Blog

Martin Capek/Shutterstock

Future Shock - Crash Course Chapter 25

The unsustainable often ends abruptly
Friday, December 26, 2014, 11:24 PM

Chapter 25 of the Crash Course is now publicly available and ready for watching below.

Here at the penultimate chapter of The Crash Course, everything we've learned comes together into a single narrow range of time we'll call the twenty-teens. 

What this chapter offers is a comprehensive view of how all of our problems are actually interrelated and need to be viewed as such, or solutions will continue to elude us.

Each of the many key trends and threats mentioned earlier in The Crash Course will take many years, if not several decades, to address. And yet, we find them all parked directly in front of us without any serious national discussion or planning. 

With every passing day we squander precious time while the problems grow larger and more costly, if not thoroughly intractable.  Buying time, as the central bankers and politicians the world-over have opted to do, is not a strategy.  Simply hoping for better times has a much different probability for success than having a well thought-out plan. The mark of a mature adult is someone who can manage complexity and plan ahead.  The same description applies to an entire society.  Here at Peak Prosperity, our opinion is that with precious few exceptions, the current political and corporate leadership of this country are not adequately managing the complexity of the situation. And they are not planning ahead. 

Simply put: We've lived well beyond our economic, energetic and ecological budgets. It's time to change that.

It is time, to return to living within our means.  We need to set priorities, set budgets, and stick to both.

If we do, the next generations following us will have opportunity to pursue, as well as a plan and a narrative that makes sense and into which they fit, and which seems prudent and rational. If we don't, they simply won't.

And you?  If you haven’t already, you need to begin to embrace the possibility that the road to the future will not be straight and smooth; it may take a few twists and turns and end up somewhere unexpected. You happen to be alive at one of the most interesting points in human history – a time when a great shift will occur.  This can be frightening or it can be exhilarating. And that choice is yours.

For the best viewing experience, watch the above video in hi-definition (HD) and in expanded screen mode

Coming next Friday: Chapter 26: What Should I Do?

The full suite of chapters in this new Crash Course series can be found at www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

And for those who have yet to view it, be sure to watch the 'Accelerated' Crash Course -- the under-1-hour condensation of the new 4.5-hour series. It's a great vehicle for introducing new eyes to this material.

Transcript: 

You are at the part of The Crash Course where everything you learned comes together into a single narrow range of time we'll call the twenty-teens. 

What I am offering is a comprehensive view of how all of our problems are actually interrelated and need to be viewed as such, or solutions will continue to elude us.

So let’s review the key trends that all seem to be converging.

We began with an understanding of money and the fact that our money is loaned into existence, with interest, which means it grows exponentially - by design - and that this results in powerful pressures to keep the amount of credit, or money, constantly growing by some percentage each year.  We can easily see this in the charts.

Keeping this dynamic in mind, we then learned how debt, which is really a claim on future money, is vastly exceeding all historical benchmarks.  The flipside to this, but a significant sociological trend in its own right, has been the steady erosion of savings observed over the exact same period of time. 

Combined, we have the highest levels of debt ever recorded coincident with some of the lowest levels of savings ever recorded. 

And we saw that our failure to save extends through all levels of our society, including a rather profound failure to invest in national infrastructure.

Next, we saw how assets have gone through a series of bubbles and that ALL bubbles eventually burst When credit bubbles burst, they result in financial panics that end up destroying a lot of capital. Actually, that’s not quite right; this quote says it better:

“Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works”.

- John Stuart Mill Political Economist 1806 - 1873

So we learned that a bursting bubble is not something that is easily fixed by authorities because their attempts to “limit further damage” are misplaced.  The damage has already been done.  The capital has already been betrayed.

It has been betrayed by too many houses and too many stocks sold for too high prices, and too many goods imported and bought on credit.  Money was borrowed for speculation and consumption, not investment for the future.

All of that is done.  All that’s left is figuring out who ends up eating the inevitable losses.  And right now the system is working hard to assure that’s going to be you.

When these speculative bubbles pop, we’ve seen history’s lesson that efforts to 'fix' the damaging aftermath only results in a larger future bubble which will, of course, be even more damaging than the last one.

Then we learned that the most profound US government financial shortfalls rest atop a demographic problem that itself cannot be fixed by any act of policy or law or level of optimism.  It is simply a fact.  An inconvenient fact of circumstance much like gravity sometimes, but a fact nonetheless: the assets that comprise the wealth of the baby boomer generation -- stocks, bonds and houses -- all have to be sold to somebody at some point in order to extract their value

But there are simply fewer people behind the boomers to whom these assets can be sold.  When sellers exceed buyers, values fall.

On top of all of this, the economic numbers we report  to ourselves have been systematically debased until they no longer reflected reality. We’re flying blind at this point. If false data leads to bad decisions, then it’s no wonder that we find ourselves in our current predicament.  Only by returning to an honest self-appraisal can we plot a strategic and meaningful course to the future.

Of course, this is just the economic side of the story – the first “E”. The challenges we face become much, MUCH larger when we bring the other two “Es” into the picture.

We learned that energy is the source of all economic activity and that oil is, by far, the most important source of energy.  Our entire economic configuration is built around the assumption of unlimited growth in energy supplies but, it turns out, this is an easily-refuted proposition.  

Individual oil fields peak and so do collections of them. And so Peak Cheap Oil is not so much a theory as it is an observation about how oil fields age.  We then explored the tension that obviously exists between a monetary system that demands exponential growth and the fact that our most important energy source is entering decline and well past the era of being cheap.

Somehow, America has not even begun to seriously invest for a future without cheap oil; like nearly every other nation on the planet, the US has no plan “b”.

And last, we noted that the environment, meaning the world’s resources and natural systems upon which we depend and the waste and pollution we put back into our ecosystems, is exhibiting clear signs of stress.

Oceans are acidifying at the fastest rate in 300 million years, we are in the midst of a 6th mass extinction, and the stable weather patterns that we utterly depend upon to grow our foods are becoming increasingly chaotic and unreliable.

Sentinel species such as the pollinators that add beauty to our lives and perform essential services in our food and ecological systems are disappearing.

And so here we are. These are the reasons for my claim that the next twenty years are going to be completely unlike the last.

Yes, we’ve successfully faced large problems before in the past. But my concern is over have to face so many tremendous ones all at once.

Placed on a timeline, we see that the next asset bubble is cresting just as the first wave of boomers enters retirement.  At the same time peak cheap oil is starving the world's economic engine for the growth its money systems demand of it, and someday – likely very soon -- world oil production will peak and terminally decline.

But that’s not all. Resource depletion, increasing pollution levels, and a shifting climate are costing us more, and diminishing our way of life.

Sitting over all of this and limiting our options further is our national failure to save and invest, and historically-unprecedented levels of debt. 

This timeline stretching from now to 2035 reveals a truly massive set of challenges converging on an exceptionally short window of time.

One important question is; how will we fund our efforts to address these challenges if our savings are depleted and our debt levels already in uncharted territory?

So far, the answer has been "print more money”.  That is as disappointing as it is unsurprising.

Any one of these events will prove to be a difficult strain on our national economy, while any two could be truly disruptive.  But what if three or more happen simultaneously? 

What if oil spikes in price as food harvests fail and debts collapse? 

It’s not hard to foresee the economic destruction of our country as a result, or perhaps see the dollar utterly ruined as a store of wealth. 

How many trillions will be required to fund boomer retirement?  How many trillions will be needed to reshape our transportation infrastructure to accommodate Peak Oil?  Where will the tens of trillions come from to make up the shortfalls in pensions and entitlement programs? 

How do we make good on our pension and entitlement promises while burdened with the highest debt loads ever seen? Where does the money come from to clean up the aftermath of the newest and largest asset bubble bursting?  How much more expensive will food and minerals be in the future when oil has peaked, but many more people are placing higher demands on increasingly marginal resources?

Each of these key trends or threats will take many years, if not several decades, to address. And yet we find them all parked directly in front of us without any serious national discussion or planning. 

With every passing day we squander precious time while the problems grow larger and more costly, if not thoroughly intractable.  Buying time, as the central bankers and politicians the world-over have opted to do, is not a strategy.  Simply hoping for better times has a much different probability for success than having a well thought-out plan. The mark of a mature adult is someone who can manage complexity and plan ahead.  The same description applies to an entire society.  My opinion is that with precious few exceptions, the current political and corporate leadership of this country are not adequately managing the complexity of the situation. And they are not planning ahead. 

Simply put: We've lived well beyond our economic, energy and ecological budgets. It's time to change that.

It is time, to return to living within our means.  We need to set priorities, set budgets, and stick to both.

If we do, the next generations following us will have opportunity to pursue, as well as a plan and a narrative that makes sense, into which they fit, and which seems prudent and rational.

And you?  If you haven’t already, you need to begin to embrace the possibility that the road to the future will not be straight and smooth; it may take a few twists and turns and end up somewhere unexpected.   You happen to be alive at one of the most interesting points in human history – a time when a great shift will occur.  This can be frightening or it can be exhilarating, and that choice is yours.

So what do we do about all this?  What can you do and what steps should you be considering right now? 

Please join me for the final chapter of the Crash Course.

Thank you for listening.

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

23 Comments

KennethPollinger's picture
KennethPollinger
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2010
Posts: 654
Added: A Timeline of Bank Bubbles

And some even claim, there is a gold bubble??

ENGLAND:

1707 Bank of England established (Central bank)
 
USA:
 
1781 Bank of North America (FIRST national central bank)
 
1791 First Bank of the United States (SECOND national central bank)
 
1816 Second Bank of the United States (THIRD  national central bank)
 
1819 Panic of 1819
 
1873 Panic of 1873
 
1884 Panic of 1884
 
1893 Panic of 1893
 
1907 Panic of 1907
 
1908 Aldrich-Vreeland Act dies in Congress
 
1912 The Pujo Committee investigates the "Money Trust"
 
1913   Dec 22 The Glass-Owen Bill becomes the Federal Reserve Act
 
"With the conversion of William Jennings Bryan, there was no longer any doubt about the final outcome. The Federal Reserve Act was released from the joint House and Senate committee on September 22, 1913, just as Congress was preoccupied with departure for the Christmas recess and in no mood for debate. It quickly passed by a vote of 282-60 in the House and 43 to 23 in the Senate. The President signed`it into law the next day. The Creature had swallowed Congress."  Page 468  (the FOURTH central bank!)
 
Source: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve  (Fifth edition), originally
published 1994, by G. Edward Griffin.

 

Merle2's picture
Merle2
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 4 2014
Posts: 34
Where do we end up?

The key question to me is where we end up 500 years from now or 5000 years from now. Not that I personally expect to see any of that, but since I am actively working on my little part of society that will (hopefully) reach into the future, I am curious what the result will be.

We know that in a finite world, perpetual exponential growth is not possible. For that matter, even perpetual incremental growth is not possible. So we must eventually reach some sort of "steady state" economy with  variation from year to year. Stated mathematically, we can predict that the total personal wealth of societies in future millenia will equal x% of the current total personal wealth and vary +/- y% from year to year. On top of that we may end up with a z% decline per year due to environmental degradation, but one hopes that z would have a long term value of 0%. All this will be divided among the total population which would be about n% of the current population.

My guess is that the final value of "x" might be somewhere near 50% of current wealth, and n might reach say 150% of current population. That leaves everyone with an average prosperity of 1/3 of today's prosperity. Depending on the nature of wealth disparity in the future, that could leave most of the world's population very poor. One hopes for better, but one needs to be realistic in his estimates.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5752
I think it's a matter of choice
Merle2 wrote:

(...)

We know that in a finite world, perpetual exponential growth is not possible. For that matter, even perpetual incremental growth is not possible. So we must eventually reach some sort of "steady state" economy with  variation from year to year. Stated mathematically, we can predict that the total personal wealth of societies in future millenia will equal x% of the current total personal wealth and vary +/- y% from year to year. On top of that we may end up with a z% decline per year due to environmental degradation, but one hopes that z would have a long term value of 0%. All this will be divided among the total population which would be about n% of the current population.

(...)

SO where do we end up?  I think it's a matter of choice.  We humans could choose anything along a very wide spectrum.  At one end, we might cram 12 billion people on the planet, but there are very few other species relative to today and we are all eating sea algae.  

At the other end we decide to limit ourselves to 1 to 2 billion and everybody gets to live in relative abundance.

When I talk about the future now I prefer to frame it in terms of the sort of future we'd like to inhabit.  It's either a whole lot of people with very little for each person or many fewer people living surrounded by natural beauty and abundance.

Whether we consciously end up at either of those two places, or simply default there, it's still a matter of choice.  After all no decision is a decision.  The only question is will the choice be conscious or unconscious?

Over the time frame you mention, 500 years, the most probable future is one where we are living 100% again on solar energy.  Whether there's elegant technology there to capture some of that sun, or we use plants and plant eating animals to 'harvest' the sun's energy, remains to be seen.

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 474
A Matter of Choice

"The only question is will the choice be conscious or unconscious"?  I hope you are right because one might also ask the question - will choices be made for us or will we be able to choose for ourselves?

AKGrannyWGrit

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 379
Great, clear, upbeat,

Great, clear, upbeat, non-frightening, consise video, Chris!

Merle2's picture
Merle2
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 4 2014
Posts: 34
cmartenson wrote:At one end,
cmartenson wrote:

At one end, we might cram 12 billion people on the planet, but there are very few other species relative to today and we are all eating sea algae.  

At the other end we decide to limit ourselves to 1 to 2 billion and everybody gets to live in relative abundance.

That's the way I see it. In a world where all energy is limited to the solar input, and we have a limited supply of accessible mineral supplies, it should be a lot easier to maintain a comfortable standard of living if we have less people on earth. Getting to that lower population is the elephant in the room for the peak oil community.

There are probably 2 billion people alive today that can be expected to live at least 50 more years. So even with a birth rate of zero, it would still take 50 years to reduce the population to 2 billion by attrition. (Assuming, of course, we don't get there by massive famine or war, which would be unimaginably bad.) 50 years from now, there probably won't be a lot of fossil fuel consumption, so the all-solar regime will be becoming reality at that time. Do we have significantly longer than 50 years to get the population to managable size?

One can imagine a global 200-year project to humanely reduce the population to 1 or 2 billion, but such a project must surely be the most massive program ever taken on by humanity. How would we ever get multiple generations to work on something for the good of people 200 years from now? If we need to do that, then somebody needs to start talking about how we would do it. 

Quote:

Whether we consciously end up at either of those two places, or simply default there, it's still a matter of choice.  After all no decision is a decision.  The only question is will the choice be conscious or unconscious?

We can only hope that, if a population reduction is necessary, that it will be taken on consciously, with a near global consensus to take on the immense task.

What is the sustainable population? How long do we have to get there? How could we do that humanely? Those are very important questions. If we have good answers to such questions, the peak prosperity message can be a message of hope. If we don't have good answers, then it is a message of despair.

 

 

blackeagle's picture
blackeagle
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2013
Posts: 225
My feeling...

Do humanity will voluntarily reduce its footprint? My answer; No. Our brains are hardwired to accumulate wealth, to grab power by any mean, to fight to keep what we have.

Will humanity reduce its footprint? My answer: Yes. But this will be achieved through great pains.

Our choice is already made. it is in our genes. It has been made millions years ago. 

So, to resume: I have no hope that humanity will engage in the right way.

However, (There is always a however to any story or argumentation)... the future is not necessary black for those who take the good decision.

PP community (and alike) have great value: they help groups of people to live in and maintain pockets of relative comfort when things gets sour.

I have two priorities: accumulate as much wealth as I can and prepare for dark days. Accumulated wealth will be my insurance against holes in my preparedness and is a mean to ease the transition.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 847
Great irony, there, Black eagle

You start out by saying our brains are hardwired to ...

And end by saying that you will do just that.

There's a great irony there, that I suspect you intentionally put in. But what if the way up is down? What if accumulating wealth is the very thing you must not do, to survive the coming catastrophe?

What if the correct preparation for dark days is to eliminate one's wealth, and disappearsinto the seething masses?

blackeagle's picture
blackeagle
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2013
Posts: 225
@ Michael_Rudmin

I think I forgot to provide my voluntarily reduced definition to the term wealth. Here it is: money, precious metal.

Land, competency in many fields, family, friends, etc... are a form of wealth I won't discuss here.

I maintain that our brains are hardwired for accumulation. The awareness of a certain future (be it good or not) just changes the way we accumulate. This is what is happening to me. I know it and don't try to hide it. Is there an irony? Yes, because of the situation. The rest is just plain honest statement.

I have enough logic to see that our way of living is not sustainable and there is something to do. And I am willing to do something for my family and myself for the coming dark days. At the same time, I can't support the idea of not accumulating. Being wealthy helps a lot.

I worked all my life to have more (bigger car, bigger house, more money, etc...). I got all this. Two years ago I discovered PP which opened my eyes. And the facts are: I am still accumulating, But in a different way. My next car will be smaller (first, I have to wear this one up to its last fiber). My next house will be smaller and designed for tougher times (Good insulation, partially off-grid, artesian well, well equipped workshop, concealed storage area, large acreage, etc...). Since 2013, I manage my investments myself (No more incompetent middle man - it will be either my success or my failure, but at least I have control).

I won't stop because you never know if your preparedness is perfect until things get sour. I am changing my way of living, but there is still this little voice saying " J., you must have a cushion because human brain won't change in one night. You still have to use the old rules that drive all your surrounding".

So, to resume: I am aware of the coming tough times and the need to prepare. My recipe for preparation uses known ingredients. One of them being "accumulate" even if my way of living is (a bit) more sustainable for our little very unique planet.

 

 

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 379
Family planning seems in

Family planning seems in practice dependent on high social complexity;  care in old age, artificial contraceptives etc.  Also most peoples survival would probably be dependent on being a member of a large social group - again an incentive for people to have more children as social insurance.

Unfortunately it's not looking good for population control except by adverse events ie., war, famine, etc., or deliberate use of weaponised Ebola, or things like neutron bombs, which leave property intact but destroy people.

HarryFlashman's picture
HarryFlashman
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 1 2008
Posts: 54
Neutron Bombs

It's a common misconception that enhanced radiation weapons 'leave property intact'. Sure,they aren't as destructive as 'normal' nuclear weapons but they are pretty destructive.As their name implies they release more radiation and have a lower explosive yield.If one was detonated in your urban area the damage to 'property' would be 'considerable' .

blackeagle's picture
blackeagle
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2013
Posts: 225
Michael, The questions you

Michael,

The questions you raise are valid and are in fact one possibility, one choice of life. it is however a very radical move. A move that requires either a strong character to do very different from the masses or a large community that embraces the same vision.

I personally think that the mass will continue doing what they know best. This is why my strategy is to take an in-between approach, certainly not efficient for the planet, but it is in my opinion one that should provide relative safety and comfort.

For sure, we will have periods of unrest, but they will be limited in time. I can't imagine a society living in a permanent state of siege. We will live mundane periods as well as tough times. Also, the choice of living in a rural area helps. I think the "fall" will be overall progressive following a saw tooth pattern.

Money and precious metals are a good trade vehicle. Not to neglect.

Regards

JM

jgritter's picture
jgritter
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2011
Posts: 273
Optimistic/Pessimistic

Given that only a tiny fraction of todays population (I'm American and speaking from a North American perspective) is engaged in agriculture and that only a tiny fraction of that fraction is engaged in sustainable, non petroleum based agriculture, and that the last time North America had a stable, steady state, solar powered, economy might be said to have been 500 years ago, and that the population at the time was perhaps 1% of todays population and that the skills and technology that those people were using has been almost entirely lost, it seems to me that the issue isn't going to be how to reduce the population to a sustainable level but one of how to maintain a population sufficient to assure some sort of cultural and technological continuity.  (Sorry about the long sentence, I was on a roll)  Ironically it would seem that those best suited to survive the crash of the "Western Civilization Bubble" are the ones who are currently "desperately  poor" and practicing subsistence agriculture.  Unfortunately many of them are in areas that will become uninhabitabe by humans as temperatures rise.

This feels like we are at the top of a very tall roller coaster and it's not at all clear how far down we are going to go or what is going to happen at the bottom.  Guess I'll go with exhilarating.

Sincerely not sure if I'm being optimistic or pessimistic,

John G.

darleneortiz's picture
darleneortiz
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 26 2014
Posts: 17
Yup, being economic is a good

Yup, being economic is a good factor. because it inherits the habit within us to keep prepared for our future, for our kid's education, and also teach our children to efficiently utilize money and the available resources as per their need.

JR Wakefield's picture
JR Wakefield
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2008
Posts: 93
Climate change

Chris, I have been following your posts for years now.  I send them along to anyone who is interested, and often post some of your weekly roundups to my Facebook page.

Though your material is excellent and I think visionary, as is possible in a chaotic system, I must take issue with some items you present, particularly when it comes to climate change.  In this video the claim was made that the oceans are getting more acidic.  This is flat wrong.  Ocean pH is around 8.3.  That's alkaline.  As pH moves towards 7, it is getting more neutral, not acidic.   

That said, the claim that pH is changing because of CO2 increasing is also flat wrong.  It is based on a very short period of measurement.  When a longer history of measurement is used, one can see that there is nothing unusual in the pH of the oceans.  See:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/23/noaagate-how-ocean-acidificat...

and

http://www.principia-scientific.org/ocean-acidification-claims-are-misle...

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/a-neutral-view-of-oceanic-ph/

There was also a claim that climate events are getting more severe.  This is also false, according to the IPCC

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

Continuing to include the myths of human caused climate change is diminishing your important message.  Funneling funds to fight something which cannot be changed will just hasten the collapse.

Lastly, the other bit of false information in this video is that governments aren't doing anything to mitigate the coming collapse.  They are.  They are amassing BILLIONS of rounds of ammo, disseminated to federal agencies around the US, as well as depleting National Guard's means to defend each state.  They are preparing for eventual collapse and eventual public rioting.

HughK's picture
HughK
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 6 2012
Posts: 761
Ocean acidification and climate change are real
JR Wakefield wrote:

Though your material is excellent and I think visionary, as is possible in a chaotic system, I must take issue with some items you present, particularly when it comes to climate change.  In this video the claim was made that the oceans are getting more acidic.  This is flat wrong.  Ocean pH is around 8.3.  That's alkaline.  As pH moves towards 7, it is getting more neutral, not acidic.   

That said, the claim that pH is changing because of CO2 increasing is also flat wrong.  It is based on a very short period of measurement.  When a longer history of measurement is used, one can see that there is nothing unusual in the pH of the oceans.  See:

There was also a claim that climate events are getting more severe.  This is also false, according to the IPCC

Continuing to include the myths of human caused climate change is diminishing your important message.  Funneling funds to fight something which cannot be changed will just hasten the collapse.

Hi JR,

I responded to your post in the climate thread.

Cheers,

Hugh

Mark Cochrane's picture
Mark Cochrane
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2011
Posts: 1227
Seriously?

JR Wakefield,

You have some serious chutzpah taking Chris to task over material you obviously no nothing about.

If you want to actually learn something of climate change and science in general, please follow Hugh's link over to the Climate Change thread. We maintain a civil dialog with 'skeptics' and 'warmists' (love that one) alike. We've covered ocean acidification and probably most any other facet about climate change that you can come with in considerable depth. We also try to deal in facts, verifiable sources and like matter that the mainstream media and your scurrilous linked sources have forgotten or buried.

Sincerely,

Mark

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Here we go.

and we are off to the races. (Again).

JR Wakefield's picture
JR Wakefield
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2008
Posts: 93
Rather presumptuous arnt we

Why is it the default position of the warmists, when we skeptics post some links to the contrary, that your immediate assumption is that we dont know what we are talking about. That our understanding of science in general must be lacking. 

You dont know me, so you cannot possibly know what I understand. So your presumption of my ignorance of the subject is simply a tactic because you cant deal with what I posted.

I'll check your thread. 

But the bottom line is the climate changes, has done for 4.5 billion years.  There is nothing happening in the climate system today which is beyond normal variation, not even rate of change.  There isnt one science paper published which shows empirically anything unusual happening. Climate models dont count as evidence (if you understood science you would understand that).

I suggest you also read this:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2015/01/04/natural-variability-and-chaos-eight-...

So, yes, I'm quite serious about challenging the myth of human caused climate change.  And I'm WELL educated on the subject, and of science in general.

JR Wakefield's picture
JR Wakefield
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2008
Posts: 93
Of course climate change is real

Do you think that all climate change is ONLY because of humans?  There was never any climate change before industrialization?

Of course there was.  But your continued use of "climate change is real" without the qualifier that it is HUMAN caused climate change you are referring to, makes your position one of myth, not science.  Human caused climate change is NOT real. It is NOT fact.  It is THEORY.  All causation is theory.   There is not one science paper which has empirically linked any change in the climate to human emissions of CO2.  I challenge you to find and post one.  Climate models do not count as theory.

TiffeM's picture
TiffeM
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2015
Posts: 0
Wow

To actually believe that humans have no impact upon the planet, shame you have such a low opinion of yourself and others. Adding a substance to a alkaline solution to lower it's PH would be referred to as acidification of that solution, it is a simple concept. 

Mark Cochrane's picture
Mark Cochrane
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2011
Posts: 1227
What you have as an ideological position not an argument

JR,

Sorry to get off on the wrong foot with you but while your statements may be new or self evident to you, they have been debunked or shown as outright falsehoods in many places (link, link) including here on the climate thread. You can go there or to my earlier podcast if you want some idea of my position, credentials or whatever else you want.

If you are here on this site I assume that you are well read and educated. I have learned a lot from many people here at Peak Prosperity. I am not questioning your intelligence or your general level of education. It is your statements like:

"the claim that pH is changing because of CO2 increasing is also flat wrong"

and

"There is not one science paper which has empirically linked any change in the climate to human emissions of CO2."

which make it obvious that you don't know this subject matter or have perhaps been caught up within the disinformation version of anthropogenic climate change that starts with the conclusion that 'there is nothing to see here move along' and ignores all facts to the contrary.

Your first quote would indicate that you do not believe in soda or beer (unlikely), which work on the same principle as ocean acidification. The only practical difference is the partial pressure of CO2 in the air forcing it into solution, where it subsequently dissolves and changes the acidity of the fluid. Acidification is the addition of H+ ions (more acid added) which lowers the pH. A fluid is not an actual acid (noun) until it drops below a pH of 7.0 (the oceans are now at pH 8.2) but the 0.11 pH change of the world's oceans already signifies a 30% increase in the amount of acid that has been pumped into the oceans (acidification), since pH is recorded on a log scale. That is a near light speed change in acidity in geological terms.

If you want scientific papers on climate change, go over to the IPCC AR5 reports (link) which are literally based on tens of thousands of scientific papers published over 100+ years. If you want something more specific, come over to the climate thread and tell me exactly what you mean by your qualifiers and I will try to provide you with some materials. Since you are dead set against models, I suggest that you start here (Murphy et al 2009). Anthropogenic climate change is clear even without using climate models.

I not sure how much you understand about how science is done, or what the scientific method entails, but your use of screaming CAPS for theory shows that you do not know what it means in a scientific context. This is different from the colloquial use of the word theory in English language. Straight from wikipedia.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[5] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis').[6] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7]

I added the bold underline. Scientists have tried and failed to 'falsify' (= prove wrong) the theory of anthropogenic global climate change (aka Anthropogenic Global Warming - AGW) for over 100 years.  AGW has been tested and vindicated thousands of times. Fame, fortune, Nobel Prizes and dare I say shaving commercials (legs for the ladies) await anyone who can find a flaw in this 'theory'. Incidentally, scientists also have a 'theory' about why gravity works (Einstein's Theory of General Relativity).

I will not hijack this thread any further but sincerely invite you and any one else who is interested over to the climate thread for further discussion.

Mark

(P.S. I will copy this over to there to foster continued dialog)

billphil1964's picture
billphil1964
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 11
Spelling

Please note that pollution has two "l"s.

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