Debt Rattle September 23 2022


Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum Debt Rattle September 23 2022

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 118 total)
  • Author
  • #116625

    I tried to flee to eden to escape the overlords,
    But all my allies lived an hour away.
    So, when beset by stragglers from the gangs of urban hordes
    All I and mine could do was kneel and pray.

    We tried to flee to eden to escape the coming war-
    Away from bombs and armies, death and fray.
    But when the war still reached us, we were sorely people-poor,
    All we and ours could do was kneel and pray.

    For those hellbent for eden when the world is dark with sin,
    You’ll find it is a lonely place to wait.
    Hold eden in your heart instead and join the fight to win:
    We are the flaming sword that guards the gate.

    John Day

    @Alexander Carpenter: I read your draft of “Epistemological Engineering”.
    I like it. You identify the problem at the outset as most people not really being able to hold such a complex-set with so many unfixed variables. Few can, even if they want to, and there are so many reasons to not want to, mainly facilitating group-membership.

    I presume you are aware of the work of the mysterious “Ethical Skeptic”

    I also agree with the Yin/Yang swings between synthesis and reductionism. It’s hard to do either properly, let alone to use both properly, even in sort of a narrow field.

    Then there are unknown and known “unknowns”. I think the atmospheric CO2 graphs posted by Boscohorowitz are illustrative. We can’t put it all together when we go back so far. We have to make a lot of assumptions about several things when we look at one thing 30 million years ago.
    It is not possible to be as certain as we “need” to be. Most people take their best assessment and run with it, as if it is “certain”, because they have to run with something, or feel they must run with something…

    AFKTT knows a lot and is cognitively adept, and sincerely trying to live by his assessments.
    What weight should be placed on all of the other threats beside anthropogenic-global-warming, to weigh the best action-plan going forward in a human life, and already in a time of rapid change?

    Can’t be completely sure, right? We all choose somewhat different weightings of different bits of available knowledge and try to do our best. We do and think different things.

    Here we communicate our thoughts plans and actual experiences.
    We’re clearly dangerous…


    Most wars are about access to resources. This RU-UA stoush — or rather, RU-NATO — is a good example. It won’t matter who wins because The System cannot survive unless it consumes alll manner of resources at an exponentially-increasing rate.

    Please consider. Say the entire planet Earth were hollow and full of oil. How long would it last if we used it at a linear rate and at an exponentially increasing rate? Think how big the Earth is compared to us.

    The world uses in the order of 88 million barrels per day. DIvide that into the volume of the Earth and we get 211,800 million years. Stupendous. That’s over 15 times the age of the Universe. Just turn those numbers over in your mind for a bit. Plenty of oil for everybody.

    Now let’s use oil at an exponentially-increasing rate, 7.04% per annum: this is the rate of growth between 1880 to 1970, a golden period of industrial and economic development, and means a doubling of consumption every 9.8 years. Doesn’t seem much of a growth rate, does it? It’s the sort of growth rate that economists and politicians regard as the norm. Do the maths and planet Earth would be empty in about 330 years. That’s ALL!! So short a time! The difference is unbelievable, and all because of a tiny-looking difference between a linear and an exponential rate of consumption.

    John Day

    @Ezixa1949: “All I need in payment for devising this wonderful game of chess is some grains of wheat on the chessboard…”


    Cognitive warfare. Those must be the “good guys”, right? /s


    Alexander Carpenter’s link debunking anthropogenic climate change has some excellent data but employs many of the obfuscations (mostly unawaredly, I’m sure; it’s the standard MO) we see from the green uber alles crowd that believes global warming is THE big existential threat.

    The logical fallacies in it could raise the Titanic from the swamp gas it emits. Combine it with the green crowd’s vast litany of logical fallacies, and we might even raise Atlantis. But whatever you do, don’t take my word for it. But this guy, he is gospel truth:

    Thus Blibbered Zarathustra


    my parents said know seems uncommonly inspired of late.

    I say that it is better to have something that others might steal than to have no choice but to attempt theft.


    Math lessons
    Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has said that his forces have been suffering at least 50 casualties a day during the ongoing military conflict with Russia.

    Total # not available for the war effort
    1. dead combatants
    2. Wounded combatants
    3. All civilians that are not helping the war efforts – old, sick, Russian sympathizers, all the + 12 millions of expats, peacenixs, gov./ critical social employees, fools, cowards, intelligencias, all talk no action people


    Here’s a tiny mish-mash from the “hot spot” link in Carpenter’s Climate change debunk link:

    “On the flip side, the recent “hiatus” in global warming can be explained by more frequent La Ninas, according to D’Aleo.

    “It is an accepted fact that El Ninos bring global warmth and La Ninas cooling,” D’Aleo said. “It is thus not at all surprising that the period from 1947 to 1977 brought cooling, 1977 to 1997 warming and we had a flat trend from 1997 to current.”

    Well then, what do we know about long-term la nina or el nino? Sure, “they’re prone to cluster” as is everything in this cosmos from tachyons to lumpy gravy. But, as John Day pointed out about my climate graphs: we don’t know much at all about ancient weather. We have to infer via myriad methods employing the more-or-less scientific method, but we can’t empirically confirm the conjectures because we can’t go back in time. Likewise, we can’t empirically refute the conjectures because we can’t go forward in time to see what the longer larger patterns really are.

    Just because you’ve observed a pattern that you think is natural doesn’t mean it’s natural. When Europeans reached America en masse, they were awed by its wild lush “natural” state. But it wasn’t natural. The vast forest and populations of wild critters was an out-of-whack oscillation created by the first century or so of Europeans wiping out (mostly by dint of pandemics) the humans who had previously tended much of the Americas as their own vast garden, groomed forest, fish ponds, etc…. what they thought was natural was more like the almost freakish abundance of wildlife around Chernobyl once the worst of the radiation subsided.

    Nature fills vacuums, I’m told.

    So the science sucks all around. Greenies and anti-greenies both suck. (But at least greenies have a name of their own.)

    Everybody and their mother rushed the gate to prove global warming is right or wrong. People very much tend to do that, and science is done by people. Most of our science is mostly bunk these days, a victim of science’s success to the point where it went from being a rich man’s hobby to being the best path for a poor man to become rich. The sound science we have these days is that on which engineering relies, and there we see increasingly crappy technology either made or proposed based on otherwise good science. Why, hello, Mr. Musk. What a silly-looking white tux you have!

    Do we know that humans are definitely causing climactic disruption? Not that I know of. Do we know that it isn’t? Nyet. Do we know that we’re throwing enough crap into the atmosphere to warrant considering a) the long-term effect of reliance on fossil fuels, especially since we used them to go from 1.5 billion to 8 billion of us in a century, and b) what the fuck we gonna do when we run out of fossil fuels within a century or two of being forced to use less and less whether we like it or not because it’s become too expensive?

    We are left with the original anthropogenic global climate disruption conjecture: billions of homo saps burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal, etc., might be wise to pay close attention to the weather and prepare for it. “Prepare for it” of itself says NOTHING about reducing carbon, etc. Homes that need scant heating/cooling would be excellent preparation. Not turning coasts into vast housing tracts but instead leaving them as commons except for harbors and ports, that would be preparation. Learning not to use cars for EVERYTHING would be savvy. Not using oil to make EVERYTHING would also be clever.

    Rather than deal with reality responsibly, we’d rather choose sides and fling poo, as has ever been the primate way of resolving resource issues. But now we throw thermonuclearly explosive poo.


    ‘The drive to breath is independent of carbon dioxide, CO2, with few exceptions…

    I don’t know why this misinformation occurred in the thread.

    The urge to breathe is triggered by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the blood.


    As for our aspiring global overlords and the faith so many place in them as driving architects of structural global dystopia capable of inflicting their evil will upon us pretty much no matter what: we like order and meaning. We take comfort amid these feelings of powerlessness (ultimately self-inflicted, I’ll note) by feeling that we at least know at Whom to Fling Poo.

    R-r-r-r-OCK-e-feller… R-r-r-r- OTH-s-child…. Bil-l-l-l-iam Gates….


    I think that being raised on formulaic Hollywood/TV whodunnits etc. add to this aspect considerably. It’s also something of an inversion of the delusion we’re all taught that if we vote for the Good Guy that’s all we need to worry about.

    D Benton Smith

    @AlexanderCarpenter regarding your call for thoughts and comments about your work-in-progress titled Epistemological Engineering

    First of all, I think that it is very good work. If you just continue in similar vein with similar rigor I believe you’ll achieve an excellent product that others (especially engineers) will benefit from.

    In critique, however, I saw three small but important items that probably should be addressed in order to avoid significant predictable missteps.

    The first is that although the work references epistemology it does not specifically address epistemology in its process or findings. “Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues” (quoted from Wikipedia . . . my apologies).

    To address engineering (or any other subject ) epistemologically is setting the bar pretty high. I would never discourage anyone from attempting such a heroic feat, but if they do choose to attempt to connect the vast field of epistemology to the study of some lesser field (like engineering) then the burden of proof is upon the guy who makes the claim. I other words, the claimant is obligated to show the “epistemological” aspect of the engineering (or other) points that are being made.

    The second potential pitfall is contained in the unchallenged acceptance of what you called “The epistemological razor” [ i.e. “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. And its inverse corollary: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”]

    It is unfortunately the case however that neither of those two assertions, comprising the razor, are true. Indeed, they can be easily challenged and arguably proven to be untrue (in the lingo one would say that they are easily falsified.)

    For example, the statement that “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” is not true. Descartes did a pretty good job (and famously concise) on that one when he asserted “I think, therefore I am.” He asserts it without evidence, and yet the assertion cannot be dismissed. It is simply irrefutably true and has stood as true since he said. Thats the way it tends to be with “First Principles” kinds of axiomatic facts.

    Further, the assertion that “ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is great for public speaking engagements, but has little other use. The oratorical line rolls off the tongue like a 50 caliber argument , but it too, is simply not true. The word “extraordinary” is the culprit on this one. Adding that modifier is superfluous and misleading. A claim is simply a claim. To call a claim extraordinary is to interject a prejudicial (and anthropomorphized) value judgment about the claim BEFORE the claim has yet been evaluated. That’s bass-ackwards, in the logical sense, and the same applies when it’s attached to the word “evidence”. Evidence cannot be extraordinary. Evidence is only evidence. It can be true evidence, false evidence or irrelevant evidence, but it cannot be extraordinary evidence. In fact, the only extraordinary thing about evidence is its rarity.

    So basically there isn’t any razor. There is only the simple statement that “Claims require evidence”. I’m good with that, but I’m also compelled to note that under certain circumstances the evidence presented might be one of those darned “First Principles”, which require no further evidence other than their existence. For example, the claim that you, or me, or someone else is “aware”. That claim requires no further evidence, and yet is literally impossible to logically dismiss. In fact, the word “evidence” itself falls into that same First Principles category. It literally means “that which can be seen”, but seen by whom? Seen by a sentient entity that is aware that it is seeing. And that’s that.

    D Benton Smith


    Your stuff restores my faith in poetry.

    Veracious Poet


    ‘The drive to breath is independent of carbon dioxide, CO2, with few exceptions…

    I don’t know why this misinformation occurred in the thread.

    The urge to breathe is triggered by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the blood.

    Methinks the Haldane quote is not Haldane, or is poorly mangled.

    “Although the Oxford Conferences began in 1978 as a result of the inspiration of Dan Cunningham and others at the University Laboratory of Physiology in Oxford, the roots of the meetings can be traced to John Scott Haldane (1860-1936) and his colleagues at the turn of the century. Indeed, the Laboratory (or its predecessor) has had an exemplary persistence (some might say an obsession) with the role of oxygen and, particularly, carbon dioxide in the control of breathing for over 100 years. An early key paper was that by Haldane and J.G. Priestley in 1905, “The regulation of the lung ventilation,” where careful measurements of the Pco2 in alveolar gas under a variety of conditions showed its critical role in control.”

    But I’ll note that while CO2 triggers the involuntary breath reflex, we then focus on how good oxygen feels in our lungs, and I don’t think that our awake breathing is as involuntary as the word sounds. The spark that drives an internal engine cylinder’s combustion cycle at top dead center just a wee moment in the cycle. A catalyst is not the whole process. A reflex is not necessarily the urge. Obviously, breathing to regulate CO2 is, well, driven by CO2, and that is something the body does involuntarily. But the desire to breathe is itself obviously all about oxygen.

    I see it as CO2 being the little yappy dog reminding its owner to let it out to pee, while the urge to go for a walk is itself the primary driver of the leash both for dog and human. Not that I’m claiming to know what Haldane meant if that quote were genuine, which I doubt. It’s not here: THE REGULATION OF THE LUNG-VENTILATION. BY J. S. HALDANE, M.D., F.R.S., AND J. G. PRIESTLEY, B.A. (Eleven Figures in the Text.) (From the Physiological Laboratory, Oxford.)


    The denial of fundamental science knows no boundaries.

    As has been pointed out here many times (dozens?), carbon dioxide absorbs energy in the infrared, and re-emits that energy because of its molecular structure. In the atmosphere, CO2 molecules absorb outgoing radiation and re-emits some of it downwards. There is absolutely no disputing of that scientific fact. So climate change deniers totally ignore it. And those who say the climate is changing but it’s nothing to do with CO2 also ignore it.

    Instead of dealing with well-established scientific facts, climate change deniers look for red herrings to obfuscate and confuse. Or they cherry pick so-called data in order to come to erroneous conclusions.

    When it is pointed out that the Earth had a comparatively high atmospheric CO2 concentration hundreds of millions of years ago, and that concentration fell as photosynthesis sequestered CO2 in the form of carbohydrates, and that subsequent geological forces converted the carbohydrates into coal, il and gas, they ignore that too.

    They then ignore the fact that industrial humans have de-sequestered hundreds of billions of tonnes of previously sequestered carbon, and have released that previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere and oceans as carbon dioxide, which is both spectrally active and chemically active.

    Ignorance is such a fine thing, people will cling to it (like clinging to the handrails of the Titanic) rather than accept reality!

    And we know exactly why they do it. Because to accept the facts would require them to accept responsibility for the destruction of their own progeny’s future. They sure are not going to do that.

    The other aspect is that climate change deniers have been subjected to a carefully managed propaganda campaign orchestrated over many decades by corporations and their coconspirators -western governments (which, as we all here know, are controlled by banks and corporations).

    So let’s be totally clear about this:

    I. planetary meltdown has been underway for a long time (arguably since the commencement of mass industrialism based on the burning of coal

    2. all of the responses of all governments to the existential threat are scams that will make the predicament worse.

    The other interesting aspect of denial of scientific reality is that deniers are all in favour of science it produces something they want -like x-ray machines, smart phones, light emitting diodes, microwave ovens, nuclear resonance imaging systems for identification of disease etc. – but won’t have a bar of it if it informs them of something they don’t want to hear!

    So here we are, coming rather rapidly to the end of everything, with deceitful maniacs at the helm, and surrounded by a lobotomised general populace.

    Ah, but hopium lives on!


    Stacy Abrams, Evita Duffy
    Both of them are doing the exact same thing, on opposite sides of the same issue.
    They are using facts to further their own narratives. Neither narrative derives from the facts presented.
    Both sides of the abortion debate tend to claim to be a part of a moral crusade, one side is on behalf of women, the other is on the side of unborn fetuses. One side creates the specter of “the man” as the monster, the other creates the specter of “the woman” as the monster.
    One side is trying to use the law to make it easier for abortions to happen; the other side is trying to use the law to make it more difficult for abortions to happen.
    BOTH SIDES are trying to use the law to influence the decisions of other people.
    I wish BOTH SIDES could just knock it off.

    – some pregnancies are unintended
    – some women will seek abortions
    – we have the medical technology to perform abortions in ways that are unlikely to harm the health of the mother
    – greater trends in society, completely unrelated to the abortion law debate, often are the greatest influence on a woman with an unexpected pregnancy and whether or not she seeks to bring the babe to term or terminate the pregnancy.
    – no government mandated policy, no law is ever going to be able to adequately address the circumstances of each and every woman who is faced with an unexpected pregnancy.

    Since fetuses are housed within the body of a woman, it is my view that nature/god has made her the one who is responsible for the well-being of the fetus. If we want to encourage her one way or the other as to how she responds to the pregnancy, we are free to do so, as long as our entreating is free of coercion. If we want to support motherhood, then it behooves us to make it relatively easy to raise a child.

    Michael Reid

    “David Stockman on Why “Global Warming” Did Not Cause Today’s Economic Disasters—Governments Did
    part 1 of David Stockman’s article on the “climate crisis” and why governments are the real cause of the current economic issues

    David Stockman on Why “Global Warming” Did Not Cause Today’s Economic Disasters—Governments Did

    David Stockman on Why the Climate Crisis is a Big Hoax…
    part 2 of David Stockman’s article on the “climate crisis” and why governments are the real cause of the current economic issues

    David Stockman on Why the Climate Crisis is a Big Hoax…


    Russia will have to spend more blood if they want to win, whatever win means. So far they have not shown the spirit of the Russians of old. Back in WW 2 the Russian soldier was an illiterate peasant hard physically and psychologically. They were brutal even more brutal that the Germans. Back then Stalin was an unopposed dictator the people had a gun put to their heads and told ‘fight”. Putin is a strongman too but he does not have total control like Stalin did. So far Putin has not been willing to put the Russians troops in very hard military confrontations where there will be high casualties because he is afraid of the Russian peoples reaction.That will have to change if they want to really push the Ukrainians hard. The release of the Azov leaders and the unwillingness to execute the foreign fighters is another sign that Putin is not tough enough to do what is needed. I think Putin has totally failed the Russian people in this operation. He had the chance to end it quickly by decapitating Kiev but he was too afraid to make the kill shot. He has failed right from the very beginning, the Donbass should have been annexed at the same time that Crimea was. Remember he only recognised the two republics the day before the invasion , he has hesitated and been too weak. Also his intel people have been a failure. They led Putin to believe that there would be a coup in Kiev and that the Russians would be greeted like liberators.The referendums are a total sham how can Russia have a referendum in Ukraine? The Ukrainians on the other side of the front line in Donbass don’t get to vote do they? Putin has lost the plot , he should be removed. Now he has placed Russia in a very hard position and the people are just starting to realise where they stand . You can see by the look on the faces of the Russians on these TV discussions that now they are afraid for the situation , they now realise this is not a game.


    Back in the real world, Brian at New Atlas tells it exactly how it is.

    Veracious Poet

    It’s very curious how people with at least adequate skepticism (and even, occasionally, incisive pattern-recognition and brilliant insights) in some content-domains have blind-spots in others. ~ I ask because of the anomalous attachment of the otherwise astute “Afewknowthetruth” to his(?) fortress/prison of belief in the Carbon Cult panic-porn narrative about our always-slowly-changing climate. That narrative has been definitively falsified, yet remains within the Standard Narrative with a purely political agenda. The actual science is settled; the noise is corrupt manipulation and fear-mongering propaganda.

    EGOcentric bias (madness):


    Climate change. It’s too slow to be an emergency. Any top-down solution will suck, and will always favor the top. Will we give up war- the most carbon-spewing endeavor of all?
    Yeah, right.

    Every aquifer on earth will be corrupted.
    Every mountain made of coal will be laid flat.
    Every bog and every tree will be combusted
    Some will never give up power, and that is that.

    FWIW: an article about el Ninos from 8 years ago. ‘El Niños 10,000 years ago were as strong and frequent as the ones we experience today’.


    I might ask what David Stockman/Doug Casey know about geochemical systems: next-to-nothing? Or nothing at all?

    Back in the real world, I suppose everyone here knows, but just in case they don’t, what is happening in the Donbas region is and existential threat to Russia and is an existential threat to the City of London scammers who have been lying and manipulating for centuries.

    One or the other goes down.

    Or they fight to the death takes everyone down.

    Of course, we are all going to have to adapt to a very much reduced energy availability, whatever the immediate outcome of the conflict.

    Got a newly-constructed solar oven to test today.

    Dr D Rich


    Tell us in what condition O2 becomes the drive.


    1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    Our vote is democratic and free. Only our vote count

    Your vote does not count
    Your vote is a scam
    We don’t recognize your democratic vote

    Michael Reid

    Indeed, fabrication of false problems and threats that purportedly can only be solved by heavy-handed state intervention has become the modus operandi of a political class that has usurped near complete control of modern democracy.

    So doing, however, the ruling elites have gotten used to such unimpeded success that they have become sloppy, superficial, careless and dishonest. For instance, the minute we get an ordinary summer heat wave of the kind Christine Lagarde was yapping about, these natural weather events are jammed into the global warming narrative with nary a second thought by the lip-syncing journalists of the MSM.

    Veracious Poet

    We are the flaming sword that guards the gate.

    False Flame Stitch:


    @ezlxa1949: As I once read, “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is man’s inability to understand the exponential function.”


    This is how low and lost mainstream media has become:

    ” ‘Sham’ referendums on joining Russia underway in occupied parts of Ukraine”

    So, CNN, are they real shams or sham shams,and are those real shams “really” real shams, or are they just really “sham” shams, or… comes a point where plausible deniability becomes undeniably absurd.

    Anyway, here’s to real pain to my sham friends, and champagne to my real friends.



    ‘Here’s a hypothesis which I support: neither CO2 nor CH4 is THE greenhouse gas of concern. That gas is water vapour.’

    This kind of nonsense has been stamped on a million times, but keeps emerging, just like heads of the Hydra. Cut off a Hydra head, another grows in its place! Ad infinitum. That’s one reason were are utterly fucked -well, our children are.

    Water vapour can never be a prime driver of planetary overheating because water changes phase over the temperature ranges experienced on earth and in the atmosphere.

    For all the dumb shits out there who still don’t get it, when air saturated with water vapour cools, the water vapour condenses into rain that falls to the ground..

    Under conditions of moist air meeting cold air or losing heat into space rather quickly, it forms snow, which falls to the ground.

    The vapour pressure of ice is so close to zero it can be ignored.

    On the other hand, if the overheating caused by carbon dioxide, methane and other gases that do not change phase is not curtailed, the higher atmospheric temperatures that will prevail will allow more water vapour to remain in the atmosphere. And that additional water vapour will cause secondary additional overheating, or augmented overheating.

    It is a positive feedback in the climate system: more CO2 in the atmosphere = more overheating = more water vapour in the atmosphere = more overheating.

    Thanks Exon-Mobil and Coal Corp etc. for the decades of misinformation that has penetrated and filled the minds of the ‘sponges’, and left no room for genuine science.


    Just one more for this session, and then I must get on with further preparations for collapse.

    ‘Here’s our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news financial markets are now in ‘extreme fear’ mode as they face increasing equity and bond losses. T

    The Kiwi dollar will open today at just on 57.4 USc and more than -1 lower than this time yesterday.

    In Wall Street’s Friday trade the S&P500 fell another -2.0% as the re-rating continues for equities. That means it is down -4.4% for the week and -23% since the peak at the start of the year. The -1120 pts drop since that peak is its biggest fall in history, exceeding the -1077 pt drop at the start of the pandemic, and the -716 pt drop in the GFC.

    Tax cuts in the UK have crashed the British currency.’

    Michael Reid

    I reject this statement from AFKTT

    That’s one reason were are utterly fucked -well, our children are.

    I detect you are a troll representing the ruling elites and the stupid Climate Crisis is what you are selling.

    Consider this:

    “No, what we actually need to take into account is that the so-called Climate Crisis is complete hogwash, starting with the basics of so-called man-made global warming. The fact is, the present era is one of the coolest and least carbon-intensive periods of the last 600 million years.

    Stated differently, the true science makes mincemeat of the elitist narrative espoused by Lagarde, officialdom through Europe and North America and the mainstream media. Yet it is now being used as an excuse for the unfolding economic disasters caused by the central banks and the Warfare State and a pretext for new rounds of authoritarian suppression of economic liberty exemplified by California’s recent move to outlaw combustion engine autos after 2035.

    Indeed, the geological and paleontological evidence overwhelmingly says that today’s average global temperature of about 15 degrees C and CO2 concentrations of 420 ppm are nothing to fret about, and even if they rise to about 17-18 degrees C and 500-600 ppms by the end of the century, it may well on balance improve the lot of mankind.”


    Zelensky quietly deletes photo of his bodyguard’s pro-Hitler patch

    Zelensky and NATO plan to transform post-war Ukraine into ‘a big Israel’

    Zelensky and NATO plan to transform post-war Ukraine into ‘a big Israel’

    With inspiration from Shapiro’s NATO-sponsored “road map” to success, Zelensky’s fantasy of a perpetual militarized, high-tech Sparta bolstered by a gun-toting civilian population will require a massive investment in weapons and surveillance technology on the part of the government in Kiev. If this war is any indication, Ukraine will likely look to the Atlantic Council’s donors once again as it ventures to fulfill Zelensky’s dream of establishing a “big Israel” on Russia’s border.


    CO2 and climate change. Doesn’t matter what humans do with the damned oil, resources [ie, that all important item called food] will collapse before “climate change” (is that the current approved term?) has a chance to, idk, kill all of us.

    Lots of long long comments on this topic. Literally arguing about O2 in a room.

    I’m throwing in with Veracious on this one, comment #116638, “blah blah blah …” 😉


    Tell us in what condition O2 becomes the drive.”

    I’m getting too old for that stuff but sex used to be all about the Big O(and was it good for you)2? 😉

    Veracious Poet

    Yet it is now being used as an excuse for the unfolding economic disasters caused by the central banks and the Warfare State and a pretext for new rounds of authoritarian suppression of economic liberty exemplified by California’s recent move to outlaw combustion engine autos after 2035.


    “Climate crisis” is not synonymous with long-term climate forecasts (long term in human terms, i.e., a few centuries). We’re currently experiencing a climate crisis, but whether that is caused by human activity or Yahweh’s irritable bowel syndrome, and whether it will last to the end of this decade or for centuries, no one can honestly say.

    But almost everyone who says anything about global climate disruption will say Yea or Nay because few like to stand alone even if only because they’re currently undecided.

    I don’t think Afewknow is a troll although anything’s possible these days. Some days I’m a troll and don’t know it. I do note that a Afewknow is prone to be shrill and toss words like “dumbshits” into a room full of crowded opinions. How much is frustration from years of proselytizing a hopeless cause, and how much is just the usual contempt born from a sense of alienation, I dunno, and have to marvel that I’m bothering to talk about it.

    But we seem to want to label each other of late even more than usual, and we usually love to label everything.

    I have no idea why he harps on about anthropogenic global climate disruption since he believes (as do I) that we’ll do zip about it whether it is or isn’t a real problem. I suspect that part of the reason is that, like most of us, he enjoys proclaiming that which he believes is right if it seems important enough.

    Me, I like to exchange info, challenge assumptions and dogmas, turn things inside out, cognitively Klein-bottle their ass, and watch us homo saps make silly petty spectacles of ourselves as we fulminate on right and wrong and truth and falsehood and the True Meaning of It All. It’s fascinating to watch. I was once told I view the TAE crowd as an entomologist views an ant farm. It wasn’t true at the time. At the time, I was looking for a few good men. But, having failed at that, I now find myself studying our weaknesses so I can better deal with them when weakness becomes more expensive, even deadly so.

    Watch Out!


    Veracious’ posts have been quite amusing lately.

    AFKTT seems to have a couple chords he/she can play really well on the guitar, and commenters can’t help but join in on the chorus. lol


    Darn, Bosco, this statement seems a bit harsh “I was once told I view the TAE crowd as an entomologist views an ant farm. It wasn’t true at the time. At the time, I was looking for a few good men. But, having failed at that

    Circle back to comment #116660, that might help perspective a bit.

    I think there are quite a few good people on here. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your statement?


    “FWIW: an article about el Ninos from 8 years ago. ‘El Niños 10,000 years ago were as strong and frequent as the ones we experience today’.”

    Note the context, however:

    “Here, we present a reconstruction of ENSO in the eastern tropical Pacific spanning the past 10,000 years derived from oxygen isotopes in fossil mollusk shells from Peru. We found that ENSO variance was close to the modern level in the early Holocene and severely damped ~4000 to 5000 years ago. In addition, ENSO variability was skewed toward cold events along coastal Peru 6700 to 7500 years ago owing to a shift of warm anomalies toward the Central Pacific. The modern ENSO regime was established ~3000 to 4500 years ago. ”

    It changes. A LOT. Point being that resemblance between now and 10,000 years ago should not be confused with now being “business as usual”. Anyone saying they know how to predict the climactic future is almost certainly misinformed.

    The specter of global warming grew in gradual tandem with the specter of fossil fuel depletion, but the latter was obscured by the promise of atomic power “too cheap to bother to meter” while the former got kick-started for political reasons.

    So now we have hysterical greenies seeing climate disasters in every thunderstorm, and rabid anti-greenies claiming that we have no oil supply crisis because politicians are lying about global warming.

    You think this is bad, you shoulda seen the shit we did to each other when the early days of fossil fuel extraction, coupled with emerging machine technology, made slavery no longer a profitable MO. We had to kill bunches of each other to accept that. (The expression “Get a horse!” was often shouted derisively at early automobile drivers of those noisy smelly dangerous contraptions. I don’t know that people felt so free to holler “Get a slave!” to factory personnel when modern tech made it more profitable to make the whole populace wage slaves with blacks and such as lower-tier backup. Nowadays we holler “Get a life!” (or at least a job). Not sure what that means but it kinda scares me.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 118 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.