The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by All Darc

What if someone start some new stupidity for fun, evem more stupid, spread the idea, just to see how many retards would get into ?
What could be even more stupid and grabe more people?

Tide pods? Bird Boxing?

Born at a time when there existed no commercial,electric wind generation,and Bell Lab's photovoltaic cell was yet,three years away,and having lived almost solely off solar and wind for a decade,you might understand my astonishment when I here of a major industrial nation receiving such a large fraction of their load from renewable.

On of the inventors of the solar cell, Daryl Chapin, had relatives in Perrydale, OR. When I was in high school he visited with a 10th scale model car with solar panels on the roof. He shone a flashlight on it and it would move until he stopped tracking with the light.

The History and Definition of Solar Cells - ThoughtCo
In 1941, the silicon solar cell was invented by Russell Ohl. Gerald Pearson, Calvin Fuller, and Daryl Chapin - Efficient Solar Cells In 1954, three American researchers, Gerald Pearson, Calvin Fuller and Daryl Chapin, designed a silicon solar cell capable of a six percent energy conversion efficiency with direct sunlight.

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of...-cells-1992435

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I have only ever been able to find a dozen or so that have put up solar panels, drive electric vehicles and live some what green, the vast overwhelming majority are as I stated.

Things are what they are.
Some deceased and aging scientists repeatedly argued for education and critical thinking,as a pathway to a greener future.
Since city,county,state,and public school retirement pension funds are invested in Earth-distructive enterprise,without the common knowledge of the employees,the content of classroom curriculum,historically leaves the most important life knowledge to parents,whom themselves,by default,never got an education either.It sets up a viscous circle of ignorance which ripples throughout the economy and politics.
'Smart' kids are targeted by 'management' people,to be funneled into the defense establishment.My dad was a part of this.
We get self-appointed know-nothings directing our attention away from the really important issues.With any luck,we'll ---s away our entire productive lives making a rich person richer,then give our estate away in the last 3-months of our lives to the health-care industry.Cradle-to-grave moneymaking.
If we actually had public education,you might witness different citizen(oops! I meant 'consumer') activity with less apparent two-faced behavior.
I'd like to see that experiment.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I wonder how far stupidity can go on 21 century...

What if someone start some new stupidity for fun, evem more stupid, spread the idea, just to see how many retards would get into ?
What could be even more stupid and grabe more people?

Why psychiatry don't classify these people as mentally ill?

Flat Earthers are an extremely small and harmless group. There's no reason to worry about them. I doubt most religious people think the world is only 5,000 years old, but it doesn't really matter anyhow since being wrong about that has little consequence.

Ever heard the phrase "drink the kool aid"? There was a small cult that committed suicide by drinking poison... There's always been extreme ideas by a minority of people, and there always will be. Usually it's benign, and sometimes it's tragic.

I'm more concerned with the things the majority of people are wrong about, or the things which being wrong carries severe consequence. aerohead's belief that climate change poses severe consequences falls is an example of how if the majority of us are wrong about the severity and urgency of the problem, then it could be disastrous.

Classifying mental illness has some utility, but I question how much. The classification is useful so far as it gives people a general idea of someone's behavior, and might even specify certain chemical imbalances, which is even more useful, but every person is different, and we live on a spectrum. We've all got behavior which can be vastly improved even if we fall within "normal" range.

I too am skeptical about the effectiveness of counseling, but that might be due to my limited experiences as a "patient" where the psychiatrist talked almost entirely about himself, and things that didn't interest me. There is great utility though in having someone help an individual examine their life to see what works well for them, and what doesn't.

I don't really view psychiatric medicine much differently than biologic medicine. Knowledge of how the body and mind works is extremely poor. In medicine, the approach is to try the therapy with the highest chance to succeed, evaluate the results, and try other therapies if the problem persists.

To that end, how is that really any different than anything else in life? We try the things we believe to be most likely to produce the results we want. There may be better ways to achieve the results we want, but they aren't known to us. Our ideal results may not even be known by us.

Originally Posted by aerohead

This 'load' you refer to is exists at the pleasure of the people.If enough voices are raised,that load is doomed and all the livelihoods that go with it.
We'll find training and other employment for the displaced.Like we did for whalers and livery stable owners.
When the time comes,and we have excess capacity,we may again entertain the idea of boutique,bourgeoisie,mindless consumption.
Haute Couture,or hot planet,take your pick.

Expecting people to "vote" for lower wealth is like expecting congress to vote to have their pay cut. Even with clear evidence that the government spends way more than it takes, they will still vote to raise their own pay, despite a clear problem.

I'm pessimistic that the majority of people can change their behavior to live less extravagantly. After all, the consumption of any 1 individual makes no difference at all. It's along the same line of reasoning that I don't vote; the options aren't good, and my single vote won't make any difference.

How to change the behavior of the masses when individually it doesn't matter? I think that's where the religious aspect becomes useful. Piety is motivating, but easily leads to arrogance.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

This number game,quasi-religious devotion to propagating and perpetuating the dogma of carbonphilia,insinuating against any who dare dissent,isn't helping the situation.

Neither will the sappy and unrealistic over optimism for wind and solar that is prevalent in the media. My comment to you was in response to your stated implication that fosil fuel consumption continues primarily due to rich corporations controlling against the "decision" to just leave it in the ground. Which is completely untrue. The source of energy production is not just a matter of decision. The general public needs a functioning economy so there are jobs that pay them money so that they can live.
.
Energy and economy are correlated at nearly 1:1.
.
Fossil fuels continue as much as are necessary, along with other forms of energy production, to maintain the modern debt based economy from crashing.
.
The scale of energy that is currently needed to keep from a crash is completely unfathomable to most people. It is only through analysis of the data that we can make wise decisions as to what challenges are comming at us and how best to proceed. As an example of scale it is useful to look at Germany and realize that even as a world leader in percentage of build out and efficiency improvement, they have as yet replaced only 5% of their energy consumption with wind and solar.
.
Wind, solar and batteries will help extend fossil fuels but oil will start leaving us long before we are ready to leave it. There is a big reduction in energy availabilty coming in the next three decades. The major aspect of adaptation will have to be social. We can ramp down intentionally or suffer a big stair step. Sappy optimism for rebuildable electricity will foster complacency. We must embrace a more accurate systems view.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Flat Earthers are an extremely small and harmless group. There's no reason to worry about them. I doubt most religious people think the world is only 5,000 years old, but it doesn't really matter anyhow since being wrong about that has little consequence.

Ever heard the phrase "drink the kool aid"? There was a small cult that committed suicide by drinking poison... There's always been extreme ideas by a minority of people, and there always will be. Usually it's benign, and sometimes it's tragic.

I'm more concerned with the things the majority of people are wrong about, or the things which being wrong carries severe consequence. aerohead's belief that climate change poses severe consequences falls is an example of how if the majority of us are wrong about the severity and urgency of the problem, then it could be disastrous.

Classifying mental illness has some utility, but I question how much. The classification is useful so far as it gives people a general idea of someone's behavior, and might even specify certain chemical imbalances, which is even more useful, but every person is different, and we live on a spectrum. We've all got behavior which can be vastly improved even if we fall within "normal" range.

I too am skeptical about the effectiveness of counseling, but that might be due to my limited experiences as a "patient" where the psychiatrist talked almost entirely about himself, and things that didn't interest me. There is great utility though in having someone help an individual examine their life to see what works well for them, and what doesn't.

I don't really view psychiatric medicine much differently than biologic medicine. Knowledge of how the body and mind works is extremely poor. In medicine, the approach is to try the therapy with the highest chance to succeed, evaluate the results, and try other therapies if the problem persists.

To that end, how is that really any different than anything else in life? We try the things we believe to be most likely to produce the results we want. There may be better ways to achieve the results we want, but they aren't known to us. Our ideal results may not even be known by us.



Expecting people to "vote" for lower wealth is like expecting congress to vote to have their pay cut. Even with clear evidence that the government spends way more than it takes, they will still vote to raise their own pay, despite a clear problem.

I'm pessimistic that the majority of people can change their behavior to live less extravagantly. After all, the consumption of any 1 individual makes no difference at all. It's along the same line of reasoning that I don't vote; the options aren't good, and my single vote won't make any difference.

How to change the behavior of the masses when individually it doesn't matter? I think that's where the religious aspect becomes useful. Piety is motivating, but easily leads to arrogance.

Could be good idea.Especially Christianity.
Jesus said 'If you have possessions,sell them ,and give the money to the poor.'
Hardly the 'Gospel of Wealth' we see presently across the religious landscape.
No Christians there.
Jesus also said to ' Go into your closet and pray in secret.'
And according to John the Baptist,Jesus was a 'black',as you'll see if you visit his cave on Patmos Island.A curious affair in light of W.A.S.P. white-supremacists whom claim him as there's.
'Church' was something a person did,it wasn't a place you went to.
If people read their Bible for themselves,there probably wouldn't be 501-C3 Corporations masquerading as places of worship,as is the custom today.
Satan-1, God-zero.Funny world.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Some deceased and aging scientists repeatedly argued for education and critical thinking,as a pathway to a greener future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Path_(book)

1 Overview

1.1 Part One

1.2 Chapter 1 - Speculative Prehistory of Humanity
1.3 Chapter 2 - Humans in Universe
1.4 Chapter 3 - Legally Piggily
1.5 Chapter 4 - Self-Disciplines of Buckminster Fuller
1.6 Chapter 5 - The Geoscope
1.7 Chapter 6 - World Game

Flat Earthers are an extremely small and harmless group. There's no reason to worry about them. I doubt most religious people think the world is only 5,000 years old, but it doesn't really matter anyhow since being wrong about that has little consequence.

I worry because I see a psy-op.

How to change the behavior of the masses when individually it doesn't matter? I think that's where the religious aspect becomes useful. Piety is motivating, but easily leads to arrogance.

Behaviour of the masses is controlled these days by an 'entertainment' industry.


edit:
Scott Adams Episode 362 at 28:50 asserts [a claim] that the Michael Mann hockey stick curve obtains with any data set, including random numbers. I'm going back to listen to the rest. The part about AOC Derangement Syndrome was good.

2nd edit:
At 44:56 He says you can't model water vapor. So I looked at GOES-16 [https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/exper/]. You can toggle on/off water vapor in the lower and upper atmosphere separately. Updated every minute.

For me, his 'Dale' persona got old long ago.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Neither will the sappy and unrealistic over optimism for wind and solar that is prevalent in the media. My comment to you was in response to your stated implication that fosil fuel consumption continues primarily due to rich corporations controlling against the "decision" to just leave it in the ground. Which is completely untrue. The source of energy production is not just a matter of decision. The general public needs a functioning economy so there are jobs that pay them money so that they can live.
.
Energy and economy are correlated at nearly 1:1.
.
Fossil fuels continue as much as are necessary, along with other forms of energy production, to maintain the modern debt based economy from crashing.
.
The scale of energy that is currently needed to keep from a crash is completely unfathomable to most people. It is only through analysis of the data that we can make wise decisions as to what challenges are comming at us and how best to proceed. As an example of scale it is useful to look at Germany and realize that even as a world leader in percentage of build out and efficiency improvement, they have as yet replaced only 5% of their energy consumption with wind and solar.
.
Wind, solar and batteries will help extend fossil fuels but oil will start leaving us long before we are ready to leave it. There is a big reduction in energy availabilty coming in the next three decades. The major aspect of adaptation will have to be social. We can ramp down intentionally or suffer a big stair step. Sappy optimism for rebuildable electricity will foster complacency. We must embrace a more accurate systems view.

It's my firm belief that the general public is completely incapable of discerning between need and want.And it under girds our entire way of commercial life.
Someone less sensitive might come off suggesting that you can sometimes sound like a broken record,beating the same drum about an economy which cannot function without fossil fuel combustion,in direct conflict with evidence to the contrary.
We've moved beyond the Julian Simons and Bjorn Lombergs of the world.They were clueless,as are their minions and sycophants.
Had they had a window in their possession,they might have looked out upon a world which has left them to the dustbin of history,with all there 'can't','won't,'never will' prognostications.
The most liberal estimate is,that we've got 32-years to completely transition off fossil fuel combustion or we'll regret the day we were born.
We need to do everything in our power to make that deadline,or face future generations desecrating our graves and burning our remains for our thoughtlessness,as has already happened in the history of man.
They'll ---- us up so bad,even God won't be able to resurrect us.

[aerohead]

I went through the local bookstore.
Their SCIENCE section has 90 linear-feet of science books.
I looked at every title they had.
Not one book about climate change or anything related.
Yep,that's how you have an informed populace,the foundational premise of a working democracy.
Plenty of Harlequin Romance novels though.

[sendler]

I prefer to keep related discussions in one thread so I will post this here.
.

Originally Posted by aerohead

The US is being left behind in the dust because of the corporate-owned senators and White House which prevent an open market which is politically agnostic.

Your assertion is that the US government is favoring coal to keep solar and wind out of the market. But this is interesting. USA federal subsidies for electrical production by source. This is from 2007 but I will try to find something newer. But shows that the USA was very early on trying to pay the way for wind and solar to take off. Solar and wind each recieved 15 times as much incentive as nuclear and 55 times as much as coal.
.
"For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour."
.
https://www.instituteforenergyresear...bsidies-study/
.
.

.
.

[sendler]

Here are subsidy charts from 2010 to 2016. Again, solar has been highly favored above all other production methods. My state also offers home solar a big incentive of 30% rebate in addition to the 25% federal tax refund and also forces the utility to buy your excess at the "meter runs backwards" rate for up to 125% of your usage. Which is a big loss for the electric utility provider to have to buy my intermittent electricity at $0.10/ kWH when the average wholesale price is $0.04 for a reliable, guaranteed supply. The USA has done a great job of pushing solar and wind over coal.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#5a1c5d98128c
.
.

.
.