The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

It's bad in a couple ways that come to mind right off the bat. We are all stuck here together on one planet and uneducated and poor women have more children. And there are way too many people here already.
.
And
.
The poor people will eventually just start walking with pointy sticks to take from the rich what they need to survive. No one will stand by and starve while the rich eat cake. Walled cities of privilege will eventually fall to the siege from outside.
.
Just a couple. Right off the bat.

A US household that makes $2,138 per year is right at the average worldwide income, meaning any household making more than that amount in a year is making more than the average household. Someone right at the US defined poverty line is in the top 14% of global earners.

Not only do a relatively few own the majority of the wealth in the US, but relatively few nations hold the majority of the worldwide wealth.

Then, older people tend to be wealthier than younger people, as they have had more time to accumulate wealth. In fact, the people comprising the top (and everywhere along the distribution) changes over time.

If it were possible to distribute wealth evenly without destroying productivity and making everyone worse off for it, I might consider it, but that is a fantasy. That's like imagining what I would do if I had a genie that granted magic wishes.

Regarding angry mobs of the have-nots; they don't stand a chance. You don't bring pointy sticks to a gunfight. It would take a majority of people identifying as having unbearable lives for them to overwhelm the wealthy. As it is, when it comes down to it, those who conjure anger in the US have no conviction, because at the end of the day they like their smartphones and relatively comfortable lifestyle and aren't willing to risk anything substantial (since they have much to lose).

[All Darc]

Everytrhing in excess get bad. Capitalism in the most predatory form can create huge problems. There must be some controll.

But I must say that some (I don't talk about all poors) people are poor because they only spent more than they can and also because they choose to have many kids.

There are people who get a X value of salary, and spent everything and get debit. If you gave them 3x the value of the salary they will do the same, spent everything and get debit all over again.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's not true.
Solar wind varies from about 1 to 2 million miles per hour normally and up to 7 million miles per hour which is the fastest recorded from a CME.
Solar wind proton density varies by a factor of about 10x charge by even more.
Irradiance varies by less than 1% and that is what the believers hyper focus on.

If you were so sure why not sit back and relax and wait for the gold and icon data to come in?
Just like what I am doing.
But instead you guys get really worked up, almost like you are worried they are going to find something.

*I've only discussed solar irradiance because that's all the solar physicists and interdisciplinary scientists talk about in association with climate change.
*Solar wind has nothing to do with climate change.
*Since 1948, no one has found a causal link between the solar wind and climate,and yet you infer that it's just a matter of time when all this will be thrown out the window.
*Plasma is a near-perfect electrical conductor.And Protons are essentially pure electricity.But if you were to intentionally stream electricity at the Earth it wouldn't mean anything to the climate.There isn't any mechanism for coupling.
* I'm not uninterested in what the new satellites will signal,nor am I anxious about it.
*Since 1995,the general circulation models have accurately predicted what the climate is generally going to do,with the information already at hand.We will continue to warm.The timing isn't as easy to pin down.
*You use photovoltaics invented by AT&T Bell Laboratories and you're okay with them for that,but when they say that tailpipes are bad for the Earth,then they can't be trusted.
I find this very disconcerting.And intellectually dishonest.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The UN did nothing. JFK and piece through superior quality firepower kept the peace.
Now the UN is just a gang for criminals.
How about this, how many of you have actually worked with the UN?
If you have not, then what makes you think you have any idea what's going on?

Nikita Krushchev pulled his missiles out of Cuba,and Kennedy secretly pulled US missiles out our NATO ally Turkey,from where Francis Gary Powers flew his U2 over the USSR on their 4th of July celebration.An act of war.
You might thank the Soviets for not pushing the button.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

economists

But they are correct in their understanding of the relationship of energy and economy where they realize that our current debt based system cannot tolerate any major reduction in access to energy that curtails the growth that is necessary to cover the long term interest payments without which the world monetary system will crash and wipe out all savings and starve a billion people.
.
Unless we find a whole new way toward an equitable de-growth society.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Regarding angry mobs of the have-nots; they don't stand a chance. You don't bring pointy sticks to a gunfight. It would take a majority of people identifying as having unbearable lives for them to overwhelm the wealthy. As it is, when it comes down to it, those who conjure anger in the US have no conviction, because at the end of the day they like their smartphones and relatively comfortable lifestyle and aren't willing to risk anything substantial (since they have much to lose).

No one seems capable of looking more than a few years ahead. This is way beyond the time frame of worrying about a smart phone. If you look a bit farther into the future (50 years) you will see that a major societal system change would be required to avoid a never ending world resource war, degenerating into local conflicts of walled cities, eventually leading to Mad Max.
.
It is starting already and the world economy is currently at one of it's last high points. Millions of people all over the world are walking or floating to richer, more stable areas. Eventually nationalistic interests will resort to gunfire at the borders. And at the next occupy Wall Street as social cohesion breaks down.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

But they are correct in their understanding of the relationship of energy and economy where they realize that our current debt based system cannot tolerate any major reduction in access to energy that curtails the growth that is necessary to cover the long term interest payments without which the world monetary system will crash and wipe out all savings and starve a billion people.
.
Unless we find a whole new way toward an equitable de-growth society.

Yeah,it's all they've known.And there's no public discussion for a devolution,reverse-growth deconstruction.
We built all this on 'cheap' energy,and those days are over.We don't know how large the plateau of peak production is,but liquid hydrocarbons are only going to get more expensive to extract and geopolitics are especially interesting in light of the recent Saudi implication in murder.They've been the defacto 51st State of the US since 1945.
They're single-handedly responsible for killing alternate energy in the US,as best they could.Production is running flat out,trying to kill off TESLA with cheap gasoline.
It's the beauty of relativistic humanism.No ethics.No morals.Just dominance through intellectual sovereignty,even if you have to sell all your neighbor's hide to maintain hegemony.Sophist Sociopaths.

[sendler]

It is also just the free market which pays nothing to the future for the actual non-renewable resource. And nothing for the sink of disposing of it's waste.
.
Only sets price by the cost of extraction.
.
The Saudi's are just obeying the natural laws of the market. Which have serious flaws on a finite planet.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Nikita Krushchev pulled his missiles out of Cuba,and Kennedy secretly pulled US missiles out our NATO ally Turkey,from where Francis Gary Powers flew his U2 over the USSR on their 4th of July celebration.An act of war.
You might thank the Soviets for not pushing the button.

The soviets didn't want to push that button.
At the time of the Cuban missile crisis they had less than 1,600 nuclear weapons in inventory, the US had more like 10,000. The Russians didn't have a reliable icbm delivery system, we did. Their bombers probably couldn't have made it over the main land, we didn't have to send bombers.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Nikita Krushchev pulled his missiles out of Cuba,and Kennedy secretly pulled US missiles out our NATO ally Turkey,from where Francis Gary Powers flew his U2 over the USSR on their 4th of July celebration.An act of war.
You might thank the Soviets for not pushing the button.

I thank the Soviets for nothing. They're lucky they didn't push the button. Flying a recon jet over a country isn't an act of war. They had their spies too, and they still do. That's not an act of war either.