Discussion:
OT? - 2024
Add Reply
gggg gggg
2021-10-11 00:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
gggg gggg
2021-10-13 15:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics/congressional-republicans-trump-president-2024/index.html
gggg gggg
2021-10-20 17:53:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/577453-nearly-80-percent-of-republicans-want-to-see-trump-run-in-2024-poll
HT
2021-10-20 20:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
<g> 2024 is still a long wait, unless you are born after 1990.

Henk
gggg gggg
2021-11-07 15:16:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-ex-communications-director-warned-143552748.html
gggg gggg
2021-11-08 23:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-approval-harris-poll-suffolk-infrastructure
Andy Evans
2021-11-09 19:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
Bob Harper
2021-11-10 00:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
Do you mean 'President' Xi?

China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the
world combined.

Meanwhile, there's this:

Narrative-Destabilizing Fact: CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year
low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2021-11-10 02:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andy Evans
I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
Do you mean 'President' Xi?
China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the world combined.
Narrative-Destabilizing Fact: CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983.
Bob Harper
Unfortunately, a lot of things are not simple. One analyst pointed out that use of coal by LDCs can aid in economic development in the near term which will enable them using less climate damaging fuel in the future.
Bob Harper
2021-11-11 04:02:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andy Evans
I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees
any political office ever again.....
Do you mean 'President' Xi?
China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the world combined.
Narrative-Destabilizing Fact: CO2 emissions in the US fell to a
37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983.
Bob Harper
Unfortunately, a lot of things are not simple. One analyst pointed out
that use of coal by LDCs can aid in economic development in the near
term which will enable them using less climate damaging fuel in the future.
A point Michael Shellenberger makes eloquently in his book Apocalypse Never.

Bob Harper
Andy Evans
2021-11-10 09:19:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
Do you mean 'President' Xi? China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the
world combined. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983. > Bob Harper
I quite agree that the major climate criminals include Xi, Putin, Modi and Bolsonaro. But don't get comfortable about the Republican party or the USA. Trump baled out of the Paris accord and is insensitive to green (or health) issues. The USA has a huge amount to do to reach climate targets, and they are nowhere near it now or in the foreseeable near future. The meat industry, the oil industry, the coal industry, the huge amount of private aeroplanes, the gas guzzling vehicles, the conspicuous over-consumption of consumer goods..... do I need to go on? Biden has started on the right path, but he's only taken the first few basic steps. Even those could be destroyed by the Republicans whose record on climate issues has never been other than "industry and commerce first".
Frank Berger
2021-11-10 15:04:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Andy Evans
I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
Do you mean 'President' Xi? China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the
world combined. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983. > Bob Harper
I quite agree that the major climate criminals include Xi, Putin, Modi and Bolsonaro. But don't get comfortable about the Republican party or the USA. Trump baled out of the Paris accord and is insensitive to green (or health) issues. The USA has a huge amount to do to reach climate targets, and they are nowhere near it now or in the foreseeable near future. The meat industry, the oil industry, the coal industry, the huge amount of private aeroplanes, the gas guzzling vehicles, the conspicuous over-consumption of consumer goods..... do I need to go on? Biden has started on the right path, but he's only taken the first few basic steps. Even those could be destroyed by the Republicans whose record on climate issues has never been other than "industry and commerce first".
Although your use of the word criminal conforms to the 4th of 4 Webster definitions, I find such usage scary. Classifying behavior that you disapprove of as "criminal" conjures up images of insurrection and extra-legal executions. And don't forget that these leaders that you call criminal mostly reflect the views of the populations they reflect. There may come a time when climate conditions have deteriorated to a point that drastic action becomes popular (even if too late), but until then you represent a small minority and are whistling in the wind.
Andy Evans
2021-11-10 15:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Although your use of the word criminal conforms to the 4th of 4 Webster definitions, I find such usage scary. Classifying behavior that you disapprove of as "criminal" conjures up images of insurrection and extra-legal executions. And don't forget that these leaders that you call criminal mostly reflect the views of the populations they reflect. There may come a time when climate conditions have deteriorated to a point that drastic action becomes popular (even if too late), but until then you represent a small minority and are whistling in the wind.>>
You can leave me out of this - I'm just a mouthpiece for all the global movements for action on climate change. You will hear exactly the same message from all the climate activists, which now include a substantial number of teenagers and young adults. So please address you comments to climate activists in general and not to me personally. As for being a "small minority" I think you are underestimating the rapid growth of all the various kinds of climate activists. And also not acknowledging that the more enlightened governments, such as in the EU, are already at green policy level. This is actually happening, however slowly.

It is tragic that, indeed as you say, some governments do indeed reflect the views of their voters. But this excludes China, Russia and all countries without free democratic elections, which is a big "if".

I use the term "climate criminal" because the earth has up to now been considered an inanimate lump of rock which will never plead its case in a court of law. I believe this is changing. We already have "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". The next step, which will surely come, will be "crimes against the earth". It's only a matter of time. The earth is a living ecosphere and this reality is starting to dawn on the more aware populations of the earth, together with those ordinary citizens who are already losing their island homes in the Pacific. This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, and a melting iceberg at that.

I fail to see how educated and intelligent people cannot identify with what needs to be done to mitigate against a complete disaster in the earth's future. It's as clear as daylight.
Frank Berger
2021-11-10 16:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Although your use of the word criminal conforms to the 4th of 4 Webster definitions, I find such usage scary. Classifying behavior that you disapprove of as "criminal" conjures up images of insurrection and extra-legal executions. And don't forget that these leaders that you call criminal mostly reflect the views of the populations they reflect. There may come a time when climate conditions have deteriorated to a point that drastic action becomes popular (even if too late), but until then you represent a small minority and are whistling in the wind.>>
You can leave me out of this - I'm just a mouthpiece for all the global movements for action on climate change. You will hear exactly the same message from all the climate activists, which now include a ?substantial number of teenagers and young adults. So please address you comments to climate activists in general and not to me personally.
It was you personally who started this OT thread. It's hard to imagine how you can object to anyone replying. It is clear in my reply that I am in fact addressing you personally and the minority of climate extremists who are your brothers and sisters in arms.



As for being a "small minority" I think you are underestimating the rapid growth of all the various kinds of climate activists. And also not acknowledging that the more enlightened governments, such as in the EU, are already at green policy level. This is actually happening, however slowly.
This is not inconsistent with anything I said.
It is tragic that, indeed as you say, some governments do indeed reflect the views of their voters.
One of the oddest statements I have ever seen. Clearly a call for dictatorship.
But this excludes China, Russia and all countries without free democratic elections, which is a big "if".
Not necessarily. Leaders of autocracies often represent some views of their peoples accurately.
I use the term "climate criminal" because the earth has up to now been considered an inanimate lump of rock which will never plead its case in a court of law. I believe this is changing. We already have "war >crimes" and "crimes against humanity". The next step, which will surely come, will be "crimes against the earth". It's only a matter of time.
Sure and then crimes against political correctness, crimes against atheism, crimes against individuality.....science fictions writers have been afraid of this kind of thing since he beginning of the genre. Where horror meets science fiction.
The earth is a living ecosphere and this reality is starting to dawn on the more aware populations of the earth, together with those ordinary citizens who are already losing their island homes in the Pacific. This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, and a melting iceberg at that.
I fail to see how educated and intelligent people cannot identify with what needs to be done to mitigate against a complete disaster in the earth's future. It's as clear as daylight.
You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively.
Andy Evans
2021-11-10 17:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively.
I didn't start this thread. But anyway........ I'm sorry. Frank, but this just a lot of pedantic blah blah blah, together with some meaningless ad-hominem statements thrown in. If you want to align with all those who think they can waste time maintaining the current level of "well being" you're no friend of the climate change movement. The bottom line is that you either embrace change or you don't, and obviously you don't. It couldn't be clearer.
Frank Berger
2021-11-10 18:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively.
I didn't start this thread. But anyway........ I'm sorry. Frank, but this just a lot of pedantic blah blah blah, together with some meaningless ad-hominem statements thrown in. If you want to align with all those who think they can waste time maintaining the current level of "well being" you're no friend of the climate change movement. The bottom line is that you either embrace change or you don't, and obviously you don't. It couldn't be clearer.
My reply was not pedantic. Your accusing me of it is, in fact, ad hominem.

If you can't handle rationsl criticism of what you post, maybe you shouldn't post.

I was in error in thinking you started the thread. You simply resssurected it after a month of dormancy.
Andy Evans
2021-11-10 18:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
My reply was not pedantic. Your accusing me of it is, in fact, ad hominem.
Post by Frank Berger
If you can't handle rationsl criticism of what you post, maybe you shouldn't post.
I was in error in thinking you started the thread. You simply resssurected it after a month of dormancy.
I'm not sure that you are aware of when you are being pedantic, but we'll pass over that. I'd like to come back to your statement "You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively." Apart from the meaningless last sentence, this contains the crucial phrase "future and current well-being". Well, Frank, what exactly is "well-being". I'd like you to consider that:
- for a middle or higher income US citizen, "well-being" might include such things as eating the foods you enjoy, including meat (and chucking away a part of your shop), travelling around in gas-guzzling vehicles and aeroplanes for leisure activities, shopping, holidays etc, heating uninsulating houses with fossil fuels...long list....
- for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.

It's not uncomfortable or painful to use less fossil fuels, shop less, stop eating meat and stay closer to home and ride bicycles like they do all over Europe. This is not asking much. If all that sounds like an attack on "well-being" we're not on the same planet.

My understanding of human nature is that it is better to be alive, eating vegetables and riding a bike than being dead. You might have a different viewpoint. And my understanding of human nature is that it is better to make some major sacrifices right now for the future of our children and, in fact, the whole population of the earth in the last years of this century and into the centuries to come. Again, you might have a different viewpoint..
Frank Berger
2021-11-10 19:01:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
My reply was not pedantic. Your accusing me of it is, in fact, ad hominem.
Post by Frank Berger
If you can't handle rationsl criticism of what you post, maybe you shouldn't post.
I was in error in thinking you started the thread. You simply resssurected it after a month of dormancy.
I'm not sure that you are aware of when you are being pedantic, but we'll pass over that.
Also ad hominem. If I try to teach you something and you are not amenable to rational thought, you might call me pedantic. You might ass well call me stupid.

I'd like to come back to your statement "You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively." Apart from the meaningless last sentence,


Hardly meaningless. It points out the very definition of extremism.
Post by Andy Evans
- for a middle or higher income US citizen, "well-being" might include such things as eating the foods you enjoy, including meat (and chucking away a part of your shop), travelling around in gas-guzzling vehicles and aeroplanes for leisure activities, shopping, holidays etc, heating uninsulating houses with fossil fuels...long list....
Yep. All of that is part of "current well being" for richer folks. Pretty obvious.
Post by Andy Evans
- for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.
The poor have always been with us. A lower standard of living defines poverty.
Post by Andy Evans
It's not uncomfortable or painful to use less fossil fuels, shop less, stop eating meat and stay closer to home and ride bicycles like they do all over Europe. This is not asking much. If all that sounds like an attack on "well-being" we're not on the same planet.
I am much less comfortable telling other people what they should do than you are.
Post by Andy Evans
My understanding of human nature is that it is better to be alive, eating vegetables and riding a bike than being dead. You might have a different viewpoint. And my understanding of human nature is that it is better to make some major sacrifices right now for the future of our children and, in fact, the whole population of the earth in the last years of this century and into the centuries to come. Again, you might have a different viewpoint..
Human nature is also that not everyone sees things (even the facts) as everyone else.
Frank Berger
2021-11-11 05:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
- for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.
The poor have always been with us. A lower standard of living defines poverty.
That's pretty dark.....
https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/why-are-republicans-so-cruel-to-the-poor-paul-ryans-profound-hypocrisy-stands-for-a-deeper-problem/
I just learned something that I should have known - that to qualify as hyperbole, exaggeration must not be meant to be taken seriously. No one takes "there's enough food here to feed an army" seriously.

So when I say I have never read an article so wrong, so biased, so stupid, making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, I am not being hyperbolic.

Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
raymond....@gmail.com
2021-11-11 07:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
- for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.
The poor have always been with us. A lower standard of living defines poverty.
That's pretty dark.....
https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/why-are-republicans-so-cruel-to-the-poor-paul-ryans-profound-hypocrisy-stands-for-a-deeper-problem/
I just learned something that I should have known - that to qualify as hyperbole, exaggeration must not be meant to be taken seriously. No one takes "there's enough food here to feed an army" seriously.
So when I say I have never read an article so wrong, so biased, so stupid, making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, I
am not being hyperbolic.
Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!

Ray Hall, Taree
Andy Evans
2021-11-11 09:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
Post by Frank Berger
Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
Post by Frank Berger
Ray Hall, Taree
Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
Frank Berger
2021-11-11 12:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by ***@gmail.com
Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
Post by Frank Berger
Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
Post by Frank Berger
Ray Hall, Taree
Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
See, that's exactly the problem. Characterizing, with one broad stroke, anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care about people and their future." As opposed to people who think that facts are different, for example. You could have just called them stupid, but you fell better demonizing them.
Bob Harper
2021-11-11 17:53:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by ***@gmail.com
Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
Post by Frank Berger
Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
Post by Frank Berger
Ray Hall, Taree
Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
See, that's exactly the problem.  Characterizing, with one broad stroke,
anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care about people
and their future."  As opposed to people who think that facts are
different, for example.   You could have just called them stupid, but
you fell better demonizing them.
Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when
the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you,
argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, just argue.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2021-11-11 19:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by ***@gmail.com
Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
Post by Frank Berger
Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
Post by Frank Berger
Ray Hall, Taree
Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
See, that's exactly the problem.  Characterizing, with one broad stroke, anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care about people and their future."  As opposed to people who think that facts are different, for example.   You could have just called them stupid, but you fell better demonizing them.
Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, just argue.
Bob Harper
"Arguing" implies being willing and able to reason. Lacking either, name calling ensues.
Bob Harper
2021-11-12 01:07:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andy Evans
Post by ***@gmail.com
Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
Post by Frank Berger
Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
Post by Frank Berger
Ray Hall, Taree
Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
See, that's exactly the problem.  Characterizing, with one broad
stroke, anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care
about people and their future."  As opposed to people who think that
facts are different, for example.   You could have just called them
stupid, but you fell better demonizing them.
Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when
the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against
you, argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you,
just argue.
Bob Harper
"Arguing" implies being willing and able to reason.  Lacking either,
name calling ensues.
'number six' puts it differently, and more correctly, I think:

"I heard this expression in slightly different form:
When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When the facts are
against you, pound on the law. When both the law and the facts are
against you, pound on the table."

Whole lotta table-pounding coming from certain quarters, or so it seems
to me.

Bob Harper
Andy Evans
2021-11-12 09:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Whole lotta table-pounding coming from certain quarters, or so it seems
to me. >> Bob Harper
If you're referring to me, Bob, then yes there's no doubt that action over climate change is a table pounding issue, a marching issue, a pressure group issue and anything else that will increase public awareness and lead to the action required. Frank finds it convenient to call me an extremist and a minority but neither are correct at all. I'm just a bog standard middle-of-the-road supporter of the science on climate change and the action that is being shouted from the rooftops by the Paris Accord, COP26, the United Nations and all climate scientists. I'm nothing special, just one voice of many trying to combat the complacency and inability to make change that has the world headed for a 2.5 degree increase. That's the current estimate.

I can't do much at my age but I do what I can - I recycle everything, don't use my car much, hardly ever go on aeroplanes and I turned vegetarian 2 years ago. The least I can do is to make the case for change - I owe that to my son and hopefully his children who are going to see a very different world from the one we are comfortably living with at present. The writing is on the wall for everyone to read that can read. It's really very simple, really really simple.
Frank Berger
2021-11-12 15:16:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Bob Harper
Whole lotta table-pounding coming from certain quarters, or so it seems
to me. >> Bob Harper
If you're referring to me, Bob, then yes there's no doubt that action over climate change is a table pounding issue, a marching issue, a pressure group issue and anything else that will increase public awareness and lead to the action required. Frank finds it convenient to call me an extremist and a minority but neither are correct at all. I'm just a bog standard middle-of-the-road supporter of the science on climate change and the action that is being shouted from the rooftops by the Paris Accord, COP26, the United Nations and all climate scientists. I'm nothing special, just one voice of many trying to combat the complacency and inability to make change that has the world headed for a 2.5 degree increase. That's the current estimate.
I can't do much at my age but I do what I can - I recycle everything, don't use my car much, hardly ever go on aeroplanes and I turned vegetarian 2 years ago. The least I can do is to make the case for change - I owe that to my son and hopefully his children who are going to see a very different world from the one we are comfortably living with at present. The writing is on the wall for everyone to read that can read. It's really very simple, really really simple.
Does it bother you that attendees of climate conferences frequently do so on their private jets?

Do you realize that your own personal contribution to climate-improvement via not driving or flying or eating meat can make zero difference to anything? Better you should strengthen yourself with meat and fly at every opportunity to climate gatherings to activate others.

Now don't take this accusation of insanity personally, as we all suffer from it to some extent. Why does anyone vote when no significant election has ever been determined by a margin small enough to make one's particular vote matter?

I know, I know, we vote for other reasons - to exercise our right, to be socially responsibility, for the pleasure of having our "say."

I just wish you would lighten up, because you would be happier. In the end, you will be just as dead either way.

Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.
Frank Berger
2021-11-12 15:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
Andy Evans
2021-11-12 17:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.
Frank Berger
2021-11-12 18:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.
That's the problem. Malthus, rhat Stanford guy (was it Erdmann) and all the others couldn't see the future. Not remotely. Why suppose we can? I know, the science is better.
Bob Harper
2021-11-13 03:10:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters
of doomsday were wrong.
I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.
That's the problem.  Malthus, rhat Stanford guy (was it Erdmann) and all
the others couldn't see the future.  Not remotely.  Why suppose we can?
I know, the science is better.
I believe you mean Paul Ehrlich, author of 'The Population Bomb', which
got things so spectacularly wrong. Didn't stop him from continuing to be
wrong.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2021-11-13 23:55:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.
That's the problem.  Malthus, rhat Stanford guy (was it Erdmann) and all the others couldn't see the future.  Not remotely.  Why suppose we can? I know, the science is better.
I believe you mean Paul Ehrlich, author of 'The Population Bomb', which got things so spectacularly wrong. Didn't stop him from continuing to be wrong.
Bob Harper
Yes. Ehrlich. Ravi Batra is an SMU economics professor who wrote a book about a coming economic collapse (The Great Depression of 1990). Sold thousands. Didn't happen. So he wrote another book about why it didn't happen but was still going to. Sold thousands. Didn't happen. Never happened. Became a TV commentator on economic matters. Eventually they figured out he had no idea what he was talking about.
HT
2021-11-12 18:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
<g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.

Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.

Henk
Frank Berger
2021-11-12 19:43:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
<g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
Henk
You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.
HT
2021-11-12 22:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
<g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
Henk
You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.
In the context of all the disasters that have struck us over the centuries and continue to do so until now, we could say by analogy that the predictors of doomsday (I do not know your definition of it) have been only mostly wrong.

Henk
raymond....@gmail.com
2021-11-12 23:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
<g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
Henk
You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.
In the context of all the disasters that have struck us over the centuries and continue to do so until now, we could say by analogy that the predictors of doomsday (I do not know your definition of it) have been only mostly wrong.
Henk
The vast majority of these doomsday predictions, many of which are human related issues (capital punishment etc.,), evolution of social standards, or angels descending in hordes from above, come from crackpots, religious or otherwise, who need their day in the sun. It really should be no surprise that they are overwhelmingly proved wrong.

Those who reject climate science are merely kicking the can down the road, so that future generations have to deal with the gross negligence and/or deliberate actions of the present. Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"". In this sense they are worse than criminals, because they are betraying their very own progeny. They are contemptible, even to their own kind.

Ray Hall, Taree
Todd M. McComb
2021-11-14 00:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live
on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"".
Yes, the sheer laziness alone is disgusting.

As are the constant blathering rationalizations about "not being
sure." As such uncertainty is not expressed as a kind of (true)
personal ignorance, no! Instead, it's offered as affirmative reason
to do nothing. In other words, it's pure rhetorical rationalization.

Well, just as before, if one rejects a likelihood because one "cannot
be sure," then one is embracing an unlikelihood. This is called
"wishful thinking," plain & simple. It's not an argument.
unknown
2021-11-14 01:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Those who reject climate science are merely kicking the can down the road, so that future generations have to deal with the gross negligence and/or deliberate actions of the present. Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"". In this sense they are worse than criminals, because they are betraying their very own progeny. They are contemptible, even to their own kind.
People who are actually serious about climate change oppose Free Trade
and Immigration, and wouldn't pretend otherwise. Yet, powerful
self-claimed "climate activists" have only death threats for those who
question mass immigration or Free Trade. It's not really "climate
activism" to support Free Trade and/or Immigration no matter how the
media is uniformly in favor of it.
Todd M. McComb
2021-11-14 01:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's not really "climate activism" to support Free Trade and/or
Immigration no matter how the media is uniformly in favor of it.
This is really an argument about "growth." And our society has no
idea what to do other than "growth."
Andy Evans
2021-11-14 08:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This is really an argument about "growth." And our society has no
idea what to do other than "growth."
That's one big part of it. Another big part for the US and some other developed nations is what has been called the "cult of the self" by British psychiatrist Anthony Storr, who argues that the emphasis on the "self" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Previous to that populations lived in social groups and functioned more in largely unquestioned interactive ways. The media and advertising has elevated the "self" into cult status, because it's then easy to sell distinctive products and brands to the "self" with slogans like "because you're worth it (L'Oreal)". And terms like "self fulfilment" are the cornerstone of life coaching.

Adapting to both pandemics and climate change require populations to go back to functioning in self-supporting social groups again, and judging from all the protests about anti-vax, lockdown and everything else threatening "personal freedom" they just can't get their heads around the idea that it's the wider society that is now important, not the pampered "self". The response to the pandemic in many of the Asian nations was more successful because their populations were more used to functioning collectively as a society. So I would also argue that the more developed nations have very little idea of what to do about collective responsibility. There's a very great deal of what we call NIMBY - "not in my back yard", and the whole idea of carbon trading is a good example of NIMBY - "I'm not going to do it so I'll pay you to do it". Action on climate change requires us to move beyond the self, and that's going to be a radical sea change for many.
Todd M. McComb
2021-11-14 08:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
The media and advertising has elevated the "self" into cult status,
because it's then easy to sell distinctive products and brands to
the "self" ....
Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
improved by overconsumption. Only profits.
Herman
2021-11-14 14:55:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd M. McComb
Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
improved by overconsumption. Only profits.
But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?
Frank Berger
2021-11-14 15:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by Todd M. McComb
Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
improved by overconsumption. Only profits.
But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?
It's only other people whose over-consumption must be controlled.
Frank Berger
2021-11-14 16:58:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Herman
Post by Todd M. McComb
Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
improved by overconsumption. Only profits.
But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?
It's only other people whose over-consumption must be controlled.
Frank, I do not harbour the slightest illusion I can "control" anything outside myself. None whatsoever.
So re: the subject above: I do not ever buy cd boxes over 3 cds, also because I know I never listen to 'boxes' in their entirety. The past ten years I have rarely bought cds at all, because I already have quite a bunch. I have stopped buying into the 'holy grail' illusion of thinking there are such things as the ultimate recording of X, Y or Z. So I have bought a couple of new / contemporary music cds, and that's it.
I buy books. But most of those are 2nd hand / antiquarian, just because I tend to find those more interesting. So I\d say I am controlling my consumption to a degree - but those matters are relative.
I have no right to judge your consumption, so I won't. But I will mention that the existence of a used book market supports the new book market. Simply put, people are willing to pay more for and buy more new books because they know they can sell them if they choose. So just buying used isn't anti-consumption.
Herman
2021-11-14 17:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have no right to judge your consumption, so I won't. But I will mention that the existence of a used book market supports the new book market. Simply put, people are willing to pay more for and buy more new books because they know they can sell them if they choose. So just buying used isn't anti-consumption.
I am aware of this. I seem to recall saying all these things are a matter of degree. If I buy, as I did some time ago, a 1959 Oxford copy of Caesar's De Bello Gallico somebody else will have to buy a fresh POD copy of the current iteration because I took this old copy off the market.
Todd M. McComb
2021-11-14 18:01:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?
These are pushed on people with nowhere near the level of aggression
or sophistication as many products, at least.... Major corporations
have entire, well paid departments focusing on convincing people
to consume more. This is not some sort of fringe operation, and
it's effective (at ultimately making everyone's lives worse).
gggg gggg
2021-11-15 22:56:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by Todd M. McComb
Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
improved by overconsumption. Only profits.
But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?
Does that have anything to do with "...soulless materialism..."?:

https://countercurrents.org/2021/11/the-last-progressive-joe-biden-and-illusions-of-normalcy/
HT
2021-11-14 14:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by HT
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
<g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
Henk
You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.
In the context of all the disasters that have struck us over the centuries and continue to do so until now, we could say by analogy that the predictors of doomsday (I do not know your definition of it) have been only mostly wrong.
Henk
The vast majority of these doomsday predictions, many of which are human related issues (capital punishment etc.,), evolution of social standards, or angels descending in hordes from above, come from crackpots, religious or otherwise, who need their day in the sun. It really should be no surprise that they are overwhelmingly proved wrong.
Those who reject climate science are merely kicking the can down the road, so that future generations have to deal with the gross negligence and/or deliberate actions of the present. Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"". In this sense they are worse than criminals, because they are betraying their very own progeny. They are contemptible, even to their own kind.
Ray Hall, Taree
We must take science seriously as science, not as something it is not (infallible). I trust science when it says that the climate is changing and that the consequences may be serious. I am not so sure about the proposed solutions, precisely because they are based on science - science interpreted by politicians.

Meanwhile, I am prepared to do what I have to do, which at my age is not too difficult. I do not feel the urge to revisit the rest of the world like some of my friends, and according to my energy supplier, we consume less per year than most in our situation.

For my children and especially my grandchildren, it is much more difficult. They have jobs and schools and a certain lifestyle. They live in a globalized world that has much to offer. Wrong decisions (including the decision to do nothing) will hurt them, not me.

The call for "Action! Action! Action!" (to quote our Prime Minister) is not very reassuring. What we need is not more action (over 400 private jets to Glasgow, wrangling over a final declaration) but know-how.

Henk
number_six
2021-11-11 20:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when
the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you,
argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, just argue.
Bob Harper
I heard this expression in slightly different form:
When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table.
Andy Evans
2021-11-11 20:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Replying on behalf of the earth my version would be:

"Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way
He was right, dead right, as he sped along
But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong"
gggg gggg
2021-11-15 03:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/longtime-biden-friend-unsure-run-reelection
gggg gggg
2021-11-23 01:48:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/22/joe-biden-intends-to-run-again-2024-white-house
Loading...