The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Not sure why you include the definition of arbitrary ideologies, as I'm familiar with the basic definitions. Antifa is less than worthless though. The way you fight white supremacists isn't to harass them, as that just makes them double-down. The way you fight white supremacists is to befriend them, or if that's not possible, to merely ignore them.

What if a white supremacist rally occurred, and nobody showed up to counter protest, and the media didn't cover it? It would just be a few bigots walking around then, and since it's not exciting to just walk around, they would be less likely to do it in the future.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

We're entering an energy ascent.

Sorry. But this is obviously quite wrong. The density and massive quantity of total primary energy will never again be maintained after fossil fuel leaves us. Solar and wind are less than 2%. 17 TW. Do the math.
.
.

.
.

.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

You keep saying this as if society can just choose any alternative amount of per capita energy consumption it may wish for without ever offering any data or research as to what you feel is feasible. And then when I say that I believe things will be much smaller and simpler in the future you act as though you disagree with this also.

There are analogues for shelter,sustenance,security,industry,office space,mobility,necessities,etc,which mirror a comparison between an incandescent light bulb and an LED bulb.
*The bulbs essentially look identical (no sacrifice to styling or aesthetics)
*You can pay $10 for an LED to replace a $1 incandescent.
*Each lamp has identical lumens output.
*The LED lasts 10-X the life of the incandescent,so it doesn't cost the consumer a penny more to own and operate it over it's service life.
*The LED uses 1/10th the power for the same lumens output.
*For zero cost,you've increased the generating capacity of the electric provider and provided for nine more families' illumination,without any additional power generation capacity.(negaWatts)
*You've cut carbon emissions by 90% with no sacrifice in illumination.
*You've increased the 'fuel economy' of the lumens by 10X.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All energy consumption can be similarly impacted,across all market activities.
In times of war,all this consumption was simply reduced by War Department edict, enforcement,and market mechanisms.
If you want to go to war against climate change,it's really simple.Dirt simple.Nobody will say it's easy though.
You can't deny it,as we've done it before,twice before.
We can choose to begin,in earnest.Steady,year by year progress.
Concentrate on needs.Put wants on hold until we clear the emergency.
It's what America knows how to do.
Once the storm passes,then we can relax things if we so choose.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

There are analogues for shelter,sustenance,security,industry,office space,mobility,necessities,etc,which mirror a comparison between an incandescent light bulb and an LED bulb.
*The bulbs essentially look identical (no sacrifice to styling or aesthetics)
*You can pay $10 for an LED to replace a $1 incandescent.
*Each lamp has identical lumens output.
*The LED lasts 10-X the life of the incandescent,so it doesn't cost the consumer a penny more to own and operate it over it's service life.
*The LED uses 1/10th the power for the same lumens output.
*For zero cost,you've increased the generating capacity of the electric provider and provided for nine more families' illumination,without any additional power generation capacity.(negaWatts)
*You've cut carbon emissions by 90% with no sacrifice in illumination.
*You've increased the 'fuel economy' of the lumens by 10X.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All energy consumption can be similarly impacted,across all market activities.
In times of war,all this consumption was simply reduced by War Department edict, enforcement,and market mechanisms.
If you want to go to war against climate change,it's really simple.Dirt simple.Nobody will say it's easy though.
You can't deny it,as we've done it before,twice before.
We can choose to begin,in earnest.Steady,year by year progress.
Concentrate on needs.Put wants on hold until we clear the emergency.
It's what America knows how to do.
Once the storm passes,then we can relax things if we so choose.

We already did many of the electronic efficiency upgrades. Which did result in a slight decoupling of increasing population/ GDP from energy from 1980 to 2010. but much of that is now recoupling. Transportation will be the next big improvement. but you have yet to put your number on what feasible per capita reduction that you can rationally foresee. and keep in mind 3 Billion people still burn wood and dung for all of there cooking and heating needs. They will be the ones who's lifestyles will have to change the least in the next 100 years. All efficiencies have been approximated to allow an improvement of 2:1. Do you really think rebuildables will achieve 8 TW? Before we run out of our fossil fuel seed corn that is required to build them out?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by sendler

Do you really think rebuildables will achieve 8 TW? Before we run out of our fossil fuel seed corn that is required to build them out?

Not to mention mining, refining, and building out 1,00's of TWh of batteries (if there even were that much raw materials).

[freebeard]

Not sure why you include the definition of arbitrary ideologies, as I'm familiar with the basic definitions.

Who me? Who knows. I think it was to point out that 'liberal' can mean 'liberalist' or 'antifa'. So you do know liberalist? Cool.

What if a white supremacist rally occurred, and nobody showed up to counter protest, and the media didn't cover it?

What if there was a rally about something else and few designated white supremasists showed and the media fabricated it?

Nobody points out that the event in Charlottesville happened after the [fiery] death of Michael Hastings. That gray Dodge accelerated for 1 1/2 block in a straight line. The guilty plea could have been coerced.

Originally Posted by aerohead

*You can pay $10 for an LED to replace a $1 incandescent.

Why would anyone do that? The last two (screw-in 60w equivalent) LEDs I bought were $1 each.

fossil fuel seed corn

I like it.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

All energy consumption can be similarly impacted,across all market activities.
In times of war,all this consumption was simply reduced by War Department edict, enforcement,and market mechanisms.
If you want to go to war against climate change,it's really simple.Dirt simple.Nobody will say it's easy though.
You can't deny it,as we've done it before,twice before.
We can choose to begin,in earnest.Steady,year by year progress.
Concentrate on needs.Put wants on hold until we clear the emergency.
It's what America knows how to do.
Once the storm passes,then we can relax things if we so choose.

This is actually the one area where we strongly agree. But how do we get a majority of the world population to all buy in to the need for a complete sustenance level of austerity, a completely new economic system that can humanely distribute resources? And dictate fertility. A just One World Technocracy with support of the majority forever more to guide the use of resources with a view in 1,000 year timescales?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Sorry. But this is obviously quite wrong. The density and massive quantity of total primary energy will never again be maintained after fossil fuel leaves us. Solar and wind are less than 2%. 17 TW. Do the math.
.
.

.
.

.

Looks like the math hasn't worked out for us.
Looks like the fossil-fuels haven't worked out for us.
The data presented in the graphic isn't an absolute.
The graph represents some 'wants'.
People can get by with 'needs.'
There's a lot of 'fat' that can be trimmed from the 'math.'
We get a NASA APOLLO-13 mission flight director like Gene Kranz to throw enough circuit-breakers to get Earth's current draw down to 15-amps ,until it's time for the reentry burn.Duct tape some tube-socks and Lithium- hydroxide carbon-dioxide filters together, to bring our atmosphere back.
The trip may not be ideal,but we make it out alive.
If you've never done a solo backpacking trip into hostile territory you may never actually know what 'needs' are.
It's a distinction which can make or break a planet.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Who me? Who knows. I think it was to point out that 'liberal' can mean 'liberalist' or 'antifa'. So you do know liberalist? Cool.

What if there was a rally about something else and few designated white supremasists showed and the media fabricated it?

Nobody points out that the event in Charlottesville happened after the [fiery] death of Michael Hastings. That gray Dodge accelerated for 1 1/2 block in a straight line. The guilty plea could have been coerced.

I was agreeing with the specific behaviors attributed by Sendler as Liberal traits; not necessarily to a broad category of people with various character attributions.

For instance, some of the most vocal and prominent Liberals do not hold traditional liberal ideological beliefs. Antifa might be considered by some to be on the "Left wing" or "Liberal", but their actions and statements don't seem to reflect this, and they somehow think that you fight fascism by being fascist, and apparently see no irony in this.

I'm not familiar with any of the history you've provided since I don't follow news, but I recall hearing something about an alleged white supremacist running a crowd of people over with his vehicle, but I didn't pay much attention. Was that the event in Charlottesville?

Anyhow, I'm not up on what the event you're referring to is, or media fabrication of the events, though I am familiar with media of late being notorious for doing so. Drumming Indian and MAGA confrontation comes to mind.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

We already did many of the electronic efficiency upgrades. Which did result in a slight decoupling of increasing population/ GDP from energy from 1980 to 2010. but much of that is now recoupling. Transportation will be the next big improvement. but you have yet to put your number on what feasible per capita reduction that you can rationally foresee. and keep in mind 3 Billion people still burn wood and dung for all of there cooking and heating needs. They will be the ones who's lifestyles will have to change the least in the next 100 years. All efficiencies have been approximated to allow an improvement of 2:1. Do you really think rebuildables will achieve 8 TW? Before we run out of our fossil fuel seed corn that is required to build them out?

If one fails to take their politically-correct medication,they may lapse into a thought progression which implies:
*Current food production is stupid,extremely inefficient, wasteful,and polluting.Energy savings are obtainable.
*Current housing is stupid,wasteful,energy inefficient,and massive energy savings potential exists.
*Current office buildings,private and government, are stupid,wasteful,and offer enormous energy savings potential.
*ditto transportation (all of it).
*ditto consumer capitalism products.
*Daylight-savings wastes fortunes in energy
*While public education is mandatory,it doesn't exist,in the context that consumers are made aware of their individual and collective impact on the environment.
*Public schoolteacher's pension funds should be decoupled from energy corporations,ICE vehicle manufacturers,and the military industrial complex.(their students shouldn't have to die in uniform to support their teacher's filthy,energy-sucking lifestyles,while the teacher delivers no education for an entire career)
*Municipal government's pension funds ditto.
*County government's pension funds ditto.
*State government's pension funds ditto.
*Tax appraisal districts should focus on affordable housing,not how high they can run up property taxes.
*No tax increases unless taxpayer's income rises in lock-step.
*energy should never be treated as any other consumer product.
Yep,I'm ranting now.
I think we can get by on less than 8-TW.
The UN has already excused developing countries as far as emissions go,but that doesn't mean we can't help them to get more bang out of their dung.