I notice further than “real” participants here at the site tend to have a broad range of things they are interested in. Paid (or even “volunteer”) trolls, on the other hand, tend to focus on one thing only.Try me out on any topic you wish, Dave. I've been around since the early days of theoilddrum.com as I told you. I run several websites. I'm retired, over 60, with children in the legal and medical professions. I have hundreds of books on homesteading and self-sufficiency. I live on a self-sufficient acreage and grow a lot of what I eat. I'm solar powered and about to buy an EV. Have at me, ask away.
GerrySM
Offer accepted. Here's a subject I'll try you out on. Are you a volunteer troll (excuse me, "thought shaping engineer") whose appointed task is - roughly speaking - "correcting bad thinking on the Internet regarding Climate Change?", with Peak Prosperity as one of your "lucky customers?"I notice further than “real” participants here at the site tend to have a broad range of things they are interested in. Paid (or even “volunteer”) trolls, on the other hand, tend to focus on one thing only. Try me out on any topic you wish, Dave.
Well, look at it this way, Dave. How successful will Peak Prosperity be if it ignores the biggest existential threat humanity faces (hint: scientist are unanimous that it’s the climate issue, not the debt issue, not the low EROEI issue, and not any of the other issues canvassed in the Crash Course.) Of course, those other issues are serious, but not at the same level — they don’t threaten to wipe out our species.
Now Chris has recently become quite outspoken about the climate issue, for which I commend him. It did take him a long time, and I know it was because of the many readers he has who also tune in to Fox News and other Murdoch-related media that deliberately obfuscate on this issue (Murdoch himself is a large fossil fuel investor - Genie Energy). Those readers made him hesitate because he does not want to drive people away, and I understand that. But the time has come to talk plainly about the really big threats we face, and climate is numero uno.
Some facts to ponder:
- Last time CO2 was this high … seas were 20m higher, temps 3-4°C hotter:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/03/south-pole-tree-fossils-indicate-impact-of-climate-change
https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-dioxide-levels-sea-antarctica-b435497e1266/ - Earth is currently 1.73°C above the 1750 baseline marking the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-much-warmer-is-it-now.html - At 500 parts per million* of equivalent carbon dioxide concentration, enough greenhouse gases are currently in the atmosphere to ultimately warm the planet 4-5 degrees C above 1700s temperatures, raise the sea level by 67 meters (based on past longer-term paleoclimate change response), remove significant amounts of soil moisture, leading to the destruction of agriculture. And this is without any other carbon releases or feedbacks. Building more in an attempt to maintain civilized society with high energy consumption makes this all worse.
- CO2 is 414ppm, but 500ppm is approx CO2 equiv if you add in methane and other GHGs
Those facts alone should have you alarmed. If you are not alarmed, you either do not understand them or you have decided not to believe them for doctrinaire reasons to do with hazy, conspiratorial notions like “world government” etc.
If discussing these pressing issues makes me a “troll”, I plead guilty.
Ok, now that we know what your job is, I’m going to ask to you speak Ex Cathedra on Tom’s questions. To refresh:
- Do you expect that people around the world will ever voluntarily do what must be done to save the world from man-made global warming?
- If you answered “no” to the above, what is your solution to people not voluntarily, or not in large enough numbers, or not doing enough of what must be done?
- If you believe people won’t voluntarily act fast enough and coercive government control (backed up by violence) must be used, what form of government would most effectively accomplish the saving of the Earth? [related: if “too many” people vote against doing what must be done to save the Earth - must we get rid of democracy?]
- If violence is required to persuade those people resisting the program to save the Earth, how much violence perpetrated by government against resisters do you believe would be justified in saving the Earth?
What absolutely gobsmacks me about people like you, Dave, is that when presented with information that calls for urgent, concerted, global, co-ordinated action — such as planetary heating due to our greenhouse gas emissions — your brain does an instantaneous segue into matters of governance, with the barely hidden subtext that ‘evil’ governments could now be empowered to force you to do things you don’t want to do, ergo the entire issue must be avoided or lied about to make sure that you and your “freedumb loving” ilk are never inconvenienced.
I’m sorry, but that just seems really, really stupid to me.
If you want my honest opinion about what governments should be empowered to do to ensure the continued survival of our species, I’d say “anything at all”, even if it means draconian limits on what we can do, how many kids we can have, how much fuel we can burn, and so on. The end justifies the means.
Do I think that’s going to happen? No, because of people like you. I think it’s very likely the whole shebang will go down in a ball of flames. Indeed, it’s starting to happen already, which is why I advise younger people to forgo having children rather than see them suffer in the world that’s coming.
if “too many” people vote against doing what must be done to save the Earth – must we get rid of democracy?Democracy tends to be an early casualty when the going gets really tough. Charismatic strongmen, of which Trump is an early exemplar, tend to replace it by announciing populist policies, and once in power they take over. That's what Hitler did, and many before him. Trump's too stupid to be another Hitler, but there are others waiting in the wings, on both sides of politics.
If you want my honest opinion about what governments should be empowered to do to ensure the continued survival of our species, I’d say “anything at all”, even if it means draconian limits on what we can do, how many kids we can have, how much fuel we can burn, and so on. The end justifies the means.That’s what I thought you were thinking Gerry. Thanks for being honest about it. Many who agree with you hide those true intentions and work toward making it a reality under the table. They even lie and say they don’t advocate for a government powerful enough to force the world to take the draconian steps necessary to “save the earth.”So it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a true conspiracy being acted on by movers and shakers all across the international scene (George Soros, Bill Gates, and so on). And since sociopaths are irresistibly drawn to power like that then I know without a doubt that plenty of sociopaths are part of that effort and they couldn’t care less about climate change. Chilling. I am much, much more concerned about what a government that powerful would do than anything I’ve heard about climate change. History gives us plenty of negative examples of when that kind of power has been achieved, and zero positive examples. I’ll take my chances with climate change, Gerry, if a tyrannical all-powerful government determined to save me from myself is my only other choice. And by that I mean I will fight fiercely and to the death to thwart the establishment of that kind of government. I can’t guarantee the millions of us who believe as I do will prevail. But I can guarantee we’ll exact a huge cost even in defeat. But win or lose, here we are, ready for the battle you and your ilk seem determined to start. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qYl58yK4znE And Gerry, did I mention I’m Scottish by heritage? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE
I am much, much more concerned about what a government that powerful would do than anything I’ve heard about climate changeThen you speak from ignorance. There is no form of governance worse than what the climate can and will do to us: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy Oh, and I'm Scottish by ancestry too, mon, and my wife is pure Scot, accent and all.
Thank you Tom for those excellent questions.
And thank you Gerry for your candid and revealing response.
If you want my honest opinion about what governments should be empowered to do to ensure the continued survival of our species, I’d say “anything at all”, even if it means draconian limits on what we can do, how many kids we can have, how much fuel we can burn, and so on. The end justifies the means.Lenin, Marx, and Stalin would be proud of you for following in their tradition. I'll do my personal best to make this planet a better, safer, cleaner place to live. But there is no way my thinking will ever align with yours when you make a statement like that. That type of thinking has brought untold levels of pain, suffering, misery, poverty, injustice, and death upon this planet. I think we need to look at the lessons of history and learn from them, not repeat them. To think your ancestry is Scottish is sad. I love the Scottish people and the country and their love of freedom. But I also notice that something is afoot there in changing ideologies that seem to be straying from traditions of old. It is interesting though that Trump's ancestry is half Scottish so somewhere in the murky past, you share a common bloodline with him. I do see some similarities ... and some differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE BTW, I notice you repeatedly refer to anyone who doesn't agree with you as stupid or ignorant or use some other pejorative. My guess is that you were not employed in the diplomatic corps. Perhaps being more open minded and seeking more common ground would serve you better in spreading the word. For example, I agree with you that there are multiple serious problems facing the planet related to the environment. But I don't agree with you in terms of the level of apparent panic you display related to this issue and certainly don't agree with you in the area of the end justifying the means.
Tom -
Thanks for posing your questions. Hope I didn’t change your intent too much via my edits. I thought with brevity and repetition I might get us an answer to them.
Gerry-
They were Tom’s questions, not me - so the person gobsmacking you is him, not me. I even helpfully stated they were Tom’s questions, so he could get full credit for his successful gobsmacking.
That detail aside - I’m appreciative that you have responded.
If you want my honest opinion about what governments should be empowered to do to ensure the continued survival of our species, I’d say “anything at all” ... The end justifies the means. Democracy tends to be an early casualty when the going gets really tough. Charismatic strongmen, of which Trump is an early exemplar, tend to replace it by announciing populist policies, and once in power they take over.These two things, taken together, suggest that you would approve of a charismatic strongman who would announce he was ready to do "anything at all" to ensure the continued survival of our species. I don't think you're alone in this. Here's the thing. I'm old enough to remember all sorts of existential crises put forth by a bunch of organizations (hello CIA!) for the express purpose of securing power. They didn't really have a fix to the problem, but they sure got power regardless. That's the issue with "ends justify the means" enthusiasm. It drags the Hitlers out of the shadows. Every single time. They may fix the problem, they may not, but one thing is sure: they will kill a whole lot of people that disagree with them until they are removed from power. And their lives (and the lives of their supporters) will be pretty darned nice in the interim. Send the Jews off to the camps - then distribute the Jewish property to the loyal subordinates. Hitler wins, supporters win. The ends? Who can say. Visible effort is being made, and the bodies of anyone resisting are being buried, and their property seized by "the state." Last point. Ensuring the survival of our species would happen if - hypothetically now - if "someone" came up with a virus that killed most of the world's population. Selective depopulation would immediately reduce the world's carbon footprint. Problem solved. Do your ends really justify any means? It sure helps answer the question if you aren't one of the ones being depopulated. And I guarantee, our new Hitler will still fly around in his private jet. And so will all of his friends. Ultimately, I think the means really do matter. Not just the ends. After all - we all die eventually, yes? What we do on our journey is what matters most. Otherwise, why not just cut to the chase and die right now?
Gerry,
Maybe you ought to read more than a wikipedia about Martin Armstrong, dig a little deeper, and find out what the actual truth of the matter was. I’d recommend you watch the movie, The Forecaster, but it may very well be censored where you are. Isn’t that interesting? Why do they need to censor the story of a criminal? No chance he could have been set up for failing to allow his government to wrongfully and illegally force him to do something he didn’t want to do?
And the fact that he has “no tertiary education”? My, what a crime that is. Actually, one of the most intelligent persons I’ve ever met, a multi-billionaire, had no tertiary education. Neither have a lot of other brilliant and innovative people. So what? On the other hand, some of the most foolish people I’ve ever met had doctoral degrees but they were mentally constipated.
Of note: approximately 31 of the 70 comments on this thread are from/to/about GerrySM. Pretty impressive display of PP engagement (baiting) over the past six days from a guy that has 43 posts over more than two years of PP membership.
And the melting glaciers are touted as proof, yet from a number of locations as the glaciers recede they are leaving behind the remains of the forests that once grew there.
The articles note that for the trees to have grown there the temperature needed to be between 2 t0 2.5 deg C higher than present.
I have had a bit of a look but have not found any papers detailing how the temperature back then managed to be high enough to allow the trees to grow with the CO2 levels being as low as they were back then.
Regards Hamish
The lead paint on older window frames is often peeling off, too. Such older windows are often readily available, but sadly, I’ve seen well-meaning people use such windows for vegie cold frames, and I’ve seen the paint chips in the soil.
Good luck with your efforts!