Blog

Collapse Is Already Here

It's a process, not an event
Friday, January 25, 2019, 10:18 PM

Many people are expecting some degree of approaching collapse -- be it economic, environmental and/or societal -- thinking that they’ll recognize the danger signs in time. 

As if it will be completely obvious, like a Hollywood blockbuster. Complete with clear warnings from scientists, politicians and the media.  And everyone can then get busy either panicking or becoming the plucky heroes. 

That's not how collapse works.

Collapse is a process, not an event.

And it's already underway, all around us. 

Collapse is already here.

However, unlike Hollywood's vision, the early stages of collapse cause people to cling even tighter to the status quo. Instead of panic in the streets, we simply see more of the same -- as those in power do all they can to remain so, while the majority of the public attempts to ignore the growing problems for as long as it possibly can.

For both the elite and the majority, their entire world view and their personal sense of self depends on things not crumbling all around them, so they remain willfully blind to any evidence to the contrary.

When faced with the predicaments we warn about here at PeakProsperity.com, getting an early start on prudently shifting your own personal situation is of vital strategic and tactical importance. Tens of thousands of our readers already have taken wise steps in their lives to position themselves resiliently.

But most of the majority won't get started until it’s entirely too late to make any difference at all. Which is sad but perhaps unavoidable, given human nature.

If everybody around you is saying “Everything is awesome!”, it can take a long time to determine for yourself that things in fact aren't:

Real collapse happens slowly, and often without any sort of acknowledgement by the so-called political and economic elites until its abrupt terminal end.

The degree of rot within the Soviet Union went undetected until its final implosion, catching pretty much everyone in the West (as well as in the former USSR!) by surprise.   

Similarly, one day people woke up and passenger pigeons were extinct.  They used to literally darken the skies for hours as they migrated past, numbering in the billions. Nobody planned on their demise and virtually nobody saw it coming.  Sure, just as there always are, a few crackpots at the fringes noticed, but they were ignored until it was too late.

Our view is that collapse of our current way of life is happening right now. The signs are all around us.  Our invitation is for you to notice them and inquire critically what the ramifications will be -- irrespective of whatever pablum our leaders and media are currently spewing.

While the monetary and financial elites strain to crank out one more day/week/month/year of “market stability”, the ecosystems we depend on for life are vanishing. It's as if the Rapture were happening, but it's the insects, plants and animals ascending to heaven instead of we humans.

Committing Ecocide

Be very skeptical when the cause of each new ecological nightmare is ascribed to “natural causes.” 

While it’s entire possible for any one ecological mishap to be due to a natural cycle, it’s weak thinking to assign the same cause to dozens of troubling findings happening all over the globe.

As they say in the military: Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. But three times is enemy action.

Right now, Australia is in the middle of the summer season and being absolutely hammered by high heat.  Sure it gets hot during an Australian summer, but not like this. The impact has been devastating:

Australia's Facing an Unprecedented Ecological Crisis, But No One's Paying Attention

Jan 9, 2019

It started in December, just before Christmas.

Hundreds of dead perch were discovered floating along the banks of the Darling River – victims of a "dirty, rotten green" algae bloom spreading in the still waters of the small country town of Menindee, Australia.

Things didn't get better. The dead hundreds became dead thousands, as the crisis expanded to claim the lives of 10,000 fish along a 40-kilometre (25-mile) stretch of the river. But the worst was still yet to come.

This week, the environmental disaster has exploded to a horrific new level – what one Twitter user called "Extinction level water degradation" – with reports suggesting up to a million fish have now been killed in a new instance of the toxic algae bloom conditions.

For their part, authorities in the state of New South Wales have only gone as far as confirming "hundreds of thousands" of fish have died in the event – but regardless of the exact toll, it's clear the deadly calamity is an unprecedented ecological disaster in the region's waterways.

"I've never seen two fish kills of this scale so close together in terms of time, especially in the same stretch of river," fisheries manager Iain Ellis from NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) explained to ABC News.

The DPI blames ongoing drought conditions for the algae bloom's devastating impact on local bream, cod, and perch species – with a combination of high temperature and chronic low water supply (along with high nutrient concentrations in the water) making for a toxic algal soup.

(Source)

Watching the video above showing grown men crying over the loss of 100-year-old fish is heartbreaking. This fish kill is described as “unprecedented” and as an “extinction level event", meaning it left no survivors over a long stretch of waterway.

We can try to console ourselves that maybe this was just a singular event, a cluster of bad juju and worse waterway management that combined to give us this horror -- but it wasn’t.

It's part of a larger tapestry of heat-induced misery that Australia is facing:

How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia

Jan 15, 2019

Over two days in November, record-breaking heat in Australia's north wiped out almost one-third of the nation's spectacled flying foxes, according to researchers.

The animals, also known as spectacled fruit bats, were unable to survive in temperatures which exceeded 42C.

"It was totally depressing," one rescuer, David White, told the BBC.

Flying foxes are no more sensitive to extreme heat than some other species, experts say. But because they often gather in urban areas in large numbers, their deaths can be more conspicuous, and easily documented.

"It raises concerns as to the fate of other creatures who have more secretive, secluded lifestyles," Dr Welbergen says.

He sees the bats as the "the canary in the coal mine for climate change".

(Source)

A two-day heatwave last November (2018) was sufficient to kill up to a third of all Australia's known flying foxes, a vulnerable species that was already endangered.  As those bats are well-studied and their deaths quite conspicuous to observers, it raises the important question: How many other less-scrutinized species are dying off at the same time?

And the death parade continues:

Are these data points severe enough for you to recognize as signs of ongoing collapse?

Last summer was a time of extreme drought and heat for Australia, and this summer looks set to be even worse. This may be the country's  'new normal' for if the situation is due to climate change instead of just an ordinary (if punishing) hot cycle. 

If so, these heat waves will likely intensify over time, completely collapsing the existing biological systems across Australia.

Meanwhile, nearby in New Zealand, similar species loss is underway:

'Like losing family': time may be running out for New Zealand's most sacred tree

July 2018

New Zealand’s oldest and most sacred tree stands 60 metres from death, as a fungal disease known as kauri dieback spreads unabated across the country.

Tāne Mahuta (Lord of the Forest) is a giant kauri tree located in the Waipoua forest in the north of the country, and is sacred to the Māori people, who regard it as a living ancestor.

The tree is believed to be around 2,500 years old, has a girth of 13.77m and is more than 50m tall.

Thousands of locals and tourists alike visit the tree every year to pay their respects, and take selfies beside the trunk.

Now, the survival of what is believed to be New Zealand’s oldest living tree is threatened by kauri dieback, with kauri trees a mere 60m from Tāne Mahuta confirmed to be infected.

Kauri dieback causes most infected trees to die, and is threatening to completely wipe out New Zealand’s most treasured native tree species, prized for its beauty, strength and use in boats, carvings and buildings.

“We don’t have any time to do the usual scientific trials anymore, we just have to start responding immediately in any way possible; it is not ideal but we have kind of run out of time,” Black says, adding that although there is no cure for kauri dieback there is a range of measures which could slow its progress.

(Source)

People are rallying to try and save the kauri trees, although it’s unclear exactly how to stop the spread of the new fungal invader or why it's so pathogenic all of a sudden.  It could be due to another natural sort of cycle (except the fungus was thought to have been introduced and spread by human activity) or it could be another collapse indicator we need to finally hear and heed.

It turns out that New Zealand is not alone. Giant trees are dying all over the globe.

2,000-year-old baobab trees in Africa are suddenly and rather mysteriously giving up the ghost.  These trees survived happily for 2,000 years and now all of a sudden they're dying. Are the deaths of our most ancient trees all across the globe some sort of natural process? Or is there a different culprit we need to recognize?

In Japan they're lamenting record low squid catches.  Oh well, maybe it’s just overfishing?  Or could it be another message we need to heed?

To all this we can add the numerous scientific articles now decrying the 'insect Apocalypse' unfolding across the northern hemisphere. The Guardian recently issued this warning: “Insect collapse: ‘We are destroying our life support systems’”. Researchers in Puerto Rico's forest preserves recorded a 98% decline in insect mass over 35 years.  Does a 98% decline have a natural explanation? Or is something bigger going on?

Meanwhile, the butterfly die-off is unfolding with alarming speed. I rarely see them in the summer anymore, much to my great regret.  Seeing one is now as exciting as seeing a meteor streak across the sky, and just as rare:

Monarch butterfly numbers plummet 86 percent in California

Jan 7, 2019

CAMARILLO, Calif. – The number of monarch butterflies turning up at California's overwintering sites has dropped by about 86 percent compared to only a year ago, according to the Xerces Society, which organizes a yearly count of the iconic creatures.

That’s bad news for a species whose numbers have already declined an estimated 97 percent since the 1980s.

Each year, monarchs in the western United States migrate from inland areas to California’s coastline to spend the winter, usually between September and February.

“It’s been the worst year we’ve ever seen,” said Emma Pelton, a conservation biologist with the Xerces Society who helps lead the annual Thanksgiving count. “We already know we’re dealing with a really small population, and now we have a really bad year and all of a sudden, we’re kind of in crisis mode where we have very, very few butterflies left.”

What’s causing the dramatic drop-off is somewhat of a mystery. Experts believe the decline is spurred by a confluence of unfortunate factors, including late rainy-season storms across California last March, the effects of the state’s years long drought and the seemingly relentless onslaught of wildfires that have burned acres upon acres of habitat and at times choked the air with toxic smoke.

(Source)

Note the “explanation” given blames the decline on mostly natural processes: late storms, droughts and wildfires. I believe that's because the article appears in a US paper, so no mention was permitted of neonicotinoid pesticides or glyphosate. Both of these are highly effective decimators of insect life -- but they're highly profitable for Big Ag, so for now, any criticism is not allowed.

Sure a 97% decline since the 1980’s might be due to fires, droughts and rains. But that’s really not very likely.  There have always been fires, droughts and rains.  Something else has shifted since the 1980’s. And that “thing” is human activity, which has increased its willingness to destroy habitat and spray poisons everywhere in pursuit of cheaper food and easier profits.

The loss of insects, which we observe in the loss of the beautiful and iconic Monarch butterfly, is a gigantic warning flag that we desperately need to heed.  If the bottom of our billion-year-old food web disintegrates, you can be certain that the repercussions to humans will be dramatic and terribly difficult to ‘fix.’  In scientific terms, it will be called a “bottom-up trophic cascade”.

In a trophic cascade, the loss of a single layer of the food pyramid crumbles the entire structure.  Carefully-tuned food webs a billion years in the making are suddenly destabilized.  Life cannot adapt quickly enough, and so entire species are quickly lost.  Once enough species die off, the web cannot be rewoven, and life … simply ends.

What exactly would a “trophic cascade” look like in real life?  Oh, perhaps something just like this:

Deadly deficiency at the heart of an environmental mystery

Oct 16, 2018

During spring and summer, busy colonies of a duck called the common eider (Somateria mollissima) and other wild birds are usually seen breeding on the rocky coasts around the Baltic Sea. Thousands of eager new parents vie for the best spots to build nests and catch food for their demanding young broods.

But Lennart Balk, an environmental biochemist at Stockholm University, witnessed a dramatically different scene when he visited Swedish coastal colonies during a 5-year period starting in 2004. Many birds couldn’t fly. Others were completely paralyzed. Birds also weren’t eating and had difficulty breathing. Thousands of birds were suffering and dying from this paralytic disease, says Balk. “We went into the bird colonies, and we were shocked. You could see something was really wrong. It was a scary situation for this time of year,” he says.

Based on his past work documenting a similar crisis in several Baltic Sea fish species, Balk suspected that the birds’ disease was caused by a thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency. Thiamine is required for critical metabolic processes, such as energy production and proper functioning of the nervous system.

This essential micronutrient is produced mainly by plants, including phytoplankton, bacteria, and fungi; people and animals must acquire it through their food.

“We found that thiamine deficiency is much more widespread and severe than previously thought,” Balk says. Given its scope, he suggests that a pervasive thiamine deficiency could be at least partly responsible for global wildlife population declines. Over a 60-year period up to 2010, for example, worldwide seabird populations declined by approximately 70%, and globally, species are being lost 1,000 times faster than the natural rate of extinction (9, 10). “He has seen a thiamine deficiency in several differ phyla now,” says Fitzsimons of Balk. “One wonders what is going on. It’s a larger issue than we first suspected.”

(Source)

This is beyond disturbing. It should have been on the front pages of every newspaper and TV show across the globe.  We should be discussing it in urgent, worried tones and devoting a huge amount of money to studying and fixing it.  At a minimum, we should stop hauling more tiny fish and krill from the sea in an effort to at least stabilize the food pyramid while we sort things out.

If you recall, we’ve also recently reported on the findings showing that phytoplankton levels are down 50% (these are a prime source for thiamine, by the way). Again, here's a possible “trophic cascade” in progress: 

(Source)

Fewer phytoplankton means less thiamine being produced. That means less thiamine is available to pass up the food chain. Next thing you know, there’s a 70% decline in seabird populations.

This is something I’ve noticed directly and commented n during my annual pilgrimages to the northern Maine coast over the past 30 years, where seagulls used to be extremely common and are now practically gone.  Seagulls!  How does one lose seagulls?

Next thing you know, some other major food chain will be wiped out and we'll get oceans full of jellyfish instead of actual fish.  Or perhaps some once-benign mold grows unchecked because the former complex food web holding it in balance has collapsed, suddenly transforming Big Ag's "green revolution" into grayish-brown spore-ridden dust.

To add to the terrifying mix of ecological news has been the sudden and rapid loss of amphibian species all over the world.  A possible source for the culprit has been found, if that’s any consolation; though that discovery does not yet identify a solution to this saddening development.

Ground Zero of Amphibian 'Apocalypse' Finally Found

May 10, 2018

MANY OF THE world's amphibians are staring down an existential threat: an ancient skin-eating fungus that can wipe out entire forests' worth of frogs in a flash.

This ecological super-villain, the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, has driven more than 200 amphibian species to extinction or near-extinction—radically rewiring ecosystems all over Earth.

“This is the worst pathogen in the history of the world, as far as we can tell, in terms of its impacts on biodiversity,” says Mat Fisher, an Imperial College London mycologist who studies the fungus.

Now, a global team of 58 researchers has uncovered the creature's origin story. A groundbreaking study published in Science on Thursday reveals where and when the fungus most likely emerged: the Korean peninsula, sometime during the 1950s.

From there, scientists theorize that human activities inadvertently spread it far and wide—leading to amphibian die-offs across the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Australia.

(Source)

Frogs, toads and salamanders were absolutely critical parts of my childhood and I delighted in their presence. I cannot imagine a world without them. But effectively, that’s what we’ve got now with so many on the endangered species list.

This parade of awful ecological news is both endless and worsening. And there is no real prospect for us to fix things in time to avoid substantial ecological pain.  None.

After all, we can’t even manage our watersheds properly. And those are dead simple by comparison. Water falls from the sky in (Mostly) predictable volume and you then distribute somewhat less than that total each year.  Linear and simple in comparison to trying to unravel the many factors underlying a specie's collapse.

But challenges like this are popping up all over the globe:

Fear And Grieving In Las Vegas: Colorado River Managers Struggle With Water Scarcity

Dec 14th, 2018

On stage in a conference room at Las Vegas's Caesars Palace, Keith Moses said coming to terms with the limits of the Colorado River is like losing a loved one.

"It reminds me of the seven stages of grief," Moses said. "Because I think we've been in denial for a long time."

Moses is vice chairman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, a group of four tribes near Parker, Arizona. He was speaking at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association meeting.

The denial turned to pain and guilt as it became clear just how big the supply and demand gaps were on the river that delivers water to 40 million people in the southwest.

For the last six months Arizona's water leaders have been experiencing the third stage of grief: anger and bargaining.

Of the seven U.S. states that rely on the Colorado River, Arizona has had the hardest time figuring out how to rein in water use and avoid seeing the river's largest reservoirs — Lakes Mead and Powell — drop to extremely low levels.

Kathryn Sorenson, director of Phoenix's water utility, characterized the process this way: "Interesting. Complicated. Some might say difficult."

One of the loudest voices in the debate has been coming from a small group of farmers in rural Pinal County, Arizona, south of Phoenix.

Under the current rules those farmers could see their Colorado River supplies zeroed out within two years.

The county's biggest grower of cotton and alfalfa, Brian Rhodes, is trying to make sure that doesn't happen. The soil in his fields is powder-like, bursting into tiny brown clouds with each step.

"We're going to have to take large cuts," Rhodes said. "We all understand that."

(Source)

Oh my goodness. If we’re having trouble realizing that wasting precious water from the Colorado River to grow cotton is a bad idea, then there’s just no hope at all that we'll successfully rally to address the loss of ocean phytoplankton. 

That’s about the easiest connection of dots that could ever be made.  As Sam Kinison, the 1980’s comedian might have yelled – IT’S A DESERT!! YOU’RE TRYING TO GROW WATER-INTENSIVE CROPS IN THE FREAKING DESERT!  CAN’T YOU SEE ALL THE SAND AROUND YOU?!? THAT MEANS "DON’T GROW COTTON HERE!!"

A World On The Brink

The bottom line is this: We are destroying the natural world. And that means that we are destroying ourselves. 

I know that the mainstream news has relegated this conversation to the back pages (when they covered it at all) and so it's not “front and center” for most people.  But it should be.

Everything we hold dear is a subset of the ecosphere. If that goes, so does everything else. Nothing else matters in the slightest if we actively destroy the Earth’s carrying capacity.

At the same time, we're in the grips of an extremely dangerous delusion that has placed money, finance and the economy at the top spot on our temple of daily worship.

Any idea of slowing down or stopping economic growth is “bad for business” and dismissed out of hand as “not practical”, "undesirable" or "unwise".  It’s always a bad time to discuss the end of economic growth, apparently. 

But as today's young people are increasingly discovering, if "conducting business" is just a lame rationale for failed stewardship of our lands and oceans, then it’s a broken idea. One not worth preserving in its current form.

The parade of terrible ecological breakdowns provided above is there for all willing to see it. Are you willing?  Each failing ecosystem is screaming at us in urgent, strident tones that we’ve gone too far in our quest for "more".

We might be able to explain away each failure individually. But taken as a whole?  The pattern is clear: We’ve got enemy action at work.  These are not random coincidences.

Nature is warning us loudly that it's past time to change our ways.  That our "endless growth" model is no longer valid. In fact, it's now becoming an existential threat

The collapse is underway. It’s just not being televised (yet).

Davos As Destiny

And don't expect the cavalry to arrive.

Our leadership is absolutely not up to the task. If the Davos conference currently underway in Switzerland is a sign of anything at all, it’s that we’re doomed.

The world has been taken over by bankers and financiers too smitten by their love of money to notice much else or be of any practical service to the world.

By way of illustrative example, here’s the big techno-feel-good idea unveiled on the second day of the conference.  The crowds there loved it:

Yes, folks, this is what the world most desperately needs at this time! /sarc 

While I’m sure drone-delivered books is a heartwarming story, it’s completely diversionary and utterly meaningless in the face of collapsing oceanic and terrestrial food webs.

Sadly, this is exactly the sort of inane distraction most admired by the Davos set in large part because it helps them feel a tiny bit better about their ill-gotten wealth. "Look!  We're supporting good things!"  The ugly truth is that big wealth's main pursuit is to distort political processes and rules to assure they get to keep it and even amass more. 

Drones carrying books to Indonesian children provides the same sort of dopamine rush to a Davos attendee as Facebook 'like' gives to a 14-year-old. Temporary, cheap, superficial and ultimately meaningless.

The same is true of their other feel-good theme of the day. “Scientists” have discovered an enzyme that eats plastics:

That’s swell, but you know what would be even better?  Not using the bottles in the first place. Which could be accomplished by providing access to safe, potable water as a basic human right and using re-usable containers.  Of course, that would offer less chances for private wealth accumulation so instead the Davos crowd is fixated on the profitable solution vs. doing the right thing.

In virtually every instance, the Davos crowd wants to preserve industry and our consumer culture as it is, using technology and gimmicks in attempt to remedy the ills that result.  There’s money to be made on both ends of that story.

The only thing that approach lacks is a future. Because it’s not-so-subtly based on continued "growth". Infinite exponential growth. The exact same growth that is killing ancient trees, sea birds, insects, amphibians, and phytoplankton.

Who wants more of that? Insane people.

In other words, don’t hold out any hope that the Davos set representing the so-called “elite” from every prominent nation on earth are going to somehow bravely offer up real insights on our massive predicaments and solutions to our looming problems. They're too consumed with their own egos and busy preening for prominence to notice the danger or care.

As they pointlessly fritter away another expensive gathering, the ecological world is unraveling all around them. The oceans are becoming a barren wasteland.  The ancient trees are dying.  Heatwaves are melting tar and killing life.  The web of life is snapping strand by strand and nobody can predict what happens next.

In other words, if you held out any hope that “they” would somehow rally to the cause you’d best set that completely aside. It's no wonder social anger against tone-deaf and plundering elites is breaking out right now.

From here, there are only two likely paths: 

(1) We humans simply cannot self-organize to address these plights and carry on until the bitter end, when something catastrophic happens that collapses our natural support systems. 

(2) We see the light, gather our courage, and do what needs to be done.  Consumption is widely and steeply curtailed, fossil fuel use is severely restrained, and living standards as measured by the amount of stuff flowing through our daily lives are dropped to sustainable levels.

Either path means enormous changes are coming, probably for you and definitely for your children and grandchildren. 

In Part 2: Facing Reality we dive into what developments to expect as our systems continue further along their trophic cascade. Which markers and milestones should we monitor most closely to know when the next breaking point is upon us? 

To reiterate: Massive change is now inevitable and in progress.

Collapse has already begun.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

255 Comments

dtrammel's picture
dtrammel
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2011
Posts: 11
A Waste Of Energy When It Needs To Be Put To Better Use

200 plus comments! I have to agree with robie robinson who said

"Good folk here, PPr’s, are wasting time with old guy(might be a fine fellow). Settle your mare, live a rewarding bucolic life and let suburbtopia get it when and “if” it comes".

You are arguing whether human caused it, when you should be figuring out ways to learn how to survive it. The simple fact is the hottest dozen or more years on record are among the last 15. That the global perma-ice is melting at a record rate.

Its not about stupid "I'm right, you are wrong" arguments anymore. Its about learning the ways we can prepare for a "World Made Harsh". Our children and our grandchildren aren't gonna care what we argued about on some silly forum.

Grow up everyone. Refocus on what's important.

David

http://greenwizards.com/

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Excerpts from Hal Lewis's

Excerpts from Hal Lewis's resignation letter from the American Physical Society

" my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question."

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
So most people here think I

So most people here think I am full of it. Heh, it's still a free country so think as you please. I have provided a link to the 31 thousand+ scientist petition. Believe me, a lot more would have signed if they weren't in a vulnerable position making it risky to do so.
But here is another link. Comments on the issue from credentialed people. Just peruse a few of them.

https://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-...

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Am I on the payroll of the

Am I on the payroll of the heartland institute?

No, I am a libertarian, not a conservative.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1041
I too lean libertarian,eand you have a sypathetic ear

on the topic of "government funding corrupts the science". Yes, it can work that way.

But please step back and take a lookeat the foundational premise of the site: peak energy and EROEI, versus the politics of growth and the economics of debt.

It is from this foundation that the people here are then looking at: how do we survive this upcoming ecopolitical tsunami, and how does humanity and earth life in general survive it?

And it is from that viewpoint that the members here view the environmental destruction, and mourn it.

And it is from that point that the AGW is viewed.

Old Guy, maybe you are even right that the AGW is a conspiracy. But the environmental destruction is real. The crash of sea life is real. The insect crash is real. The honeybees --an invasive species here in America, but naturalized these 400 years -- are really in decline.

It is an issue.

Please, take a moment and realize from where this group comes, and then address that.

That said, we are all prone to getting a little off track. Grief and worry are distracting.

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 102
The Six Stages of Awareness

Old Guy,

as Michael above is directing you, this is Dr. Chris Martensons site, developed in its formative years from a series of indepth videos he created called, The Crash Course.

He discusses the Three E's : -

Economy

Energy

Environment 

It is the backbone and structure of this forum, for which every member should now be a knowledgeable authority, both chapter and verse.

I suspect that you haven't seen these as you've only been a member for a short time.

Further, I sense it is why you've taken such passion to write 50 posts on just one thread in your tenure.

Chaper One

I also believe you need to carefully read this through : -

The Six Stages of Awareness

by Chris Martenson

Wednesday, October 8. 2008

The text below is from a past Crash Course seminar.  It is a very loose adaptation of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross' "Five Stages of Grief."

Often a broad new awareness results in a series of emotional responses that mimic the grief associated with loss.  I call these the Six Stages of Awareness.

Each of us here is somewhere along this progression.  Most of us will inevitably pass through all six stages, each at a different speed, not always in order, and some will skip stages.

While we read or hear each others' comments at this site and elsewhere, my hope is that we can find acceptance and understanding of the fact that each person is naturally at a different stage of acceptance and awareness. 

Each person needs to process the stage they are currently in (within normal bounds of civility and appropriateness, of course) and deserves the support of others as they progress at their own pace.

(The following was spoken at a seminar:)

Today is about examining data in a whole new way.   I am going to provide you with a new framework for viewing this data, a scaffolding on which to drape this data, that is probably built a little differently than the framework you already have.  The information is absolutely vital and critical to your future, but it will be worthless if we examine it in the same way that it has been presented to us by what I’ll term ‘our popular culture.’

So your first opportunity today will be the opportunity to change your thinking.

I must warn you, this will not be easy for some.  I know this from experience.  You may well find yourself progressing through something akin to the five stages of grief throughout the day and throughout the next few months.  Awareness can be troubling enough to mirror the process of grief, and knowing this can be important in grounding oneself.

So let's now progress through some examples of what you might experience at each of the six stages.

The Six Stages of Awareness

STAGE 1:  You might begin with a series of statements to yourself, such as, “No way can this be true.  There must be alternative explanations.  This simply can’t be; I would have heard about it.”  To help speed you through this stage of denial, I offer you access to the source data so that you can check it for yourself.  Further, I only draw upon sources that I believe most reasonable people would consider to be highly credible.  If you can view all of the data that I will present and find some alternative set of explanations as to why and how all of these things will not matter, I need you to share this with me, pronto.

STAGE 2:  Next, you might find yourself full of anger, saying to yourself (and possibly your loved ones and anybody else who will listen), “Aaaaarghh!!!  Those bastards at the Fed, in the government, in media, have been hiding things from me, lying, and serving their own interests at my expense. How dare they!!!"  While anger is a perfectly normal and even healthy stage to pass though, it is also counterproductive, in the sense that anger often serves to inhibit action…and as you’ll see later, we don’t really have a lot of time to spend in the non-solution stage. So for everybody’s sake, you need to move through this phase as rapidly as possible.  This is also why you will not find me assigning blame and pointing fingers.   Blame leads to anger and often a sense of victimization – both of which serve to inhibit taking action.  Further, the "blame game" only serves to polarize people into opposing teams - and we’re all on the same team in the end.

STAGE 3:  The next stage is bargaining.  Here you might find yourself thinking such thoughts as, “If I simply change a few things in my life, perhaps that will be sufficient and I won’t have to really change.  I’ll use efficient light bulbs, buy a Prius, and save more each year.”  You will find yourself bargaining with the data for more time, a different outcome, perhaps for a miracle to emerge.  Perhaps some new technology will arise that will give us abundant and limitless energy, or we'll elect a new president capable of speaking the truth and marshaling the considerable talents and energy of this country.  This, too, is a stage, and I’ve assembled a framework for understanding in such a way as to help you understand the critical difference between wishful thinking and realistic solutions.  Please understand that I am not going to purposely step on your hopes – I am as hopeful as anybody you will ever meet – it’s just that I want our collective hopes to be placed in the right places, where they can do us some good.  My hopes center on the tremendous reservoirs of talent, energy, and problem-solving that reside in this country, this community, and this room.  I am confident that we will pull through all of the problems that we are about to discuss and that we can do it with joy, verve, and excitement.  Misplaced hopes and defective strategies, on the other hand, will only let us down in the future, as they fail to deliver.

STAGE 4:  The next stage is fear, and it can take many shapes. “I’m going to die broke.  People will come out of the cities and eat all my food and harm my family.  The future is going to be unbearably bleak.   I might die.  I might starve.   I’m not built for a world that mirrors the dystopian nightmare of Mad Max.”  It is important to name these fears and confront them directly.  Trying to ignore or stuff them away is simply a recipe to assure that they linger deep down, infecting your dreams and fostering paralysis.  Fears are debilitating.  They will prevent you from acting and they will ultimately erode your physical well-being.  Most of these fears are grounded in the knowledge that our social, energy, and food networks are, for the most part, unnecessarily complicated and often wafer-thin.  How will they operate in a more challenging environment?   We don’t really know, and it’s that uncertainty which creates a deep sense of unease.  Our food supply is both robust and fragile.  If the continuous parade of trucks ever stopped rolling, for any reason, nearly all communities would find their store shelves stripped bare within 2-3 days.  In fact, when we peel back the covers and examine each aspect of our various support systems, we find that they are nearly all built upon the implicit assumption that the future will be pretty much exactly like today.  But what if it’s not?   For myself, the only answer was to actively take steps to address each of my most basic fears.  Imagine that you live in a maze made out of some flammable material and you have a fear of being caught in a fire in the maze.   How could you reduce your fear?  One way would be to familiarize yourself with the way out.  Another might be to leave the maze and live somewhere else.  Attempting to ignore the fear is not a strategy, because you would still know, on some level, that even though you are ignoring the fear, the risk remains…and so will the fear.   The easiest way to reduce fear is to take concrete actions to reduce risk. 

STAGE 5:  The most critical stage to navigate is depression.  With a realistic assessment of our predicament, it is extremely common for people to begin to harbor such thoughts as, “Crap, we’re screwed. What’s the point?  I am powerless to do anything about this.  There’s nothing that any of us can do, anyway.”  At this stage, dark fantasies of the future begin to creep into our thoughts, and fear paralyzes our ability to think, let alone act. It is my goal to help you limit this stage to the absolute shortest possible time – perhaps we can find a way to bypass it altogether.

STAGE 6:  The final stage is acceptance.  You will know you are here when you begin to think, “However we got here is unimportant – it is what it is.  Let’s figure out how to navigate the future with the tools and advantages we’ve got, not what we wish we had.”  With acceptance comes peace, a sense of calm, and the ability to think clearly and take actions.  However, acceptance and urgency can co-exist, and I do not mean to imply otherwise. 

Working through these stages is not a one-way trip.  I, myself, cycle through stages #4 (fear) and #6 (acceptance) pretty routinely, but spend less and less time in #4 with every pass.  What I hope you take away from this is that wherever you happen to be in these six stages will almost certainly shift over time.  If you are uncomfortable with where you are in this process, know that it is temporary.  My audacious, gigantic goal is to enable you to move through each of the six stages faster and more smoothly than I did.

Lastly, please remember that everybody is somewhere along this curve, and my experience is that the people who are further along tend to catch grief from the people who are not.   I ask that you be as respectful as possible of those who are in a slightly different place with all this.  Know that where they are is right where they need to be at this moment.  We can all benefit tremendously from supporting each other through this process.

Finn

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 669
Climate isn't the problem

Finn is right that the three E's are the main point of this site, but for some there is an additional belief system at work with respect to climate change and it tends to divide us. Consider the graphics below. The first shows that earth, on average, has been warming for a few decades, and in particular, the central U.S. seems to have been very recently heated. 

cmartenson wrote:

. . . What to make of this image then?

But then my  "local dust bowl anecdote" is supported by this.

The correct conclusion to be drawn here is that the earth has warmed in recent decades, but they have not been the warmest on record in the U.S. in terms of extreme temperatures. The problem with trying to blame climate change for the ecological crises is that the the situation is not crystal clear and supported by sparkling clean, undeniable data.

In my opinion, climate change has nothing to do with the developing ecological crisis in which we find ourselves. It pleases me that Chris says that our problems transcend climate change. 

cmartenson wrote:

. . .I am also quite sensitive to the idea that modeling the climate is well beyond our capabilities at present.  Even trying to model known complex systems that are simple (in the sense of having very few, well-known inputs or variables) eludes us so what chance do we have of modeling something consisting of literally thousands of intertwined complex systems where many of the inputs aren't even known?

Pretty much none, which is why I don't put much stock in any of the efforts to try and contain warming to some number like 2 degrees C.  We could already be well beyond that and our models wouldn't even know until it showed up.

But I do know that the ecosphere is collapsing.  SHE is dying, and I can, also like Snydemann, feel that in my guts.  I just know it.

I also know that humans are 7.8 billion and headed to ~ 10 billion at current trajectories.  I also know that we are eating, walking, talking above-ground oil.  Chemical energy in the ground is converted, at a loss, into food energy above ground and we eat it and expand our numbers.

Somehow we need to reverse that trend.  So the question becomes what's the best method of communicating and achieving that?

I've long avoided "climate change" as the means of rallying people to the cause of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels because it violates most of the rules for effective personal change.  Climate change is:

  • Complicated and statistical (meaning uncertain)
  • Going to bite at a future date
  • Routinely violated by individual's local weather observations ("brrrr...it's cold today!")
  • Something over which an individual has no sense of agency at all
  • Does not have 'a face' that we can hate.

In other words, it's distant, uncertain, and something  my personal actions will not change in the slightest and the worst part is the 'face' I have to hate is my own staring back in the mirror.  

But it's also true that showing people all the data about fossil fuel dependency and population growth elicits virtually no reaction from most people even though that data is both linear and easy to connect, model and explain.

So the question becomes...what is the best way to reach people that leads them to action?

I think that the best way is the one that Chris has already taken with the Crash Course. I have shared these high quality presentations with most of my friends and many others. I think that most of them have understood the arguments, but most feel that they are rather powerless to do anything to change the trends. There is not some one-size-fits-all solution here. In Africa and much of the third world, the most pressing need is to raise incomes so that people can have the luxury of cleaning up the environment. In the developed nations, the need is for political overhauls that would prevent powerful industrial polluters from continuing their destructive, but short-term profitable ways. Or maybe we just booked passage on the Titanic and should enjoy the band while we can.

Stan

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 432
Oldie but a goodie

This one is for Old Guy

Dini's picture
Dini
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 6
Dilbert

Have a laugh here

Boomer41's picture
Boomer41
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Posts: 146
Natural Limit to CO2

If climate change is in fact anthropogenic, then it stems mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. The human race is now entirely addicted to cheap energy from abundant oil, so any proposal to cut consumption is futile. The political will and economic incentives simply do not exist.

However, the problem will soon solve itself. We have already consumed all of the easy-to-reach oil in the last 50 years. What is left is becoming ever more difficult to extract, with a much lower EROEI, so will obviously become increasingly expensive until it becomes unaffordable, except for very specialized applications.

According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, there are 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world's major fields, which at present rates of consumption should last 40 years. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world-energy-day-2014-how-much-oil-left-how-long-will-it-last-1471200

However, the organization also emphasizes that by 2040, production levels may be down to 15 million barrels per day – just 20% of what we currently consume.

Whichever way you look at it, burning of fossil fuels will inevitably decline precipitously over the next fifty years, regardless of the demand or the action (or inaction) of our political 'leaders'.

Popular alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, will never make up the shortfall but, hopefully, entirely new sources of clean energy, such as the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) will emerge to keep us all warm and mobile.

As Chris has repeatedly explained, exponential growth on a planet with finite resources cannot continue indefinitely. So one way or another this problem is going to be resolved within the next few decades.

In the meantime we should beware of people proposing solutions such as carbon credits, which will do absolutely nothing to slow climate change but will accelerate the flow of riches to the banksters.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 923
Polar Reversal
Doug wrote:
Quote:

Most scary is the polar shift, it is accelerating. This will very probably mean that the protective shield around the earth will disappear in the near future, then we will have so much radiation most of the life/people could die from cancer.

Over Christmas my niece was visiting for a while.  She is a geophysicist specializing in this very topic. I asked her about the polar shift.  She shrugged her shoulders and said probably not any time soon, but it is an outside possibility.  But, even if it does happen it probably won't be that big a deal.

Doug,

I just found an interesting PDF at https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1040918.pdf Titled:

CATACLYSMIC POLARITY SHIFT

IS U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY PREPARED FOR THE NEXT GEOMAGNETIC POLE REVERSAL?

This 2015 paper was written by Tyler J. Williams, Capt. USAF in partial fulfillment of graduation requirements. I estimate that the audience he was addressing were non-tecnically minded USAF personnel. His writing is easy to read and doesn't include too much confusing jargon. You should be able to easily digest it. The .pdf is 71 pages, of which 50 pages are the body (double spaced) and the rest is foreground information or references. Let's begin with the Abstract. [Note that all bolding is mine.]

ABSTRACT

The Earth’s core is undergoing a dramatic change with geomagnetic field strength dropping by 40% over the last 400 years, and satellite observations showing the field weakening ten times faster than previously calculated. These changes are a precursor to a common geological phenomenon known as a geomagnetic polarity reversal, where the north and south magnetic poles of the Earth reverse. Geomagnetic polarity reversals significantly decrease the strength of the magnetic field, thereby considerably increasing the interaction of the solar wind with the Earth’s atmosphere and biosphere. The purpose of this research is to answer if the United States is prepared for the impacts to national security resulting from the next geomagnetic polarity reversal.

The report begins with an overview of pole reversals, then evaluates the effects of reversals on United States national security by utilizing six evaluation criteria ranging from infrastructure areas such as the electrical power grid to national response capabilities. The research evaluates the impacts of increases in solar and cosmic radiation and the threat of adverse space weather during a polarity transition on United States national security.

This research concluded that the nation is not prepared for both geomagnetic polarity reversals and adverse space weather. Furthermore, the nation has neglected funding for geoscience and geomagnetism research. Based on the conclusions, this research recommends increasing geoscience and geomagnetism funding, spearheading an international geomagnetic initiative, developing response, recovery and risk plans at the national level and preparing the national infrastructure for the threats posed by pole reversals.

He goes on to say that reversals have happened 143 times in the last 40 million years. In the last 25 million years, reversals occur on average every 250 thousand years. Our last reversal was 780 thousand years ago, so we're overdue given recent geologic history. He also notes that we've had several excursions (failed reversal attempt) since the last reversal. What we're experiencing with magnetic pole migration may be the beginnings of a reversal or just another excursion. We won't know until we know.

Over the course of several hundred to thousand years during the reversal, the magnetic field becomes distorted and weakened.21The magnetosphere fluctuates from a geomagnetic dipole to multipolar field, decreasing in strength down to ten percent of its average intensity.22

With a weaker magnetosphere, the earth is more susceptible to solar storms, solar flares, solar coronal mass ejections, and intergalactic cosmic rays. The weaker shield will also leave our outer atmosphere less protected against the solar wind, thus stripping oxygen and ozone (the good kind) away. High altitude ozone blocks UV radiation. The loss of protection effect is more pronounced at high latitudes. That means that Canada will be more exposed than Costa Rica to mutagenic and carcinogenic radiation.

The strongest CME to hit Earth in the modern era was the 1859 Carrington event, which disrupted telegraph services around the northern hemisphere causing machines to catch fire, operator injuries, and created auroras as far south as Cuba.43

The Carrington event caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP.) We were just starting to use electricity back then. Imagine how much damage a similar event would cause today to our electrical grid. How likely would that be?

The likelihood of a CME striking the Earth during a polarity reversal is very high. During the 11-year solar cycle, the Sun produces one ejection per week at solar minimum, with 2 to 3 events per day at solar maximum.47 In a 200-year period for polarity reversal completion, the Sun would produce a minimum of 10,000 CME events assuming solar minimum numbers, with several superstorm events like the one in 1859.48 As stated by renowned Physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, the United States is, “…playing Russian roulette with the Sun. Sooner or later we are going to lose that bet…

Fortunately, the sun has had reduced numbers of sunspots the last 2 cycles and is forecast to have even more reduced output for the next 2 cycles. Still, that's not much relief if the reversal takes centuries to occur. He later shows Figure 5 - a map of the electrical backbone grid of the lower 48 states (I can't copy the picture) that shows the likely areas to be affected by a Carrington event if it happened today. The eastern third of the country north of Florida would be hit as would the Pacific Northwest States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. (It isn't clear to me why the midwest wouldn't be hit unless this were a simulation based on the Carrington event time of day. He provides a link to a source, but that link is dead.)

It's not just the grid that would be affected. Unhardened satellites would fail, anything relying on steady electricity would encounter extreme difficulties. Modern farming relies on center pivot irrigation to a large extent. Without electricity, the pumps don't work and the pivoting doesn't happen - and that's assuming the motors aren't fried by the EMP. The EMP would likely fry all computer electronics and electrical wires in motors. Essentially, large swaths of the country would be driven back to the 1800s almost instantaneously.

I'm trying to figure out why your niece was so cavalier about it all. Either 

  1. she is only looking at the geophysical aspect without considering the human aspect, 
  2. she doesn't know that of which she speaks, or
  3. she knows you well enough to know that you don't take well to facts that don't align with your belief system. To keep peace and harmony at the family gathering, she just proffered a throw-away remark - thinking that it wouldn't go anywhere.

Although this quote was early in the paper, it was my favorite, so in closing, I'll post it here. Remember, the bolding is mine.

Unlike the debate surrounding man-made climate change and global warming, polarity reversals are a proven natural phenomenon that have occurred hundreds of times in the Earth’s past, and will happen again in the future.4

Grover

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Platinum Member (Online)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 516
Remember Him

 

The Cstastropic Consequences of a Nuclear AI

Peak Prosperity Interview

AKGrannyWGrit

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3243
Well

As she explained it, a polar flip would happen on a time scale of a thousand years. So, we would have time to adapt. Being the most adaptable creatures on earth, we (or more accurately, many generations into the future) will come through it with some adjustment. Even quick changes will be measured in decades or centuries.

jeantheau's picture
jeantheau
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 1 2009
Posts: 35
oil prices/profits vs. net energy

AKGrannyWGrit  posted:
<< So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be. >>

Yes, but we are nowhere near 1:1 net energy on oil yet, so there is still a LOT of money to be made as net energy values continue to approach 1:1. Even though flow rates and total daily volumes will lessen, price fluctuations and intentional manipulations will be used by the financial parasites to extract wealth out of the system.

We are definitely in Klare's era of endless wars for resources, especially oil, coupled with Heinberg's era of "burning the furniture."

treebeard's picture
treebeard
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2010
Posts: 641
Net energy

Autos at best only use 25% of the energy comsumed to move the car down the road.  If you add in the energy cost to manufacture vehicles and create and maintain the roadway infrastructure, if we are above 10% I would be shocked.  EROEI of oil is below 10:1 so we are net energy negative now there in a big way.

Our whole building infrastructure, lots of energy to construct,consumes enormous amounts of energy to run (40% of energy consumed), no EROEI there. Farming, 10 calories of fossil fuel energy per food calorie, big loser there.

The entire human civilization project, big energy loser.  I don't think 1:1 is going to stop us.  We will pump until we can't.

The level of transformation required to get us anywhere near  energy neutral is truely mind boggling.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 923
Magnetic Pole Flips
Doug wrote:

As she explained it, a polar flip would happen on a time scale of a thousand years. So, we would have time to adapt. Being the most adaptable creatures on earth, we (or more accurately, many generations into the future) will come through it with some adjustment. Even quick changes will be measured in decades or centuries.

Doug,

Has your niece written any peer reviewed papers on polar flips? You, of all people should know how important it is to only trust peer reviewed papers. /snark

From what I have read, pole flips are currently impossible to predict. Historically "fast" ones are on the order of a century and slow ones can last millenia. Since our magnetic field has decreased 40% in the last 400 years and magnetic polar migration has been accelerating of late, it doesn't look like we've got the luxury of centuries to deal with it. The World Magnetic Model was scheduled to be released in 2020, but the migration of the magnetic poles made the model obsolete and an interim model has been released.

https://www.space.com/43244-magnetic-earth-model-updated.html

Previously, the World Magnetic Model, which tracks Earth's roving magnetic north pole, was updated in 2015 with the intent that the model would last until 2020. But the magnetic north pole had other plans. It began lurching unexpectedly away from the Canadian Arctic and toward Siberia more quickly than expected.

The paper I cited in post#213 specifically stayed away from the then (2015) controversial idea that cosmic rays increase the incidence of volcanoes. I've recently seen papers that show cosmic rays effects on silicic magma where the interaction frees up water molecules from the silica rich magma. The freed water enhances eruptive forces. Have you noticed the increase in volcanic activity these last few years. Coincidentally, that's when the sun has gone into sunspot minimum. Sunspot minimum is marked by lower solar output and a diminished solar wind and magnetic shield. That allows more cosmic rays into our solar system. Our next line of defense is the earth's magnetosphere. Unfortunately, that has diminished 40% in the last 400 years.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X10001966

Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber

It is well known that the cosmic-ray flux is negatively correlated with solar magnetic activity, as the strong magnetic field in the solar wind repels charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays that originate from outside of the solar system. The strong negative correlation observed between the timing of silica-rich eruptions and solar activity can be explained by variations in cosmic-ray flux arising from solar modulation.

Of course, if you are basically interested only in short-term problems, this from Boomer41's post#212 should fit the bill. One way or another, our oil habit will end soon.

Boomer41 wrote:

According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, there are 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world's major fields, which at present rates of consumption should last 40 years. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world-energy-day-2014-how-much-oil-left-how-long-will-it-last-1471200

However, the organization also emphasizes that by 2040, production levels may be down to 15 million barrels per day – just 20% of what we currently consume.

Whichever way you look at it, burning of fossil fuels will inevitably decline precipitously over the next fifty years, regardless of the demand or the action (or inaction) of our political 'leaders'.

So, given that fossil fuels will inevitably decline precipitously regardless of action (or inaction) of our political 'leaders', do you still think that levying a carbon tax is the best way to proceed? Since you want to provide subsidies for the poor people to offset the tax, you are essentially disproportionately taxing the middle class. (The rich will buy loopholes from your esteemed 'leaders.') You provided no mention of controlling the other economic powerhouses of the world - China, India, Japan, etc. How will you get them to reduce their CO2 output? Does it really make sense for us to limit our output and negatively impact our economy if they won't cut output as well? Hmmm.

I really don't care what you choose to do on your own; however, politicians glom onto stupid ideas and rush to the forefront to lead those with more hope than sense into voting for them. Any politician who proposed your "start" as a plan should be avoided completely! Unfortunately, the stars in your eyes will get in the way and the hope that this "plan" will save us from your deep seated fear of global warming (or climate change or whatever it will be called at that time) will be enough for you to vote for taxes on everyone (but especially the middle class.)

Frankly, Doug, I don't expect anything I write to convince you of anything. I can't recall anyone I've met whose belief systems are as strong as yours. You are totally impervious to logic and facts that go against your belief systems. I can only hope that enough people who read this take the time and make the effort to investigate the real facts.

Grover

Nate's picture
Nate
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 6 2009
Posts: 624
Amen
Grover wrote:

Frankly, Doug, I don't expect anything I write to convince you of anything. I can't recall anyone I've met whose belief systems are as strong as yours. You are totally impervious to logic and facts that go against your belief systems. I can only hope that enough people who read this take the time and make the effort to investigate the real facts.

Grover

Can I get an amen from the congregation?

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 357
Impervious
Quote:

 totally impervious to logic and facts that go against your belief systems.

That could be said about a number of people around here.

It could also be said that some people's "logic and facts" are speculative at best, not to mention riddled with confirmation bias.

Try to stay respectful as we sort through different perspectives ... because the other person might not be the only slow learner in the conversation.

 

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 923
Reevaluate Belief Systems
Yoxa wrote:
Quote:

 totally impervious to logic and facts that go against your belief systems.

That could be said about a number of people around here.

It could also be said that some people's "logic and facts" are speculative at best, not to mention riddled with confirmation bias.

Try to stay respectful as we sort through different perspectives ... because the other person might not be the only slow learner in the conversation.

Yoxa,

You must be referring to household candles being able to melt structural steel I-beams (in the part of your message that I bolded.)

It is really easy to shut me up. I just want to see a credible, defensible plan to solve the problem of global warming or climate change (or whatever it is or will be called.) That's all! So far, all I've seen is half-witted "starts" or the equivalent of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands. Nobody even questions whether or not they're being herded to this conclusion through a concerted effort by TPTB and their media handmaidens.

I've actually searched for a plan. I can't find it. I cajoled Mark Cochrane a couple of years ago. He finally admitted that he knows of no plan. In a subsequent post on another thread, he said that other climate scientists get unusually quiet whenever he brings up the topic. Based on that information, I have concluded that global warming is a predicament that only has outcomes. (If there is no solution, it can't be a problem.) It's up to you "true believers" who think there is a solution to find it. Post it here and I'll be one of the first to thank you.

The continued sound of electronic crickets means that I am closer to the right track. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the situation ... given this new information.

Grover

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 357
Harm reduction
Quote:

 You must be referring to household candles being able to melt structural steel I-beams

Grover, please go back and re-read that thread more carefully. That is not what was said.


Quote:

  I just want to see a credible, defensible plan

Please describe what it would take for you to consider a plan / proposal to be credible and defensible.

Or if you'd find it easier to think from the negative direction, tell us what would make a plan not credible in your eyes.

Quote:

 half-witted "starts"

We need vast action but so far what we've got is half-vast.

Quote:

 no solution

Time will tell. In the meantime we should (IMHO) at least work on harm reduction.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2135
Two kinds of people in the world

Two kinds of people in the world:

1.  Those who accept the dominant narrative, identify with it, and actively defend it.

2.  Those who refuse the dominant narrative, hate its duplicity, and struggle to destroy it.

There is some deep underlying psychological process which separates the groups.  Damn I wish I knew how that really worked.

The specific issue of the day doesn't matter:  vaccinations, Assad gassing his own people, the desirability of Round-up ready GMOs, 9/11, sandy hook, promoting freedom in Venezuela, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqs WMD, bombing Libya, needing domestic surveillance to protect us,  Russian meddling in the US election......

You either are INSIDE the matrix and fighting for its continuity, or OUTSIDE it, wanting to destroy it.

I suspect that there are competing hardwired needs in humans:  to belong to the herd and to be independent from the herd.

 

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1041
Plan

Grover, do you really want to come up with a credible plan? If so, then one needs to figure out how to get "there", from "here". Rules for Rulers has stood in the way so far.

I am not convinced that there IS a plan, but if there is to be a credible plan, it must account for the sociaological laws in "getting there".

Before twenty years ago, there was no way to account for that. However, because of the introduction of the parker sochacki solution to the picard iteration, it is now possible to reduce complex systems of differential and non-differential equations, down to ordinary math.

So it can be tried.

If one were to try it, a side effect might be better forecasting of financial performance; therefore, a side effect might be that an attempt to solve it could eventually fund itself. Till then, it would have to be done without funding.

But it requires a lot of people bending their minds and time to it in conjunction.

Do you want to try? Do others? I think I can lead the way.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 711
sand_puppy wrote: Two kinds
sand_puppy wrote:

Two kinds of people in the world:

1.  Those who accept the dominant narrative, identify with it, and actively defend it.

2.  Those who refuse the dominant narrative, hate its duplicity, and struggle to destroy it.

There is some deep underlying psychological process which separates the groups.  Damn I wish I knew how that really worked.

The specific issue of the day doesn't matter:  vaccinations, Assad gassing his own people, the desirability of Round-up ready GMOs, 9/11, sandy hook, promoting freedom in Venezuela, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqs WMD, bombing Libya, needing domestic surveillance to protect us,  Russian meddling in the US election......

You either are INSIDE the matrix and fighting for its continuity, or OUTSIDE it, wanting to destroy it.

I suspect that there are competing hardwired needs in humans:  to belong to the herd and to be independent from the herd.

 

 

Seems a bit too binary for my tastes. I'd modify that to say that one may be on different sides depending on the issue one is dicussing. There are things I accept the dominant narrative on, and things I reject it on, and even things that fall somewhere between the two. Just because someone claims to be counter-mainstream doesn't mean I'll buy into what they are peddling. The mainstream narrative isn't always wrong, and the "shadow-nets" aren't always correct.

 

Everyone has an angle, after all, as well as goggles of varying clarity.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 711
sand_puppy wrote:I suspect
sand_puppy wrote:

I suspect that there are competing hardwired needs in humans:  to belong to the herd and to be independent from the herd.

Actually, everything I know from psychology and sociology (required classes for educators) , as well as observing adolescants for two decades, tells me we are all hard-wired to want to be in a herd. The question is whether we want to be in the herd we are born into, herded into, or forced into. I joke around every year with the large group of "nerdy" anti-social kids who hang out together in a cubby during lunch periods, by pointing out that if all the anti-social kids socialize together, they aren't being anti-social. What they mean when they say anti-social is that they prefer a much smaller, non-mainstream herd to run with. But they still run with a herd.

 

As a species we survived precisely because of our gregarious nature, after all, and our ability to form communities for our mutual survival is why our brains developed with the linguistic capacity they have.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1041
Here's the method

First, everything we do is for maximum percieved benefit for minimum effort. Pick the easy fruit first. Also, automate the harvest of data as much as possible.

Within that context, we need better understanding of sociological situations as they are. Therefore, we harvest data from the web. Prices, availability, population data, data on Cities within states, states withing nations, nationality.

So there is that.

Then we relate everything we can. If there is a putative relation, we look for the relation using fourier correlation. Just FYI, I can show how to do a discrete fourier transform using drafting tools.

Once we have a correllation, we formulate a prediction, and then watch the prediction versus the predicted quantity. Prediction failures both are ripe for prediction improvement, and for rating the probability of the forecast.

The point here is to eliminate variables. It also isn't so important that a thing be useful; though we target utility when possible.

Once we relate elements, then investment can start to pay off better than for the average investor.

Now, with the predictions, we also forecast sociological crises that are coming. First, we avoid them ourselves. It's hard to do math when a train is slamming into your car. But then, we also look to "what can we successfully change already", and "what will bring us to the right goal with minimum action, minimum effort". The goal is not to maximize power; it is to achieve the goal with minimum effort, deftly redirecting others' predicted actions to bring about the goal of reducing population peacefully and controllably, without murder or strife or theft, and reducing environmentally bad impacts.

To do that, we also have to study the effect of small tweaks, on small systems... and predict those effects as well, then attempt them, and then carry them out, and then analyze the effects.

This is no small task for just a couple people. But it can be done.

I will state outright that barring any better option, I still advocate the short term target of ecologically sustainable intentional communities, sharing services and a ziggurat-type house, centered in a garden, with a mixture of ownership and joint ownership. I favor population reduction by means of delaying youth entry into mating, and for people with a living child over 18, the cessation of significant life-extending medical care, but not simple nursing care. Those two things MUST go hand in hand. I still favor traditional marriage, for many reasons. There is a huge amount of sociological, and therefore environmental damage done due to divorce. Faithfulness is critical, and especially in the family.

Get it right, and it can copy and spread.

brushhog's picture
brushhog
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2015
Posts: 66
Be careful

I think we have to be very careful with sweeping statements; "The world is like THIS"..."People are either like THIS or like THAT"..."THIS is the way everything IS". The truth is we, as human beings, have very little idea what is going on, why it is going, and how it can all be managed [ and whether it can or should be managed at all ].

We like to make firm, unyielding proclamations because it makes us feel as though we know what we are talking about. Upon a firm foundation, we can build a set of insights and ideas about the world. Unfortunately, no such firm footing can be had.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1041
You are right that we cannot quantify everything

But what we CAN do... we can quantify some things. And we can quantify how good our predictions are, for the better predictions. And that can improve our ability to forecast, and improve our ability to affect things.

Which is what is called for here.

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 357
False dichotomy
Quote:

 You either are INSIDE the matrix and fighting for its continuity, or OUTSIDE it, wanting to destroy it.

People and their thought processes come in a lot more varieties than that.

Beware of false dichotomies and overly simplistic labels.


Quote:

 I suspect that there are competing hardwired needs in humans:  to belong to the herd and to be independent from the herd.

Yes to those, and many others besides.

Advertisers push both of those buttons with profitable results.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3243
Matrix

Its a good thing the movie The Matrix came along. Those who need a metaphor to identify which herd is in and which is out have something to cling to.

ecb's picture
ecb
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 7 2012
Posts: 22
This debate

This debate has been both interesting and exhausting for me after reading all 226 comments. I had hoped to tap into some of the wisdom and experience of those who post on this site with knowledge of the science for some eddification. The only viewpoint I can entirely agree with is Jordan Peterson's: "that it's a nightmarish mess and very difficult to seperate the science from politics." In itself, this gives truth to the addage of science advancing one funeral at a time. Lacking an understanding of what the causes for AGW are won't stop my attempts but does further the need for preparation, as if there isn't enough to consider. I appreciate the time all have taken to voice their comments, it is what make's this site unique.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Occam's razor

ecb, I don't know if you looked at some of the graphs in a link I posted but if you did and noticed how insignificant the recent wiggle is compared to previous ones, then I wonder if you would consider the " null hypothesis" to be appropriate or perhaps Occam's razor?

The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modeling and theory building.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 102
An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances

Old Guy,

maybe this will help?

An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, M. A. and F. R. S.

P R O B L E M.

Given the number of times which an unknown event has happend and failed: Required the chance that the probability of its happening in a single trial lies somewhere between any two degrees of probability that can be named.

DEFINITION

1. Several events are inconsistent, when if one of them happens, none of the rest can.

2. Two events are contrary when one, or other of them must; and both together cannot happen.

3. An event is said to fail, when it cannot happen; or, which comes to the same thing, when its contrary has happened.

4. An event is said to be determined when it has either happened or failed.

5. The probability of any event is the ratio between the value at which an expectation depending on the happening of the event ought to be computed, and the chance of the thing expected upon it’s happening.

6. By chance I mean the same as probability.

7. Events are independent when the happening of any one of them does neither increase nor abate the probability of the rest.

Finn

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 923
Long Post To A Short Query
Yoxa wrote:
Quote:

 You must be referring to household candles being able to melt structural steel I-beams

Grover, please go back and re-read that thread more carefully. That is not what was said.

Yoxa,

Here are your words from https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/85359/book-review-mysterious-collapse-world-trade-center-7 Post #135

Quote:

... out of all of the images we have available to us of WTC 7 none of them show anything more than a very limited series of fires in a couple of spots on a couple of floors.

That quote is from an old post which I read for the first time today.

Chris, I watch this video of WTC 7 burning, and "very limited" is -not- how I'd describe what I'm seeing.

I apologize, I can't figure out how to make the video show in this post.

You say that melted steel is an issue for you. It's a sticking point for me too, from the other direction. I have yet to understand how a simple candle can have temperature zones within the flame that exceed the melting point of some steel alloys ...

http://candles.org/candle-science/

...but I'm supposed to accept that fires as large as those seen in that video would not.

Chris, where does your assumption come from that the fires of WTC 7 had no temperatures sufficient to melt any steel?

You clearly are using the heat generated by a candle flame as a gateway to reason that normal office fires (which are much bigger than candle flame fires) should be sufficient to melt structural steel. Nowhere in your subsequent posts did you recant this notion. Chris (and others) even tried to respectfully correct you. Instead, you just kept hammering the idea.

From your post #229

An ordinary wax candle has zones within the flame where the temperatures are above the melting point of steel. But some folks insist that an inferno covering several floors couldn't possibly have had anything comparable.

That's a huge limiting belief and it's amusing and sad both at once that someone who asserts that sees fit to mock anyone else about limiting beliefs!

Then, in post #236, you posted a picture of a completely rusted through cast iron fire grate. This was your message accompanying it:

Quote:

This is why fireplace grates don't melt

I beg to differ.

Chris responded in post #238

Yoxa,

I've held off on commenting on your really poor grasp of the basics of science, but I really cannot let you continue deflecting this thread (again) with what must be direct attempts at misdirection because you do not otherwise come off elsewhere in other conversations with such ignorance.

You do realize that the fireplace grate you have posted is cast iron, right?

And you did read the very source you lifted that image from and saw that it said this, right?

What Causes Fireplace Grate Melt Down? Heat will oxidize (rust) any metal made with iron. That includes cast iron and steel. Over time, heating your grate again and again will cause the rusting process to thin the metal to the point that it bends or even severs

that's right...over time, and with ashes cast iron rusts away.  Not melt.  Rust.

You put a long-term process (rusting) happening to cast iron and used that as 'proof' of melting.

Nobody is that sloppy/ignorant...right?  Well, either you are, or you are being deliberately obtuse to deflect a conversation away from an area you find uncomfortable.  

Further your candle "theory" is so uncomfortably ignorant that I hardly know where to begin, but it's not worthy of this site and you never responded to the numerous people who engaged you on that topic logically and rationally.  Yet you dragged that drowned cat back up for another go.

Science please.  If we're discussing steel, please stick to steel.  Don't ever confuse rusting with melting,  or cast iron with structural steel.  

And never mistake the idealized optimum burn temperature of something with complete oxygenation with the temperature of a dark, smoky fire (especially if NIST and FEMA both already concluded the fires never got above 1000C).

The mistakes you are making are profound enough that I am going to ask you to stop posting on this thread because the low-quality of your contributions.  If you are being deliberately misleading for some other set of reasons then that's just worse. 

If you continue you will be banned.

Then in post #239, you responded:

Quote:

what must be direct attempts at misdirection

You presume too much.

I just sometimes can't resist commenting on things that don't make sense to me.

Quote:

 If you continue you will be banned.

Okay, got it.

I'll ask YOU, Chris ... start a different thread for it if you don't think it fits here ... how can you believe all this stuff and not feel compelled to flee the country?

So, Yoxa, please tell me how I misrepresented your position. Also, because you are so concerned about being respectful, how should we say that you harbor ignorant notions without calling you ignorant?


Yoxa wrote:


Quote:

  I just want to see a credible, defensible plan

Please describe what it would take for you to consider a plan / proposal to be credible and defensible.

Or if you'd find it easier to think from the negative direction, tell us what would make a plan not credible in your eyes.

That's actually a good question! Plans can vary dramatically and still be considered good plans. It depends on the number of people involved, the expectations of the plan, the cost of the plan, how to measure a successful conclusion, etc. First off is to define what a successful result will look like. For instance, with AGW, will success be measured as limiting human generated CO2, Total CO2 (including natural earth emissions,) limiting all greenhouse gasses, limiting earth's average temperature, or something else.

Once we define the objective, strategies need to be developed in order to achieve that stated objective. That's essentially developing different paths that get us from Point A (where we are now) to Point B (our stated objective.) All of those strategies need to be evaluated for internal and external risks, likelihood of success, cost to implement (not just monetary costs,) etc. To be a true scientific study, the "do nothing" alternative needs to be included and equally analyzed.

Usually, one or at most a few alternatives have the lowest risk, least cost, and provide the highest likelihood of success. Then, it is a matter of presenting the results to the shareholders (those footing the bill.) In this case, the shareholders could be considered the representatives in government and/or the entire voting/taxpaying population of the USA. The shareholders consider the costs, risks, consequences, etc. and then choose which solution to pursue. Choosing the "do nothing" alternative is perfectly acceptable.

By credible, I mean that the objective has to be deemed as achievable, and that if achieved will produce the result desired. Being an engineer, I've been on too many of these studies to discount the "next best solution" when the real solution was so expensive that the "do nothing" alternative should have been chosen. For instance, if the objective is to reduce emissions to 1990 levels (which is verifiable and measurable,) will the unstated goal of keeping global temperatures in check be accomplished? Far too often, I've seen these opening gambits get selected and then when that "solution" fails, more resources are subsequently funneled down that black hole.

Be defensible, I mean that all aspects of the plan need to be defined in clear, stark terms. Saying that "we will institute carbon taxes and then we'll go from there ..." isn't defensible. It is a partial "solution" at best and hence is doomed to failure. The promoters of the idea need to be able to defend their proposals sufficiently so that stakeholders can make an intelligent, informed decision.

As far as an example of an abominable plan, look no further than the endless skirmishes in the middle east. The plan was hastily established after the events of 9/11/2001. The case was made that Arab hijackers caused the destruction of World Trade Center buildings and the attack on the Pentagon. It was declared an act of war, thus legally obviating the need for a criminal investigation.

The plan was sold as avenging the unprovoked attacks on our sovereign soil. The implicit goal was to remove al Qaeda and specifically, Osama bin Laden. At that point, we should have accomplished the mission and returned our military forces to our sovereign soil. Unfortunately, our "leadership" got distracted before accomplishing the implied goal and went after Saddam Hussein on trumped up false charges of WMD.

Because of the vacuum we've left in leadership in the Arabic countries we have invaded, we've left a horrendous mess that continues to draw bloodshed and money from this country. There is no end in sight. This study (13 pages of .pdf) places the cost to date (estimated through 9/30/2019) for the military excursions in the sandbox at $5.9 trillion. As the conflicts have continued since late 2001, it works out to about $900 million dollars per day. Since there are about 325 million residents in the US, that's less than $3 per day per person - about the price of a cup of coffee. Isn't that a small price to pay to avenge such a heinous crime? Since it has gone on for over 17 years, the cost to every citizen of the US is over $18,000.

What makes it worse is that taxes weren't levied to pay this cost. The entire cost has been borrowed by our esteemed "leaders" in Washington. That adds to the debt this country is responsible to repay. When consequences to the global warming alternatives are considered, it makes funding alternatives that much more expensive which makes them subsequently less affordable. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

One thing I really find ironic is that the US military consumes ~16% of all the world's diesel. That's significant CO2 production! Yet, nary a word is broached by the true believers about the AGW impacts of that fuel burning. Can anyone explain that to me?


Yoxa wrote:
Quote:

 half-witted "starts"

We need vast action but so far what we've got is half-vast.

I didn't know what half-vast meant ... so I looked it up. I couldn't find any definition that made sense. I'm assuming that it sounds a lot like "half assed" and you were just trying to be cute. If that is what you meant, I would say that we should evaluate vast action and determine if it is the best option. At that point, we should proceed with the best option.


Yoxa wrote:
Quote:

 no solution

Time will tell. In the meantime we should (IMHO) at least work on harm reduction.

Yoxa, I wish you wouldn't just take snippets out of context. At least, include the entire sentence. Better yet, here is the paragraph I wrote:

I've actually searched for a plan. I can't find it. I cajoled Mark Cochrane a couple of years ago. He finally admitted that he knows of no plan. In a subsequent post on another thread, he said that other climate scientists get unusually quiet whenever he brings up the topic. Based on that information, I have concluded that global warming is a predicament that only has outcomes. (If there is no solution, it can't be a problem.) It's up to you "true believers" who think there is a solution to find it. Post it here and I'll be one of the first to thank you.

I agree completely that "time will tell." Of course, by the time we know what should have been done, the opportunity to do so will have had vanished. It's almost as if you wrote that so you can come back later with "I told you so."

Just working on harm reduction will only prolong the agony if grander schemes should have been pursued. The best long term strategy may be to burn all the available fossil fuels as fast as possible. How would you know if you don't produce a workable plan that evaluates the consequences?

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 923
Perspective
Michael_Rudmin wrote:

Grover, do you really want to come up with a credible plan? If so, then one needs to figure out how to get "there", from "here". Rules for Rulers has stood in the way so far.

I am not convinced that there IS a plan, but if there is to be a credible plan, it must account for the sociaological laws in "getting there".

<snip>

Do you want to try? Do others? I think I can lead the way.

Michael,

Thanks for the offer; however, I will decline. I used to be in the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) camp. I even voted for Al Gore in 2000. I had a coworker who argued the same premises as Old Guy does. He finally convinced me that AGW has all the earmarks of a power grab by TPTB. If it is a power grab, why would they ever want the problem solved?

Grover

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 102
6 Common Traits of Narcissists and Gaslighters

Grover,

I'm sorry if this causes offence to you or the site, but I've been witnessing a seriously flawed pattern of behavior along this thread over a number of days that I would like to be recognised by others in residence of this forum. : -

6 Common Traits of Narcissists and Gaslighters

“Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others.”  —Paramahansa Yogananda

Psychologist Stephen Johnson writes that a narcissist is someone who has “buried his true self-expression in response to early injuries and replaced it with a highly developed, compensatory false self.” This alternate persona often comes across as grandiose, “above others,” self-absorbed, and highly conceited.

Gaslighting is a form of persistent manipulation and brainwashing that causes the victim to doubt her or himself, and to ultimately lose one’s own sense of perception, identity, and self-worth. A gaslighter’s statements and accusations are often based on deliberate falsehoods and calculated marginalization. The term gaslighting is derived from the 1944 film Gaslight, where a husband tries to convince his wife that she’s insane by causing her to question herself and her reality.

Multiple studies and writings have been done on the impact of narcissism and gaslighting on relationships(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6). While each of these often destructive pathologies is unique, there are certain behavioral overlaps. Following are six common traits, with references from my books: "How to Successfully Handle Narcissists" and "How to Successfully Handle Gaslighters & Stop Psychological Bullying". Not all narcissists and gaslighters possess every characteristic identified below. However, chronic narcissists and gaslighters are likely to exhibit at least several of the following on a regular basis.

1. Frequent Lies and Exaggerations

Both narcissists and gaslighters are prone to frequent lies and exaggerations (about themselves and others), and have the tendency of lifting themselves up by putting others down. While narcissists often strive to make themselves seem superior and “special” by showing off, bragging, taking undeserved credit, and other forms of self-aggrandizement, gaslighters tend to concentrate on making you feel inferior through false accusations, constant criticism, and psychological intimidation. Both narcissists and gaslighters can be adept at distortion of facts, deliberate falsehoods, character assassinations, and negative coercions. One key difference is that while the narcissist lies and exaggerates to boost their fragile self-worth, the gaslighter does so to augment their domination and control.

2. Rarely Admit Flaws and Are Highly Aggressive When Criticized

Many narcissists and gaslighters have thin skin and can react poorly when called to account for their negative behavior. When challenged, the narcissist is likely to either fight (e.g., temper tantrum, excuse-making, denial, blame, hypersensitivity, etc.) or take flight (bolt out the door, avoidance, silent treatment, sulking resentment, or other forms of passive-aggression). The gaslighter nearly always resorts to escalation by doubling or tripling down on their false accusations or coercions, to intimidate or oppress their opponent. Many gaslighters view relationships as inherently competitive rather than collaborative; a zero-sum game where one is either a winner or a loser, on top or at the bottom. “Offense is the best defense” is a mantra for many gaslighters, which also represents their aggressive method of relating to people. 

3. False Image Projection

“My husband always wants people to see him as successful, powerful, and envy-worthy, no matter how shaky his real life actually is.” —Anonymous partner of narcissist

Both narcissists and gaslighters tend to project false, idealized images of themselves to the world, in order to hide their inner insecurities. Many narcissists like to impress others by making themselves look good externally. This “trophy complex" can exhibit itself physically, romantically, sexually, socially, religiously, financially, materially, professionally, academically, or culturally. The underlying message of this display is: “I’m better than you!” or “Look at how special I am — I’m worthy of everyone’s love, admiration, and acceptance!”

Gaslighters, on the other hand, often create an idealized self-image of being the dominant, suppressive alpha male or female in personal relationships, at the workplace, or in high-profile positions of society (such as politics and media). Many gaslighters like to view themselves falsely as all-powerful and strong, capable of dishing out judgments and penalties at will. Pathological gaslighters often take pride and boost themselves up by marginalizing those whom they perceive as weaker, believing that the meek deserve their downtrodden fate. They attack their victims with direct or subtle cruelty and contempt, gaining sadistic pleasure from these offenses, and betraying a lack of empathy and humanity.

In essence, narcissists want others to worship them, while gaslighters want others to submit to them. In a big way, these external facades become pivotal parts of their false identities, replacing the real and insecure self.

4. Rule Breaking and Boundary Violation

Many narcissists and gaslighters enjoy getting away with violating rules and social norms. Examples of narcissistic trespass include cutting in line, chronic under-tipping, personal space intrusion, borrowing items without returning, using other’s properties without asking, disobeying traffic laws, breaking appointments, and negating promises. Examples of gaslighting trespass include direct or subtle marginalizing remarks, public or private shaming and humiliation, sardonic humor and sarcastic comments, internet trolling, angry and hateful speech, and virulent attacks on undesirable individuals and groups.

Both narcissist and gaslighter boundary violations presume entitlement, with a narrow, egocentric orientation that oppresses and de-humanizes their victims. In severe cases, this boundary violation pathology may result in illicit and underhanded dealings, financial abuse, sexual harassment, date rape, domestic abuse, hate crimes, human rights violations, and other forms of criminality. Many narcissists and gaslighters take pride in their destructive behaviors, as their machinations provide them with a hollow (and desperate) sense of superiority and privilege.

5. Emotional Invalidation and Coercion

Although narcissists and gaslighters can be (but are not always) physically abusive, for the majority of their victims, emotional suffering is where the damage is most painfully felt. Both narcissists and gaslighters enjoy spreading and arousing negative emotions in order to feel powerful, and keep you insecure and off-balance. They habitually invalidate others’ thoughts, feelings, and priorities, showing little remorse for causing people in their lives pain. They often blame their victims for having caused their own victimization (“You wouldn’t get yelled at if you weren’t so stupid!”).

In addition, many narcissists and gaslighters have unpredictable mood swings and are prone to emotional drama — you never know what might displease them and set them off. They become upset at any signs of independence and self-affirmation (“Who do you think you are!?”). They turn agitated if you disagree with their views or fail to meet their expectations. As mentioned earlier, they are sensitive to criticism, but quick to judge others. By keeping you down and making you feel inferior, they boost their fragile ego, and feel more reassured about themselves.

6. Manipulation: The Use or Control of Others as an Extension of Oneself

Both narcissists and gaslighters have a tendency to make decisions for others to suit their own agenda. Narcissists may use their romantic partner, child, family, friend, or colleague to meet unreasonable self-serving needs, fulfill unrealized dreams, or cover-up weaknesses and shortcomings. Narcissists are also fond of using guilt, blame, and victimhood as manipulative devices.

Gaslighters conduct psychological manipulation toward individuals and groups through persistent distortion of the truth, with the intention of causing their victims to question themselves and feel less confident. In personal and/or professional environments, they manipulate by micromanaging (controlling) relationships, including telling others how they should think, feel, and behave under the gaslighter’s unreasonable restrictions and scrutiny. They often become critical, angry, intimidating, and/or hostile toward those who fail to bow down to their directives. Gaslighter manipulation is often highly aggressive, with punitive measures (tangible or psychological) executed toward those who fail to recognize and obey their self-perceived authority.

Perhaps the biggest distinction between narcissists and gaslighters is that narcissists use and exploit, and gaslighters dominate and control. While the narcissist does so to compensate for a desperate sense of deficiency (of being unloved as the real self), the gaslighter does so to hide their ever-present insecurity (of being powerless and losing control). Both of these pathological types betray an inability and/or unwillingness to relate to people genuinely and equitably as human beings. They become “special” and “superior” by being less human and by de-humanizing others.

In the worst-case scenario, some individuals possess traits of both narcissism and gaslighting. This is a highly toxic and destructive combination of vanity, manipulation, bullying, and abuse — all unleashed in order to compensate for the perpetrator’s deep-seated sense of inadequacy and fear.

Finn

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1041
Grover, because Jiu Jitsiu

I am under the theory that not all fighting has to be all out war. That a successfully trained martial artist can avoid the fight, and win.

That if one doesn't attempt the jiu jitsu, then war is in fact very likely.

That's why. But as I noted, it would take concerted effort by many people, and there is no guarantee of success. There's only the guarantee if you tried your hardest, you'll have tried your hardest. And whether THIS path is the best for trying one's hardest or another... even that I cannot guarantee.

Mots's picture
Mots
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Posts: 201
Re: There are two kinds of people in this world

Sandman:
Your comments, regarding two kinds of people in the context of a corrupt, degenerating culture (are as usual) very thought provoking.............

Your distinction of being inside the matrix vs outside is an important one, and has value in terms of how we can intelligently decide to use our time and resources in collaboration with each other to build our own better worlds.  If in fact there are "two kinds" of people in this respect, we need to figure out who is who and use this information in a practical way.

I have 3 observations that relate:
1. during the last wide spread civilization collapse, the dark ages saw a similar bifurcation of small bands of rational thinkers who escaped from the rotting Roman carcass and created small resilient communities (Monestaries) far away in places like Ireland or remote mountains, where they could preserve the best aspects of the destroyed civilization for a better future.  Without those resilient independent groups of rational thinkers, we would not have Greek philosophy or the development of the Trivium and the associated structures that eventually turned into the Renaissance.  These are the people who see the Matrix for what it is.
2. before the present ongoing collapse (such as 50 years ago in America), the rationals (those who think for themselves) did not suffer but instead enthusiastically participated in society/matrix. The issue is not matrix per se but rather the phenomenon of civilization collapse, and the special role of rational thought individuals in society.
3.  In a total population, about 5-7% are "rational" thinkers.  These are easy to spot, using a Briggs Myers test or other related test.  In fact most INTP personalities (such as myself) can pretty easily and quickly identify other similar personalities (particularly INTP but also INTJ and related rational thinkers) with just a few minutes conversation.  There seems to be a strong genetic component to this, which we should argue about because this may be an important factor in our ongoing evolution.

Rational thinkers often become scientists and engineers and self associate into membership of blogs such as this one.  The vast majority of scientists and engineers are rational thinkers and more easily see the Matrix for what it is.  

As society undergoes advanced decomposition, it is important for the minority of rational thinkers to identify each other, work with each other, and create small resilient communities, to survive the dark ages, as we did before.  I am working on this in my personal situation and I run into like minded rationals from other countries who spontaneously are coming to these same conclusions. This is happening.  100 years from now people will look back and thank those who saw the need to preserve and continue rational thought and action as a basis for living.  We need to create new education systems, health systems etc based on new technologies, despite what is going on in the matrix.  Finding each other and communicating our ideas via this particular website is unusually valuable, in my opinion.  

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 357
A long post indeed!

A long post indeed!

I'll just respond to a couple of things.

Quote:

 You clearly are using the heat generated by a candle flame as a gateway to reason that normal office fires (which are much bigger than candle flame fires) should be sufficient to melt structural steel.

No, I was using the temperature zones of a candle flame to explain why I couldn't swallow the claim that the fires of WTC would not have had any temperatures that high. Don't miss the nuance! (I still can't swallow the claim, BTW.)


Quote:

 Just working on harm reduction will only prolong the agony if grander schemes should have been pursued. The best long term strategy may be to burn all the available fossil fuels as fast as possible.

Working on harm reduction doesn't preclude grander schemes once we figure them out.

As for burning all the fossil fuels ASAP, remember that we can do many useful things with fossil fuels. Burning them all willy-nilly isn't the brightest thing we could do, with or without AGW.

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2269
Really interesting post and perspective, Motts

Really interesting post and perspective, Motts.  I'd never heard that idea about resilient communities in the past --monestaries in remote locations- serving the function of preserving/advancing worthy aspects of civilization during the dark ages, for a better future.  Pretty fascinating. 

It actually made me hopeful for a moment, until I remembered that this time around we're also trashing our ecosystem and driving numerous species into extinction.  Still, I admire the approach that you're taking. It seems like the best we can do now is play a weak hand strong.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5926
NPD?

fionn-

I found your post on "gaslighting" and NPD to be really pretty interesting.  I know at least one person who probably had NPD.  I did not realize it at the time (being a child and all), and only much later did I find out why they acted so badly.  That said, I have one request of you.

The next time you are tempted to affix such a label to one of the members of our herd, I request that instead of attempting some sort of professional diagnosis, you provide specific examples of the behavior you find objectionable.  For example:

"In post X, you said the following.  Blah blah blah.  To me, this is a classic example of gaslighting, because..."

I fully realize this requires more effort than simply posting someone else's words on the subject of NPD and highlighting the various areas you think apply.  But by presenting evidence, you enable the rest of the herd to really understand what you are saying, and also to sort out whether they agree with your assessment or not.  Evidence also enables the accused to self-assess, and respond substantively - by apologising, or clarifying, or refuting your accusation.  Everyone can learn if evidence is involved.

If you don't use an evidence-based approach, all you are really doing is name-calling with a fancy label.

 

Matt Holbert's picture
Matt Holbert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 3 2008
Posts: 163
How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill

pinecarr- I found this book to be an interesting read on the topic... if you have not used worldcat.org before, simply scroll down and enter your zip code and a list of libraries that have a copy will be generated. It seems to be a fairly popular book.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 923
Drive By Psychiatry
fionnbharr wrote:

I'm sorry if this causes offence to you or the site, but I've been witnessing a seriously flawed pattern of behavior along this thread over a number of days that I would like to be recognised by others in residence of this forum. : -

Flash to a courtroom scene with the defendant on the witness stand.

Prosecutor: "Have you stopped beating your wife? - yes or no"

Judge: "Answer the question."

Finn,

Why would I take offense? You noticed a "seriously flawed pattern of behavior" and automatically attributed it to one of two deeply flawed personality traits. If those were the only 2 options available, you may have a point. I suppose that I should thank you for saving me from spending years on a psychiatrist's couch to come to this conclusion. /sarc

I noticed that you've made 2 posts on this thread offering "advice." The first one was directed at old guy and the second was directed at me. We're both arguing against the church of climate change. Is that just a coincidence? I'm wondering if trying to help the messenger is your way of stifling the message. Hmmm.

That said, I do admit to letting my emotions get the best of me in this debate. I took out my frustrations on Yoxa. She didn't deserve the ire I subjected her to - and I sincerely apologize. I'll tone down the rhetoric from now on.

So, why am I so frustrated? After all, the facts are the facts and the science is the science, right? Well, not quite. I wouldn't have a problem if all the facts were exposed and the scientists came up with theories to explain the facts. I'm sure we would all agree that would be the ideal situation. But science takes time and resources (people, expensive equipment, and buildings) to accomplish the arduous task. That takes funding. Asymmetric funding doesn't produce the best science.

There's an old adage with university professors - "Publish or Perish." Publishing advances the science while improving the brand name of the university and the professor; however, it goes deeper than that. Professors sell their expertise to those with money to spend. That brings funding to the institution so they can pay the salaries, buy state-of-the-art equipment, and furnish the new buildings in a way that the administrators would really like to become accustomed to. The managers know that if the funding dries up, so does their future.

I've talked with a handful of professors about this. They agree that the pressure is always there. As long as they bring in adequate funding, administrators leave them alone to do their work. As soon as the funding lags, pressure gets applied. It is easy to figure out what result the funding agencies are looking to get. Those who make the "best" proposal are the likeliest to get the funding. One professor friend put it this way, "if you only look east, you don't have to acknowledge the sunset."

As a personal anecdote, I found the same pressure during my engineering career. My managers would get agitated when I proposed cheaper solutions to the client. Our engineering fee was based on the cost of the project. It was all about the money.

So, where am I going with this? The author of the polar flip research paper I cited earlier bemoaned the lack of funding for geosciences. He said that climate change research received over 1,000 times the funding. (I don't remember exactly if that was for a specific US agency or if that was overall. The exact number or details aren't that necessary here.) Without the funding, science doesn't happen. If the funding is skewed, the resulting science is also skewed.

It goes deeper than that. I have a decided Libertarian outlook. I will fight as hard for your liberty as I will for my own. Yet, those who believe that climate change is an issue and that government is the sole entity able to defeat climate change are willing to vote to limit my liberties through more taxation and encumbering regulations. What's the solution?

Grover

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 923
Apology and Clarifications

Yoxa,

I'd first like to apologize for taking my frustrations out on you. I'm truly sorry!

Yoxa wrote:

A long post indeed!

I'll just respond to a couple of things.

Quote:

 You clearly are using the heat generated by a candle flame as a gateway to reason that normal office fires (which are much bigger than candle flame fires) should be sufficient to melt structural steel.

No, I was using the temperature zones of a candle flame to explain why I couldn't swallow the claim that the fires of WTC would not have had any temperatures that high. Don't miss the nuance! (I still can't swallow the claim, BTW.)

I don't know how to respectfully tell you that your nuance didn't cause the destruction. Others have tried as well.

Yoxa wrote:


Quote:

 Just working on harm reduction will only prolong the agony if grander schemes should have been pursued. The best long term strategy may be to burn all the available fossil fuels as fast as possible.

Working on harm reduction doesn't preclude grander schemes once we figure them out.

As for burning all the fossil fuels ASAP, remember that we can do many useful things with fossil fuels. Burning them all willy-nilly isn't the brightest thing we could do, with or without AGW.

In an obtuse way, I was pointing out the "do nothing" option required of scientific studies. You are free to pursue whichever direction you see fit. If it is any consolation, I also feel that burning fuel willy-nilly is not the best path going forward. I try to live low on the totem pole and that results in keeping my environmental footprint to a minimum. I just don't think that my feelings are a sound basis for government policy.

Grover

PS - Thanks for including more complete concepts in your quotes.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2135
Matrix 2: Iranian Cells in Venezuela

I think that the core understanding of those "inside the matrix" and those "outside" is the understanding that authorities tell us things that are not true, for power and profit.  

Having ones understanding of truth heavily based on the words of authorities, is The Matrix.  This is in science, religion, journalism and politics.  Those within the Matrix are averse to critically examining the statements of leaders and authorities for lies.

Yesterday, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo explained that the Iranians have "cells" inside Venezuela!  Who knew? 

This was followed shortly by the annoucement that the US military would protect US citizens in Venezuela.

Tulsi Gabbard never believed that Assad "gassed his own people" despite being told this by the highest levels of the US intelligence agencies.  She was then decried loudly and widely as "Assad's mouthpiece in congress" and a "puppet of the Kremlin" who has "a crush on Putin."

PT boats attacked the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.  Young men by the tens of thousands were told that if they loved their country, they would need to kill Vietnamese people -- which they did, by the millions.  40 years later declassified documents showed there was no attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. But during those 40 years ... that is The Matrix

In the movie Anatomy of a Great Deception, film maker Hopper collects the 3 different network news announcements that World Trade Center Building 7  "is, or is about to, collapse."  These pieces are time stamped and played on live TV in the half hour BEFORE WTC7 collapsed.  The fire department moved the public barrier back a block knowing and explaining in advance that Building 7 was "coming down."  Yet there were no indicators of pre-collapse and the collapse was later attributed by NIST to a completely novel mechanism.  HOW DID EVERYBODY KNOW?  Those inside the Matrix are able to look away.  Not watch the film clips.  Suspect photoshopping or lying.  The aversion to learning about this is so immense that intelligence does not assure the exposure to, or integration of, this factoid into one's understanding.

This is The Matrix.

 

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2135
Those who knew in advance that WTC7 would collapse

Sorry I didn't find this earlier.

Between 12:30 and 16:00 is the segment from an abbreviated Anatomy of a Great Deception on the many people who knew that WTC7 was going to collapse before it had:

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 381
Climate Action Tracker

https://climateactiontracker.org

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2269
Thanks for book suggestion

Matt, thanks for the book suggestion.  I looked it up on Amazon and it looks really interesting.  The comments are very positive, and make the book sound all the more intriguing.  I'm ordering it!

I wish I'd had better history teachers through school.  For the most part, it was presented in a very dry and boring way.  But then you look at topics like this, and they're just fascinating.  I would have liked to have had history teachers with more passion, able to tell the stories of history with such engagement and appreciation. 

 

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 357
Quote: I'd first like to
Quote:

 I'd first like to apologize for taking my frustrations out on you. I'm truly sorry!

Accepted.


Quote:

 I don't know how to respectfully tell you that your nuance didn't cause the destruction. Others have tried as well.

I didn't say that it did. But I choke on the claim that it could not have. That's one of many things about the "alternative narrative" that don't make sense to me. (Please don't conclude that I think the official story has no flaws!)

Let's not go there anymore. Chris threatened to ban me over the topic and it's not the ditch I'd choose to die in.

Quote:

 I just don't think that my feelings are a sound basis for government policy.

Feelings matter a lot. Policies can be rational but people often won't be. Policies can create incentives or disincentives but it will be feelings that make people compliant or resistant ... or maybe just maybe create a new mindset in our culture.

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 432

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments