. . .I'm truly sorry man's dominionHas broken Nature's social union,And justifies that ill opinionWhich makes you startleAt me, your poor, earth-born companionAnd fellow mortal. . . . . . But, Mousie, thou art no thy-lane, In proving foresight may be vain; The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy! Robbie Burns
The podcast you posted was great, Daniel Schmachtenberger is brilliant!
Thought provoking -
We cant get along with our own families and yet we wonder why there is such conflict in the world. We live in a two-dimensional world (social media & technology) and wonder why the environment is in trouble. I think Narcissism is rewarded and its exemplified everywhere. How interesting that we here at “Peak Prosperity” spend a disproportunate amount of time on “wealth creation” and whats in it for “me”. I will have to listen to this one multiple times! Thanks abunch for taking the time to share!,
AKGrannyWGrit
The following may not be of interest to this group, but I found it interesting and it has something to do with the water vapor comments.
A few weeks ago I watched a presentation by some astrophysicists about how Venus and Earth became the way they are today and what the long-term future of both will be. I don’t remember all of the details, but the strength of Earth’s magnetic field, relative to that of Venus, is connected to it’s rapid rotation. Venus is hotter than it would be if it had a stronger magnetic field since its a solar wind sitting duck. Its proximity to the sun does not account for all of its high temperatures. However, in the very long term, the sun will become a red giant and earth’s water vapor will trap so much heat that it will actually be hotter than Venus. At least that’s what the latest state of the art science is predicting.
There’s nothing to worry about since we will have snuffed out all life on this planet long before.
Peak Prosperity is my community. I stand with you in total agreement. Eloquent as usual.
You know, whenever I read debates between those who support the science on climate change vs those who disagree with it, I wonder why it has to be so complicated. If there is no actual climate change, and we do nothing, we’re fine. If there isn’t climate change, and we act as if there is, we lose some money, time, and effort. If there is climate change - and the science as well as anecdotal evidence seems to support that - and we act on it, we might be ok. If there is climate change and we do nothing, we’re fucked and are facing extinction. Option A, we look silly if we act. Option B, we - and much of the life on Earth - die, if we don’t act.
I mean, what more do we need to know?
I mean, looking silly can be politically Fatal. Extinction … well, at least it doesn’t make a single guy look silly.
And you wonder why extinction happens.
Something told me to stop and listen to what this man had to say.A few takeaways for me was when he said, "As soon as we combine something that nature has no way of taking apart,we’ve already become part of the problem."He also nailed "Stop trying to win at a dying game"Also,trying to figure out anti-rivalry,it really consumes the planet…He has an excellant way in delivering information.Feminine…
better to be wrong about anthropogenic climate change and have lived as though it were true, than to have lived as though it were wrong and be…wrong.
actually, Pascal was about deistic existence. Better to be a believer and be wrong, than a nonbeliever, and be wrong.
get your mare settled. robie, husband, father, farmer, optometrist
Great summary.
Essentially there’s a few groups in this debate I can think of, on one side you have GOP deniers that pollute regardless, then do gooder elites like Branson and celebrities who think there changing the world by encouraging people to fly more on slightly less polluting planes, then world leaders who are torn trying to constantly grow economies without making the link they typically need to emit more CO2 in doing so. Then the majority of the western world hoping a cheap technological miracle will allow us to transistion and allow us to continue enjoying our foreign holidays, iPads, abundance of meat and new cars.
I’ve come to the conclusion we are all guilty to varying degrees, those that suffer the most will be the poor living in the most fragile of environments. I see more disasters as inevitable. Whilst not totally giving up hope, I’m happier recognising these as the good old days and trying to mitigate any likely changes in my own personal world and those dear to me, selfish yes, but ultimately more realistic.
I read a couple of separate articles talking about trying to fly less and another about the Times publishing UKs highest tax payers. I was wondering if all our CO2 pollution was visible to everyone if that may change behaviour? Could a Blockchain solution track all our CO2 emissions and progressively tax us on them? That would highlight the worst offenders.
Chris referenced an article in the Guardian, there’s plenty more good coverage here
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change
Carl Segan once said that Earth’s atmosphere is the thickness of a single coat of varnish on a classroom globe.
By turn, double the number of humans are born by the hour globally than die.
Since May 2011, there are 600 million more human mouths to feed, yet sixteen human generations ago there were but 500 million humans on the entire planet - at the time of Darwin sailing from Plymouth Harbour there were but a billion human beings.
The human condition, amassing 6.6 billion extra mouths to feed in under 200 years.
What is the point of this website if the meaning of the opening article has been lost through bickering? I say there is little point in arguing. The issues ahead of us are a moot point.
You are all 90% in agreement with each other.
You all have practically zero control over the future outcome.
However, if you prepare better than most, you get to prove you were all correct.
If you don’t prepare at all, whatever the outcome, you all get to lick your lumps, whatever they may be.
Whatever you do - trust me I’m an authority - you’re all going to die of something …
Fin
He hoped and prayed that there wasn’t an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn’t an afterlife. -The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
we like others to awaken, to see what is going on, take the red pil. I had mine a year ago, it is not a nice view, I undersatnd why people don’t want to swallow the red pil, once you do it is impossible to ‘return’ to sleep!
I did not read about Geo Engineering, weather modification in these posts. It seems the covernment is spraying metals in the admosphere like Aluminium, very toxic for all life. Very often called HAARP and Chemtrails etc.
Global cooling is also a much seen topic in the independent media scene, (Adapt2030 and more). Scientific it is proven that we enter a grand solar minimum. In North America record cold are recorded right now.
Most scary is the polar shift, it is accelerating. This will very probably mean that the protective shield around the earth will disappear in the near future, then we will have so much radiation most of the life/people could die from cancer.
The elite/deepstate most probably know. 30+ trillion dollars are missing. Probably they are building under the ground and out in space to create rescue places for them selves, with our money, stolen during the past 100 years of central banking and accesive taxing.
Quote:
Most scary is the polar shift, it is accelerating. This will very probably mean that the protective shield around the earth will disappear in the near future, then we will have so much radiation most of the life/people could die from cancer.Afridev wrote:
https://civilizationemerging.com/the-transition/
I previously mentioned that in the ocean-atmosphere link that the oceans are the great reservoir of CO2. There is a constant cycling in and out of the oceans. The IPCC lied and said CO2 molecules remain in the atmosphere for centuries but this is comlpletely made up and unsupported. Multiple studies have shown that the average residence time of any CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is about 5 years. That means that the only residual amount in the air from human emmissions is from that emitted in the last 5 years. Only massive out-gassing from the oceans can keep CO2 amount in the air level or increase it.
CO2 started out in the atmosphere at many thousands of parts per million and is now around 400ppm. Why didn’t the oceans acidify when the Co2 levels were so much higher and being washed into the oceans with rainfall?
The answer is sequestration. CO2 doesn’t just make plants grow on land. In the oceans life depends on it as well. It starts with plankton and works its way through the food chain. When plankton and other life die they sink to the bottom and become imbedded in the mud of the seafloor.The same with the shells of clams and other shelled animals. After time and under pressure this sediment becomes transformed into rocks such as shale, sandstone, limestone. Thus the carbon has been sequestered. In places where there has been uplift you can see this in examples of what used to be ocean floor that is now rock on a mountainside.
This sequestration has been taking CO2 out of the ocean- atmosphere system to the point that during the “little ice age” we were approaching starvation levels in the air and were approaching a life-extinction level. This process hasn’t stopped and we need more CO2 and not less. Life on earth evolved at much higher levels of CO2 and is dependent on CO2. To call it a pollutant is simply wrong.
Quote of the Week: “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson
(Source)
Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists
old guy wrote:
Quote of the Week: “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson (Source) Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists“Of course, models have been tested against the real world (both today’s and eons ago’s) and many of Dyson’s other objections have been rebutted elsewhere. He also did not address the real world impacts already observed: ice melt, sea level rise, ocean acidification and more.”
(source)
That’s how you link a source by the way.
A physicist? Seriously someone who is an expert in climate science. His views have been fairly widely criticized, even if he seems to garner peer support on his knowledge of physics. For the record, I wouldn’t trust Einstein on climate science either.
A barbecue chef can’t tell the baker how to make a cake, even if they both are in the food industry.
I said: <>
Doug asked: <>IMO, McPherson's predictions probably are too dire but not "wrong" -- we are f'd on climate, whether it's 5 years from now or 50. He's not the only one saying things are far worse than the IPCC concensus (= muzzled) reports -- worse enough that even going to zero carbon in the next 10 years would not avoid the feedback loops and tipping points (which mean unstoppable massive climate change). I'm sorry if this isn't clear, but I'm not going to go any deeper here. You can listen to McPherson's reviews of the science and decide for yourself. If you think he's unqualified, there are other analysts who have a better scientific pedegree who have come to similar conclusions -- "it's too late." That only means it's too late for preventative action on climate change. There are a million other things we can do to improve the biosphere that sustains us or that can improve the way we treat each other (and other species). Mark
You realize you are quoting a guy who hypothesized about extraterrestrial sentient beings constructing megastructures encompassing mini-stars which would sustain those beings while the sphere travels through space - ALL based on nothing more than conjecture - is criticizing climate scientists for relying too much on models?