The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

As you do know better you don't say that. Thanks.

High electricity pricing is driving people towards installing solar panels and wind mills (as that works in their favor).
The existence of wind mills and solar does not drive up electricity costs (there's no causation).

Of course do countries who have to import fuel have higher costs for electricity than the countries that produce those fuels, and of course do they try to reduce import by producing their own renewable energy.
It's not the fault of renewable energy. If anything, it is the solution; costs would be worse without.

Germany produces most of their energy a large portion with coal, but they have just abut the most expensive power of any country.
So that's all BS.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

Unfortunately this is alo untrue. The green revolution utilized machinery and fertilizer and fossil slaves to do the work that humans and animal power used to do. It increased food production far beyond what is possible without it. Hence, the world population has doubled since 1970.
.
But it will inevitably suffer the correction of diminishing resources.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

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?

The best people to address this question would the one-percent'rs.
They have the most skin in the game.And only they would know what kind of time-frame they'd prefer,if it meant a wholesale reshuffling of their investment portfolios.
'Madison Avenue' has been very successful in impelling people to work against their own self-interests since 1900.
These same folks could probably reverse the psychology,and get people to do the opposite.
Enlist the help of those who already influence what people think.Movies,TV programming.News broadcasts.I think even Fort Benning,Georgia has been at this for decades.
I'll think on this some more.It's the biggest challenge.
Man is the biggest mystery.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Germany produces most of their energy a large portion with coal, but they have just abut the most expensive power of any country.
So that's all BS.

By Strom-Report.de - http://strom-report.de/renewable-ene...ation-mix-2016, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde...curid=56226207

Lignite is extracted in the extreme western and eastern parts of the country, mainly in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Sachsen and Brandenburg. Considerable amounts are burned in coal plants near the mining areas to produce electricity and transporting lignite over far distances is not economically feasible; therefore, the plants are located near the extraction sites.[16]

Bituminous coal is mined in Nordrhein-Westfalen and Saarland. Most power plants burning bituminous coal operate on imported material, therefore, the plants are located not only near to the mining sites, but throughout the country.[16]

Germany seeks to reduce its dependency on coal, not just because of pollution, but also because they don't have enough of it anyway, and what they have is mainly low quality lignite.
Gas and oil production are fractions of what they use.
Germany therefore is a massive fossil fuel importer.
Which proves my point.

And you say it is BS because of what?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Unfortunately this is alo untrue. The green revolution utilized machinery and fertilizer and fossil slaves to do the work that humans and animal power used to do. It increased food production far beyond what is possible without it. Hence, the world population has doubled since 1970.
.
But it will inevitably suffer the correction of diminishing resources.

We're predicted to be at pre-1980 food production levels by 2050.In a world where we'll need double the food supply by 2050.
70% of recent gains in food production have been attributed solely to temperature and rainfall.Early and longer growing season.
Nitrogen fertilizer use is not being optimized,can actually hurt production,those who need it the most can't afford it,and without matching Phosphorous and water supplies,there's no guarantee of increased production.
Insects,weeds,bacteria,nematodes,and fungus are winning the battle against agrochemicals,GMOs,RNAi interventions,and are presenting new,resistant varieties,nearly as soon as new 'products' make it to the marketplace.
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is interfering with water transport within food plants themselves,leaving rice and wheat with reduced protein,iron,and zinc content,leaving some prone to anemia and malnutrition-related disease.
The global pollinator situation is a problem.One ferral hog in the wrong field can render an entire crop a failure if they defecate there.
Photosynthesis stops above 104-F.
In 2010,Russia lost 40% of it's wheat crop to a heat wave.Over 50,00 died across Europe that summer.The US is not immune.
I don't have my workbook with me,so I can't be more specific today.I'll have that with me next Saturday.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

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?

Thanks for asking. Buckminster Fuller's Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science Revolution.

What are the resources? What are the tasks necessary to make 100% of humanity a success? How can we ever do so without ever advantaging one human at the expense of another? How may we render all the world and all its treasures enjoyable available to all men without having one interfering with or trespassing upon the other? How may we reform the environment so that the integrity of all society is not violated by the free initiatives of the individual nor the integrity of the individual violated by the developing welfaring advantage and happiness of the many?

Man is born a potentially complete success. The reasons humanity loves its children is that they start off in such perfection of potential.

Man, as designed, is obviously intended to be a success just as the hydrogen atom is intended to e a success. It is only the fabulous ignorance of man and his long and wrongly conditioned reflexes that he continually allowed the new life to be impaired albeit lovingly and unwittingly.

—Speech at NASA, June 1966

—From "Everything I Know: 42 Hours with Buckminster Fuller"

In COMPREHENSIVE ANTICIPATORY DESIGN SCIENCE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING... On the land, you have a job, and you work eight hours and you call it a day. You can close all the shutters on the cottage and say that's the end of it. At sea you can't shut down. It's a twenty-four hour job; you have twice as much experience at sea, because you have twenty-four hours out of everyday of experience... So the experience piled up very rapidly, and the severity of the untoward events--very high frequency--meant those people who did come back were very aware that there were very many who didn't come back, and they went into anticipation. This is our friend ''Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science,"-what are all the things you are going to have to anticipate?

... aware of so many other human beings, amid the planet being so big, and the complexity of things already operative when you check into the picture [it] doesn't seem a very good prospect to the individual that he's going to be very effective in this great big platter. He might expect to be fairly effective in a local pattern with a few people.

But what do you do, what can the little individual do about humans on board our planet in a big way. It seems for the moment a formidable challenge. So I will talk more about that with you, because I am confident that the little individual can do a great deal, and everyone of the human individuals are going to do a great deal, and if you catch on timethe strategies I employ, you may be able to employ them too. You may want to.

—Synergetics Dictionary

. . . Until the mid-twentieth century all political ideologies have been, and most as yet are, predicted upon yesterday's seemingly "obvious and incontrovertible" assumption of the existence of a fundamental and eternal inadequacy of healthful, wealthful terrestrial human life support. It has to be 'yours' or 'mine' because there is not and never will be enough for both." The respective political, ideological biases result from each assuming that its side has the most just and wise socio-economic strategy for coping with fundamental economic inadequacies.

If they are not to perish, but on the contrary are to survive, flourish and prevail, despite lethal inadequacy of life support, all political systems also have assumed and prepare for ultimate validation of their respectively claimed unique superiorities only through armed victory in all--out war. Though many are now aware that science and technology may someday disprove the inadequacy assumption, to everyday politics, fundamental inadequacy means that, large blocks of humanity are going to die anyway--either by starvation, disease or weapons. Politics must be intransigent and stoical about death because it assumes ultimate, unavoidable mass dying, either active or passive. This necessity has introduced the political concept of "ends justifying means" no matter how atrocious those means.

I am inherently transcendental to all political bias because I have learned by experimentally demonstrable, scientific, technical and economic facts of Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science that the inventory of chemical elements is not decreasing while know-how is forever increasing, which results in an ever accelerating rate of increase of technical effectiveness per each ounce of material, quantum of energy and second of time invested per each human and per each function to be served. Today the majority of all the worlds metal which were once all in mines are now recirculating. Each time they are melted and reused they carry vastly increased performance capability. It is now safely statable that our present knowledge and physical resources are adequate to the support of all humanity and all humans to come at a higher standard of living and enjoyment of life than have ever been experienced by any human.

To the best of my knowledge I was the first to discover and to be able to demonstrate why and how this is true. It is therefore also manifest to me that all political ideologies are obsolete--lethally obsolete. Knowing this I am also inherently incorruptible by either political or economic persuasions. I am committed to Comprehensively Anticipatory Design Science and its peacetime employment, for peace producing and sustaining purposes, of all the world's untapped or recirculating physical resources as well as of all the premium scientific, technical, industrial and managerial production skills--in such a manner as has heretofore been comprehensively employed to integrate humanity's potentials only under aegis of immediate or imminently anticipated all-out war. Design Science is the positive extension of passive resistance. Passive resistance bloodlessly dissipates the undesirable. Design Science bloodlessly gains the desirable.

I am pitting a world around, blood less, constructive, design transformation revolution against a world around destructive bloody revolution. The Design Science revolution can be won by all. The bloody revolution can be won by none.

Because political economies assume inherent scarcity, it also assumes it to be an inexorable corollary that humans are designed to be failures and that the right to be considered an exception by society and therefore, to be allowed to live successfully must be competitively earned--"a living" oust be earned. Design Science contradicts political economics and states it to be scientifically manifest that humanity is designed to be comprehensively successful in order to be able to fulfill its functioning in the cosmically designed Universe... humanity is designed to be successful...

Design Science is concerned not only with the prominent end products but also with all the means of producing, installing, servicing, removing and replacing comprehensive undertakings. This includes both user and personal safety, logistics in general and public relations.

—From a Letter to Karan Singh, Former Indian Ambassador to the United States

https://www.bfi.org/design-science/p...design-science

He anticipated and invented the tools we need and put them on a shelf, someday people will take them down again.

Yep,I'm ranting now.

We're in complete agreement.

The best people to address this question would the one-percent'rs.
They have the most skin in the game.
[snip]
I'll think on this some more.It's the biggest challenge.
Man is the biggest mystery

Scott Adams says that the reason rich people build in flood plains is they can afford to start over (sheeple get sucked along in the wake). They're not the ones to rock the boat.

Free speech and friendly persuasion.


edit:

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?

Yuppers. Scott Adams calls it the Ur-hoax, Covington and Smollet collapse without it. Episode 432 leads with

well there's a lot of news according to
CNN president Trump is deviously
denuclearizing than the Korean Peninsula
to distract from Michael Cohen's
testimony I'm not even making that up
that's an actual headline

Then he gets into Charlottesville

now yeah let's give you an update on the
Charlottesville hoax for anybody knew
the Charlottesville hoax is CNN and
other anti-trump are still reporting the
fake news that President Trump called
white supremacists fine people now of
course that didn't happen it's widely
reported as fact and just didn't happen
what did happen is that the president
referring to people on both sides of the
Confederate statue issue said there are
good people who hold both but you know
fine people on both sides meaning that
there are people can hold both opinions
and still be fine people not referring
to the racist who he specifically
disavowed the CNN still reports it as if
he said they were fine people fake news
.... to
challenge it would be to dismantle the
entire anti Trump
machinery it would it would lay bare how
Nick idli partisan they are even more so
than people already understand I think
people understand the CNN is partisan
they understand the Fox News is partisan
but they don't quite understand the
degree of it the degree of it is still
shocking and not visible to everyone and
and when the Charlottesville hoax falls
and I think it will I think that will
someday be called one of the biggest
hoaxes of all time it's going to change
people's mind about how big the problem
is so it will size it but it won't
change people's general idea of it so
it's now day to day to no reaction
whatsoever no pushback
no no sending us a link to show why
we're wrong no telling us that we're
crazy no saying that were illegitimate
commenters no no argument whatsoever on
something incredibly provocative that's
the dog that doesn't bark
ladies and gentlemen
that is the white space in your it's the
blank space in your composition of your
portrait it's the part you need to pay
attention to by its non-existence

My contention is that gray Dodge Challenger could have been a drone. To pit two sides against each other. There's a lot of that going around.

[redpoint5]

Keep in mind 95% of us in the US and Canada are the 1%, in global terms.

It goes against human nature to want less, or to find happiness with less. In fact, getting more for less is exactly our human nature. The problem isn't with the 1%, it's with our biology. Even if somehow the 1% were willing to forego "excess", there's nothing preventing the bottom 99% from wanting the excess that was given up by the 1%. When humans are presented with the opportunity to have more, we choose more.

There is nothing fundamentally different from the so-called 1% and anyone else, other than opportunity, good fortune, and perhaps increased competence (a component of good fortune).

We could curtail consumption greatly if we only followed the governance of places like Venezuela. Not something I'm interested in, as the point of life isn't to pass time, but to strive and to thrive.

[freebeard]

It was a long post because I'm snowed in. The utility trucks are cutting branches over the alley, so I might lose power again. In four days I've made it as far as the store on the corner. The Superbeetle has less road clearance than the height of the snow. It doesn't make a good toboggan.

We could curtail consumption greatly if we only followed the governance of places like Venezuela. Not something I'm interested in, as the point of life isn't to pass time, but to strive and to thrive.

Else we could take the tools Bucky gave us and live better than ever before. Is it a hard choice?

...another 25 minutes out of your life at 1x on Climate:

https://youtu.be/N-OVkwkgNss?t=1279

it's snowing again.

[redpoint5]

I watch about half the videos linked by freebeard only because there's a limit to what I can consume while juggling other obligations and interests in a day.

As a thought experiment, let's envision humans going back to only what they "need". We're all living in caves, scrounging for food. Then we think, it might be nice to have a door on this cave so it isn't so drafty. Then we think it might be nice if there were some natural light, so we build our cave out of other materials. Then we think it would be nice if it were warmer in this man-made cave, so we convert stored energy into heat to warm it up. Then we figure it would be nice if the cave were cooler in the summer, so we expend energy to do so. It could be bigger, it could have running water...

There is no limit to what would be nice to have, and there is hardly a distinction between need and want once you move past very rudimentary shelter, air, water, and some minimum amount of food. One man's worthless object might be another's "need".

Back to what I'm always saying: if burning too much fossil fuels is a net detriment, we need to precisely define at what level burning fossil fuels is most beneficial, and target those levels... and it would need to be universally accepted otherwise those that participate in limiting their consumption are at a disadvantage in every sense of the word.

[Frank Lee]

... and it would need to be universally accepted otherwise those that participate in limiting their consumption are at a disadvantage in every sense of the word.

Describes me. Except there are several advantages, such as somewhat lower utility bills, and sleeping in a cold room is said to be good for you, and I feel like I'm more a part of the solution than part of the problem. My headstone can read, "He Used Little Energy".