Well, the last few generations of Elders, having left us up Shit Creek without a paddle, seem to me to deserve about as much respect as some Chinese geese we once had to keep the lawn down - we lost track of them in the grass! I think that we need to distinguish very clearly between the material of history and the other subjects and those who have control of education. When I was a kid in the Rhondda, after what had been done to our people, about the only person we respected was Paul Robeson, and when I was in Cambridge about the only person I respected was Leavis, the great critic, who didn't much respect anyone else. It was a place full of rich snobs from public (your private?) schools, many on closed scholarships, and I was in perhaps the worst of all the colleges in that respect, so my reactions were just boredom and contempt. Isn't the stuff you are talking about available on the internet? An amazing amount of material does seem to be. I'm not unsympathetic with your views, but I feel that each generation is now adapted to the technology it is supposed it will be living with, and it cuts down on generational contacts, because capitalism will see to it that technology goes on developing fast. Wouldn't designing humanoid robots and bowing out with dignity be a preferable approach? — iolo

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that robots are better than humans? This is such a wonderful subject it deserves its own thread. Why would a robot care about anything?


It would be great if we could all watch the Britsh tv show "Humans" together and then share our impressions and concerns. This link provides ways to access the show
https://www.google.com/search?q=online+British+tv+show+%22Humans%22&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=online+British+tv+show+%22Humans%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.34768j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I am not necessarily saying this is inevitable, nor am I saying that it is the end of humanity. I'm just trying to think ahead in order to plan for possible outcomes based on public information. I don't see how it is a waste of effort unless the entire thing is a lie, in which case I will be thoroughly impressed with the organizational skills required to do so. — Lif3r

I think possibly the best book ever written for common people and understanding how our world works, is Youngquist book "Geodestinies". I knew him and I am quite sure he is dead now. He was a geologist and worked around the world. Then he became a geology professor. He wrote two books that I know of "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations" and "Geodestinies". "Geodestinies" got special awards and finally, our local paper accepted the importance of his book after I got on them about that. I am saying really important information is not getting to the people, so we can not have faith in the masses. However, if you want to be well informed you can access the book here and give a copy to your local library and possibly highs schools. This is something real and meaningful we can do.

Geodestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources over ...
https://www.amazon.com › Geodestinies-Inevitable-Control-Resources-Indi...
There are many good books on peak oil, but none fly as high as Youngquist's "Geodestinies", giving you an eagle-eye view of how the world works from a ... — amazon

Give us reason to agree with you. — Athena

I’m not expecting you to agree with me. My initial response was to the alarmist comments that you and others posted. I’m not unaware of the damage to our environment. Just because I’m opposed to your posts doesn’t mean I’m ignorant of what’s going on around me. You and others keep asking for proof of something from me, but you know I could never satisfy you.

How well do you understand the minerals essential to agriculture and where did you get your information? — Athena

Take this question for instance. You ask me how well I understand the minerals essential for agriculture. It seems like a reasonable question. But in the same sentence, before I’ve even answered, you then ask where I got the information from, as if there’s something unreliable about my source. So you deny me an answer in the same sentence you ask for one. So it’s obvious I could never satisfy you.

And have you looked up the actual cases, looked at the professional records of those scientists? Everyone who claimed to have been "excommunicated" I ever looked up was either not actually a climate scientist or an obvious hack. — Echarmion

I don’t really like doing this sort of thing, it just leads to an endless back and forward of who’s who and who’s not, but you insist I never give an answer, so here goes.

Lennart O. Bengtsson
Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976  — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991  — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.

Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events.


John R. Christy
He holds a Ph.D. (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records.

Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records.


Richard S. Lindzen
He holds a Ph.D. (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.
Already in his Ph.D. dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22] After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23] Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24] Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.

it is an "east is east and west is west" kind of difference. Bob Hope and Jane Russell sang it in a movie, Paleface, back in 1947. Never saw it, but the song was popular for a long time. Everybody sang it, even Gene Autry -- to his horse, Champion the wonder horse, I suppose. Kinky.

East is east and west is west
And the wrong one I have chose
Let's go where they keep on wearin'
Those frills and flowers and buttons and bows

People often come to diverse opinions even with the same evidence before them. And, in the case of global warming, it doesn't matter what you and I believe. The world isn't doing a whole lot about reducing CO2 and methane emissions, and that includes every nation on earth.

I have written elsewhere that actually making the kind of changes that I and other extremists think are necessary, and doing so at the speed that might be advisable to save the climate, would initially be a cultural, health, and economic disaster which would be responsible for many deaths. How? By producing massive turmoil and disruption in almost all human activities!

Halting the mining of fossil fuels (coal and oil), ceasing the production of individual cars, drastically curtailing air travel, reducing consumption of electricity (server farms, for instance, produce about as much CO2 to cool equipment as air travel does), sharply reducing consumer consumption and at the same time switching to all-renewable energy sources or doing without, and so on and so forth, would produce disturbances in the production and distribution of food and essential supplies that would lead to many deaths. (Many = hundreds of millions around the world).

How would people in northern latitudes stay warm in winter (and elsewhere, cool in summer)? How would food be produced, processed, and distributed? How would necessary pharmaceuticals be produced? What kind of work could most people do, under these circumstances?

Eventually the world would adjust -- it would probably take around 50 to 60 years, minimum. Historical item: Major changes in technology have generally taken around 40 to 50 years to be fully adopted. By the time all this was accomplished, the momentum of global warming might have started to slow down and the population would have been significantly reduced.

No national or international body or its leaders want to be responsible for this sort of act of commission -- though their acts of omission will have at least the same or worse results.

I can safely pontificate all I want because the levers of power are nowhere even remotely close to my reach.

And, in the case of global warming, it doesn't matter what you and I believe. The world isn't doing a whole lot about reducing CO2 and methane emissions, and that includes every nation on earth. — Bitter Crank

That’s the first truth of climate change.

The second truth is that we cannot agree on how much CO2 is being released. If we can’t agree on that then we can’t agree on consequences..

The third truth is that disagreement is healthy. If it were not for that we would still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

The fourth truth is that humans are the most adaptable species on the planet, and if not of all species then of mammals. Humans live and thrive all across the planet, this is where we were born.

I have written elsewhere that actually making the kind of changes that I and other extremists think are necessary, and doing so at the speed that might be advisable to save the climate, would initially be a cultural, health, and economic disaster which would be responsible for many deaths. How? By producing massive turmoil and disruption in almost all human activities! — Bitter Crank

This is more than likely. We are extraordinarily adaptable but that sort of pressure might be too much. It’s social engineering on a massive scale. I don’t believe social engineering works on even a small scale (that’s not a truth, that’s just me).

Final truth;

I can safely pontificate all I want because the levers of power are nowhere even remotely close to my reach. — Bitter Crank

I can't quite work out what you are denying. You are both saying that humans are adaptable and resourceful, while also saying that they are not going to make the necessary changes and that the scientists (the ones who are meant to be most serious about this) are squabbling amongst themselves and ostracising themselves and that you are somehow going to throw the baby out with the bath water over this, while also still being concerned about the issue.

Welcome to human nature, this is what we are like, we can barely organise a piss up in a brewery. The bottom line is we need to shift from fossil fuels to renewables pronto and then start trying to work out how to shuttle folk around the place with these renewables, because they won't want to stop doing that.

Oh and in the meantime try not to go to war with each other (this includes trade wars), or profiteer, or exploit each other to much, as that will impede our progress.

Just for fun, here is Bob Hope and Jane Russell


but this is a better version of Buttons and Bows.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ggNUKQL2Y


How about the Lawrence Welk Show

Democracy is about citizens ruling themselves rather than being dependent on authority about them. That is why education is so important.

Do we have agreement that we can not maintain our way of life?

Do we agree that global warming will become increasingly costly in the way of extreme weather, flooding and fires, ice and excessive heat causing deaths of plants, animals, and humans, and the rising seas destroying land and agriculture?

What can we do?

We can spread information and check with the schools. Write letters to editors and post online to spread information. Perhaps read books or take college classes so we are better informed ourselves. Buy butcher paper and buy meat where it can be wrapped in butcher paper instead of put in plastic trays. When possible go to the store with containers can that can be refilled and buy bulk instead of prepackaged food. Always carry your own bags, and do not use straws when stopping for liquid refreshment.

Dospossible baby diapers and sanitary pads are huge environmental enemies. It is not just that can contaminate groundwater and take forever to degrade, but they consume resources and increase the cost of gas because they are an oil product as well as require trees. https://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/dangers-of-disposable-diapers

We can use cloth diapers and pads. That is not convenient or pleasant but future generations deserve our care.

What else can we do? I am not saying these actions will save the world, but they buy us time.

Your post is interesting in the assumptions you make of others.

First I imagine @Bitter Crank post isn’t addressing the problem in terms of straws and butcher paper. I imagine he’s talking about the power and consequence of China, or India, as well as the internal conflicts of America and the great cultural changes going on all around the world. Climate change seems to be about more than the weather, it’s become some sort of psychic shift in who we think we are and what we should be. Hence the heated differences on this forum. So I imagine he’s talking about some sort of existential experience in the contemporary world, as I am.

Secondly, you really should consider who you might be addressing, what age they might be. For me and my age group we used cloth diapers, we received our food in paper wrapping or bags, we refused plastic bags many years ago, we actively engaged with social issues, we demonstrated and spent time in jail, obviously most people on this forum are well read and educated. Do you think we don’t embrace those ideals anymore, that we don’t actively engage with the world in the way we always have.

In one of your posts you mentioned respect for elders but you fail to live up to it yourself.

Gad, these are corny; one could fatten pigs on them. Thanks for posting them.

Secondly, you really should consider who you might be addressing, what age they might be. For me and my age group

Interesting point, this is something I have considered. All the people I know who are sceptical of climate change, or the appropriate response to the warnings from climate scientists, are over 70 years of age. It is about 75% of them. All the people I know under the age of 70 are fully onboard with the agenda as suggested by Bitter Crank, for example. Notable are every person I know under 20 years of age.
Indeed right across Europe, a young person who is sceptical on these issues is a great rarity. I expect, but don't know, that there are a portion of the younger age group in the US, who are sceptical for some reason. Is it the case do you think, that there is more scepticism on this in the US than elsewhere?

Interestingly, on the radio I am listening to right now, is Greta talking to Sir David Attenborough, a testament to how important this issue is. I hear him say, that for politicians, they only care about tomorrow and the next day. When are we going to stop burying our heads in the sand?

Is it the case do you think, that there is more scepticism on this in the US than elsewhere? — Punshhh

I don’t know. I have to question myself often about how much I really know about the US.

Greta talking to Sir David Attenborough, a testament to how important this issue is. — Punshhh

I feel that it’s just a symbolic gesture. Greta and Attenborough; both tv factoids. What exactly is meant to come out of it?

He has a degree in natural sciences. Other than that he’s a talking head.

Edit: of course it’s a publicity stunt, I get that. But how can anyone take it seriously. What could Greta possibly have to contribute intellectually.

of course it’s a publicity stunt, I get that. But how can anyone take it seriously. What could Greta possibly have to contribute intellectually

Yes it's a publicity stunt for the issues they are concerned with. There is no need for any intellectual content, the intellectual argument has already been won. It is simply one of many facets of a seismic shift going on in the global psyche.

On the same programme I heard Mark Carney, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, soon to become the UN special envoy on climate change, warning investors that now is not the time to invest in fossil fuel rich enterprises, as such assets will become worthless in the near future. And that enterprises involved in Green technologies are the best places to invest.

There is no need for any intellectual content, the intellectual argument has already been won. — Punshhh

So why the interview, then, if the war is won? If the intellectual war is won everything else should follow. After all the science is in.

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that robots are better than humans? This is such a wonderful subject it deserves its own thread. Why would a robot care about anything? — Athena

Robots will be what we decide to make them, I suppose, and might survive the capitalist world-burning. After the latest British and American elections I'd need a lot more than some programme to sell me on the current species. The majority are now endlessly manipulable, I'd say, and the system will manipulate them to the end.

So why the interview, then, if the war is won? If the intellectual war is won everything else should follow. After all the science is in.

This reminds me of your faith in the adaptability of humanity. I don't have such faith, faith in highly populous civilisations to make systemic change rapidly. In the UK, the government is the primary agent in social and industrial change. Our current government repeatedly makes hollow claims and promises about action on carbon reductions. Once they are in power complacency reigns, even while they claim that the goals are being achieved, there is inaction.

The only way to get systemic change in our system, and I expect it is the same in most countries is by force, force of public opinion, public demand, public action. This is now finally beginning to happen.
Greta said in the interview that such complacency had resulted in the recent talks in Madrid failing to make progress and that we must focus on making a success of COP26 in the UK next year.

Do you know that a UK representative at the Madrid talks reported that there were 150 US representatives going around trying to impede the talks and they may have succeeded. I wonder who told them, or their superiors to do that?

I don't get it. Why would robots make anything better? What happens to the humans? If life is not good for humans what is the point?

:lol: How old do you think I am?

What do you think we should be doing now? Personally, I am in favor of doing what I can do. My sister is taking college classes so she has a better understanding of the problems and what we can do. She suggested the things we could do and I just passed them on. I think sharing information is important, don't you?

I really don't know what you mean by an existential experience. As of the end of this day, I am homeless. Thankfully I know this is only temporary, and I have resources so I can put most of what is important to me in a storage shed and my medical insurance provides a pass to gyms so I can feel rich soaking in hot tubs and I can shower. At the moment my survival seems a little more important than having an existential experience.

However, it is possible everything is going as planned. That is, the mass of humanity on earth and all the things that are happening are part of a higher plan. You know the New Age thinking. This is the dawning of the angel Aquarius, a time of peace and high technology and the end of tyranny. The mass of humanity could be the result of souls being reincarnated just before a major transition. We can thank the tarot cards, and the Pyramid of Gisa, and the bible, and Aztecs, all speak of the end of times. Is that thinking having an existential experience?

388

↪iolo I don't get it. Why would robots make anything better? What happens to the humans? If life is not good for humans what is the point? — Athena

Robots might survive. Capitalism will burn all the humans. Why should there be a point?

I would like to make note that you are all over the place, sir. Your stance and resolution to concern seems to me to be conflicting and tell me if I am reading this incorrectly, you believe:

Climate change is real
It is of less concern than given credit
We should be educating the next generation on how to resolve it
But the leading educator for the public is not an environmental scientist so she doesn't provide any useful education
But the majority of scientists are wrong because of a few who find their data inconclusive.

So you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

96% of climate scientists agree that the current rate of global warming is our fault.

Not 60 40
Not 50 50
Not even 80 20

96 to 4

Even if it is fraudulent, which I highly doubt is so easily orchestrated, changing excess wasteful consumption, utilizing resources efficiently, and having self sustainability in energy effectiveness are still drastic intelligence issues that bar us from moving forward as are more prosperous and productive society rather than simply a profitable one.

We have too much extra stuff. We make things that aren't useful instead of saving the resources for things that are. Our energy is not self sustainable in the least and is a one way road with toxic waste as a result.

Addressing the concerns of climate change regardless of it's catastrophic or non catastrophic effect on society also addresses these concerns

Let's not assume that I am claiming to not be hypocritical here. I am not minimal. My family is not minimal. I do what you do as well and I agree that it is a difficult situation. I am also trying to consider more ways to be more minimal. I am highly considering changing jobs to a closer location for one. Buying in bulk instead of prepackaged. I mean food is tricky because they are all owned by shady corporations, but buying 24 water bottles over tap or filtration or what have you is not good. Going to the store and grabbing a soda or a frappe is not so great... pretty much anything from a convenience store is just essentially selling you trash with addictive food inside.

I also think about appliances and tools and clothes in excess.

We dont really need TVs, we have phones that are more useful. Technology should go so far as to educate and entertain on a level that is not energy demanding. We dont need microwaves or toasters or coffee pots. We can use small stoves and ovens. We dont need dishwashers, excessive sets of dinnerware, or excessive cookware. Wash minimal dishes with minimal water. We dont need piles of blankets, clothes, and we shouldn't buy more or encourage the market to make more textiles by buying them until it is absolutely necessary and then yes second hand if possible.

We should probably stop eating meat as well. Very inefficient for the ecosystem.

And we should stop buying things that dont retain value over time past simple entertainment or things that utilize resources with a limited purpose like toys or jewelry.

And we could stop going on the internet, using the power grid to drive our computers or charge our phone batteries. Maybe get by without a mobile as we once did.

96% of climate scientists agree that the current rate of global warming is our fault. — Lif3r

That would pretty hard to prove, which is why there’s no reference I guess.

it's probably a useful idea but the internet is the library of human knowledge. I feel like it is important but perhaps less than I assume.

Well you can’t have it both ways. The library of human knowledge? How did we ever get by pre internet, how did we develop the world we live in without the internet?

t's probably a useful idea but the internet is the library of human knowledge. I feel like it is important but perhaps less than I assume. — Lif3r

Oh my goodness is that idea wrong. You will not find the valuable information that is in old books such as the series of books recording the early congressional debates of the US, nor the encyclopedia written by Theodore Roosevelt on line. You will not find an explanation of what education had to do with mobilizing the US for WWI and WWII on line. At least not if you don't know that is something you want to look for.

The O of U library had a department of books containing government documents and anyone could access them and just browse the books looking to see what is in them, such as the letter Eisenhower wrote praising the German contribution to the democracy, and without that little piece of information it is not possible to understand how Germany changed the US. I am saying there is important information in books that people will never know about because the books are no longer available. There is a digital record of them but you have to know exactly what information you want to get to it. No one is free to just browse the books and discover what is in them. We can not access information we know nothing about without the books to browse.