Investing in precious metals 101
  • Blog

    Collapse Is Already Here

    It's a process, not an event
    by Chris Martenson

    Sunday, March 10, 2019, 11:54 AM

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).

Related content
» More

254 Comments

  • Fri, Jan 25, 2019 - 8:02pm

    #1
    phildenn

    phildenn

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 02 2009

    Posts: 0

    Life on Earth

    Great post, Chris. I can feel the sincerity in the sadness and desperation of your tone. Perhaps this may sound silly, but when I get broken-hearted about the environmental E, I remind myself that we may sow the seeds of our demise (with the species that share our place), but on geological time the Earth and her life-giving story should be fine, right? Might it be the most important thing we can do, simply to cherish the time we have, to bask and work and dream and build and laugh and love…
    It seems unlikely humanity will organize and take path 2, but I hope some of us can at least truly appreciate the opportunity along the way…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 25, 2019 - 9:12pm

    #2

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1085

    Giving the Environmental "E" its Due

    Chris, I think this is one of the most powerful posts you’ve ever written.  The Economic “E” doesn’t hold a candle to the Environmental “E”, and it is (painfully) refreshing to hear your clarion call on its behalf, bringing long overdue attention to the many indicators that we are seriously screwing over life on earth. 
    People need to hear this, they need someone to throw cold water on their faces and tell them to WAKE UP!!!  Thank you for sounding the call.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 25, 2019 - 9:13pm

    #3
    Sharsta

    Sharsta

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 12 2009

    Posts: 39

    Heat Wave in Australia

    I have just come in from watering my garden (as I missed doing it yesterday when it was hot also). The time is 4.08pm (local time) and the weather station on the back concrete reads 42.4C (108F).
    It has been varing degrees of hot to bloody disgusting for over a month.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 25, 2019 - 10:24pm

    #4
    pgp

    pgp

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 01 2014

    Posts: 165

    Go forth and prosper.

    The elephant in the room jumps, the ground shifts but still no-one takes notice.  The human race refuses to look at itself with any kind of humility even in the face of self-destruction.  We blame the politicians, their lack of action and lament the death of our environment as if  we as law-abiding, righteous individuals had nothing to do with the problem.
    If you wanted to save a bunch of trees, reduce toxic outpourings and conserve water what better way than to reduce human demand, specifically by putting limits on population numbers. 
    People bitch about meat eaters and how cattle are a major cause of climate change but no-one ever puts into numbers the environmental cost of supporting a two or three child family.  I’m pretty sure the  spawn of our car-driving, energy gluttonous plastic society pose a greater threat to the environment than a family of grass eating quadrupeds.
    Still after a century of talking about population and pollution nothing has changed.  No-one wants to give up the culture, beliefs and traditions that got us here. The “go forth and prosper” mindset was always an arrogant delusion born from an assumption of self-importance. 
    Political society was born from an amalgamation of tribes overpopulating areas of limited resource.  Now the planet will die because the species refuses to equate resource depletion with flagrant population growth.
    Our extinction seems like a fitting end.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 25, 2019 - 10:50pm

    #5

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 290

    The masses are torn. On one

    The masses are torn. On one hand, most people do not want the environment that supports us to be destroyed. On the other, to make the changes required to save it (if it isn’t already too late) would eliminate probably half the jobs out there and destroy the financial system and everyone’s savings, THE WAY THE ECONOMY / SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED. I think we know that when faced with the choice of immediate poverty versus a longer term, more widespread and nebulous threat, individuals will always defer to the latter.
    The alternative, changing the system so that half the population DOESN’T lose their job as a result of society becoming sustainable, is not something many people understand how to do, no doubt in part due to the elites directly and indirectly influencing the educational system and what we are taught; in addition to the censored media stories we are told / not told, as Chris mentions.
    In short, this will not end well. It’s so sad, beause we had/have the knowledge and technology to live sustainably, decades ago, if we had used it that way. But our leaders are incompetent and they blew it. The masses allowed them to.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 25, 2019 - 11:28pm

    #6

    SagerXX

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 397

    While this environment burns....

    …this is where TPTB’s focus is now (as I’ve been suspecting for a while now):  control of resources (esp oil, to be exploited at any environmental cost, of course) closer to home and potentially less bothersome to extract than in the Middle East…
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-24/american-empire-pivots-toward-
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 12:17am

    #7
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 224

    Wilful blindness

    There’s been a fair amount of publicity of and media hand-wringing over the fish kills in the Murray River system. My wife and I were listening to a ABC news radio broadcast where they interviewed the Deputy Prime Minister about what had happened and why. (I gather the PM was out of the country attending to BAU.)
    He acknowledged the fish deaths and expressed sorrow and isn’t it too bad and there’s a lot of complicated causes and all that. He also said a number of times that in Australia the rain ALWAYS returns, and when it does we will be complaining and wondering what to do with all the water. This is Australia, the land of droughts and flooding rains. The rain ALWAYS returns, he repeated. Then we can get back to growing the economy. Like approving that mega coal mine in Queensland that MANY of the people adamantly oppose.
    In other words, as far as he’s concerned, climate change is not an issue. Not at all. Obviously this is official Australian federal government policy.
    And we’ve never had a fish kill like this that anyone can remember. This is new. So, Mr Deputy PM, what has changed? Nothing? And you reckon the rain will return? Isn’t this a species of cargo cult thinking? What if it doesn’t?
    I know some pleasant people who are genuinely convinced that the earth is flat. Really. Now I know at least one more.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 3:13am

    #8
    nigel

    nigel

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 15 2009

    Posts: 90

    New South Wales

    The interesting thing about New South Wales (NSW) is that it’s one of the grain belts for Australia, and more grain is produced than is needed. This typically means that it’s traded, from memory it accounts for about 2% of grain traded world wide. So the drought in NSW has geopolitical implications, but only if there is another grain failure elsewhere. Now you may think 2% of grain is tiny, but in terms of the amount of people it feeds in other countries it’s massive, we are talking 10’s to 100’s of millions of people not being able to get their staples. So pay attention over the summer in the middle east, or India or Africa, and if there are crop faulures there you may face another arab spring situation.
    Russia, and the US both produce massive amounts of grain, but they don’t trade as much as you would think, Russia trades less than Australia, and i’ll note they had a grain crop failure the same year as the last Arab spring.
    I remember as a child that each week my job was to go out and clean the car window of bird poop, there was always something on the window. I got real excited about 3 months ago because I found some on my car window. It’s the only time I can recall having it happen within the last 10 years. No bugs, no birds, and an overheating planet.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 4:15am

    #9
    Luke Moffat

    Luke Moffat

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 365

    Yellow Vest Wounds

    Wounds suffered by Yellow Vest protestors largely as a result of rubber bullets (“flashballs”) fired by police: http://lemurjaune.fr/ (warning: photos are graphic)
    Taken from this article here: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/gilets-jaunes-attack.html
    I’m still waiting for these images to be shown on MSM – any idea how long I’ll have to wait? Bidding starts at ‘forever’ and extends to ‘infinity and beyond’.
    Edit: I should have posted this in daily digest. Admin, feel free to move.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 5:14am

    #10
    james.wilde

    james.wilde

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 17 2008

    Posts: 2

    Chris's posts

    pinecarr wrote:

    Chris, I think this is one of the most powerful posts you’ve ever written.  The Economic “E” doesn’t hold a candle to the Environmental “E”, and it is (painfully) refreshing to hear your clarion call on its behalf, bringing long overdue attention to the many indicators that we are seriously screwing over life on earth. 
    People need to hear this, they need someone to throw cold water on their faces and tell them to WAKE UP!!!  Thank you for sounding the call.

     
    I agree with Pinecarr.  This is one of Chris’s best, and another of them was the end of year post, where he warned us oldies that sometime soon a youngster is going to ask us two questions:  when did you realise and what did you do about it?  That, for me, was a call to arms. 
    But I hear, too, the despair in Chris’s articles, and in my own (nobody reads mine, unfortunately).  We all in here know it is already too late.  While TPTB chase Russian moonbeams  and dollars in their trillions in the US, Brexit, Catalan independence and Italian budget problems in the EU, they have no time for anything other than the latest employment figures, exchange rates and quarterly reports.
    The environment needs a leader.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 5:30am

    #11
    PaulJam

    PaulJam

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 04 2016

    Posts: 70

    a week of profound reads

    Amazing – thanks, Chris.
    I don’t know what it is about this week that profound reads on this topic matter keep coming up.  Here is that one kept me glued to my screen for a while the other day when I should have been working – a stunning piece of work IMO, concerning climate change and collapse.
    https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
    And Nafeez Ahmed, who has been on PP:
    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-collective-intelligence-can-change-your-world-right-now-fcfab215251f
    Both indispensible for those wondering what to do with this most terrible knowledge…..
     
     
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 6:21am

    #12

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    What’s Coming

    Philden was right about this being one of your best posts.  However, it was, by far, one of your most disturbing posts.
    Sadly, from my seat on the bench, I don’t see people gearing up to work on a solution.  What I see is people working themselves up into a war frenzy.  I think the “forever war”, we’ve been perpetuating is going to become a world war.
    That’ll solve everything!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 7:19am

    #13
    mjtrac

    mjtrac

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 17 2014

    Posts: 5

    any real solution will have to be imposed

    It’s an extraordinarily unpleasant thought, but the first world’s political systems have failed completely to address the most critical problem of the past 500 years.  Democracy, or what has passed for democracy in our advertising/propaganda-filled world, has failed completely — and that is not due to any particular administration’s corruption, nor it it due to any one politician’s scientific ignorance.  It is due to the baked-in greed within humans, and the ease with which that greed is exploited by the worst of us.  
    The idea that humans, under self-governance, would automatically implement necessary solutions to global problems turns out to be a mirage. 
    What would address the problem appropriately?  There would need to be a heavy military power able and willing to impose rationing across the developed world, enforced by immediate death for violators.  Such a power could announce its arrival by bombing every super-yacht and private jet out of existence, with or without their owners on board.  It is very difficult to imagine that such a power could remain uncorrupted — but if we are honest with ourselves, the civilian alternatives have all been tried, and have all completely failed.    
    I’m over 60, and have had little hope for the past 38 years, ever since the US population elected an avuncular TV character to lead the nation, largely because a helicopter failed.  We’ve done remarkable things since then to enlarge the set of people deemed to matter, but have done nothing (ignoring rounding error) to save us from ourselves.  We stepped off the cliff long ago, blinking like Road Runner’s cartoon coyote.  We’re already halfway down on our way to meet the ground, and no doubt politicians will take action to ensure the 0.01% continue to have the best air-conditioning at their compounds after the splat.   
    For those who think a resort to military-imposed violence sounds unappealing, I’d suggest it is really long past time to admit to the far-greater violence that has already been committed in our names, to ensure that a few of the worst of us can play with super-yachts and private jets.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 7:21am

    #14

    Phil Williams

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 14 2009

    Posts: 269

    Great post

    Chris,
    Thank you for the great post. I appreciate your passion for people and the environment.
    In 2008, I was much less optimistic than I am today. Not because we’ve done much to alleviate the environmental degradation, but because I’ve seen first hand what’s possible.
    In 2009, I purchased a six acre, south facing hillside that had been farmed for decades. No butterflies. No frogs. No snakes. Very degraded.
    Over the next nine years, I put in 2200 linear feet of swales to stop the water and nutrients from running off the hill. I planted 2000+ trees to take advantage of the captured moisture and nutrient. I dug four ponds. My plan was to provide for the needs of the flora and fauna as well as my family’s needs. To do this I had to rehydrate and reforest the land, and build ecological diversity.
    Early on the process, my property attracted the ire of neighbors and passerbyers in the township. People complained that my property was “all weeds”. I rarely mowed and only did so as part of a strategy. For example, if I wanted to discourage a particular plant over another, I might mow before the plant goes to seed, or I might let it seed if I wanted more of a particular plant. Many times, I would hand cut certain species as they dried in the field and spread the seeds by hand to other areas where I thought they might thrive. The trees I planted were very small, and to the passerby who’s used to maincured monoculture lanws it did look weedy. Of course, many of these so called weeds provides tons of benefits, far more than grass.
    The police cited me for breaking the weed ordinance. The penalties are stiff with daily fines and jail time if you don’t comply. The problem was I couldn’t comply without destroying all my hardwork. The design was very natural and not conducive to mowing. I fought it, and the complaints and police threats went on for about two years. Finally, I was granted a hearing to argue my case.
    At the hearing, the township solicitor said it was the FIRST time anyone had challenged the property maintenance code. The police officer had pictures of my property and questioned me about plants in his pictures, citing them as weeds. Thankfully, I could name the plants and their uses. One of the plants he complained about was a grape vine. Anyway, to make a long story short, the board decided to classify my entire property as a garden, and therefore exempt from the grass and weeds ordinance. Had I lost this hearing, I would’ve been totally SOL.
    Now, years later, the passerbyers can’t see what’s going on. The trees and the bamboo are too tall. Now, we have tons of insects and butterflies. When I’m walking the property, in certain spots, I have to flick my corn knife at the air in front of me because there are so many spider webs. Monarch butterflies are everywhere, not an exaggeration. I think they come for the milkweed, which I’ve let grow and multiply. When I walk by the ponds, I hear and see the frogs jumping in the water. I see snakes on a regular basis. Fox. Ducks. Skunks. Possum. Too many groundhogs. Hawks. Eagles. So many birds. Since I rarely mow, the birds can access the dried seeds hanging on the stalks over the winter. I watch them balancing on the stalks and eating the seeds.
    Imagine what humanity could accomplish if we started building swales and ponds and planting trees and growing some of our own food. If we plant enough trees, it actually increases rainfall!
    Of course, I have no idea how you influence others to do these things. I did what I did knowing it is inconsequential in the big picture. But I think about what the world would look like if people stopped trying to control and dominate nature. Just stopping with all the mowing and spraying would be a huge step in the right direction.
    Humanity could be a powerful regenerative force. We just need to get going in the right direction.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 7:27am

    #15

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1466

    1974 - 75

    My personal journey got kick-started in the fall of ’74 when I began college and met my wife-to-be.  We had read some of the same books in high school and had a shared interest in ecology and overpopulation (Boy, we must’ve been a couple of weird dweebs! Back in the early ’70’s who read that kind of stuff on their own in high school?!).  It was Silent Spring, The Population Bomb, and The Limits to Growth.  Additionally, my father who lived 1,500 miles away warned me in August of ’71 in one of many letters that Nixon “closing the gold window” would mean the collapse of the economy and civilization, so I started thinking about prepping to survive. Together with some friends we met in our first year in college, my then-fiance and I started S.A.F.E. – Student Action For the Environment at our little college in the fall of ’75, through which we tried to educate ourselves and awaken others to what people were doing to the environment. We threw our little teaspoon of water on the raging fire. wink
    We settled in for the long haul and over the years adjusted our values and behavior accordingly. In graduate school in Louisville, KY, we had no A/C and kept our winter thermostat set at its lowest setting: 54 degrees F, unless we had a guest coming over and then we cranked it up to 70 degrees just for the visit.  We grew a little garden in a brick-strewn lot next door.  That’s where I learned that six free brussel sprout plants were waaaay too much for two people who don’t like brussel sprouts that much. We’ve had two children and passed on to them our love for nature and concern for the environment and energy conservation, even though we’ve always lived in dense urban centers. We only have two grandchildren and that looks like it’s going to be it.  We’ve always been pretty well insulated from the mind-control that TPTB wield through teevee.  We didn’t have a teevee for our first five years of marriage and only got a 13″ B/W when it was given to us.  We cut the cord again for good about five years ago, and quit all our newspaper and news magazine subscriptions about 15 years ago.
    Anyway, despite our tiny efforts, the world has continued to march inexorably toward the disaster we saw coming in ’74 at the latest.  We have hopes, but not that society will wake up and make the necessary changes.  Our hopes are in family and small group survival, and rebuilding a better world (though I have to concede that even the best rebuilding will be fatally flawed or spoiled in the long term).  The Christian communities that survived and thrived in the Dark Ages are our inspiration.  We are determined to do the right things, not because they will succeed in saving civilization and nature or even ourselves, but because they are the right things.
    The big human die-off we’re approaching will self-correct many of our excesses, of that I can be sure. Massively fewer people will reduce human consumption and destruction of the environment (that is, after the excess radiation has faded away).
    In the meantime, we’re like most of us here at PP: seeking to enjoy life, love, family, nature, fresh water, and food as much as we can for as long as it lasts. And we continue to prepare to survive to the other side of the event horizon with our lives and values intact. But we’re not Hippie Flower Children: we are battle-hardened urban warriors and as prepared to cope with The Ugliness that’s coming as we can be at our age.  More than the coming violence and suffering, we fear the temptations that will come to not live according to our beliefs and values.  
    This weekend we are still trying to get our house sold so we can get out of the Big City when we retire in May. We’ve got three showings over the weekend and an open house.  Got to go attend to those mundane details. Life goes on.  We’re looking forward to starting over even more sustainably in New Hampshire and seeing our first moose, before they’re all gone. 
    “Happy Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 7:30am

    #16
    Lions

    Lions

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 19 2018

    Posts: 15

    Collapse is already here

    As a wildlife photographer, there is nothing I love more than the natural world! My one gift is that I believe we are all Spiritual Beings at the core and personally I could never be afraid of anything as small as death. I believe that death is just a continuance of Life although in a different form. Many more cultures than not believe that death is a celebration and a new beginning. I wish this gift upon others. After all, what could be more abhorrent than a world controlled by Central bankers!!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 7:36am

    #17
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    Take a number, Chris!


    Jeremiah, the weaping prophet
    And. we know what happened to him!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 8:01am

    #18

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    My Political View

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 8:28am

    Reply to #11
    mjtrac

    mjtrac

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 17 2014

    Posts: 5

    Insurge Intelligence -- Masturbation at its Finest

    After skimming Dr. Nafeez Ahmed’s piece cited above — reading would have been too painful —  I see that the solution to all our problems must be to expand the basic religious/philosophical concept “know thyself” into long-winded big-worded mountains of bullshit, never once mentioning explicit material sacrifice.  Think-tank work at its best; not just useless, but impressively useless.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 9:21am

    #19
    PaulJam

    PaulJam

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 04 2016

    Posts: 70

    maybe useless but true

    Perhaps useless – but also at the same time true, which is part of the predicament itself.

    I used to be a Zen student at a monastery, and I would hear something similar, that needed change has to start with inner work that can filter out into the world – our insititutions and cultural narratives.  I would hear this and think, yes, but fat chance any more than a very few are going to be willing to do the inner work to begin with.  I still think that’s true, and that many of the insights in Ahmed’s article are true, but in a practical sense useless.  That’s the tragedy of our culture, that our world view and way of life is so mal-adaptive to human and planetary well-being that impossible solutions such as what Ahmed are the few things that make sense. 
    We need cultural norms, narratives, and beliefs that restrain our worst collective tendencies.  Our culture has none of these, the result is what we see unfolding before us.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 11:19am

    #20
    peter31

    peter31

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 01 2009

    Posts: 26

    Greetings from Brexit land

    Great post Chris.  Greetings from the UK, land of Brexit.  A great frustration for me is that the political theatricals of Brexit are dominating the airwaves and political and social discourse here, and diverting everyone’s attention from much more serious problems like the ones you’ve described.  Species extinction, resource depletion and climate change are going to have far more impact than Brexit in the long term but nobody is talking about them.  Keep up your good work.
    https://postpeakmedicine.com/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 11:32am

    #21

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 326

    The clock was always programmed to run to 0:00

    “And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” . .
    And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. . .Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”
    Believe it.
    Rector
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 11:58am

    Reply to #19
    mjtrac

    mjtrac

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 17 2014

    Posts: 5

    cultural norms, narrative, and beliefs

    I actually agree with both you and the wordy doctor, though I find it hard to accept common sense when it is turned into a dissertation.  But while it’s nice to be nice to the nice, what the world actually needs is for some military to start shooting the wealthiest people.  That, and nothing else, is going to cure the effects of capitalist countries’ worship of mammon.
    Will any military actually do this?  Or are they all run by climate-change deniers?  I don’t know.  But I no longer have the slightest illusion that our political system is up to the task which so many seem to think it will take on.  Instead, we will see good pols and bad pols rise to the top and have the public turn on them, because they have proven unable to alter a system that is built off of our animal nature greed.
    If any pol ever proved a true threat to the wealthiest 0.01%, they’d be dead in a flash.  That’s why what little hope I have rests on people with large armaments doing something noble, even though I think they are all probably conservative, while I would once have considered myself liberal.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 12:00pm

    #22
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2257

    My "Political" View (whatever that means)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 12:21pm

    Reply to #19

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1466

    You’ve definitely gone off the deep end mjtrac

    Though I do have to admit your plan appeals to me on one level. You know that whole “We had to destroy the village to save it,” kind of way. Your plan does give me pause however in another way because others have tried using murder on an industrial scale to establish a better world. But they never established a better world. They only killed millions. I’ll sign on to your campaign under one condition: I’m put in charge of deciding who dies and who lives. 

    “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series

    I am definitely Mencken’s normal man. The insanity of the world is just too much to bear sometimes. However my conclusion is I’ll be one who will stand in the way of any who would try to bring a better world through the tyrannical control of those who can be controlled and death to those who can’t. Not on my watch.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 1:53pm

    #23
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2257

    War never decides who's right...

    …it only decides who’s left.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 1:56pm

    #24

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4647

    Re: Cultural Norms, Narrative, And Beliefs

    While it may be tempting to think that the military might do something useful in an overthrow, that’s just not going to be the case.
    The military, once done with their purge, would then be subject to all of the Rules for Rulers

    Soon enough you are right back to where you started.
    We need to change things more fundamentally than simply upending the current apple cart.  We need to shift our core narratives in news ways.
    If we’re still addicted to growth (courtesy of our money system) then it doesn’t matter who’s in charge.  We’ll get the same system in the end.
    It’s either “evolve or die” with the evolution being the ability to live sustainably within our means without going through an ecosphere destroying overshoot moment.
    That evolution will depend on our shifting of core beliefs and finding a way to tame our egos which are always in a perpetual state of wanting.  The ego always wants more.  It the ego has one, it wants two.  If it has two it wants ten.  If it has a million it wants a billion.  And it’s never satisfied by getting what it “wanted” which means that wasn’t what it actually really wanted in the first place.
    What does the ego want?  To want.
    The ego wants wanting and, boy, does it get it!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 2:10pm

    #25
    Sharsta

    Sharsta

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 12 2009

    Posts: 39

    Davos 2019

    Hi Chris,
    While I fully agree that Davos 2019 is too little, too late, there were a few talks and people who were not as totally tone deaf as the rest –
    # Sir Richard Attenborough (from minute 21 for the first link)
    https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting/sessions/the-25th-anniversary-of-the-crystal-awards
    https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting/sessions/an-insight-an-idea-with-david-attenborough
    # Jacinda Ardern – the Prime Minister of New Zealand
    https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting/sessions/our-planet
    # Mark Rutte – the Prime Minister of the Netherlands
    https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting/sessions/creating-new-coalitions-against-climate-change
    # My absolute cheering favourite though is Greta Thunberg


    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/our-house-is-on-fire-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-speaks-truth-to-power/
    She is the person who has inspired/is inspiring kids around the world to ‘School Strike for Climate’ and made it to Davos via a 32 hour train trip. She does NOT mince words and says things that these Davos people need to hear.
    For some background – here is her TedxStockholm talk from November 2018
    https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_school_strike_for_climate_save_the_world_by_changing_the_rules?language=en
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 2:29pm

    Reply to #1
    rlm4765

    rlm4765

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 04 2011

    Posts: 1

    Eternal life

    Unfortunately man is on a path of self destruction where they wrote theiur own epitath:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
    Man seems to think he can write his own story but his~story(history) has already been written:
    Revelation 11:18 And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath came, and the time of the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, the small and the great; and to destroy them that destroy the earth.
    The next decade will bring our Father climactic end:
    https://sumofthyword.com/2016/10/04/the-rapture-of-the-church-is-after-the-tribulation/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 2:53pm

    #26
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Heating earth

    I often agree with much of what you say. However: While you may well be right in your favorite narrative, although I am tempted to think you may be presumptuously early in an eager sort of way, I nevertheless wouldn’t be inclined to argue the issue with you. But your plot breaks down to the extent that it relies for urgency on a tall-tale, utterly unfounded in science, manufactured out of new whole-cloth for ulterior purposes, and force-fed to the public by a compliant, subservient,and very compromised media for now more than 30 years. Of course, I mean the global warming /climate change story which you seem to accept at face value. To me it’s always strange when people recognize the flaws in establishment media presentations and narratives in certain areas but then accept holus- bolus uncritically and without evidence something like the anthropogenic global warming assertion. Originally, I was inclined to believe the story as it was supposedly sourced in science, but as time went by and the mythical evidence was never presented and the stories began to take on a flavour of propaganda I became suspicious and decided to investigate. I had no dog in the fight but wanted facts.To that end, I can say that I have read over 50 books, hundreds of articles, some papers, and thousands of blog posts and discovered that there is not any real science to support the notion of man-made global warming. The extent of the so-called evidence resides solely in climate models created by activist parties and that’s all there is. That’s not scientific evidence. The activists program the models using their preferred assumptions to get the results they want. That is an invalid circular process and not science but the whole thing is based on these models. When it comes to climate dynamics there are just too many unknowns and even for the things that are known it is impossible to know how to weight them properly for any climate model to have a valid outcome. Beyond this, there are reasons why CO2 does not and cannot cause the earth’s temperature to rise which I won’t get into here, In fact, to call it a pollutant is ridiculous. It is the molecule of life as the existence of all life on earth depends on it. Plants and crops require it to grow and without plants there would be no animals or humans. In fact, plants evolved when CO2 was many times higher than now. When Co2 was below 300 parts per million we were near starvation levels for plants as for eons it was continually washing out of the atmosphere and being sequestered to the point of danger. Not only is it not harmful but more would be beneficial. As an aside, several competent experts have demonstrated that the human contribution of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is tiny and overwhelmed by natural sources during times of modest rise such as now and in the constant overturning cycle can not possibly be responsible for the rise in recent decades. The math does’t work. But this doesn’t matter anyway as more is better and not harmful.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 2:54pm

    #27
    Sharsta

    Sharsta

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 12 2009

    Posts: 39

    Greta Thunberg

    Here’s a link for another talk she gave –
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/25/right-their-faces-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-tells-davos-elite-climate-crisis-their
    “It takes deep courage to go to Davos and tell the masters-of-the-universe *to their faces* that they knowingly torched the planet in order to get filthy rich.”
    —Naomi Klein
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 3:18pm

    #28
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Well, my previous post didn't

    Well, my previous post didn’t format well as I pasted it in from notepad.
    Just to make reference to your Australia heatwave example, It is nothing unusual. It was in fact hotter during a heatwave in the 1890’s. But it is an example of what the co-opted mainstream media does. I remember when a few years ago they played-up another heatwave in Australia where the temp was a couple of degrees above normal while not mentioning an area about twice the size of Australia in central Asia with severe cold 10 degrees below normal that was happenning at the same time.
    In fact the whole narrative of an over-heating earth is bunkum. Our current inter-glacial period is about 11,800 years long. We have been in a stairstep slide down to the next glacial period ever since the Holocene optimum some 8,000 years ago when temps were some 3 degrees celsius warmer than now. We are currently below the peaks from 5,000 years ago as well as the Roman peiod and the medieval warm priod when Vikings farmed in Greenland.
    The current minor blip up is simply a rebound from the “little ice age” which was the coldest dip in the entire current interglacial. WE are still colder than 95% of the current interglacial.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 3:38pm

    #29
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Ulterior motives

    The ulterior motives for the narrative:
    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong, 1992, Under Secretary General of the UN
    Maurice Strong chose the UN specifically the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to control bureaucracies within every national government and away from legislative oversight. Those bureaucracies directed research funding to one side of the debate and appointed people to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research was limited by defining climate change as only human-caused changes, which predetermined the outcome. The political objective became enshrined through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), particularly Agenda 21, introduced at the 1992 Rio Conference organized and chaired by Strong.
    Basing Agenda 21 on climate and the environment gave them the moral high ground, which they used to control and centralize power. Vaclav Klaus identified this in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”
    And:
    At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
    And:
    Ottmar Edenhofer,
    co-chair of the IPCC’s
    Working Group III,
    explained in
    precise German:
    “we are in fact
    redistributing
    the world’s wealth
    by climate policy
    … one must
    free oneself
    of the delusion
    that climate policy
    is [about]
    environmental
    policy.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 3:41pm

    #30
    louisdoran

    louisdoran

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 6

    What are we to do about it?

    Or what can I do about it? Me, poor little me against such a powerful machine that seems to inexorably walk (run) toward its self-destruction. I believe the answer is partly in this very interesting piece that I just stumbled upon. It ties in very well with Chris’s ”Be that change you want to see in  the wolrd” theme. What if change in the ”out there” did indeed start with change ”in here and now”. What if the outside was merely a reflection of the inside. It just might be so, it just might be so. And it fills me with great hope and joy. There is a way out. However, make no mistake, it might also be our biggest challenge and task yet. But  it is one  we can and will supercede. A must read if you ask my humble opinion. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-collective-intelligence-can-change-your-world-right-now-fcfab215251f
     
    On the same theme of change within oneself before change outside oneself can manifest, this video.


     
    What say you?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 3:49pm

    Reply to #26
    louisdoran

    louisdoran

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 6

    CO2 and climate change

    I’d be very interested in finding out more about your CO2 cannot possibly cause climate change which you did not expose further.
     
    Thank you.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 4:00pm

    Reply to #22

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    Make America Great Again

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 4:30pm

    #31

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    I Fear It Is Already Too Late

    The year 2017 was a peak year for global carbon emissions. Except 2018 surpassed it.
     
    We have some 7.7 billion people on this planet, and there are no signs of slowing down. Even if we did, there is already enough carbon in the atmosphere to keep it going, enough carbon dissolved in sea water to acidify and damage phytoplankton shell growth. Tropical forests are no longer net absorbers of carbon, they are now net emitters. Warming soils cannot hold as much carbon, so they are releasing it. Frozen methane in shallow Arctic seabeds and frozen carbon and methane in permafrost – they’re already seeping and ready to massively outgas.
     
    Over on Facebook, some of us are in a community called the Near Term Human Extinction Support Group. Applicants must answer all three questions to be considered.
     
     
    For parents of small children, look for a separate group: Whistling In The Dark
     
    Poet

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 4:57pm

    Reply to #26
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    The "greenhouse effect" is

    The “greenhouse effect” is inappropriate to begin with as a greenhouse has a solid roof that prevents heat from escaping via convection. The earth’s atmosphere is open and so heat is not “trapped” but constantly convected upwards and away. Co2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere. So the claim  that an increase of one molecule in 10,000 from 3 molecules to 4 molecules in an open convective atmosphere can trap heat and has caused the 0.6C degree rise over the last 50 years is preposterous.
    When sunlight hits the earth the energy is converted to heat and radiated upwards in the longwave infrared wavelength bands. About 17% radiates out unobstructed. The rest is captured by mostly water vapour and Co2. But because of the structure of the molecules and the way they can bend or vibrate, Co2 can only capture the energy from a very narrow part of the total range of infrared wavelengths. This is the energy radiated from about -75 to -85 degrees centigrade which is not very much energy at all.
    Now, there is a limited amount of energy in this bandwidth available and CO2 at current levels already absorbs most or all of it. In fact,Co2 at 50ppm already absorbs most of it nevermind the current 400ppm.
    But here is the kicker! Water vapour absorbs across all of the wavelenths and overlaps the absorption band of CO2. And there is on average 50 times the amount of water vapour in the air. Water vapour alone has the capacity to absorb all of the infrared radiation. CO2 makes no difference. If you reduced it to zero, water vapour would absorb all of the radiation in the CO2 band, and whatever CO2 absorbs at whatever level in the atmosphere is simply stolen from water vapour. Cut it in half or double it, it makes no difference.
    And remember, there is a finite amount of energy in the wavelength that CO2 can absorb and it is all already being absorbed. Increasing CO2 can make no difference.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 4:58pm

    Reply to #24
    louisdoran

    louisdoran

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 6

    the ego is striving for infinity/immortality/security

    How about this perspective Chris.
     
    the ego is in a constant state of want because it is striving to achieve infinity or immortality if you like. It is terrifified of dissapearing into nothingness.  Of course, striving for infinity (security of the ego) by accumulating material stuff infinitely on a finite planet is a lost cause and can only lead to collapse. Which we are apparently in the process of accomplishing. How to conquer the beast then? Well, if we inately have as human beings a longing for infinity/eternity whether because it is a flaw of the ego or better yet because it is really a longing to remember our true Selves, what we truly are, children of the whole, of the universe, of God, of infinity, take the word that best suits your beliefs, , that we are mistakenly trying to achieve through material accumulation (which we already agreed is a lost cause, the ego will never be content no matter how much you have ). Then, what if we could re-route our egos’ desire for infinity (security) and feed the beast something that costs nothing to produce (or next to nothing), that multiplies when shared (unlike material stuff) and that is infinite. And therefore feed the beast until its had its fill. What am I talking ? Well knowlegde of course. La connaissance in french.  A theme well developped by frenchman and Stanford graduate Idris Aberkan. ( I don’t know if is work is available in English however, it is to be looked into).
    And through knowledge’s refinement we will achieve wisdom. If one is infinite, so is the other. And from wisdom we will achieve LOVE. Yes I know, it sounds all new agy and cuddly (and thus not serious, right?) Because wisdom can only lead to LOVE. (Well yes. When you truly know, something, someone, you are so fascinated by the complexity and beauty of such something or someone that you can only admire/love it). LOVE that costs nothing to produce, has no impact on the planet, (and may indeed be the only thing capable of saving it) enriches the one who gives it and the one who receives it, etc and is indeed what the ego is hungry for. Because make no mistake, when somebody feels loved, truly loved and accepted and cherished for what he/she is for no other reason than he/she is, then that person will have no more need to accumulate stuff and in the process of so doing destroy the planet. Because the void that the most materalistic person is truly trying to fill is one of love you see. Love me, love me they are screeming with their every purchase, conquest, election won, etc. I have a billion dollars yet I feel not loved, admired, perhaps two billion will do it and on and on. And if we think about it, totally sincerely with ourselves, we will acknowledge that we are no different in that regard from the worst sociopathic billionaire out there. Perhaps in depth but not on the true nature of our quest (or our ego’s quest). We are all somewhere along the spectrum of Fear———-Love.  That is how we conquer the beast.  Knowledge which leads to wisdom which leads to LOVE.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 5:23pm

    Reply to #26
    louisdoran

    louisdoran

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 6

    references

    Thank you old guy. I am no atmospheric science expert, so I would have to admit that on the face of it, your arguments seem logical. Have any references however for those claims. And I’d be curious to here what the other side would have to say on your specific arguments. If anybody out there is an expert on this very topic and feels like jumping in, I’m all ears.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 5:24pm

    Reply to #26
    louisdoran

    louisdoran

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 6

    oops

    that would be hear, not here in the previous post.cheeky

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 8:38pm

    #32
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    to louisdoran

    One of the methods the warmists use is to repeat their mantra over and over again ad infintum. It’s a propaganda method. They continually make references to “science” but never actually show it because it doesn’t really exist. Then they continally repeat the “97% of scientists agree” theme which has also just been made up and used as a device. You’ve never seen their science because they don’t have it to present. They have theories and speculations which have never been demonstrated to be true and use these speculations to program their models and then present these models as proof.
    They created the United Nations IPCC and ensconsed themselves in it so as to be able to present themselves as the qualified authorities on the subject. The scientists who had been working in the area of climate and atmospheric physics and who disagreed with the output of the IPCC were excluded and then defamed and called kooks and deniers even though they were the real experts in the area. Soon Scientists and others who might disagree learned to keep their mouths shut because their jobs, promotion, tenure, funding, or ability to get published depended on it.
    At first politicians were cowed into silence but then they realized there was something in it for them. Governments and statists realize that it is a wonderful excuse for raising taxes, growing government, gaining greater control of the economy and other aspects of society. Third world governments and dictatorships love the idea of wealth transfers to them. The big banks were salivating at the idea of carbon credit trading where they would get a skim from every trade, and companies like General Electric stood to make billions manufacturing solar panels and windmill parts. Crony capitalist wannabes sproughted up all over the place hoping to feed at the government trough of subsidies.
    Today it is a co-operation between governments, big busines, big finance and ideologues that are pushing the narrative using primarily the owned media and helped along by people that have been conned into believing the story true.
    So look for the evidence to support the warmist narrative. Outside of nonsensical climate models you won’t find any. It never existed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jan 26, 2019 - 11:42pm

    #33
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Davos people

    ‘She does NOT mince words and says things that these Davos people need to hear.”
    Sharsta, don’t you realize that the Davos people are wholeheartedly behind the warming meme and using it for their purposes. They probably had a hand in bringing this girl in for the optics.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 12:14am

    #34
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    On long-term time scales of

    On long-term time scales of multi-million years there is no correlation between CO2 and temp as other strong dynamics overwhelm the relatioship. But on a short term multi-decadal time scale there is a relationship, just not what Al Gore implied in his movie.
    Ice core data clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature and Co2 levels are forced by temp. Co2 is constantly being washed out of the atmosphere when it rains and mostly ends up in the oceans. The oceans are the great reservoir of CO2 and constantly outgas it. Warm water holds less CO2 and as oceans warm they outgas more. The amount of CO2 in the air depends on the balance between inflow and outflow determined by the temperature of the water.
    Oceans are also the heat reservoirs of the planet as all of the stored solar enegy resides there. Oceans absorb most of the sunlight energy on earth and release it slowly. The amount depends on the solar energy flux over many decades. So as oceans warm they release more CO2 and the amount in the atmosphere increases. As they cool due to lower solar input they release less than is sequestered and atmospheric levels drop.
    Temperature forces Co2 flux, not the other way around.
    That’s why temperature in the 20th century went up first. Temps in the late 30s to early 40s were just as high as now and probably slightly higher. Most of the modern day high temp records still come from that time period. CO2 didn’t start rising until the 50s when temps were actually falling into the middle 70s before rising again until the end of the century. Temps rose before CO2!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 12:50am

    #35
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    A real threat

    For the last several million years we have alternated between glacial periods when much of North America was covered in ice, sometimes miles high, and interglacial periods such as we are in now. For the last million years the frequencies have been about every 100,000 years with the interglacials such as now lasting 9 to 14 thousand years and the rest of the time10-12C colder and under ice.
    The current interglacial is about 11,800 years old. The last four peaked at temperatures higher than this one and there were no SUVs or airplanes around then. They also followed a similar pattern as this one with a quick sharp rise into a peak early into the interglacial and then a slow stairstep down over thousands of years before a steeper drop into the next glacial. The dynamics of why are not understood.
    Our interglacial,known as the Holocene, is getting old and since the temperature peak 8,000 years ago has been sliding inexorably down in temp in stairstep fashion since. The slight uptick in recent decades is very mild compared to previous ones and well within natural variability and seems to have stopped in recent years. Current solar activity and predictions of near future solar activity indicate we may be in for another slide down in the near future once ocean system lags have been wrung out.
    The next glacial will almost crtainly come relatively soon (not tomorrow) and when it does, modern civilization will not survive it (if we havn’t destroyed ourselves in other ways by then). That’s a real danger.
    I can’t seem to be able to paste graghs into the dialogue box which would present things in sharper focus than words. Pity.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 2:09am

    #36
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    another reference

    Here is a link to an article that explains in more detail what I said in an earlier post.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/climate-science-on-trial-co2-

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 2:17am

    #37

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3150

    Collapse = The Cycle

    Armstrong has long been predicting a collapse of confidence in government, due to the end of the “public cycle” which peaks in 2020 and crashes, ending in 2032.  Might this impending collapse of confidence-in-government be driven by a partial collapse in the planetary ecosystem – and the final realization that our current government is utterly controlled by the top 0.1% in order to harvest both the people and the natural environment?
    To Armstrong, cycles are one of these ineluctable things that one cannot change, but must remain acutely aware of if one is to survive (and prosper?) during the times to come.  Armstrong also says that Trump is a counter-cyclical move (a “reaction rally”), and that (most likely) our next President (and Administration) will follow the move-towards-collapse.
    I interpret this to mean that the gang in charge will double-down on the harvesting, unwinding the few pro-citizen things that Trump has sought to effect.  Expect: unlimited immigration, re-expanded globalization, increased joblessness and addiction among the Deplorables, mandatory vaccines or no-school-no-travel-no-welfare benefits, sickcare rising to 30% of GDP, facebook & google in complete control over public discourse, hate-speech laws whose specifics are controlled by corporations, another 3-5 Middle Eastern nations destroyed, and “global warming” taxes that allow the rich their private jets, but tax the rest of us into oblivion.  All of this will be cheered on by the corporate media – if you oppose any of these things, you’re a nazi-racist-xenophobe-denier.
    In other words, don’t look for help from “the system.”  The downtrend is fully locked in place.  Government will continue to keep the pesticide-sickcare-big-tech-defense-endless-war cartel harvesting all of us until l it all blows up spectacularly.  Perhaps some environmental catastrophe will be the triggering mechanism.
    According to Armstrong, confidence in government must collapse before the current structure can be torn down and replaced…with…what exactly?
    That will be up to us.  It will be at that moment we can have an impact.  That is when people will be ready to listen.

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/opinion/we-are-all-connected-for-a-end-game-purpose/
    We are all connected and perhaps we can contribute when the time comes. We are all in this mess together albeit not by our own actions or choice. But just remember, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot force him to drink. We, unfortunately, are in that position. We cannot change the outcome. Nobody will listen. We must remain patient and firm. When the time comes for the crash and burn, then and only then will we have a fleeting moment to turn the course of history in the right direction.
    … The talking heads believe they must assign some rational explanation to every move in the markets. They only perpetuate myths and are just void of any reality or logic in the absence of empirical research in favor of presumption. They lack any understanding of the bell curve effect and it is like wine. A glass of red wine is good for the heart. A bottle of red wine is bad for the liver. Anything can kill you if taken to extremes – cold as well as heat. Just remember the bell curve – all things possess a cycle.

    In Czechoslovakia, it was only after the Berlin Wall fell that the dissident Vaclev Havel, jailed by the Communists during their time in power, could be elected President of the country.  Things will remain stuck until the turn occurs.  Once the turn happens, events will unfold very quickly.  We might consider constructing a vision of what we would like to see while we await the logic of events.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel
    What is it that we’d like to create?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 2:33am

    #38
    skipr

    skipr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 09 2016

    Posts: 127

    doubt

    It looks like the “Doubt is our product” industry is thriving.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 1:54am

    #39
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    re-references

    I have been going from memory from readings done over many years and have not archived things. I have been trying to find some articles but have mostly found more technical stuff. There are hundreds of papers debunking the warmist dogma but they are not written for the layman and don’t find their way into popular media. Here is a link that references some of them.
    http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/10/the-list-grows-now-85-scientific-pape

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 6:12am

    #40

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    What’s the point old guy?

    The thing is, even if you demonstrate, scientifically, that the greenhouse effect is bogus, you can’t ignore the fact that we are TRASHING our one and only planet and the consequences are piling up at an unimaginable pace.
    Cause not withstanding, my neck of the woods, Wisconsin, has warmed considerably, the last 35 years.  The hardiness zones in Southern Wisconsin have moved North 150 miles, so far.
    I see no point in continuing.  You seem to be in a teaching frame of mind, not a learning mode.  
    I noticed you haven’t posted here much in the past.  Perhaps you are unaware that this topic has been debated adnausium since it was first broached on this website.  Many here have tired of the debate and moved on.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 8:32am

    Reply to #24
    mjtrac

    mjtrac

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 17 2014

    Posts: 5

    cultural norms, etc...

    Chris,
    Thank you for your reply. I’m under no illusions about “benevolent dictatorships,” honest.
    The problem is the existing political system shows no evidence of rising to the challenge, for at least two reasons, and something different needs to be attempted, no matter how uncomfortable. 
    Reason #1: It’s not a democracy anyway.  Any political system where consultants can talk intelligently about where to put their advertising buys in order to alter the vote percentage is a system that doesn’t rely on the informed public, but on the successful short-term alteration of public opinion.  It’s a system that values celebrity and wealth, because those are the two gates to short-term changes of public opinion.  Do I need to provide you with examples of how long-term public opinion is not reflected in America’s government — no, of course not.  Capitalism and genuine democracy are only compatible until someone has more wealth or celebrity than someone else; that is, for, possibly, up to a week.  Well-regulated capitalism might allow a democracy to survive for longer, but eventually the wealth differential rises and someone buys the regulators.
    Reason #2: Democracies do not represent the vast majority of sentient beings.  The suffering of non-citizens is just an “externality.”  The suffering of animals: externality.  The trashing of what future generations will need: yes, externality. 
    I fully agree that a solution requires a change in cultural norms, because a solution requires that most people behave in ways fundamentally different than the self-centered ways that most of us behave, most of the time.  My question is, will we get those changed norms without changing our political system in ways we will all find unpalatable.  I assume you and I agree that if the cultural norms change by 2200, that does our descendants little good, because the planet’s ecological web will already have been thoroughly altered in ways that make it less able to support billions of human beings in satisfying lives.
    So if we don’t have seven generations to come around to egoless wisdom in our own behavior and in the behavior of those we elect, we need something that brings about more rapid change in the effects we are having on the planet.
    I’m aware that change for the better can be rapid — as a gay man I’ve seen gays go from Alan Turing pariahs to near-equal citizenship in two generations.  But that is not a change in selfish behavior, it is a willingness to enlarge the circle of fungible money sources.  Many conservatives of two generations ago had gay friends but would still vote against gay rights.  It was no sacrifice on their part to accept gays into the charmed circle; quite the opposite.  The gay community, especially that of gay men, having been deemed immoral by so many, had presented an extraordinarily materialistic public face to society — welcoming our money and capability was the opposite of sacrifice to the corporations who wished to sell to us and make use of our abilities.
    A better example of the time it takes for change is the way America has treated the descendants of its slaves, and those who share their skin color.  The system is still incredibly, fundamentally racist.  If you are wealthy and black, you may do just fine in American business, but you may still be shot by police for trying to enter your home in a “white neighborhood,” especially if you’d been jogging and not wearing a business suit uniform. That’s more than a dozen generations after slavery was delegitimized in America.
    I think it pays to examine the difference between those two examples — in one case, people could hide and become wealthy (visible to the system), while in the other, skin color was a dead giveaway and the accumulation of wealth by those outside the circle remained much harder.  The rapidity of the change was determined not by moral reasons but by whether the change brought more money into the system; that is, by the selfishness of those already inside.  
    I’ve been the opposite of a “military man” all my life — I do not think highly of a system that I think was characterized quite well by the Marine Corps General Smedley Butler in his book “War is a Racket.”  But I know of only one part of our society with the ability to mobilize vast resources quickly without being encumbered by the need to convince a majority, and that is the military.
    All my life, I’ve heard the cliche that “democracy is the least bad system.”  In my opinion, events have overtaken that cliche.  Whatever we have that we call democracy has proven to be far from the least bad system; it is the system that has already destroyed much of our wealth of biological diversity, celebrating its goodness while doing so.  Our democratic system has known of the crisis for two generations, and would have taken action, perhaps, if it weren’t run by and for the oil companies, the rest of the wealthy, and their hired hands. It is time for some Platonic Guardians With Bombs; they don’t need to remain uncorrupted for long, just for long enough to dismantle the disaster of a system that so many of us still celebrate, just as the crowd celebrated the Emperor’s New Clothes.  If the Platonic Guardians turn into corrupt plutocrats, ok, fine, they can be the new set to fight against.  But the norms will have changed and, hopefully, the power of fossil fuel wealth will have been broken.
    If there is a good logical argument why what I’m saying is untrue, nobody would be happier to hear it than I would.  I have the utmost respect for your analysis and contributions.  Thank you for them.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 9:53am

    #41

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    climate

    LesPhelps wrote:

    The thing is, even if you demonstrate, scientifically, that the greenhouse effect is bogus, you can’t ignore the fact that we are TRASHING our one and only planet and the consequences are piling up at an unimaginable pace.
    Cause not withstanding, my neck of the woods, Wisconsin, has warmed considerably, the last 35 years.  The hardiness zones in Southern Wisconsin have moved North 150 miles, so far.
    I see no point in continuing.  You seem to be in a teaching frame of mind, not a learning mode.  
    I noticed you haven’t posted here much in the past.  Perhaps you are unaware that this topic has been debated adnausium since it was first broached on this website.  Many here have tired of the debate and moved on.

    This topic has been debated to exhaustion in The Definitive Climate Change thread, but Old Guy is right that there is nothing but models to suggest that more than half of the warming of the last century was caused by humans, or that anything worse should be expected for the rest of this one. 
    Anyone with the science knowledge and skills to read and understand the scientific literature should know that there is zero evidence to link extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming. Even the UN IPCC disavows this. That is why it is so disappointing to me that Chris is so quick to sound alarms based on weather events. It would be much more honest, and in the long term, more effective for him to continue to sound the alarms over the chemical catastrophe that is being driven by our debt based currency system. Choosing to use the wrong information to support a correct cause sometimes backfires. People can throw your cause baby out with your wrong information bath water.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 9:56am

    #42
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    The Australian Bureau of

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is a government agency that has been caught red-handed in temp data malfeasance by several people. They hurl the epithet “denier’ at anyone who questions them. Here is what Jennifer Marohasy, a prominent Australian scientist recently wrote about them:
    “Also, for some years I have been pointing-out that there is no consistency in the methods used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to measure surface temperatures, and that the routine remodeling of temperature series by the ACORN-SAT unit within the Bureau is not scientific.
    1. I’ve provided details in letters to various Ministers, including, for example, this letter sent to Simon Birmingham in 2014.
    2. I’ve also sent letters to Auditors and Chief Scientists, for example, this letter sent to Alan Finkel in 2018.
    3. I’ve also published my concerns in popular magazines, including this article, published by The Spectator online in 2017.
    I’ve no doubt that one day there will be a proper enquiry, and my efforts will be vindicated. In the meantime, no one in a position of authority is willing to acknowledge the extent of the problem or its implications. We have a long history in Australia of ignoring such evidence, and then holding Royal Commissions at which everyone shakes their heads and suggests that it was appalling the abuse – that was allowed to happen for so long despite all the evidence from the whistleblower”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 11:55am

    Reply to #41

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4647

    *sigh*

    Stan Robertson wrote:

    This topic has been debated to exhaustion in The Definitive Climate Change thread, but Old Guy is right that there is nothing but models to suggest that more than half of the warming of the last century was caused by humans, or that anything worse should be expected for the rest of this one. 
    Anyone with the science knowledge and skills to read and understand the scientific literature should know that there is zero evidence to link extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming. Even the UN IPCC disavows this. That is why it is so disappointing to me that Chris is so quick to sound alarms based on weather events. It would be much more honest, and in the long term, more effective for him to continue to sound the alarms over the chemical catastrophe that is being driven by our debt based currency system. Choosing to use the wrong information to support a correct cause sometimes backfires. People can throw your cause baby out with your wrong information bath water.

    Stan, there you go again.
    I have not linked any particualr thing to any other thing except that I have opened the question, which should be studied, as to if perhaps the acidification of the ocean (due to rpaidly rising CO2 levels) is somehow linked to phytoplankton losses.
    The graph I supplied has a very compelling correlation to observe.  Is there causation linked there?  Seems possible to me, epsceially given what we know about the effects of oceanic acid/base levels and the formation of calciferous shells that many ocean micro life forms depend upon.
    Otherwise I made note that once is an accident.  Twice is a coincidence, but three times is enemy action.
    That’s not flying in the face of science as we know it, but is the very root of observational intelligence.
    Now Old Guy represents himself as an authority on many things but I will have to dispute his authority on Australin weather events.

    Accident

    In January 2008, Alice Springs in Australia’s Northern Territory recorded ten consecutive days of temperatures above 40 °C (104 °F) with the average temperature for that month being 39.8 °C (103.6 °F). In March 2008, Adelaide, South Australia experienced maximum temperatures of above 35 °C (95 °F) for fifteen consecutive days, seven days more than the previous longest stretch of 35 °C (95 °F) days. The March 2008 heat wave also included eleven consecutive days above 38 °C (100 °F).[13] The heat wave was especially notable because it occurred in March, an autumn month, in which Adelaide averages only 2.3 days above 35 °C (95 °F).
    (Source for this and all following data)

    Coincidence

    The Australian summer of 2012–2013, known as the Angry Summer or Extreme Summer, resulted in 123 weather records being broken over a 90-day period, including the hottest day ever recorded for Australia as a whole, the hottest January on record, the hottest summer average on record, and a record seven days in row when the whole continent averaged above 39 °C (102 °F).[33][34] Single-day temperature record were broken in dozens of towns and cities, as well as single-day rainfall records, and several rivers flooded to new record highs.[33]
    From 28 December 2012 through at least 9 January 2013 Australia has faced its most severe heatwave in over 80 years, with a large portion of the nation recording high temperature reading above 40 °C to 45 °C or greater in some areas, a couple spots have also neared 50 °C (122 °F). This extreme heat has also resulted in a ‘flash’ drought across southern and central areas of the country and has sparked several massive wildfires due to periodic high winds.[35]
    [Note:  I would presume the “hottest day ever recorded for Australia as a whole” means that whatever the 1890 heatwave was got exceeded, right]

    Enemy Action

    In February 2017, Australia experienced an extreme heat wave with temperatures as high as 46.6 °C (115.9 °F)[54] in Port Macquarie, New South Wales and 47.6 °C (117.7 °F) in Ivanhoe, New South Wales.[55]

    Repeated Enemy Fire

    2018 – 2019 Australian heat wave. From December 25, 2018, Australia was plunged with constant record-breaking heatwaves with few breaks. December 2018 was recorded as the hottest December in record, while New South Wales had their warmest January since 2011.[70][71] Adelaide recorded its hottest day on record on January 24, surpassing the previous record from 1939, reaching 46.6 °C (115.9 °F) at 3:36pm local time, and many settlements across South Australia set new records the same day. At least one man, 90 feral horses and 2,000 bats died, while 25,000 homes lost power.[72][73][74] Melbourne was forecast its hottest day since the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires on January 25 (although this failed to eventuate), while over 200,000 homes across Victoria lost power due to load shedding.[75]
    ++++++++++++
    The way my brain works, I look at this data for Australia and I observe that 4 of the most extreme heatwaves, including the most intense ever, occurred in the last ten years after 150 years of record keeping.
    Hmmmm.  Could all be a big coincidence, right?  Sometimes dice jsut come up sake eyes 4 times in a row, and we don’t wonder if something about the dice has changed because the simplest, most likely  scientific explanation is that a profoundly unlikely string of occurances is that it’s all random?
    Maybe.
    But what about 40,000 years of glacial records in the arctic?

    Glacial retreat in the Canadian Arctic has uncovered landscapes that haven’t been ice-free in more than 40,000 years and the region may be experiencing its warmest century in 115,000 years, new University of Colorado Boulder research finds.
    (Source)

    Glaciers are simple beasts.  If the summer temperatures are warmer than average they retreat, if colder they advance.
    Again, another coincidence? 
    How many coicidences should we be willing to tolerate?  When do we say “hey, maybe there’s something happening here?”  After a dozen more?  Two dozen?  
    I could pull up a hundred other such data points.  They seem to coalesce around the theory of “things being warmer.”  What’s your preferred approach to all this?  Wait and see?
    And how to you dismiss ocean acidification which is pretty much linear.  Boyle’s gas law plus some Chem 101 gets you there.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 12:24pm

    #43
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Well, Les: We may be trashing

    Well, Les:
    We may be trashing our planet but it has nothing to do with CO2. It means that if we make that the focal point of policies we are not solving problems but wasting resources without making progress but actually making things worse. To spend hundreds of billions, soon to be in the trillions in a false pursuit for a goal that can’t be achieved is destructive behavior.
    As far as the hardiness zone in Wisconsin moving north, do you know that for most of the last 11 thousand years the tree-line in Canada and Russia was much further north than presently and that tree-lines were substantially higher in elevation on mountains than now. Or that at the edge of currently retreating glaciers there are large tree stumps being exposed that date to 1,000 years ago or even 2,000 years ago that show there were forests growing where in modern times there has only been ice.
    Despite the propaganda of the warmists we have actually been living in a time of unusual climate stability the last hundred years. In this interglacial, the Sahara desert was once a forest with lush vegetation and flowing rivers. Then weather patterns shifted and it quickly became a desert. In the Middle East and in the western US civilizations have gone exstinct from sudden climate shifts. We have seen nothing like that recently.
    Kids now are propagandized from grade school to view every weather event as being unusual and ominous when in fact it has all happened before and is not unprecedented. Recent flooding in California was suppossedly caused by man-made climate change, but in 1860 there was a flood that had the entiire central valley 300 miles north-south and 50 miles across under up to 20 feet of water. And that was before the land in the valley subsided by several feet due to water extraction from the underlying aquifer for irrigation. And then when there was recently a multi-year drought in California it was blamed on global warming but several centuries ago there was a drought in California that lasted for over 200 years.
    The climate in recent decades has been incredibly benign and in fact a temperature increase of a couple of celsius degrees and an increase in growing seasons and northward expansion od agriculture and increased growth rates from CO2 would be a great thing and a boon to humanity and wildlife. I could go on much longer but you get the drift.
    As for being in a teaching mood, I am simply stating what I know. As for learning, I have listened to the warmists and they are not very persuasive with factual arguments. They make a lot of stuff up that is quickly dismantled because it is not factually based, but basically their technique is endless repetition of dogma and attempts to close out counter arguments and real debates, as well as name-calling and demonization as a weapon.
    And yes, you are right. Debate with people who have succumbed to the propaganda is largely fruitless. Facts and logic don’t penetrate people who have a religious-like devotion to a cause or belief system.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 12:51pm

    #44
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Australian

    Australian heat:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/forgotten-extreme-heat-el-nino-of-1878-
    Ocean acidification:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 1:38pm

    #45
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    The temperature data record

    The temperature data record has been tampered with and adjusted to such a degree that it is unfit for use.The warmists in government agencies have used all sorts of tricks to distort the record and create an exagerated warming. They do this because their fundamental science is weak and so they despeately need the temperature record to validate them.
    A hundred years ago there were no thermometers over most of the earth so that allows for a huge fudge factor for setting up a base-line temperature as they can just make up or estimate temps to go into the baseline. They have no precise knowledge at all of what ocean temps were a hundred years ago.
    Distortions have been created because thermometers that once were in open fields are now surrounded by buildings and ashphalt as cities have grown around them. They used to record temps once a day for the high and once for the low. Now digital thermometers record constantly and record for the high a puff of warm air that came by at whatever time. It has been estimated that this alone has increased temp recordings by .3C degrees.
    Several years ago they dropped hundreds of thermometers from the recording system and this again immediately raised average temperature as all of the thermometers in cities and airports were kept and mostly rural ones dropped.
    There is also a fudge factor with temps in that they are estimated for certain areas of the globe or “homogenized” to a thermometer up to 1200 kilometers away and you know in which direction warmists will fudge. Recently it was shown that large areas of the globe that were recorded as substantially above normal last year actually had not a single temp recording station in the area.
    And then there is just the blatant altering and adjustments of temps without disclosing methodologies and giving flimsy rationals.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 1:41pm

    #46
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Example of

    Example of adjustments:
    https://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-adjustments-correlate-exactl

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 2:35pm

    Reply to #46
    louisdoran

    louisdoran

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 6

    ocean acidification

    Old Guy,
     
    if I follow your train of thought correctly, you are saying that warming causes more CO2 in the atmosphere and not the other way around. That extra CO2 comes largely from the oceans which are the main reservoirs of CO2 as warming waters hold less CO2. Correct me if I’m wrong up to now.   That begs the question, in your worldview, how do you account for the acidification of oceans (which seems to be a fact)? According to your model, less CO2 in the ocean due to warmer tempetures = less acidic oceans, or shouldn’t it be so?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 4:45pm

    #47
    skipr

    skipr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 09 2016

    Posts: 127

    thermometers, proofs, and averages

    Get real old guy.  The thermometers are in the glacier and ocean sediment cores, and they extend back for hundreds of thousands of years.  Those temperature distortions of yours are in your personal belief system and/or are part of the “doubt is our product” industry.  Please paste a link to REAL peer reviewed studies that demonstrates your point.  Maybe I should paste a link to copies of internal oil company documents written in the 70s that say global warming is real and a threat to life on this planet.  They parallel similar tobacco industry documents from the 50s.  Those documents were not voluntarily released.  I wonder why.
    Please try to understand the word “average.”  If you are looking for absolute proofs of climate change you better stop looking.  Proofs only exist in theoretical mathematics.  Everything else in science are probabilities.  The more coincidences there are, the higher the probability that there’s a connection.  The vast majority of them point to a warming planet.  For example, there was a study of the Yukon glaciers a while back.  Of the 300 or so studied, 4 increased in size, 12 totally disappeared, and the rest reduced in size.  The denialists’ conclusion:  The glaciers are increasing.  Similarly, the shrinking temperature differential between the poles and the equator is destabilizing the jet stream, causing wilder fluctuations.  This will occasionally bring short term arctic blasts to warmer regions.  The denialists conclusion:  Global warming is fiction.  Of course, they ignore the long term “average” warming that’s occurring in every region of this planet.  The “average” temperature is the only thing that matters here since there is so much inertia in the climate system.  The effects of the CO2 we are pumping out now will not be seen for 40 years.
    Children are being propagandized?  Who has the money to fund this massive “incubator baby” propaganda machine?  The climate scientists’ grant money would only pay for a few seconds of it.  There are a couple of passages in Hitler’s Mein Kampf where he talks about how the American and English WW1 propaganda was far superior to that of the Germans.  Of course, the Nazis made massive advances in it during WW2, but the stuff we are flooded with today would probably make Hitler blush.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 5:09pm

    Reply to #41

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    double *sigh*

    Chris,
    At the risk of being thought to be older than Old Guy, I will see your south Australia and raise you the dust bowl years in Oklahoma. I live through the last part of these. It was hotter, longer and drier that south Australia of recent years. The 30s, 40s and 50s were miserable here. The records of temperatures and heat waves from those times still stand. Nothing like those conditions have been seen again. A recurrence of similar conditions these days would surely be cited as evidence for anthropogenic climate change. But the 30s were times when the CO2 in the atmosphere was barely above the pre-industrial levels. Humans had nothing to do with it aside from some poor soil conservation practices.
    I still think that you would make a stronger case if you didn’t stoke weather fears among the youngsters. Just my $0.02. What they need to concentrate on is the death of the insects. Car windshields have never been so clean around here and the ill informed public seems to think that to be a good thing.
    Stan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 5:25pm

    Reply to #11
    richcabot

    richcabot

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 05 2011

    Posts: 197

    Systems words

    His essay is full of words about systems but he doesn’t seem to understand the basics of systems, feedback, stability and limits.
    A low information read.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 5:25pm

    Reply to #11
    richcabot

    richcabot

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 05 2011

    Posts: 197

    Systems words

    His essay is full of words about systems but he doesn’t seem to understand the basics of systems, feedback, stability and limits.
    A low information read.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 6:48pm

    #48

    jeantheau

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 01 2009

    Posts: 10

    beyond climate

    Can we declare a cease fire on the climate debating, please? I offer two scenarios:
    Possibility A: The best climate science says we’re already in an era of tipping points and feedback loops, and it no longer matters what mitigating action we take — it’s too late; the in-progress climate acceleration will overwhelm any efforts we take. (And, supposing it isn’t too late, even self-identifying environmentalists will not be willing to make the drastic lifestyle changes necessary to go to a zero-carbon lifestyle.)
    Possibility B: The deniers are right, it’s all an elaborate plot to over-tax us and lead us to one-world government.
    Well, the observable action by governments is that they talk a lot about climate change and do absolutely nothing, or at least nothing effective. So, even if A is wrong, the evidence says that B is not happening in any way that is a significant threat.
    But IMO, all the discussions on Peak Prosperity reveal that the unfolding collapse is much broader than just climate issues. Remove climate from the framing, and civilization is still facing the sharp “up” part of multiple exponential curves, all bad.
    A climate debate based on the “do something” vs. “don’t do anything”  (or other variations) no longer feels meaningful. We’re now in adaptation mode to deal with many coming problems. I personally think climate is one of them, but even if it’s not, there’s still going to be hell to pay.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 6:59pm

    #49
    MillenialFalcon

    MillenialFalcon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2016

    Posts: 6

    Evolution

    I read some work by Dr. Jack Kruse a while back.  His contention is that evolution is not a gradual process as most think of it today. He thinks there are periods of rapid change in the environment during which most biological evolutionary changes occur. The last such period was when an asteroid struck the Earth near the Gulf of Mexico.  According to him, at that time lots of rapid evolution took place among plants and animals.
    The hopeful part me thinks maybe the Divine Order is gearing up for another such period.
    The pesimistic part of me thinks the powers that be are not blind to these issues & their only solution is massive population reduction.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 7:00pm

    #50
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Since I can't seem to paste

    Since I can’t seem to paste graphs into the box take a look at the graphs on this page derived from ice core data that present a good perspective on where we are with present temps relative to the rest of the present interglacial.
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthro

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 7:25pm

    #51
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Ocean acidification

    louisdoran, ocean acidification is not happening. A link below. Could post others.
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/the-ocean-acidification-narrative-col

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 8:23pm

    #52
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    renewable energy decline of the human condition

    Alright Jean, I can see that the discussion is getting tiresome. So maybe we should stop talking about actual climate and temps. But there is something that stems from the climate change agenda that also speaks to your point and is contributing greatly to our economic decline. That is the hundreds of billions that have already been spent and continue to be spent as a result of government policies and mandates based on the CO2 causes climate change assumptions. I am talking of the attempted move into renewable energy and the money spent directly and via taxpayer subsidies toward that end.
    I assert that this is pure folly, has no hope of succeeding, is actually environmentally destructive, would cost trillions, raise electricity prices many times over, provide thoroughly unreliable energy and result in energy grid instability to the point of collapse long before 100% saturation is achieved. And would dramatically lower living standards and general human welfare.
    But rather than elaborate further I’ll just post this link that explains some of it well. Renewable(green) energy is just not what the starry-eyed believers think it is. In fact, it is a horrible idea.
    https://www.iceagenow.info/wiping-out-80-of-our-energy-would-bring-wides

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 8:38pm

    Reply to #43

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    I Still Don't Get You

    old guy wrote:

    Well, Les:
    We may be trashing our planet but it has nothing to do with CO2. It means that if we make that the focal point of policies we are not solving problems but wasting resources without making progress but actually making things worse……………

    First, I believe that government policies tend to create problems, not solve them.  In general, I believe that most elected officials are clueless about what is really going on about anything.
    Global warming is a decades old debate.  Do you somehow believe that anyone who is seriously interested in the topic hasn’t done enough personal digging to form solid opinions that you are unlikely to change?
    Do you honestly believe that you are going to say something new, or say it better than it has ever been said before and therby get a significant group of people to change their beliefs?
    Chris wrote an excellent article on broader environmental issues.  I am discouraged to see someone significantly detract from that.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 9:39pm

    #53
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Les, there is nothing

    Les, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from commenting on any aspect of the article you care to and creating a different line of discussion.
    My experience has been that most people who have an opinion on the climate issue have no idea what the actual facts are. They are aware of the notion that CO2 is supposed to trap heat but that’s it. For people on the political left it is de rigueur that they believe in it period and a litmus test for being a true leftist. Many on the right take an opposite stance just because of this. But most disbelievers can’t make a case to support the belief either.
    Yes, I won’t change most minds, but there may be some fence sitters or people with tentative beliefs who are open to information. Probably also some who are skeptical but haven’t looked deeply into the issue and can use some reinforcing.
    So I’m not going to make a difference. People have written well researched books on the topic and have not made any difference. But they wrote them anyway.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 9:51pm

    #54

    Barnbuilder

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 07 2014

    Posts: 23

    Whatever Happens

    I would suggest buy or grow more food that you can properly store away for long term food storage.  When you think you have enough for your family for a year, double it. Then double it again. Then again. Etc. There are plenty of resources out there to learn how to properly store food and other necessities.  Whatever happens and whoever is right on these arguments one thing is apparent, you will need to eat.  Food rs really cheap today.  Tomorrow maybe not so much after a worldwide crop failure.  Wish I had better advice but I don’t.  Good luck and I pray God will bless all of us.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 10:25pm

    #55
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 224

    Hear from a real meteorologist

    Recall that one of my acquaintances in Canberra is a meteorologist, employed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy (BoM). He’s retired now but still alert and active, currently teaching at a technical college, and definitely didn’t leave his brains behind at the departure desk.
    I asked him for his opinion on the data set pointed to in post #55 above, this one:

    (Nobby’s Signal Station is on the coast, BTW.)
    Here’s what he told me (emphasis mine throughout).

    Such people are amazing and very selective in their data interpretation. He obviously ignored the very important caveat BoM placed on the data in the bottom left corner. This data has not been quality controlled and before 1910 who knows how the temperature was measured and how dodgy the thermometers were.
    There are lots of factors that can affect temperature readings over time such as
    site changes
    changes in equipment supplies if not properly calibrated
    changes in equipment containers
    unreliable observers
    vegetation growth around the site
    building activities nearby
    and a whole lot of other things.
    BoM has put an enormous amount of effort into looking at all those factors to come up with a very reliable data set called The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset. That is the best data set to use. I personally know and worked with for many years the person who did all the work checking the data sets (or supervising others who did the work) which eventually became known as The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network. It is the highest quality, most reliable data set of Australian temperature data that it is possible to produce. I have no doubt as to its reliability. You can read about The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network dataset here:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml#tabs=ACORN%E2….
    The same rigorous analysis procedures (co-ordinated by the World Meteorological Organization) have been carried out on the various global data sets managed by the meteorological services of other countries.
    The other problem with the data used is that any scientist worth his salt would take one look at that data set and know that there is something seriously wrong with the data before 1910, or something extremely weird is happening to the weather during that period which would have to be explained and correlated with other observations around Australia (or the world). Until that had been explained you wouldn’t use the data.
    The other thing climate change deniers seem to forget is that climate change is a global phenomenon and shows up very clearly in global data sets. Cherry picking by choosing a particular observation site and only looking at that site doesn’t really tell us anything about what is happening globally.
    I usually don’t engage with climate deniers as it is a complete waste of time.

    I can vouch from my nigh-on 70 years of residence in Australia that extreme temperatures are normal and to be expected in many parts of the country. Look up the records for Marble Bar, for instance, and you’ll see what I mean. I was told recently that the punishing weather that Canberra has had for the past 2–3 weeks is normal in Port Pirie (q.v.). The big deal that it has extended to the “cool, temperate” south-east and is destroying ecosystems as a result. Our backyard garden has been damaged, even though we tried to keep the water up to the veggies. Even cool, wet Tasmania has been suffering badly from bushfires in once-beautiful places. We were so fortunate to have visited the burnt areas a few years ago and to have seen them before they turned to charcoal and ash.
    Like Chris and others I am in a state of constant mourning amd grief over the perverse way in which we treat our planet. Nothing is sacred, nothing is beautiful, no damage is too great, we must hurtle into the abyss as rapidly as possible.
    Honestly, it’s psychopaths all the way down.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jan 27, 2019 - 11:52pm

    #56

    Afridev

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 11 2013

    Posts: 126

    Several interesting points

    Several interesting points raised; sensemaking…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 12:38am

    Reply to #26

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 290

    old guy wrote: The

    old guy wrote:

    The “greenhouse effect” is inappropriate to begin with as a greenhouse has a solid roof that prevents heat from escaping via convection. The earth’s atmosphere is open and so heat is not “trapped” but constantly convected upwards and away. Co2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere. So the claim  that an increase of one molecule in 10,000 from 3 molecules to 4 molecules in an open convective atmosphere can trap heat and has caused the 0.6C degree rise over the last 50 years is preposterous.
    When sunlight hits the earth the energy is converted to heat and radiated upwards in the longwave infrared wavelength bands. About 17% radiates out unobstructed. The rest is captured by mostly water vapour and Co2. But because of the structure of the molecules and the way they can bend or vibrate, Co2 can only capture the energy from a very narrow part of the total range of infrared wavelengths. This is the energy radiated from about -75 to -85 degrees centigrade which is not very much energy at all.
    Now, there is a limited amount of energy in this bandwidth available and CO2 at current levels already absorbs most or all of it. In fact,Co2 at 50ppm already absorbs most of it nevermind the current 400ppm.
    But here is the kicker! Water vapour absorbs across all of the wavelenths and overlaps the absorption band of CO2. And there is on average 50 times the amount of water vapour in the air. Water vapour alone has the capacity to absorb all of the infrared radiation. CO2 makes no difference. If you reduced it to zero, water vapour would absorb all of the radiation in the CO2 band, and whatever CO2 absorbs at whatever level in the atmosphere is simply stolen from water vapour. Cut it in half or double it, it makes no difference.
    And remember, there is a finite amount of energy in the wavelength that CO2 can absorb and it is all already being absorbed. Increasing CO2 can make no difference.

    I always get a kick out of one hit wonders who come out of nowhere and make a whole series of posts thinking they’re the man and they’re going to expose this mass conspiracy amongst scientists and how we have all been misled. Well you know, old guy, some of us here also have pretty decent scientific backgrounds. And based on your above post (excuse me for being obtuse), you have demonstrated that you don’t. The thing is, I’m a conspiracy theorist too and I’d be open to these arguments if they weren’t blatantly flawed with just a little bit of understanding of the underlying physical principles.
    The Earth’s heat is not “convected away” since space is a vacuum and there is zero convection there. Convection moves heat around the atmosphere but 100% of the heat that leaves the planet does so by thermal radiation, period. It is radiated from the ground and the atmosphere. It is radiated in all directions (including back down to the earth which is why cloudy nights are warm) and some of this infrared is absorbed by various substances in the atmopsphere which re-radiate the heat away again in all directions. This goes on and on and on, with statistically a percentage of that absorbed and re-radiated infrared eventually making its way back out to space. The result of all this is a lengthening of time for the radiation to make its way beyond the atmosphere out into space than would be the case in an atmosphere-less planet such as the moon, or in an atmosphere that did not have infared-absorbing gases. The greater the amount of “stuff” there is in the atmosphere which absorbs infrared radiation and re-radiates it, the more random back scatter radiation there is down towards the earth and the slower it is that heat escapes. This causes atmospheric warming. At its heart, the greenhouse effect is as simple as this and this name seems to be a decently accurate one; accurate enough to generally describe the process.
    I also always get a kick out of hearing the argument that CO2 only represents 0.04% of the atmosphere and therefore couldn’t possibly have the strong effect we are told it does! How many times have I heard this… right then and there I lose respect for the poster because it’s clear they’re trying to mislead the reader and I can’t be bothered to read on. On one hand, they’ll play the “1 in 10,000 molecules” card from one corner of their mouth, but then the next thing they point out is how important water vapour is to the greenhouse effect… but there’s only 5 times (not 50 as you suggest) more water vapour than CO2. So what happened to that “1 in 400 molecules” red herring, old guy? It doesn’t apply to water vapour, only to CO2?
    First of all, the majority of the atmosphere; Nitrogen + Oxygen + Argon constitutes 99.7% of the atmosphere if you assume average 0.25% water vapour. N2, O2, and Ar have no infrared absorbing characteristics so they can be taken out of the equation. They are essentially irrelevant other than their convective effects. So now, instead of “1 molecule in 10,000” we’re down to 1 in 7 molecules. Big jump, eh?
    It is true that most of the infrared trapping comes from water vapour and I don’t recall any scientist suggesting otherwise. The issue is that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour and therefore have greater warming capacity. This would tend to create a positive feedback runaway effect. But there are other negative feedback loops which would prevent this. But, any forcing that would tend to increase temperature a small amount can have an amplified reaction due to increasing water vapour. This is the positive feedback relationship that has always existed in the planet’s history and explains why, even though the slow planetary wobbles that cause ice ages are gradual, the shifts in climate are not because critical thresholds are reached where the negative feedback effects are overrun by the positive ones; this is why certain GHG’s which are not the dominant ones in the atmosphere, can tip the balance and cause such runaway effects.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 1:13am

    #57

    Afridev

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 11 2013

    Posts: 126

    The transition

    https://civilizationemerging.com/the-transition/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 2:50am

    #58
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Of course heat is convected

    Of course heat is convected upwards as warm air rises to be repaced by cooler air descending and then that heat is radiated away at higher altitudes. No argument there. I never claimed that the molecules just dance their way out to space. And yes the energy is re-radiated in all directions. It bounces around between the radiative molecules at the speed of light but with an upward bias as the molecule density thins as you go up and thickens as you go down. The curvature of the earth also means that as you go higher the pathway out expands and it’s not a 50/50 proposition.
    I will dispute that water vapour only makes up .25% as it is generally accepted to be between 1 and 2%. But yes, water vapour is so important because it can absorb the energy available in the band that CO2 can absorb, so between water vapour and CO2 they absorb all of that small amount of energy whether initially or on re-radiation. So that equation doesn’t change.
    As for the oxygen and nitrogen molecules, how do you think they get rid of their heat which they acquired via conduction from contact at earth’s surface or bumping into each other during constant convective motion. They give it up by collisions with water vapour which then rises and radiates it at higher altitudes or gives up its heat when condensing and precipitating out.
    Water vapour actually cools the air when the sun is shining. This is shown when at a similar latitude, the air is cooler where water vapour is higher than the dryer air over a desert. The water vapour acquires heat from collisions with oxygen and nitrogen and then rises and radiates that heat away. At night with no heat input from the sun magnifying convection the water vapour keeps the temps slightly warmer.
    As for the run-away greenhouse effect, initially from CO2 forcing and then from the increased water vapour, it is ridiculous on the face of it. First, because as just mentioned water vapour removes heat from the atmosphere. But mainly because if this were the case then temperature increase from any cause would initiate this feedback loop and this clearly hasn’t happened during all the times the earth was hotter and sometimes much hotter.The warmists just made this up because they knew that they couldn’t creditably claim that CO2 by itself could cause significant temperature increase. This is where the theory really falls off a cliff.
    I’d say the data is not on the warmists side as during the Holocene we have had significant temperature fluctuations while CO2 levels were stable.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 3:21am

    #59
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    water vapor

    METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY
    Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. The amount of water vapor in the air is small in extremely arid areas and in location where the temperatures are very low (i.e. polar regions, very cold weather). The volume of water vapor is about 4% in very warm and humid tropical air.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 4:03am

    #60

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    Actually, water and heat DO dance off into space

    I honestly don’t know how much of an issue convection is. But water and lighter elements do dance off into space, and that does over billions of years change the water content of planets and asteroids. If it goes, it takes heat with it too.
    One of the big things about our magnetic field is that it keeps the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere… but it is sporadic, and to some extent stripping does happen continuously.
    Whether that is a practical consideration, who knows. It is, insofar as we want to colonize other planets: if you really want to do so, you’d probably either better have a fully enclosed system (at which point it is a fragile system that needs active defense against asteroids), or you’d better go ahead and crash a few asteroids into dead ones, to reawaken tectonics and get that molten core going. Then gas the whole thing up, seed it, and live on the surface as on Earth.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 4:23am

    Reply to #53

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    old guy wrote:Les, there is

    old guy wrote:

    Les, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from commenting on any aspect of the article you care to and creating a different line of discussion.
    My experience has been that most people who have an opinion on the climate issue have no idea what the actual facts are.

    You are so late to the party that you have no idea who I am, what side of the debate I may fall on, or how much effort I’ve invested in understanding this topic.
    You have not, to my knowledge, reviewed the extensive historic blogs on this topic at PP.
    Neither have you established, to my knowledge, any credentials here.
    I’m going to leave you to your misguided crusade, as I have better uses of my time.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 8:21am

    #61
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    I may have mentioned this before,

    . . .I’m truly sorry man’s dominionHas broken Nature’s social union,And justifies that ill opinionWhich makes you startleAt me, your poor, earth-born companionAnd fellow mortal. . . 
    . . . But, Mousie, thou art no thy-lane, In proving foresight may be vain; The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men Gang aft agley, An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promis’d joy! 
    Robbie Burns

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 8:32am

    #62

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Afridev

    The podcast you posted was great, Daniel Schmachtenberger is brilliant!  
    Thought provoking –
    We cant get along with our own families and yet we wonder why there is such conflict in the world.  We live in a two-dimensional world (social media & technology) and wonder why the environment is in trouble.  I think Narcissism is rewarded and its exemplified everywhere.  How interesting that we here at “Peak Prosperity” spend a disproportunate amount of time on “wealth creation” and whats in it for “me”.  I will have to listen to this one multiple times!  Thanks abunch for taking the time to share!,
    AKGrannyWGrit

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 8:34am

    #63
    skipr

    skipr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 09 2016

    Posts: 127

    Venus, Earth, and water vapor

    The following may not be of interest to this group, but I found it interesting and it has something to do with the water vapor comments.
    A few weeks ago I watched a presentation by some astrophysicists about how Venus and Earth became the way they are today and what the long-term future of both will be.  I don’t remember all of the details, but the strength of Earth’s magnetic field, relative to that of Venus, is connected to it’s rapid rotation.  Venus is hotter than it would be if it had a stronger magnetic field since its a solar wind sitting duck.  Its proximity to the sun does not account for all of its high temperatures.  However, in the very long term, the sun will become a red giant and earth’s water vapor will trap so much heat that it will actually be hotter than Venus.  At least that’s what the latest state of the art science is predicting.
    There’s nothing to worry about since we will have snuffed out all life on this planet long before.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 11:05am

    #64
    karenf

    karenf

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 26

    Thank you once again for being awesome

    Peak Prosperity is my community.  I stand with you in total agreement.  Eloquent as usual. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 1:21pm

    #65

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Making it too complicated

    You know, whenever I read debates between those who support the science on climate change vs those who disagree with it, I wonder why it has to be so complicated. If there is no actual climate change, and we do nothing, we’re fine. If there isn’t climate change, and we act as if there is, we lose some money, time, and effort. If there is climate change – and the science as well as anecdotal evidence seems to support that – and we act on it, we might be ok. If there is climate change and we do nothing, we’re fucked and are facing extinction. Option A, we look silly if we act. Option B, we – and much of the life on Earth – die, if we don’t act.
     
    I mean, what more do we need to know?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 1:36pm

    Reply to #65

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    You have no idea how important not looking silly is.

    I mean, looking silly can be politically Fatal. Extinction … well, at least it doesn’t make a single guy look silly.
    And you wonder why extinction happens.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 2:33pm

    #66
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Afridev

    Something told me to stop and listen to what this man had to say.A few takeaways for me was when he said, “As soon as we combine something that nature has no way of taking apart,we’ve already become part of the problem.”He also nailed “Stop trying to win at a dying game”Also,trying to figure out anti-rivalry,it really consumes the planet…He has an excellant way in delivering information.Feminine………

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 3:18pm

    Reply to #65
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 869

    Pascal had a wager

    better to be wrong about anthropogenic climate change and have lived as though it were true, than to have lived as though it were wrong and be…wrong.
    actually, Pascal was about deistic existence. Better to be a believer and be wrong, than a nonbeliever, and be wrong.
     
    get your mare settled. robie, husband, father, farmer, optometrist

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jan 28, 2019 - 10:58pm

    #67

    New_Life

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2011

    Posts: 185

    Great summary.   Essentially

    Great summary.  
    Essentially there’s a few groups in this debate I can think of, on one side you have GOP deniers that pollute regardless, then do gooder elites like Branson and celebrities who think there changing the world by encouraging people to fly more on slightly less polluting planes, then world leaders who are torn trying to constantly grow economies without making the link they typically need to emit more CO2 in doing so.  Then the majority of the western world hoping a cheap technological miracle will allow us to transistion and allow us to continue enjoying our foreign holidays, iPads, abundance of meat and new cars.
    I’ve come to the conclusion we are all guilty to varying degrees, those that suffer the most will be the poor living in the most fragile of environments. I see more disasters as inevitable.  Whilst not totally giving up hope, I’m happier recognising these as the good old days and trying to mitigate any likely changes in my own personal world and those dear to me, selfish yes, but ultimately more realistic.
    I read a couple of separate articles talking about trying to fly less and another about the Times publishing UKs highest tax payers.  I was wondering if all our CO2 pollution was visible to everyone if that may change behaviour?  Could a Blockchain solution track all our CO2 emissions and progressively tax us on them?  That would highlight the worst offenders.
    Chris referenced an article in the Guardian, there’s plenty more good coverage here
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 2:48am

    #68

    fionnbharr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 27 2012

    Posts: 63

    Jus' shootin' the breeze ...

    Carl Segan once said that Earth’s atmosphere is the thickness of a single coat of varnish on a classroom globe.
    By turn, double the number of humans are born by the hour globally than die.
    Since May 2011, there are 600 million more human mouths to feed, yet sixteen human generations ago there were but 500 million humans on the entire planet – at the time of Darwin sailing from Plymouth Harbour there were but a billion human beings.
    The human condition, amassing 6.6 billion extra mouths to feed in under 200 years.
    What is the point of this website if the meaning of the opening article has been lost through bickering? I say there is little point in arguing. The issues ahead of us are a moot point.
    You are all 90% in agreement with each other.
    You all have practically zero control over the future outcome.
    However, if you prepare better than most, you get to prove you were all correct.
    If you don’t prepare at all, whatever the outcome, you all get to lick your lumps, whatever they may be.
    Whatever you do – trust me I’m an authority – you’re all going to die of something …
    Fin

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 5:38am

    Reply to #65
    DennisC

    DennisC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2011

    Posts: 101

    He hoped

    He hoped and prayed that there wasn’t an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn’t an afterlife. -The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 6:01am

    #69
    hjurrien

    hjurrien

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 08 2018

    Posts: 0

    Grand Solar minimum, polar shift and geo-engineering

    we like others to awaken, to see what is going on, take the red pil. I had mine a year ago, it is not a nice view, I undersatnd why people don’t want to swallow the red pil, once you do it is impossible to ‘return’ to sleep!
    I did not read about Geo Engineering, weather modification in these posts. It seems the covernment is spraying metals in the admosphere like Aluminium, very toxic for all life. Very often called HAARP and Chemtrails etc. 
    Global cooling is also a much seen topic in the independent media scene, (Adapt2030 and more). Scientific it is proven that we enter a grand solar minimum. In North America record cold are recorded right now.
    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.
    The elite/deepstate most probably know. 30+ trillion dollars are missing. Probably they are building under the ground and out in space to create rescue places for them selves, with our money, stolen during the past 100 years of central banking and accesive taxing.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 7:36am

    Reply to #69
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    geophysics

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 7:58am

    Reply to #57

    Waterdog14

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 126

    Could Chris interview Greenhall &/or Schmachtenberger?

    Chris, could you interview Jordan Greenhall and/or Daniel Schmachtenberger?  These guys are brilliant, and are applying their brilliance to the world problems in humble and enlightening ways.  They seem to have a pragmatic, systems-thinking approach to resilience that is missing from many resilience/transition groups.  They don’t seem to be enmeshed in either utopian futuristic visioning or the gloom and doom individual prepping, but rather community problem solving and evolving as a species/culture to face a new reality.
    “When you go racing towards who can extract the dwindling resources fastest…, with the kinds of industrial technology that allow us to extract them so much faster than they can regenerate, that’s omni lose lose for everybody.”
    So, we need a new system to replace our existing, competetive, lose-lose system.
    “a system that meets that criteria looks like no system of economics that we have ever had. It’s not Marxism, it’s not socialism, it’s not capitalism. It’s not a retrofit of any of those systems either”
    I’d like to hear more from these guys.  Some of us MIGHT make it through the bottleneck.  It might not be me, but I’d like to do as much as I can to ensure that our collective conciousness continues in human form (needing food, water, shelter, community) during and after the “transition”. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 8:12am

    Reply to #69
    hjurrien

    hjurrien

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 08 2018

    Posts: 0

    link to grand solar minimum research

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 2:06pm

    #70
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Ocean acidification

    I previously mentioned that in the ocean-atmosphere link that the oceans are the great reservoir of CO2. There is a constant cycling in and out of the oceans. The IPCC lied and said CO2 molecules remain in the atmosphere for centuries but this is comlpletely made up and unsupported. Multiple studies have shown that the average residence time of any CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is about 5 years. That means that the only residual amount in the air from human emmissions is from that emitted in the last 5 years. Only massive out-gassing from the oceans can keep CO2 amount in the air level or increase it.
    CO2 started out in the atmosphere at many thousands of parts per million and is now around 400ppm. Why didn’t the oceans acidify when the Co2 levels were so much higher and being washed into the oceans with rainfall?
    The answer is sequestration. CO2 doesn’t just make plants grow on land. In the oceans life depends on it as well. It starts with plankton and works its way through the food chain. When plankton and other life die they sink to the bottom and become imbedded in the mud of the seafloor.The same with the shells of clams and other shelled animals. After time and under pressure this sediment becomes transformed into rocks such as shale, sandstone, limestone. Thus the carbon has been sequestered. In places where there has been uplift you can see this in examples of what used to be ocean floor that is now rock on  a mountainside.
    This sequestration has been taking CO2 out of the ocean- atmosphere system to the point that during the “little ice age” we were approaching starvation levels in the air and were approaching a life-extinction level. This process hasn’t stopped and we need more CO2 and not less. Life on earth evolved at much higher levels of CO2 and is dependent on CO2. To call it a pollutant is simply wrong.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 4:45pm

    #71
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Freeman Dyson-world renowned physicist

    Quote of the Week: “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson
    (Source)
    Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 7:47pm

    Reply to #71

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Freeman Dyson- Not a climate scientist

    old guy wrote:

    Quote of the Week: “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson (Source) Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists

     
    “Of course, models have been tested against the real world (both today’s and eons ago’s) and many of Dyson’s other objections have been rebutted elsewhere. He also did not address the real world impacts already observed: ice meltsea level riseocean acidification and more.”
     
    (source)
    That’s how you link a source by the way.
     
    A physicist? Seriously someone who is an expert in climate science. His views have been fairly widely criticized, even if he seems to garner peer support on his knowledge of physics. For the record, I wouldn’t trust Einstein on climate science either.
     
    A barbecue chef can’t tell the baker how to make a cake, even if they both are in the food industry.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 7:48pm

    #72

    jeantheau

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 01 2009

    Posts: 10

    too late on climate but not on everything else

    I said:
    <>

    Doug asked:
    <>

    IMO, McPherson’s predictions probably are too dire but not “wrong” — we are f’d on climate, whether it’s 5 years from now or 50. He’s not the only one saying things are far worse than the IPCC concensus (= muzzled) reports — worse enough that even going to zero carbon in the next 10 years would not avoid the feedback loops and tipping points (which mean unstoppable massive climate change).
    I’m sorry if this isn’t clear, but I’m not going to go any deeper here. You can listen to McPherson’s reviews of the science and decide for yourself. If you think he’s unqualified, there are other analysts who have a better scientific pedegree who have come to similar conclusions — “it’s too late.”
    That only means it’s too late for preventative action on climate change. There are a million other things we can do to improve the biosphere that sustains us or that can improve the way we treat each other (and other species).
    Mark
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 7:57pm

    Reply to #71

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Oh, and

    You realize you are quoting a guy who hypothesized about extraterrestrial sentient beings constructing megastructures encompassing mini-stars which would sustain those beings while the sphere travels through space – ALL based on nothing more than conjecture – is criticizing climate scientists for relying too much on models? 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 8:33pm

    #73
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    The reason I posted the Dyson

    The reason I posted the Dyson quote is because people are fed the notion that people who disagree with the IPCC output are a just uneducated kooks. All of the things you have mentioned such as sea-ice melt have been refuted by people with expertise in the area.
    In fact, there is no sea-ice melt. Sea ice is currently within a fraction of its 30 year average and probably higher than in 1940. Warmists like to start their graph from 1979 because ice extent was high from a multi-year cold period. But military satellite images from prior to that show that the ice extent was lower than today.
    Greenland has been gaining ice mass in recent years and polar bear populations are robust and healthier than they have been in decades after over-hunting diminished them. But you would never know this by reading the newspaper reports put out by the propagandists which are manufactured nonsense.
    There is no such thing as a climate scientist. Climate research involves a number of disciplines with specialized knowledge. Nobody is an expert in all of the areas but a small group of activist scientists have put themselves forward as the authorities but in fact none of them  are distinguished in any way or the best authorities in their areas. What they have done is created a small group involved in a process of pal-review which they call peer-review by which they try to exclude the opinions and works of people not part of their group. And they have the impimatur of the IPCC, the corrupt spawn of a corrupt United Nations which gives them their patina of credibility and authority.
    Honest scientists involved with the IPCC in the early years quit in disgust when political operatives manipulated the the official output that disregarded their conclusions and now all you have left at the IPCC are activist scientists or activists period and the political operatives.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 8:45pm

    #74
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Snydeman, what you are doing

    Snydeman, what you are doing is the same thing the warmists do all the time. Their favorite tactic is name-calling and ridicule to try to diminish and demean their critics. That’s what you do when your science is weak.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 29, 2019 - 9:16pm

    Reply to #74

    Locksmithuk

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 19 2011

    Posts: 96

    Take it elsewhere

    old guy wrote:

    Snydeman, what you are doing is the same thing the warmists do all the time. Their favorite tactic is name-calling and ridicule to try to diminish and demean their critics. That’s what you do when your science is weak.

    People, it’s time to continue your extended discussion on the well-trodden climate change board on this site, where it belongs.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 1:10am

    Reply to #74
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    I would agree

    Locksmithuk wrote:
    old guy wrote:

    Snydeman, what you are doing is the same thing the warmists do all the time. Their favorite tactic is name-calling and ridicule to try to diminish and demean their critics. That’s what you do when your science is weak.

    People, it’s time to continue your extended discussion on the well-trodden climate change board on this site, where it belongs.

    But, climate change is inescapably part of Chris’s discussion in this article. There seems to be a troll here bringing up tired old climate change denial talking points that have been convincingly refuted on the climate change thread and on sites like skepticalscience.com and climatecrocks.com. it’s time to acknowledge human caused climate change and move on, hopefully with solutions.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 1:17am

    #75
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    OK! What kind of solutions do

    OK!
    What kind of solutions do you have in mind?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 2:26am

    #76

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Solutions Please

    Doug wrote:

    it’s time to acknowledge human caused climate change and move on, hopefully with solutions.

    Doug,
    You are correct that Chris brought climate change up and that makes it relevant to this thread. I’ve asked you numerous times for a solution to the climate change problem. So far, I’ve heard crickets and little more. (You have suggested some partial solutions like wind and photovoltaic energy … but when I pointed out the problems with intermittent power sources, you scurried back to the safety of your “remain quiet bunker.”) I suggest you scour the internet to find at least 1 complete solution(s) so you can post that here. That’s the best way to shut people like me up. Come up with a solution! Don’t just trot out the tired accusations of “denialist.”
    If there is no solution, then it isn’t a problem. At most, it is a predicament — and by definition at this site, that means there are only outcomes. At a minimum, you can focus on how each of us can improve our personal outcome to your “acknowledge human caused climate change.”
    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 6:12am

    #77

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Online)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1917

    Minnesota Power Outages During Record Cold Snap

    Talk about an arguement for a redundant home heating source such as a wood burning stove!!

    MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Thousands of Minnesotans endured the coldest night in a generation without power.
    Xcel Energy says equipment failures on power poles is leading to outages all over the metro Tuesday evening, which started at about 5:40 p.m.
    At the peak of the outage, about 8,000 residents were affected in the Twin Cities metro area. As of 11 p.m., less than 600 customers people were still without power.
    The Anzalone family said their Bloomington neighborhood went dark around dinner time. Like many in the metro, they were bundled up and reading by candelight, hoping they didn’t have to leave their house. They say the latest update for power returning is 3 a.m. Wednesday.

    Temperatures tonight are expected to be near -50 F.  (not sure if this included wind chill?) The map
    USPS Suspends Minnesota Mail Deliveries Due To Polar Vortex
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 6:55am

    #78

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    I would suggest

    Green intentional community with delayed marriage/sex for the young, and those who have at least one 18-yr-old child voluntarily giving up medical care for the old, as part of an intentional population reduction.
    1/2 acre of private garden, 1/4 acre of public per dwelling. Can be leased but not sold from the unit, but sale of unit resets the lease.
    Public/private garden & farmette (Lithuanian soda design) and at the center, IC’s built as green concrete ziggarats (hey, I like the basalt reinforcement; it looks cheaper and more durable than steel: 4x more expensive per pound, 1/8 the weight), with private housing to the outside, public areas inside; minimal private space. Shared buses of regular schedule to the city, most things that people want with sharable access. Rentals fund purchases, of the things that are most in need, as failed requests… Full cycling; if a green option will suffice then use it by preference; if it won’t, then require a delay before going to non-green option.
    And all fees fund the spread of the plan, so that eventually it is the best option around, and people move into it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 7:38am

    #79
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    solutions

    Well, solutions is a huge subject.  Lets be serious, I’m a layman and, as far as I know, so are both of you (old guy and Grover).  Given that, any list I come up with will be incomplete and surely not as encompassing as the pros could produce.
    That said, it seems to me we need to break it down to what will provide the most bang for the buck in the short term and then look at longer term solutions.  Since the overwhelming number 1 problem is atmospheric CO2, reversing the build up should be first priority.  Incentives are always big considerations in modifying public behavior.  We should probably start out with carbon fees as that would disincentivize burning more fossil fuels.  Use those revenues to subsidize the public to reduce personal, commercial and industrial use of fossil fuels.  Also, cut current tax breaks for fossil fuel producers.  That’s a negative incentive, but a necessary one.  Why should they profit from aggravating the problem?
    Also, there should be a crash program of R&D for clean energy.  The region I live in is currently undergoing large scale build up of solar and wind producers.  We aren’t unique in that respect.  Many other areas are doing the same as the technology gets cheaper and fossil fuels get more expensive.  That trend seems to be inevitable to me.
    As someone mentioned above, intermittency must be overcome for these sources to be real long term solutions.  Locally, Tesla is building a “gigafactory” to build solar roofing tiles.  Elsewhere Musk is building gigafactories to make latest technology batteries and electric cars.  Developing battery technology is a must on both industrial and personal scales.  
    Of course, solar and wind aren’t the only clean energy sources.  There are also geothermal, hydro and tidal power, all of which are developing fairly rapidly.
    But, perhaps the biggest energy saver is efficiency.  I read somewhere recently that US energy efficiency is somewhere around 20%.  To me thats a reflection of the wasteful nature of our development over the last couple centuries.  Efficiency needs to be integrated into every development or building project we undertake.
    Of course, all of this is just the beginning.  Longer term we need to incorporate many of the values presented here at PP.  
    This is just a quick gloss.  Deeper dives will take time that I don’t have at the moment.  But, what’s the alternative?  Do nothing?  If climate change is as dangerous as science tells us it is (I don’t think there is any real debate here), we have two choices.  Do nothing and watch the world disintegrate around us, or do the best we can to create a liveable and positive future.  To me that’s an easy choice.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 8:22am

    Reply to #79

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    The problem with top-down solutions

    I’d like to open a discussion on any and all points. Please don’t think that I am “shooting down”, but rater proposing problems for answers.
    — regarding carbon taxes.
    Is that the powerful shift the costs to the week, and never impact their own destruction. That simply destroys the weak. Then, when things are desperate, they go to war — which maximizes environmental degradation.
    So carbon taxes are out as an actual solution. Regardless, because it isn’t a solution, I agree it will be done. I just don’t think it’ll help anything. It’s actually a way to concentrate assets so that the powerful will have more to spend on their destruction.
    —regarding green energy
    If you’re willing to go offshore, I’d think wave energy would be as effective as anything. Simple design: giant boat with balloon wheels on axle that is allowed to go up and down, but with a piston and seawater is pressure ballanced to equalize pressure on all wheels. Use as many wheels as you want. Now as they go up and down, the axles pull on a chain that drives a racheted drive shaft. The ratcheted driveshaft drives a generator, which charges batteries, but also drives electric motors on said balloon wheels. Simple design can go out, harvest wave energy, come back, and deliver charged batteries. Ideal application for robotics, if you can do it; until then, you can collect and sell green energy, changing out peoples’ batteries for a fee.
    — regarding efficiency
    The biggest enemy of efficiency in our nation is probably suburbanism, and that is driven by crime, which in turn is driven by a badly off-center system. One aspect of efficiency, then, is that we need to discuss how to address the off-centeredness that drives the destruction that drives the suburbanism. In other words, we can’t live and work together because WE can’t.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 8:43am

    #80
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    discussion

    Quote:

    — regarding carbon taxes.
    Is that the powerful shift the costs to the week, and never impact their own destruction. That simply destroys the weak. Then, when things are desperate, they go to war — which maximizes environmental degradation.
    So carbon taxes are out as an actual solution. Regardless, because it isn’t a solution, I agree it will be done. I just don’t think it’ll help anything. It’s actually a way to concentrate assets so that the powerful will have more to spend on their destruction.

    There is no doubt, no matter what the possible solutions are, there will be economic disequilibriums.  But, ideally carbon taxes would be redistributed to the poorest energy consumers so it would hopefully be a wash for them.  The burden should fall on the producers and largest consumers (i.e. energy producers, industry and commercial).  That means, of course, that prices will go up.for everyone.  But, that’s the name of the game.  Fighting climate change won’t be cheap.  There will be costs and it is possible that in the long term, there will be serious economic consequences.  That’s too bad, but again, what’s the alternative?  Watch the planet go to hell and do nothing?
    Since the industrial revolution we have all been financially benefitting from the externalities that have transferred the real costs of our improved lifestyles onto nature and our natural resource base, like the atmosphere.  We have reached the point that it is now time to pay back.  We can try to do that with sensitivity and compassion for the poorest among us, but it must be done.  That’s the price of a safe and healthy environment.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 10:04am

    Reply to #78

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 326

    Here's the problem. . .

    No.
    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 11:29am

    Reply to #79
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    Yes, efficiencies, but dont diss suburbs

    You can absolutely get your usages down in the suburbs, I have done it and so have others.  Transport is big but solvable.  It is a culture shift, people do not need to move.  If we culturally interacted with our neighbors in the suburbs, traded goods and services with our neighbors in the suburbs,  it cuts down transport ALOT.  People right now do not see a need to do so, and htey do not want to be different.  Someone last week hit the nail on the head saying Embarassment IS the biggest deal.  Most non-essential car trips in the suburbs are done to go to the grocery store DAILY ( there are building codes that disallow corner stores, this is solvable and cheap to solve !) and to drive the children to activities. Obviously they can do things in the neighborhood, if all or most kids are also in the neighborhood ! So, a bit of a chicken and the egg problem.  I would wager that these non-essential trips, at least in this area, are about as many trips as the commute to work.  A cultural shift does not need a bunvh of taxes and money, it needs leadership
     

    Michael_Rudmin wrote:

    I’d like to open a discussion on any and all points. Please don’t think that I am “shooting down”, but rater proposing problems for answers. — regarding carbon taxes. Is that the powerful shift the costs to the week, and never impact their own destruction. That simply destroys the weak. Then, when things are desperate, they go to war — which maximizes environmental degradation. So carbon taxes are out as an actual solution. Regardless, because it isn’t a solution, I agree it will be done. I just don’t think it’ll help anything. It’s actually a way to concentrate assets so that the powerful will have more to spend on their destruction. —regarding green energy If you’re willing to go offshore, I’d think wave energy would be as effective as anything. Simple design: giant boat with balloon wheels on axle that is allowed to go up and down, but with a piston and seawater is pressure ballanced to equalize pressure on all wheels. Use as many wheels as you want. Now as they go up and down, the axles pull on a chain that drives a racheted drive shaft. The ratcheted driveshaft drives a generator, which charges batteries, but also drives electric motors on said balloon wheels. Simple design can go out, harvest wave energy, come back, and deliver charged batteries. Ideal application for robotics, if you can do it; until then, you can collect and sell green energy, changing out peoples’ batteries for a fee. — regarding efficiency The biggest enemy of efficiency in our nation is probably suburbanism, and that is driven by crime, which in turn is driven by a badly off-center system. One aspect of efficiency, then, is that we need to discuss how to address the off-centeredness that drives the destruction that drives the suburbanism. In other words, we can’t live and work together because WE can’t.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 11:31am

    Reply to #79
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    repeat post

    it posted twice

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 12:39pm

    #81

    fionnbharr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 27 2012

    Posts: 63

    America's Cult of Ignorance

    I’m passionate about technology. I’m very interested, and always have been.
    Two of the primal and most loved Greek myths are to do with the creation of mankind. It starts with the creation of the Gods – what Hesiod called the Theogonie; the birth of the Gods – but then, our champion the Titan Prometheus made human beings in clay; the spit of Zeus, and the breath of Athena gave them life.
    But Zeus refused us to have fire.
    The fire I think means both literal fire – to allow us to become bronze age man, to create weapons, and to cook meat and to frighten the fierce animals, and to become the strongest physically and technically.
    Also, the internal fire, of self conciousness and creativity – the divine fire.
    Zeus didn’t want us to have it.
    Prometheus stole fire from heaven, gave it to man, and Zeus was so angry that he punished Prometheus by chaining him to a mountainside – he was immortal Prometheus – every day his liver was torn out by an eagle; and it grew back, and every day it was torn out; for perpetuity, until he was rescued by Herakles.
    The other punishment was that Zeus and the other Gods created Pandora – the “All Gifted”, that is what Pan Dora means – and sent her down as the first woman; she had everything.
    But, he also gave her this jar, that sometimes is called a box.
    Pandora came to Earth and was told she shouldn’t look into the jar – she was beautiful, she had everything – all the gifts of all the Gods were given to her.
    But she had this curiosity, and she opened the jar – and I’m sure you all know the story – out flew hardship, lies, disseat, murder, pestilance – all the ills of the world, and the golden age was over.
    She slammed the lid back on, and one little fairy was left inside. 
    Elpis.
    Hope. 
    Now that’s fine. That seems like an interesting story – it’s an interpretation. But actually, if you think about it at the present – firstly the Prometheus story – as soon as mankind shook off the chains of religion and the church, we became incredibly interested in the Prometheus story. Because, it suddenly said, we don’t have to bow down and apologise to a God.
    Gods have to apologise to us. For denying us our independence, our sense of ourselves, and our fire.
    And so, Shelley wrote Prometheus Unbound – the poem. Beethoven wrote the Prometheus Overture, all within five years of each other – the height of the enlightenment, if you like – and the beginning of the Romantic era. 
    Now, I’m going to put that to one side, and I’m going to go back to 1989, when I became fascinated by this extraordinary new development in which you could network computers to a network of networks, which was starting to be called the in-ter-net – there was no web – there was no graphical application, it was all text based – but I was really excited by it.
    As it grew, I became more and more excited. I thought that this is the biggest and most exciting bringing together of human beings in the history of our planet. It is the all gifted. It will give us freedom of access to knowledge. We will share things – art – politics – boundaries will be dissolved – we will learn to love each other – we’ll all be brothers, like in Beethoven’s Ninth.
    It will be fantastic.
    Social media came.
    The Arab Spring.
    I thought there would be no more tribalism.
    No more hatred.
    No more racism.
    This would be wonderful.
    But what happened?
    The lid opened.
    Out came Trolls.
    Out came abusers.
    Out came racists and tribalists and insulter’s; the worst kind of humanity.
    It was an exact replay of Pandoras Box.
    I thought it so interesting that the Greeks had this understanding.
    That when we have something that seems perfect, there is no possibility but that it also contains its opposite.
    I guarantee you – whether you like to think it or not – that although we know through Darwin and science and genes – that we were not created by an inteligent designer. In a hundred years time, we can guarantee there will be sapient creatures – sapient beings on this earth – that have been inteligently designed. 
    You can call them robots. You can call them compounds of augmented biology and artificial inteligence, but they will exist. 
    The first person to live to be two hundred years old has already been born.
    The future is enormous. It has never been more existenially transformative.
    My question is this : –
    When the Prometheus who makes the first really impressive piece of robotic A.I. – like Frankenstein, but like Prometheus back in the Greek myth – they will have a question.
    Do we give it fire?
    Do we give these creatures, self-knowledge, self-consciousness; an autonomy that is greater than any other machine has ever had, and will be similar to ours?
    In other words, shall we be Zeus, and deny them fire – because we’re afraid of them – because they will destroy us – because the Greeks and the human beings did destroy the Gods; they nolonger needed them.
    I think it is very possible we will create a race of sapient beings who will not need us. 
    We will be redundant …
    Finn

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 1:52pm

    #82
    jgritter

    jgritter

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 13 2011

    Posts: 157

    Zero carbon emissions.

    If the goal is to reduce carbons emissions to zero as soon as possible, a limited nuclear war combined with a highly lethal pandemic disease such as Ebola might be a good place to start.  The marine ecosystem is probably still toast for every thing other then jellyfish but if it is possible for large areas of several depopulated continents to reforest themselves resequestering carbon, perhaps the planet won’t get too crazy hot.  The surviving several hundred million people , the most physically, mentally and emotionally fit 10% or so of the current population should probably do quite well once the dust settles. 
    Humanity has survived worse and the archeological evidence suggests the people are capable of amazing things without modern technology, industrialization or even wheels.  
    The big bugga boo seems to be wrapping ones head around the idea that the transition from where we are now and where we are going is totally inevitabe, that it will be unimaginably horrific, and that the huge majority of us will not survive it.
    That all being said, I will continue to see to my preps, to love, honor and cherish people, the plant and the Goddess and the God to the best of my ability and to stay in the game for as long as possible. 
    Blessed Be,
    John G

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 5:13pm

    #83
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Mathematical modeling

    Mathematical modeling illusions
    The global climate scare – and policies resulting from it – are based on models that do not work
    Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris
    For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us the end of the world as we know it is nigh because of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels.
    They are exercising precisely what journalist H. L. Mencken described early in the last century: “The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    The dangerous human-caused climate change scare may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from a threat for which there is not a shred of meaningful physical evidence that climate fluctuations and weather events we are experiencing today are different from, or worse than, what our near and distant ancestors had to deal with – or are human-caused.
    Many of the statements issued to support these fear-mongering claims are presented in the U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, a 1,656-page report released in late November. But none of their claims have any basis in real world observations. All that supports them are mathematical equations presented as accurate, reliable models of Earth’s climate.
    It is important to properly understand these models, since they are the only basis for the climate scare.
    Before we construct buildings or airplanes, we make physical, small-scale models and test them against stresses and performance that will be required of them when they are actually built. When dealing with systems that are largely (or entirely) beyond our control – such as climate – we try to describe them with mathematical equations. By altering the values of the variables in these equations, we can see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.
    The six most important climate variables
    (CO2 is not mentioned)
    However, today’s climate models account for only a handful of the hundreds of variables that are known to affect Earth’s climate, and many of the values inserted for the variables they do use are little more than guesses. Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Laboratory lists the six most important variables in any climate model:
    1) Sun-Earth orbital dynamics and their relative positions and motions with respect to other planets in the solar system;
    2) Charged particles output from the Sun (solar wind) and modulation of the incoming cosmic rays from the galaxy at large;
    3) How clouds influence climate, both blocking some incoming rays/heat and trapping some of the warmth;
    4) Distribution of sunlight intercepted in the atmosphere and near the Earth’s surface;
    5) The way in which the oceans and land masses store, affect and distribute incoming solar energy;
    6) How the biosphere reacts to all these various climate drivers.
    Soon concludes that, even if the equations to describe these interactive systems were known and properly included in computer models (they are not), it would still not be possible to compute future climate states in any meaningful way. This is because it would take longer for even the world’s most advanced super-computers to calculate future climate than it would take for the climate to unfold in the real world.
    So we could compute the climate (or Earth’s multiple sub-climates) for 40 years from now, but it would take more than 40 years for the models to make that computation.
    Although governments have funded more than one hundred efforts to model the climate for the better part of three decades, with the exception of one Russian model which was fully “tuned” to and accidentally matched observational data, not one accurately “predicted” (hindcasted) the known past. Their average prediction is now a full 1 degree F above what satellites and weather balloons actually measured.
    Models fail at the simple test of telling us what has already happened
    In his February 2, 2016 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology, University of Alabama-Huntsville climatologist Dr. John Christy compared the results of atmospheric temperatures as depicted by the average of 102 climate models with observations from satellites and balloon measurements. He concluded: “These models failed at the simple test of telling us ‘what’ has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to ‘what’ may happen in the future and ‘why.’ As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works.”
    Official predictions of global warming overstated threefold
    Similarly, when Christopher Monckton tested the IPCC approach in a paper published by the Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2015, he convincingly demonstrated that official predictions of global warming had been overstated threefold. (Monckton holds several awards for his climate work.)
    The paper has been downloaded 12 times more often than any other paper in the entire 60-year archive of that distinguished journal. Monckton’s team of eminent climate scientists is now putting the final touches on a paper proving definitively that – instead of the officially-predicted 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.5 F) warming for every doubling of CO2 levels – there will be only 1.1 degrees C of warming. At a vital point in their calculations, climatologists had neglected to take account of the fact that the Sun is shining!
    All problems can be viewed as having five stages: observation, modeling, prediction, verification and validation. Apollo team meteorologist Tom Wysmuller explains: “Verification involves seeing if predictions actually happen, and validation checks to see if the prediction is something other than random correlation. Recent CO2 rise correlating with industrial age warming is an example on point that came to mind.”
    As Science and Environmental Policy Project president Ken Haapala notes, “the global climate models relied upon by the IPCC [the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and the USGCRP [United States Global Change Research Program] have not been verified and validated.”
    An important reason to discount climate models is their lack of testing against historical data. If one enters the correct data for a 1920 Model A, automotive modeling software used to develop a 2020 Ferrari should predict the performance of a 1920 Model A with reasonable accuracy. And it will.
    Magic 8 Ball game
    But no climate models relied on by the IPCC (or any other model, for that matter) has applied the initial conditions of 1900 and forecast the Dust Bowl of the 1930s – never mind an accurate prediction of the climate in 2000 or 2015. Given the complete lack of testable results, we must conclude that these models have more in common with the “Magic 8 Ball” game than with any scientifically based process.
    While one of the most active areas for mathematical modeling is the stock market, no one has ever predicted it accurately. For many years, the Wall Street Journal chose five eminent economic analysts to select a stock they were sure would rise in the following month. The Journal then had a chimpanzee throw five darts at a wall covered with that day’s stock market results. A month later, they determined who preformed better at choosing winners: the analysts or the chimpanzee. The chimp usually won.
    For these and other reasons, until recently, most people were never foolish enough to make decisions based on predictions derived from equations that supposedly describe how nature or the economy works.
    Yet today’s computer modelers claim they can model the climate – which involves far more variables than the economy or stock market – and do so decades or even a century into the future. They then tell governments to make trillion-dollar policy decisions that will impact every aspect of our lives, based on the outputs of their models. Incredibly, the United Nations and governments around the world are complying with this demand. We are crazy to continue letting them get away with it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 6:52pm

    Reply to #79
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    Elon Musk does not act like he is trying to lower his CO2

    He likes making new tech, he likes his companies to succeed, he likes to be seen as an expert.  I have heard of no actual changes in his homelife and consumption that would show that he REALY thinks it is that important  — there is no leadership from him anymore than any of our other celbrities and politicians. In fact, he does the opposite !
     

    The idea of global jet-setting on a private plane can’t help but be viewed as hypocritical for a man often heralded as a “crusader for renewable energy”. The Washington Post dryly notes that a few days after Musk called fossil fuels “the dumbest experiment in human history,” his plane burned through thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying 300 miles from Los Angeles to Oakland on its way to take him to a competitive video gaming event.

    Musk also tweeted “We know we’ll run out of dead dinosaurs to mine for fuel & have to use sustainable energy eventually. So why not go renewable now & avoid increasing risk of climate catastrophe?” – on the same day his jet flew over Mexico for a personal trip.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-30/150000-miles-elon-musks-2018-private-jet-log-defines-renewable-energy-saviors

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 7:08pm

    #84
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    A great overview of how it

    A great overview of how it started and why it continues

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 9:09pm

    Reply to #73
    Belmontl

    Belmontl

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 23 2009

    Posts: 19

    Wider perceptive --Old Man

    Old man — perhaps climate change itself , is too narrow, and too polarizing, simply put – logically (as they site endlessly indicates), can we have Infinite Growth on a finite planet?, can we grow anything end less exponentially?, are there limits,to growth? Are there ecological boundaries? Etc, etc….or is business/life as usual?, that our actions, individual or collective have no effect?
     
    Charles Eisensteins new book frames this climate debate better then I….
    Climate -The New Story
    https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/
     
    Flipping the script on climate change, Eisenstein makes a case for a wholesale reimagining of the framing, tactics, and goals we employ in our journey to heal from ecological destruction
    With research and insight, Charles Eisenstein details how the quantification of the natural world leads to a lack of integration and our “fight” mentality. With an entire chapter unpacking the climate change denier’s point of view, he advocates for expanding our exclusive focus on carbon emissions to see the broader picture beyond our short-sighted and incomplete approach. The rivers, forests, and creatures of the natural and material world are sacred and valuable in their own right, not simply for carbon credits or preventing the extinction of one species versus another. After all, when you ask someone why they first became an environmentalist, they’re likely to point to the river they played in, the ocean they visited, the wild animals they observed, or the trees they climbed when they were a kid. This refocusing away from impending catastrophe and our inevitable doom cultivates meaningful emotional and psychological connections and provides real, actionable steps to caring for the earth. Freeing ourselves from a war mentality and seeing the bigger picture of how everything from prison reform to saving the whales can contribute to our planetary ecological health, we resist reflexive postures of solution and blame and reach toward the deep place where commitment lives.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 30, 2019 - 10:54pm

    #85
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    hello Belmontl,I understand

    hello Belmontl,
    I understand what you are saying. So I should clarify that rejecting the dogma of man-made climate change is not the same thing as not caring for the earth or rejecting the necessity of good environmental stewardship. And it doesn’t preclude having a discussion about the carrying capacity of the planet nor is it the same thing as advocating for a license to ravage our earthly domicile.
    Paul Watson, the cofounder of Greenpeace left the organization when he realized that it had become infiltrated and hijacked by politically motivated people who were not interested in the environment but were using the pretense of environmental objectives to further a political cause.
    So my issue with the global warming meme is not only that it is not true but also that it is a wild goose-chase that diverts attention from real problems. The pursuit of a corrective to this non-problem has also diverted vast resources in a direction of total waste and  also from areas where they could be much more benefically used.
    Not only is there a substantial economic loss and a loss in human welfare fostered by this supposed remedial pursuit but it is in fact environmentally very destructive as well. I have seen estimates that to replace US electricity production with solar and wind energy you would have to cover a land area the size of California with windmills and solar panels. Then to replace transportation fuels with electricity you would have to use up a second California sized land area. Then you would have to run hundreds of thousand miles of transmissin wires. Then there is all of the extra mining and the toxic by-products of solar panel manufacturing and the toxic contents of used solar panels and the old batterys etc.
    The windmills would devestate the bird population and their footprint and that of the solar farms would devastate the vegetative and animal ecosystems where they are placed.
    Then in the end it would faill utterly to do what it is supposed to do as people with engineering expertise say you would end- up with totally unreliable energy and  an unstable grid prone to frequent crashes long before  it becomes  100% renewable.
    So while the discussion of whether CO2 increase causes warming or not is a narrow one, the potential consequences of decisions around that stand to be enormous. If I reject that cause and effect relationship it doesn’t mean I am callous to the cause of environmental concern and nurturing.
    In a world where we are already trillions of dollars in debt and our unwise leaders have bequeathed us  a sick and unproductive economy where because of central bank and government policies we are actually consuming our capital instead of increasing it we can’t afford to waste more resources in the pursuit of a fools-errand while real environmental, economic and social problems remain unaddressed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 12:06am

    #86
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Correction--I think the name

    Correction–I think the name of the Greenpeace cofounder was Patrick Moore.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 12:55am

    Reply to #79

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Sound Bites Aren't Solutions

    Doug wrote:

    Well, solutions is a huge subject.  Lets be serious, I’m a layman and, as far as I know, so are both of you (old guy and Grover).  Given that, any list I come up with will be incomplete and surely not as encompassing as the pros could produce.

    Doug,
    Thanks for responding. Like you, I am a layman with this subject. I really didn’t expect you to come up with an all-inclusive solution because I don’t think any palatable ones actually exist. An example of an unpalatable solution would be “we all commit suicide.” Climate change would no longer be an issue of concern … but the cost is too astronomically high. That’s what I see with all drastic “solutions” like this. So, a solution has to cover ALL the bases and have cost breakdowns so we can determine if it is worth it.
    Actually, I was hoping you would search the internet and find an expert who has a solution. I searched a few years ago and couldn’t find a complete one. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any out there. And I wouldn’t let being a layman get in the way of looking for solutions. You’re smart enough to see if the proposed solution is worthy of further review. If you find one and post it here, I’ll give you my honest review. If it solves the problem completely at a reasonable cost, you’ve just shot my legs out from underneath my position.
    On the other hand, partial solutions like what you said we should start with … are just going to make someone feel good that they’re “doing something.” It sounds more like the seductive sound bite from a politician trying to woo your vote. You can bet the politician will make sure you (and I) are cutting our emissions while they jet around to do “important business.” I certainly won’t fall for that line, but you’re ripe for the rhetoric.

    Doug wrote:

    This is just a quick gloss.  Deeper dives will take time that I don’t have at the moment.  But, what’s the alternative?  Do nothing?  If climate change is as dangerous as science tells us it is (I don’t think there is any real debate here), we have two choices.  Do nothing and watch the world disintegrate around us, or do the best we can to create a liveable and positive future.  To me that’s an easy choice.

    I badgered Mark Cochrane on this thread: https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/100238/michael-shermer-importance-skepticism about presenting solutions until he finally admitted there weren’t any. My position has always been, if there isn’t a solution … it ain’t a problem that can be fixed. That makes it a predicament and there are only outcomes. The outcomes can be made better or worse on an individual basis. Unfortunately, we can’t make it better for everyone. It really doesn’t matter how much you wish it were different.
    In Post#112, you said that fighting climate change won’t be cheap. I assume that you expect government to levy higher taxes. Are you familiar with the Yellow Vest protests in France? Those got started because Macron wanted to raise fuel taxes to combat climate change. What makes you think the same result won’t happen here?
    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 1:33am

    Reply to #85
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    Quote:  I have seen estimates

    Quote:

     I have seen estimates

    References, please.

    Quote:

     to replace US electricity production with solar and wind energy you would have to cover a land area the size of California with windmills and solar panels 

    Windmill towers need to be spaced out but only a small portion of the land area they require is lost to their actual footprint on the ground.
    So we wouldnt need to sacrifice California completey.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 3:30am

    Reply to #85
    Belmontl

    Belmontl

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 23 2009

    Posts: 19

    Predicting the Future is Difficult--Old man

    Old man.. my overarching point is doing everything in our power with the best evidence data we have, 
    Predicting the future is very difficult:

    “Prediction is very hard, especially when it is about the future.”
        — Yogi Berra (and other various authorities)/
    <span class="writely- comment”>Complexity Theory and Environmental Management, by Michael Crichton.  Also see
          his article  Why Speculate?

    “Most people assume linearity in environmental processes, but 
    the world is largely non-linear: it’s a complex system. An 
    important feature of complex systems is that we don’t know how 
    they work. We don’t understand them except in a general way; 
    we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, 
    we learn we don’t. Sometimes spectacularly.”

    Some botched predictions  /  1927-1933 Chart of Pompous PrognosticatorsSome botched predictions made in some popular films.  and in a 1958 Disney Animation.What May Happen in the Next Hundred Years, by John Elfreth Watkins, Jr., 
       Ladies Home Journal, 1900.Youtube video: Global Warming and Other Catastrophes
          Humorous (?) look at previous botched predictions of pending world catastrophes 
          in the media (to the soundtrack of REM’s “It’s the End of the World As We Know It“)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 6:40am

    Reply to #79
    twarnold

    twarnold

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 27 2014

    Posts: 0

    Solutions and Inevitablity

    Been reading this thread with interest. I am compelled to pipe up.
    There are no solutions to the dying of our planet without a revolution in thinking, and even then any healing and especially any reversal would take generations to accomplish – which is just fine, but there is no palpable sign of any change of thinking beyond the fringes (not a perorative term), like this tribe. Of course, there would need to be a revolution that translates into political will to change course.
    Revolutions tend to occur only when everyday life becomes practically impossible for the mass of citizens, or at least a portion of them – like the middle and under class. A group has to be “radicalized” in order to band together and force change. Things need to get pretty extreme for that to occur, and we aren’t there yet. Maybe the yellow jackets are getting there, although I am not clear what specifically underlies their malaise other than wealth disparity.
    Chris is completely correct that we have been in the collapse for years, and that it is gaining pace and becoming more visible. But the reality is that until the everyday life becomes near or actually impossible for the mass of humanity, nobody is going to do shit beyond some form of prepping for themselves and their friends.
    So the collapse, in my view, is inevitable (although it may not need to be TEOTWAWKI – it only needs to be bad enough that people are forced to respond, but the damage by that time that will need be overcome will be far worse than now). Maybe it will create the revolution that leads to better times and better stewarded for the planet in scores of years to come. Because, as Jared Diamond writes in following the history of collapse throughout the history of civilization, the interdependencies between economies or ecocystems is the complexity that collapse unravels in what becomes a cascade – we are destined as a species to experience a collapse that is on an order of magnitude much greater than what has occurred so far (since clearly the world is still sleeping), and then seek to wake up and endure. Only a question of when.
    In the meantime, I am grateful for my time on this planet and importantly for my memories of what the world looked like 50 plus years ago. I am grateful for the beauty that still exists around me. I grieve for the collapses to date, the collapses that are coming. But I have no larger solution beyond attempting to come to peace with it all and trying to leave a smaller footprint. If someone can point me to a group of souls who are prepared to take action in a larger way, I’d be interested to the pointer.
    Good luck out there!
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 6:46am

    Reply to #40

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Old Man with old ideas

    LesPhelps wrote:

    The thing is, even if you demonstrate, scientifically, that the greenhouse effect is bogus, you can’t ignore the fact that we are TRASHING our one and only planet and the consequences are piling up at an unimaginable pace.
    Cause not withstanding, my neck of the woods, Wisconsin, has warmed considerably, the last 35 years.  The hardiness zones in Southern Wisconsin have moved North 150 miles, so far.
    I see no point in continuing.  You seem to be in a teaching frame of mind, not a learning mode.  
    I noticed you haven’t posted here much in the past.  Perhaps you are unaware that this topic has been debated adnausium since it was first broached on this website.  Many here have tired of the debate and moved on.

    I heartily agree. However, the problem here is I won’t give his “ideas” any equivocacy to the actual climate-related science that thousands of hard-working and well-meaning scientists are doing everyday. Climate deniers are by very, very far in the minority, and almost every one of those deniers, if they are actually scientists (which most of them are not), are scientists in non-climate-related fields. (Yes, OldGuy, I know there are no “climate scientists;” had I known you would nitpick my words, I’d have been more careful in how I worded it). The vast and immense amount of data we have showing past temperatures (regardless of whether we collected temperature data in the 1800s, we can find out using other means) and the direct correlation between temperature and CO2 emissions as industrialization spread, as well as thousands of pieces of scientific evidence gathered by amateur enthusiasts points to one conclusion: climate is shifting, nature is going haywire, and the ecosystem is collapsing. 
     
    Here are a few things I know:
    1) Funding for climate-related science is pathetically small when compared to military-related or corporate-sponsored science. Climate-related science is one of the few non-corporate and independent fields of science left, and therefore one of the few areas remaining which questions and challenges corporate America. Since many of the climate-related scientists challenge things which affect corporate profits, and since many climate deniers have direct links to corporate backing, I tend to discount the latter and embrace the former as being objective here.
     
    2) Climate deniers often claim that there are “tons of problems” with the data being collected, but rarely offer any substantial data generated by actual field research which would directly refute the data gathered by climate-related science. Moreoever, deniers often point out how the “data has been wrong/adjusted,” ignoring the fact that this is how science works. The scientists directly related to climate research publish their data precisely because they want their peers to challenge it. When challenges prove successful, new data is gathered, old data is adjusted, and new conclusions reached. This is the process that leads to “scientific knowledge,” and it important to remember that a scientific majority is all we’ll ever have on any knowledge – there are always outliers who disagree. Yet none of the climate-science deniers are willing to go out, gather the data themselves, and then publish it in a peer-reviewed way. They just shout from the balcony like those two old guys in the Muppet Show.
     
    But I don’t even need the science. The anecdotal evidence has been mounting for decades. Here in central Maryland, winters have been getting milder, springs and summers wetter, and temperature variations more extreme. For two winters in a row, we had the windows open and shorts on for Christmas Day. This week, while everyone bitches about the “artic freeze” (it is 4 degrees here today), no one is talking about the fact that within five days it is expected to reach 63 degrees. In February. In the summer in my youth years, riding the car with the windows down was a dubious thing, as I can’t count the number of times I’d have bugs/bees in my car afterwards, and putting your face out the window was eyeball suicide. After any longer drive, my windshield and engine grate looked like an extermination camp for bugs, whereas now I can’t remember the last time a single bug splattered on my car…and I live next to a wooded stream! Seagulls at Ocean City, MD used to be so thick you couldn’t move without almost stepping on one. These last few summers there have been a handful within view, at best. Beyond that, I can feel it in my core when I am gardening; I won’t say the “trees are talking to me,” but when I “listen” to the connection to nature within myself, it doesn’t feel positive. The biosphere around us is collapsing, and it will take most of us with it. 
     
    So, climate denial goes hand in hand with the existing paradigm that “everything is fine,” aligns perfectly with corporate interests, and ignores the anecdotal evidence on the ground that is mounting more and more every year.
     
    That’s why, OldGuy, I don’t take anything you are saying very seriously.
     
    -S
     
    PS- I never name-called. I simply pointed out that Dr. Dyson has come up with some pretty hair-brained ideas which were based on a loose application of the laws of science, so he’s got no room to be pointing fingers. Name-calling would be if I called him an “idiot.” I simply discounted his viability as a source of true criticism. I stand by that assertion. A great physicist, yes. Qualified to speak on climate-related science, no.
     
    PSS- OldGuy, if you are so convinced climate science is bogus, good for you! Go on with your life, content in the knowledge that everything is fine and you have no need to prepare for a darker future! Yay!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 7:45am

    #87

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4647

    A picture is worth a thousand words

    While I am open to the idea that there’s room to quibble over how to best measure something as tricky as the “average” temperature over something as large as the entire earth, I do know that as Snydemann has pointed out the data sets for temperature are among the most heavily gone-over that exist.
    Lots of eyes on those.  And, no, it’s not bad that they’ve been challenged and scrubbed and re-done.  That’s how science advances.  One successful challenge at a time.
    What to make of this image then?

    That seems pretty straightforward and takes Stan’s “I’ll see your continent wide observation (Australia) and trump you with my local dust bowl anecdote” rebuttal to the rubbish bin.  Of course, I also happen to agree with Stan that there are far better and more direct methods of communicating with people than via climate change which I explain below.
    The above picture speaks a thousand arguments to me…
    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 thought 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?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 8:08am

    #88
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    alternatives

    Quote:

     My position has always been, if there isn’t a solution … it ain’t a problem that can be fixed. That makes it a predicament and there are only outcomes. The outcomes can be made better or worse on an individual basis. Unfortunately, we can’t make it better for everyone. It really doesn’t matter how much you wish it were different.

    So, again I ask, what are your alternatives?  Roll over and play dead?
    There is no silver bullet solution.  But, there are remedies that will take time, sacrifice, participation and money.  It will be a long slog.  It took us a couple centuries to create the slow moving nightmare, it will take some serious time to fix it.  Does that mean we shouldn’t try?  Does that mean we shouldn’t try to salvage a liveable environment for our grandchildren?  What are your suggestions?
    There was a time in our American past when hard challenges were the norm.  I’ve recently been doing the genealogy of my family.  My earliest ancestors in this country landed in Virginia and Maryland as early as 1735.  They fought in the French and Indian war, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War on both sides, WWI and my father in WWII.  Reading and hearing of their exploits and struggles is like a history lesson of the nation.  This is not to say that my family was exceptional, though some members certainly were, it is merely to illustrate the examples that we should be trying to emulate in confronting today’s challenges.  The earliest settlers confronted not only the risks of getting here, but also the incumbent challenges of surviving long enough to produce another generation.
    By those standards, our sacrifices to prolong our natural and environmental heritage appear kind of puny.  On an individual level, we can set examples for how to live in a modest, self sustaining and benevolent manner, as espoused by PP.  Beyond that, we must participate in the political process supporting policies and candidates who reflect our values and goals for environmental sanity.  Government involvement is necessary for any large scale efforts to reverse our destructive past.  Who else can do that?  Particularly if we wish to take part in the global community in endeavors such as the Paris climate accords.  Would you leave that up to the megacorporations that have been so instrumental in destroying our national and global heritage?  Who would you have lead the charge for environmental sanity?  Would you let DJT lead such efforts given his stated position that climate change is a Chinese hoax?
    Bottom line for me is that we have to be involved in the solutions.  That means first, discarding the dual irrationalities of denial of climate change or believing that nothing can be done so we might as well give up.  You’re a smart guy Grover, what do you suggest going forward?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 8:21am

    Reply to #88

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Solutions

    Doug wrote:

    So, again I ask, what are your alternatives?  Roll over and play dead?

    Sadly, I think the most likely solution will be a Malthusian one, which is why I fear and mourn for the future. 
     
    My students, today, when hearing that it was 4 degrees this morning but will be in the low 60s in five days, said “What the hell is going on here?” whereas the adults I talk to say “Oh thank god it will be warmer. I’m so cold.” Maybe the young will figure it out, but I no longer hold much hope for us older folks to. May God grant that the young have time enough to do so, but I have my doubts there.
     
    To answer your question, though, my personal solution is to teach as many young women as possible what really faces them, rather than the irrationally optimistic view other adults are peddling. I’m also preparing my homestead and children to face what will be a challenging, perhaps grim, future. I think all solutions must be local ones, because I no longer believe any systemic ones will come in time.
     
    -S

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 9:11am

    #89

    Waterdog14

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 126

    Solutions - do everything you can, quickly, with others

    I don’t have all the answers, but I believe we need to act together as quickly as possible.  The individual prepping is ok, but we’ll accomplish more when we work together in “tribes”.  The solutions won’t come from the top down.  They’re going to have to come from the bottom up.
    My city of 6,500 people has an affordable housing problem.  We’re also one of the coldest cities in the US (but not today, we had a normal -20F this morning, which we’re used to, unlike the midwest which is suffering under colder temps as the jet stream deflects and the polar vortex is distorted.  Brrrr…).  The city is offering land for affordable housing develoment.  I teamed up with a local green builder to propose energy-efficient, high-performance homes, build with non-toxic sustainable materials and financed by local capital.  We were up against traditional developers and modular home builders.  We probably placed 3rd of 5 bidders, but the shortlist hasn’t been issued yet.  I don’t know if anyone sees our vision, but the day will come when a neighborhood of 900-ft2 passive solar homes will be the MOST desireable place to live in town because, hey, who wants to freeze to death and die when the natural gas stops flowing?
    I didn’t use the term “freeze to death and die” when I spoke to the community forum on Tuesday night. Perhaps I should have.  Seems I’ve developing a reputation as a “crazy person”.  But who cares about ego, image, reputation?  There’s too much at stake here for the earth and all sentient beings.
    Don’t wait for someone else to do something.  Stand up, and speak, and work toward solutions.  Any solutions.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 9:20am

    Reply to #89

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    Which city, Waterdog? It's

    Which city, Waterdog?
    It’s good news, but I’d like to watch what happens to that plan.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 9:24am

    #90

    Waterdog14

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 126

    Solutions...with others

    I forgot to mention – Working with others is really difficult for me.  I was raised in a US culture that valued rugged individualism, by a father that beat the crap out of anyone who disagreed with him.  “Class projects” in school seemed to pull everyone down to a level of mediocrity that I found interolerable.  I’d rather work alone, in a silo.  But beyond individual prepping, our solutions won’t come from silos.  So my challenge and goal for the next several months/years is to work on being more accepting, work on team-building, and learn to work collegially.   
    Others on this site have mentioned that a radical cultural shift will be required, if any of us are going to survive the post-carbon future.  The cultural shift will require deep personal transformation.  Meditation helps.  If I can do it, anyone can! 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 9:33am

    Reply to #89

    Waterdog14

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 18 2014

    Posts: 126

    City

    Michael_Rudmin wrote:

    Which city, Waterdog? It’s good news, but I’d like to watch what happens to that plan.

    I’m in Gunnison, Colorado.  Here’s a link to Gunnison Community Capital Group which includes a downloadable pdf file of our affordable housing bid proposal.  
    http://www.gunnisonccg.org/affordable-housing.html
    It’s not the best-developed proposal, but I’ve got a lot on my plate so it’s the best we could do with the time we had available.
    We’ve got miles to go, to really take the Community Capital concept to fruition and build an efficient vehicle for local non-accredited investors to move their money from Wall Street to Main Street.  But we need to do it, because when the next liquidity crisis hits, and capital for main street dries up again, it could make the difference between stagnating/dying and carving out a sustainable lifestyle.   

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 9:47am

    Reply to #87

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1466

    The most powerful ways to stimulate change

    Chris wrote:

    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 thought that data is both linear and easy to connect, model and explain.

    I avoid the climate change debates because, as you say, it’s incredibly complex and we can’t possibly understand it and know what’s going to happen.  Like Chris, what I do know is that we are poisoning ourselves and disrupting natural systems we need to survive and yet don’t understand.  A large dose of humility, caution and self control are called for.  My preferred phrase to describe what’s happening is “climate weirding” because that much is certain and, for me personally, leads to humility, caution and self-control. In my mind I’m concerned about a warming environment but I’ve also got my eye on the solar minimum and the possibility of a cooling cycle.  Whereas I don’t have to choose a side in the debate about warming and cooling, what I did have to do is decide where to live when I retire.  I chose New Hampshire, partly because it’s as far north as I can get without leaving the USA while staying in the eastern half of the country (for personal reasons).  Otherwise, I might have chosen Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, or even Costa Rica.  IF things get warmer and warmer that will lengthen our gardening season in NH and that will be good because we’re going to need it.  IF things get colder, we’ll have to cope.  I don’t have a clear understanding of all the natural dynamics, but I know something is badly wrong.  I’m strategizing and acting on the basis of partial information and intuitive leaps, because I have to. 

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

    The older I’ve gotten the more pessimistic I’ve become about my power to “reach people” for understanding and action (about pretty much anything).  Inertia and denial are waaaay more powerful than I am.  But I have seen the kinds of things that do lead large numbers of people to wake up, change their mindsets, and begin acting in significantly different ways.  That’s the good news and the bad news. These are the kinds of things that I’ve seen have a big impact on people.
    1. The death of someone close to them.
    2. Getting married or becoming a parent.
    3. Losing a job, a home or an important relationship (eg. divorce).
    4. Being diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.
    5. Being the victim of a violent crime, like being shot or stabbed or robbed at gunpoint.  This includes the credible imminent threat of the same, whether at the hands of criminals or government.
    6. Being so poor as to have a daily diet of 1,200 calories or less imposed on them, and the uncertainty of not knowing if you’ll have any calories tomorrow.  It’s the same with not having enough clean water to drink to slake even your subjective thirst, much less provide for an objective amount necessary for good health.
    7. Being physically very uncomfortable and unable to sleep due to cold, heat, and wetness.
    I’m in the camp with many here in my conclusion that the great majority of people and our leaders are not going to wake up until hunger, violence, and disease have already overtaken us.  We just need to be as prepared as we can for that inevitability for our own survival and to be able to take advantage of that awful “teachable moment” when it arrives for those around us.  People will be much easier to reach when they’re hungry, wet and tired; people are shooting at them; and Ebola is spreading in their area. smileywinksad

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 11:07am

    #91
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    A bit of good news

    This confirms my observations from last summer.  I thought that, because I saw more monarchs on my property, it might have been because I have been consciously letting more milkweed grow for many years.  But no, it appears to be a widespread phenomenon.  However, scientists suggest this may have been a one off in a discouraging trend.
     

    Monarchs 2018
    31 January 2019
    James Hansen

    Looking for good news?  Last summer we were so pleased to see so many Monarchs in Pennsylvania and New York, more than we have seen in a decade.  Eagerly awaited number of over-wintering population in Mexico confirms this impression.  See updated graph below, and link to an article in the Guardiian.

    This refers to the Monarchs in most of North America, which over-winter in Mexico.  The Western Monarchs are a different story, not surprisingly, given the climate chaos there.  An 8 January article from EcoWatch.
    Making progress with Sophie’s Planet – in Chapter 28.
     

     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 12:36pm

    #92
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Quietest solar cycle in200 years

    https://www.thegwpf.com/quietest-solar-cycle-in-200-years-may-put-the-br

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 12:50pm

    #93
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Chris-the danger of data tampering

    https://realclimatescience.com/2019/01/the-danger-of-data-tampering/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 12:52pm

    #94
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Science vs propaganda

    http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/31/265-papers-published-since-2017-subve

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 1:13pm

    #95

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1466

    Sometimes change comes quickly

    Especially when it’s been building for years.
    https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-revolution-then-and-now/29660285.html

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 1:19pm

    Reply to #79

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3150

    "climate change" taxes

    So the “Climate Change” taxes that Macron put in place were there to offset the tax cuts he gave to his rich friends.  I certainly can understand the ire of the Yellow Vests for being forced to eat a “climate change” tax so that Macron’s buddies do a bit better.
    While I do think a gasoline tax would help deal with the overall predicament by reducing consumption, I’d want to make sure that the money collected went, dollar for dollar, into an actual, new spending program that would  actually help address some aspect of the predicament.
    But if that gasoline tax just went to fund a tax cut to the rich, you end up with a revolution.
    It really has to be seen as being something fair that will actually benefit “the people” and at the same time materially encourage our transition into a less gasoline-driven economy – such as a public transit system.  Or something like that.
    But we need to be careful to watch who the winners and losers will be with all these programs.
    Last two cents: if your favorite climate change politican flies around in a private jet, what they say can be safely ignored as they are utter hypocrites.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 1:29pm

    Reply to #79

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    Pop an idea out

    So I’m thinking about making click heaters, and ran the numbers for a formula. It looks to me like to make 1.3 cups of sodium acetate trihydrate, you need to work 1/2 cup of baking soda SLOWLY into 1 gallon of 5% acidity vinegar, and then boil down to the desired volume, or slightly more. Maybe you want 4 waters for every Sodium acetate, in which case you’d stop it short.
    But then I got thinking: if I wanted to make a green homeless cart, I’d make one with a stove that burns wood or trash efficiently, but I’d put the stove in the middle, and insulate with click heaters. That way, when I want to sleep, I activate the click heaters, and there is no carbon monoxide; and I efficiently catch the waste heat for nighttime.
    Then during the summer and fall, use the same click heaters to dry harvest, long term.
    Don’t know if the idea is any good, but I thought I’d toss it out there. If I try it and find out, I’ll let y’all know.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 2:46pm

    #96
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Doug, the point is that it's

    Doug, the point is that it’s pointless to pursue a remedy that makes things worsre than in the current paradigm.
    I could expound on how the US government’s involvement in nutrition in the 1970’s and the resulting food pyramid was a direct contributor to the obesity epidemic and all of the resulting downstream diseases. It occurred because the gov. listened to a fish biologist who knew nothing about human nutrition and tuned out the real experts while big agriculture and big food industries were whispering into the government’s ear.
    Or, I could explain in detail how doctors are completely mistreating type 2 diabetes and in the process are actually hastening the progression of the disease and sending their patient’s on an accelerating pathway to the downstram consequences of heart disease, stroke, alzheimers, and increased chance of cancer. They are trying to help their patients but because they misunderstand the cause and true dynamics of the disease they are actually hurting their patients.
    Doing something can actually be worse than doing nothing if you are doing the wrong thing.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 4:08pm

    Reply to #96
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    Quote: pointless to pursue a

    Quote:

    pointless to pursue a remedy that makes things worse than in the current paradigm.

    The current paradigm is on track to get worse all by itself.
    Instead of just dissing what other people think, float some ideas for remedies that you’d approve of.
    I’m curious, Old Man: how would you have us prepare for the day when fossil fuels are so scarce as to be unavailable to ordinary mortals?
    It won’t happen tomorrow, but it WILL happen.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 4:49pm

    Reply to #88
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    Snydeman

    Good for you.
    As we said back in the 60s and 70s, think globally, act locally. My local actions are in the context of community gardens. My near term goal is to persuade the town to institute a large scale composting operation for the benefit of the entire area. That would sequester carbon and recycle it into fresh vegetables.
    After that I would like to work on urban forest gardens.
    All the while, of course, I will continue to work for election of a new Congressperson to replace the current Trump punch. In order for democracy to work we must participate.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 5:38pm

    Reply to #88
    Sharsta

    Sharsta

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 12 2009

    Posts: 39

    Food Forests

    After that I would like to work on urban forest gardens.

    Then you might be interested in the book I have just started reading –
    ‘The Food Forest Handbook – Design and manage a home scale perennial polyculture garden’
    by Darrell Frey and Michelle Czolba
    smiley
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 6:21pm

    #97
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    My solution

    I wouldn’t post my solution on this site because it would make people’s heads here exolode as it is based on the assumption and reality that CO2 is not a problem and in fact that more is beneficial. That is clearly not the operating assumption on this site so you are asking me to give a solution to what I consider to not be a problem. I have no solution to the CO2 is bad thesis problem. In my view, the problem is the CO2 is bad thesis.
    But I have said what I have to say and realize that I am banging-up against the power of superstition. Science and facts are helpless against the dogma fueled by superstition so I will make no further effort.
    Superstition is a self-encapsulating proposition that refuses to let itself be disturbed in any way by anything, least of all by reason and facts. It entertains no doubt and leaves no open cracks through which might leak-in something unpleasant.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 6:56pm

    #98

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    *coughs*

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 7:04pm

    Reply to #98

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    Well. Technically you aren't a king, you're a duke.

    But if you wish to rectify the situation, it can easily be accomplished by marrying a princess.
    But may I ask Why you allude to Archduke Farquad’s mirror?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 7:09pm

    #99

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Mirrors...

    Selbstverstaendlich, for the pointing finger, that it might observe itself in all its glory!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 7:18pm

    #100

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Eine Frage, bitte

    Old Guy, may I ask – since you are so quick to discount the collective expertise on this site, the collective scientific findings many of us here at least find credible, and the collective anecdotal evidence many of us have each experienced regarding ecosystem collapse – why are you here? Bringing the light of knowledge to the savages? Knowledge to the ignorant?
     
    Oh, and what’s your PhD in? I don’t recall hearing your qualifications. Asking for a friend.
     
    -S
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 7:24pm

    #101
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    I'll show you mine if you show me yours....

    speaking especially to the most passionate on here who are worried about CO2.
    This may be the mirror you seek.
    Although, over the years here on this site what I have seen as that none of you, even the passionate believers, respond to this and talk about each of our actual details and ways we can support each other in gettting better at it ! But, maybe this time…. so instead of making a Group as was tried before, maybe we just meet back here on this thread within a week with our results
    Yes, our calculator is a bit dated, I think it shuld have a tab for air miles, makes it easier.  Instead if you fly, put in your share of airliner fuel based on type of plane/#of passengers.  Otherwise, it gives a real good idea.
     
    Here it is :  http://www.greenknowe.org/r4a/
    here are the rules :  http://www.greenknowe.org/content/riot-4-austerity-7-categories
    You can look at the power mix in your state to see how much on average comes from which source.  This is the most accurate way right now.  Solar you make at home is more obvious that of course that part is solar, but it still has an impact and you dont get unlimited amounts.  Pounds of trash includes recycling. 
     
    There are many ways we can say this is or is not perfect, but it is the best calculator we have seen and if we all just do it, then we have a baseline of comparison. 
    The nice thing about this calculator is every household gets to do it in their won way so a suburban househould may use more gasline but way less heating fuel and grow all their vmeat eggies in the back garden.  The calculator gives a final number based on each individual mix
     
    ANd, again, for a mainstream start to cutting back, look to build it solars half project, and once you have that deon, and are buying local and in bulk, we can talk more….. https://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 8:05pm

    Reply to #101

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    I read the rules, but they're incomplete.

    I don’t understand what we are judging or categorizing.
    My home is all electric; it’s a 62×11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank — maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that’s 72×18= 1300 gal. There’s six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that — so what’s that, maybe 200-220 gal per person.
    We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal.
    So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don’t see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What’s the purpose of the 90% goal?
    Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage):
    44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods… 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet… and 53% of national average.
    So I’ve shown you mine. What’s it all mean?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 8:09pm

    #102
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Except there IS a

    Except there IS a difference.
    When I presented a rationale for why I think CO2 can’t cause warming I didn’t get a counter rationale. I got statements such as:
    We know CO2 warms the earth
    It’s all been debunked before
    It has warmed where I live
    We know CO2 traps heat
    In otherwards, why not counter my argument in a similar vein as my argument. Show me where it is wrong in the details. Persuade me. I am open to detailed argument. That’s how I arrived at my position in the first place.  But I am not going to capitulate my position without persuasion.
    But when there are only expressions of faith and canned talking points thrown at me then I can’t credibly be accused of being obstinate because that didn’t shift me off of my position. In fact, it can only raise in me suspicions of what I am dealing with.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 8:55pm

    Reply to #101
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    Michael_Rudmin wrote: I don't

    Michael_Rudmin wrote:

    I don’t understand what we are judging or categorizing. My home is all electric; it’s a 62×11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank — maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that’s 72×18= 1300 gal. There’s six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that — so what’s that, maybe 200-220 gal per person. We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal. So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don’t see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What’s the purpose of the 90% goal? Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage): 44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods… 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet… and 53% of national average. So I’ve shown you mine. What’s it all mean?

    I guess I thought you could go backwards to the main page of hers http://www.greenknowe.org/content/riot-4-austerity and read the blurb, and maybe go read Tom Murphy link.  The point of 90% reduction is that that amount of reduction is what everyone was saying it would take to keep below 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.   ALso,  just using the calculator gives you a basis of how you compare to national average and what areas you might be able to improve in, and yes gasoline useage for rural is usually our tough spot.  One can get a baseline of now, and then after making changes, see how far you have got.  Even if you dont make it as low as to 10%, which is hard, you can reduce further.  I am currently at 13% due to driving, and I willpost seperate on how and why on mine.
    SO, if you were worried about your households contribution to CO2 emmisions, from looking at your numbers you might do something like buy less non-local wet foodstuffs and more bulk food rpoducts.  Does Azure standard deliver in your area ?  https://www.azurestandard.com/  that is an example that would reduce your carbon footprint. The other thing would be to look at reducing you electric usages.  There are many ways to do this and it will save you money.  If you are heating with electric heat, anything that keeps the heat in.  This usually means caulking ( look to the Build it solar site I linked to for cheap ways to save).  Turn the electric water heater down, maybe put it on a timer, insulate the hot water pipes ruinning under the mobile home, if they are exposed there.  Look for energy vampires, put all electronics on a power bar to turn OFF when they are off, etc… Look at that half project I linked, he goes thru all the least expensive ways to cut down and which things gave the most bang for the money. Money saved on electric could be put aside to save for a more expensive energy saving idea later ( home made solar hot water heater)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 9:49pm

    Reply to #101
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    here's mine

    The thing is, this is mine now, I have been working on this for a long while, it is a process, and sometimes has backsliding.
    For right now:
    15 gallons diesel per person per month for transport.  But, we took a driving vacation, highly unusual, so averaging this over the year I think would add another 5 gallons per person per month — so I put 20 gallons in to the calculator
    300kWh of Solar produced eletric per month, that is 2kW of panels on the roof.  I am making it within that budget. This includes water pumping, well and pressure pump, so my gallons of water impact is shown here.
    less than 2 cords of wood per year, last few years this is dead down wood from my own yard, so counts as zero but even if I count it it only raises the percent by 2%
    1 pound of garbage/recycle per person per week.  We compost and work hard to not buy packaging no throw away cups or bags.
    New stuff right now is about $100/month, used about $25 month in gneral, some months used is much higher and new is less, but I have been buying a few things lately
    local 20%, bulk 60%, wet 20%    I can get wet down to almost zero when the cards are all aligned right, but not lately
    that is 13.5% of national average CO2 emisions my household is responsible for. 
    Transport is the sticky part for being in the suburbs, but that is canceled out by having wood heat in an area of trees, and room to store canners and home canned and bulk foods.   Also, I have worked on my habits over the years to get packaging and trash down, electric usage down and finding places to buy bulk foods. I bought a small solar system 20 years ago and have worked to keep our usage within that budget. 
    Here are some things done over the years.
    Solar hot water heater saved alot of electric for many years, but is presently needing to get a panel fixed. I also turned the thermostat down on the electric water heater and put in very low flow shower heads, 1.5gallons per minute, and trained the kids to shorter showers, this saves alot of hot water even without a solar water heater.  There are many other things to cut down on hot water — wash clothes in cold water, etc…
    I have an all electric house, but I put in a wood stove to heat with as I live in an area with alot of tree and wood waste.  I bought a recent, energy efficient and low pollution one for its time used, so then we could afford it.  That stove made us use 1/2 of the wood than the old woodstove that came with the house.
    In the summer, I use a solar cooker quite a bit, I did this much more when all the kids were here, it was also convenient to have food ready when they got home.  This absolutely has paid for itself vs the electric range, not to mention the convenience of unattended cooking that doesnt burn.  Goodwill often sells electric breadmakers, this is great for the winter when the sun is not out and uses less power than the oven.  Crookpots also do not use much power and are easily bought used and work in the winter.
    Gardening is a learnign process, it can take a while to get successful.  In the meantime buy local at the farmers market, and you can can what you buy there, for example I have bought flats of tomatoes, peaches, berries in season and that farmers market and canned at home to eat all year. This is a 2 for, local food and no trash as the jars are reused.  It also build skills without waiting for your own garden to take off.  Buy dry goods in bulk, like grains, flour, rice, beans either by the 25lb bag thru a bulk buy, like azure or Costco etc… or go to your local healthfood store, or WinnCo and buy by the pound out of their bulk bins.  Bring reusable bags or jars to fill there.  etc…..
    Driving and traveling was the hardest.  I made kids carpool to school and activities. I combined trips or did without.  Usually I keep a deep pantry or plan ahead to not make trips to stores.  I took the train to move my youngest in to college even.  We also took the train to her wedding, but carpooled with other family to get back.  We keep the smallest, most fuel efficient car possible.  Yes, you CAN have 5 people take a diesel Jetta (almost 50mpg on the hwy) car camping for the week, with bikes and food ! WHile work commuting must happen, sometimes carpools can be arranged.  One of my kids chose to stay homeschooling for a while so that she could participate in a certain activity.  I did not drive back home during this activity and had to find things to do ( most parents would go home as is was 2 or 3 hours long, I forget) SO, I would bring projects with me or work on the laptop in the car or coffee house.
    etc… we have caulked, we use laptop not desktop computer, the refirgerator is bought looking at kwH per year, not style, etc….
     
    Look to the half project for other ideas https://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 9:58pm

    #103
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    A thought experiment.

    Where I live it is not unusual tho be under a high pressure system with moisture in the air at about 1%. During the daytime the temp might go as high as 32C or higher and be  there up to an hour before sunset. Then by about seven hours after sunset the temp has dropped to10C with no air movement bringing in outside air. So within 7-8 hours the temp has dropped by 22C or 40F.. Now ask yourself how powerful is the “trapping” power of the greenhouse gases with that kind of a temp drop in such a short time. And then consider that H2O makes up more than 95% of the heat trapping effect.
    Also remember that during the day the removal of heat energy is even greater because of convection and outgoing radiation but the temp goes up because  the energy input from the sun overwhelms it.
    But how potent is this trapping effect when temp drops that dramatically in a few hours? In the desert the temp can go from100F to below freezing in a few hours. And the CO2 is up there all the time.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 10:27pm

    Reply to #101
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    Good News: Average

    Good News: Average Family Cuts  Home Electric Usage in Half
     
    Call me crazy but I have been anxiously waiting for my electric bill to arrive this month.
    Why? Because I took the 20% challenge CL & P offered recently (use 10-20% less electricity and get that same credit
    on your next bill) AND I took the Half Challenge on the website BuilditSolar.com. (cut your electric use by half)
    Then I did something. I actually stopped moaning about the rates for 5 minutes and did something to reduce my electric usage. 
    I  received my electric bill today and got the news…. I was nervous. It was like opening the scores to my college boards. The result? I cut my bill in half!!!! Yes!  Half!!!! All in the span of 2 months. Try it it yourself. It’s easy.
    For the month of July,  my  family used 1107 KWH (Kilowatt hours) and paid $204. Ouch!
    Opening that bill was a painful experience. Then, this past month of August we used 601 KWH and
    paid $115. Now I’m feeling good about that. Not good enough to stop moaning about the rates, but good enough
    to slap my son five. He wouldn’t let my wife open the bill until I came home. My 8 year old son is in this with me.
     
    What did we do? What can you do? Something! Pick any one of these items below or go online and find others.
    Do something… don’t just sit there clicking the remote while the planet is melting.
    Here’s what we did. In July we had a home energy audit for $100 wherein they changed most of our incandescent lights to energy efficient fluorescent bulbs. Good deal! Plus they did  a  blower door test, weather stripped, sealed, changed all our faucets to low flow heads, and checked for air infiltration. They found that we have a low flow problem with the hot air return which can cause the furnace to use more oil. I gotta get that fixed before Winter.
    In August I got busy. I vacuumed a decade of dust off my refrigerator coils, lowered my electric hot water heater by turning 2 screws, my wife and I started drying clothes using our new $60 clothesline instead of the electric dryer,
    I began heating my water for  coffee in the microwave instead of the electric stove, I unplugged the microwave disengaging the power sucked up by a useless clock, and put the  TV, which has a remote, a  DVD (remote) the VCR, which has a clock, and the PS2 all on a power strip. Then I turned them all off when not in use. OFF! I said. 
    I TURNED THEM OFF!!!!!!!!!  No more phantom power for me! Does it matter? An average home will use about 50 Watts per hour of phantom power. That’s 8 Gigawatts on a National level, the size of 8 large power plants. I think it does matter.
    And two other things: First I kept asking myself, “Do I need to turn this on?” and secondly I repeated the phrase “Please turn the light off.” 
    I guess our family effort worked. We cut our bill in half. Was it difficult? No. Did we spend  a lot of money? $100 bucks for the audit and $60 for the clothesline. We’ll make that back in another month. 
    I’m excited!  We cut our energy use in half. We are helping. We’re saving money.
    We are on our way now.
     
    Please join us.
     
    Edward

     
    More Conservation Stories here …
    The Half Program …

    https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Conservation/EdHalf.htm
     

    Michael_Rudmin wrote:

    I don’t understand what we are judging or categorizing. My home is all electric; it’s a 62×11 ID mobile home for six of us, and we use 20000 kwh a year; we refuel the tank — maybe eighteen gallons every five days, so that’s 72×18= 1300 gal. There’s six of us, but the needs of a remote family member greatly plays into that — so what’s that, maybe 200-220 gal per person. We heavily buy used, when possible. We garden, but not successfully: I can only say we try. We try to pick wild foods, but we just discovered local ordinances make that largely illegal. So we seem to come in at half the American standard. With as little as we are paid, and as much as goes away in taxes, I don’t see how we could improve up to 90% savings. What’s the purpose of the 90% goal? Anyhow, my percentages were (guessing garbage): 44,181.8,0,38.1,23.3,14.3, way too heavy on wet goods… 5% local sustain, 5%bulk,90% wet… and 53% of national average. So I’ve shown you mine. What’s it all mean?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 11:10pm

    #104
    mntnhousepermi

    mntnhousepermi

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Feb 19 2016

    Posts: 157

    radiative heat transfer

    ….

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jan 31, 2019 - 11:35pm

    Reply to #88

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Nature Bats Last

    Doug wrote:
    Quote:

     My position has always been, if there isn’t a solution … it ain’t a problem that can be fixed. That makes it a predicament and there are only outcomes. The outcomes can be made better or worse on an individual basis. Unfortunately, we can’t make it better for everyone. It really doesn’t matter how much you wish it were different.

    So, again I ask, what are your alternatives?  Roll over and play dead?
    There is no silver bullet solution.  But, there are remedies that will take time, sacrifice, participation and money.  It will be a long slog.  It took us a couple centuries to create the slow moving nightmare, it will take some serious time to fix it.  Does that mean we shouldn’t try?  Does that mean we shouldn’t try to salvage a liveable environment for our grandchildren?  What are your suggestions?
    There was a time in our American past when hard challenges were the norm.  I’ve recently been doing the genealogy of my family.  My earliest ancestors in this country landed in Virginia and Maryland as early as 1735.  They fought in the French and Indian war, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War on both sides, WWI and my father in WWII.  Reading and hearing of their exploits and struggles is like a history lesson of the nation.  This is not to say that my family was exceptional, though some members certainly were, it is merely to illustrate the examples that we should be trying to emulate in confronting today’s challenges.  The earliest settlers confronted not only the risks of getting here, but also the incumbent challenges of surviving long enough to produce another generation.
    By those standards, our sacrifices to prolong our natural and environmental heritage appear kind of puny.  On an individual level, we can set examples for how to live in a modest, self sustaining and benevolent manner, as espoused by PP.  Beyond that, we must participate in the political process supporting policies and candidates who reflect our values and goals for environmental sanity.  Government involvement is necessary for any large scale efforts to reverse our destructive past.  Who else can do that?  Particularly if we wish to take part in the global community in endeavors such as the Paris climate accords.  Would you leave that up to the megacorporations that have been so instrumental in destroying our national and global heritage?  Who would you have lead the charge for environmental sanity?  Would you let DJT lead such efforts given his stated position that climate change is a Chinese hoax?
    Bottom line for me is that we have to be involved in the solutions.  That means first, discarding the dual irrationalities of denial of climate change or believing that nothing can be done so we might as well give up.  You’re a smart guy Grover, what do you suggest going forward?

    Doug,
    The problem isn’t climate change or pollution or environmental degradation. Those are merely symptoms of the problem. The problem is population. Frankly, the majority must die. If government is the only force that can solve the symptoms, we’re in trouble. Unfortunately, their past performance complicates the issues rather than reduces them.
    Humans have a deep seated urge to fix problems. This is no different. It feels good to try. But, does it really work? Let’s look at some of your ancestors’ likely experiences. Before doctors knew any better, they applied leeches to patients to drain the “bad” blood. Did that really improve the chance of survival for the majority of patients? Some patients lived through it and others died. Before Pasteur, doctors didn’t know about microorganism caused infection. Look at the civil war casualties and the unsanitary conditions in the field hospitals. Infections took many lives, but some survived in spite of it. The doctors did what they knew to fix the problem. They just didn’t know any better.
    Now, we know about microorganisms and their disease causing potential. Researchers developed antibiotics to get rid of the problem. It worked well for a while. Either overuse, underuse, or just repeated use for too long allowed the bugs to develop immunity. The use of these medications saved a considerable number of lives. It also has created a bigger problem. One that’s very profitable for the medical industrial complex.
    Because of these (and other) discoveries, the population has soared. All those people need to eat and a place to live and a reason to make life worthwhile. The green revolution (occurring during your youth) provided the tools that made farmers productive enough to feed all these people. They used the best science available to increase yields at minimum costs. Chemical companies have invented ways to destroy the pests and eradicate the weeds. Sounds like nirvana, right?
    Unfortunately, the weeds and bugs that had more of a resistance to these chemicals were able to flourish. Beneficial bugs have paid the price, though. The food looks good enough to buy but is mostly devoid of the nutrition that foods contained a century ago. A century ago, draft animal manure fertilized the crops and provided more than just the major NPK fertilizers. Although we get plenty of calories daily, lots of those are non-nutritious empty calories. Could that be why so many today have multiple health issues?
    When I was in college, a common mantra was “the solution to pollution is dilution.” That really is true. If you eat a large enough dose of arsenic, you will die. If you dilute that same amount in enough water, you won’t have any ill effects. The first chemical company dumping a small waste stream in a river can get away with it. As the company expands and others join in, the waste stream overwhelms the river’s ecosystem. The problem is too large a load for the system. That is a fractal concept that scales from the microorganism level all the way up to Gaia herself.
    These are all symptoms of too much. If you are 72 years old, you were born around 1946. According to http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/, the world population in 1951 was 2,583,816,786 and rising at 1.87% per year. It was likely around 2.4 million when you were born. They show that the 2019 population is 7,714,576,923 and rising at 1.07% per year. For every person alive when you were born, there are about 3.2 people alive today. Projections are that the population will peak later this century and then start to diminish. The Limits to Growth graph shows a reasonable trajectory to several trends. None of the trends are pretty.
    Getting back to climate change, let’s assume that government is the only entity that can solve the issue. Let’s ignore the costs involved and say that governments are completely successful and have defeated climate change. Does that mean that we’re out of the woods and can proceed with life unfettered? What is the likelihood of another major catastrophe facing human existence after that? I’ve listed a few candidates, but there are many, many more and many that we’re not even aware of. The pressures of too much population guarantees that other boogey men will show up. Nature abhors imbalances.
    In this thought experiment, I said that we should ignore the cost of letting the government respond successfully to climate change, but can we really? We’ve ignored government’s true funding requirements for quite a while. As a result, we’ve got enormous debts and exceedingly large unfunded liabilities (promises) that will eventually force the government to default. Simple math shows that conclusion is inevitable. These are the good times with plenty of energy, sufficient resources, mostly livable environments, and relatively low taxes. (Taxes are low in large part because of all the cost deferment techniques deployed that have exploded the debt.)
    Even if we defeat climate change at enormous cost, there will be numerous other problems knocking on the doorstep to get our attention. That’s why I conclude that it isn’t a problem (that can be solved.) Climate change is a symptom (one of many) of the real problem. The problem is currently getting worse at 1.07% per year. Cut your nonrenewable resource usage by 99% and it still won’t make it sustainable. It will just delay the inevitable comeuppance for a while. Is that a solution or just a “feel good” temporary answer?
    At some point, it will be obvious that there is a physical limit – just like bacteria find in a petri dish. By the time limits are evident, it will be too late. Will all of humanity perish? Probably not, but the majority likely will. Reversion to the sustainable will not be smooth and will likely overshoot. It is just how complex systems react. Those who survive will have a much lower population base to compete with – just like the microorganisms and weeds that are more immune to the chemicals we apply.
    Since the problem can’t be fixed by us but will eventually fix itself, there are only outcomes to manage.
    The point I’m trying to make is to focus on what you can do to better the long term survival of your loved ones. Wasting time with government solutions to a symptom of the problem will reduce your ability to do so.
    Remember that nature bats last and it keeps batting until the problem is resolved.
    Grover
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 1:28am

    #105

    New_Life

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2011

    Posts: 185

    Davos Hypocrites

    Rutger might make a good interviewee for a PP podcast

    Davos doesn’t like the “T” word…

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/video/2019/jan/30/this-is-not-rocke

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 3:08am

    #106

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    I have almost completely rebuilt half my mobile home

    And I did it with 3/4″ formaldehyde free ply, and corrugated cardboard batts bagged in reflectix aluminized bubble wrap, sealing that end of the house. I can’t afford to do more in my current state. Maybe I could in fifteen years, but I’m expecting that by that time our family will be dispersed; our needs will be less.

    And I likely will have the beginnings of senility, judging from family history.

    The electric already is minimized, when you consider that it includes our heat. We did the LED bulbs long ago; the CFLs kept blowing capacitors and getting thrown out: not an environmentally friendly solution. And if you brought it to home depot or lowes, the recycling boxes break the bulbs right at the customer service counter. That’s not safe OR environmentall’ friendly. But the LEDs seem to work fine.

    I don’t think we can do solar: no space for it.

    The hot water pipes run through the subfloor, not under it.
    The short-run pipes run ok; the long run to the kitchen is 1/2″ poly but seems massively weak, but that also minimizes waste. I suspect corroded zinc from the old system blocked it up soon after we had redone it, but more work means more waste and expense, and we can live with it.

    Of course, my lot rental is super-high: $400/mo for nothing. It goes to taxes and to Franklin management, a billion-dollar operation; so maybe a huge fraction of that money goes to jet fuel vacations, consumer products that are thrown out, and so on. If you were to cut all that out you might well cut my contribution to AGW by half. But I don’t realistically see that happening. Rather, when cuts are forced the costs are imposed on the weak and the poor, and they just go homeless and starve, while the depredations still go on up top.

    As far as the gasoline goes, I live in the crime-ridden inner city, three miles from my job. The huge gasoline expenditure is regular needs from an older relative who lives 90 miles away, and has a standard of living way past ours: country pool, 3-story house, ponies, acreage, two cars, etcera. But not that isn’t something we are free to cut off, any more than we can cut off our lot rental.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 3:59am

    #107

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    Grover: But the biggest problem users bat second to last.

    I really dislike your death solution, especially because it encourages all-out war and doubled-down destruction. Yes, I understand you’re not encouraging it, you’re stating it. But let’s look at it, nonetheless.

    So then the solution is for people to–like Glass in the movies–secretly murder their neighbors, and steal their shtuff? And Their solution is to secretly murder you? Or maybe in broad daylight? Or maybe for us all to get together and bomb some slums like the Philadelphia police did to the Afrika cult, for the sake of the children they were bombing? And what is the solution for them?

    Thus murder devolves to war, and war to increased–not decreased–environmental destruction. And then when the population is already down past sustainable levels, nobody can trust each other, so the war continues. And then–read the Art of War– the best strategy is to destroy your enemy’s environment, so that he starves.

    That’s why I favor the solution of delayed-mating for the young, and voluntarily declining medical care for the old. Murder does not have to be, less so mass murder, less so war.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 5:35am

    Reply to #112

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    One more sortie

    Old Guy, the reason so few people are engaging with you at this point, and I would argue the reason few people are taking you seriously, is because you have, at the core, a thesis which seems to indicate you think everything is fine and nothing is wrong in the climate. This, however, not only runs counter to scientifically gathered data collected by thousands of individual scientists and challenged/uphelp by countless peer reviews, but which also flies in the face of what we are seeing unfold in the ecosystem (something you seem to blithely ignore). How do you explain the collapses of insect populations? Increasingly erratic and severe weather? The sudden death of dozens of tree and animal species across diverse ecosystems, climate zones, and continents? See, you are providing an underlying thesis which creates a fundamental cognitive dissonance between the “everything is fine” message you seem to be implying and the “shit’s going downhill” evidence that can be seen in dozens of areas of the world. In short, your assertions don’t comport (Chris, thank you for that word) with the other, non-CO2-related evidence that is mounting all around us. The “global warming” evidence at least explains part of why that is happening. Yours does not. 
     
    It also doesn’t help when people did present counter evidence and counter explanations (which, despite your protestations, they did), you ignored it. When that was followed up by requests to go read where this has been hashed out before, you also ignored it. That was then followed up by a blanket declaration by you that anyone who disagrees with your thesis is essentially superstitious, incapable of rational thought, and intellectually deficient. Yet you yourself haven’t even bothered to answer many questions levelled directly at you, and to many people (not all, because we actually do have diverse thinkers here) that’s the surest sign of a troll they have. Now, I fully expect you wouldn’t respond to my questions, especially those delivered with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but please understand that blanket statements attacking the intellectual and rational capacity of many members isn’t going to open any ears.
     
    Ironically, Old Guy, some other things you’ve pointed out are things I’m willing to look at. The food pyramid thing is intriguing, and because your underlying assetion comports with what I know about nutrition and corporate interests, I’m diving deeper into looking at the origins of it. Learning some new things there, I am.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 5:31am

    #108

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Hmm...

    Michael, I don’t think Grover is saying he either wishes nor welcomes the inevitable “Malthusian solution” so much as he doesn’t see any viable alternative that is likely to be enacted at the national or global level. Change is possible from the ground up, not the top down, and the die-off of a large portion of the human population is inevitable, given our species’ penchant for resisting change until it is fully upon us (a notion confirmed by everything I know of psychology and sociology). There are countless examples of people and civilizations ignoring the obvious threats on their doorsteps until those threats were in the living room eating on the couch, with their feet up on the coffee table no less. The best solution, then, seems to be at the local community level. I don’t want to read too much into Grover’s thoughts, but I think he is essentially saying that focus should be put into that rather than some kind of national movement to enact systemic change; the former is doable, while the latter is herculean in the best of times.

     

    While I can’t be certain if Grover is correct, per se, I can point out that there are literally dozens of examples in human history where even the slightest climate changes (temperature, precipitation, soil erosion, etc) have resulted in cataclysmic collapse of a civilization. Whether we’re talking early river valley civilzations, vast empires of the classical age, or post-Medieval Europe, climate shifts matter…a lot. Humans will survive this emerging shift in climate, but I have my doubts that our modern-day global civilization can, and when you factor in sovereign debt problems, dwindling resources and energy, and rising social tensions, those chances fall to levels lower than our current Fed Funds rate.  

     

    As I’ve stated elsewhere before, I hope – desperately hope – that I am wrong. But history is what I do, and while I’m not expert in most of the topics bantered around on PP, I am far more certain of my read of the story of humanity, and from that perspective I have to agree with Grover that Malthus’s vision is far more likely than any optimistic idea of systemic change I’ve seen yet.

     

    I don’t like the repurcussions of that vision any more than you do, Michael. I’m still fighting for systemic change, but putting energy into local prep as well (probably failing at both).

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 6:17am

    Reply to #108

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    Third sentence

    “yes, I understand you aren’t supporting it, you’re stating it.” I agree that Grover isn’t intending it, he’s saying what he sees. I’m trying to promote an alternative future.

    By the way, I just had to select all pics w/ crosswalks. One of them was NYC / manhattan. Umm, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that entire area one giant crosswalk?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 7:02am

    #109

    westcoastjan

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 04 2012

    Posts: 177

    Then why are you here?

    If you are not willing to put forth your solutions and debate them with the PP crowd then you are wasting your and our time. You have expended considerable efforts trying to justify your position on what is wrong but now you say you are unwilling to spend any efforts on debating solutions.

    As I have always said to my staff, you get to complain but you have to bring solutions to your compaints as well. To do otherwise is to simply be a whiner…

    Jan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 7:15am

    Reply to #108

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    Duplicate

    Hmm… I could get a 30% reduction in bit usage if…nevermind.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 7:57am

    Reply to #112

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3150

    insect populations et al

    Snydeman-

    I think there are a couple of things happening.

    One is the widespread use of chemical poisons + genetically engineered crops.  I’d guess these are responsible for killing off the insects, and the rest of the food chain up from them.

    The other are the larger climate effects.

    Armstrong thinks that we’re in a period of lessening solar activity, which leads to a sort of global cooling.  Which is why we’re seeing all the freezing conditions.

    Me, I dunno.  I think the pesticides are a slam dunk for causing the extinction of the insects. It probably is also responsbile for a large amount of trouble we are seeing in human biology. 

    The rest?  I think if we address the fossil fuel issue, we can address two problems at once.  Even if climate change is totally bogus, getting off fossil fuels helps with the peak oil predicament.  So I honestly don’t care too much about debating the issue.  One way or another, we will stop using oil.  Its probably more reasonable to do it under our own power, rather than with a gun to our head, but one way or another, we will stop using oil.

    I’d just rather do it thoughtfully and voluntarily, rather than having to run around in panic mode, scrabbling around at the last minute.  Cramming for the final is something I did long ago as an undergrad, and I’m way past doing that sort of thing at this point in my life.  And I totally don’t recommend it as national policy approach.

    But of course, that’s what we’ve currently selected.

    Two words: Hirsch Report.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 8:21am

    Reply to #112

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    Absolutely!

    davefairtex wrote:

    I think there are a couple of things happening.

    One is the widespread use of chemical poisons + genetically engineered crops.  I’d guess these are responsible for killing off the insects, and the rest of the food chain up from them.

    The other are the larger climate effects.

    Absolutely agreed. As with all things, there are multiple, sometimes interrelated causes. If there’s any one root cause, it’s us modern humans. As in, our continuing disconnect with the natural world and our place in it, and our continuing mistake of thinking the world is our plaything with which we can do whatever we please. As Daniel Quinn would say, “Mother Culture” is what’s wrong with us.

    davefairtex wrote:

    Armstrong thinks that we’re in a period of lessening solar activity, which leads to a sort of global cooling.  Which is why we’re seeing all the freezing conditions.

    Except there are no freezing conditions, unless he means in the short-term. The long term temperature data (see the map Chris posted) shows that we have been warming these last few decades, not cooling. If we’re supposed to have been in a cooler period, and yet we’ve managed to counter that and in fact warm the planet, fuck all when the natural “cooling trend” reverses. If this is what cooling looks like, then warming will be a real bitch. 

    davefairtex wrote:

    Me, I dunno.  I think the pesticides are a slam dunk for causing the extinction of the insects. It probably is also responsbile for a large amount of trouble we are seeing in human biology. 

    The rest?  I think if we address the fossil fuel issue, we can address two problems at once.  Even if climate change is totally bogus, getting off fossil fuels helps with the peak oil predicament.  So I honestly don’t care too much about debating the issue.  One way or another, we will stop using oil.  Its probably more reasonable to do it under our own power, rather than with a gun to our head, but one way or another, we will stop using oil.

    I’d just rather do it thoughtfully and voluntarily, rather than having to run around in panic mode, scrabbling around at the last minute.  Cramming for the final is something I did long ago as an undergrad, and I’m way past doing that sort of thing at this point in my life.  And I totally don’t recommend it as national policy approach.

    But of course, that’s what we’ve currently selected.

    Two words: Hirsch Report.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

     

    Agreed. You and I are aligned on these things.

     

    On top of all this, I was listening to an NPR report about an American scientist using the Crispr method to try to see if genetic defects could be modified/eliminated in fertilized human embryos. My first thought was “we can’t even be stewards of our own environment, much less handle the awesome ability to modify things directly at the DNA level.”

     

    I’d rather this all play out very differently; I just don’t have any historical evidence of that ever happening at this scale.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 9:29am

    Reply to #112

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3150

    CRISPR

    On top of all this, I was listening to an NPR report about an American scientist using the Crispr method to try to see if genetic defects could be modified/eliminated in fertilized human embryos.

    I recall reading something a while back that said that CRISPR, while it definitely was able to edit the targeted gene, had a nasty side effect of making large and unexpected changes to a bunch of other, unrelated genes at the same time.

    Yes.  Here.  Real Science.  A bit hard to find unless you use the precise keywords.  I wonder why that is?

    https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/crispr-gene-editing-can-cause-hundreds-unintended-mutations

    In the new study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene editing in the team’s previous study and looked for all mutations, including those that only altered a single nucleotide.

    The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients had sustained more than 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations and more than 100 larger deletions and insertions. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.

    Yeah.  You hit the gene target you were aiming at, but as an unintended side effect, you hit another 1500 single genes that were not targets.  Gosh, let’s hope none of those accdental modifications cause anything untoward to occur.

    And by all means, let’s start using this in humans.  What could possibly go wrong?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 9:50am

    #110
    gkcjrrt

    gkcjrrt

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 20 2016

    Posts: 14

    Jordan Peterson's take on CC uniting us

    Gun

    nison

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 10:43am

    #111
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2257

    Venezuela is a window into how the Oil Age will unravel

    Apologies if this has already been posted.

    Venezuela’s collapse is a window into how the Oil Age will unravel – Nafeez Ahmed, Insurge Intelligence

    Quote:

    “For some, the crisis in Venezuela is all about the endemic corruption of Nicolás Maduro, continuing the broken legacy of Chavez’s ideological experiment in socialism under the mounting insidious influence of Putin. For others, it’s all about the ongoing counter-democratic meddling of the United States, which has for years wanted to bring Venezuela — with its huge oil reserves — back into the orbit of American power, and is now interfering again to undermine a democratically elected leader in Latin America.

    Neither side truly understands the real driving force behind the collapse of Venezuela: we have moved into the twilight of the Age of Oil.

    So how does a country like Venezuela with the largest reserves of crude oil in the world end up incapable of developing them? While various elements of socialism, corruption and neoliberal capitalism are all implicated in various ways, what no one’s talking about — especially the global oil industry — is that over the last decade, we’ve shifted into a new era. The world has moved from largely extracting cheap, easy crude, to becoming increasingly dependent on unconventional forms of oil and gas that are much more difficult and expensive to produce.”

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 12:14pm

    #112
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    That's my best guess but I

    That’s my best guess but I would welcome any definitive explanation.

    The way I figure it is that the greenhouse effect plays out something as is assumed when it comes to water vapour but even there has a modest ability to slow heat loss because you still get such a significant heat loss at night even where there is significant vapour plus CO2.

    But over a desert with very little water vapour and only the usual CO2 level it is very different. With little water vapour to capture heat and CO2 because of it’s very limited bending and vibrating ability only able to capture a very small amount, that infrared radiation at night just passes unobstructed and rapidly up and out to space. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me and speaks to the very weak potential effect on temp of CO2. And if water vapour is present in any significant amount CO2 would be irrelavant as the vapour would capture anything CO2 could trap anyway and CO2 has no additive effect.

    The contrast between the two scenarios is informative.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 12:36pm

    #113
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    Don't assume ...

    Quote:

     I wouldn’t post my solution on this site because it would make people’s heads here exolode

    Don’t assume that –every- head would explode.

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 01, 2019 - 11:43pm

    Reply to #109
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    westcoastjan,You seem to

    westcoastjan,
    You seem to have missed my point. People here are seeing a myriad of problems real or imagined but I wasn’t trying to debate the lot of them. I only made two assertions. One was that whatever the real problems may be, that climate has nothing to do with it as there is absolutely nothing unusual and climate is completely well within natural variability. The other point was that CO2 does not cause warming.  I think that the data and science backs me up. I could post hundreds of links to scientific articles by credentialed people in support and when Obama was president over 31 thousand scientists signed and sent him a petition saying what I have just said but the media would not report that becuase it would ruin their narrative and agenda.
    So you and most people here don’t agree with me. OK, thats fine. I simply stated my take on the two above mentioned things and tried to give some reasons. How is that whining?  And logically, how could I present solutions to things I specifically said I do not consider problems. I was in essence debating the issue of problem or not and we’ll just have to disagree on the points in question
    As for that repeated question of “why are you here”, I find it peculiar. Does a person need a reason other than that he disagrees with something and is interested in expressing his truth. I spend a lot of time on blogs where I am in agreement with the prevailing messaging but rarely post. Why bother when everyone agrees with me and whatever I have to say has probably already been said.
    As for my posting here, I didn’t intend to come here on a crusade. After reading the article I was motivated to make a post and thought maybe there might be a follow-up post but then I got sucked into replies to responses I was getting. I guess I ruffled a few feathers.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 2:32am

    Reply to #108

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Think Ahead

    Snydeman wrote:

    Michael, I don’t think Grover is saying he either wishes nor welcomes the inevitable “Malthusian solution” so much as he doesn’t see any viable alternative that is likely to be enacted at the national or global level. Change is possible from the ground up, not the top down, and the die-off of a large portion of the human population is inevitable, given our species’ penchant for resisting change until it is fully upon us (a notion confirmed by everything I know of psychology and sociology). There are countless examples of people and civilizations ignoring the obvious threats on their doorsteps until those threats were in the living room eating on the couch, with their feet up on the coffee table no less. The best solution, then, seems to be at the local community level. I don’t want to read too much into Grover’s thoughts, but I think he is essentially saying that focus should be put into that rather than some kind of national movement to enact systemic change; the former is doable, while the latter is herculean in the best of times.

    Snydeman,
    You’ve succinctly summarised my thoughts. Thank You! What will come will come. We all know that the oil age can’t last forever, yet we’re reluctant to discuss the coarser consequences. That is an understandable shame.
    I remember Bill Clinton’s election mantra that it is all about the economy, stupid. The economy needs appropriate energy sources to function. Electricity can be generated using just about any energy source available; however, the machines that focus on a specific energy source can’t easily convert to another source – hydropower, nuclear, solar PV, etc. Imagine how effective shoveling coal into any system not designed to work with coal would actually function.
    Economically, we’re at a comfortable plateau. Things aren’t superb, but they are good enough for a large enough portion of the populace. Could it be better? (When couldn’t it be better?) That gives us the luxury of contemplating the 3rd “E” – the environment. I’m sure anyone reading this can imagine how much focus you’d give the environment if a depression hit and you were out of work and worried about providing the basic necessities for your family. It’s easy to take that for granted now in this time of plenty. In bad times, concerns over the environment would take a distant back seat.
    Hard times happen. The oil age will end. How will the average, unaware person respond? How will savvy politicians react? Wouldn’t it be smarter to just mothball the currently “unneeded” coal fired electrical plants rather than to completely dismantle them – just in case? Think ahead.
    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 3:47am

    #114
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Mainstream climate reseach is

    Mainstream climate reseach is massively funded by governments to the tune of billions of dollars a year. They give the output that is expected by their paymasters.

    The so-called skeptics receive nothing from government or big oil. They are honest scientists who speak out at great risks to their status and careers. The number one most visited climate blog in the world wattsupwiththat.com which deals with the climate issue depends entirely on small donations from readers. Similarly, the most visited site in Australia joannenova.com.au depends on private donations and from time to time is financially sqeezed into asking for money.

    Joanne Nova and her scientist husband who has several advanced degrees were actually employed by the Australian labour government and involved in inventorying CO2 output in Australia. They believed in CO2 caused warming and decided to research it to bolster their arguments against skeptics. What they found was the opposite of what they expected. Becuase of their present stated beliefs they are unemployable in government or acedemia.

    Anthony Watts is a California based meteorologist who was so convinced  by the meme that he organized tree planting efforts.  He too researched the issue to bolster arguments against the skeptics but after research flipped his opinion.

    The accusation of skeptics being funded by big oil is utterly false and is a propaganda smear device used by the warmists. The oil and gas industry actually gives money to environmental groups in what is known as “greenwashing”. They give money to avoid being specifically targeted. They also give money to anti-coal crusaders because if coal use is diminished you have diminished competition for natural gas power plants.

    And your perception of the role of media is compltely skewed. Where did most people get their belief in man-made global warming? The meme has been relentlessly pushed in the media as has been the push into renewable energy. Skeptics have been almost totally excluded or given token time  Outlets such as The LA Times a couple of years ago publically announced that they will not publish dissenting opinions on the issue even in the comments section. NBC just announced a couple of weeks ago something similar And that has been the policy of the BBC in Britain and the ABC in Australia. The media have been a tool in the forefront of aggressively pushing the meme for many years. If you didn’t first hear about it there then you first heard about it via the politicized curriculum in the schools.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 4:02am

    #115
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 224

    Increasingly desperate outliers

    First, many thanks to Doug for his analysis of Old Guy’s assertions. Well worth reading.

    Second, in OG’s post #72, he rubbishes the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s ACORN-SAT data series. In support of this stance he cites a single name, Jennifer Marohasny. Unknown to me.

    Wikipedia tells me that she trained as a biologist, not a meteorologist, and is associated with the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

    The IPA is a conservative, right-wing, privatise-everything, climate-change sceptical, free trade advocate. See Wikipedia. Get the picture?

    In 2017 she wrote a paper for GeoResJ denying climate change which has received strong criticism from reputable sources. As one example,

    Unexplained and selective use of proxy temperature records – only six were used and no reason was given for their choice,[3] when a recent paper showed that there are at least 692 available.[25] Their approach was criticised as “extremely unscientific” by Benjamin Henley of the University of Melbourne for making no attempt to compare their approach with actual temperature data. With results that are interpreted incorrectly and which do not support the conclusions, Henley stated that the paper should never have been published and should be withdrawn by the journal.[3] Henley made harsher comments directly to Marohasy on Twitter, describing the paper as “an absolute pile of rubbish” that “reads like a D-grade high school lab report and is utterly flawed.”[26]

    Read the Wikipedia article before it is disappeared.

    In my view the 3% of scientists who deny climate change represent an increasingly desperate set of outliers, some of whom appear to support the BAU crowd whose growthism would not be served by facing up to climate change reality.

    In support of the BoM, I trust my meteorologist. He is ethical and honest.

    On another website some months ago we had another denier whose M.O. was to ambush us with cherry-picked data series and observations. As one example, he adduced a data series from Rutgers University showing the depth of the snowpack somewhere in the US has increased over time. He made the mistake of giving its source. I went to the same database and found another data series which clearly showed that the duration of the snowpack has been decreasing over about the same time.

    I am bored with this fruitless debate. I will not respond any further.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 4:03am

    #116
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    research money

    If you say in your application for grant money that you will research the effects of increasing CO2 on declining butterfly populations, you will almost certainly get your money. But if you say you want to research the effects of rising CO2 on enhanced vegetative growth, receeding deserts, and improved animal habitats, you definitely will not get the money.

    Thats how it works.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 4:06am

    #117
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 869

    Wasting time

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 5:23am

    Reply to #109
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    Quote:  over 31 thousand

    Quote:

     over 31 thousand scientists signed and sent him a petition

    Link, please. I’d like to know more about that. My first question would be: scientists in what fields?


    Quote:

     I think that the data and science backs me up.

    I’d have accepted it if you had said that SOME data and science back you up.

    But to say that THE data and science back you up is flatly untrue.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 7:32am

    Reply to #109
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    OISM petition

    https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

    And, for a laugh, google OISM.  (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine)

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OI

    Founder: Arthur Robinson

    Quote:

    In his monthly newsletter “Access to Energy”, Robinson argues that nuclear radiation can be good for you, advocates for a revival of nuclear power, attacks climate science as a “false religion” that will enslave mankind, and condemns public education, instead favoring home schooling.[2] The institute also publishes material relating to civil defense and disaster preparedness.[21][24]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 7:34am

    Reply to #112
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    Since its Saturday morning and still cold outside

    I thought I would try to sort out some of Old Guy’s arguments.

    1.  Models – Yes its true that models are frequently wrong, in fact I would argue that they are almost always wrong at least to some extent.  However, they are useful.  When I think of models I always flash on hurricane track predictions we see on TV every time there is a hurricane somewhere.  The “spaghetti” models with the squiggly lines are a case in point.  Each squiggly line represents one model.  None of the individual models is ever entirely right.  There are continuing arguments about which is best, but all are wrong to varying degrees.

    It turns out, however, the National Hurricane Center invariably comes out with the most accurate predictions of the track of hurricanes.  That’s because they take all those wrong models and average them out.  That comes out to something like drawing a line right down the middle of those squiggly lines.

    https://www.postandcourier.com/news/european-hurricane-model-might-be-be

    Quote:

    Evidence is clear that the best strategy for using models is to average the different models together into one. Combining different predictions in this way tends to correct the errors present in each one.

    Strategies like this have been proven successful in other fields involving uncertainty and predictions. Consider electoral polling. Different polling organizations have better or worse track records but sites like Fivethirtyeight have been able to consistently outperform individual polls by combining all of them into one average.

    The NHC produces their forecasts using the data generated by models, and when they do they are able to consider how each model has performed in the past. This is why its forecasts are, overall, better than individual models.

    So, bottom line is that models are almost always wrong, but in the aggregate they can be very accurate.

    Contrary to the notion, often spread by denialists, that all climate science is based on models, the best evidence of climate change is observational data well represented by the picture Chris posted in his article.  For those, like myself, that like data illustrated in charts, graphs and pictures there are many that clearly demonstrate the progress of climate change my various metrics.  Here’s one:

    https://skepticalscience.com/Climate_Carbon_Bookkeeping.html

    1_Slide1.PNG

    I don’t have time to go into many more.

    2. Old Guy’s “authorities”.  All of the scientists he listed are, curiously but not surprisingly, among the very small number of climate scientists who make up the 3% who differ from the 97% “consensus” of climate scientists who agree that the climate is changing due to human activities.  That doesn’t make them wrong, just suspect.

    He specifically named Willie Soon, John Christy and the clown prince of climate denial “Lord” Christopher Monckton (He is not a Lord, nor does he have any scientific credentials).

    Willie Soon:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

    Quote:

    Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

    Quote:

    Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

    Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

    Quote:

    The names of a number of well-known contrarian academics also feature in the Peabody filings, including Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Soon has been funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel industry, receiving more than $1.2m from oil companies and utilities, but this was the first indication of Peabody funding.

    Soon and the Smithsonian did not respond to requests for comment.

    Again, Soon’s overwhelming dependence on fossil fuel money doesn’t make him wrong, just highly suspect

    John Christy:

    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-debunked-deniers-fave-ar

    Quote:

    Whenever they hold one of their frequent hearings to reject and deny established climatescience, congressional Republicans invariably trot out contrarian scientist John Christy, who disputes the accuracy of climate models. In doing so, Christy uses a cherry-picked, error riddled chart, but there’s a nugget of truth in his argument. Although the discrepancy isn’t nearly as large as Christy’s misleading chart suggests, atmospheric temperatures seem not to have warmed quite as fast since the turn of the century as climate model simulations anticipated they would.


    Quote:

    How you react to this information is a good test of whether you’re a skeptic or a denier. A denier will declare “aha, the models are wrong, therefore we don’t need any climatepolicies!” A skeptic will ask what’s causing the difference between the observational estimates and model simulations.

    There are many possible explanations. Maybe the tricky and often-adjusted estimates of the atmospheric temperature made by instruments on orbiting satellites are biased. Maybe there’s something wrong with the models, or our understanding of Earth’s atmosphere. Maybe the inputs used in the model simulations are flawed. The answer is likely a combination of these possibilities, but in congressional testimony earlier this year, Christy tried to place the blame entirely on the models, with a denier-style framing:

    the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions.

    Quote:

    New study tests and falsifies Christy’s assertions

    In a new study, a team climate scientists led by Ben Santer sought to answer this question. They effectively disproved Christy’s assertion that the discrepancy was due to models being too sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect. Instead, the main culprit seems to be incorrect inputs used in the climate model simulations.
     
    Quote:

    For example, were Christy right that models are too sensitive to rising greenhouse gases, they should be systematically wrong during the entire period for which we have observational data. On the contrary, aside from a small discrepancy in the late 20th century that can be explained by natural internal variability, Santer’s team showed that the difference between model simulations and observations only begins around 1998. A problem with model sensitivity would also show up in studies looking at global temperature changes in response to large volcanic eruptions, which create a big change in forcing and temperature. But those studies rule out the low climate sensitivities that Christy favors, and as Santer’s team notes:

    there are no large systematic model errors in tropospheric cooling following the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991.

    On the other hand, research has identified a number of real-world cooling influences in the early 21st century that weren’t accurately represented in the climate model simulation scenarios. The sun went into an unusually quiet cycle, there was a series of moderate volcanic eruptions, and the boom in Chinese coal power plants added sunlight-blocking pollution to the atmosphere. Using statistical tests, Santer’s team showed that those unexpected cooling effects combined with shifts in ocean cycles best explained the model-data discrepancy in atmospheric temperatures over the past 20 years.

    Quote:

    Christy has systematically pounded his thesis that tropospheric temperatures somehow disprove climate change.  He also systematically disregards surface temperatures, where temperatures really matter, that show steadily rising temperatures.

    SkepticsvRealists_180.gif

    Well, that’s all I have time for at the moment.  Perhaps I’ll pick up on some more of the BS presented by Old Guy in the future.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 12:27pm

    #118
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    By Tom Harris and Dr. Tim

    By Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball
    Headlines around the world are reporting exceptionally frigid conditions and unusually high levels of snowfall in recent weeks. They tout these events as records, but few people understand how short the record actually is — usually less than 50 years, a mere instant in Earth’s 4.6-billion year history. The reality is that, when viewed in a wider context, there is nothing unusual about current weather patterns.
    Despite this fact, the media — directly, indirectly, or by inference — often attribute the current weather to global warming. Yes, they now call it climate change. But that is because activists realized, around 2004, that the warming predicted by the computer models on which the scare is based was not actually happening. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continued to increase, but the temperature stopped increasing. So, the evidence no longer fit the theory. English biologist Thomas Huxley commented on this dilemma over a century ago:
    “The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
    Yet, the recent weather is a stark reminder that a colder world is a much greater threat than a warmer one. While governments plan for warming, all the indications are that the world is cooling. And, contrary to the proclamations of climate activists, every single year more people die from the cold than from the heat.
    A study in British medical journal The Lancet reached the following conclusion:
    Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.
    How did this bizarre situation develop? It was a deliberate, orchestrated deception. The results of the investigation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were deliberately premeditated to focus on the negative impacts of warming. In their original 1988 mandate from the UN, global warming is mentioned three times, while cooling is not mentioned even once. The UN notes that:
    [C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.
    This narrow focus was reinforced when the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a body the IPCC is required to support, defined climate change as being caused by human activity.
    When Is a Climate Model ‘Useful’?
    IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) produced the evidence that human-created CO2 was causing global warming. That finding became the premise for Working Group 2 (WG2), which examined the negative impact, and Working Group 3 (WG3), which proposed mitigation policies and actions to stop the warming. The IPCC did not follow the mandatory scientific method of allowing for the null hypothesis; namely, what to do if evidence shows CO2 is not causing warming.
    As MIT professor emeritus of atmospheric meteorology Richard Lindzen said, they reached a consensus before the research even began. The consensus “proved” the hypothesis was correct, regardless of the evidence. To reinforce the point, the UK government hired Lord Nicholas Stern, a British economist, to produce an economic review of the impact of warming. Instead of doing a normal cost/benefit analysis as any non-political economist would do, he produced what became known as the 2006 Stern Review — which only examined the cost.
    If Stern and the IPCC did a proper study, they would find that the impact of cooling is much more deleterious to all life on Earth, especially humans. Anthropologists tell us two great advances in human evolution gave us more control of the cold. Fire and clothing both created microclimates that allowed us to live in regions normally inaccessible. Consider the city of Winnipeg, with three technological umbilical cords: the electricity from the north, the gas from the west, and the water pipeline from the east. Three grenades set off at 2:00 a.m. on a January morning with temperatures of -30°C would render the city frozen solid within hours.
    Between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures went down. The consensus by 1970 was that global cooling was underway and would continue. Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling typified the alarmism:
    It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.
    Change the seventh word to warming, and it is the same threat heard today. The big difference is that cooling is a much greater threat. To support that claim, the CIA produced at least two reports examining the social and political unrest aggravated mainly by crop failure due to cooling conditions. The World Meteorological Organization also did several studies on the historical impact of cooling on selected agricultural regions, and projected further global cooling.
    The sad part about all this is that there was a strategy that governments could, and should, have adopted. It is called game theory, and it allows you to make the best decision in uncertain circumstances. It requires accurate information and the exclusion of a biased political agenda. The first accurate information is that cold is a greater threat and a more difficult adaptation than to warming. After all, if you prepare for warming, as most governments are now doing, and it cools, the problems are made ten times worse. However, if you prepare for cold and it warms, the adjustment is much easier.
    The current cold weather across much of the world should prompt us to re-examine climate realities — not the false, deceptive, and biased views created and promoted by deep state bureaucrats through their respective governments.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 12:51pm

    #119
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Terrifying climate

    Terrifying climate propaganda
    Irresponsible misuse of models
    Science differs from religion because theoretical claims have to be verified with observations. If model results can predict measurements in advance (which is quite different than explaining them afterwards!) then you can say the model validated and then apply it in practice. But if that is not the case, then you cannot sell the model as truth and using it in practice is irresponsible.
    Far more complicated than simple, linear CO2 relationship
    The current climate model (‘IPCC model’) systematically yields highly overstated predictions compared to measurements and can therefore not be used to form climate policy – especially if that policy results in extremely high costs and destabilises vital parts of the energy infrastructure.
    We are not just saying that. Already some of the most renowned scientists have preceded us (e.g. Freeman Dyson, Frederic Seitz, Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg), including Nobel Prize winners (e.g. Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin). They also argue that the earth’s climate is far too complicated to be explained by a simple one-dimensional CO2 relationship.
    Modern warming in large part natural

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 11:54am

    #120
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Jeffrey Foss, PhD Everyone

    Jeffrey Foss, PhD

    Everyone has heard the bad news. Imminent Climate Apocalypse (aka “global warming” and “climate change”) threatens humanity and planet with devastation, unless we abandon the use of fossil fuels.

    Far fewer people have heard the good news. The sun has just entered its Grand Minimum phase, and the Earth will gradually cool over the next few decades.

    Why should we all hope Earth will cool? Because nobody with any trace of human decency would hope the Earth will actually suffer catastrophic warming.

    Many of us believe in the threat of global warming, but live in the hope that we can switch to “renewable energy” before it is too late. But this is a false hope. Despite our best efforts over several decades, renewables such as wind and solar energy still meet only 2% of global energy needs, while hydro adds only 7% or so.

    So avoiding the alleged Climate/Global Warming Apocalypse by relying on renewable energy would require surviving on less than 10% of our current energy requirements. But that is impossible. It would also be really catastrophic: billions could die.

    Our global economy runs on energy, and over 80% of it is still fossil fuels, with nuclear and other non-renewables providing another 10%. If we switch to renewables tomorrow, 90% of our energy will be lost, and the global economy will sink like the Titanic. Keeping nuclear power would merely add a second lifeboat as the great ship sinks. Even if the energy loss were spread out over decades, the final result would still be the same.

    Humankind could not produce enough food, clothing and shelter. Jobs would vanish. Massive starvation, disease and death would result. Hard physical labor would once again become the norm. Even though life could be maintained for some portion of humanity, liberty and happiness would be lost.

    Let’s stop pretending. The prescribed cure for Climate Apocalypse is far worse than the purported disease. If we don’t use coal, oil and natural gas for energy, many of the 7 billion of us now alive must die. Those who survive will be impoverished and enslaved, toiling and scavenging for food by day, and fearing the darkness by night – except for the privileged few who still have money, energy and power.

    The sudden and dramatic growth of human life, liberty, and happiness since the industrial revolution was achieved by replacing muscle power with coal and oil power. Before that, Hillsdale College professor of history Burt Folsom points out, only the wealthy could afford whale oil and candles. Everyone else had to go to bed early, and often hungry, when the sun went down, sleeping to recover enough energy to work – only to repeat the daily cycle yet again. Freedom of thought and travel had little real worth when we were too tired to think or walk.

    The petroleum age saved whales from the brink of extinction – and brought cheap kerosene to the masses, so that they could read at night, bringing light into their lives and their brains.

    The premature switch to renewable energy recommended by the false prophets of Climate Apocalypse is really just one step in an industrial counter-revolution devoutly desired by those discontented with modern life in free market democracies – and ready to erase our hard-won prosperity and freedom.

    The Climate Apocalypse global warming bad news is rewarded by big money from the government and servile amplification from traditional big news media – while the good news of global cooling is silenced and unheard, stifled by both traditional media and most of today’s social media platforms.

    We should all be suspicious of the motives of those who push this bad news, and welcome those who push back. Dr. Willie Soon is one scientist, although by no means the only one, who has the courage to stand up to big money, big government, big (pseudo) science, big media and big environmentalism to spread the good news. It’s high time we all heard it.

    The good news from Dr. Soon and his fellow solar scientists is that the increase in global temperatures since 1800 was caused by two centuries of increasing solar output – not by human use of coal and oil.

    But then solar output began to fall around 2000, in a repetition of a well-known 200-year cycle of solar activity, and global warming stopped. That’s more good news that too few people know. The purveyors of Climate Apocalypse have no explanation for this two-decade failure of their prophecy, which fortunately for all of humanity shows the superiority of solar science over apocalyptic warming foretold by computer models, hysteria and headlines – but not by real-world evidence.

    Finally, solar science says we should expect steady but manageable global cooling until about mid-century, when solar activity will recover and temperatures begin to warm once again. Once again, this will be due to solar activity, and not to fossil fuels or carbon dioxide emissions.

    In the best news of all, that means humanity’s successful pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, and better living standards and healthcare needn’t be stopped by Climate Apocalypse – or its prescribed cure. The only thing we have to fear is the fear of Climate Apocalypse itself.

    Equally important, a warmer or cooler planet with more atmospheric CO2 and plentiful, reliable, affordable fossil fuel and nuclear energy would be infinitely preferable to a cooler planet with less CO2 and only expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind, solar and biofuel energy.

    At the very least, humankind has an historic opportunity to witness a crucial test between two scientific hypotheses of enormous consequence. The next decade or two will reveal whether Earth warms or cools.

    Surely all right-minded people must hope that it cools – and that the fear-mongering of imminent global warming apocalypse cools as well.

    I might add that no one should wish the current severe Chicago-style polar vortex cold on anyone. I extend my sympathies and prayers to all who are now suffering from the cold. But be of good cheer in the knowledge that this cold-snap at least puts the lie to vastly worse climate scare global warming stories.

    I also wouldn’t wish on anyone the “Green New Deal” energy reality of February 1, 2019 – when wind power provided 1.5% of the energy that kept lights on and homes warm in America’s Mid-Atlantic region, solar provided zero, and derided and despised coal, natural gas and nuclear power provided a whopping 93% or that energy! Imagine the cold, misery and death toll under 100% pseudo-renewable energy.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 12:05pm

    Reply to #109
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    http://www.petitionproject.or

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 1:13pm

    #121
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    There is a point to my last

    There is a point to my last few postings apart from the content itself. As I have said, I could post hundreds of such articles and in fact links to hundreds of scientific papers.
    But my point here is that most people would never be aware of this kind of material and the scientific support for it. The mainstream media does not reference it and in fact does everything it can to hide it. The prevailing power establishment players which own the media and governments are propagandizing and deceiving you. You have been and are being played. It is a reach by the power elite for more control of the economy, society and people’s lives and a quest for greater centralization of power.
    You have to go off of the mainstream information grid to get away from the gushing onslought of misinformation  to have any chance of glimpsing the truth. That applies to more than just climate issues.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 2:08pm

    Reply to #121

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    old guy wrote: You have to

    old guy wrote:

    You have to go off of the mainstream information grid to get away from the gushing onslought of misinformation  to have any chance of glimpsing the truth. That applies to more than just climate issues.

     
    I’m uncertain if you understand most of the people who visit this site. Mostly every single one of us questions and/or discounts most mainstream media on most things. But climate science is not on the mainstream media radar – they ignore most climate-related stories – because most of the mainstream media is owned by corporate interests that benefit from the public not knowing the full extent of the multiple crises we are facing. They talk about climate change, yes, but stop short of ever discussing things like ecosystem collapse, or what the future will hold if even half of what is predicted comes to pass.
     
    I’m still fascinated with the “deniers” claim that this is all just a cash cow for scientists…do you know how little the funding is for climate-related science when compared to, say, pharmaceuticals, defense, or BigAg GMO or pesticide research? Yet, as Doug points out, almost every single climate denying scientist is backed in some way or shape by energy industry money. You don’t find that worth questioning, Old Guy? Then you tell us we’re being played?
     
    Dude, mirror. Check it.
     
    And you certainly have a right to be here, and a right to post what you believe. That isn’t in doubt. However, as you seem unwilling to do anything but try to hammer home your own point of view without directly answering or engaging in the valid criticisms/rebuttals others are making to your posts, most members have probably tuned you out by now. You gotta be willing to listen to others if you want them to listen to you. It doesn’t help your case when you make patently untrue statements such as “all the new science supports my point of view,” especially when it takes all of about five minutes of internet research to invalidate such a statement. Maybe use some mitigating words so you don’t paint yourself into a corner?
     
    So, let me ask you directly: What does the future hold in your point of view?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 2:13pm

    Reply to #112

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Hockey Sticks

    From Doug’s post:
    1_Slide1.PNG
    From: https://rebirthofthecool.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/7-billion-people/
    human-population-growth.jpg
    From https://www.capsweb.org/blog/continuing-human-population-growth-overwhelming-wiping-out-world-wildlife
    Graph of population growth and animal extinction
    Doug,
    Do you see any similarities in the graphs? (There are many more similar graphs out there.) I’m sure you can figure out which one is the cause and which are the consequences. Why do you still think that fighting a symptom is the best approach? Nature will fix the problem all on her own.
    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 2:20pm

    Reply to #120
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    Dr Foss

    Has a PhD in philosophy, no scientific training or experience as far as I can tell.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 2:22pm

    Reply to #120
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    Dup

    Dup

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 4:08pm

    Reply to #114
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 224

    Private Funding OK,

    Wikipedia, article on Marohasny:

    The Institute [of Public Affairs] received a $40,000 donation from Murray Irrigation Limited at that time.[8] This paper is quoted in the Interim Report of the Inquiry into future water supplies for Australia’s rural industries and communities of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, March 2004. …
    Marohasy was instrumental in establishing a joint programme with the Institute of Public Affairs and the University of Queensland, funded by Western Australian philanthropist, Bryant Macfie (A top 20 Shareholder in Strike Resources Limited [1] [2]).[10][11]

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 4:08pm

    #122
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 869

    Steaming

    am steaming fish and brussel sprouts. This year has produced so many sprouts that my Cambodian neighbors kids are shooting them in their sling shots. I am actually tired of ‘em.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 4:33pm

    Reply to #122

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    robie robinson wrote: am

    robie robinson wrote:

    am steaming fish and brussel sprouts. This year has produced so many sprouts that my Cambodian neighbors kids are shooting them in their sling shots. I am actually tired of ‘em.

     
    We get these irritating white moths that eat away at the leaves of ours. Haven’t had a signle one sprout. =(
     
    Any solutions you’d recommend?
     
    -s
     
    PS- Now this is a conversation worth having.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 4:33pm

    Reply to #115
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    So you are recommending

    So you are recommending Wikipedia. Do you know that for years the climate section was controlled by a green party activist working in co-ordination with the IPCC people. He expunged entries, edited and changed entries and excluded entries. He was a gatekeeper that ensured that only “correct” information got in. He was finally outed but I believe the process continues.
    His name is William Connolley
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-on

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 5:00pm

    Reply to #115
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Old Guy

    Are you on the payroll of the Heartland Institute?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 5:10pm

    Reply to #120
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    Muddled thinking

    Quote:

     If we don’t use coal, oil and natural gas for energy, many of the 7 billion of us now alive must die.

    So … we keep burning …and keep burning … and then what?

    Quote:

     The premature switch to renewable energy recommended by the false prophets

    Premature? When will it be time, d’ya think? If not now, when?

    Quote:

     The Climate Apocalypse global warming bad news is rewarded by big money from the government and servile amplification from traditional big news media – while the good news of global cooling is silenced and unheard, stifled by both traditional media and most of today’s social media platforms.

     

    Quote:

     If Stern and the IPCC did a proper study, they would find that the impact of cooling is much more deleterious to all life on Earth, especially humans.

    Um, Old Guy, which is it?
    ========================
    Muddled drinks can be a pleasure; muddled thinking not so much.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 5:18pm

    Reply to #122
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 869

    Spinosad

    Works wonders on those pestilential pests. Don’t use it my self as my fall cole crops grow in raw draft horse manure, ie. they out grow the moths. The spring crops suffer more in my zone 7b. Then…”Katy please bar the door!”
    robie,husband,gardener,father,gardener,farmer,gardener,optometrist,gardener

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 5:25pm

    #123

    dtrammel

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2011

    Posts: 20

    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/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Feb 02, 2019 - 11:05pm

    #124
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    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.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 03, 2019 - 12:18am

    #125
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    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-

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 03, 2019 - 12:40am

    #126
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Am I on the payroll of the

    Am I on the payroll of the heartland institute?
    No, I am a libertarian, not a conservative.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 03, 2019 - 6:35am

    Reply to #116

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 03, 2019 - 7:02am

    #127

    fionnbharr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 27 2012

    Posts: 63

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 03, 2019 - 10:06am

    #128

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 03, 2019 - 10:50am

    #129

    New_Life

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2011

    Posts: 185

    Oldie but a goodie

    This one is for Old Guy

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 03, 2019 - 2:43pm

    #130
    Dini

    Dini

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 23 2008

    Posts: 5

    Dilbert

    Have a laugh here

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Feb 04, 2019 - 11:34am

    #131

    Boomer41

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 30 2008

    Posts: 109

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Feb 05, 2019 - 8:09pm

    #132

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    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 
    she is only looking at the geophysical aspect without considering the human aspect, 
    she doesn’t know that of which she speaks, or
    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Feb 05, 2019 - 11:05pm

    #133

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Remember Him

     


    The Cstastropic Consequences of a Nuclear AI


    Peak Prosperity Interview
    AKGrannyWGrit
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Feb 06, 2019 - 3:31am

    Reply to #132
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Feb 06, 2019 - 8:11am

    #134

    jeantheau

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 01 2009

    Posts: 10

    oil prices/profits vs. net energy

    AKGrannyWGrit  posted:
    <>
    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.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Feb 06, 2019 - 10:21am

    #135
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Feb 06, 2019 - 3:42pm

    Reply to #132

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Feb 06, 2019 - 4:06pm

    Reply to #132
    Nate

    Nate

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 05 2009

    Posts: 321

    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?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Feb 06, 2019 - 5:40pm

    Reply to #132
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    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.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 12:07am

    Reply to #132

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 1:58am

    #136
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 5:37am

    #137

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Online)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1917

    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.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 5:40am

    #138

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 6:06am

    Reply to #137

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 6:13am

    Reply to #137

    Snydeman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2013

    Posts: 505

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 7:53am

    Reply to #138

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 8:13am

    Reply to #137
    brushhog

    brushhog

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 06 2015

    Posts: 53

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 8:46am

    Reply to #137

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 9:17am

    Reply to #137
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 9:56am

    #139
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 9:59am

    #140
    ecb

    ecb

    Status Member (Online)

    Joined: Apr 07 2012

    Posts: 20

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 1:03pm

    #141
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 1:46pm

    #142
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    sea level 12 ft. higher 6000 years ago

    http://notrickszone.com/2019/02/07/oyster-evidence-affirm-sea-levels-wer

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 1:53pm

    #143

    fionnbharr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 27 2012

    Posts: 63

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 2:21pm

    Reply to #136

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 3:04pm

    Reply to #138

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    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”.

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 3:08pm

    #144

    fionnbharr

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 27 2012

    Posts: 63

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 3:33pm

    Reply to #138

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 860

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 4:17pm

    Reply to #136
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 4:24pm

    Reply to #137

    Mots

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 67

    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.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 6:53pm

    Reply to #137

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1085

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Feb 07, 2019 - 8:58pm

    #145

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3150

    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.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 10:50am

    #146

    Matt Holbert

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 03 2008

    Posts: 73

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 1:18pm

    Reply to #144

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 1:31pm

    #147

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 2:01pm

    #148

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Online)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1917

    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.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 3:44pm

    #149

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Online)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1917

    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:

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 5:02pm

    #150

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 120

    Climate Action Tracker

    https://climateactiontracker.org

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 8:24pm

    Reply to #146

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1085

    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. 
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Feb 08, 2019 - 11:10pm

    Reply to #147
    Yoxa

    Yoxa

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 20 2011

    Posts: 286

    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.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 10, 2019 - 2:21am

    #151

    New_Life

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2011

    Posts: 185

    Outstaying our welcome...

    https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/theres-a-danger-of-losing-our-tenure-on

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 10, 2019 - 2:40am

    #152

    New_Life

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2011

    Posts: 185

    Climate Change Denial & The 3 "M"s

    Chris might especially appreciate the 3 Ms concept, I feel it resonates strongly with how he delivers the three “E”s
    https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/whats-behind-denialism/p06qtycg

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 10, 2019 - 10:51am

    #153

    New_Life

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2011

    Posts: 185

    Plummeting insect numbers..

    Just echoing what Chris has been saying for months…
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-nu

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 10, 2019 - 2:28pm

    #154
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Australian temps

    Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been caught red handed erasing record-breaking cold temperatures from its data records.
    The BOM has now been shamed by media investigations into ordering a review of its procedures. But it has yet to provide an explanation as to why it made these “adjustments” first place.
    These “adjustments” seem to go only one way. The BOM is perfectly happy to record and announce it whenever Australia’s temperatures hit record-breaking highs. But when the temperatures reach new lows it’s a different matter altogether.
    For some strange reason that the BOM has been unable to explain, when temperatures go below a certain point it either deletes them as if they had never been – or it enters them into its records at higher temperature than the one actually recorded by its thermometers.
    The dodgy adjustments were spotted by investigative journalist Jennifer Marohasy.
    Earlier this month, she was contacted by bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon who had noticed that Goulburn, a town south west of Sydney, had smashed its temperature record with a low of -10.4 degrees Celsius.
    Except, the Bureau has since erased this measurement.
    According to the Bureau’s own rules, the coldest temperature record during a 24-hour period to 9am is recorded as the minimum for that day. So, for Sunday 2 July the carry-over minimum should be -10.4 degrees Celsius. But instead the summary documentation shows -10.0. There is now no public record of -10.4 degrees Celsius.
    This is not the first time the BOM has been accused of behaving more like a political activist organization than a scientific one. On every occasion, instead of fessing up to its dodgy antics, it has hidden behind a wall of bluster and pretend-scientific authority.
    For example, against the principles of robust science, i t refuses to allow its data to be audited independently – or to discuss why or how it makes its temperature adjustments.
    As The Australian notes in a paywalled editorial, these unexplained adjustments are no way to inspire confidence among a taxpaying public which has to fund the BOM to the tune of an annual 365.3 million (2015/16 figures).
    That adjustment process, known as homogenisation, has got the bureau in trouble in the past. Again, the issue has been one of transparency. The bureau has made a series of changes to historical records across the country. It says it does so to adjust for the movement of a weather station site, changes to surrounding vegetation or results that look wrong when compared with nearby sites. Such homogenisation is not unique to Australia but the bureau sometimes fails to convince when asked to explain the specific local adjustments it has made, especially if these bolster a warming trend. The same goes for any practices that discount cold temperatures.
    The official record must be accurate and trusted. Otherwise, claims of historic extremes – the hottest winter day! – only mislead and public policy gets corrupted. Even if the bureau does have all the answers, it needs to do a better job of taking the public – sceptics included – into its confidence.
    The same is true, of course, in the US where organizations like NASA and NOAA have also been caught red-handed making adjustments to their own temperature data sets, none of these convincingly explained.
    But this scandal is not as widely known as it should be, largely because it goes virtually unreported in the liberal-dominated mainstream media.
    https://www.tapwires.com/2017/08/02/fraud-australias-bureau-of-meteorolo

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 10, 2019 - 2:40pm

    #155
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    Dead fish and birds in Australia

    As for dead fish — plenty of those in 1932.
    Dead fish, dead birds, and even a dead baby. The mercury hit 120F in Collarenebri. (That’s 50C).
    You know it must be climate change when things are almost at hot and deadly 87 years later.
    Mass fish and bird deaths in 1932 prove climate change was something that happened all the time.
    The Uralla Times, Feb 1, 1932
    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/climate-change-is-real-because-we-are-s

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Feb 10, 2019 - 9:06pm

    #156
    old guy

    old guy

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 16 2018

    Posts: 0

    61% of temperature data is

    61% of temperature data is not measured data but estimated via computer models.
    https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/61-of-noaa-ushcn-adjusted-tempera

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments