So…the EPA, knowing full well that something as simple as respirators would have saved the lives of hundreds of 9/11 responders decided screw it, let’s lie. And for what? With years to think it over the best Todd-Whitman could come up with was “we didn’t want to scare the public” by stating the air was foul. Whut? How could the public be any more scared by the sight of responders in respirators than they already were by the horrific failures and crimes of 9/11?Maybe “they” didn’t want to risk a work slowdown on the rubble which might slow down the effort to dump all the freakin evidence in the ocean as fast as possible. A full disclosure might also have revealed the puzzling presence of trace amounts of advanced explosive residues in the air too. ?
Chris, I agree that lying about asbestos dust was inexcusable. However, on the larger issue of climate science, the phenomenon of anthropogenic global heating is one of the most if not THE most well studied topic in modern history. There is no room for individual people to stand up and lie, and get away with it. That’s why there’s no credible papers disproving the theory, just like there are no credible papers disproving the theory of evolution. To date, there are tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers on global heating published.
If any scientist could provide a credible alternative theory for the heating, a Nobel Prize awaits! 30 years later, and there are no takers.
The Climate Change Paper So Depressing It's Sending People to Therapy
What if I told you there was a paper on climate change that was so uniquely catastrophic, so perspective-altering and so absolutely depressing that it's sent people to support groups and encouraged them to quit their jobs and move to the countryside? Good news: there is. It's called "Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy". I was introduced to it via an unlikely source – a guy formerly in advertising who had left his job to become a full-time environmental campaigner. "We're fucked," he told me. "Climate change is going to fuc|< us over. I remember thinking, 'Should I just accept the deep adaptation paper and move to the Scottish countryside and wait out the apocalypse?'" "Deep Adaptation" is quite unlike any other academic paper. There's the language ("we are about to play Russian Roulette with the entire human race with already two bullets loaded"). There's the flashes of dark humour ("I was only partly joking earlier when I questioned why I was even writing this paper"). But most of all, there's the stark conclusions that it draws about the future. Chiefly, that it's too late to stop climate change from devastating our world – and that "climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term". How near? About a decade. Professor Jem Bendell, a sustainability academic at the University of Cumbria, wrote the paper after taking a sabbatical at the end of 2017 to review and understand the latest climate science "properly – not sitting on the fence anymore", as he puts it down the phone to me. What he found terrified him. "The evidence before us suggests that we are set for disruptive and uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war," he writes in the paper. "Our norms of behaviour – that we call our 'civilisation' – may also degrade." "It is time," he adds, "we consider the implications of it being too late to avert a global environmental catastrophe in the lifetimes of people alive today."“The evidence before us suggests that we are set for disruptive and uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war"Perhaps the potential for increased migration is why Big Orange President wants to secure our borders? Perhaps he, unlike "science", is willing to consider the implications and is even as we speak taking action (non-warlike, and completely within our control) to help secure our future? After all, we can't solve the problem of controlling China's carbon emissions - which are double ours - but we can build a wall. How do you have a generous US government "safety net" combined with an effective "open borders" migration policy where all the potential billions of migrants in the world are informed that US border crossings have been "decriminalized"? Answer is: you can't. The Lifeboat Doesn't Have Infinite Space. The US Government Doesn't Have Infinite Resources. Build The Wall! Climate Science Says We Must! Anyone who disagrees - is a Science Denier!
Dave, you are missing the bigger picture. Migrants will come from everywhere, planes, boats, you name it. And many Americans will desperately try to migrate to Canada … must the Canadians build a wall too? You just don’t see how big this is, and how serious.
You should sit down with my best friend recently retired from the EPA (in part, due to Gina McCarthy) and listen to his stories. Quoting Gina McCarthy on these issues is like quoting Jeffrey Epstein for how to pick an adult male babysitter for your 14 year old daughter.
Gerry,
There are many, many extremely knowledgeable, very bright people questioning many aspects of the THEORY of evolution (which, as noted, is not a LAW but a THEORY). In fact, it’s a theory that has had to be modified many times in an attempt to account for all the facts and probably will be modified more in the future for its present failure to account for all the facts. Scientists aside, one of the individuals who I thought explored the issue of creation, evolution, etc. the most thoroughly was a person by the name of Perry Marshall. IIRC, he did not have a background in science but he certainly demonstrated high levels of critical thinking and reasoning ability. I read his reviews of various books on evolution and creationism and his insights and revelations were brilliant. It’s one of the areas I plan to follow up more during my retirement, now that I have more free time.
It is incredible to me how UNRESILIENT so many people are nowadays. A disagreement sends them running to their safe space. A harsh word makes them want to enact laws against those mean people. An improper pronoun puts them into a melt down. To me, it’s like the insanity in the Roman Empire from the lead in the water pipes. It’s spreading, like a viral disease.
GerrySM.
So you have just told us that "science" says that war, disease, famine, and migration are going to happen. It is baked into the cake already. A rational response to "science" is: first secure the border (and experts - "science" - agrees, a physical barrier is required), then a Navy to intercept boats, and lastly, mutual agreements with other nations to control air travel. So last first: if you have traveled internationally, you already know we have a system in place to control migration by air. (If you haven't traveled internationally, it might explain a lot.) You need a visa to board a flight to the US. No visa = no boarding = no migration by air. Air: check. Then, a Navy. Fortunately, we have one. The largest in the world. Boats won't be a problem. (See what Australia did with a migrant boat invasion. We can do that too.) Boats: check. We don't have a physical barrier. We need one. Big Orange President is constructing one. That's because he too is listening to "science." So if you deny the need for a wall, in the face of "science" telling us to expect war, disease, famine, and migration, it means you are denying science. You aren't denying science, are you?Dave, you are missing the bigger picture. Migrants will come from everywhere, planes, boats, you name it. And many Americans will desperately try to migrate to Canada … must the Canadians build a wall too? You just don’t see how big this is, and how serious.
Gerry, Don’t waste your thoughts on the “alt-right” knuckle-heads and their “trigger” tricks. These poor souls are lost in their heads, behind a wall. Intellectually embarrassed. For me they’re quite entertaining so here I am. My wall killing sledge hammer at the ready.
If Dave or ao have a cool new way to keep radiation from 400 nukes going critical outside their wall. Let’s hear it. Oh! and “thanks for all the fish”
They are scared to be scared because they believe in their egos ie that they are real because they can think thoughts.
I know how they feel. I was scared at first, depressed, unable to make sense of my day. But then I realized…
How precious this moment is, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, clocks tick’n folks, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one
He gets it. Dave is still lost in Partisanville, AO is retreating into creationism. At least some people here are switched on, all is not lost
newsbuoy-
I’m glad to see the real you has emerged from behind the veil of youtube video postings. All it took was Gerry. Thanks Gerry for the assist!
I am confused by your post, however. What do you mean by the following?
If Dave or ao have a cool new way to keep radiation from 400 nukes going critical outside their wall. Let’s hear it. Oh! and “thanks for all the fish”WTF? I've studied extensively on the subject of nuclear war and deterrence, and this is a scenario I've never heard before. "Ok, here's the attack plan. First we nuke the wall in 400 places...then the flood of migrants can pour across the border over holes we created! What could possibly go wrong!"
They are scared to be scared because they believe in their egos ie that they are real because they can think thoughts.Normally, science-affirming people don't try to claim to understand other people's inner thought processes that they've never met (c.f. "Goldwater Rule"). Surely you aren't doing that? That would make you a science denier too. Man. All this science denial really makes me upset. Where are the moderators? Will you please take action and suppress the speech of these science deniers?
Gerry:
Should we just wait and do nothing in the face of the expected wave of migration and let our nation get overrun by half the population of Africa and South America?
I mean, let’s say I accept everything you say, along with the implications.
A wall is simply required. To refuse to protect our borders when science tells us that a massive wave of migration is imminent - its just sheer idiocy.
And yes, science also tells us that walls do work.
The true test of a science-affirming person is this: will they acknowledge something needs to happen even if it doesn’t comport with their view on “what they’d like to happen?”
So for me, “does Gerry support the wall” is my test of you. If you don’t support the wall, in the face of all the “science” (that you provide and profess to believe in!) that supports the need for said wall, you are a science denier, and a hypocrite, and I don’t need to pay attention to anything you say.
So what do you say about the wall, Gerry?
Where are the moderators?Welp, I'm not sure exactly why this thread is threatening to go off the rails, but I'm stepping in to say "keep it clean, folks". Be respectful. And back up your claims with logical argument, or even better, empirical data. Slinging unsupported opinions or maligning others is not acceptable and will result in moderation. For anyone who'd like a refresher on this website's community discussion rules, they're right here.
Dave, please read this page:
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
Not that I agree with Prof McPherson completely, but he has a lot of it right.
I’m not sure exactly what the reference to nuke plants is, but one thing we do know: if society suffers a major collapse, here or around the world, then maintenance of nuke plants becomes uncertain. Even when shut down, they require constant maintenance and vigilance to keep them cooled. If not, and if the diesel for the pumps dries up, we go into meltdowns and radioactive releases.
So a radical, forced simplification of our complex and fragile world will put many nuke power plants at risk. Just sayin’ …
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/3j0mh7/what_would_happen_to_nuclear_reactors_if_the/
I agree entirely about the nuke plants. In any simplified world, they’re a disaster waiting to happen. Nicely done. We have a point of agreement. This could happen via EMP, a peaking oil scenario, or pretty much any sort of descent scenario. I don’t see “400” of them all going critical at the same time because of climate change (which is why the prior comment made no sense to me), but one or two would be more than enough to cause big trouble.
I accept this scenario as something important that we need to deal with.
Now how about that wall?
I know that economists are talking when everything is described in terms of “capital.” Natural capital, intangible capital, etc. Since I’m not married, am I wife capital poor? In the early 80s there was a local politician who was running for office. In his ads he said that the word “profit” is the most beautiful word in the dictionary. I wonder what his wife thought and if the word “capital” is now his favorite. In the same ad he said that Social Security was bankrupt and that we need to have more babies. Apparently, he thought that “baby capital” is worth more than “all life on earth capital.”
This conversation reminded of the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It has been a while since I read it. Mixed in with all of the motorcycle stuff, the main character describes how he nearly went insane trying to quantify quality. Sound familiar?
I’m also reminded of an updated run of the Limits to Growth’s World3 model. I take it seriously since it’s “business as usual” model accurately predicted in the 70s what actually happened in the last 40 years. They took into account all of the emergency ecological fixes that are just getting started. Their prediction is that it will only delay the inevitable, and when the crash does happen it will be much more severe. It seems to parallel all of the relatively soft-core economic predictions and our responses to both also look similar. That model also showed that a sustainable system could only be achieved if we started a Manhattan Project level effort back in the early 80s.
I roll my eyes at AI. It’s only as intelligent as the human created algorithms and “learns” in a way that some mathematician thinks it should be done. Before I retired, I used state-of-the-art optimization algorithms to design systems with extremely complex solution spaces. They never came close to what an expert I used to work with could do with his intuition. He did have over 50 years of experience, some of it was before these algorithms existed.
Nuclear reactor meltdowns are not that far fetched if the trucks, for whatever reason, stop rolling:
https://modernsurvivalblog.com/systemic-risk/when-the-trucks-stop-its-over/
Read it. Very light on facts, very heavy on speculative what ifs.
Written by a true believer in the CAGW religion.
It may be getting believers to panic, others not so much.
Skeptics see too many contradictions and failed predictions, the believers seem to be blind (or willfully blind) to,
With some believers they cannot even see simple blatantly obvious logical fallacy in their reasoning when pointed out to them (I’m looking at you Mark Cochran…)
And his one was a real doozey, in effect making an argument based on the assumption that the output of climate models were random numbers !!!
And he never saw his error…
Regards Hamish