+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11100
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 12
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 23, 2016, 09:14:52 pm »


Survey Shows Strength of Climate Science

One of the first peer-reviewed surveys of scientists used to determine the level of consensus on human-made climate change was undertaken by Dennis Bran and Hans von Storch in 1996. They used a standard survey response format known as the “Likert Scale,” where respondents answer questions based on a scale of 1 to 7 to determine, for example, how confident they are that warming is happening or that it’s human-caused.

They’ve repeated the survey a few times since 1996, and have recently released the 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists, for 2015/2016. Bart Verheggen helpfully goes over the key consensus findings as well as a couple of issues with the survey.

Because of the Likert Scale response format, though, describing the findings in numbers isn’t as effective as just looking at the graphs of responses. In many cases, the responses are so lopsided that some very clear statements can be made.

We can see that, as science has progressed, the level of risk associated with climate change has increased as has what’s at stake. In contrast to folks like Judith Curry who play up uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, the majority of scientists think that since 1996, climate science uncertainty has dropped.

Meanwhile, if society were to listen to voices highlighting uncertainty, and fail to act because of them, the potential for catastrophe for some parts of the world is fairly great.


To the point of the GOP AGs suggesting that Gore and others could be held responsible for exaggerating climate risks, scientists clearly think sea level rise will be just as bad as we thought five years ago, if not worse. The same can be said for other negative impacts. Over the last five years, the urgency to act on climate change has grown.

As for the public, scientists clearly think they should be told to be worried as we are already starting to experience the impacts of climate change. For example, they agree that the frequency of extreme events is increasing, as well as the intensity of those events, and the probability that those extreme events occur. Scientists expect these extreme events to become more powerful, tropical storms to get more intense, and certainly not any less frequent. Heat waves over the last 20 years are growing more intense as well as more frequent.

Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced that climate change poses a serious and dangerous threat to humanity, with only 2% responding that they’re not at all convinced. Again, with the Likert scale it’s a bit difficult to put simply. Assuming a 4 out of 7 is the midway point between “not at all” concerned and "very much" concerned, 8% of respondents fell between 1 and 3, 5.667% right in the middle at 4, and 85.74% between 5 and 7.

So, deniers claiming the science is still too uncertain to take action or that the public shouldn’t be worried need to take heed of this survey (like they have in the past, if even just to spin it) and accept that they’re a fringe minority at odds with an overwhelming consensus. That’s the facts, whether they Likert or not.

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/new-survey-of-climate-scientists-by-bray-and-von-storch-confirms-broad-consensus-on-human-causation/

Agelbert NOTE: SAMPLE of DIRECT QUOTES from a fellow named Alan that Ashvin found "reasonable":

Quote
I don't know enough about the climate issue. But I've been reading about it sporadically for 25+ years, and from everything I can gather, the scientists doing the analyses and projections are quite fallible, do not necessarily understand with such certainty the things they claim to understand, and cannot, in the end, be taken quite AS seriously as you seem to be taking them.

Quote
The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects.

Quote
the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.

All the above represent denier methods of temporizing, creating false equivalences and ignoring the FACT that dirty energy ENVIRONMENTAL HARM is greater that the alleged benefits.

Alan brought up a lot of the other denier happy talk about "greening the planet with more CO2" (which I countered and he ignored) while he refused to even consider the danger the sixth mass extinction represents to humanity and the biosphere as a cause for rejection of incremental reforms in favor of the drastic government funded action climate scientists advocate.

In short, both Alan and Ashvin are world class foot draggers that ridicule, disdain and disparage the action recommended by 97% of climate scientists as "extremist".

IOW, from Alan or Ashvin, do not expect intellectual honesty. What you can expect is  verbal goal post moving and a barrage of ridicule, derision and defamatory 'attack the messenger' type invective, along with continuous mendacity filled attempts to undermine the seriousness of the validity of the climate change threat. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 21, 2016, 07:03:04 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Az is short of Azozeo, a good man who has some beliefs that I do not agree with. I post this here because the pseudo Christian lawyer Ashvin is engaging in ridicule and dripping sarcasm that is totally unwarranted and highly unethical. The name "Ashvin" is not an internet handle, it's his real first name.  8)

Lawyers also know when someone is trying to avoid the substantive issues and distract from them because they have no arguments. Read the title of this thread, and then tell me how AZ has posted anything related to it, except his first statement that "there is only one set of rules - physics".

Also, how about showing a little intellectual honesty and backbone and telling your pal AZ that you completely disagree with his naturalist worldview. That is if you haven't already given up core Christian theology for ET conspiracy theories and Planet X annihilation any-day-now predictions.

LOL... was that this thread?  I don't read threads, as a rule I read messages in the "Most Recent 100" view, so I only respond to the parts of the thread that are quoted in a particular message.  Heck, I don't even know if this comment is directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I don't completely disagree with AZ's naturalistic worldview, I only fundamentally disagree with it.  Kind of like with how when once you understand and accept General Relativity, you realize that Newtonian Mechanics isn't exactly true anyplace in the universe -- but it's close enough most of the time.  Like with evolution: I believe in the fact of macroevolution, but from my perspective it is the tool God uses to create new species.  My worldview is big enough to encompass both Jesus and little green men.


Jd,
I recommend you take a step back and analyze the nature of the post by learned counsel more closely. Since I am a "paranoid whacko" (and that post came RIGHT AFTER MY post), I suspect that it was directed at me in a clever goal post moving, attack the messenger type of fallacious debating technique, RATHER than addressing the issue of empathy deficit disordered sophistry.

To those who will claim, no doubt, that sophistry is not germane to the debate here, I beg to differ.

The POINT Az was trying to make was that he was rewarded with BILE. I explained, in my post, that attacking the validity of an opponent's allegations is what lawyers DO. But when they see that their methodology is being exposed, they then attack anyone trying to expose it by attempting to sidestep the attack the messenger bullshit they are engaging in with claims of the new poster's hypocrisy.

This is most clever. It steers the thread away from the Machiavellian dismissal of Az's discussion of Hopi prophesies (etc.) to an attempt to silence anyone, like me, who disagrees with some of Az's beliefs, but agrees with the importance of taking seriously the validity of the scholarship on Hopi prophesies and anything else Az says.

Any charge of using unethical debating sophistry can also be countered with sophistry. That is the "beauty" of being an accomplished goal post mover. The previous paragraph can be parsed into sections with witty remarks like "Projection here", "Paranoia over here", "hypersensitivity there", "I never said that" AND, "where do you get this stuff?". All those remarks are MORE attack the messenger type verbal guided missiles that continue to serve the main purpose of the sophist; that is, to avoid treating the opponent as a credible person, that whether they are right or wrong, must be given respect.

The sophist will vociferously deny the above charge and claim they consistently provide all debating opponents with respect, as is their Christian duty. They will ask for a record of examples of their alleged "lack of respect". They claim these charges are ridiculous. When a detailed and irrefutable list is not quickly produced, they accuse the accusers of being out to lunch.

If that doesn't work, a clever sophist, when faced with a group of people pointing out his sophistry, will claim he is being unfairly victimized and refuse to continue the discussion. He will pick up his marbles and go home because level verbal playing fields are not something sophists are fond of.

The legal "profession" was founded on sophistry (lawyers will vociferously deny this and claim it's all about providing the wonderful legal system we "enjoy today" that evolved from "humble beginnings"  ). The Sophists claimed that any side of an argument could be won, if argued "effectively" (regardless of whether it is true or not). Lawyers are about wining arguments.

Ashvin is a lawyer.


Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.  ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 21, 2016, 05:50:45 pm »

Ashvin is a lawyer.  :P


Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.  ;D


Lawyers NEVER give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt. Lawyers ALWAYS deny responsibility for deliberately attempting to position a debating opponent as one to be scorned, derided and dismissed by any intelligent, reasonable, prudent (etc. you get the idea  ;)) person.

But that's what they are trained to do. And they LIKE doing it.


And of course, they question the mental health of anyone that claims they are trying to game the discourse with bullshit. Don't you know, only a madman or an irrational zealot would question the integrity and credibility of a lawyer...   


George Orwell understood lawyerspeak quite well. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 20, 2016, 06:14:10 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This is cross posted from another forum where Ashvin attempted to counter a post I made about what he had done here. As you can see in the thread above, Ashvin DID NOT bother to even address the September 18, 2105 post. It is blatantly obvious that he was only interested in supporting Alan's erroneous and disingenuous argument.

I think RE is correct in so far as my posts have not been censored or relegated to the Dungeon. At least I don't remember any instance of that.

Although it's not surprising for me to come back and find AG is descending into ever more delusion and paranoia.

As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on. Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did, walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical skills.

Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than intelligence or a quick wit.

Anyone can see that AG is quick to call me a brother in Christ when I agree with him, but call into question my Christian character when I show signs of being critical of his perspective. All it takes to draw AG's wrath and delusional accusations is to have a CRITICAL THINKING mindset when confronted with his theories, even if you are not really disagreeing with him. Even if you simply say you don't have enough information to make up your mind, he will accuse you of being a shill or dishonest rhetorician. This indicates a psychological defense mechanism that is clearly unhealthy and unproductive.

AG, you will never convince anyone of anything you are saying by being that much of a blowhard. As far as I remember, Alan was being entirely reasonable on your thread before you started in on your accusations and threats of censorship.

Quote
Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of objectivity and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by anyone to alter his preconceived world view on anything and anybody. He vociferously claims to be objective and quite willing to alter his views if you can "prove your point". But as soon he cannot counter any argument you make (and let me tell you, THAT is a TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or  pulls out his plethora of sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating techniques. He is relentless.

Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.

Quote
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell

For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't understand human psychology".

Yeah, a lot of projection going on in that comment...

As for the meat production thing, WHY are you so damn reluctant to admit it a significant factor and talk about it? Is it because you ONLY want us to focus on the fossil fuel industry? I have always had the feeling that you want to subtly steer us towards your more extreme conspiracy theories about government coverups and ETs and alternative "free energy" sources. Although I have no idea when you became utterly convinced of such theories, to the point where anyone questions them you label them a complete ignoramus or a shill or a "hired gun".

Quote
RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the wall in a debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because of any alleged censorship by RE.

I see that even RE doesn't claim to ever pinning me against a wall. I haven't been here for a variety of reasons, not least of which I have been very busy relocating to NOVA. Also I'm not eager to get into any online back and forth about something other than philosophy or spirituality, because I just don't see the value in it, especially when there are people like you present.
 

I realized, FINALLY, where you are coming from in that last bit of cheerleading for Alan's totally biased views that you engaged in.

Your obtuse refusal to blame the police for all the brutality against African Americans before that made me question your objectivity (to put it mildly).

Your evidence free assumption that meat production produced more pollution than fossil fuels was one of the last straws. 

Your predictable ridicule of anyone that brings up solid evidence that the USA is an OLIGARCHY, not a republic or a democracy, is evidence of your bias and lack of objectivity, not critical thinking skills. You will, NO DOUBT, claim the following is "blowhard conspiracy theory stuff".  ::)


As I said BEFORE, you are relentless in your prideful zeal to peddle your world class doubletalk. You can word parse and carefully and methodically take apart absolutely anything anybody says with your well practiced, context and ethics free sophistic modus operandi until the cows come home, for all I care. I just happened to spot this here and I will answer ONCE. I will not waste any more time on grappling with your lawyer grab bag of sophist skills.

I will never, ever discuss Christianity with you again. You do not now, or ever did, have the remotest idea what Christianity is all about. You are a testament to that quote from the Bible about the "letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". YOU are ALL ABOUT interpreting the LETTER for your own self interest. The claim that the "Spirit gave YOU life" is now, and always has been, part of your TALK, but never part of your WALK.

Of COURSE, you will now rush to 2 Corinthians 3:6 and yammer some more sophistic baloney about how I am the one that doesn't "understand" the bible, coupled with some crocodile tears about how "sad" it is that any person can be so "ignorant" of the "truth" (in true Calvinist pseudo Christian form). Perhaps you will even promise to "pray for me". That is, after you passive aggressively question my mental health and drag out every post where I lauded your prose as "evidence" that any credibility for my views must be questioned because I am "wishy washy".

After all that, you will soberly counsel all, who are willing to listen, that my credibility has ALSO been severely compromised by these defamatory statements directed at you, a member in good standing of the "royal priesthood".

As I said before, WORDS are your THING. YOU are relentless in the defense, not of truth, but of your PRIDE. You are WISE and PRUDENT in your own eyes. Have a nice day.

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 17, 2016, 09:07:02 pm »

I just posted this at another forum called the Doomstead Diner.

Since it related to the above thread, I am reposting it here.  8)



Quote
My hope is RE will see the light someday and restore the Diner to it's original form.

I have seen the light.  The light told me that as long as there are people out there like Futilitist, MKing and Karpatok who will disrupt a board with their own brand of Napalm, they will be moderated.  End of Story.

RE





BINGO!

What too many people do not seem to be able to understand, in their zeal to claim freedom of speech is somehow abridged or curtailed by the admins here, is the fact that repetitious propaganda is not, and never should be, classified as a "contrarian" view.

When someone appears to be off their rocker, like Alan, then they need to muzzled to ensure freedom of speech in this type of forum. Alan went to my forum and, within a single day, descended into repetition, rants, goal post moving and deliberate bold faced denial of statements he had previously made.

I put up with that for about a week, warning him repeatedly to stop reposting. I began to delete repetitious posts and he went nuts trying to plaster his posts. So. I banned him for a year. I have better things to do than spar with a thread hogging one trick irrational pony.

Also, anyone. like GO, who considers this a platform for corner bar BSing just for fun should certainly not get upset about whether or not some other member of the peanut gallery is given da bidness.

If there was no real merit in the discussions here, I would NOT BE HERE. I resent any claim that we are just BSing here to pass the time of day.     

MKing is, as Eddie surmises, a hired gun. He may have been "outed" two years ago, but I was never in the info loop and I never found out his NAME. If you know his name, Eddie, and it's no secret, then why don't you just print it here? I doubt MKing would sue you for doing that. Feel free to PM me with MKing's name, since it is no secret.  8)

I agree that MKing is a hired gun. He is a hired gun for the fossil fuel industry in general and the frackers in particular. The term "hired gun", in regard to forum post activity, is a metaphor describing a serial liar peddling mendacious propaganda. How anybody can classify a person as a "hired gun", and still value his posts as a "contrarian view", defies basic logic and critical thinking, UNLESS one likes to stir up sh it.

I am not here to "stir up sh it". I think that is stupid OR perfidious. I understand some people enjoy that sort of thing because it is an excellent rhetorical tool in  sophist ammunition. They deliberately foster arguments to prevent the discussion of solutions to a problem. MKing often has approached a problem like climate change by claiming there isn't one with a devious back door pseudo scientific allegation that the science is "not settled".

He doesn't do that because he is crazy. He does that because he is a liar for hire. Tolerating that sort of thing is almost as irrational as tolerating Alan's rants.

As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on. Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did, walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical skills.

Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than intelligence or a quick wit.

Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of objectivity and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by anyone to alter his preconceived world view on anything and anybody. He vociferously claims to be objective and quite willing to alter his views if you can "prove your point". But as soon he cannot counter any argument you make (and let me tell you, THAT is a TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or  pulls out his plethora of sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating techniques. He is relentless.

Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.

Quote
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell

For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't understand human psychology".

WTF!? I have to worry about ensuring some face saving clauses in my arguments to prevent the sin of  "offending" some high strung sophist with his nose so high in the air that he  drowns in a rainstorm?

RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the wall in a debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because of any alleged censorship by RE.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2015, 02:33:03 pm »

Ashvin,
Here I continue to address your questions with a post from Eddie that I comment on.

Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

A lot of people missed the memo on this, but I've read it from a number of sources I trust.

Exactly. AS David Wasdell states in the following video, if you wish to actually ameliorate the existential threat from catastrophic climate change, you must use the projected climate condition of about 40 years from now as your target, not what is observed at present. Acting on the present guarantees failure due to the fact that the feedback mechanisms are moving faster than the policies to ameliorate climate change. This is politically very unpalatable. But it is the only approach with science behind it. IOW, if the IPCC predicted 470 ppm of CO2 and a 2 degree C increase by 2055, then drastic action to eliminate any target above that must be taken now.

Of course, that is not happening. Every day that isn't happening makes it more and more difficult to deal with.
 

David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related topics.

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change), said that a global society (like the one we have now) is not possible with our present level of technology in 4degree C or higher world. And that's where we are going, despite the IPCC figures all revolving about an alleged agreement (with no teeth, no enforcement and all voluntary carbon limits. LOL!) by the piggy countries s of taking measures to keep the planet  below 2 degrees C. Collapse is baked in, so to speak, thanks to government piecemeal incremental measures.

Back to David Wasdell, he clearly and calmly stated that the 30 or so positive feedback loops, if not addressed with absolute limits on carbon output, including even foregoing even biofuels, approximately 80% of life on Earth may die. If that isn't an existential threat, I don't know what is.


Ashvin asked,

What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?'

According to both the scientists I mentioned, we do not have the technology to stop this catastrophe at this time, once the runaway greenhouse positive feedback loops push us past a certain point. Some say we have passed it. Due to the 40 year bake and the paltry government measures being employed, it sure looks that way. Drastic measures to stop emitting CO2 might change that equation.

But it is not realistic to expect governments to engage in them. When large masses of people are dying and a public outcry is sounded, it will be about 40 years too late.

All that said, there are technofix types that claim we just have to put a pack of aerosols up there and cool the planet like volcanic eruptions have partially done in the past. There is evidence that our government has been doing just that since 2000. It doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory, but some very obvious man made 'cloud' grids have been videoed for some time. And, they are not jet contrails.

Another less messy and much more expensive approach is to block out a portion of the sunlight reaching earth with some giant aluminum vapor coated, 1 mil thick, polyester film a few thousand miles in diameter to cool the planet. But we have no way of knowing whether such a simple solution would not trigger some, even worse, unforeseen climate effect. It certainly is true that the massive sun shield qualifies in the 'any port in the N.T.H.E. storm' category.

But it would do nothing to eliminate the other industrial toxins, unrelated to CO2, that have upped the probability of getting cancer in our lives from 1 in 10 back in 1950 to 1 in 2 (for men) and 1 in 3 (for women) at present. And no, that isn't because we "live longer" ( check the social Security stats and you will find the longevity increase applies to the top 20% wage earners. The bottom 80% "longevity increase" looks like a rounding error.  :P). ; it's because we are subject to more pollutants in our food, air and water from birth than any humans in history. 

We have a plethora of severe problems and the rug the gooberment keeps trying to sweep them under is starting to look like Mount Everest.


-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?


Well, here's the situation, according to Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville  Please note that he is a very conservative scientist. But he makes it clear how serious the urgency is BECAUSE of the limitations of our technology and government reaction times.

The above graph is discussing the procedure to limit the damage to 2 degrees C. That was in 2013. He explained that the required carbon limits, if not enforced by 2020, will basically be impossible to implement. We are passing by 2015 with no end in site to the INCREASE in carbon pollution.

As he said, once the window is closed, it will remain closed. That is a scientist's way of stating an existential threat. He understands the technology. He understands what will happen when we cannot hope to stop the positive feedback mechanisms from overwhelming reforms. He understands that will head us to 4 degrees C or more. That is a dire threat to our species, and literally millions of other species we share this planet with.



Notice how the IPCC sea level rise predictions only fit the data at the extreme end. It is not logical to think that they aren't erring on the side of caution. They are. Therefore, only the most extreme scenarios they come up with can be considered 'in the ball park'.

Every time a report comes out, they have to admit that, yeah, the ice melted more than predicted and several other predictions were a bit on the, uh, conservative side. Each report published every 7 or 8 years gets a little more real. Consequently, it is prudent to assume that a worse than their worse case scenario is highly probable.

That is why I believe firmly that mankind faces an existential threat from Global Warming AND all the other industrial pollution factors degrading the biosphere.

That is why I focused initially on extinctions with Alan. When the extinction rate of species in our biosphere is 1,000 to 10,000 the normal background rate of the last ten thousand years (at least!), it's logical to then assume our species faces an existential threat.

This extinction rate cannot be neatly approached as the product of a single cause. Our society is lousy at dealing with multiple causes. It's like we are as bad as crows (they can't count above three).

But  there are thousands of toxic chemicals, radionuclides and aerosols, along with the CO2 damage that have joined together to drown us in our industrial effluents. CO2 pollution is what we should all agree on. As you can see from Alan's posts, even that is like pulling teeth.

Also, there are too many corporations stuck in the incremental measures approach to expect them to own up the their responsibility to future generations. I just posted an article on the good and the bad corporations. But the 'good" are STILL not at 100% renewable energy. And the bad ones are worse than ever. :emthdown:

It's hard to communicate this threat dispassionately. I do the best I can. We are in a world of trouble.

These are the web sites Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville recommends for reliable information. I hang around RealClimate regularly. I have posted articles from RealClimate here during the last year and have recommended it to all readers. They are the ones who are now looking very hard at the meltwater tunneling by supercritical water (liquid water several degrees below freezing due to massive glacier pressures lubricating glacier movement) beneath Greenland glaciers that is NOT addressed in any of the IPCC predictions that David Wasdell discussed.

They cover all the climate bases. RealClimate is staffed exclusively by climate scientists. 



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 18, 2015, 02:28:25 am »

[/center]
The Arctic Sea Tumbles To A New Low  :(

Quote

Arctic sea ice reaches fourth lowest minimum



September 15, 2015   
 
On September 11, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2015. The minimum ice extent was the fourth lowest in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is average, a substantial contrast with recent years when Antarctic winter extents reached record high levels.

Please note that this is a preliminary announcement. Changing winds or late-season melt could still reduce the Arctic ice extent, as happened in 2005 and 2010. NSIDC scientists will release a full analysis of the Arctic melt season, and discuss the Antarctic winter sea ice growth, in early October.




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 17, 2015, 08:10:44 pm »

Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important questions in my mind, given the data you and others have presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?

-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?

These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if you believe the general process of asking these and other questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation, manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be properly assessed.

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?


The videos I have posted addressed this in detail. To summarize the findings, the rate of the negative effects of Global Warming is not decreasing, all the tracked effects are increasing in quantity. But more alarming, is that all of them are increasing in the rate of increase as well. I will post another video, this one from 2013, but quite comprehensive in covering both the increase and the increase in rate.

That is, the graphed slopes of CO2 increase and Temperature increase and deforestation increase and desertification increase and ocean acidification increase (and others) are all tilting upwards in angle. As you will see in the graphs presented, the IPCC scenarios are overly conservative. The observed temperature data as of 2013 was right at the top range of their most extreme scenario (from the IPCC 2007 report). A new IPCC report came out this year. The scenario range has been adjusted upwards (to more extreme), but the models, as the videos I have already presented explain, still do not account for several factors.

So there is no logical reason to believe any of the scenarios are "within the ballpark", so to speak. And all the indicators point to an increased rate of deleterious global warming effects.

As to whether the rate increase of all these factors is sufficient to warrant warnings about a high probability of N.T.H.E. if drastic measures are not engaged in to ameliorate the existential threat, the answer is yes. If the rate was decreasing or constant, the answer would be a maybe. WHY? Because of the baked in approximately 40 year causative factor time lag.

Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

That is why incremental measures doom future generations to a high probability of extinction. Scientifically speaking, incremental measures will not even slow the rate if increase of deleterious factors, let along the quantitative increase.

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?


Positive feedback mechanisms are also addressed in the videos I have presented and some of my posts. These mechanisms, of which there are about 30, once having reached a self reinforcing state (which is why they call them positive feedback mechanisms) are difficult to control. They, in fact, cannot be controlled beyond a certain point. Yes, they burn themselves out eventually. But before they do, they result in mass die offs. This has been established by studies of CO2 build up in ancient times before humans walked the earth. When a positive feedback loop reaches a certain stage, our technology is incapable of arresting it's effects. This is not alarmist hyperbole on my part. This is a direct quote from the IPCC reviewer scientist in one of the videos I presented.

The video I present at the end of this posts shows that the negative feedbacks are being overwhelmed by the positive feedbacks at present.

Positive feedback loops are not like a line of falling dominoes that you can put your hand on to stop the rest from falling. Considering the fact that there are about 30 positive feedback loops involved in global warming, it is necessary to picture their cumulative interactive, multiple feedback reinforcing effects as a chain reaction. It's not 30 independent systems. It's more like 30 times 30 (30 times repeated) because they all act to boost each other in multiples of the last iteration exponentially. That means that they get beyond the ability of our technology to control exponentially.

This short video of ping pong balls on mouse traps is a crude analogy of how positive feedback loops work;

Start at the 24 second mark:


For example, we are triggering a positive feedback loop by reducing the earth's albedo (ice cover). The videos I have presented cover how we simply cannot stop the resulting runaway greenhouse effect once the positive feedback loops begin in earnest. Guy McPherson thinks we did that already. I entertain the hope that we can ameliorate those mechanisms somewhat and postpone or possibly prevent N.T.H.E. But it is not presently feasible to do that with incremental measures.

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

The main consumer culprits are the 20% in the rich countries that use around 76% of the world's resources, according to a 2007 UN pie chart. Consumers are doing quite a bit to mitigate destructive environmental trends.

But that pie chart leaves out the non-consumer polluters that do more damage than we ordinary piggies in the rich countries.

The problem is that the main polluters are outside of the consumer loop. Many people think this issue can be addressed by recycling and lowering our carbon footprint. Yes, that is important and many are doing it. But the industries that are unrelated to consumer products are gigantic polluters, showing no sign of slowing their massive polluting activities, never mind stopping them. The military of the USA, despite moves to go solar on many bases, still are one the largest polluters of the air , land and sea. In short, the governments of the world, backed by the large polluting industries continue to make things worse.

Year to date fossil fuel use:
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env3/

So the chances that consumers acting to try to mitigate the destructive factors are high. But the chances that those actions, absent massive government efforts stop all polluting industries quickly, will actually mitigate those destructive factors, are low to none. A collapse in industrial output from massive poverty still does not account for the 40 year baked in climate damage coming at us. It would reduce the amount of polluting, but not stop it. It is sine qua non to reverse it in order to mitigate or eliminate the existential threat to our species.

I support all efforts to recycle and conserve. But I know what the biosphere math is telling us. Nevertheless, I urge all people to conserve as much as possible. Just because that behavior is somewhat quixotic, does not mean it should not be done. Responsible behavior is based on the ethical concern for future generations, regardless of whether it is enough or not. I'm sure you agree that doing the right thing does not guarantee success in human society. In fact, the reverse is true most of the time.


-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?


I will address the above three questions after I exercise. Some of the answers are in this video, but I will verbalize them for clarity when I come back. It was published on May 2, 2013. All the data is accurate and backed by hard science. The more recent data is more alarming (this was before the latest IPCC report). But even with the data  Professor Somerville had then, the case for urgent action was clear.



The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change


Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.



Posted by: ashvin
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:47:51 pm »

AG,

Just to clarify in case this wasn't already clear, I believe we DO have sufficient evidence to establish the reality of AGW and it's devastating effects on the biosphere, which obviously supports human existence.

Using the court analogy, I see you as the prosecution in this - i.e. you have the burden of proving that humanity (mostly via AGW) is guilty of creating the conditions for NTHE (with a very high probability, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). I see myself as a juror who has to weigh your evidence and argumentation to determine whether it is sufficient to prove us guilty BRD. Like a juror in deliberation, I also must engage in cross-examination of your evidence, NOT with any specific goal of debunking it, but only with the intention of clarifying it and its implications.

And again, I am NOT using this BRD standard to oppose incremental OR drastic measures to combat AGW, as suggested by the precepts of the PP. The PP's application, in my mind, is all about policy initiatives and NOT about persuading people of imminent and extreme Doom. It does not serve an ethos of uber-Doom, because it readily admits that the evidence of NTHE may be insufficient (instead it says the tail risk is so great, we don't need sufficient evidence to enact certain policies).

Addendum to the above post - Some of the most important questions in my mind, given the data you and others have presented, are the following (most of them are inter-related):

-What is the reliability of projections which suggest trends such as CO2 emissions, species extinction, deforestation, etc. will continue at a rate destructive enough to conclude HP (high probability) of NTHE?

-What are the chances that natural positive feedback mechanisms in these areas will burn themselves out or be counter-acted by negative feedback mechanisms?

-What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are the chances that consumers may intentionally or unintentionally act in ways to mitigate destructive environmental trends (for ex, becoming too poor to consume as much)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?

These are admittedly the questions of a layperson without much scientific knowledge or insight. Some of them may be nonsensical, and if so I would be glad to hear why. However, if you believe the general process of asking these and other questions is a strategy of obfuscation, misrepresentation, manipulation, etc., then we simply have a fundamental disagreement as to how the probability of NTHE should be properly assessed.
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:01:20 pm »

also, regarding rock dust:

Quote

snippets from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Hamaker

 Hamaker believed remineralizing the world’s soil with rock dust, a quarrying by-product, could revitalise barren soil and reverse climate change. Rock dust nourished soil micro-organisms whose protoplasm is the basis of all living things. When mixed with compost, the dust created rich, deep soils which could produce high growth vegetation free from pests and predators, at an accelerated rate. The idea was later confirmed by agricultural scientists such as Arden Andersen, who showed how high sugar and mineral levels in soil gave immunity to soil bacteria, stopping insect and fungal attacks.[25] For Hamaker and Andersen, minerals were the primal food for micro-organisms which provided life and health for the soil....

 Hamaker believed that within as little as a decade, the growing season would decrease leading to mass starvation in rich and poor nations alike. He therefore proposed the remineralization of the world’s soils and reforesting the land, to propagate carbon sinks, thereby absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and so contributing to general climatic stability. By assuming the task of remineralizing the Earth’s soils, just like glaciers do during an ice age, remineralization would create fertile soils – the basis for the re-creation of stable ecosystems....

Remineralization benefits

Primary benefits
    Provides slow, natural release of elements and trace minerals.
    Increases the nutrient intake of plants.
    Increases yields and gives higher brix. Brix is the measure of dissolved solids in the sap of fruits and plants that correlate with greater nutritive value.
    Rebalances soil pH.
    Increases the growth of micro-organisms and earthworm activity.
    Builds humus complex.
    Prevents soil erosion.
    Increases the storage capacity of the soil.
    Increases resistance to insects, disease, frost and drought.
    Produces more nutritious crops (minerals are essential for human health).[40]
    Enhances flavor in crops.
    Decreases dependence on fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.[41][42][43][44]

Further benefits
    Reafforestation.
    Increases forest and land resources.
    Sustainable forestry, farming and energy opportunities.
    Enhances ecosystems.
    Increases biodiversity.
    Carbon offsetting.
    Greater climatic equilibrium.
    Preservation of interglacial climate conditions.

............................................

http://bio4climate.org/downloads/Campe-The_Potential_of_Remineralization_with_Rock_Mineral_Fines-Rio_Summit-RTE-2012.pdf

THE POTENTIAL OF REMINERALIZATION WITH ROCK MINERAL FINES TO TRANSFORM AGRICULTURE, FORESTS, SUSTAINABLE BIOFUELS PRODUCTION, SEQUESTER CARBON, AND STABILIZE THE CLIMATE

By Joanna Campe(1), Dan Kittredge(2), and Lee Klinger(3)

 snip

CONCLUSION

 Soil Remineralization will create abundance in an era of diminishing resources and shift us away from fossil fuels. Remineralization is nature's way to regenerate soils, and is needed on a large scale because mismanagement is causing us to lose soils far faster than they can naturally regenerate. The techniques are simple, easily and intuitively learned, and can be rapidly scaled up at the community level. The materials are readily available and an inexpensive byproduct wherever there is building and road construction using stone aggregates or concrete. No extra energy is needed to grind them up since it is a waste product of gravel plants. Hard silicate rocks are the most abundant resource on  earth. Millions of tons are readily available for the cost of transportation, and much more could easily be produced from existing rock crushing plants. Remineralization is an essential tool for sustainable development, economic empowerment, and social justice by creating a local nutrient dense food supply for all, and will improve health and generate livelihoods within local communities. It can play a critical role in overcoming hunger and poverty, ecological restoration, carbon sequestration and climate stabilization.


Agelbert Responds:
Your post discusses a laudable, but paltry and insufficient measure which will not ameliorate the existential threat. I read your posts on soil nutrients 3 years ago and agreed. That is a great idea. But it won't stop climate catastrophe, which is the subject of this debate.
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 17, 2015, 11:01:14 am »

yet another angle, from the same fao.org discussion:

GOOD ONE!
Quote

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/forum/discussions/climate-change-and-fsn?page=6

Mr. Paul von Hartmann California Cannabis Ministry, United States of America
30.03.2015

Dear Florence and FSN Associates,

Climate change has several dimensions, all of which threaten global food security and health in fundamentally interconnected ways. Temperature increase, ocean acidity & circulation, ozone depletion, sub-arctic methane release all pose potentially catastrophic influences.

Most people are aware of "global warming." Fewer people seem to be as concerned with the increasing solar UV-B radiation reaching the planet's surface, what I refer to as "global broiling."

Climate change mitigation and crop selection in the 21st Century must take into account both of these aspects of systemic climate imbalance. If we are to avoid irreversible systemic collapse, then must successfully adapt in the most time-efficient ways to navigate these changes.

First we must acknowledge the changes are happening at an accelerating and unpredictable, non-linear rate; then we must objectively reconsider our priorities. Specifically, society's views about what is "illegal" and what is essential must change.

Cannabis agriculture, manufacture and trade offer fundamental solutions to many of the problems imposed by climate imbalance. Every growing season that passes without comprehensive, objective analysis of this unique and essential natural resource, is gone forever.

Consider that "hemp" is the only crop that produces complete nutrition and sustainable biofuels from the same harvest. In addition, the atmospheric benefits of Cannabis sequestration and monoterpene production make hemp an essential crop.

Please feel invited to consider the rationale for resolving climate imbalance, presented in my recently published book,

"Cannabis vs. Climate Change: How hot does Earth have to get before all solutions are considered?"  http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PCSRUF8

Thank you for the opportunity to present an achieveable biogenic solution in an atmosphere of timely objectivity.

Best wishes to all,

Paul



Aglebert responds: The above post is not relevant to the discussion. The book may be relevant, but the link does not describe the books contents. I assume your point is that the Earth has not gotten hot enough yet.

I do agree somewhat with this part of the post link "Unless severe measures are taken, and countries reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and increase the removal of these gases from the atmosphere, it will be increasingly difficult and expensive to adapt to climate change." However, the reduction must be drastic. The reduction must go to ZERO within, at most, a decade. It seems to me you don't. The whole point of our argument is that you think incremental measures are enough and I think only drastic measures can help limit the existential threat.

I have repeatedly explained to you that there are 40 to 50 years baked in. Addressing the situation as it stands NOW is doomed to failure. You do not get it, Alan. Have a nice day.
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 17, 2015, 09:52:59 am »

The worst aspect of CO2 fertilization is that it results in plants of relatively low quality -- richer in carbohydrate (which is where the carbon goes), but poorer in nitrogen and other nutrients. THIS IS BAD. However, the increased sum of biomass is generally good.

One of my ideas (now going on 10 years old) for mitigating the effects of climate change is to increase soil nutrients to complement the CO2. In other words, to optimize the potentially-good effects of CO2. It is actually not a new idea. A guy named Hamaker (sp?) proposed it in the early 80s. His focus was on massive use of rock dust as a soil fertility-builder, to stimulate plant growth which in turn pulls CO2 out of the air. It was a good idea. The only way my idea differs is that I would like to see more of a focus on nitrogen, and this can be done easily by propagating (N-fixing) legumes. But the basic bottom-line idea is the same: increase soil quality, thereby optimizing plant growth, and (hopefully) increasing the "pull" of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

PS: Agelbert: if you censor another one of my posts, then I really am out of here forever. If that is what you want, then go for it.

Agelbert Responds:
Your post discusses a laudable, but paltry and insufficient measure which will not ameliorate the existential threat. I read your posts on soil nutrients 3 years ago and agreed. That is a great idea. But it won't stop climate catastrophe, which is the subject of this debate.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 17, 2015, 02:07:36 am »

Stay on track, Alan. Anthropogenic caused Climate Change is BAD for life forms. That has already been established, even by the conservative IPCC. SPARE me any more "increased CO2 is a good deal" BALONEY!

As the last video in the above post states in the form of analogy, humans may need calcium, but that doesn't mean we will be happy with a diet of Ice Cream!

The band of biosphere life form requirements requires that we get x amount of whatever we need. If we get too little, it is life threatening, If we get TOO MUCH, it is ALSO life threatening. Look up homeostasis. All the life forms in the biosphere have their own homeostatic bands. Global warming is an existential threat to most life forms (extremophiles excluded) because they will be forced out of their sine qua non bands of temperature, chemistry, pressure, etc.

Why can't you see that? why can't you understand how that applies to plants? We need water, but you can die from drinking too much at once. It's the same with all life forms.

Greedballs in the fossil fuel industry and the propagandists they pay simply cannot get it through their heads that TOO much of a vital substance is LETHAL.   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 17, 2015, 01:04:52 am »

What part about the REDUCTION in photosynthetic efficiency from INCREASED carbon dioxide caused HEAT do you not get? I posted the science and the link beneath your article.

Here's the biosphere nuts and bolts of it (that your article totally misses):

Quote
Climate Myth...

CO2 is plant food

Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm).  Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants.  This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis.  Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea.  And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2) [/color]

Quote
An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this,  'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue.  It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it  quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term  experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against  limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the  "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows (at link).

Plant defenses go down as carbon dioxide levels go up, the researchers found. Soybeans grown at elevated CO2 levels attract many more adult Japanese beetles than plants grown at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Science Daily; March 25, 2008. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Evan Delucia)


More than 55 million years ago, the Earth experienced a rapid jump in global Carbon Dioxide levels that raised temperatures across the planet. Now, researchers studying plants from that time have found that the rising temperatures may have boosted the foraging of insects. As modern temperatures continue to rise, the researchers believe the planet could see increasing crop damage and forest devastation. Science Daily; Feb. 15, 2008

Quote
Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of vegetation worldwide declines

Quote
6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

Basic rebuttal written by doug_bostrom

UPDATE July 2015:


The negative effects of climate change far outweigh any positive effect from increased CO2 levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

The fossil fuel industry has been trying to push that STUPID, "CO2 is great for plants" baloney for at least two decades. Yeah, they use CO2. Yeah, they NEED CO2. Yeah, More CO2 means they can absorb it better and grow faster.

HOWEVER, they don't do ANY of those things when they are forced outside the BAND of temperature and other conditions that are sine qua non for them. I tried to explain that to you and you totally ignored it. It's BIOSHERE MATH 101.

The fossil fuel industry is pushing the CO2 happy talk TOTALLY out of context, as you are trying to do. The desertification and deforestation is NOT being counterbalanced by the greening of colder areas now accessing more CO2 due to warming.

The data about ongoing desertification I have presented totally defeats the claim that arid areas are "greening".

Some areas towards the poles will experience some greening. SO WHAT? Are you planning on moving all the animals, insects and other biota that DON"T migrate, along with the trees and crops north or south thousands of miles? How breathtakingly naïve!

Alan, what part of this do you not understand?


Here's another article from Phys.org. Do you think it's "alarmist"? Do you think they are "overreacting"? Do you think their science is bad?

Burning remaining fossil fuel could cause 60-meter sea level rise

September 11, 2015
Quote

"Our findings show that if we do not want to melt Antarctica, we can't keep taking fossil fuel carbon out of the ground and just dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 like we've been doing," Caldeira said. "Most previous studies of Antarctic have focused on loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Our study demonstrates that burning coal, oil, and gas also risks loss of the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet."

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-fossil-fuel-meter-sea.html#jCp

Here's a nice quote from another article in Phys.org:


Quote

What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an "N"?

Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change "skeptics", bank rolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute's backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.

The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience
.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience.html#jCp

Oh, and Alan, I am puling the other article about "greening" from CO2 increase. I will research it when I have the time. If I find one of the Hoffman fossil fueler funded propagandists behind it, it will not be reposted. It will be deleted as disinformation.

But I will be happy to explain each deletion, when, or if, the time comes.

Poodwaddle is firmly backed by data. WHY are you questioning it? Did you go there and check the sources. Right. I didn't think so.  >:(

Have a nice day.
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 16, 2015, 10:43:38 pm »

Quote

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2

July 3, 2013


Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html#jCp
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.

In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.

"In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently," Dr Donohue said. "Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.

This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means Australia featured prominently in our results."

"While a CO2 effect on foliage response has long been speculated, until now it has been difficult to demonstrate," according to Dr Donohue.

"Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes."

The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.

If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas where the cover is less complete than in wet locations, according to Dr Donohue.

"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.

"Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects."

This study was published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal and was funded by CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.


Agelbert: Rather than just deleting this article, I'll just respond here and in the next post:
The article above is erroneous. This video from NASA provides satellite evidence that the increase in CO2, though once believed to increase greening (since the 1980's) has now been shown to reduce greening. The data presented in the video, unlike the above article, is current.

Global Warming reduces plant productivity.

Quote
The enhancement of photosynthesis and growth (and, so, carbon uptake) which occurs with higher temperatures has been mentioned as a possible mitigating factor in climate change. However, there are limits to how much additional growth can be expected by warming.

 Most plants have either physiological or physical limits on growth, and, also, as plants age, they grow more slowly and consume less carbon dioxide.

http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/3-rainforests-in-peril-deforestation/f-consequences-of-deforestation/8-climate-change-and-increase-in-greenhouse-gases/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 16, 2015, 09:38:39 pm »

Why positive feedback mechanisms will not be prevented by incremental measures.

 I present this as part of the evidence that the probability of N.T.H.E. is increasing.
This video is from 2007. YET, it predicts an ice free arctic in the summer between 2015-20. He was spot on. Current targets are around 2017-i9. Back in 2007, the models didn't predict that happening until around 2050! David Wasdell is a credentialed scientist. He was a reviewer in IPCC studies. He explains how the SCIENCE was downplayed by lawyers from various governments. This was done so the science predicting catastrophe (i.e. NON-linearity of degradation acceleration) WOULD NOT be made public. The only hard position reached by the IPCC is that climate change is anthropogenic, PERIOD. Since then things have improved somewhat on the truth about the gravity of our situation, but the public is still mostly in the dark about the existential threat calmly explained here.

David Wasdell makes it clear that strategy geared to today's symptoms is insufficient because causal elements have a 40 to 50 year lag. Incremental measures based on present observations are, not just doomed to fail, they guarantee that they will fail in the future. Only massive, government sponsored action NOW has a chance (and even that is not a sure thing, as is stated in this video) of somewhat ameliorating the probability of catastrophe. He clearly states  that a massive extinction event destroying over 80% of life on earth  will be triggered by about 30 positive feedback loops that credentialed climate scientists agree will overwhelm the ability of our technology to stop them.

As he says, the observation of a "tipping point", if we have the misfortune to view it, guarantees that any response is 40 to 50 years behind the baked in causative factors.


Quote
David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related topics.
http://www.apollo-gaia.org


Here's video by Professor Kevin Anderson
explaining why every day that we delay increases the stupendous cost of the effort to bring the situation under control.

It's a long video. That means that people like Ashvin will not watch it, even though their life may depend on the knowledge imparted in it.

Professor Anderson tears apart every argument presented by Alan or Mking that defends the paltry incremental measures now used to address the issue of catastrophic climate change.



Climate Change: Going beyond the dangerous 

 
Quote

Ian McPherson   Uploaded on Feb 9, 2012

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change) is a depressing guy. Here, in his lecture "Beyond dangerous climate change: emission scenarios for a new world", he lays out the grim reality of climate change, and our inability to address it globally.

We are currently mitigating for 4 degrees C of warming and planning for 2 degrees C. As Anderson points out, that's ass backwards. Further, he sees absolutely no way we can meet those targets, given the rapid industrialisation of China and the emerging economies, and the current state of global political inaction.

He points out, with brutal honesty, that "climate analysts construct their scenarios not to avoid dangerous climate change but to avoid threatening economic growth". There is, therefore, almost no possibility that we are going to act, either in time or at the scale necessary, to address the challenge facing us.

We pretend that 2 degrees C is our threshold. Yet the climate scenarios and plans presented to policymakers do not actually reflect that threshold. As Anderson says, "most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions."

Depressing stuff indeed...

--------------------------------------

Download the paper this lecture is based on (written by Anderson and Alice Bows) here: http://ianmcpherson.com/blog/audio/Ke...

Read David Robert's thoughts about the paper in two articles at Grist:
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-...
http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-...

--------------------------------------

This lecture is part of the London School of Economics Department of International Development Friday Lecture Series. More information can be found here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/vi...

--------------------------------------

Speaker: Professor Kevin Anderson.
Recorded on 21 October 2011 in Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House, London UK.

This lecture is part of the LSE Department of International Development Friday Lecture Series. A question and answer session follows the talk.

Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester.

He has recently finished a two-year position as director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK's leading academic climate change research organisation, during which time he held a joint post with the University of East Anglia.

 


 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 16, 2015, 06:26:44 pm »

I present the following short video as additional scientific evidence that the precautionary principle demands we engage in drastic and massive efforts immediately to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.:

https://youtu.be/_tVxloCKJN0

A brief explanation of why positive feedback loops are uncontrollable, once they start. Incremental measures will not stop positive feedback loops from starting. Therefore, incremental measures will not work to reduce the high probability of N.T.H.E. from a multiplicity of positive feedback loops. This is why immediate and drastic action is warranted now.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 16, 2015, 03:04:04 pm »

Ashvin,
If you think I cherry pick, rather than summarize, then do the work of going to the links I clearly present to the reader to peruse, rather than throwing out deliberate barbs for the purpose of undermining my credibility.

And asking me for more data to support my views when you have just questioned my methodology for obtaining and publishing data that supports my premise is illogical.

You are not convinced by my stream of posts. You make no effort to connect them together. You continuously avoid putting them all together.  Any detective knows that what appears to be an insignificant clue to a crime, when added to several other of the same nature, constitutes circumstantial evidence. You just flat refuse to do that. 

We can argue until the cows come home if that is, or is not, logical methodology or hairsplitting or endowment/confirmation bias. That just keeps the substance of the data from being discussed.

Sorry pal, this isn't about me or you. You are just trying to make it about me. As Surly said, with some graphics, that's a departure from substance and is off topic.

Ashvin, you can choose to keep all the dots I present totally disconnected in regard to the INCREASE in the probability of N.T.H.E. if you so desire.

Since I am pushing 70, I don't expect to be here when the positive feedback loops are jacking each other up (picture one ping pong ball thrown at a field of mouse traps, each with a single ping pong ball ready to jump when disturbed). My rough estimate is between 2040 and 2050.

You will be there, old chum. I'm trying to enlist your aid to WRITE about the threat, rather than pretend it is "absurd". How will you feel if my warnings turnout to be valid? Will you say it was my fault because I didn't lay down the argument properly in order to convince you? You probably will. Humans have a gift for rationalizing, don't they? You claim I am doing exactly that with my defense of my "overreaction". Perhaps.

But, your argument is weakened by the fact that I am not threatened by N.T.H.E., you are.

The only justification for anyone that is old, like me, that you can logically claim, is that "rooftop yelling alarmists" like to "scare people". That's REALLY bullshit, especially if you ascribe it to someone who has been publishing proposed solutions and pushing various renewable energy technologies consistently.

Here's another DOT, Ashvin.

The following estimate of deaths caused by pollution is overly conservative by several orders of magnitude. I reason that it is overly conservative, and certainly not alarmist, by the fact that it leaves out mortality estimates of all other life forms in the biosphere that are affected equally by the deleterious impact of pollution. It also leaves out several other types of pollution caused positive feedback loop effects such as species viability reduction from radionuclide caused degraded DNA, habitat loss from desertification and deforestation, ocean acidification and Carbon Dioxide atmospheric increase, among several other mortality increasing effects now present in our biosphere.

I submit this news as part of the evidence that incremental measures are not enough to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E. and that only massive, government sponsored, drastic measures to stop all sources of pollutants NOW will reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.

Air pollution could kill 6.6 million people a year by 2050


Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday.

POSTED: 17 Sep 2015 01:40

LONDON: Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday (Sep 16).

In a study published in the journal Nature, they found that outdoor air pollution already kills about 3.3 million people a year worldwide. The majority of those deaths are in Asia where residential energy emissions, such as those from heating and cooking, have a major impact.

And that toll could double over the next 35 years, the researchers warned, unless clean-up measures are taken.

"This is an astounding number," said Jos Lelieveld of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, who led the research. "In some countries air pollution is actually a leading cause of death, and in many countries it is a major issue."
Air pollution deaths are most commonly from heart disease, strokes or a lung disease called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is also linked to deaths from lung cancer and acute respiratory infections.

Calculating the health and mortality effects of outdoor air pollution on a global scale is not easy, partly because air quality is not monitored in every region and the toxicity of particles varies depending on their source.

So for this study, Lelieveld's team combined a global atmospheric chemistry model with population data and health statistics to estimate the relative contribution of different kinds of outdoor air pollution, mainly from so-called fine particulate matter, to premature deaths.

Their results show that in India and China, for example, emissions from heating and cooking, have the largest death toll, while in much of the United States and a few other countries, emissions from traffic and power generation are crucial.

In the eastern United States and in Europe, Russia and East Asia, agricultural emissions are the biggest source of the kind of fine particulate matter that gets into people's lungs, causing illness, disability and death.

Oliver Wild, an atmospheric scientist at Britain's Lancaster University, said the study "really brings home the need for air quality controls", particularly in heavily populated parts of Asia.
- Reuters

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/air-pollution-could-kill/2131586.html

Agelbert NOTE: For anyone that has the intestinal fortitude to get the big picture, though it is still a somewhat conservative one since it is based on government published stats, just go to poodwaddle.

Here's the clock running on global warming. I don't see the pollution picture improving. I don't see the pollution output slowing down. But Alan thinks I am "misinterpreting" the data  ::). So it goes.

You can adjust the clock for rate per hour, week, and so on. I have it set at "YEAR TO DATE". I find that to be less alarming to view and gives me a better sense of reality.

Global Warming Clock - CO2 Emissions (MT)



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 15, 2015, 08:31:22 pm »

I said.
Quote
The precautionary principle of science dictated that we STOP using DDT.

The precautionary principle of science dictates that we STOP using fossil fuels. The science is much clearer than it was for DDT!

But the point is, at the time the book was written, MANY PEOPLE said it was "ABSURD" to believe DDT could cause the extinction of several thousand Monotreme species (mammals that lay eggs). They did not want people shouting from the rooftops that:  WE were in danger, along with the Monotremes, because if DDT did that to egg shells, WHAT ELSE MIGHT IT DO?

Alan and Ashvin provide sad evidence that History repeats itself.  :(


Ashvin said,

Quote
Yes, THAT is what the precautionary principle is:

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action"

I am not arguing that you need to meet a certain burden of proof for NTHE before denouncing actions which cause environmental problems or promoting drastic actions to combat environmental problems. In fact, no one has argued that. Once again, you are ascribing this view to us because it makes us seem apathetic and your position more reasonable.

The PP does NOT state that you should ascribe more certainty to an outcome (NTHE) than the evidence warrants, and that is what I am claiming you are doing until you convince me otherwise.

So, the evidence does not "warrant" my premise. Yet I have repeatedly stated that Ashvin does not want to give any importance to the evidence I present.

How about you, Alan? Do you think the deforestation and extinction data (a tiny part of the overall degradation picture) I have so far presented does not "warrant" my premise?

Shall we now dance over to defining what "is" (see Clinton). This is getting absolutely ridiculous in the level of denial. 

But at least Ashvin CLAIMS that (see: "I am not arguing that you need to meet a certain burden of proof for NTHE before denouncing actions which cause environmental problems or promoting drastic actions to combat environmental problems.") that he is not demanding an impossibly high burden of proof.

You, Alan, are. You claim drastic measures are not warranted at all.

I'm not sure I buy Ashvin's assurances about backing drastic measures. Claiming the evidence doesn't warrant my premise while claiming his standard for agreeing with my premise is not high is okay. But WITHOUT telling me what evidence standard he would accept (see: he states he doesn't know that much about climate science and the biosphere = DOUBT) is illogical. It's erring on the side of the incremental measures status quo that I have already proven isn't doing enough.

It's wrong. The precautionary principle requires that, if we are to err, it is on the side of doing more than may be necessary to eliminate the threat of N.T.H.E.

But I know I'm talking to a wall. so it goes.  :(

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 15, 2015, 08:13:49 pm »

I said to Ashvin ,
Quote
Your assertion that a tiny group can "overreact" to a tsunami of propaganda by TPTB to keep people asleep is not a logical statement; it's ridiculous. But it is based on your view that there IS NO massive propaganda effort to put people to sleep (SEE: Endowment bias or Confirmation bias).

Ashvin said,
Quote
No, I do believe there is a massive propaganda effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and apathetic. Now your tone is dismissive.

I liked the way Alan put it - the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.


That is a contradictory group of statements. I am not being dismissive. I am merely stating the fact that you firmly believe my firm view of a high probability of N.T.H.E. is illogical and unreasonable, even though you haven't heard all the evidence. You accuse me of exaggerating extreme outcomes with insufficient evidence to claim a firm position.

Yet you FIRMLY refuse to take the possibility seriously without evidence. The precautionary principle of science, which you claim to agree with, does not require that level of FIRM proof (that you are demanding is needed) to justify drastic, rather than incremental measures. Do you understand that?

But let us say you have a point and I am "overreacting". The precautionary principle of science DICTATES that the burning of fossil fuels be stopped, like, YESTERDAY. All the evidence is not in. It's an extrapolation, like the decision to pass all those  laws made after "Silent Spring" was published.
 
The laws were a good try. They haven't worked enough. But corporate TOES were stepped on to get those laws passed. The corporations learned the wrong lesson from those laws that cost them some profits.

That's why people like the Koch brothers and MKing do what they do. They have an agenda and they have a LOT of financial backing. Cui bono from branding warnings about N.T.H.E. as hyperbole and sky is falling bullshit, HUH? WHO would lose a lot of money if most people listened to Doomer Warnings about N.T.H.E.? Propaganda works. That 's why they finance a tsunami of it.   

The statement by Alan about two sides of a counterfeit coin is a false equivalence. You agree that there is a massive propaganda effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and apathetic. Then you calmly state that a tiny group of awake people, outraged by the environmental degradation unprecedented in human history, evidenced by extinction rates (that are also unprecedented and accelerating, NOT becoming less frequent) are "overreacting"?

What does your coin look like, a cone with a tiny flat point 0.00001% of the size of the base? THAT's a "coin"?

No, that is a false equivalence.

Alan's counterfeit coin. 

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 15, 2015, 07:32:50 pm »

Sure Alan, it's just "hilarious".  I'm waiting for you to pull out your "counterfeit coin".    

Doubt really is your product, isn't?


The above book, though not part of the book below, is relevant because it details the use of the SAME unethical strategy pioneered by the Tobacco bastards that HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, USED by the dirty energy producers for the last 40 years.  >:(

Agnotology: Part four of six parts

 

I am amazed you don't know what biosphere math is. The short version is that the biosphere operates in a band of temperature, pressure, pH and a trophic (stuff we are nourished by) web of species interconnections. All species have slightly varying requirements, but the bottom line is that they must remain within a "goldilocks" type band to survive extinction.

The stability of the composition of those bands constitutes a plus in biosphere math. The instability born of radical departures from those bands constitutes a negative in biosphere math.

For example, we require a certain population of gut bacteria in a certain proportion of bacterial species. A slight departure will kill us (e. g. E.coli food poisoning) even though we have a lot of the SAME bacteria that will kill us if it spoils food we are about to eat living happily in our intestines extracting vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from the food.

Nature is the same way. You DO NOT have to have this obvious giant threat out there to be in danger of extinction. The biosphere is EXTREMELY fine tuned. Our activities are guaranteeing an unquestionable forced departure from the life giving band of hundreds of thousands of species, including our own.

But I have not been able to communicate to you how truly fragile our existence is. It's a bit ironic, because I'm not going to be here to see the really massive human die offs starting around 2050. But Ashvin will. and if you are young, so will you.

All that said, I do appreciate the fact the you believe I am sincere, and not out to propagandize people for the jollies of scaremongering.

Perhaps after I'm dead, God (or is it the "goddess" to you?  ;)) will task me to sing "Henry the Eighth" (see the movie "Ghost) to Ashvin when the Greenland ice sheet slides into the ocean and the oceans jump 20 feet or so within a few months. That is, right after he starts asking "Who coulda node?".

He was just being prudent about the "proper" application of the precautionary principle, after all...
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 15, 2015, 05:50:49 pm »

Agelbert wrote:


...............................


I pledge my allegiance
To the Federal Reserve, the CFR and Exxon/Mobil,
And to the Bilderberg Group, for which they stand,
One nation, under plutocracy and the fascist Patriot Act,
with snooping and injustice for all.
Amen.


 :D

(time out for fun this afternoon!)
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 15, 2015, 02:54:54 pm »

K-Dog said Agelbert,
Quote
I appreciate your insight regarding the demonization of hippies.

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 15, 2015, 02:09:21 pm »

Sorry Alan, you just provided a slew of non answers. You used "doubt is our product" to obliquely defend incremental measures. But you feel so sure that DDT is saving millions of lives because you read about it. But what about the lives that it kills? When you read about DDT saving millions, you agree heartily. When you read about all the Anti-DDT legislation that saved even more millions, you claim it is doubtful and we are a "complex" society.

Sorry, that is not logical. The claim that DDT saves millions of lives in Africa is scientifically based speculation. The only way they could prove that is by having a control group in the same area in Africa not given having DDT sprayed crops while another group does. The past without DDT is not firm proof. The same applies to the claim that banning DDT saved millions. It's part of the precautionary principle that you do not want to deal with.

And it isn't just McPherson uttering dire warnings, pal. The acceleration in extinctions is not in doubt. Extinction is the topic here, isn't it? Humans are part of the biosphere. Humans need the biosphere to live. Humans are killing part of the biosphere. This is not hard. The word "precautionary" in the precautionary principle is there for a reason. and you have certainly NOT answered my points.

What part of the following do you find doubtful?

Quote
THE EXTINCTION CRISIS

It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year.

Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Your "Society" answer for who does the cost benefit analysis is fascinating in it's total dodge of the egregious gaming of government action by polluting corporations. You can agree that butterfly flapping can cause deleterious results but you can't see how the profit over planet polluters can bring about human extinction. That is simply not reasonable on your part. That is willful denial.

Of course I can recommend exactly what course of action for Africa and everybody else out there to take that excludes DDT and all other chemical neurotoxins. But if the proposal is not couched in the form of a real, not hyperbole based, existential threat, you KNOW governments won't act!  See below:

This is what we have to do WORLDWIDE. If we don't, we die.

The bottom line is that humans, although we are tasked as self aware beings with being stewards of those life forms who are not, are a function of the biosphere, just as all the other life forms are.

We have NOT "risen above" the other life forms with our polluting example. The reverse is true. Our science CANNOT replace life forms that go extinct. We can't even make a paramecium! We are STUCK when a large enough percentage of the biosphere we MUST have to survive dies off. And THAT is ALREADY BAKED IN, according to Hansen and thousands of other serious scientists.

We have NOT earned the right to do anything on this biosphere except to obey the rules of planetary biochemistry that our scientists have discovered. We don't do that and we die, period.

So we can sit here and hem and haw about whether this or that system is "doable", "practical" or "too utopian" while we are oh, so cautious in not wanting to tinker with all those "Great traditions" and "individuality" and "freedom" that gave us our present Dystopia. Good luck with that.

I propose that we go from a defunct "carrying Capacity" meme to a "Caring Capacity" meme.

This world view modification is life promoting, instead of death rewarding.

First, we would need to adopt Hansen's "Golden Opportunity" (tax and dividend) on fossil fuels along with the elimination of any and all subsidies and tax deductions for exploration for fossil fuels.

Second, codifying into international law fines and/or imprisonment for biosphere harming activities (e.g. fossil fuel exploration and non-bioremidiated mining) must occur across the board in order to ensure compliance to the Caring Capacity meme.

Third, we adopt the product of a Caring Capacity concept called a modified Borsadi Constant. The modification consists of Biosphere math applied to the basket of commodities Borsadi proposed. The modified Borsadi Constant must be the ONLY LEGAL TENDER in order to ensure compliance to the Caring Capacity meme. Of course, the international community could expand that basket to include other, less known, but important commodities vital to biosphere restoration.

This requires a planetary ecology inventory of the biosphere by objective scientists.


An inventory of the biosphere must be RADICALLY different than those now made by the CIA and all the other profit over planet exploiters that operate on the carrying capacity meme (i.e. ANYTHING we get from the ground that harms the biosphere MORE than nurtures it MUST be considered too expensive to extract, period).

For those that will wail and moan about how we need fossil fuel this and fossil fuel that (pesticides, fertilizers, plastics, etc.) in order to avoid having to cull the human population, I present to you the example of China BEFORE the industrial revolution.

For over 1,000 YEARS they had such a perfectly balanced use of human feces for fertilizing crops, that they obtained a population density FAR above anything any other country in the world has reached as of this date. And they did that WITHOUT warring on other countries (yeah they had internal conflict but nobody's perfect! ) and WITHOUT CAPITALISM several centuries before the industrial revolution.

With the knowledge we now possess, ALL the products we need to thrive can be obtained IN HARMONY with the biosphere. Any population pressure we experience can be solved by GROWING the biosphere onto arid, desolate portions of the globe. There are a LOT of those.

When the limit to THAT is reached within a century or so, we can terraform Mars to give us another 1000 years of growing elbow room. It's a BIG universe out there! The reason more people don't see this is that they are brainwashed to think SCARCITY, SCARCITY and SCARCITY equals VALUE. That's the exploitive, profit over planet mindfork we have been visited with for the benefit of the Gordon Gecko IDIOTS.
 
Here's the CARING CAPACITY CURRENCY part of the proposal:

Present Dystopia
:


The "currency" of Dystopia:


The BorsodI Constant aka "the Exeter experiment "InFLatIon Free Currency (approximately 1971-1974)
United States Constitution forbids the counterfeiting of this nation’s currency, however, it in no way limits the circulation of a completely alternative medium of exchange...
3 09 Ralph Borsodi Constant Currency

What MUST we do to have a type of FUNCTIONAL society based on human CARING CAPACITY instead of the exploited biosphere's "carrying capacity"?
We must adopt a currency that reflects REAL VALUE in the biosphere. The use of this currency must nurture LIFE, not reward coercion, greed, war and death.

Ralph Borsodi came up with a local currency called the "CONSTANT".
I like it. With some fine tuning, it would fit the bill for a Green Libertarian Socialist currency that would meet the Caring Capacity requirement to nurture LIFE, not reward coercion, greed, war and death.

SNIPPET:

The first Constants were sold on June 21st 1972. Over a period of about three years, Borsodi presented his ideas to many people who deposited approximately $100,000 in his bank experiment called Arbitrage International and the funds were used to buy the basket of 30 basic commodities on the world market. (Arbitrage International maintained a Luxembourg and a London office, in addition to its temporary headquarters in Exeter, New Hampshire.)

"The value of a Constant was based on that of specific amounts of thirty basic commodities,including gold, silver, iron, aluminum, lead, copper, nickel, tin, zinc, coal, oil, wheat, barley, rice, rye, oats, soya, maize, wool, cotton, cocoa, coffee, copra, hides, jute, rubber, cement, sulphur and sugar, and holders could sell them at any time for the total of whatever the constituents were then worth:


Borsodi’s organisation, Independent Arbitrage International, recalculated the Constant’s underlying value monthly and let the banks know. " People who bought Constants from Borsodi’s organisation at, say, $2.18 a 10-Constant note were surprised later when the bank paid them $2.19 for it" a local newspaperman, Mel

Most, wrote after the experiment had been running for seven months."
"To everybody’s surprise, even including Borsodi, many people bought Constant notes and made deposits in the bank checking account. At the same time Constants began to circulate around the town of Exeter, where restaurants and other businesses accepted them in payment."

The participants in the experiment saw the value of their constant rise 17% in three years. 36 months into the test, "...a constant bought in 1970 can still be traded for exactly one constant’s worth of goods . . . while a dollar will now buy only 85% of what it would purchase three years ago."
3 09 Ralph Borsodi Constant Currency

HERE is the typical BALONEY double talk response from the gooberment:
What did the U.S. Treasury Department have to say about the private currency?
A Treasury agent was quoted at the time saying, "We don’t care if he issues pine cones, as long as it is exchangeable for dollars so that transactions can be recorded for tax purposes."

BALONEY!

"Tax purposes" DOES NOT HAVE BEANS to do with it and COERCION to make people accept a worthless fiat currency issued by the "Federal" Reserve has EVERYTHING to do with it. But they don't say that, do they? THE INSTANT people with REAL currency try to PROPERLY value fiat dollars (see USED toilet paper or less), the profit over planet counterfeiters get their family jewels in an uproar.
http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170415144817.jpeg

What must be done to avoid Extinction[/b]

Feel free to pass this on with or without attribution. TPTB, not the overwhelming majority of the human biomass, are killing this biosphere. WE HAVE TO STOP THEIR SUICIDAL INSANITY OR WE WILL GO EXTINCT.

NOTE: I wrote above proposal in April of this year. I haven't been invited to the White House.  ;D I didn't really think I would. That is not "despair", pal. That is understanding the reality of the massive denial most Homo SAPS are into about our existential threat form human caused pollution.

Alan,
You seem to be saying the if the odds of N.T.H.E. are high enough, as determined by the scientific community (NOT just McPherson!), that is peddling despair and prevent progress thorough incremental measures. That is not a logical deduction. What the high odds ACTUALLY does, once governments digest the reality of the threat, is justify massive and drastic action to postpone it and possibly eliminate it.

You refuse to see that.
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 15, 2015, 01:58:44 pm »

PSS: Agelbert wrote:

Quote
Set the example of a Frugality is Freedom Minimalist Mindset lifestyle. BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT! The hippies did that and made the MISTAKE of dropping out. They were supposed to use that very same psychology the propagandists for dirty energy used to turn the masses into piggies. That TOOL is to be found in Maslow's hierarchy. IT is called PEER GROUP ACCEPTANCE. That is why TPTB demonized the hippies. That STRIPPED THEM of their ability to exert PEER PRESSURE on "respectable citizens". The rest is history.

Very good point! You make a number of very good points, amidst the noise and hand-waving.
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 15, 2015, 01:10:00 pm »


PS:

The Dirty F.u.c.k.ing Hippies Were Right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4

 :)
Posted by: alan2102
« on: September 15, 2015, 01:04:30 pm »

Quote
Alan said "The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects."
By WHO, Alan? By WHO? Answer the QUESTION.
Society.

Quote
Your dancing is going to STOP right now.
What dancing? I've responded in detail to virtually every single sentence you have written, as you can see from my posts above. I note, meanwhile, that you are not responding to me; ignoring whole posts.

Quote
ONLY scientists can answer those questions because politicians ARE NOT OBJECTIVE.
I agree that the input of scientists is very important. They should have a very promininent place in policy issues. I am not satisfied with their present role. Scientists are not objective, either, but they come a lot closer than politicians.

Quote
DEFINE "desirable effects"!
I made a start in my post about DDT. One million malaria cases PER YEAR in Sri Lanka, prevented by DDT. Would you call that a desirable effect?

Quote
Are you saying the environmental laws passed because of the influence of the book  titled, "Silent Spring"  WERE NOT justified?
I don't know. They probably WERE justified (my gut talking). But I have not studied the specifics, so cannot say with confidence.

Quote
You know EXACTLY where I am going with this. And you DO NOT want to accept the premise that serious warnings of potential extinction by the scientific community are logical and reasonable.
By who in the scientific community? McPherson? His "work" (if you want to call it that) has been deconstructed and is taken seriously by only very few. It is possible that he is right, but it seems to be a very small likelihood.

Quote
So, you begin to hem and haw about the "evidence" of DDT. It was mostly BANNED, pal. So, OBVIOUSLY, we don't know what would have happened if they hadn't banned it. What a breathtakingly irrelevant question!
Actually, although it was banned, there was an "escape clause" in the ban such that under certain conditions it could be used.

I note that it is now being used again in Africa:

Quote
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/141150-african-countries-adopt-controversial-deadly-chemical-ddt-for-malaria-treatment.html
 African countries adopt controversial deadly chemical, DDT, for malaria treatment
 July 17, 2013
 snip
 Nigeria’s Minister of Health, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, during the Abuja meeting, emphasized that the World Health Organization has cleared use of DDT in countries where mosquitoes are resistant to other insecticide, noting that the manner of usage is what matters.
 “Some countries are using them. In the health sector, it’s to be used indoors, not outdoors. It is the Agricultural sector that doesn’t need DDT. We are not here for rhetorics but to seek the way forward and the summit and African Union is primarily for that purpose,” he stated.
 Also, the South African representative reiterated that it is important for all African leaders to eliminate malaria in Africa, thus, queried why DDT comes under attack annually whenever it is raised as a means of eradicating malaria.
 “If we stop using it, we are sentencing our people to death. Every other continent used DDT to eradicate malaria, so why is our turn different in Africa?
 He said that within five years, South African had a 600 per cent increase in malaria rate from 1996 when the country stopped using DDT.
 “We had no choice but revert to it. DDT must remain here until a more effective chemical is discovered. We want to emphasize that it must not be removed from our agreed agenda on how to eradicate malaria in Africa,” he said.

Quote
And what about the increased environmental awareness that book caused. Are you going claim that was an "overreaction"?
Some of it was. Some of it wasn't. It is a complex world we live in. There are reactions to things, and there are overreactions to things. Sometimes you don't know whether or not something is an overreaction until some years down the line (hence your embrace of the precautionary principle -- about which there is much to admire).

Quote
So you want to grasp at a few "DDT ain't that bad" straws. Look it up, pal.
I have, to some extent. DDT is both good and bad, like most things. I would love it if the good that DDT does were being done by something else (non-toxic and benign), so we could cease production and use of DDT forever. That would be a very good thing. But meanwhile, here we are. See above news item on DDT in Africa. Do you have a suggestion for Nigeria’s Minister of Health, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu?  What would you suggest that he do? What would YOU do in his situation? You have many thousands of people dying of a disease that would be prevented by DDT. But you know that DDT is in other ways a very bad thing. What would you do? Seriously. Think about it. There is no easy answer.

Quote
School is out on what DDT does. I will not descend into minutiae and hairsplitting. If you think the book "Silent Spring" was "Exaggerating Extreme Outcomes" and therefore a "mistake", go away, NOW.
Thanks for the invitation. It looks like I'm going to have to do that, for several reasons:

1. First, your tone, your hot-headedness and borderline irrationality, are starting to get to me. I've been patient, carefully and calmly answering virtually every single thing you've written -- but without commensurate emotionality, accusations and so forth. And yet, you still cannot seem to settle down. You cannot seem to respond rationally to what I write.  Your behavior has been shrill, accusatory, short-tempered, rude and unreasonable. I am not offended by this, but I am disappointed. Whatever. I have no big investment in a particular outcome. I was hoping to come here and have a rational discussion, but it looks like that is not in the cards. It is OK. I am OK with reality. It is what it is.

2. Second, I have an extremely busy time coming up the next three weeks. Trip out of town, and employment-related stuff. So much stuff that I cancelled my gym membership for a month last night! (since I will not have time to use it).  For me, that is huge, because the gym is one of my main links to health and sanity. I look forward to getting back to the gym, mid-oct, but meanwhile I'm just too busy. And that includes too busy to write long, thoughtful, detailed replies here. The most I could do would be to stop in every few days and read, maybe post a few lines, something like that.

3. Third, I see that k-dog is in attendance. I came here to get away from people like k-dog, who I do not see as having anything useful to contribute, judging from past behavior.

4. Fourth, it seems that Ashvin is not actively following and responding on this thread, except for one 2-line post. That's important, because Ashvin is -- in my view -- one of the most intelligent and rational folks in this whole crowd. Without him, it feels like the total weight is on me. And given my upcoming life stuff (#2, above), that is way too much of a burden for me. Even if the #2 stuff were not happening, it would be too much for me, because I have a full life and many interests and activities. I cannot justify spending 10 or 15 or more hours per week, ongoing for weeks, engaged in conversation with what I PERCEIVE (maybe wrongly) to be a hotheaded, borderline-hysterical, borderline-irrational guy (see #1, above) (or guyS -- plural -- if the rest of the DD madhouse starts following us over here).

I trust that that explains my situation fully.

................

Good luck, Agelbert. I believe that you are a good and sincere man, your concern for humanity is heartfelt and real, and your work on renewable energy and related matters is admirable.



Posted by: K-Dog
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:43:04 am »

Yes, the trophic pyramid is what I was getting at but I did not know what to call it.

Your statement:

"That is why TPTB demonized the hippies. That STRIPPED THEM of their ability to exert PEER PRESSURE on "respectable citizens". The rest is history.

Your statement is interesting and the cartoon with the businessman makes the connection well.  TPTB have always had it out for anyone who would threaten their exploitation and self enrichment and have even developed their mental illness into a philosophy so they can self-delude themselves into believing their psychopathic way of life is 'right'.  Your insight concerning hippies suggests that the concentration of American media into the hands of a small number of super rich men was inevitable.  TPTB as a collective of super rich men functions much as a living organism does in protecting itself.  Any other way of life but theirs is perceived by them as an infection and threat.  With their massive resources they have now totally dominated the mainstream discussion to maintain their supremacy.  The immune system of the TPTB organism is strong.

There need not have been any recognizable conspiracy to take out the hippies though there were no doubt many TPTB 'sleeper cell' equivalents openly doing exactly that.  Rather the majority of demonization took place much like racism operates in a culture.   People have social needs to group together and without enlightenment there is a natural tendency to demonize outsiders.  A pathetic example of this is a dim witted lower class white man who imagines himself to be a Republican.  How does this happen?  Simply by making the poor man think he is a member of the privileged class without extending the benefits of being privileged.  I said white man but that is not an absolute requirement.  It is simply easier to 'put the con' on someone who already looks like TPTB and thus easier for me to explain.  Once done a poor deluded and fully propagandized sap can even be persuaded to 'die for his country', so strong is the social instinct of man.  Humans are more social than dogs, they are the most social beings on the planet.

Unless we see that we are all in this together long term survival of the human race is going to be impossible.  TPTB exploited the natural tendency of human nature to form groups and exclude others through massive amounts of propaganda all in order to preserve their agenda.  They have even paid people to troll the internet to maintain their position with tax money.

I appreciate your insight regarding the demonization of hippies.



An example of exploitation?  You decide.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 15, 2015, 02:30:10 am »

K-Dog,
Well said.

Alan,
Here's the big picture of what we must do NOW. I maintain that you refuse to see it. I use some humor but this is a matter of life and death, even if you refuse to acknowledge that.

To be read while listening to the "Mission Impossible" theme song: If you choose this misson, you will be in deep doo doo with TPTB. Your life will be in jeopardy and you will never have a job with the fossil fuel Forks. You will lose friends, get defamed, mocked, labeled a whacko and be accused of bogarting threads.

We will deny we gave you this mission.  8) You will either save humanity from itself or die trying.
Push the red button to signal you are accepting this mission and have memorized the program below. The digital recording software and hardware storing the data will be magnetically wiped (We don't use tape recorders to give you mission data any longer. Besides, burning stuff is stupid. ;D ).

Good luck and Go GET EM'!   

That pyramid below is a simplification but it gives you an idea how VITAL the PRODUCERS (the base of the trophic pyramid) are to our existence.


The MASSIVE amount of energy stored in the base from captured sunlight is necessary because energy is LOST as the secondary and tertiary trophic levels EAT the life forms below them.

The BASE does NOT have to be WIPED OUT for Homo SAPS to be TOAST. It MUST be GIGANTIC in order to provide life for the subsequent trophic levels. The INSTANT that BASE CANNOT be several times LARGER in biomass because of what WE are doing to the environment, we, along with lots of other non-producers high up on the pyramid, are on the path to extinction. We ARE THERE.

This is not hard.

1) Set the example of a Frugality is Freedom Minimalist Mindset lifestyle
. BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT! The hippies did that and made the MISTAKE of dropping out. They were supposed to use that very same psychology the propagandists for dirty energy used to turn the masses into piggies. That TOOL is to be found in Maslow's hierarchy. IT is called PEER GROUP ACCEPTANCE. That is why TPTB demonized the hippies. That STRIPPED THEM of their ability to exert PEER PRESSURE on "respectable citizens". The rest is history.  If THAT history is repeated and pro-renewable energy minimalist mindset people are demonized by TPTB, Homo SAP is history! Now to step 2.

2 Explain the OBVIOUS to the propagandized chumps.

3. Use peer pressure to cajole, coax, mock, lambast, accuse of foot dragging and lack of CFS, suicidal tendencies, being dumb as a post (and so on - you get the idea) fellow Homo SAPS 24/7.

Unless ET and the USAF have a press conference (After all the big oil CEO's commit suicide ) announcing zero point free energy appliances, flying machines and lunch will now be available to every Homo SAP on the planet within a year or so, there is no alternative to a low carbon economy, PERIOD.

The PLAN, if you can call it that, is to RESPECT and CARE FOR THE TROPHIC PYRAMID, especially the BASE.
And give HELL to everyone that won't do that!

This is not hard.



Pictorial lesson plan for informing the uninformed: The "logical" choices presented by the profit over planet evolutionary dead enders to the propagandized chumps:

Short cognitive time horizons are not conducive to Homo SAP species perpetuation.  8)


   
Posted by: K-Dog
« on: September 15, 2015, 02:01:36 am »

Quote
Can you provide evidence that DDT caused the extinction of thousands of species?
- by Alan2*

In a short period of time DDT concentrated enough to thin the eggshells of predator species.  Had DDT exposure continued the species affected would have walked down the food chain to omnivorous species.  It was stopped but had it wiped out predator species the natural food chain would have been severely disrupted.  That tens of thousands or more species would have been affected and made extinct is certain.  An ecology student could explain better.

What I am telling you is the logical deduction of things I have read about what DDT was doing to eggshells and I know enough biology to know what an ecology student understands without the detail he or she knows.  DDT concentrates like mercury does now.  Wild mercury that was sequestered when the great coal beds were formed in the Carboniferous Period 359.2 to 299 million years ago is being incessantly released and absorbed into the biosphere every day.



DDT did not cause the extinction of thousands of species because it was legislated out of existence.  Had that not happened collapse of the biosphere could be doing a Full Monty right now.  Millions of species could be going out.  DDT exposure is a well understood problem that was solved.  Fortunately. 

DDT was well understood scientifically and it is a tragedy that science is not respected as it once was when environmental protection was first mandated.

+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:56:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:37:29 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 09:10:55 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 02:34:18 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 14, 2018, 12:17:36 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 07:15:13 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
December 13, 2018, 04:16:22 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:35:12 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 09:25:57 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
December 12, 2018, 05:07:12 pm