, I understand the impact on climate would be much less.

    7. This last year (2020), we have several weeks of 95F temperature in our area May/June time frame.  Later that summer we went to our normal farmer about 30 miles outside the city to buy some straw.  No straw available.  Everybody was short, and they were having to import straw themselves.

    8. In 2019, we saw solid rain for most of the spring.  Corn crops couldn't get planted until mid June.  Then it switched from cold and wet to hot and dry.  The farmer I talked to said there was one rain shower in late August that saved their butts.

    9. These types of weather changes have been happening and getting worse over the last decade.  This is mostly likely our future.

    My prediction, any year now we could see major crop failures, both in the US, Europe, Asia, or all at the same time.

    > Did you open the link I provided for the radiative forcing?

    Yes, I did.  Did you read it?  That is not a paper for the general public to consume.  Basically they are including radiative forcing in the next IPCC climate module.  I didn't see any conclusions there, other than they are still studying it.  Correct me if you have a different interpretation.  That was not an easy read.

    -Travis

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 07, 2021 - 5:27am

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    2

    travissidelinger said:

    I certainly hope that you will change your mind when the data changes. I really don't hold out much hope. Even though the CO2 based climate models predictions continue to predict higher temperatures than what we subsequently observe, you still stand by your predictions. Hmmm.

    90% of the extra heat is going into the deep oceans and melting the ice.  Again, the climate system is extremely complicated.  "A model's predictions turned out wrong therefore all it's ideas are wrong".  In a simple science, that might be true.  In a system as complex as our climate, that is not true.  There are very complex interactions and feedback loops going.  Maybe over time we will make better modeling progress, and maybe not.

    Travis, if your vote was just about your choices and didn't force me to comply with your choices,

    My vote is to keep things as they are and move a lot slower.  A conservative vote.  A safer vote.

    Your vote is to radically proceed into the unknown with the only life support system we have.

    Again, go find a different planet to run your experiments on.  This one is taken.

    -Travis

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 07, 2021 - 1:36pm

    Grover

    Grover

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 894

    9

    Just The Way It Is

    Travis,

    Believe it or not, but I was just trying to alleviate your angst about climate change. I started by showing Worldometer's compilation of fossil fuel reserves as reported by various companies/countries. These numbers are motivated by financial/economic concerns and should be taken with a grain of salt. Frankly, I see those numbers as the upper bound of what's available to consume. Those fossil fuels will be consumed as long as it is economically viable. The only questions are when will it be consumed and by whom?

    Then, I tried to show you that current climate change science is moving toward accepting solar forcing as the dominant cause of the recent warming. Predictions about the future are always fraught with peril; however, because of the sun's reduced activity since the early '90s and the decade or 2 lag found with earth's temperature response, I will safely predict that arctic ice will not disappear within the next decade. It is more than likely to freeze more in the winter and melt less in the summer - at least for the next decade or two.

    I tried to show you that the earth has experienced much higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the past. If it were to lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, how do we have such placid conditions today? But, you'll have none of that. You worry that we're dumping 35+ billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year and destroying the ecosystem. You also worry about feeding the 7.8 billion humans on the planet. Have you seen what world population was before the industrial revolution? The carrying capacity (sans fossil fuel usage) is likely in the range of 1.5 billion humans.

    You also worry that the weather is getting more extreme and that it will get much worse as time goes on - as if that is an artifact of AGW and has never happened before. If you looked at geological evidence, you would see that drastic and prolonged climatic changes occur repeatedly. It is the norm, not the exception. Even in the last century, we've had extreme events that lasted for years and caused massive damages. Just look at the Dust Bowl as a pertinent example. How can you blame AGW for that?

    It now looks like Joe Biden will be our next president - for at least a day. He has asked John Kerry to be his climate czar and move us back to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas limitations. That means that they will institute draconian measures to limit consumption of fossil fuels. It will either be outright quotas or higher taxes. Meanwhile the government will be able to consume as much as it "needs" to perform its functions.

    You probably have a job that allows you to work from home. Imagine having a job that can't be performed at home - grocery store worker, builder, maid, etc. Their costs are going to increase at the same time that their employers will not be able to raise compensation. Why? The economy won't be able to support it. Shopkeepers will have a hard enough time avoiding bankruptcy. It's the little people who will pay an outsized price for this new policy.

    As I pointed out about Klaus Schwab and the "Build Back Better" slogans used by world leaders, they want to destroy the economy so they can rebuild it green. Doesn't that sound fantastic? Where are they going to get the energy to do that? Meanwhile, who's pulling the levers behind the curtain? Hmmm.

    Mohammed Mast said that there is no solution for climate change. I agree with him. Twalker5 said that there are more important issues to focus on. I agree with him as well. We're in a Fourth Turning. We won't be able to peacefully resolve the dramatic left-right differences without fighting for all the marbles. We're heading to Civil War 2.0. The only way to avoid that is to conjure up an external enemy (China or Russia) and convince both sides of the looming Civil conflict that we have an existential threat bigger than our petty differences. Just imagine the nuclear winter that would result from such a war. At least, we will have prevented anthropogenic global warming. 😉

    I'm an old, white-haired man. My best years are in the rear view mirror. Granted, I won't have to live with the consequences of business-as-usual fossil fuel burning - like you probably will. Everything I've seen in life convinces me that all economically viable fossil fuels will be consumed regardless of whether or not I participate. Fossil fuels are just that valuable. Those who use it gain mechanical leverage, and that results in economic gain. The sociopaths (who feel no empathy) will use your empathy against you. They'll convince you that your sacrifice helps humanity - and you'll fall for it so hard that you'll vote to force me and everyone else to comply as well.

    It's just the way it is. I wish you the best and hope you can come to grips with your outsized angst before it is too late. You can have the final word on this subject.

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 07, 2021 - 5:48pm

    gyrogearloose

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 367

    3

    The unknown future

    I recently read a book covering the evolution of man, his spread over the world through to recent times.

    The author noted that the archaeological evidence supports the theory that agriculture was not invented in one place and spread, but developed in multiple locations around the same time.

    He had no theory as to why that was.

    My hypothesis is that it was a tesult of increasing CO2 levels.

    Look at it this way. If you plant a grain of wheat, at 260ppm you get 10 grains at harvest, but at 280ppm you get 30 grains.

    At some stage plant productivy increased sufficiently to make the EREOI high enough for agriculture to be a viable lifestyle.

    Even in the last 30 years this effect has been contributing to greater agricultural productivity.

    As Quercus bicolor noted, the obbit linked warming forcing peaked 5000 years ago.

    Looking at tempature reconstructions of the last million years, we are overdue in the decent back into an ice age.

    Cheers Hamish

    Ps. Grovers post showed up after I posted this.

    Very good post Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 07, 2021 - 5:56pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 1432

    0

    WOW Grover

    That's it just WOW

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 08, 2021 - 6:54am

    travissidelinger

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 17 2010

    Posts: 223

    2

    travissidelinger said:

    Even in the last century, we've had extreme events that lasted for years and caused massive damages. Just look at the Dust Bowl as a pertinent example. How can you blame AGW for that?

    Um, I don't blame AGW the Dust Bowl.

    Look, I don't know what the "correct" CO2 ppm level is.  None of you do either.  It's a really complicated system.  Once you have an accurate working model that can predict how the system will respond from current conditions with dumping 36 million tons CO2/year, and several hundred years showing that model was able to make reasonable predictions, then I will concede your points.  The problem is still the current rate of change.  It's simply too fast, too large, and reckless; combined with strong data to suggest serious climate problems are in our immediate future.

    That means that they will institute draconian measures to limit consumption of fossil fuels.

    You mean potentially reasonable measures   🙂

    It will either be outright quotas or higher taxes.

    Well I hope those taxes target all fossil fuel consumption.  Okay lets do it starting now.

    Mohammed Mast said that there is no solution for climate change.

    But there are solutions, as I have laid out.  All of those items are in line with things we should be doing anyways.

    Wise person once said -  How do you eat an elephant?  "One bite at a time".

    As I said before, I can plan for all those other things outlined here (peak oil, currency collapse, war, etc).  What I can not plan for is becoming a climate refuge that needs move every two years.  And I can not plan for 500 million climate refugees moving into my region because I picked a better spot to live.

    I'm in my mid years, and we have a blended family with 5 kids.  We cannot concede to isn't hopeless and there is nothing to be done.  There are things we can be doing.  As it's clear here, we just have too many people looking for reasons why they themselves don't need to change.

    -Travis

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 09, 2021 - 1:22pm

    Daniel Hromyko

    Daniel Hromyko

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 06 2010

    Posts: 13

    0

    Climate v Economics

    There has been a Northwest Passage. How long has it been since a ship could traverse from the Atlantic to the Pacific via the Arctic? Before the last ice age? Is there a still a glacier in Glacier National Park? Greenland's ice sheet and Glaciers all over the world have been shrinking fast. Coral Reefs across the planet are being decimated. The change is indeed incremental, and the same change over 50 years or 500 years is still incremental. Contrary to Mr Collum's claim that we can't tell the difference between weather and climate, I can and do. I know there are models and studies, and on and on and on, and even the people with decades of "on the job" training/experience can disagree, and I do agree with Mr Collum that the data and conclusions from it are just guessing for anyone other than experts in the science. Some of them may have got it right, and know, but there is no way for the laymen to know who has it right. I'm going with what I can understand, and that is the correct choice. What is causing the changes I've mentioned is heat, more now than before, duh! CO2 is the horse that most scientists are betting on, so I'll go with the numbers that winners do. As the lesson in the old adage I won't get right goes, the race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's where you place your bet. There is nothing that can be done about it in any case, other than kill billions of people. 80% of the energy consumed in the US is from fossil fuels and there is nothing that can replace it. We either use the energy derived from fossil fuels or die. The energy from fossil fuels did the work that made us, it grew us like the light from the sun grows trees in the Amazon, but trees in the jungle don't need to expend 10 units of energy for a 1 energy unit dinner. No energy = no work. Unfortunately Americans built the economic environment that they depend on to sustain their lives by designing the most efficient economic system for wasting  the most energy possible, depleting the greatest amount of resources possible, in the shortest span of time possible, in order to create as much "profit" as possible with more debt than thought possible, the creation of wealth from worthless money still impossible.  Money is a promise, tangible money paper or gold is still a promise. Paper money backed by gold is the representation of value, representing the value of a representation of value, or a promise for another promise. The purpose of gold money is to help insure promises are not lies. Gold money is a fixed measure that a society agrees on and the role of government is to enforce that the standard is adhered to. The compounds that comprise what we refer to as Fossil Fuel Hydrocarbons, have stored within their chemical bonds energy released from the Sun#?> years ago that is so dense, that though we are surrounded with its use our monkey brains aren't designed to process the scope of numeric values and discern their significance. Free work. Gold as money being fixed standard and the amount that could be mined and minted is limited. The US produced 3200 auto's in 1901, 130,000 in 1910, and 1.45million in 1920. Regardless of how much gold was imported in exchange for exports, gold coins stashed in 1900, 20 years later, the ratio of gold to goods multiples the amount of prior goods available resulted in hoarding gold and spending paper money until there wasn't enough in circulation. Capitalism destroyed the Gold Standard. Then Capitalism destroyed it again. Wars to swindle and loot resources for Capitalism's creation of the Third World and markets that would never develop to purchase the surplus of production that started running out of places to be sold, and ways to keep wasting. From too little money for too much stuff, to an  exponentially increasing supply of money as more debt, than the money supplied and it can't be stopped, or the less money there is in ratio to the debt. The energy consumed by the US is close to 70 times more than a 3000 calorie per day supply of food for every man women and child in the country. More than enough energy to supply all the work necessary for us to live if the resources to supply our existence were available, but they are not without fossil energy. There is no, and can be no other economic infrastructure to support us. What we have  took decades to build and fossil fuels to keep running. The industrial part of military industrial... are corporations with stock holders, and I'd bet there are some real wealthy people that own significant portions of those corporations. Real wealthy people own significant portions of lots of big important corporations. A tiny, tiny, percent of people own America. The controlling shares, so to speak. If they thought putting Americans to work building a new, better, modified, repaired infrastructure was possible, that is what would be happening. Changing bankruptcy laws and psychologically handicapping students with debt isn't a coincidence. Money to them is a different animal. It's a means to an end, and that end is control. Banks create money by adding numerical values in a ledger. Money is a chimera, smoke and mirrors. Fossil energy makes work free, resources that cost nothing, the Pharos's built the pyramids, had great riches, by controlling people, having them pile up rocks in the desert and they did it with energy from biomass that was spread out over the geography #*? square miles. Pharos's lavished themselves and their family with the proceeds of free work they skimmed from the enterprise, and their propaganda/religion/indoctrination is still working today. Filling up Americas landfills has been China's pyramid. Capitalism would have died in America because it can produce way more than we needed, and it must grow or die. China produced "Made In China" that seems to be on everything purchased that uses electricity, made of fiber, and most of everything manufactured, and managed to pour more concrete in 3 years than America did in the past 100 years. Control. What is Power, but the power to control? The police state that was unimaginable to 99% of Americans 20 years ago surrounds us, monitors all of our communications, and records everything, has cameras and spies (intelligence), informants, and collaborators that spy on us, and how many people still don't see it? Censorship is control. Election fraud and treason for anyone to see and hear just by watching the 3 hour Georgia Senate Subcommittee hearing on Dec 30, rather than listening to what people claim without  an oath that ensures lies are perjury, regardless of who is lying it's strangers talking. The US economy is comprised of interdependent complex systems for which our ability to understand the hierarchy of priorities to scale it back, or how much, before cascading systems failure crash it down, seems that it would be unfathomable,  but then again I may be wrong because it sure seems there're indications that it's being attempted now. Maybe the controllers are working on or already have sold us out to China. Cheney and The Project For A New American Century cabal put all the chips on securing the oil of the Middle East. The Machinations for decades, that are clear from at least when James Baker via Ambassador April Glaspie betrayed Saddam Hussein, are meeting resistance it appears, though who is behind Iran being antagonized I wonder, because I am skeptical that Trump has more than minimal control of foreign policy. The US has been installing and supporting puppet dictators that sell out their populations, or betray their government since the annexation of Panama from Columbia. The similarity in character between informants (rat) and cops (rat-master) collaborators/dictator and US State Department personnel, begs the question why wouldn't the public be sold out? Americans lost their country already, and real trouble hasn't started yet. I know what the top of America's political class are and they should be feared. "We came, we saw, he died ha ha" laughing at the horrible death that she is probably the most responsible for, and "but the price, we think, we think the price is worth it" and nothing was said, not a word heard on the radio the following day, the local news, the newspaper, with 2 TV's and 2 remotes flipping back and forth between the main network channels world news, and nothing. Past the empty cans of Zyklon B the public is being led to aroma therapy. We made our bed and are going to die in it, and not of old age.

    Login or Register to post comments