This is certainly the heart of the challenges that we face. And this site faces, for example here.

But the threat to decency and wisdom is at every level, from UN to government to every social group to each individual. 'Flood the zone' disrupts every agency as can be seen. I don't think it can be resisted until 'stupid' learns the hard way. I know that sounds pessimistic, but that is what I see - that the world has gone mad from top to bottom, and most of us will be dead before it comes to its senses. Like WW1, but worse.

As I sip a glass of wine, I am conscious of the cool yet warming liquid, the taste unfolding, the memories of youth spent at the grape harvest, and thoughts of long forgotten friends.

How easy it is in thought, to list the things I am conscious of — a world, a body, thoughts, and feelings, time passing, and those senses - a drone of light aircraft, and the warmth of winter sun, the faint pulse of an aching back. Yet these thoughts are not themselves conscious, until another lends them life in reading, for a moment.

How hard though for consciousness to be conscious of itself; conscious of the inner space that contains everything one might be conscious of. For that one must be very, very quiet, and listen to the sound of silence.

The internet eventually formed the best way for the stupid to be louder than the wise, and they are constantly loud because they have time for it as they do not engage with knowledge with the time and care that the wise are. — Christoffer

I agree. A similar thing happened with the invention of the printing press, which played a major role in a Europe wide witch hunt over the course of the following century or so.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/social-sciences/printing-press-witch-trials/

We seem to have somewhat adapted or learned the pitfalls of printed matter; perhaps we will eventually adapt to the internet. Or is it that the internet is exactly that witchcraft that the ancients were so afraid of? :scream:

Please watch this YouTube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, and think about whether it applies to climate science. — Agree-to-Disagree

It does, but not in the way you think. Rather, the institutions, academic and governmental, downplay and even outright reject the more pessimistic papers and predictions, despite their having been proven accurate. Thus it is the voices I post here and below, that are marginalised and ignored in favour of more reassuring IPPC positions that everything can be sorted out in a few decades time.

More Chinese solar power, now with added sheep!

I thought this was my home.
— unenlightened

Not unless you own it. — Arcane Sandwich

I cannot let this piece of elitist capitalist ideology stand unchallenged. :wink: Home is where the heart is. You may have your heart in your wallet, but not necessarily. Most of us do not own our own home. But "Everybody's got to be somewhere."

Stupid behavior is often about putting the intelligence in the service of self interest, at the expense of the good. — EnPassant

:100: I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me.

This is a comment from Mikie to Agree-to-Disagree from a week ago: — frank

If I had been moderating, I would have deleted and warned @Mikie too, several times. I might even have deleted some of my own posts. If you are trying to make an argument that the standards are very low, too low, I agree. If you are trying to argue that Mikie is the main problem here or in the other thread, well that would be another matter entirely.

In general, I would be more tolerant of occasional flaming from a decent poster, than prolific low quality posters.

But, you can only get such a setting in your own home/on your own site. — Patterner

I thought this was my home.

I'll let that be my final comment on this topic.

Then your point is that they should ban Agree-to-Disagree? — frank

Yes.

I think he's the only person who posts on that that thread with any regularity (other than yourself). — frank

That seems to indicate that at least one of us making the thread uninteresting to others. But @Mikie also posts. I think he mostly ignores @Agree-to-Disagree these days.

His posts aren't really bad enough for banning. — frank

"Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision.", as was Disagreeably said to me a few posts back.

Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision. — Agree-to-Disagree

I make the decision for myself, and I express it with evidence in support. The site owner and the volunteer moderators are the ones entitled to make the decision for this site. My opinion might inform or persuade, or it might not. They might ban me instead.

You want to be able to post anything that you want to, but you want to deny other people the same privilege. You want to delete people's posts that you disagree with or don't like. That sounds like the sort of thing that a dictator would do. — Agree-to-Disagree

No. I don't want anyone to be able to post anything they like; and I would be happy to be banned from any site that was run like that. I was an admin for several years of the predecessor of this site, and I did not enjoy at all deleting peoples' posts or banning them, nor did I enjoy the abuse and tedious accusations that were routinely made like those you have made above. I did those things to preserve something I consider valuable — a community of communication. Such cannot exist without standards and discipline.

Why not make a new thread devoted to climate change links, like a reddit style listing. — frank

This is a discussion site, and I want to discuss. But I don't want to discuss garbage.

And here is some more detail. This is a bit long, sorry. But worth your time, I think. The comparison with the decline of the British Empire is particularly telling.

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving. — Mikie

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite, to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing. I guess it must be an ideological disagreement.

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule? — Hanover

Is it an ideology that the mods are in charge? Is the rule an ideology? shall we debate forever the terms of the debate?

I think any debate needs some ideology in the form of a commitment to honesty, and an acceptance of the terms of the debate. I think therefore that this forum has such an ideology and sets the standards for participation. If you as moderator think that belief in climate change, or that shit smells is an ideology, or a matter of opinion, then I will have to consider my position as contributor.

I have been putting up videos of careful explanations of scientific papers, and then having to deal with quotes and citations from petrol-heads, disreputable sensation-monger press, and click-bait sites, and I am mightily dis-chuffed with wasting my time on them. If you find the topic too controversial to deal with such nonsense, I will seek a site where sensible discussion can be had without constant interruption.

Limits to growth came up in the climate change thread recently. Here is the US trying to overshoot the limits as described some math dude trying to reason with politicians.

I would prefer that we have certain standards, such that we do not discuss creationism, flat earth, climate change denial, normalisation of pedophilia, and probably a few other topics. I am not a fan of the idea that every point of view is valid.

It is difficult in these times to draw these lines, and I would think that they ought never be absolute. But if such topics are to be allowed, at the least, high standards of rigour in evidence and argument should be required. What is hard to take in the topic under discussion is the disruption of what is otherwise a slow and hopefully educational development of the topic, by low quality and disagreeable posts, from people who think themselves clever and hilarious - aka trolls.

I certainly do not want to discuss climate change denial with anyone and would not participate in such a thread. And I do not believe anyone else would want to present their views there either; it is the attention that results from disruption and conflict that is craved.

The solution? Nonsense should be deleted, and trolls should be banned. Shimples!

He was on the forums talking a lot about how meaningless his life felt, asking others to convince him that life is worth living. (These forums are a really bad place to come for that! — petrichor

I think I remember the handle, it was a long time back - on the old site? There are plenty of worse places to go, but if you can't find meaning in life, then words are not going to help, any more than a sign post can help when you don't know where you want to go.

(All one ever encounters is the inside of the head) — PoeticUniverse

When the hand touches the hot stove,
The arm pulls it away before
The head knows anything about it.

The brain is like the government,
pretending it is in control
and claiming all knowledge and power.

But the heart leads the dance
And conducts the music of the spheres.

There ought to be a special section for retired staff to complain about how things have gone downhill, and there are no proper discussions any more, and the mods don't seem to care, etc. Enjoy your dotage @fdrake. And thanks for all the fish.

On the less bright side, discussing the thread and its bright and dull sides is entirely off topic, as is most of the discussion that goes on in the thread. but since we can't beat them...

So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question. — Arcane Sandwich

It would allow you to understand their conflict better. I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again.

I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way. — Arcane Sandwich

One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues. Plastic pollution is a serious environmental problem, but it is not a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The Earth is warming because of the insulating effect of changes in the atmosphere, mainly the increase of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and the increase of methane from various sources, farmed cattle emissions, natural gas leakage, permafrost melting, etc. Plastics actually function to lock up carbon long term and so function in a minor way as a carbon sink. But do not take that as a vote in their favour.

So the issue for this thread at least, is the burning of fossil fuels rather than their transformation into plastics, unless those plastics are incinerated. Petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, coal, natural gas, are all hydrocarbons whose combustion add to the insulation that warms the earth.

Pollution has some importance too, because it degrades the ability of the living environment to absorb carbon dioxide, and rebalance the atmosphere. But the major impact comes from oil and coal burning, and that is what needs to stop.

Of course things get much more complicated as one goes into the details, and we can talk about positive feedback and tipping points and sun-cycles and Milankovitch cycles, and bees, and krill, and plastics, and so on and on. But please understand, our total addiction to fossil fuels is the big problem and if we don't sort it, the world will heat up until we either do sort it or the heat sorts us.

Prog rock never dies.

Take a deep breath, and maybe have a stiff drink at hand.

Further to my earlier mention of the difficulty of having an intuitive understanding of exponential functions. Here is a good explanation of the nature of that difficulty.

http://www.kazabyte.com/2011/12/we-dont-understand-exponential-functions.html

Here is some bad news that is not, as far as I know, directly connected to climate change, but certainly adds to the degradation of the environment and affects the food supply. Is it pesticides, varela, viruses, that cold snap, or just accumulated stresses? Wait and see. Anyway, bad news, we don't know yet how bad.



But a bit of good news for UK bees, the government has finally banned neonicotinoid insecticides to treat seeds, that had been permitted against advice.

Edwards added: “The focus must now be on a complete, sustainable transition away from a reliance on the use of neonicotinoids not just in agriculture, but also in pet flea treatments. This is a key source of chemical pollution in our waterways, with 10% of UK rivers found to contain toxic neonicotinoid chemicals.”

https://bylinetimes.com/2025/01/24/what-the-government-has-been-doing/

Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors. — Arcane Sandwich

You are quite right, and I hereby rename the refusal to adapt "the Dodo adaptation" - an equivalently fowl metaphor, but somewhat more apt.

Essentially, adaptation is the key to survival in a changing world, and failure to adapt leads to death and potential extinction. :scream: — Agree-to-Disagree

Just so! And there are but 2 ways for humans to adapt to climate change.

1. Stop using fossil fuels that are increasing climate change and take other urgent measures to stabilise the environment. The Humble Pie adaptation.

2. Reduce the population of humans by 95% or so, and let the remaining few continue to burn baby burn, moving from place to place as each in turn becomes uninhabitable. The Mad Max adaptation.

There is a 3rd possibility; the Ostrich adaptation of looking the other way and pretending there is nothing happening. But this is more of a refusal to adapt.

Another day, another sentiment; a happy song, for all the happy people.

The British isles will freeze over. — frank

It's possible, but rather unlikely. In order for that to happen, the sea ice would have to extend a long way beyond where it has been in historical times. But if that were to happen, it would increase the salinity of the surface water and that would likely restart the overturning. In any case, it would take many years to form much of a glaciation of the land. Most likely it will be harsher winters and more unpredictable summers.

Today, I needed some comfort, so I reached out ...

We’re seeing these effects at 1.1. Imagine 2.4. — Mikie

I heard this explanation somewhere, but cannot give the due credit. "When one is on an exponential curve and one looks to the past, the curve looks almost flat and gives little indication that what lies ahead looks more like a wall. "



So far, most of the excess heat has been absorbed in melting sea ice. The AMOC has taken extra heat from South to North. As AMOC slows, the heat effects will be much stronger in the tropics and southern hemisphere.

The economic and political collapse is already under way, populism leads to divisive policies which lead to conflicts, trade wars, civil wars, and international wars, There is no major economy on a stable footing at the moment, and no government looks stable. This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse.

I think that your interpretation of what Herrington said is incorrect (what Herrington said is ambiguous). — Agree-to-Disagree

Research by Herrington, a rising star in efforts to place data analysis at the center of efforts to curb climate breakdown, affirmed the bleaker scenarios put forward in a landmark 1972 MIT study, The Limits to Growth, that presented various outcomes for what could happen when the growth of industrial civilization collided with finite resources.

(my bold)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/25/gaya-herrington-mit-study-the-limits-to-growth

Thus the article the the experts at lad bible are referencing.

And here, in case anyone wants to go right to the horse's mouth, is the veritable Herrington saying what Herrington is saying to whoever cares to read it. https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf

This one is made by Sabine Hossenfelder, the well known petrol-head who has a PhD in physics. — Agree-to-Disagree

There's not much physics in that, more politics and economics. But there is little I disagree with as to the facts of human social behaviour. And I like planet wild too.
I concluded already that the project of the oligarchs is to let climate change wipe out most of the human population and replace them with more amenable and less needy intelligent robots. But I don't have to like it, do I?

Our climate simulations led to the staggering conclusion that continued growth of ice melt will cause shutdown of the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean overturning circulations as early as midcentury and “nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters in 50-150 years.”Footnote111 These results contrast sharply with IPCC conclusions based on global climate models. Growing freshwater injection in the Ice Melt model49 already limits warming in the Southern Ocean by the 2020s with cooling in that region by midcentury. In contrast, models that IPCC relies on have strong warming in the Southern Ocean. Observed sea surface temperature is consistent with results from the Ice Melt model,49 but inconsistent with the models that IPCC relies on (Figure 20).Footnote112

(my bold)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#d1e1581

I really recommend this paper; it brings together solar cycles, the contribution of the reduction of aerosol emissions, AMOC, and the effect of an AMOC collapse on Antarctic melting and sea level rise, and paints a detailed picture of where we are headed, which is rather too close to shit creek with no paddle for comfort. For the hard of reading, Here is the imitable Paul Beckwith ("Hello, I'm Paul Beckwith.") doing the hard work, so you don't have to. This is his second go at the paper, and as he gets towards the end he makes the connections all too clear and believable.

quantum computers are God! — frank

And lads write the Bible.

"And the morning and the evening were the eighth day."

Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.

So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say?

The results were pretty terrifying — Agree-to-Disagree

The Lad Bible is infallible. the clue is in the name.

(this is not an exhaustive list) — Agree-to-Disagree

Speaking of exhausts...

When I was a kid, we used to watch the London to Brighton race.



We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days. The above film is before my time but the old crocks are the same.

James Hansen’s New Paper and Presentation: Global Warming Has ACCELERATED

Please donate to http://PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos connecting the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.

James Hansen power point presentation link:
Dr. Pushker Kharecha power point slides and other scientists power point slides
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/y4zf25blgotzekhhjuwvk/AD5ejwIIbgxx6cRBdFRIWw8?e=1&mc_cid=8c6e107514&rlkey=sl54bq0g8t13jq6h9eerjvgxy&st=4rorogat&utm_campaign=8c6e107514-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_10_31_04_36_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=SDSN&utm_term=0_-01f09620b9-179349392&dl=0

Some key points to understand:
- the 1.5C target has already been surpassed
- with temperature increasing at an accelerated pace since 2010 of 0.36 C per decade (double the rate of rise from 1970 to 2010) we will gain an additional 0.5 in less than 15 years (15 year rise will be 0.36 x 1.5 equals 0.54 C) which will bring us above 2 C by 2040 at the latest
- climate sensitivity is 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, much higher than the IPCC value of 3 C
- AMOC will likely collapse before 2050 due to fresh water hosing in the North Atlantic at much higher rates (double) than the value used in Hansen's previous paper
- last time AMOC shut down, global sea level rise went up several meters. Clearly, with an AMOC shutdown cooling the Arctic more heat builds up in the Southern Hemisphere and equatorial regions, so Antarctica melt rate increases rapidly and dominates the reduced melt rate from Greenland glaciers

James Hansen scientific paper link:
Publisher link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#abstractart
Actual paper link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494?needAccess=true

Whenever someone claims the existence of some state of affairs, I feel entitled to ask "where?" and "when?" My carrot and lentil soup existed at 6:30 pm in a nice pottery bowl, but I have eaten it and now it is no more, though the empty bowl is in the kitchen.

Alas, it can make no possible sense to ask "where is space?" nor "when is time?". And for that reason, I can make no sense of claims that space and time exist; I'm with Kant on this one; they are how we have to think about existence.

I can see a little vid of Netanyahu looking 'quizzical' in an X screenshot thingy, a few posts back.

Which i interpret as "you weren't supposed to say that bit out loud yet." or thereabouts.