Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 3:26:40 GMT -5
Thanks about the video. I can't watch it to be honest. I couldn't watch it when it came out and I couldn't watch it last night. I just uncontrollably sob. I don't have the luxury of being numb to it all. I just wanted to say that although I have never seen any 'official' research it is said that the coral reefs around Cuba are relatively untouched. Ironically, perhaps, although I had kept up with the general news about this issue, it didn't dawn on me until about 2 years ago that the global warming I thought would be noticeable in the future is here and now. Over the last 5 years the storm, wind, and rain events have exceeded anything we've had in the last 25 years and cost our insurance company and ourselves at least $75,000 in repairs. 2 years ago, after about the third flood event and second major straight-line wind event, I suddenly realized that I've been dealing with the effects of global warming for at least the last five years. That's when i began to pay closer attention to the news (from all over the world) and also to start reading lots of books on this subject. We are now changing both our commercial and residential construction materials and techniques to reduce the potential from future damages. In the past we always installed the economical 3-tab shingles, but they blow off at about 70 mph straight line windspeeds. The heavier 1 tab textured shingles cost more, but they have wind resistance up to about 120 mph. We're also strapping down the wall plates with steel bands and connectors like they use in hurricane areas, so that framed walls will be under compression and offer more wind resistance. It goes without saying that we no longer consider buying any property that is low lying or capable of being affected by 1000 year floods. We're also currently designing a home that will be fireproof except for the roofing, and we're planning on installing sprinkler pipes on the ridges of the roof to keep the roof wet in the event of a area fire. Attenborough has been on the front lines of climate change for at least three decades or more, and he understands what's happening because he's been watching it and documenting it. Insect and amphibian populations are disappearing and half of all vertebrate species have disappeared in the last fifty years. The more I read about this issue the more serious it appears to be. The Paris Accord hoped to limit warming to 2 degrees celsius by 2100, but it's now obvious that it will be virtually impossible to do that. We could easily hit 4 degrees by then, or even higher, and the effect of that would be catastrophic. Yeah, I hear ya. We could say that the children that are leaving school to protest and make awareness greater, have been living with climate change their whole lives. Yeah, weather patterns are undoubtedly accelerated now. Extremes are now regular and those that are unprotected by modern cities would be wise to do the kind of redesigning that you're doing. Yeah I don't know where we would be without David Attenborough. He's 93 and was still down at the Glastonbury festival this weekend talking to the people. If people don't see the changes then they don't know about them and can't care. We write constantly here about only believing in direct experience and what's happening in 'the' now. And, the majority of people will only know their days getting warmer and their rains getting heavier. And that's good, real good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 5:29:09 GMT -5
Fundamentalism in religion from my view is akin to ideological fanaticism in politics. Ideology has never solved a problem.. The difficulty is not that market capitalism is bad or good. The problems start when it becomes a subject of fanatical worship. The same can be said for socialism. Ideological baggage is the greatest impediment to problem solving in our liberal democracies. I see market capitalism as intrinsically devastating (I think we are in the late stages now, after thousands of years). In the beginning there was a person with an apple, and someone approached that person and asked for the apple. Person 1 said 'no'. So person 2 went away and found an orange and asked for a trade. Person 1 thinks and says 'no'. Person 2 goes away and finds 2 oranges and asks for a trade. Person one then says 'yes'. That's capitalism. It's just 'consciously considered trading'. By the way, the simpleness of the example there isn't meant to be patronizing, it's just that I see capitalism as very simple, so a simple example suffices. 'Trading' is never spontaneous, it's measured and rational. The way forward for humans is this - and this only works in a technologically and spiritually evolved society. Person 1 has an apple. Person 2 asks for the apple. Person 1 says 'yes'. End of story. It's a system based on unconditional giving and irrationality. We create and innovate out of joy, love and inspiration. We give freely. No trading. No profit. No accumulating. No need for a state to regulate and monitor. The closest I have seen to this is called 'compassionate anarchy', but what I am suggesting is beyond abstraction and ideology. It's actually just the law of attraction in action, but with no thought of the law of attraction. In the context of today's society, I am more socialist than neoliberal, though I am a confusing one, because I don't actually like state intervention and mandates. In some ways I am libertarian. But free health care and free education is still currently more evolved (in my eyes obviously) than privatized health care and education. I don't believe that either the US or the UK are 'democracies', I would say they are closer to being oligarchies or plutarchies. In fact, 'democracy' even at its best, is an illusion (and dishonest). Ultimately these oligarchies/plutarchies have to be destroyed. I like AOC. But I know conspiracy theorists that don't. It's a VERY confusing time to be a conspiracy theorist. Where did 'Person 1' get their apple from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 5:47:58 GMT -5
I see market capitalism as intrinsically devastating (I think we are in the late stages now, after thousands of years). In the beginning there was a person with an apple, and someone approached that person and asked for the apple. Person 1 said 'no'. So person 2 went away and found an orange and asked for a trade. Person 1 thinks and says 'no'. Person 2 goes away and finds 2 oranges and asks for a trade. Person one then says 'yes'. That's capitalism. It's just 'consciously considered trading'. By the way, the simpleness of the example there isn't meant to be patronizing, it's just that I see capitalism as very simple, so a simple example suffices. 'Trading' is never spontaneous, it's measured and rational. The way forward for humans is this - and this only works in a technologically and spiritually evolved society. Person 1 has an apple. Person 2 asks for the apple. Person 1 says 'yes'. End of story. It's a system based on unconditional giving and irrationality. We create and innovate out of joy, love and inspiration. We give freely. No trading. No profit. No accumulating. No need for a state to regulate and monitor. The closest I have seen to this is called 'compassionate anarchy', but what I am suggesting is beyond abstraction and ideology. It's actually just the law of attraction in action, but with no thought of the law of attraction. Saying "no" is just as much a part of the flow of life as "yes". You need both. Think of a tree not folding over in the wind. Have you interacted with human parasites and predators who would eat you alive if not for your ability to give a high quality "no" and/or walk away? I'm sure you know this, but I wish there were a short easy substitute for "free" that was accurate. Something like "tax funded". I wrote a painfully large check to the US Treasury (and my state's treasury) in April of this year. Being self employed means you don't have taxes withdrawn, and you see more tangibly the enormous cost of all the "free" stuff, so the word "free" irks me.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2019 8:03:28 GMT -5
I see market capitalism as intrinsically devastating (I think we are in the late stages now, after thousands of years). In the beginning there was a person with an apple, and someone approached that person and asked for the apple. Person 1 said 'no'. So person 2 went away and found an orange and asked for a trade. Person 1 thinks and says 'no'. Person 2 goes away and finds 2 oranges and asks for a trade. Person one then says 'yes'. That's capitalism. It's just 'consciously considered trading'. By the way, the simpleness of the example there isn't meant to be patronizing, it's just that I see capitalism as very simple, so a simple example suffices. 'Trading' is never spontaneous, it's measured and rational. The way forward for humans is this - and this only works in a technologically and spiritually evolved society. Person 1 has an apple. Person 2 asks for the apple. Person 1 says 'yes'. End of story. It's a system based on unconditional giving and irrationality. We create and innovate out of joy, love and inspiration. We give freely. No trading. No profit. No accumulating. No need for a state to regulate and monitor. The closest I have seen to this is called 'compassionate anarchy', but what I am suggesting is beyond abstraction and ideology. It's actually just the law of attraction in action, but with no thought of the law of attraction. In the context of today's society, I am more socialist than neoliberal, though I am a confusing one, because I don't actually like state intervention and mandates. In some ways I am libertarian. But free health care and free education is still currently more evolved (in my eyes obviously) than privatized health care and education. I don't believe that either the US or the UK are 'democracies', I would say they are closer to being oligarchies or plutarchies. In fact, 'democracy' even at its best, is an illusion (and dishonest). Ultimately these oligarchies/plutarchies have to be destroyed. I like AOC. But I know conspiracy theorists that don't. It's a VERY confusing time to be a conspiracy theorist. Where did 'Person 1' get their apple from? Obvious answer i.e setting aside technological advancements which could include food replicators or some such thing...the tree gave it to him/her.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2019 8:14:20 GMT -5
I see market capitalism as intrinsically devastating (I think we are in the late stages now, after thousands of years). In the beginning there was a person with an apple, and someone approached that person and asked for the apple. Person 1 said 'no'. So person 2 went away and found an orange and asked for a trade. Person 1 thinks and says 'no'. Person 2 goes away and finds 2 oranges and asks for a trade. Person one then says 'yes'. That's capitalism. It's just 'consciously considered trading'. By the way, the simpleness of the example there isn't meant to be patronizing, it's just that I see capitalism as very simple, so a simple example suffices. 'Trading' is never spontaneous, it's measured and rational. The way forward for humans is this - and this only works in a technologically and spiritually evolved society. Person 1 has an apple. Person 2 asks for the apple. Person 1 says 'yes'. End of story. It's a system based on unconditional giving and irrationality. We create and innovate out of joy, love and inspiration. We give freely. No trading. No profit. No accumulating. No need for a state to regulate and monitor. The closest I have seen to this is called 'compassionate anarchy', but what I am suggesting is beyond abstraction and ideology. It's actually just the law of attraction in action, but with no thought of the law of attraction. Saying "no" is just as much a part of the flow of life as "yes". You need both. Â Think of a tree not folding over in the wind. Have you interacted with human parasites and predators who would eat you alive if not for your ability to give a high quality "no" and/or walk away? I'm sure you know this, but I wish there were a short easy substitute for "free" that was accurate. Something like "tax funded". I wrote a painfully large check to the US Treasury (and my state's treasury) in April of this year. Being self employed means you don't have taxes withdrawn, and you see more tangibly the enormous cost of all the "free" stuff, so the word "free" irks me. Â Sure, I've had plenty of practice at saying 'No' lol. It is something I really had to learn to do, I only began to be okay with it in my 20s. But in the kind of future society I'm talking about, I doubt parasites and predators would be an issue for us. I know you gave it as an example, but what I'm suggesting is that while the capacity to say a healthy 'No' remains part of who we are, we just wouldn't need it, because there's no longer any advantage sought over one another, or over any life form. 'Survival of the fittest' no longer applies. What did Jesus say...something about the lion and the lamb laying together? Obviously we are nowhere hear that right now, but it actually wouldn't be as big a leap as it could seem. Yeah, I do understand why 'free' could be irritating. It was a poor choice of word on my part. Taxes aren't ideal in my view, as I said, there's a libertarianism to my view. An anarchy even. But in the context of where we are today, personally I would tax the absolute hell out of the 0.01 per cent, and tax the hell out of the 0.1 percent. Tax brackets. And basically leave the middle class (and below) alone. As I said, I think our society is oligarchic, so I would address it at that level. If it was just my choice
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2019 8:34:58 GMT -5
Now, of course, 1860 was only 44 years after the " year without a summer". I'm definitely no denier, but my perception on the media reporting is directly opposite yours. I never broke the evening news habit, and all the big three networks routinely devote coverage nowadays to wildfires out west, the flooding in the Midwestern river valleys, tornado alley spikes, hurricane season and summer heat waves. Yes, Fox ignores it (relevant because of their outsized share of viewership), but if you compare this coverage to even 15 years ago, or certainly go back 20-25+, the weather was never covered nearly as much on those broadcasts or in the major print publications as it is now. After I saw "Inconvenient Truth" I got interested in the topics of polar ice, and the northwest and northeast passages. What I've kept my eye on over these years tells an interesting counter-point to the climate change predictions -- which are primarily the results of computer simulations. Now, your anecdotal evidence about the flooding and wind damage is new and I find it interesting. I've got an open, skeptical mind to either "side" of the "debate", and of course can't be blind to the scientific consensus .. but once the skeptical criticism is withdrawn, it ain't science no more, and history is riddled with refuted scientific consensus. With Milankovitch cycles, Maunder minimums and volcoano's (oh my!) .. on top of the complexity of the atmosphere, a good long-range prediction is a daunting technical challenge for the software simulators. (yes I understand that those are in geologic time while the man-made CO2 is the blink of an eye). Are you familiar with this point that the marginal efficacy of CO 2 as a greenhouse gas reduces as a function of concentration in the atmosphere? While I'm aware of the apparent impacts of sea-level rise on some of the Pacific Island natives (which is a harrowing story), the local honey around here is still quite tasty and abundant, and I wish you'd tell the Adirondack flies, midges and mosquitoes about this insect apocalypse deal. Anecdotes are, after all anecdotes, and the latest one the denier's are snickering about is this one. I'm familiar with ALL of that, but none of that refutes the CO2 levels calculated via ice corings showing the oscillation of ppm between 150 and 250 for almost 3 million years, and both the rapid increase and rate of increase over the last thirty years to the current level of 426 ppm. Methane is far worse than CO2 in its effects and the levels of methane increase are also increasing. The orbit of the earth, itself, has affected global temps in the past and will continue to affect temps in the future as will volcanic activity, but the reason that scientists have renamed this period of time the "Anthopocene Epoch" is in recognition of the fact that humans are now a geological force that is changing the climate and obliterating other species on a massive scale. As a scientist, I'm aware of the shallowness of anecdotal evidence, but when it's in your face and also corroborated by countless studies, it gets harder to ignore. As an example, I had noticed that I never have to clean bugs off my windshield after making trips on interstate highways as I did in the past. It turns out that there's a reason for that, and the NYT ran an article titled "The Insect Apocalypse" that explains what I was noticing. If you haven't read it, please pull it up and take a gander. It's another sobering issue that parallels the demise of countless amphibians. To get an even better sense of what's happening worldwide I suggest reading "The Sixth Extinction" or "Falter." Yes, I read about the signage that was removed from Glacier National Park, which was good for a quick laugh, but consider the fact that in the last century the number of glaciers in that particular park have fallen by half. When I first hiked mountains in Colorado 50 years ago, there were several glaciers still there. 20 years ago I hiked up to what was left of the Isabelle Glacier in the Indian Peaks Wilderness northwest of Denver, and it was just a smear of blue ice only a few hundred yards long. I've been told that today it has totally disappeared, and I don;t know of one active glacier left in Colorado. It also isn't anecdotal that the ph of the ocean has measurably dropped in the last thirty years, and it takes a lot of CO2 absorption to do that. As I've said before, I'm a co*keyed optimist about almost everything, but this is one issue that I can't feel much optimism about. There are several documentaries besides the one that Sharon posted about what's happening to our fellow species on earth that are heartbreaking, and the rate at which they're now disappearing is mind-boggling. Amazingly, we have the technology to suck carbon out of the air, but it would require an effort on the scale of a Marshall Plan to implement, and there are many powerful industries that would resist any such effort, and who have funded scientists to promote denial in the same way that the cigarette companies for many years funded scientists to deny that cigarettes were a health hazard. Of course, from the standpoint of ND, this is just "what is," and it may explain why we haven't picked up any signals from life on other planets. This, along with the possibility of nuclear annihilation, may be the filter that ends intelligent life when it evolves to the level of industrial development and beyond. The insect thing is of interest, yes, of course I was joking. As far as the social forces go, it's true that there's big fossil-fuel industry money with an interest in biasing the narrative. But I'd say the more powerful force against change is a simple everyday-dude's: "what? this now? oh, for f#cks sake!" And you can't tell me that with the 100's of billions of dollars seeking alpha that there aren't hundreds (if not thousands) of powerful people salivating at the thought of tearing up and then rebuilding the energy sector from the top-down -- that's already pretty evident as it is, and would follow the same pattern that led to the monstrosity that is Alphabet: don't wait for the new Carnegie or Rockefeller to show up, START with the monopoly by crushing the competition before it can even emerge. And the social consensus among educated people is that anthropomorphic climate change is real and will be catastrophic. What worries me is that another facet of that consensus is that the size of the world population needs to be controlled. Not that I disagree with that outlook entirely, but social crusaders working toward a goal of a greater good that's contrary to the economic well-being of the average Joe have the potential to be the cause of some major suffering. Is it really true that all the coastal areas are going to flood out in the time frame the simulations predict? Is it really true that there's measurably more energy in the hurricane season every year? Is it really true that the northwest and northeast passages are going to be economically viable shipping alternatives to the longer tropical routes? Since we created this problem over the course of a few hundred years, what would be the overall cost, in human terms, of a crash course off fossil fuels that took 5-10 years instead of gradually planning for it over 20-40, and what would be the marginal benefit to mitigating climate change to doing it faster and who would be the segments of the population that would suffer most by doing it faster?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 3, 2019 8:41:37 GMT -5
I see market capitalism as intrinsically devastating (I think we are in the late stages now, after thousands of years). In the beginning there was a person with an apple, and someone approached that person and asked for the apple. Person 1 said 'no'. So person 2 went away and found an orange and asked for a trade. Person 1 thinks and says 'no'. Person 2 goes away and finds 2 oranges and asks for a trade. Person one then says 'yes'. That's capitalism. It's just 'consciously considered trading'. By the way, the simpleness of the example there isn't meant to be patronizing, it's just that I see capitalism as very simple, so a simple example suffices. 'Trading' is never spontaneous, it's measured and rational. The way forward for humans is this - and this only works in a technologically and spiritually evolved society. Person 1 has an apple. Person 2 asks for the apple. Person 1 says 'yes'. End of story. It's a system based on unconditional giving and irrationality. We create and innovate out of joy, love and inspiration. We give freely. No trading. No profit. No accumulating. No need for a state to regulate and monitor. The closest I have seen to this is called 'compassionate anarchy', but what I am suggesting is beyond abstraction and ideology. It's actually just the law of attraction in action, but with no thought of the law of attraction. Saying "no" is just as much a part of the flow of life as "yes". You need both. Think of a tree not folding over in the wind. Have you interacted with human parasites and predators who would eat you alive if not for your ability to give a high quality "no" and/or walk away? I'm sure you know this, but I wish there were a short easy substitute for "free" that was accurate. Something like "tax funded". I wrote a painfully large check to the US Treasury (and my state's treasury) in April of this year. Being self employed means you don't have taxes withdrawn, and you see more tangibly the enormous cost of all the "free" stuff, so the word "free" irks me. You want to know the cost of free? Try to find a decent UML editor. They're all open source. And, they all suck. I'd gladly pay for one that works, but who's gonna' try to make money doing that now days?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2019 9:09:24 GMT -5
Now, of course, 1860 was only 44 years after the " year without a summer". I'm definitely no denier, but my perception on the media reporting is directly opposite yours. I never broke the evening news habit, and all the big three networks routinely devote coverage nowadays to wildfires out west, the flooding in the Midwestern river valleys, tornado alley spikes, hurricane season and summer heat waves. Yes, Fox ignores it (relevant because of their outsized share of viewership), but if you compare this coverage to even 15 years ago, or certainly go back 20-25+, the weather was never covered nearly as much on those broadcasts or in the major print publications as it is now. After I saw "Inconvenient Truth" I got interested in the topics of polar ice, and the northwest and northeast passages. What I've kept my eye on over these years tells an interesting counter-point to the climate change predictions -- which are primarily the results of computer simulations. Now, your anecdotal evidence about the flooding and wind damage is new and I find it interesting. I've got an open, skeptical mind to either "side" of the "debate", and of course can't be blind to the scientific consensus .. but once the skeptical criticism is withdrawn, it ain't science no more, and history is riddled with refuted scientific consensus. With Milankovitch cycles, Maunder minimums and volcoano's (oh my!) .. on top of the complexity of the atmosphere, a good long-range prediction is a daunting technical challenge for the software simulators. (yes I understand that those are in geologic time while the man-made CO2 is the blink of an eye). Are you familiar with this point that the marginal efficacy of CO 2 as a greenhouse gas reduces as a function of concentration in the atmosphere? While I'm aware of the apparent impacts of sea-level rise on some of the Pacific Island natives (which is a harrowing story), the local honey around here is still quite tasty and abundant, and I wish you'd tell the Adirondack flies, midges and mosquitoes about this insect apocalypse deal. Anecdotes are, after all anecdotes, and the latest one the denier's are snickering about is this one. Of course, from the standpoint of ND, this is just "what is," and it may explain why we haven't picked up any signals from life on other planets. This, along with the possibility of nuclear annihilation, may be the filter that ends intelligent life when it evolves to the level of industrial development and beyond. Interesting docu on Netflix at the moment called 'Unacknowledged', that could be worth a watch. Especially given the calibre of some of the people's testimonies, I think it's unlikely that we haven't been in contact with other civilizations.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 3, 2019 9:51:18 GMT -5
I'm familiar with ALL of that, but none of that refutes the CO2 levels calculated via ice corings showing the oscillation of ppm between 150 and 250 for almost 3 million years, and both the rapid increase and rate of increase over the last thirty years to the current level of 426 ppm. Methane is far worse than CO2 in its effects and the levels of methane increase are also increasing. The orbit of the earth, itself, has affected global temps in the past and will continue to affect temps in the future as will volcanic activity, but the reason that scientists have renamed this period of time the "Anthopocene Epoch" is in recognition of the fact that humans are now a geological force that is changing the climate and obliterating other species on a massive scale. As a scientist, I'm aware of the shallowness of anecdotal evidence, but when it's in your face and also corroborated by countless studies, it gets harder to ignore. As an example, I had noticed that I never have to clean bugs off my windshield after making trips on interstate highways as I did in the past. It turns out that there's a reason for that, and the NYT ran an article titled "The Insect Apocalypse" that explains what I was noticing. If you haven't read it, please pull it up and take a gander. It's another sobering issue that parallels the demise of countless amphibians. To get an even better sense of what's happening worldwide I suggest reading "The Sixth Extinction" or "Falter." Yes, I read about the signage that was removed from Glacier National Park, which was good for a quick laugh, but consider the fact that in the last century the number of glaciers in that particular park have fallen by half. When I first hiked mountains in Colorado 50 years ago, there were several glaciers still there. 20 years ago I hiked up to what was left of the Isabelle Glacier in the Indian Peaks Wilderness northwest of Denver, and it was just a smear of blue ice only a few hundred yards long. I've been told that today it has totally disappeared, and I don;t know of one active glacier left in Colorado. It also isn't anecdotal that the ph of the ocean has measurably dropped in the last thirty years, and it takes a lot of CO2 absorption to do that. As I've said before, I'm a co*keyed optimist about almost everything, but this is one issue that I can't feel much optimism about. There are several documentaries besides the one that Sharon posted about what's happening to our fellow species on earth that are heartbreaking, and the rate at which they're now disappearing is mind-boggling. Amazingly, we have the technology to suck carbon out of the air, but it would require an effort on the scale of a Marshall Plan to implement, and there are many powerful industries that would resist any such effort, and who have funded scientists to promote denial in the same way that the cigarette companies for many years funded scientists to deny that cigarettes were a health hazard. Of course, from the standpoint of ND, this is just "what is," and it may explain why we haven't picked up any signals from life on other planets. This, along with the possibility of nuclear annihilation, may be the filter that ends intelligent life when it evolves to the level of industrial development and beyond. The insect thing is of interest, yes, of course I was joking. As far as the social forces go, it's true that there's big fossil-fuel industry money with an interest in biasing the narrative. But I'd say the more powerful force against change is a simple everyday-dude's: "what? this now? oh, for f#cks sake!" And you can't tell me that with the 100's of billions of dollars seeking alpha that there aren't hundreds (if not thousands) of powerful people salivating at the thought of tearing up and then rebuilding the energy sector from the top-down -- that's already pretty evident as it is, and would follow the same pattern that led to the monstrosity that is Alphabet: don't wait for the new Carnegie or Rockefeller to show up, START with the monopoly by crushing the competition before it can even emerge. And the social consensus among educated people is that anthropomorphic climate change is real and will be catastrophic. What worries me is that another facet of that consensus is that the size of the world population needs to be controlled. Not that I disagree with that outlook entirely, but social crusaders working toward a goal of a greater good that's contrary to the economic well-being of the average Joe have the potential to be the cause of some major suffering. Is it really true that all the coastal areas are going to flood out in the time frame the simulations predict? Is it really true that there's measurably more energy in the hurricane season every year? Is it really true that the northwest and northeast passages are going to be economically viable shipping alternatives to the longer tropical routes? Since we created this problem over the course of a few hundred years, what would be the overall cost, in human terms, of a crash course off fossil fuels that took 5-10 years instead of gradually planning for it over 20-40, and what would be the marginal benefit to mitigating climate change to doing it faster and who would be the segments of the population that would suffer most by doing it faster? Those are all good questions, and I suspect that we're in agreement about most of the issues involved in climate change. I'm particularly interested because I like technological challenges. I attempted to find out if it's possible for an individual to build anything mnechanical/chemical that could function to offset or reduce total carbon consumption, but I couldn;t find anything on a small scale that could do that. At the moment the best thing that builders can do is super-insulate and design homes that will function using the least amount of energy--LED lights, hi-efficiency heat pumps, etc. Nevertheless, I'll leave this fascinating issue behind so that we can concentrate on the thread of this theme. Perhaps I'll start a new thread later for people who are as interested in this subject as I am. From a spiritual/religious perspective the Pope discussed our poor stewardship of the planet in rather startling terms. He said something about how we're turning our home into the equivalent of a filthy sty, or some such thing (I'm too lazy to look up the quote). The Buddhists also take stewardship of the planet and its species pretty seriously, and Tricycle regularly publishes articles on that subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 14:15:52 GMT -5
The insect thing is of interest, yes, of course I was joking. As far as the social forces go, it's true that there's big fossil-fuel industry money with an interest in biasing the narrative. But I'd say the more powerful force against change is a simple everyday-dude's: "what? this now? oh, for f#cks sake!" And you can't tell me that with the 100's of billions of dollars seeking alpha that there aren't hundreds (if not thousands) of powerful people salivating at the thought of tearing up and then rebuilding the energy sector from the top-down -- that's already pretty evident as it is, and would follow the same pattern that led to the monstrosity that is Alphabet: don't wait for the new Carnegie or Rockefeller to show up, START with the monopoly by crushing the competition before it can even emerge. And the social consensus among educated people is that anthropomorphic climate change is real and will be catastrophic. What worries me is that another facet of that consensus is that the size of the world population needs to be controlled. Not that I disagree with that outlook entirely, but social crusaders working toward a goal of a greater good that's contrary to the economic well-being of the average Joe have the potential to be the cause of some major suffering. Is it really true that all the coastal areas are going to flood out in the time frame the simulations predict? Is it really true that there's measurably more energy in the hurricane season every year? Is it really true that the northwest and northeast passages are going to be economically viable shipping alternatives to the longer tropical routes? Since we created this problem over the course of a few hundred years, what would be the overall cost, in human terms, of a crash course off fossil fuels that took 5-10 years instead of gradually planning for it over 20-40, and what would be the marginal benefit to mitigating climate change to doing it faster and who would be the segments of the population that would suffer most by doing it faster? Those are all good questions, and I suspect that we're in agreement about most of the issues involved in climate change. I'm particularly interested because I like technological challenges. I attempted to find out if it's possible for an individual to build anything mnechanical/chemical that could function to offset or reduce total carbon consumption, but I couldn;t find anything on a small scale that could do that. At the moment the best thing that builders can do is super-insulate and design homes that will function using the least amount of energy--LED lights, hi-efficiency heat pumps, etc. Nevertheless, I'll leave this fascinating issue behind so that we can concentrate on the thread of this theme. Perhaps I'll start a new thread later for people who are as interested in this subject as I am. From a spiritual/religious perspective the Pope discussed our poor stewardship of the planet in rather startling terms. He said something about how we're turning our home into the equivalent of a filthy sty, or some such thing (I'm too lazy to look up the quote). The Buddhists also take stewardship of the planet and its species pretty seriously, and Tricycle regularly publishes articles on that subject. It was done as a tweet..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 3, 2019 14:50:10 GMT -5
Those are all good questions, and I suspect that we're in agreement about most of the issues involved in climate change. I'm particularly interested because I like technological challenges. I attempted to find out if it's possible for an individual to build anything mnechanical/chemical that could function to offset or reduce total carbon consumption, but I couldn;t find anything on a small scale that could do that. At the moment the best thing that builders can do is super-insulate and design homes that will function using the least amount of energy--LED lights, hi-efficiency heat pumps, etc. Nevertheless, I'll leave this fascinating issue behind so that we can concentrate on the thread of this theme. Perhaps I'll start a new thread later for people who are as interested in this subject as I am. From a spiritual/religious perspective the Pope discussed our poor stewardship of the planet in rather startling terms. He said something about how we're turning our home into the equivalent of a filthy sty, or some such thing (I'm too lazy to look up the quote). The Buddhists also take stewardship of the planet and its species pretty seriously, and Tricycle regularly publishes articles on that subject. It was done as a tweet.. Ah, that's why I didn't see it. haha. Some of us don't tweet. Thanks. I guess I saw someone on TV talking about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 16:38:14 GMT -5
I'm familiar with ALL of that, but none of that refutes the CO2 levels calculated via ice corings showing the oscillation of ppm between 150 and 250 for almost 3 million years, and both the rapid increase and rate of increase over the last thirty years to the current level of 426 ppm. Methane is far worse than CO2 in its effects and the levels of methane increase are also increasing. The orbit of the earth, itself, has affected global temps in the past and will continue to affect temps in the future as will volcanic activity, but the reason that scientists have renamed this period of time the "Anthopocene Epoch" is in recognition of the fact that humans are now a geological force that is changing the climate and obliterating other species on a massive scale. As a scientist, I'm aware of the shallowness of anecdotal evidence, but when it's in your face and also corroborated by countless studies, it gets harder to ignore. As an example, I had noticed that I never have to clean bugs off my windshield after making trips on interstate highways as I did in the past. It turns out that there's a reason for that, and the NYT ran an article titled "The Insect Apocalypse" that explains what I was noticing. If you haven't read it, please pull it up and take a gander. It's another sobering issue that parallels the demise of countless amphibians. To get an even better sense of what's happening worldwide I suggest reading "The Sixth Extinction" or "Falter." Yes, I read about the signage that was removed from Glacier National Park, which was good for a quick laugh, but consider the fact that in the last century the number of glaciers in that particular park have fallen by half. When I first hiked mountains in Colorado 50 years ago, there were several glaciers still there. 20 years ago I hiked up to what was left of the Isabelle Glacier in the Indian Peaks Wilderness northwest of Denver, and it was just a smear of blue ice only a few hundred yards long. I've been told that today it has totally disappeared, and I don;t know of one active glacier left in Colorado. It also isn't anecdotal that the ph of the ocean has measurably dropped in the last thirty years, and it takes a lot of CO2 absorption to do that. As I've said before, I'm a co*keyed optimist about almost everything, but this is one issue that I can't feel much optimism about. There are several documentaries besides the one that Sharon posted about what's happening to our fellow species on earth that are heartbreaking, and the rate at which they're now disappearing is mind-boggling. Amazingly, we have the technology to suck carbon out of the air, but it would require an effort on the scale of a Marshall Plan to implement, and there are many powerful industries that would resist any such effort, and who have funded scientists to promote denial in the same way that the cigarette companies for many years funded scientists to deny that cigarettes were a health hazard. Of course, from the standpoint of ND, this is just "what is," and it may explain why we haven't picked up any signals from life on other planets. This, along with the possibility of nuclear annihilation, may be the filter that ends intelligent life when it evolves to the level of industrial development and beyond. The insect thing is of interest, yes, of course I was joking. As far as the social forces go, it's true that there's big fossil-fuel industry money with an interest in biasing the narrative. But I'd say the more powerful force against change is a simple everyday-dude's: "what? this now? oh, for f#cks sake!" And you can't tell me that with the 100's of billions of dollars seeking alpha that there aren't hundreds (if not thousands) of powerful people salivating at the thought of tearing up and then rebuilding the energy sector from the top-down -- that's already pretty evident as it is, and would follow the same pattern that led to the monstrosity that is Alphabet: don't wait for the new Carnegie or Rockefeller to show up, START with the monopoly by crushing the competition before it can even emerge. And the social consensus among educated people is that anthropomorphic climate change is real and will be catastrophic. What worries me is that another facet of that consensus is that the size of the world population needs to be controlled. Not that I disagree with that outlook entirely, but social crusaders working toward a goal of a greater good that's contrary to the economic well-being of the average Joe have the potential to be the cause of some major suffering. Is it really true that all the coastal areas are going to flood out in the time frame the simulations predict? Is it really true that there's measurably more energy in the hurricane season every year? Is it really true that the northwest and northeast passages are going to be economically viable shipping alternatives to the longer tropical routes? Since we created this problem over the course of a few hundred years, what would be the overall cost, in human terms, of a crash course off fossil fuels that took 5-10 years instead of gradually planning for it over 20-40, and what would be the marginal benefit to mitigating climate change to doing it faster and who would be the segments of the population that would suffer most by doing it faster? theconversation.com/we-asked-people-to-do-climate-change-maths-their-answers-depended-on-their-politics-117503
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 3, 2019 17:01:18 GMT -5
The insect thing is of interest, yes, of course I was joking. As far as the social forces go, it's true that there's big fossil-fuel industry money with an interest in biasing the narrative. But I'd say the more powerful force against change is a simple everyday-dude's: "what? this now? oh, for f#cks sake!" And you can't tell me that with the 100's of billions of dollars seeking alpha that there aren't hundreds (if not thousands) of powerful people salivating at the thought of tearing up and then rebuilding the energy sector from the top-down -- that's already pretty evident as it is, and would follow the same pattern that led to the monstrosity that is Alphabet: don't wait for the new Carnegie or Rockefeller to show up, START with the monopoly by crushing the competition before it can even emerge. And the social consensus among educated people is that anthropomorphic climate change is real and will be catastrophic. What worries me is that another facet of that consensus is that the size of the world population needs to be controlled. Not that I disagree with that outlook entirely, but social crusaders working toward a goal of a greater good that's contrary to the economic well-being of the average Joe have the potential to be the cause of some major suffering. Is it really true that all the coastal areas are going to flood out in the time frame the simulations predict? Is it really true that there's measurably more energy in the hurricane season every year? Is it really true that the northwest and northeast passages are going to be economically viable shipping alternatives to the longer tropical routes? Since we created this problem over the course of a few hundred years, what would be the overall cost, in human terms, of a crash course off fossil fuels that took 5-10 years instead of gradually planning for it over 20-40, and what would be the marginal benefit to mitigating climate change to doing it faster and who would be the segments of the population that would suffer most by doing it faster? theconversation.com/we-asked-people-to-do-climate-change-maths-their-answers-depended-on-their-politics-117503That is a fascinating study! It helps explain why very smart people from either end of the political spectrum may support policies that are totally unsupported by mathematically-indisputable facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 17:18:47 GMT -5
That is a fascinating study! It helps explain why very smart people from either end of the political spectrum may support policies that are totally unsupported by mathematically-indisputable facts. Yeah. We have a not too dissimilar study happening in the UK. I'll not bore you with the details, we still have another few years of it left to run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2019 5:11:12 GMT -5
Plastic is a huge issue I agree. It was it's non-biodegrability in the beginning that was it's selling point. Making people feel guilty for such a learning curve just doesn't make any sense. Well, in the edit I said that capitalism served its purpose. But at this point we're in no doubt that we could change if we wanted to, because we have the technology to do so. And we ARE changing but we are encumbered by some very outdated ideas. Another example of this is 'competition'. Competition is something that should be left to the realm of play and sport. When it comes to innovation and implementation of systems, moving forward, we have to co-operate. The concept of 'business' is dying which is great, and in part, we can thank Jeremy Hunt....and his continued repeated use of the word.....for that! We can only do our best given our life context, and I'm not advocating 'blame', and in practice I am very much an imperfect warrior. But when I buy food from the supermarket and it has plastic, it's GOOD that I'm not wholly at ease with that. This is a time when we all should be self-examining, and 'guilt' is part of that process. To be clear, I'm not into the idea of 'saving the planet'. What I abhor is the commodification and unnecessary hurt we cause to sentient beings (and nature in general). I believe in Freedom, and I believe 'business' and 'profit' have no place in our future world. For now, I appreciate the 'moral' businesses out there, of which there are many. solutions.thischangeseverything.org/
|
|