This thread is the bimonthly open thread for discussion of climate solutions. A good starting point might be this clear description from Glen Peters on the feasibility of staying below 2ºC. Please stick to substantive points and refrain from attacking other commenters (as opposed to their ideas). The open thread for climate science issues is here.
182 etc Barton Paul Levenson, you’ll find the box of tissues in the bathroom.
“Now go watch that Ralph Nader video…”
And with that one phrase you absolutely annihilated whatever credibility you thought you may have had. Because Nader is directly responsible for getting us to where we are today. Lest you have forgotten, he and Karl Rove were very buddy-buddy in the 2000 election. Rove assisted the Nader campaign to defeat Gore despite Gore’s environmental record on global warming. Nader spent his last campaign days in battleground states, most notably crucial Florida. And Nader attacked Gore then more than he did Bush. He went where he was unlikely to get votes and thus would not get the 5 percent needed for federal funds in 2004. Even the Sierra Club called Nader out for what he was doing to hurt Gore. Suffice it to say, the votes that Nader did get would have been more than enough for Gore to win Florida. With that win, Gore would have given the US a head start to address global warming. And of course the entire post 9/11 world we are in now. smh
re: 161.”I WAS RIGHT :-)
Again. ”
No, you are just pathetically desperate for affirmation. Classic actually, complete with the use of all capital letters as if that somehow makes your point. Busted. “Again.” Critical thinking?
C 200: I quit.
BPL: I’ll believe that when I see it. At most you’ll come back under yet another alias.
Re #181 Kevin McKinney said #179, Killian–
Not a parallel case. In the BBC instance, it’s about a news organization giving access to long-discredited views.
This is bizarre logic. A scientist can say we should not engage liars and fools and give them any credence, but you two – in, what, your greater brilliance? – think the opposite is true merely on the basis that one is a news site and the other a science site? Run by… scientists… to promote… science? But the opinion of a scientist on science communication should not be listened to?
Jesus…
You’re logic is nonsensical. I mean that literally: It is nonsense. It has no sense.
Science is clear on this: The more a lie is allowed to run and the more you try to debunk it, the more the lie is remembered. The FR threads have been absoluteley dominated by two posters for many months now because you people think this way. You. Are. Wrong.
And the blog should be run by the blog owners, so it makes no difference if denialists are given free reign and all of you roll around in the mud with them? How is it relevant that the obvious – the owners get to decide – is true? What has that to do with anything? The professor did not dictate to the BBC, the BBC decided, on its own, he was right. The owners decided what to do with their resources.
Goodness, Kevin. Do better. Your defensiveness is really messing with your thinking.
Re #186 Barton Paul Levenson said Nothing worth reading.
First you call an observation a judgement: FYI, “You’re stupid and don’t know anything” is an example of judgment, but “You are not as smart as you think you are” is an opinion based on observation and in no way impinges on character, so is not judgment.
Second, you engage in childish taunts.
Third, you make a factually incorrect statement wherein you don’t seem to understand “up to” since you respond as if it had been stated as a definitive number.
That’s impressive incompetence, to put it politely.
That 20,000,000 figure is from some years ago, and I don’t remember the source, but here’s one from 2015:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/amazon-rainforest-was-home-to-millions-of-people-before-european-arrival-says-study-10412030.html
Let’s try thinking a little. Minimum is 8M. Max is 50M. Midway would be around 29M. Half of that would be 22.5M. 20 million is hardly preposterous given the starting numbers.
However, thanks for your pointless, incorrect pedantry encouraging me to do a search on updated estimates. Perhaps the the best estimate as of 2018, based a single swath of the Amazon, then extrapolated, is “only” 14+million. I think that fits quite well into “up to 20M” given the older upper bound of 50M.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/amazon-jungle-ancient-population-satellite-computer-model/
Like some others here, you have nothing to offer. Your attacks on others, your pedantry, damage the usefulness of this site… like too many others.
Re #198 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #185–
I never accept stupid as reason to do, nor not do, anything.
And you never seem to miss a chance to categorize disagreement as either stupid or dishonest.
Wow. You really do come off like an idiot savant in English: Grammatical accuracy, but zero ability to understand what you read.
Anyone think he’ll ever figure out what “stupid” was referring to? But who cares… he’ll post next that he knew I wasn’t talking about whom he was talking about.
In my opinion, of course.
No opinion of yours is ever accurate. No, Capitalism isn’t OK. No, unsustainable practices are not OK. Yes, people will change if given the chance and a small minority of fully aware people get momentum. No, living simply does not mean living like a caveman. No, you are not doing a service to society by engaging denialists with anything other than either ignoring them or calling them what they are and banishing them from public discourse. Etc.
Try to remember: Everyone has a right to an opinion, but all opinions are not equal. Please, become a lurker. I do not speak this way to hurt your feelings. I do so to clear space on this forum from all the dreck, nothing less, nothing more.
Re #197 Kevin McKinney said Killian, —
The conversation already happened. The process to design for zero carbon already exists. That you don’t accept the outcome does not mean the conversation hasn’t happened.
It isn’t about me. It’s about all of us as a society. And until (functionally) everybody is aware of the realities and choices we face, the necessary conversation has not been had. Clearly, that is not yet the case.
Actually, it is this time. About you. I was being literal: You, personally, do not accept the answers and so do not accept the conversation has already been had. The remaining conversation is getting people to begin doing it.
You speak as if the problem lies elsewhere, but when you, and virtually all other, climate activists, still will not hear the solution, how can you share it with anyone?
I’m dying to see the Incheon declaration. Wish I had been invited to the party; I’d have turned the entire thing on its ear… if they could hear.
Regenerative Governance model proof of concept:
* Overthrew gangs, police dept and city hall.
* Won the right to self-governance under indigenous rights law; argued before Supreme Court.
* Autonomous neighborhood assemblies; egalitarian.
* City assembly with people nominated from neighborhood assemblies.
* City pay is subsistence bc it is considered a service
* Process of independent self-rule initiated by women
* Some land (seems to be non-urban areas, e.g. forests and lakes) held in Commons;protected by community policing
* Discussion is pretty much daily, not only at some meeting time.
* Extremely low crime rates.
* policing is from within the community
* small issues handled by assemblies, serious crimes referred to prosecutor
*** No political parties, they are considered divisive. (I have said political parties are unconstitutional and should be banned for limiting the right to vote.)
*** No campaigning: One becomes a candidate only via nomination. it is considered an honor and obligation, not a seat of power.
*** No political paraphernalia allowed in the town at all. Cars are stripped of propaganda, and searched, as they enter.
This proof of concept only applies to the community level of the model, but the model is fractal, so can be inferred to work at all levels.
The city council is elected by councils first meeting to propose their members. The “election” involves nominations in public with all present. Those nominated can aver, but never seem to do so. The actual selecting is done by the candidates standing on chairs and people lining up in front of their chairs! Then they count, then the new council is announced.
*** The councils lead and decide, the Council of Elders represents.***
Celebration of 7 years of self-rule. Watch to the end. The elderly woman’s speech is powerful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDspeScGZrQ
TV piece on Cheran. Has some details the above does not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrPBdLiqMb0
nigelj: However you still need manufacture, supply chains and finance to get products to the consumer. Free market corporates can be very badly behaved, but have given us cheap technology because of mass production at scale and competition, and if you destroy the goose that lays the golden egg theres a potential problem.
AB: You don’t show the alternative Earth. If predatory nonprofits ran the business world would things be better or worse? My plan is to find out.
————-
K’s sockpuppet (after gushing on about how K is God’s gift to humanity [his only flaw is excessive humility]): You do not 300 million people calling for chnage and shaking the foundations of the political system … all you need is about a million people in lock step to tear it to pieces
AB: You’re off by at least three orders of magnitude. Take out transformers, power lines, and pipelines. Set hundreds of wildfires. Drop overpasses onto hard-to-reroute interstates. Weld/glue straight wedges on curving freight railroad tracks (one wedge that gets the outer wheel’s flange up and over the track’s lip does the trick). Flush fat, fiber, and cement down toilets (super fatbergs!). Avoid killing anyone except Republican government officials and celebrities (hunting season for them!). I believe there have been books written (I’ve never seen one) that describe how to bring the USA to its knees with very little effort. (This is not a call to arms. My plan is in my response to nigelj.)
Killian, #s whatever–
OK, so the master of concision and self-control is advising me not to waste column inches.
Got it, Wise One.
Maybe try asking nicely next time.
Killian suggests
A) You’re logic is nonsensical. I mean that literally: It is nonsense. It has no sense. Science is clear on this: The more a lie is allowed to run and the more you try to debunk it, the more the lie is remembered. You. Are. Wrong.
and
B) Like some others here, you have nothing to offer. Your attacks on others, your pedantry, damage the usefulness of this site… like too many others.
Ummm, yeah. This is not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact.
202 Barton Paul Levenson says:
C 200: I quit.
BPL: I’ll believe that when I see it. At most you’ll come back under yet another alias.
……………..
At least I am smart enough, in this day and age, to use a nym, unlike yourself.
And unlike you I don’t spend my time cherry picking two words while ignoring the content of a comment I am replying to. Which says quite a lot about your mind Barton when compared to mine.
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” Eleanor Roosevelt
The positive in this is there is still time in your life to get your own house in order Barton. Good luck. Will there be anything else?
A couple of Harvard studies published on Oct. 4 seem to indicate that wind farms have a much lower energy density than previously estimated. This is based on simulations and field data. Wind farms also cause localized surface level warming. They estimate that wind farms don’t reduce net warming for 100 years, but I only read the press release and the exactly what is being delayed for 100 years was a bit hard for me to determine. Solar looked relatively better. There are currently big plans for the expansion of wind farms.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
207 Killian says:
Regenerative Governance model proof of concept:
OK try this then too? It’s 2009, a Chris Hedges outtake discussing his then new book https://youtu.be/80CFKM473hg?t=314
Seeing the world in hindsight can sometimes help gain a greater more accurate perspective. This is USA centric. If possible, really think about what is said here, it is 2009, the GFC is in full force, the banks insurance companies mortgage lenders, hedge funds, bond holders, the central banks and GM et al are being rescued from collapse, Israel has again bombed the crap out of innocent people imprisoned in Gaza for weeks on end, and Obama has just started his 8 year Presidential term. Hillary Clinton becomes the Secretary of State and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party. The war in Iraq rages on.
Global CO2 was 385.46 ppmv vs today ~408 ppmv
Chris Hedges:
Hi we’re each going to talk for five minutes I guess the Reader’s Digest
version of our books my book Empire of illusion the end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle makes the argument that we are the most illusioned (Delusional) nation on the planet.
That we have become utterly disconnected from who we are, what we represent and where we’re going and replaced it with fantasy. It has allowed us to run offshore penal colonies where we openly torture other human beings, suspend habeas corpus, engage in warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping of American civilians, lived through a banana republic 2000 election where unfortunately this state contributed to the theft of the Democratic vote and yet described ourselves as the greatest democracy on earth.
A democracy that abrogates the right to impose its virtues on others by force. We have built a system of unfettered capitalism which has turned everything from human beings to the natural environment into commodities for exploitation until exhaustion or collapse.
This has hollowed out America from the inside. It’s why we are borrowing roughly at a rate of two billion dollars a day from the Chinese and have been for the last ten years. At some point that has to collapse. We have destroyed our manufacturing base and described it as an opportunity for
growth.
All of these things have fed into, I think, a very frightening fantasy about where we’re headed. That we have in many ways remained 40 year-old children unable to confront, as the historian Harvard historian Charles
Mayor calls it: ‘That transition from an empire of production, to an empire of consumption.’
Real wages in this country have remained stagnant since 1973. Just as we
maintain Empire through credit and borrowing, we maintain a lifestyle that
we can no longer afford through credit and borrowing. All of that is collapsing.
One strives towards a dream. One lives within an illusion and the illusion that we are fed is:
‘That reality is never an impediment to what we want. That we can if we just dig deep enough within ourselves, if we find our inner strength, if we grasp, as Tony Robbins says, that we are truly exceptional, if we believe that Jesus can perform miracles, if we focus on happiness we can fulfill this pernicious psychological idea among consumer culture that has a sort of instilled massive consumption as a kind of inner compulsion.
And the danger of illusion is that it allows you to remain in a state of perpetual childishness, infantile-ism.
As that gap opens up between the illusion of who we are and the reality. Of the foreclosures, the bankruptcies that are caused by the inability to pay medical bills, the collapse of empire we are unprepared emotionally psychologically and intellectually for, what is about to confront us.
And when the wolf finally pounds at the door, when our house is foreclosed, when the unemployment insurance runs out, then you react (if you have remained in a state of illusion) as a child reacts.
You search for a demagogue or a savior who promises moral renewal vengeance and new glory and we can already see that very frightening psychological disease leaping up around the fringes of American society.
The only way that one can speak about hope is to break free from a non-reality based belief system. To begin to speak in a new language of humility, to accept a lifestyle which frees itself from profligate consumption and endorses a new simplicity.
And it finally, it is not incidental or accidental that the environmental crisis we face is twinned with the economic crisis. It stems from the same disease which is turning everything, human beings too, into a commodity. The natural environment into a commodity that we exploit, an end, and exhaust until it dies.
Either we wake from this illusion or we commit collective suicide.
Killian claims “A) You’re logic is nonsensical. I mean that literally: It is nonsense. It has no sense. Science is clear on this: The more a lie is allowed to run and the more you try to debunk it, the more the lie is remembered. You. Are. Wrong.”
Yet Killian is the very first to respond to anyone he perceives as lying about, or criticising or denying his own pet theories and he does so with long attempts to discredit what they are saying, (and even more attempts to discredit the person.) He will probably claim thats “different” yet we know it isn’t.
Anyway I dont blame him for responding, and I dont think it makes sense to ignore denialists of any persuasion entirely.
I believe most of it is about having sensible moderation. This website says avoid repetition, then publishes Victors endless repetitive nonsensical statements, (call them lies of you prefer) so doesn’t enforce its own policy. I have huge respect for this website, but I will never understand this. Why have rules if they aren’t enforced.
Re #211 Kevin McKinney said :.. (
Killian, #s whatever–
OK, so the master of concision and self-control is advising me not to waste column inches.
Got it, Wise One.
This is hypocrisy. Not the first time. Why invalidate yourself?
Maybe try asking nicely next time.
I didn’t ask rudely the first time. But more so, if you need polite words to make yourself do the right thing, you are terribly weak, don’t you think?
“He sucked at digging tubers, but I respect him because of his effort.” – Indigenous Elder
This used to be how I saw you, misguided but working hard. Then your ego got spanked and ever since it’s been the sort of mess we see above.
Do better. You can. It matters.
——-
nigel,
Lurk. Only that. Study “analogy” with your free time.
Oh, and, nige, et al., I might have been wrong abt. Thomas/Carrie.
See? I have ZERO problem admitting I’m wrong. Your problem, collectively, is you actually think you know better despite ten years of a clear record of accuracy.
If you cannot list your successful analyses, in each case predating mine, if the same or similar, SHUT UP and get on with the problem solving. Lose the bullshit and the egos.
It matters.
216
As I said, it is not analogous. Climate denial is a glibal effort from gid knows how many fronts, bots, paid trolls, repeating the same lues over decades.
You have lied about discreet points, with some repetition (though much more often just mucked it all up), but nothing like decades of myriad sorces repeating the same lies virtually verbatim, over a mere year or so.
No, it is not the same. This shoukd be obvious to you. Please consider these issues with some intensity until it is.
In the meantime, please lurk.
The saving grace of MA, Kevin, etc., is they can explain the *known*, IPCC, science to others. You add nothing new and have nowhere near their clarity and specificity on issues.
Please… be a student first.
Re #215 Carrie,
Thanks, but I think the issues I deal with are not much informed by Hedges at this point. If I saw through a glass darkly, perhaps. As it is, Chaos, Permaculture Principles (natural First Principles), indigenous Peoples’ patterns, perspectives, ways of problem solving and pure democracy have far more to say.
Shorter answer: I understand the problems, I only have time for the answers… because so very few of us understand them.
Killian @217
I don’t feel this need to brag about myself, however since you ask about predictions, I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates, in particular sea level rise and extreme weather, but I thought temperatures would lag estimates a little. This is exactly whats happened, so I have been vindicated fwiw. This is just one example.
This is easy for me, and I’m sure I’m not alone, but like I say I don’t normally advertise this stuff because I cannot see the point. What really counts is the IPCC modelling and predictions based on physical equations, nobody is going to take my intuition or rough analysis too seriously, and I wouldn’t expect them to, although its pretty good.
You say loose my ego while YOU brag about your personal record? Do you not see the huge contradiction here? You have the ego problem, not us.
No criticism of your intuition, analysis or predictions is made or implied, because although I have criticised some specific points you have made, it seems reasonably ok overall. I’m simply saying you are not the only person in the world who analyses things and gets it right.
Killian, #217–
No, just straight-up sarcasm. Very interesting universe you live in.
If you get to the end of this …
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hell-is-empty-and-all-the-hedge-fund-managers-are-at-th-1795429824
you’ll find this:
“Wherever you are in the world, you’re finding that government interference, particularly to small businesses, is a barrier to growth … it’s when you have a government that has so many barriers for the small guy to come up and create something new, that’s when you have the real problems,” he said. “That’s the reason you’re seeing this populist sentiment. You see it in the U.S. You see it in Europe, where people are fed up with the bureaucracy in Brussels … a lot of people can’t articulate that, necessarily, but they just know intuitively that they’re being prevented from doing something they’d like to do.”
From a billionaire investor’s perspective, the thought process of the frustrated common man is remarkably similar to the thought process of a billionaire investor. What is it that frustrates all those faceless regular people out there, whose wages have stagnated for three decades as the top 1% claims an ever-increasing share of national wealth, thanks in large part to deregulation? Well … it’s the remaining regulation, god damn it! All of those laid-off factory workers are mad as hell about the government bureaucracy that is impeding business development! They may not know it, but that’s what’s in their hearts. They’re being prevented from doing something they’d like to do — start a thriving international corporation with a minimal tax rate in order to maximize investor return. It is the classic dream of the little guy.
Extremely rich people treasure money, yes. But once you have a certain amount of money, you can stand to give some away, if only for the praise that it brings you. What they cannot stand to give up is power. The attendees of the SALT Conference, the absolute winners of the grand American capitalist experiment, are capable of expressing heartfelt concern for the abstract idea of people poorer than them. What they are not capable of is admitting that in order for the public as a whole to win, the hedge fund class may have to sacrifice more than just the checks they write at the annual Hamptons charity balls. They may have to sacrifice power. That, I’m afraid, is unthinkable. To be very rich is to have the luxury of constructing a plausible theory of morality that allows you to hold on to everything you have. It is to believe that you can sit in the shoeshine booth and drive a $300,000 McLaren and raise money for Donald Trump and lobby for a zillion-dollar tax cut paid for on the backs of the poor and still be a good American. And to never have to think twice about it. On Thursday evening, the singer Jewel appeared to play a set for the crowd in the Bellagio ballroom. In front of a screen reading “INVEST IN HUMAN CAPITAL,” she recounted how she became homeless and was forced to live in her car and then her car got stolen, before launching into her tune,
Who will saaaaaave your soul,
After all those lies you told?
When she finished, everyone looked up from their phones and applauded.
[end quote]
(smile) while you’re being screwed it makes you feel happier.
Re #221 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #217–
Kevin: Got it, Wise One.
Killian: This is hypocrisy. Not the first time. Why invalidate yourself?
No, just straight-up sarcasm. Very interesting universe you live in.
Really? So that was playful, friendly sarcasm vs rude, ill-intentioned sarcasm?
I really can’t tell if you really believe this crap or are just to angry to admit what you are doing.
Re #220 nigelj said Killian @217
I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates
That’s not much of a prediction, is it, since it was obvious?
so I have been vindicated fwiw. This is just one example.
Had you done that, perhaps, but did you? How did you go from being ahead of the curve to downplaying the problem across the board on these fora? that’s quite a shift given you’ve had nothing but more and more reason to be more alarmist, not less.
Hard to take you at face value on this.
And you’ve predicted what since?
You say loose my ego while YOU brag about your personal record? Do you not see the huge contradiction here? You have the ego problem, not us.
Brag? You really are dull. Every thing I “brag” about was said on these pages at the time. I have no need to brag. I am invalidating the bullshit thrown my way. I am the only person on these fora that has made the predictions I have. None of the rest of you can claim *any* that I am aware of over the last ten years, yet, you dismiss me at every turn. So, I remind you. I let the readers know your denial of my skill is bullshit.
It is not bragging to use the record in black and white to prove you all petty, untruthful and just plain dumb for putting your egos before solving the problem.
Killian @224
“I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates”
“That’s not much of a prediction, is it, since it was obvious?”
That is NOT what I said you liar. I said “I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates, in particular sea level rise and extreme weather, but I thought temperatures would lag estimates a little. This is exactly whats happened, so I have been vindicated fwiw. ”
So you are deliberately missquoting me, lies by omission.
“so I have been vindicated fwiw. This is just one example.”
“Had you done that, perhaps, but did you? How did you go from being ahead of the curve to downplaying the problem across the board on these fora? that’s quite a shift given you’ve had nothing but more and more reason to be more alarmist, not less.”
Another lie. In no way have I downplayed the problem. Quite the reverse. I have consistently said the IPCC predictions are on the conservative side in respect of sea level rise and extreme weather. I have however questioned whether Hansens estimates can be taken seriously but if you think that is downplaying the problem you have a pretty strange way of thinking. Being sceptical of a couple of the most extreeme claims is not downplaying the climate problem its simply wanting to see some hard evidence.
“Hard to take you at face value on this.”
I couldn’t care less what you think. You have a nasty, suspicious little mind where you personally attack anyone who gets under your skin or who asks you difficult questions or criticises some point you make. You then play the victim, who claims that because of this all your views or self worth is rejected when obviously nobody is doing this.
I find this simplificiation philosophy has value, but I question some elements, thats all I have ever done. In no way do I deserve to be personally attacked as a result and called a liar or idiot.
“And you’ve predicted what since?”
I’m not interested in laying out what I have predicted. Its frigging childish points scoring.
“You say loose my ego while YOU brag about your personal record? Do you not see the huge contradiction here? You have the ego problem, not us.”
“Brag? You really are dull. Every thing I “brag” about was said on these pages at the time. I have no need to brag. I am invalidating the bullshit thrown my way. I am the only person on these fora that has made the predictions I have. None of the rest of you can claim *any* that I am aware of over the last ten years, yet, you dismiss me at every turn. So, I remind you. I let the readers know your denial of my skill is bullshit.”
If you have no need to brag, why do you brag all the time? Bragging is pathetic.
You dont get it. Im just not too interested in your predictions, and like I said before I believe you probably get some right and some wrong, and conveniently forget the bad predictions. I’m slightly more interested in someone like Ray Ladburys personal predictions given he has a physics degree.
Regardless of whether you make good predictions or not, that doesnt mean your other various claims or statements are correct, and some look incorrect to me ( and clearly others), but I I would say the same of many people. We all make mistakes, and you write a lot so open yourself up.
You need to get it through your thick skull that just because I criticise some specfic point you or someone makes, it doesnt mean I have a bad opinion of someone or absolutely everything they say. Honestly how hard can it be to work that out?
Re #225 nigelj whined Killian @224
“I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates”
“That’s not much of a prediction, is it, since it was obvious?”
That is NOT what I said you liar.
False. It was a cut-and-pasted quote.
I said “I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates, in particular
See the last two words above? “In particular?” That phrase is used to set apart a subset from a set. The set was total prediction, essentially expecting changes above the middle range. That means ALL the predictions are included in my quoted part, and the specific ones are thus redundant. I don’t need to repeat the whole thing and did not for the sake of brevity. Calling that a lie is about as stupid and petty a comment as you are wont to make.
sea level rise and extreme weather, but I thought temperatures would lag estimates a little. This is exactly whats happened, so I have been vindicated fwiw. ”
Pretty much everything has been above the mid-range, and this is common knowledge, so what am I trying to hide? You did not specify what set those two apart, so they are not useful to set apart. I did not argue the point: Yes, things have been above the middle range.
Since my point was that that was an easy prediction, it doesn’t have much merit as proof of skill. Of course, you miss the gist because you are trying to score points like a goddamned child.
Enough. Not going to read the rest. You are absolutely useless.
An uncomfortable but very worthwhile piece on the difficulties of climate policy, seen through the lens of the Canadian experience:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-has-good-climate-policy-why-is-it-so-hard-to-love/?utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=E-mail:+Newsletters+/+E-Blasts+/+etc.&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links
No answers, just observations on a political moment in historical context.
Some will read it and conclude, once again, that we’re doomed; others will renew calls for their particular brand of ‘great climate policy’. I tend to see it through my habitual lens that reality is messy, and we are unlikely to either completely succeed or completely fail at addressing the climate policy. (And I fully expect to be pilloried by some for that formulation, because they don’t believe in anything ‘partial’ WRT climate change.)
Killian, #223–
Probably shouldn’t respond, as this is Way Off Topic into yet more personal crap, wasting time and space. However:
1) Does one “believe” sarcasm? I would have thought that the point of sarcasm was play with the normal paradigm of ‘belief.’ So I find the question confusing, and “I know not how to answer.”
2) I’m not angry, I’m amused and a bit melancholy at the waste of talent and resources.
Again: you have important things to say, yet you waste server space and personal time with recrimination and name-calling that serve only to alienate those whom you claim to be trying to persuade. And from my perspective, you add a little salt to the wound by frequently accusing your interlocutors of doing things you yourself are very guilty of–such as wasting many inches of virtual column space on person recriminations, which is the subject that provoked my sarcasm in the first place.
And that, I certainly do believe.
Killian @226, what a load of pedantic time wasting nit picking rhetorical rubbish. Predicting sea level rise would be above IPCC estimates and temperatures would lag is not obvious, and in any event is not in substance different and / or easier from the sorts of predictions you have posted.
Your ideas are not original. You are a time waster more interested in personal fueds than open discussion.
Re 228: You hold yourself up as so very polite, as do others, yet, you are not. My point is obvious: It is YOU who needs to stop going after me for things you do yourself. I do not initiate such quarrels, but I do respond strongly.
I did initiate this one, with you, because you are one of those who puts style over substance, is rude but pretends he isn’t, and so creates unnecessary problems here.
And that I do not believe, I know. Set an example: Don’t be a hypocrite.
#229 nigelj said Killian @226, what a load of pedantic time wasting nit picking rhetorical rubbish.
Do you know why I typically only respond to your comments to me and only rarely initiate? Because you have, literally, nothing to say. You state the obvious or you completely donn’t get it.
You are an entirely average intellect. I
I was not nitpicking. You tried to call me a liar without cause because I deleted redundant information. You set those two points out as particularly skillful, then offered nothing to support it. Thus, from a reader’s perspective, they add nothing to the statement about things being above trend.
See? I’m *still* having to explain the obvious to you.
Your ideas are not original.
All of them? No. Of course not. I don’t DO science, I analyze it. But I am always ahead of the curve because of how I think about things. It took exactly one statement from one scientist in late 2006 or early 2007 for me to be absolutely certain Arctic melt, Antarctic melt, Greenland melt, and thus SLR, would be far higher than the ’07 IPCC report was saying. I was a neophyte about these issues at that time. I had always been eco-conscious, but not a student of climate. At all. I started to become one in 2006 because of the coming IPCC report (and other reasons.) But one critique by one scientists – likely Box or one of the other more vocal ice scientists, was all it took to “get it.” I didn’t need persuading, i didn’t need to read forty papers on the topic. It was easily understandable. I can’t really explain fully why.
Part of it is past knowledge. Chaos theory is a key element of my thinking, but also general systems. I get systems, non-linearity, chaotic patterns. I just do. When I read Gleick’s Chaos, it literally changed how I saw the world. While not as dramatic as The MAtrix with it’s data streaming under everything, it is yet kind of like that. It is fully assimilated into my thinking, so I never need to actively “think” about whether something is going to behave unexpectedly. Same with principles of Nature. They are deeply embedded. I don’t need to “think” about whether something is sustainable or not if I have enough info. Once some critical data point is available, I know. No active analysis required.
Some people cogitate, some just do. I have a friend who I am absolutely certain is smarter than I am, yet she thinks long and hard on everything. It drives me nuts because I only rarely need to in cases where I am unfamiliar with the subject – and on personal issues. It slows conversation and problem solving. I honestly believe our brains are all wired somewhat differently, and mine is wired to do analysis largely subconsciously.
So, I figure things out without much effort. You? You expend great effort and never get anything right.
You are a time waster more interested in personal fueds
Says the ankle-biter chasing me around these boards jumping into conversations that do not include him? We wouldn’t be having *this* conversation, or any of our three or four most recent, if you were minding your own damned business.
Again, you are not bright. Hypocritical. Untruthful. Add nothing. I don’t even get angry at you. I used to. First, I was just frustrated. Then angry. Now? Nothing. Responding out of habit, i suppose. You’re just so damned… boring.
As for other original things, well… there was 2016 ASI… and Regenerative Governance… and a risk/solutions framing for climate awareness… and Regenerative Community Incubators, etc…. and paintball! LOL… Really! A group of us kids were frustrated with throwing dirt clods at each other and wanted something less painful, less dangerous and verifiable… especially verifiable. We brainstormed the idea, thought we should contact a toy company, but did’t. This was two years before the first paint ball. Ah, well.
Killian @231, you like to make out that you are some sort of genius analyst. I mean I dont know whether to laugh or cry. You say literally dozens of things on this website that are flat out wrong and dozens more that are ridiculous or just unsubstatiated or pure guesswork. This is not the sign of some genius analyst.
But at least you are on the right side of the climate issue and smarter than some, and you are right humanity will have to start to reduce its consumption of resources, but I think you will find it wont be as much as you hope for.
I only respond to a few of the weird things you say because they stand out. I notice Im not the only person who is critical, however I have always worded criticisms politely, and given you easy ways to walk yourself back from the issues, but no instead you go on trying to defend the indefensible over and over. Often its simply because I wanted to bring some research to your attention. I can assure you its nothing personal, or some attempt to single you out.
I wonder how accurate your sea level rise predictions have been so far. It appears you have overestimated things if you think sea level rise is well ahead of IPCC estimates. Right now sea level rise is slightly above middle range IPCC predictions but not hugely. This is where I predicted it would be so I have some level of skill. I think I will trust my own judgement on such issues thanks.
I think you have predicted that sea level rise by 2100 will be 2-3 metres. I have said 2 metres, and yet you respond to this by calling me every name you can think of including lying climate denialist and idiot who downplays climate change and a fool. This is despite the fact we are not that far apart on this issue. Honestly you are delusional. Something isn’t right with you.
By Chris Hedges, award winning journalist, war correspondent, award winning author, christian minister and human being.
Predatory Corporate capitalism is about the destruction of Democratic institutions and National economies to enrich a tiny cabal a Global Oligarchic Corporate Elites.
Neoliberalism is the Utopian Ideology that was created to justify the massive social inequality and misery and destruction of social service programs.
I mean right down through public education, so this is something Karl Marx got. Every ruling ideology, every ruling class, creates an ideology to justify their own privilege, their own elitism and their own right to hoard wealth, resources, and power at the expense of everyone else.
From Reporter Tells Truth About War & Gets Fired By NYTimes w/Chris Hedges
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=965DwRyfcmo
with 6,100 Thumbs Up in only 3 days!
Con’t, so you had the divine right of kings, you had systems like communism and fascism that elevated a certain elite. In the case of fascism it was racial in the case of communism that was class. It’s all there.
So Corporate Capitalism uses Neoliberalism but it’s an ideology that makes no sense economically. The whole idea, there’s nothing in 4,000 years of settled society to convincingly argue that by enriching your Oligarchic class this is good for the economy, or good for the working class.
Hey, we know that it isn’t but we got spun this lie courtesy of these courtiers, these kind of intellectual courtiers, Leo Strauss, others and all the useful idiots like Alan Greenspan and everybody else.
But as a rational ideology it was always absurd that you should make your entire society kneel before the dictates of the Marketplace and that the primacy of the Marketplace should determine how you structure your Government or your Culture.
But those who criticize Neoliberalism, I’m going back to Sheldon Wolin who was our greatest contemporary Political Philosopher, they were ruthlessly shut out. Wolin wrote the book Democracy Incorporated, I highly recommend it, where he uses the term Inverted Totalitarianism to describe our system.
But once he started calling out Neoliberalism for the con that it was, he and the other critics were purged from the Universities, purged from the Mass Media, social leadership circles and so on.
From UV Kevin and Victor ponder the devastation that will result from dumping fossils.
Well, it’s like descending from a ladder. Instead of going down one step at a time I’d bet that nothing will be done until all that beach front is worthless, along with the fossil reserves and infrastructure. Oh, and the darker skinned multitudes are marching en masse.
So yeah, you’re both right.
But then, Oct 27 is the filing date for my engine. Cleans the air, 60+% efficiency, cheap, and scalable. Imagine all the cash this one invention (of dozens) will bring as seed money to buy companies and take them nonprofit. Yo Kev, maybe we can turn this ship around.
Killian @231, just adding to my response above and you might learn something.
I really cant be bothered responding to most of your points here. They are so petty and personal, and I have a rule that I don’t go down that road anymore on websites. I’m not interested in spending pages on who said what when and the stuff you get into. Enough other people feel the same and have given you subtle and not so subtle hints.
However I would clarify a couple of things for the record so I’m not misinterpreted.
Firstly ok you were not putting words in my mouth over the IPCC predictions issue, but it annoys me that you cannot or will not see that my views on the IPCC are not “obvious”‘ It was not obvious that temperatures would lag or that sea level rise would be mildly above middle range estimates. Plenty of people argued sea level rise would be behind estimates or well above estimates. But Im not interested into getting into time wasting details about our mutual personal predictions. You simply made the reference that nobody should be commenting on this website unless they have made personal predictions. I’m simply pointing out that 1) actually I have made several predictions and I quoted one and 2) its a ridiculous thing for you to have said anyway.
Secondly I meant your ideas on “simplification” are not original, not the main ones anyway, and it should have been obvious I meant that. If your ideas were groundbreaking I might make allowances for your other failings, but they just aren’t.
Thirdly I don’t care what you thought about paintballs. I mean good for you if you and your friends had a bright idea, what do you want, a medal? I recall thinking wouldn’t it be great if we had a phone that combined a radio and digital camera and a big screen well before these things came on the market! But I doubt I was the only person who thought that. Nokia and Apple put it all together and good for them. You just have an inflated opinion of your abilities to predict things.
And fourthly you dont understand what constitutes a personal feud. My making a few criticisms of your comments is no personal feud. You have to expect a lot of criticism on a science based website because its the nature of science to attack even the slightest weakness and this is absolutely essential. Al Bundy has criticised plenty of things I say but I dont take it as a personal feud.
The clue is in the word personal. You make everything into a personal feud in the way you personally attack people over and over. If you cant see the difference between politely attacking some point someone makes and calling them names or a liar or otherwise putting down their abilities you better learn or you are in for a rough ride through life and relationships. Of course I dont like it when people criticise points I make, but I take a deep breath and I dont throw a tantrum.
Finally please explain where I have stated the obvious. I don’t think I state the obvious. What might be obvious to you will not be obvious to other people.
We have often both quoted the same research papers / articles. I don’t see how I’m stating the obvious if I quote some article. This is why I say you are so delusional in your thinking.
Kevin McKinney: So the master of concision and self control is advising me to not waste column inches
AB: it takes me about as much time to scroll through the Master’s inches as it does to read everyone else’s combined
——-
Carrie, the use of a handle is not the problem, but switching the handle without being clear is evidence that you’re ashamed of yourself.
(My current guess is that you’re Thomas.)
236 Al Bundy.
Oh really? How nice. And your opinion as another self-appointed moral voice of society matters because ……….. ?
There are an uncountable number of things that people here and elsewhere could or should be ashamed of. Having read a few of Thomas’s post here in the past I see nothing that he should be ashamed of at all. YMMV but frankly I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks or believes. Savvy?
On the other hand there are some real leaders in this world such as Chris Hedges speaking truth to power and to losers alike: “Most people at the inception of the call to invade Iraq, you know George Packer at The New Yorker these kinds of figures who were running around being Bush’s cheerleaders for the war, they knew what was good for them. I mean this is what the liberal class do.
“That’s why traditionally the Corporate Capitalist Elites allow Liberals around because they set the parameters of acceptable debate. They serve as the attack dogs against those who question the motives and the values of the ruling elite. When you question the motives and values of the ruling elite you are immediately pushed out. And the way that you are discredited is by those figures within the society who hold themselves up as the moral voice of society.
Noam Chomsky writes very well about this. I wrote a book called “Death of the Liberal Class” but almost everything I know or understand about the liberal establishment comes from Noam. But that’s their role and I think a lot of them are careerists and are kind of very cynical.”
Jimmy: “So what would be, you’re probably better than me so, a good way for me to end this interview?”
Chris: “Well I just think people have to give up the false hope that any institution within the system is going to save us. And we are at a moment in climate change alone which can appropriately described as an emergency as the greatest existential crisis facing the human species and we have no time left. We have to react or these elites will drive us over the precipice they are so stupid, so blind, so self consumed.
“We have to overthrow this system. We have to begin to think in revolutionary terms. These people have to go because we can’t afford to endure much more of their destruction. Not only what they’re doing to human beings everywhere but the ecocide that they are carrying out.”
ref https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Anaiu6muz8
Are you looking for something else actually worth doing something about and that is equally directly connected to the lack of action on climate change Mr Pseudonym Al Bundy? Then try this: “Last year, 128 police officers were killed on the job, most in car accidents. Of that 128, only 44 were killed by gunfire. In that same year an estimated 1,147 people were killed by police. This estimate does not count the hundreds who die every year crossing the police line on the US-Mexico border or those that die in America’s massive prison system, which cages more than 2 million people and keeps another 4.75 million under state surveillance.”
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/police-culture-violence-racism-blue-lives-matter
A nation that tortures and kills and impoverishes abroad must, of its nature, do the same at home. Conversely, no reform of domestic policy can occur absent reform of foreign policy. And until then, the people are the enemy, foreign and native. I know it isn’t an obvious connection, but I’m still surprised that so many people don’t see it. He who lives by the sword…
The greatest killers are the governments of the world and have been that throughout all human history. Not mentioned in the list above are all theose who die in wars all over the world and then not so few of those wars are directly or indirectly initiated and/or supported by either U.S. Government or by U.S. policy in general.
For decades now the US Government and Congress has repeatedly acted to undermine or block all the UNFCCC Treaties and all rational cooperative global action on mitigating GHG emissions to address climate change. Not satisfied with the war deaths of millions in impoverished nations around the world now Americans are intent to slowly destroy the world as a whole while plying their propaganda to bring on a nuclear war to enforce their stupid notions of “exceptionalism” upon humanity.
So while those voices like Chris Hedges are shut out of the MSM, shut out climate science discourses at the IPCC, Universities and Climate Institutions, and everywhere so called polite open discussions are alleged to occur Al Bundy explains to all where his own head is at and why it is he who is thoroughly ashamed of himself and his nation.
“We have to overthrow this system. We have to begin to think in revolutionary terms. These people have to go because we can’t afford to endure much more of their destruction. Not only what they’re doing to human beings everywhere but the ecocide that they are carrying out.”
PS I support Killian 100% I hope he keeps doing what he’s doing and slapping down those who clearly have earned it.
A little reminder about the recent IPCC SRM1.5C report and it’s #1 finding.
Net Zero GHGs by 2050 to have any hope of remaining under +1.5C long term.
Net ZERO GHGs globally – within 30 years from now.
Do consider the historical reality of how much GHGs have increased the last 30 years since 1988 and Hansen’s little lecture to Congress.
Do consider the latest energy forecasts for FF use out to 2040. And then the ongoing land clearing forest destruction versus the opposite ‘greening reforestation’ assumed in the IPCC report.
So yes, consider it, and then as history has shown here and elsewhere too, to then ignore it all and carry on regardless as always.
AS Kevin Anderson says and has been saying for a very very long time already: “Ignoring this huge inequality in emissions, the IPCC chooses instead to constrain its policy advice to fit neatly within the current economic model. This includes, significant reliance on removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere much later in the century, when today’s senior scientists and policy makers will be either retired or dead.”
“To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2°C of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan. The labour and resources used to furnish the high-carbon lifestyles of the top (wealthiest) 20% (that’s everyone on this forum bar a few) will need to shift rapidly to deliver a fully decarbonised energy system.”
http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2018/10/response-to-the-ipcc-1-5c-special-report/
A hint – not going to happen!
What is going to happen post-war eventually as Chris Hedges alludes to (but I have edited to explain a not too distant reality arriving):
“Well I just think people have finally given up the false hope that any institution within the system was going to save us. We are at a moment in climate change and post-war apocalypse which appropriately is described as a global emergency – the greatest existential crisis facing the human species and we have no time left.
“We were left with no alternative to act now and permanently remove all those stupid, blind, & self consumed narcissistic pathological neoliberal corporate capitalist elites who have driven us over the precipice.
“We have overthrown this system. We have to now think in revolutionary reformative regenerative sustainable terms about every aspect of Human Life and the Ecosystem we rely upon. Those psychopaths had to go because we can’t afford to endure any more of their kind of destruction.
“Not only what they did to human beings everywhere through their warmongering violence but the planetary ecocide that they were carrying out.”
It’s going to happen. And it’s going to become the new reality much faster than you would ever think could be possible.
In the meantime ndo carry on complaining about dumb deniers and how some people speak to you on the RC forum and the issues they raise here.
The “Troublemakers” can be brought to silence or into some state of “incommunicado” and at the same time the reputation of the troublemakers is damaged or destroyed and thus they can avoid their martyrdom, which has proven a serious long term threat. Too many parasites would have to loose too much, no matter whether it’s power, influence and recognition, often all of them, if they and/or there arguments and activities were tested by persons or institutions who embarked upon truthfulness as well as have the Macrocosmos in mind, as well as possess the multiple genius and the knowledge to scrutinize the various arguments of the sub-department of the various sciences in a macrocosmic context.
Such a or similar a situation would reduce the value of the millions of parasites of the actual system and take from them the arguments that can nowadays only be questioned by so-called Experts of the same kind and making. ( The goat is the gardener ) As we all know from experience, it’s usually the underdog that is barking at the big dog, and that in the aftermath the big dog is often killed by the system because he was sooo…. patient with the small dog but finally had to and knew how to defend himself against the attacks of the little worm.
Exactly like the one who knows something will usually try to explain to those who don’t know, while those who just want to be right in the first place, but know nothing or only parts of the whole and feels hurt in his pride ( EGO ), will at least try to disqualify those who really know things better as being dogmatic.
As long as our top managers are thinking in quarters and as long as politicians are thinking in Legislatures and as long as the so-called democracies only allow it’s citizens to choose between too faces of the same medal, in other words, between two levels, with Switzerland as the only real exception, it is obvious that there will be no basic changes to the system without great hardship. Should you ever ask yourself why the system can go on like this for so long and in the open, the answer is very simple, they are a vast majority and they protect themselves by preventing that too many can gather the big picture.
Keep in mind that even an elephant can be easily brought to death by a big enough number of ants or other, even smaller species. In political discussions you can listen to both sides and each side has good arguments that seem plausible. But there are a few problems with that. The First problem is that they make opposite statements, but both seem plausible.
The Second problem is that most often both arguments are faulty; and the third problem is that most often both sides provide no practicable solutions, because solution must take care of a system as a whole.
Problems cannot be solved from within a fraction of an organism. Not without considering the other parts of that organism carefully and correctly. Unfortunately, the way things are handled these days, as everyone can see, we are ending up in applying patches that patch the damage of the last patches and so on, until there are too many patches and/or they are becoming too large and/or they occur to frequently.
Finally it will be the united power of all the patched problems that lead to disaster. The Future will unveil the truth in any case, because the truth is indivisible and facts always come to light sooner or later. We just have to accept that the necessary period of time can last for a very long time and that our life span, in the overall history and development of the cosmos is not of any significance.
There is little room for faith here. Faith opens all kinds of doors for abuse and for the application of various psychological & social weapons widely, which in turn build on the great psychological & social illusions.
Whoever really knows many things, will sooner or later come to similar conclusions that lead inevitably to similar views of life, such as the ones of Jesus of Nazareth and many other wise ancestors. Thus we do not have to believe in God because we fear to burn in hell, but we should think and control our egos and behold, the meaning of the ten commandments will penetrate our conscious as well as our subconscious minds even then, should we never have heard of them beforehand.
I’m currently working on two other books about the great social illusions and the social constraints, as well as about the various weapons which are used to enforce them, weapons which function mostly on the basis of illusions which are often deeply anchored in our subconscious minds. There you can soon read in great details, what these illusions exactly are, which social constraints and weapons work on the basis of these illusions and why and how these mechanisms are functioning.
Every person who will read that, will immediately understand the nature, the functionality and the interactions between the illusions and the social weaponry, as well as understand how difficult must be to free ourselves from the clutches of these mechanisms.
This book should not be mainly about criticism of the current situation, at least not in the first place. I just wanted to put thoughts to paper. Thoughts which “at the appropriate time”, together with the thoughts, ideas and energies of many others, could provide approaches to fundamental and sustainable solutions. Solutions that will not be based upon false pretenses, dogmas and force, but upon deep knowledge.
ref http://magnamentis.com/philosophy.net/quintessenz/en-quintessence-r-1.htm
It’s a weird world alright. Gosh billions now believe that Jamal Khashoggi was merely a humble innocent “journalist” all his life!
And what war some may ask?
The US will pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia, AP reports President Donald Trump saying. He cited Russia’s alleged treaty violations, while at the same time vowing to “develop the weapons.”
“We are going to terminate the agreement and then we are going to develop the weapons” unless Russia and China agree to a new deal, Trump said on Saturday. Although Trump claims that Russia has violated the deal, he provided no evidence of that claim during his Saturday announcement.
So who’s got the spare time to be cutting GHGs in America or reform a dysfunctional society where more than 20% of the population are living in poverty and never-ending distress?
con’t
Some of the most fulfilling experiences are moments of understanding and recognition of knowledge, especially that of important matters. The resulting sensation is called: “To stand above it all” The lasting feeling of happiness that comes associated with it this condition goes beyond any short-term equivalents that were generated by external and most often elusive impressions and that thus are significantly handicapped by their inefficiency.
Inefficiency at this point means: “Great efforts for short pleasures with often lasting and dubious consequences.” [aka the Free Market, that Predatory Corporate Capitalist Economy!] :-)
Suppose we have to refrain something because, for whatever reason, we are at a particular time not in a position to comply with the necessary conditions to fulfill a certain wish. Exactly at the very moment in which we are recognizing that we do not “need” ( a wish is legitimate ) that specific object and/or sensation to be happy, this revelation exceeds by far the feeling of disappointment by the alleged defect and / or loss.
Just a little resume: We are free to wish and fulfill us anything as long as the motives are pure and as long as we wish something but do not feel like “must have it under all circumstances”. As soon as we believe that we “must have it under all circumstances”, sooner or later the animal within us is going to take over the reins.
One aggravating “sub-characteristic” of “must have it under all circumstances” is “must have it under all circumstances now”. This sub-characteristic, albeit quite often it is noticed first, will be eliminated together with the parent structure of “must have it under all circumstances”, because if I don’t need something under all circumstances, I don’t need it now either :-)
Precondition for these effects is the knowledge, as well as the deep and strong conviction, that the development of our soul [integrity maturity wisdom] is the real goal of our stay on this earth and not the collection of superficial moments of happiness and/or worldly goods.
Quite incidentally, these, let’s call them “profane moments of happiness” occur even though we no longer hunt them down obsessively during our entire lifetime at at the expense of our peace of mind and our environment, more or less as a main activity ! :-)
http://magnamentis.com/philosophy.net/quintessenz/en-quintessence-r-1.htm
There’s a reason why remaining below the 1.5C and the 2.0C goals are both unachievable.
Re #232 nigelj said Killian @231, you like to make out that you are some sort of genius analyst.
Ah, see? More lies. I just say I am very, very good at it. And I am. I invite you, yet again, to post your list, but you are a liar and have none.
You say literally dozens of things on this website that are flat out wrong
LOL. Again, cut and past, liar.
smarter than some
Tchnically, 98%.
and you are right
Given I don’t address “dozens of things,” how can I possibly be? By your logic, I can’t be right about anything.
humanity will have to start to reduce its consumption of resources, but I think you will find it wont be as much as you hope for.
You do not pay attention. Ever. Always get things wrong. Maybe you’re not stupid, maybe you’re just lazy as hell. I.e., I do not speak in terms of hope. I speak in terms of design. Principles. What must be, what needs to be. And I have stated any number of times I think the probability of success is very small. It is the possibility of success that is high. Why can’t you get such a simple thing correct?
I only respond to a few of the weird things you say
I don’t say weird things.
I notice Im not the only person who is critical
Appeal to Authority fallacy. Does it make you feel better to be among the incompetent?
however I have always worded criticisms politely
Delusional. You were impolite, and lied, in this post.
and given you easy ways to walk yourself back from the issues, but no instead you go on trying to defend the indefensible over and over.
Again, you have never posted a list. Argumentation by Assertion. Over and over and over. I call that lying, too. It’s dishonest.
Often its simply because I wanted to bring some research to your attention.
I have never criticized you for posting links.
I can assure you its nothing personal
Delusional? Lie? Hard to tell.
or some attempt to single you out.
Ditto.
I wonder how accurate your sea level rise predictions have been so far. It appears you have overestimated things if you think sea level rise is well ahead of IPCC estimates.
Again, you understand/pay attention to nothing. I don’t talk about current SLR measurements. I talk about long-term SLR. And I have been very, very accurate given the recent finding of tripling of Antarctic melt in ten years. That continent alone gives us four meters if that keeps up with ZERO acceleration. In other words, the likelihood of less than four meters by 2100 without cooling is pretty damned small.
If you think *I’m* wrong, then you have to go shit on the shoes of the various scientists saying the same. Like Richard Alley. But you don’t. Why not? If you’re so focused on the issues, and not me, why aren’t you cutting and pasting and haranguing them, too? Because you’re an ankle-biting, cowardly, know-nothing.
This is where I predicted it would be so I have some level of skill.
You have none. How convenient your predictions are not available to be checked. Mine are all posted here.
Another thing you get wrong: I am a good analyst. That is not “judgment,” it’s taking in data, et al, and understanding it and its implications. I don’t do the science, but I am very, very good at decoding who or what is the most germane.
I think you have predicted that sea level rise by 2100 will be 2-3 metres. I have said 2 metres, and yet you respond to this by calling me every name you can think of including lying climate denialist and idiot who downplays climate change and a fool. This is despite the fact we are not that far apart on this issue.
Jesus, you are dumb. I have never said a single rude or disrespectful word about your damned prediction. Not one. But you conflate things constantly. I sometimes think you’re a 12 year-old or non-native English speaker. Just idiotic drivel over and over.
Honestly you are delusional. Something isn’t right with you.
You being a complete damned idiot and a liar is the only problem I have. I am done waiting to see if you ever get something right. You are a bizarre, obsessed, unintelligent, stalking little creature.
Re #236 Al Bundy said AB: it takes me about as much time to scroll through the Master’s inches as it does to read everyone else’s combined
Why lie? The black and white is right there to see. My posts do not come close to matching all other posts. Stupid. I wish it were hyperbole, but you are very consistently an insulting, biased ass. The first times we interacted were you insulting me.
Yet, you can’t bring yourself to engage with any post on science, etc., that i post, only the posts where I am responding to the children and fools here, like you.
The problem you have can be found in your mirror.
Killian @241
I’m not a liar and I don’t put words in people mouths, certainly never intentionally. Your problem is your writing lacks clarity and is contradictory.
And the difference between genius level and very, very good is pedantic nit picking nonsense. To suggest I was lying is nonsensical.
But don’t worry. I now mostly scroll past your diatribes, and I ignore you on other threads.
But where you say “Again, you understand/pay attention to nothing. I don’t talk about current SLR measurements. I talk about long-term SLR. And I have been very, very accurate given the recent finding of tripling of Antarctic melt in ten years. That continent alone gives us four meters if that keeps up with ZERO acceleration. In other words, the likelihood of less than four meters by 2100 without cooling is pretty damned small.”
I pay attention to everything. Tripling of antarctic ice loss “IS” a current sea level rise measurement, taken over this decade basically compared to previously.
If the new trend becomes cemented in and does continue every article I have seen says it will increase the worst case IPCC estimate from 900mm to approximately 1200 mm by 2100. That is the current consensus, opinions otherwise are outliers.
You provide no proof, no evidence and no mechanism that suggests this rate will keep on doubling in some sort of exponential fashion. And that it could lead to more than 4 metres by 2100. You don’t seem understand the difference between linear, quadratic and exponential growth.The most plausible path based on the physical realities is moderate quadratic growth.
You also need to remember the “tripling” is in the western antarctic peninsular where oceans have warmed quite abruptly, not the large eastern extent which is only warming very slowly. I think your estimates might be because you simply dont realise this.
And its hard to reconcile your statement of no acceleration with your statement of a tripling every decade keeping up (which is an acceleration)
My own view is its possible we could see strong quadratic growth pushing sea level rise to 2 metres by 2100, as I have already stated. Even this is way above IPCC estimates. I base it on paleo climate data of meltwater pulse 1a, because we at least know this has happened, so we are not speculating that somehow growth might follow your rather extreme guesstimates, we are basing it on proven history. I think that is a pretty reasonable way of analysing things.
There’s nothing wrong with my ability to analyse things. I have a design degree so my job is analysis on a daily basis.
Re #239 Carrie quoted Exactly like the one who knows something will usually try to explain to those who don’t know, while those who just want to be right in the first place, but know nothing or only parts of the whole and feels hurt in his pride ( EGO ), will at least try to disqualify those who really know things better as being dogmatic.
God, yes. Time to start treating the trolls here – and that is the correct use of the term, gents – just like the denialists, because that is what they are.
1. Denialists minimize the problem. Same here. Skyrocketty, right? People claiming I have been wrong about “dozens” of things, yet, there is no cutting and pasting. Etc.
2. Denialists demonize the solutions. Live like a “cave man,” “Luddite” (another stupidity as Luddites were not against technology,) “You hate technology,” and on and on.
3. Denialists demonize the person. In this thread I had AT LEAST 24 posts before anything negative, and that was a RESPONSE to an unprovoked insult from AB, whose first post to me was… an insult. AB’s got issues, and so do too many here.
Climate denialists dressed up as climate activists is one of the most dangerous types of denial. It lulls people into false solutions that will bring the end, not prevent it.
Re #235 nigelj said Killian @231, just adding to my response above and you might learn something.
You need to learn that you have nothing to teach. It is the combination of ignorance and arrogance plus unwarranted and invalid patronization that make you so difficult to deal with.
I really cant be bothered responding to most of your points here. They are so petty and personal, and I have a rule that I don’t go down that road anymore on websites.
Your first and second sentences break your new “rule.” This is typically obtuse and usual lack of self-awareness, from you.
I’m not interested in spending pages on who said what when and the stuff you get into.
Again, you engaged me. I did not engage you. This happens over and over. How incredibly dense are you? Go back and read the thread. Note the posts you engaged me and whether I had done anything to invite your vitriol. (Hint: I had not.) I posted 24 times here, at least – maybe 27? – with no negative comments to anyone. Then AB, Kevin, you, Levinson all jumped on me with insults without cause or provocation. Go back and read the goddamned thread. Try honesty. Try some self-awareness. Try Truth.
Enough other people feel the same and have given you subtle and not so subtle hints.
Yes, people all like you who attack then whine like a stuck pig when I hit back… or anyone else. The Peanut Gallery is a real phenomenon. You’ve got this little bullying group of not-so-bright or poor analysts, whatever, who feel threatened by people smarter, more able, more accurate, than they are. Groupthink. “Other”think. Classic case.
Secondly I meant your ideas on “simplification” are not original, not the main ones anyway, and it should have been obvious I meant that.
This is barking words. It means nothing. Which ones are “main ones?” And, no, it wasn’t obvious, but it doesn’t matter. I never claimed all the things I said were unique. I didn’t create permaculture. I didn’t create egalitarianism. I didn’t invent simplicity. But I am the only one to design a globally applicable model for how we can use them to govern and heal the planet. But I doubt you’ve ever bothered looking at the things you constantly criticize (and likely wouldn’t understand it if you did.)
If your ideas were groundbreaking
Regenerative Governance, the synthesis of a great many ideas into one simple whole, is groundbreaking. What in the hell do you think never-been-seen-or-done-before means?
I might make allowances for your other failings, but they just aren’t.
Nothing you think of as a failing is. You are a troll.
Thirdly I don’t care what you thought about paintballs. I mean good for you if you and your friends had a bright idea, what do you want, a medal?
You really are an idiot. It was a playful aside merely to show original thinking is not new to me – though I never claimed sole credit, so why you take this as an opportunity to attack… yet again… is unclear (other than you are an incredibly large ass.) Since someone else DID create a functioning paintball game, clearly others could and did think of the same thing. I said nothing to claim or imply otherwise. But we were CHILDREN, so, yeah, a little impressive.
And fourthly you dont understand what constitutes a personal feud. My making a few criticisms of your comments is no personal feud.
That’s what you do? No. Lie. You lie. You troll. You insult. You deflect your own errors. You made this personal by your choices. For at least six long months I was patient with your ignorance. Time after time you twisted what was said – even as you do in this post. Time after time you outright lied. Time after time you employed Straw Man and other fallacies. Time after time you intentionally mischaracterized my work. “Cave men” ring a bell?
You have to expect a lot of criticism on a science based website
None of the criticism is about science. It is ALL about my ideas and it is done in a way that is personal and unethical. I don’t give a good goddamn who disagrees with me. Never have. I care that people are ethical, truthful. You are not.
Al Bundy has criticised plenty of things I say
Who cares? He has done the same to me. The difference? You are no threat to his ego. He fancies himself a savior – have you not noticed his mentions of his machine to save the world? His very first post directed at me was a diatribe, yet, did you call him out? No. Anyone else? No. Yourself? No. He has done it again in this thread. Did you call him out? No. Hmmm… Why is it rudeness only needs to be called out if it’s me?
Only Carrie and I get your vitriol despite the huge number of insults tossed around by you, AB and others. You are biased damned fool.
If you cant see the difference between politely attacking some point someone makes and calling them names or a liar or otherwise putting down their abilities
Said the pot to the kettle. You have created the bad blood between us. I was honest with you. YOU took it personally. Go back to your first posts here in ’16 or ’17. Clue yourself in to who you really are. See the inane crap you used to spew. Notice your positions have changed, edging ever closer to mine and others’ while you pretend you have always said these things.
Shut up. Enough. Disappear.
Which nations is the #1 recalcitrant against climate change mitigation actions since the 1992 Rio Conference? That’d be the USA. Not only President Trump and the current Congress but all of them from Bill Clinton, to GW Bush to Obama admins.
To deny there is no direct connection inter-relationship between the USAs leading predatory corporate capitalist economic system (+20% of global GDP), it’s hegemonic global financial self-interests, and it’s empire building MIC war mongering rhetoric, invasions, and arms sales every decade since WW2 with the forces of global American instigated & marketing driven Climate Change denial – the nation’s intentional repetitive undermining of the UNFCCC processes and it’s rejections of the Treaties is imo highly ignorant, myopic and quite delusional.
This is what the reality looks like on a global map
http://www.tomdispatch.com/images/managed/sof2017_large.jpg
“America’s elite troops were deployed to 149 nations in 2017, according to U.S. Special Operations Command. The map above displays the locations of 132 of those countries; 129 locations (in blue) were supplied by U.S. Special Operations Command; 3 locations (in red) — Syria, Yemen and Somalia — were derived from open-source information. (Nick Turse)
Unfortunately the truth is way too radical to accept for most in the western world because their raison d’etre, their reason for being alive, their personal “must have it under all circumstances” ideologies is intimately tied into their oversized egos, their internalized mythical thinking, to their repeated denial of reality, and to more than anything their abdication of responsibility to act for the common good of their own kin both in America and beyond it’s shores.
To achieve this end the eradication of any semblance of human empathy is the essential and final act of betrayal.
Carrie, ok neoliberalism should be killed and given a quick burial in a lead lined coffin, but I think you will find its not going to be easy finding a viable replacement system. Some of the challenges are covered in George Orwells famous book “Animal Farm”. If you haven’t read it you should, or just look it up on wikipedia.
While browsing with my killfile off, i noticed the para reproduced (with no trace of attribution) below.
“A nation that tortures and kills and impoverishes abroad must, of its nature, do the same at home. Conversely, no reform of domestic policy can occur absent reform of foreign policy. And until then, the people are the enemy, foreign and native. I know it isn’t an obvious connection, but I’m still surprised that so many people don’t see it. He who lives by the sword… ”
I entirely agree, of course, because i wrote the first three sentences. Neven wrote the last sentence in response.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,617.msg177808.html#msg177808
I suppose I should be complimented, since plagiarism might be a sincere form of flattery.
sidd
Killian @245, I don’t accept any of that.
The reason I first engaged you on this thread about 20 comments back is nothing to do with stalking anyone or looking to attack anyone. You challenged people by saying they should not participate unless they could show they had had the courage to make predictions, (or words to that effect). You therefore INVITED feedback.
I then simply said at post 220 that I had made predictions and it was politely worded and even PRASIED statements you had made. I did criticise you on one point, – your incessant bragging, but I criticise anyone for this, like that economist guy who posted literally all his exam results.
You then went into an abusive rant against me full of put downs. So against my better judgement I responded and so it went.
You are honestly detached from reality. Go back and read my post at 220.
You vaguely complain that unspecified people have called you a luddite or cave man or anti technology. For the record, I have certainly never done this.
I certainly think we are well advised to reduce our use of resources where we can. About all I have ever said to you is 1) too many cuts in technology are going to cause problems “abcdef” that you might not have considered, and 2) its going to be difficult persuading people of such huge changes, and it might be better to promote a lesser goal at least as a “first step” and 3) shouting at people calling them liars or idiots is not justified and will not convince them or anyone reading this website!
Yet you take this as some sort of personal attack or something. I think you overeact for whatever reason.
I’m not wasting time and space on the rest.
BUT DONT WORRY. I’m finishing this up. I wont respond to you directly in future. Thank god for the scroll button.
Re #243 anklebiter said Killian @241
I’m not a liar and I don’t put words in people mouths, certainly never intentionally.
Wrong on all three counts. I repeat: Caveman. One of many.
Your problem is your writing lacks clarity and is contradictory.
Never in my life has that been said to me by anyone, not even university professors, who would have had cause if anyone did. Try to figure out which is the outlier here, your ridiculous claims and inane, empty feeback… or everyone else.
And the difference between genius level and very, very good is pedantic nit picking nonsense. To suggest I was lying is nonsensical.
No, you were. I have never made any claim of genius in any way, shape, or form. You were defaming, with malice aforethought by overstating my self statements to make me seem arrogant. Stop lying.
But don’t worry. I now mostly scroll past your diatribes, and I ignore you on other threads.
Out of the mouths of babes…
But where you say “Again, you understand/pay attention to nothing. I don’t talk about current SLR measurements. I talk about long-term SLR. And I have been very, very accurate given the recent finding of tripling of Antarctic melt in ten years. That continent alone gives us four meters if that keeps up with ZERO acceleration. In other words, the likelihood of less than four meters by 2100 without cooling is pretty damned small.”
I pay attention to everything. Tripling of antarctic ice loss “IS” a current sea level rise measurement
You’re truly obtuse. I did not say I do not **pay attention to** everything – I’m a permaculturist, AS YOU KNOW – I said I do not **talk about** it. That is, I do not pursue it much as a topic bc what it now is not something I or we or anyone can do anything about.
opinions otherwise are outliers.
And the outliers have been winning this little game. That’s also how one should manage risk. I don’t think you understand the function of the IPCC reports and why even scientists are frustrated by them.
You provide no proof, no evidence and no mechanism that suggests this rate will keep on doubling in some sort of exponential fashion.
You’re a rock-for-brains if you don’t know that. All has been discussed on these pages, all has been posted on these pages. It is idiocy to pretend that information is not common knowledge on this site. And I specifically cited Alleys comments. So, again, a liar… stupidly so.
But let me indulge this idiocy you spew: The FACT that the melt had tripled in a decade was simply extrapolated to keep doing that. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s pretty simple math.
And that it could lead to more than 4 metres by 2100. You don’t seem understand the difference between linear, quadratic and exponential growth.
Because you disagree, and once again minimize, denier? How does what someone estimates – whether it be Hansen, Box, Alley or myself – tell you anything about *how* they measured? Having no info on that, how do you infer what is understood or not?
And what of the studies over the last couple years saying… 4 meters possible by 2100? Well-discussed here? Hmmm?
You’re a nincompoop, on a good day.
The most plausible path based on the physical realities is moderate quadratic growth.
Who cares? I didn’t ask Hansen nor Alley how they came to their conclusions. I didn’t ask the researchers how they came up with a tripling of melt over ten years. It is a moot point in our discussion. I do not need to know which calculation they used, only that they did the calculation. Once a rate is established it’s very simple math to extend that. It does not matter much which type of equation is used, particularly when the discussion is not of the *science,* but of the result…. and by laypersons.
And, there you go again doing absolutely *isht* risk analysis. The last thing anyone should care about is what the middle way is. It’s important only IF we avoid the worst case, which we are currently not doing. But if you plan and design for the middle case, you make the worst case more likely. You are a damned fool.
You also need to remember the “tripling” is in the western antarctic peninsular where oceans have warmed quite abruptly, not the large eastern extent which is only warming very slowly.
Wrong. It was not “Antarctic peninsula,” it was Antarctica. Shut up.
And its hard to reconcile your statement of no acceleration with your statement of a tripling every decade keeping up (which is an acceleration)
What the hell are you talking about, dumbass? Jesus, your idiocy is limitless. Tripling of RATE, dumbshit, RATE. I.e., continuing to trible every decade rather than increasing in RATE to doubling every five years, e.g.
My own view is
I do not care. None should. You have nothing to say that is of use.
There’s nothing wrong with my ability to analyse things.
Delusional.
I have a design degree so my job is analysis
Self-referential Appeal to Authority. The ultimate in the blind leading the blind.