Dr. Diablo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t really understand the tone here. The western media has been like this for over 15 years. Arguably, it could be said they’ve been like this since the US shelled Panama City for sport…or since WWII, or WWI, or always. (Remember the Maine!)
How many decades do we have to watch the same thing before we admit, yes, this is happening? Can we stop arguing about it, digesting it, and start to respond to the real world we lived in instead of the illusion we were taught in elementary school in 1956? It wasn’t true even then.
Can we just say, yes, this is happening and move on to a “How should we respond” phase. Because until we do that, we might as well just sit down and shut up. Sure, we know this. As a Gen-Xer, I’ve know this 90% of my life, since Reagan’s Contra war and when we kids were told we’d be screwed white by our parents for the National Debt–the only promise ever kept to us. But after 40 years the older generation is still in denial about who they are and what’s happening. Can we please stop now? Or is it like they say about science, that every last man of the previous generation has to die before a new idea can be born?
Sorry that doesn’t sound nice, but really, time’s winged chariot marches on…tick tock, people.
How is a mental construct like debt related to a real-world object like oil? It seems we either can get oil at a net energy gain or we can’t. That’s not debt-related.
Or is it? Debt-dependent physics? A lot of papers seem to imply it.
Re: “the illusion of growth can only be bought with debt” the idea keeps popping up after subterranean tunneling like ballistic crabgrass. This is mainstream gospel, yes, but is so pervasive it pops up amongst careful people too.
Stop thinking about money for a moment: there is a person who wants something, the equipment to make it, and a producer who turns the wheels. This is the situation we’re in now. There’s no money or no debt involved.
Q: if somebody wants something and somebody makes it for them, where would debt fit in?
A: it doesn’t. Debt is overhead. Even in a primitive case where the machinery needs to be created–and we’re a long way from that–debt doesn’t add anything. It’s still a promise to get paid for your work just like the original trade.So what is debt? If we have the buyer and we have the maker, and clearly they’re capable of making the product? A: It’s a TRANSFER. It takes a simple trade and TRANSFERS some of the goods AWAY from the buyer and TO the lender. That’s all.
Upshot? More debt = more transfer = more overhead = more friction = less work and less output. Less machinery can be build, fewer products can be purchased by the (initial) buyer pool. Therefore more debt NEVER helps an economy, because all those goods could have been created and consumed by the original workers anyway, without the debt that merely transfers the work of the creators to the lenders, shorting–or stealing from–the consumers, in the exact measure of the debt.
We have somewhere between $17,000B and $150,000B in national debt alone. All that money came from those same buyers, “consumers” in our system, who net-net are also the “producers” in that system, that was transferred to non-workers who as above definition, add nothing. That’s where the money came from and why the work-creators don’t have any, which is why the “economy”–that is, the actual motion of goods and services–is dead. As a rider, if the “economy” is dead—i.e. not producing goods—then even the lenders get poorer, fewer, less innovative goods, so it harms even themselves. Not that they care if, they can be richer than us even if they have to eat turnips and use an unheated outhouse as Lord-over-us.
There is an upside to this, which is that, since the debt is unnecessary and entirely composed of friction, erasing that debt won’t hurt anything, and in fact release the economy back to producing goods people want, and providing paychecks to buy them. The debt and/or debtors can be erased in an afternoon, and from time to time in history, has been.
All we have to do is say we’ll do it, and it’s done. Sound impossible?
That’s what our inevitable currency default is. We only need to reject the old debt and not re-add the lenders back into the system. Because the system doesn’t need them. Don’t pay; default; and start over. It’s going to happen anyway, might as well make the most of the benefits.
Great article, and I hate to do this again, but what the de’il is up with the Guardian and BBC? Do they have any idea how stupid they sound? Life as we know it in Britain will end when temperatures reach 33C. AYFKM? For comparison, temperatures throughout the US and Australia are in excess of 40C for MONTHS. On the roads, the tracks, inside electric lines, phone stations, everywhere, I tells ya! Guess what: absolutely NOTHING happens. Every year the roads, the grid, the railways work with only the slightest accommodation. Like putting an A/C unit in the one window of the house.
Honestly, you would have thought Britain would have heard of locations like “Canada,” “Australia,” and “The United States” and seen how they survive such otherworldly shocks.
Next up, Antarctica has dramatic sea level rises of…wait for it…2mm. Really? I’m not a geophysicist, but I’m pretty sure that’s within the margin of error for measuring something like the entire southern ocean with its 7m swells. What statistical assumptions do they have to make to even PRETEND to be able to measure accurately to the millimeter? Same ones that have GDP predictions down to the tenth? Not that we haven’t seen the most astounding accusations turn out to be measuring errors from this crew of boffins. Temperature stations located at airports now in the center of cities due to sprawl, anyone?
2mm. Wow. You really had me going there for a minute. Then I realized this is the Guardian and BBC who I’ve been comparing notes with over the Ukrainian coverage, then it was all clear. They just make it up, whole cloth, and print it.
But we don’t have to make the same mistake. 2mm, 40C? Please, no.
I have heard rumors of this shift to private equity before. For one thing, governments are bankrupt and discredited, and their bonds will fail. That will shift capital flows from public to private, for which you can read Martin Armstrong’s extensive coverage. And certainly bait-n-switch to handing the money to Sachs for safekeeping is a winner for the bonus train.
But let’s do another mental experiment here: suppose we print money and use it to buy private equity. How is that any different from handing it to CEO’s directly, considering stock option and proportional ownership of equity? Printing money is from the taxpayers directly, and flows to whom? The wealthiest insiders, who have access to the most leverage, and are most invested in world equity. So we can count on this being done as it’s simply doing more of what we’re already doing, loving, and protecting: FROM the poor, TO the rich.
But my mental experiment goes further. So if the Fed prints 20% GDP ($3 Trillion) and buys who? Not Hobby Lobby. Not wankers like Smith and Wesson. Not Joe’s Public-Traded Pizza Corp, Inc. No, only “Our Friends and Insiders, LLC” Monsanto, ADM, Halliburton… And Monsanto with $3 Trillion in free money instantly drives “Burpee Private Garden Seeds” and “Joe’s Public Pizza” out of business. Until we have 5 companies that the Fed likes. There’s no Federal oversight, so why not?
But even that’s not getting to my point. So we take $3 Trillion and buy Lockheed-Martin and Monsanto. Doesn’t that make Lockheed/Monsanto 20% bigger and the corresponding power and oversight of the U.S. government 20% smaller? What better way to finally erase the effective power of governments vs. corporations?
Heavens! 15cm rise in 100 years or 3cm (2 inches) per generation? However shall we survive?
100 years is too sudden for us to move back from the shore 100 yards.
We’re doomed.
What’s driving down the oil price in the midst of unprecedented chaos?
“Saudis open the oil taps”
“EIA Lowers Global Oil Demand Forecast”“Russia Vulnerable As Oil Prices Hit Nine-Month Low On IEA ‘Glut’ Warnings”
Why?
“Russian aid convoy near Ukraine’s border”‘Nuff said.
One thing’s for sure: both Putin and the US know exactly what happened. Which makes me wonder why neither will say. Russia’s cryptic press release was focused on the two fighter jets trailing MH17 when Ukraine swore nothing was in the air, even as the rebels say they were being air-attacked. Rumor has it that the fighter jets that downed MH17, as the Buk system is not a direct-impact weapon, but releases small, high-speed shrapnel in air proximity, shrapnel which is missing from the plane pieces we see on TV. If not hit by a Buk, but another weapon, what does this mean? NATO surface-air or air-to-air? Ukrainian MIG air-to-air? Add this: the two Ukranian fighters Russia obliquely referred to may not have been “Ukrainian”, per se, but NATO. So…NATO fighter clearly sees a civilian airliner, impossible to miss, and shoots it down? Add to, the US-Ukraine have the ONLY motive for ANY attack. Rebels have no high-air ability and no motive. Russia? Not their space, nothing was seen, no Buks were supplied, and have no motive. If this air fighter thesis up, it can only be in cold blood. Which considering Syrian gas incident supplied by UK-Saudi to the rebels, Benghazi, arming ISIS, and many more examples, wouldn’t surprise me at all. I mean, the US is killing their Vets by the thousands and arming the Zetas and ISIS to fight their own allies and soldiers. What’s a few hundred cheese-eaters in the mix? I mean, at this late date do we still have to discuss this? Why are we arguing water is wet?
I disagree with the consensus: the drums to war have no traction whatsoever, as the media has no credibility whatsoever. If you read news, as we no doubt all do, the media might make it SEEM like a done deal, but I see nothing. Nothing. I don’t feel the people in the US even care (for better or worse) much less support such a thing; which is no surprise: they’re busy trying to prevent their own deaths at the hands of poverty, oppression, and inflation. And that’s no exaggeration. Go visit Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Indiana, Mississippi, or pretty much wherever you like outside of K-Street. You’re lucky to get food and water. Medical care that won’t actively kill you? Forget about it.
So don’t despair. Far as I can tell there’s no traction, no rush to war. They ain’t got it. They’re hollow, useless, pathetic little sots and Putin’s going to let them fall in on themselves. Germany is pivoting to Russia and the Silk road without doubt, and Turkey just did yesterday, now utterly refusing phone calls from Obama. Turkey can import anything to Iran, shut down ISIS in a week, (they have the 8th largest military in the world, 3x France or the UK), combine with Iran (9th largest military) to take over all of central Asia, open or shut the Black Sea, pull Greece away from the Western vultures, and they own both the pipeline and the new natural gas fields off Cyprus. They’re gone. NATO is therefore gone. Europe is therefore gone. No one believes a thing the Anglos say, much less do anything they ask. Far from being to war, the move instead is the collapse and abandonment of the Anglos in favor of the non-insane. That’s the real unstoppable tide, not war. They’re going to have to do way better than this, and they don’t have it. It’s over.
I’m not sure what it meant about “conservative rhetoric that is in all media.” It seems a stretch to say that the US media is a conservative mouthpiece. Quite the reverse. But if he means the Conservatives the media bothers to interview, it’s long been known that they’re not Conservatives any more than the Democrats are Progressive. Both parties have owned the entire government for years, and neither have done anything they promised, instead following the agenda we see every day, set up by the “Crazies in the Basement”, executed by Obama out-Bushing Bush, and back through decades of Clinton and H.W. maybe as far back as Johnson. Zero hope, zero change in what is 25 consecutive years. We’re still talking left-right? It’s been 25 years of the same, people, get up to speed before you get run over.
For these crazies interviewed in the media, yes, nothing could be better with them than to make the helpless suffer, while there is no limit to welfare for billionaires or the budget and use of military equipment. When they ran out of fresh world to arm and bomb, they are now arming and targeting themselves, internally. However, it’s not news that the Republican Party is now dead and will probably vanish in a single event like the Whigs before Lincoln. The holdouts in Congress and other positions will notice that since they’ve been attacking the crap out of Christians, patriots, vets, whistleblowers, reporters, and Constitutionalists (as well as the middle class, the poor, and everybody else), the Conservative base is now anti-GOP. What remains is some new version of the Tea Party, as-yet-unnamed, which is serious about enforcing the hollow GOP rhetoric about smaller government, no foreign wars, upholding the Constitution, and privacy/social tolerance. As in “it’s none of the government’s business what people do or don’t do with their lives or bedrooms”. This is still being hashed out, but as far as I can tell on the ground, it’s a done deal. Whether that party will be rounded up and shot remains to be seen, but DHS is clearly arming for the possibility, and it’s far more serious issue than pleasant little skirmishes and live-burnings you see in the Ukraine. Last time there was a US Civil War, 10% of the nation died—that would be 30 million people or 8.5 million dead per year. Last time Americans got on the warpath, we nuked somebody for no good reason. Twice. Mind your P’s and Q’s at home. US civil unrest is as serious as a heart attack and just as fatal. And as is often cited and mocked, Americans are well-armed and not necessarily sensible.
This fatal split between the people and the government is now pretty inescapable as the US sends $5B to Ukraine, $3B to Afghanistan, $3B to Israel, $1B each to Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and Jordan, $23,000 Billion to bankers, and ZERO to Detroit. ZERO to victims of the Gulf oil spill. ZERO to Birmingham. ZERO to vets. ZERO indictments. ZERO to defending Iraq after a $2,000 Billion cost of war. And ZERO to maintaining the border — one of the primary and only elements of BEING a sovereign country. I mean, I can’t illegally enter and live in Mexico, Canada…or Lithuania for that matter. They’d arrest and deport, if not shoot me. You can’t hide this level of cognitive dissonance from even the most tuned-out Americans. And unlike the media type, in reality Americans as a people like to joke, live their lives, and not get mad and take things too seriously. But that’s only because when at last they get mad and are forced to do something, history shows how ugly and serious will be. So we’re picked on for not being interested, ignoring our duty, being fat, stupid, clueless sheep. I argue the opposite. America is a violent country and we each know violence. Every American knows what will happen if they have to “get the belt and go up there.” Nobody wants that. But that doesn’t mean they don’t know what’s going on, what’s right, or that they will never move.
Anyway, beware the phony and no-longer-relevant “Conservative” crazies on TV and don’t mistake them for the new conservative base that’s 95% split from the hollow, rotten party. Don’t mistake the synthetic drumming of war on paid billionaire media for any real support. There is none. They’re hollow, divorced from reality and irrelevant. The first stiff wind will blow them over. And the winds they are a’blowin’.
Yes, no “Age of Renewables”, it’s largely more Shale Gas-like hype. Do the math on scaling technologies: pounds of rare earth, lithium, nickel, silver, copper, needed. I forget, but back in the hydrogen fuel-cell days (how quickly these fads are pump-n-dumped to a somnambulant public) to replace every car with a fuel cell would consume more platinum-group metal than is in the surface of the earth. That’s not entirely true of RE metals, etc, but the scaling problem is not unlike. Meaning if we’re going to anything in any amount of time you’d need to increase their mine production tenfold on graphite, silver, RE, Lithium, nickel, which does not seem to be in the offing. Basically because it’s all eyewash and we have no intention of fixing anything for real.
There is another technology that could fill the grid gap in a major way, which is Vanadium-Redox Batteries, or VRBs. Any greenie should research this immediately and spread the word. Far from being test-tube tech, this was already proven for decades in Tasmanian hydro plant and Japanese office buildings. It’s not particularly high-tech nor expensive — which is a big advantage — but it is undeveloped. Basically, you add ions to a liquid medium held in tanks of any size, easily increased or decreased as the project expands (unlike batteries which must be matched), and you draw off the ions using what is basically a fuel cell-like membrane. This could be as small as a SmartCar, or as large as a power plant or wind farm. As a bonus, it’s also ideal for the entirely-inaccessible transportation sector which is untouched by any renewable/solar/hypeware that’s being sold. Because you don’t need 5 hours charge the batteries without damage, or need 100lbs of lithium per vehicle x 1B cars, but just fill the tank with charged Redox like gasoline…with the addition of draining off the used redox into the “Gas” station’s tanks below ground, which it can be recharged by the grid. Or charge it in the car at home, or by onboard hybrid motor. Not necessarily centralized, but can be. Very doable. At the moment lithium hybrids are basically just adding the car’s energy at the smelter instead of at the gas pump, but due to battery subsidies you don’t see its real cost. The battery is like a long-running energy source, but when it wears out, needs to go back the the smelter to have the entropy removed and the energy re-added. Like coal-fired electric grid cars, that’s just consumption shuffling, not energy reduction — or even clean energy.
Yes, Redox leads to the same scale problem with vanadium and other components, but you’re not bucking new technology nor an impossibility of scale. Besides, there are a lot more iron and vanadium on earth than there is platinum, for example. You could also find that lithium is more suited to small cars and liquid ion to buses, with natural gas or biodiesel for trucking, for instance. It’s an engineering/price question. Who knows?
In any case, doesn’t matter because no one has any intention of changing the system, only pretending to in order to pick your pockets. And then there’s the other problem that not even alien-space-tech solutions would work if we don’t reduce our consumption and stop wasting energy on useless things and poor planning. Planning alone — like living closer to home and passive solar-fiying your house — could probably cut use by 1/3 and get us out of the present crisis. But nobody has the slightest intention of doing so, because we could have done this all along for the last 100 years. It would reduce profits, so is against the interests of everyone on earth. Just sayin’. Anyway, put Vanadium Redox in your quiver. It’s old, demonstrated, useable, cost-effective tech. And get yourself a wood stove. As nobody’s going to solve anything but you.
You guys are crazy and I’d absolutely love to take this on if only I had time.
Verrazano smelled the cedars 100 leagues out? New Jersey was the “Garden State” of resources? Really? Yes, really. There are reports going back the Vikings about the shores being black with seals and the rivers choked with fish. And it’s not exaggeration: they actually, provably were.
And guess what? People lived there. It wasn’t empty, it wasn’t abandoned, it was filled with humans from sea to shining sea. Humans on every mile from New Jersey to Catalinas Islands. So…your point is, humans destroy habitat until they all die off? Or are you entirely neglecting that it was insane, rapacious EUROPEANS who destroyed the New World once they had destroyed the old. Because those are very different statements, different perspectives.
Don’t give me this “human density was low” or “Agriculture blah blah” either: it was the HUMANS living there who MADE it a paradise. Whites only THOUGHT it was abandoned because they were too blitheringly stupid to see that it takes generations of tremendous knowledge and care to create the abundance they saw. Timed burnings to create the maximum berry and nut growth, careful fishing only in season by tradition, harvesting rare, slow-growing plant colonies to insure their maximum diversity and survival. It was their garden, a HUMAN garden, specifically created wholesale by human design that caused the luxurious abundance Hudson and the other idiots thought was accidental. Want proof? Go look at your “virgin” forest, unaffected by man. It chokes itself, plant diversity and animal populations decline until there is darkness only a few species can tolerate.
But surely, this was due to hunter-gather lifestyles. Wrong. Ohio mound people, Iroquois and Cherokee lived in towns larger, more advanced, and more prosperous than, say, Scotland in 1770. Somehow they didn’t overrun their environment.
But this was due to lack of tools: given the chance, all humans will destroy themselves. Wrong. As I stated the other day, by Sullivan’s March in the Revolutionary War, the Iroquois had wide possession of axes, pots, firearms for over 150-200 years. That is, they’d had white tools for as long as the United States has been a country. Yet the environmental destruction–outside of the beaver runs and rival tribes–was pretty much a zero. They were living what was basically in “white” towns of log cabins, dooryard gardens, 1,000 acre fields, without the scorched-earth policy this author takes for granted. Perhaps they were not human? …Much has been made of THAT point.
Surely the population was savage, life was “nasty, brutish, and short” and infant mortality from privation kept the population down. Wrong. Living standards and quality of life were so high Natives kidnapped by whites ran back as soon as they could while whites–particularly women– refused to return to their people. Birth control and planned families were well-known, population was kept –voluntarily– below overshoot. Impossible? Inhuman? What history have you been studying to come to these conclusions, my friend? World history? Or just a limited part of that history?
The data here is hand-picked to support his evolutionary conclusion. Tell me: how on earth could we possibly know that 20% of humans were killed in war? Are you kidding me about the number of Stone Age bodies we can deduce that from? And considering it’s a male-exclusive job, you’re telling me 40% of men died in war? Okay, so compare to known accounts of the inter-Indian wars: an Iroquois war party of 20 men walk for 2 months—one way– to go attack the Cherokee. They eventually engage and 1 or 2 guys die. A year. This was not uncommon in the stasis period after whites but before the Holocaust, all across North America. By our standards, that’s not even a war, that’s like the number of swimming accidents. How on earth do we get from known iron age accounts–like Scottish Highlands, Viking raids, Indian war parties–to 20-40% human deaths from war?
Point: this is definitively, absolutely, overwhelmingly NOT human behavior. This is YOUR cultural behavior. From a specific culture that spread out like army ants, destroying all before it. For 10,000 years, even through most of the age of agriculture, there was nothing really like it. It’s only this ONE human pattern that requires war, ONE human pattern that creates this devastation, and ONE area this comes from. Africa, Australia, North and South America, heck, mostly even China and Japan, you don’t get this scorched-earth, survival-of-the-fittest stuff. Even in Europe before the Babylonian system comes out of Greece and Rome you don’t see it.
So don’t make it a human thing. It’s not. It’s a learned, societal, cultural thing. It’s a human-transmitted suicidal insanity. And unfortunately, we’re right here in the middle of it, in the middle of the time it’s run out of other people to kill and other resources to plunder. Nevertheless, it is emphatically NOT human behavior. It’s learned behavior, it can change, and it’s a CHOICE we’re making.
So stop making it. We have the template. Use it. Stop.
Point? This author sees nothing but blackness in the human heart and for the human future. That is an illusion that will cause him to make erroneous choices. Those choices have consequences. Without hope, sometimes desperate, murderous, suicidal ones. Perhaps he feels that it is fatalistically inevitable that he will have to kill his neighbors or his neighbor’s children to survive. I couldn’t say. And so it would be instead of working together with them for our prosperity. Haven’t we had enough of that, enough war, enough of lies? Stop. Let’s focus on the good things, the things people can do so they have no excuses not to do what is good, what is pure, what is right. Think on these things. And stop doing evil. Stop.
Speaking of those poor penguins:
https://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.”
NOAA, amongst many institutions of “science” again (and again!) caught doctoring data in order to make climate appear warmer now. How many incidents do we need to catch–like the CRU at East Anglia–before we stop trusting these guys? Are we–or more importantly, are real scientists–going to impose actual sanctions, real consequences to their peers who fabricate data to achieve a pre-conceived outcome? That is to say, those who are against everything science actually stands for: truth, testing hypotheses, peer review?
Anyone who bends or fabricates data are not scientists. They’re charlatains, con men, voodoo priests waving buffalo rattles saying “booga booga” to collect a few loose bucks of your trusting money. Any institution who supports this behavior should be shunned and discredited entirely as not worthy of inheriting the mantle of Western Culture, our search for truth, our standards of fairness and inquiry.
If data is just whatever we want it to be, that minute, that’s just the madness of psychotics, not “science”, not “history”, not “law”, and Western Culture itself is lost.
We saw this in the French Revolution where “reality”, “Guilt or Innocence” was simply what someone convinced the crowd at the time. Take this seriously, people! It was called the “Reign of Terror” for a Very. Good. Reason.
PS, I won’t even go into the recent punk’d of having 120 computer-generated papers of 100% gibberish published in science journals. No one read –much less peer reviewed — a thing. https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
How embarassed, how useless, how apparent does this have to get? Can I make Oxygen the 43rd element just by publishing it? If you believe in science — or “reality” for that matter, you have to stand up to this kind of thing!
Preachin’ to the choir, Trivium.
Perpetual growth is anathema to a DEBT-based FIAT system based on interest. But that’s not the only type of economy, or banking, one could choose. But I need not say that the transition from our system to a differently-based one would be disruptive.
It’s not a capitalist-based system, as “capitalism” or “Free market” (not rigged market) is just a way of saying we have the right to make stuff and trade among ourselves. That seems hard to argue against as what benevolent master would prevent us? The 10,000 years in North America for example, there was unlimited free-trade with a stable-state system, even using a poorly-based, ever-inflating money system such as wampum. Yet the economy didn’t necessarily expand exponentially, nor need to, but held at a steady-state with massive long-distance trade for hundreds of years.
So there were guns and black iron pots and broadcloth through the native trade routes from 1550 to 1800, continuous 250 years. Yet before the theft of the land and transfer to the white land-and-bank ways, the society and economy was stable enough to vacillate around sustainability for another 1,000 years. This is in contradiction to today’s environmentalists who want to take out so much technology that we’d return to living in caves — they mistake the cartoonish exaggeration of a thing with the thing itself being bad: a common mistake. If you read Major General Sullivan’s 1779 march on the Iroquois in the Seneca area, you discover they were as much if not more advanced than the colonists. This includes log cabins, dooryard gardens, orchards, and fields extending to the thousands of acres. They had the windows, guns, hinges, pots, and other kit equivalent to their white counterparts. In fact, the Seneca at over 1,000 men were by far the largest army on the continent.
Point? Their economy was large, traded freely, had a high standard of living, physically and even moreso socially, and was yet completely sustainable.
So…we know we can do it. We could probably do it now, even at even a far higher level of population and technology. But to do so we’d have to change our minds. So doing the obvious thing, the happy thing, the thing that saves our lives, is the most unlikely thing of all.
Oh yes, it takes a lot of time to change. One’s world as well as one’s mind.
But we knew this in 1971, 1979, 1987, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2008, and now. En masse, we did nothing then, and we do nothing now. When’s the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. Second best time: now.
My point is, if we did nothing in the Oil Embargo, what makes you think we’ll do anything now? And if we don’t, whose fault is it?
…Something about teaching pigs to sing.
Luckily, at lot of these problems are in our mind. No where else. Energy? Like our food supply, we must waste half of it driving to soccer games, plugging in vampire cubes (20% of grid load), heating and cooling rooms we don’t use, and so on. Just stop. And when the price is high enough, we will stop. Boom, done.
Food is something people fret about, but food production rises sharply with the addition of 1 human worker per acre. Most of our food is presently tractor-grown, so most of the acres (and the people) are available for more intensive handling. That’s not a threat, that’s a vast opportunity both for food production, and unemployment, and human meaning.
Heat and climate are the same. Here they despair over beach homes being destroyed. Hey, no kidding, right? Who saw that coming, raise your hand. Why did you build your home within sight of the water? And if every one of them vanished tomorrow, there are some 20M vacant homes in the US, not including homes that could fit 2 (or 3, or 4) families, vacant warehouses, commercial space and the like. The one thing the US has is way too much, idiotically, stupendously, hilariously too much enclosed usable space. Those houses should never have been built. Why would I care if they vanish as they should? Like much of America, they were “malinvestments” in energy-intensive infrastructure that will vanish. Now is as good a time as any to demolish them, sell of the pieces, and mock the builders of such mammoth hubris and waste in song and story for generations.
Similarly, the heat. So…which would you prefer on planet earth, a heat age or a cold age? So which grows more food? Heat, clearly. Previous wipeouts follow COLD, not heat, as in the little ice age and its failed crops. With heat, I suspect net-net MORE crops can be grown as we open up the vast north away from mere rye and into wheat, while in the south we transfer from corn to olives. Or oranges, or whatever. And speaking of that, we could also change WHAT we eat from low-yield (like wheat) to high-yield (like barley and rye). The issue is we don’t WANT to. We prefer for other men to go hungry instead, complain about them being lazy, and kill them. But that’s a social decision, not a physical one. Desertification is also an issue, but one provably solvable for decades now. Just no one bothers to do it. Then complains. It’s not the climate’s fault that men won’t grow the appropriate crops in the appropriate way when the information on it is available worldwide.
Conclusion: most of these problems are in our minds. Great!
Problem: most of these problems are in our minds. That’s why no one will solve them. Because, throughout history, if one thing has been true, it’s that people would rather die by the millions rather than change their minds and their ways.
But it’s a disservice to repeat scary stories about collapse, energy use, climate changes, etc, because THEY …. are not the problem. We are. That’s why we need to advertise solutions, not problems. Because only then does it become inescapable that we need to pick up a shovel and get to work.
Careful– in a world where everything is deception and power-grabbing, I suspect that the theoretical good of protected marine parks is a method of creating legal precedent to federally own and control the seas, or in the case of the Great Lakes (a bit suspicious as there’s no commercial fishing or pressing environmental need) to transfer power, control and de facto ownership to the Federal level. After that’s set, then we strip and sell them! Joke’s on you.
In concept, the Federal Government can NOT own land outside of D.C. That’s because there is no National State. The U.S. is an associations of soveriegn Nation States that “Confederated” into a collective. This was codified in Supreme Court decision Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 1845. …Not that anyone cares about the law, or follows it anymore.
Why is this? Well, if the States DIDN’T own the land in their borders, we’d have a conflicting system of both State laws and competing All-Federal lands. In effect, the Federal Government would also become a state unto itself. At this late date, this seems beside the point as the Federal level has claimed to itself unlimited power of everything, over the states and everywhere within borders, territories, protectorates, and now, swaths of international waters, entirely displacing the states and their laws and powers. So look out in the oceans and lakes here.
This is more than academic, too, for the Federal Government is claiming for itself the shifting Red River Basin, creating de facto a state for itself between Texas and Oklahoma. So what happens when the Federal Government, rather than “Managing” the National Parks and Lands (as in Bureau of Land MANAGEMENT), says to the contrary, we OWN these lands in toto? So we have a Federal State, with no government, no voters, that can do as it pleases, selling oil, water, timber, and mineral rights, with no oversight except themselves? In how many nooks in crannies is this happening where the land (or water) is controlled without representation?
This legal precedent and arcana is far from theoretical at this point. So beware the Federal level claiming all of Florida’s waters, shifting river basins, or western lands they oversee. Even if it’s a “Preserve” for a “good cause.” They haven’t proven themselves trustworthy stewards at any point in history, and especially not in the recent political and financial crisis. After all they’ve done since, say 2001, would you trust them to do only good now? Why? No other nation, state, or corporation does.
For the suburbs, I didn’t say they would go on as usual, only that they’ll adjust. Sure, as a positive adjustment opening stores in someone’s garage happens because no one can afford to drive, but at the same time 2 in 3 houses are condemned, fall in, victims of arson, while the families move into one unit or more concentrated, defensible structures nearby. Sure, ‘burbs depend every bit as much on long-distance services as cities, but then so does the furthest countryside–rural houses no less depend on water pumps, Home Depot, and fuel oil. The question is, can they adjust, how, and how fast.
In the east, out of the dry, even with most services things taken out, Suburbs specialize in enclosed space, irrigation, drainage, and areable land. If you were landed on a vacant planet made of abandoned suburbs, you’d think it was candyland compared to landing in the woods. Or a city, where the green is shaded out and eliminated by permanent, hardscape our best heavy-equipment can hardly move.
So suburbs don’t “depend” on 2 workers driving to a job leaving a vacant house open to raid. The suburban model does. The money model does. The “suburbs” is just a bunch of buildings connected by tarmac, landscaped for pasture, with accentuated drainage and the option of centralized water and power, if running.
Not using Detroit as a model, because we’re still learning from it, but already the lots are considered worthless, written off and sold for farm value or under ($1k/acre). That’s not including scrap, which could make the cost free. What do you suppose houses are “worth” now in Detroit? So, thinking they’re happy to pay the $1500/mo average mortgage when they can swap to the forclosed house next door for $200/mo? So then do you need two jobs and a car to support that? No. All gone. Mortgage, bank, taxes, tax base, all gone. Support structure, gone, as the water and power are abandoned in districts. With it, the financial system as we know it, and “employment” as well. All that’s left after are the houses, the land, the roads, and the climate, starting over after the apocalypse, which, for Detroiters, or Cleveland, or Niagara Falls, or Utica, Camden, or wherever, already happened. Past tense. You’re writing on a computer which suggests it hasn’t happened to you. Yet. But yes, the 2-car, 2-job, $2k mortgage system is unsustainable. It’s already not being sustained, and already collapsed in hundreds of places all around you. Even what I’m suggesting is past-tense, as places already find themselves in a 19th-century-like retail system. It happened. We can now see how it already happened and record it, rather than suggesting how this-might-that.
And it’s coming for you, wherever you are.
I’m missing something here, WHO types in the year’s production, WHO audits the population, and WHO issues the chits? How could that possibly be anything but centralized? Indeed, more centralized than our present system, more centralized than any system has ever been.
So who are these people who do this and don’t issue a few chits to themselves on the side, don’t allow the chit system to be gamed on the trading/exchange side, and don’t decide, “Hey this project — Global Warming, for instance — is truly a priority. Let’s give more chits that way, thereby taking them from ‘less important’ projects and people.”?
There are no human beings, on planet earth, anywhere in history, that ever behaved in such an exemplary manner.
Besides, the system you describe is the one we have, just further on a bit. The chits are called “money”, they represent labor, energy, ideas, and goods. They are centrally issued, and the central issuers, be they governments or banks, cheat the system blind, hold the chits in paperless, unauditable forms like MERS or the DTCC, and are provably and demonstrably issuing more chit claims than exist. Companies have bought every share to take a company private only to find the shares trading briskly by the thousands or millions. Foreclosures have shown up to find 2 or more claimants to a house, or indeed foreclose on houses that have no mortgage. New US Treasuries were issued for the month, say $4B, only to find $8B hitting the private system, showing that the banks had electronically counterfieted multi-billions of them.
Men are not particularly trustworthy, all in all. Modern news is a catalogue of why men need a non-man based trust-and-exchange system. Bizarrely, this is why gold is used. It’s a useless rock. You trust no man. You either have it or you don’t, and once it’s exchanged the matter is settled. You could use other things: seashells, cows, grain, but the principle is the same. Any system run by a group of men leads to catastrophic evil.
Gee, that sounds like a great idea. So who’s going to issue the chits, be in control of the chit system, and punish those who cheat? Whoever you put in the center of that system will abuse it in no time at all. What you’re describing the the soviet system, which created a wealthy oligarchy and astonishing environmental destruction.
This is true of any centralized system, which concentrate. The reason we don’t use a chit system is exactly this. We need a distributed power system to avoid the present errors, not a concentrated one.
Not especially. Systems will change and generally take whatever time they need to do so. Yes, N.A. infrastructure is built to be energy-intensive. But no, this has not so much to do with what we NEED (as opening article, above). What do we spend most of our petrol budget on? Tractors, right? Electric lines? Food transport? Of course not. It’s driving 10 miles 4x a day to go to kid’s soccer, grocery, work, eating out, etc. Almost none of that is necessary, we do it because the price point says we can. If we each drove 1/2 as far to work, the US would be an oil exporter. That easy.
When gas rises, we won’t drive 25 miles to the grocer. Suddenly, there will be thousands of cheap bodegas in wiped-out strip malls or rural garages selling bulk commodities, food grown in the vacant lot next door, and nothing else. Drive time: zero. You won’t own a car: you will be walking or biking. NYC, with its vaunted public transport, will NOT be helped, but more probably hurt, as although the PEOPLE don’t drive, every piddling little service they depend on requires transport of food from the heartland, water from the Catskills, clothes from China via South American cotton, jobs that involve worldwide transport, shipping, internet, trade, and all those things that will be bedridden in a major sling. In compound traction. In the country, or even the suburbs, you can always shrink back, make food in your front yard and burn local firewood on a painfully small scale. You won’t like it, but it’s possible. Cities’ historical answer to this is to have the army sack the surrounding countryside until it’s stripped, then starve like idiots because they’ve destroyed their own production base. That’s not much of a moral high ground.
But city services come and go in hard times. Concentration tends to keep services like medical and electrical running in cities, however if you tip over the edge, they also tend to have burroughs sacrificed, amputated, to maintain the richer section, and/or get into wars suddenly, all at once. In the country, the trouble tends to be poor conditions that erode continuously, slowly reducing lifespan via misfortune, not all at once. So I’m not necessarily advising one over the other, just pointing out that your green cars and electric trams are no help a’tall, while having no public transport just means your life is small and local–a practice historically well-worn, with an easier slide to the bottom as, if you’re anywhere in rural North America, you’re already approaching third world conditions.
The transition to less oil isn’t hard to do. At all. The issue is that we WON’T do it.
You open one or two tiny general stores every 5 miles. The buildings are already there, watered and wired and ready to go. The roads are there. Trucks or other transport, ready to go and easy to operate more efficiently than at present, pony-express style. Millions of tiny lots, already cleared with access to transport, drainage, irrigation, and storage, ready to go. We call them “suburbs”. Millions of bicycles collecting dust in garages, check. Millions of new rakes and shovels used 1 hour a year, check. Millions of sound, empty buildings with firm roofs and street access, check. Millions of workers waiting for a useful task, check. But we’re not really going to DO anything with them –at all– until it hurts so bad we can’t stand it, and spend years proving that blaming and complaining doesn’t work.
Bonus question. We have all three ingredients to life in spades, so who’s keeping the work, workers, and tools apart from each other and idle? What kind of persistant, daily force does it take to enforce that? And why?
This is interesting, but although clearly a lot of smart people wrote a lot of reports about this, I’m not so sure they’re they people who ever grew a head of lettuce–just thought about it on the inter-webs.
Water is an important resource that is being sorely misused. However, tracking it is absolutely, positively nothing like tracking, say, oil flows and use. So you water a cow, and that water goes…where? It isn’t lost. There’s a water cycle. It “emits” it, to be polite, into the air and ground. Therefore, it isn’t lost, it’s saved…in a way. Passed on if it’s in the damp climes, or dispersed a bit if in the dry. You water wheat, where does THAT water go? Again, back into the ground, the aquifer, or else up into the clouds for the next guy.
This does cause serious climactic changes of many varieties, but the water isn’t “lost.” Basically ever. Irrigating makes vapor, then makes clouds that would not otherwise have been, which rain elsewhere or don’t depending on terrain and highly complex factors that are extremely localized.
Next, every part of this can be remediated. Every article acted like there was no solution. It’s bald-faced, fatal, propagandaist nonsense. Pure poppycock. Rubbish. Garbage. The solutions have been excruciatingly well laid down by the Permaculture community, and it LOWERS the cost of food and IMPROVES the environment (as seen from a human point of view) almost immediately. In one season. In 6 months. It can be done with a shovel, and often is, and turns deserts into garden spaces. The only reason a society that knows about these solutions wouldn’t do it — as it’s economical, legal, productive, and valuable — is if they WANT themselves and others to die. …And I’m not discounting that desire as an agenda by any means. But it’s definitely 100% voluntary.
Water isn’t like other commodities. It isn’t “used.” Crucial to understand this. Anymore than your blood would be said to be “used” by the time it returns to your heart. It isn’t discarded: it’s circulated.
Water is horribly wasted in cities and other modern places where men have recently been mortally stupid. Saving water, so as not to depend on public systems and respond personally to the supply and source, is discouraged and mostly outlawed in the US West as well as many places worldwide. Fannie Mae loans prohibit cisterns, for instance. Instead, the water is run-off to no use at all, then bitterly complained about after. This alone is adequate to supply much of the drought relief, if used on a localized basis. Permie work in the driest Africa, Australia, US, etc, has demonstrated this.
The midwest are as bad, where the water is forced off roofs and parking lots into rivers to be lost to the sea instead of used to any purpose. Every inch is paved, hardened, channelled. Every wetland filled by billions in legal subsidies. Easy to believe that enough water falls in Iowa and Indiana to refill Oglala. But again, it’s discouraged and/or illegal. The incentives are exactly opposite to human need. Those who respond to the need are shut out, often violently, from gardening, cisterns, or anything else not centrally-controlled.
But all this is a CHOICE. It’s not an accident. It’s not a drought. It’s not unforeseen. It’s not inevitable or unchangeable. It could probably be reversed at home in 10-20 years if it were encouraged to save human life and make agricultural profit instead of the dead opposite.
So as Fitts sometimes says, what you have is not an economic problem, or in this case an environmental one, what you have is a political problem.
It’s about control. Nothing else. It can easily be changed if we, politically and personally wish it to be. Even if we buck it on the land where we’re sitting. The linked articles are a disservice, re-directing focus away from solutions and the real source of the problem, into more centralized redistribution and control that is causing — and I argue intentionally — the ecological and human catastrophe in the first place.
Go look up the $10 solutions on Permaculture sites. And pick your side. No time for distractions.
Great article on how without honest price discovery, everything is fraud. It’s really the definition of a “Con”, where you sell something the buyer believes is valuable, but isn’t, or you take something from them they believe is impinged or worth less, but isn’t. Then you name it “voluntary”, and thus legal. But it’s not, it’s fraud, theft, and a felony requiring prison time to protect society — you and me — from those that would kill it, and us, dead.
On Antarctic ice, I read the collapsing sheet articles in a few places and I’m lost here. So the ice sheet is collapsing. Okay. And will raise sea levels 10 feet. Okay. Over 900 years? That’s like 2cm a year. Add to that humans don’t have a real good record of prediciting what will happen in 10 years, much less 1,000.
But although this hasn’t seemed to have started, it’s already unstoppable? How can you know that? We only got decent records of ice and flow a few years ago and we’re still struggling to model them accurately. Okay. So it’s unstoppable. But if it’s unstoppable, why bother telling me? By definition, that means it’s too late to do anything about it. Seems to be some panic bubble surrounding this story as they transfer to the new name for Global Warming, “Climate Chaos.” Wow. Hyperbole much? Even in a 100 year melt of 1/10th ft/year rise, move back from the beachfront a little, will ya?
But that’s not the part that makes my head hurt. It’s that after unexpectedly icing in the Global Warming scientists and the world’s largest icebreaker a few months ago, Antarctic Sea ice is at a 35-year high. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/
So the ice is both highest we’ve seen, the antarctic is the snowiest and has the highest build we’ve seen, while the ice sheets are melting the fastest we’ve seen. I give up. This is all science-by-agenda/science-for-hire. I can’t keep up with the data as they can’t agree on dead opposites. Without becoming a scientist myself, how am I supposed to know?
Besides, they already said it’s too late to do anything. So smoke ’em if you got ’em! Right? Jeez.
Humankind will cease to exist? Really? There’s practically no scenario–including a total nuclear exchange–that is likely to cause such a thing. So what’s the delight in dancing on something so unlikely it approaches impossible? Doesn’t it undermine confidence in your argument and/or judgment? Or is it just a continuation of family dynamic seen in Wal-Mart: that whoever shouts loudest must be right?
Reality: many, many people may die in the adjustment, and probably will. The number? Anyone’s guess but Revelation and some other cultural prophesies say 30-50%, which seems a good estimate from my experience—and if you delight in disaster even the worst wars in history have never accomplished that. Even the Mt. Tambura global catastrophe of 1815 didn’t really set humankind back at all. That’s an estimate that’s Billions and Billions (as Sagan would say) away from “everyone.” And since the globe is economically crushed with the elderly and medicine is carrying many chronic sick or drug-addled, the feeling of the effective numbers will seem far less. Not nice to say, but when the society loses the crushing weight of the non-working or non-productive it improves, which will be an offset. Also as in WWII, when you have the main inventions and infrastructure in place but fewer workers, the bounce back is surprising.
Estimating astonishing 10-sigma outliers doesn’t gain credibility. It shows you’ve got nothing to say, and no facts to say it with.
There’s a LOT to do and our situation is very grave. That makes the necessity of focusing on productive actions all the more important, and the estimate of scenarios of what is statistically likely all the more valuable.
Let’s stick to those actions so that we can save who can be saved instead of, as we saw in “Return of the King”, the recommendation is, “Go now and die in what way seems best to you.”
Really? Is that what this site is about?
Look at the climate CO2 chart above: it tells you everything you need to know to disprove CO2-caused anthropogenic global warming. Going back 800,000 years–when man couldn’t affect the climate of a parish, much less a planet–the CO2 levels have steadily gyrated between 175 and 250ppm. Especially since 500,000 the rhythm has been perfectly steady at 100,000 years–suggesting some larger planetary/sun/solar system cycle at work. That’s no less than 5 and possibly more than 8 100,000-year cycles that rose dramatically off the 175ppm level and shot up without pause to 250ppm: where we are today. The chart is not scaled well, but this vertical leap began perhaps 10,000 years ago, not exactly the coal age. And this rise is right on schedule, right on target, exactly to the level predicted.
IF MAN WERE DOING ANYTHING HERE, WOULDN’T THE CHART HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT THAN WHEN WE WERE DOING NOTHING? By definition? This is the best chart I’ve ever seen disproving either CO2 effect or Anthropogenic global warming. There is also nothing on this chart to suggest CO2 will rise higher than present; quite the contrary: this 800,000-year chart STRONGLY suggests CO2 is at its natural height and will reverse over the next hundreds of years through processes we don’t yet understand. A million years of natural reversal suggests no need for alarm. (From other AE thread where same chart is posted. This looks like the more appropriate location)
@TonyPrep Yes, the earth is probably warming right now. It has been both warmer and cooler in the past. But we’ve got a number of odd items to fit in. One, all planets in the solar system are warming. Two, according to their chart, CO2 has been rising for some 10,000 years–yet up until 1900? 1990? it wasn’t having much effect on temperature, including some relatively nasty drops like the Medieval Cooling period. That’s 8000-8100 years off the mark. Further, it hasn’t been warming any further in a decade. And although a decade is a blip, it’s beginning to be evidence.But let’s go further: So in that CO2 has risen up from its 100,000-year low to it’s 100,000-year high does that mean it will continue to rise this time and only this time despite dropping 8 times in a row for a million years straight? If it continues over 400ppm, will it continue up from 0.3% of free atmosphere to 100% of earth atmosphere? If not, what will stop it? If for example U.S. summer temperatures have risen from 90f to 100f, does that mean they will rise to 140f, 160f, 200f? Why not? Doesn’t that mean there is some natural process regulating this?
If humans are the cause, then how did it rise from 275ppm to 400ppm the last 7 times, and from 10,000 years ago until, say 500 years ago, when we may have begun affecting it? Likewise, if humans are the cause of warming, why is it precisely on geological schedule, and why has the temperature varied just as widely and on the exact same schedule as during the previous Ice Ages and inter-warming periods?
I don’t understand how any of this can be.
Suppose that humans are the cause of warming, AND that CO2 is the cause, both of which are discredited by their own evidence. In that case we humans should rejoice that the world will be warmer, with more landmass available for habitation and agriculture, as a great deal of landmass is disproportionately near the 60 latitude. The astonishing landmasses of Russia and Canada become habitable, opening up untold hectares to food production. It might be the only way the globe COULD support 7, 8, 9Billion. Commercial greenhouses pay good money to INJECT CO2 into the air because of the superior growth it puts on with even a small addition. With every PPM rise, crops will boom, sequestering the carbon, making fields and forests grow.
But suppose it’s actually heating, AND it’s human caused, AND it’s also bad (which is another difficult argument with tenuous evidence), AND it doesn’t regulate itself. Then, and only then would we humans address it. So we in the US and Europe drastically reduce our CO2 emissions. And suppose somehow we do NOT do this by using nuclear or some even worse choice. (And mind you, I don’t mind doing this and I think a lot of progress is dumb) And suppose we do not collpase the world economy with the attempt when Energy=GDP in every measurable sense.
India and China will not. Neither will Russia, nor most of the 3rd world. China is now the world’s 2nd largest economy. China has 1.3B people. India has 1.2B. The US has 0.318B. 8 of 10 most populous countries comprising 4B people won’t do it. If they don’t follow suit–and it’s a lock that they won’t, since they’ve said so–they will not only counter any reduction in CO2 we cause, but also burn/use every resource we don’t, raising their GDP and relative national power while reducing ours. In addition, even were this not true, measurable oil depletion means we as humans wouldn’t have to limit our useage on purpose in any case. The carbon is not there to burn.
On every level, this thing cannot be done. Any engineer could calculate this for you with a pencil and a napkin. But these guys, who are so smart, cannot. Why? I find this hard to follow.
Is it because they only get paid if we get taxed and their power increases while our lives and our power decreases?
There is no CO2-caused global warming. It is not caused by man, and you yourself gave me the evidence. I don’t mind reducing power, increasing green, doing things well, but we should act on true premises and for the right reasons. Please investigate this further when you have time. I’ll be here.
“In essence, the state has no choice: to save itself, the middle class must be sacrificed.”
–Charles Hugh SmithDoesn’t that imply “The State” is no longer “The People.” If they are no longer US, who are they?
Seriously people, yes, a fly in the ointment. If the sea levels rise WE WILL MOVE BACK FROM THE SHORE. Worldwide, most of the inland continents are empty. Subsumation of cities is continuous and normal, Alexandria, Egypt and ancient Ephesus (Turkey) come to mind, as well as modern-day Venice and New Orleans. Civilization did not end; it didn’t even notice. Nor did wildly warmer or cooler climates over ancient history stop the human race, or even make noticeable changes within lifetimes. If anything, warmer climates (as we can study in ancient India) seemed to be associated with human prosperity and cooler periods, such as the medieval “Ice Age” were times of relative hardship, although to the people of the period, it just seemed that wars began. If warming occurs to the planet, corn will shift to Saskatchewan, rye to Nunavit, and oranges to Houston. How can I be so placid? Because I read deep history. There has never been a time climate hasn’t been changing to warmer, colder, stormier or calmer. We’re WELL within norms. The weather from 1600-2000 was one of the best in history, an anomoly, and now that ideal period has statistically normalized, as one must expect. In 1536, Jacques Cartier was frozen at Quebec harbor under 1.8m ice. The world was FAR colder, long before coal. At the same time, the Iroqouis had stories of “flying heads” with streaming hair that flattened forests–a description of microbursts, flat tornadoes, not seen again commonly until 1998. So it was arguably both more cold and more stormy. Humans didn’t even notice it was “strange,” certainly not that the weather was “wrong.” S.W. climate under the Anasazi was ideal for centuries, then had a 50 year drought in 1150. It happened long before humans had the strength to be the cause.
But that’s not why I wrote. Look at the climate CO2 chart above: it tells you everything you need to know to disprove CO2-caused anthropogenic global warming– it’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. Going back 800,000 years–when man couldn’t affect the climate of a parish, much less a planet–the CO2 levels have steadily gyrated between 175 and 250ppm. Especially since 500,000 the rhythm has been perfectly steady at 100,000 years–suggesting some larger planetary/sun/solar system cycle at work. That’s no less than 5 and possibly more than 8 100,000-year cycles that rose dramatically off the 175ppm level and shot up without pause to 250ppm: where we are today. The chart is not scaled well, but this vertical leap began perhaps 10,000 years ago, not exactly the coal age. And this rise is right on schedule, right on target, exactly to the level predicted.
IF MAN WERE DOING ANYTHING HERE, WOULDN’T THE CHART HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT THAN WHEN WE WERE DOING NOTHING? By definition? This is the best chart I’ve ever seen disproving either CO2 effect or Anthropogenic global warming. QED. There is also nothing on this chart to suggest CO2 will rise higher than present; quite the contrary: this 800,000-year chart STRONGLY suggests CO2 is at its natural height and will reverse over the next hundreds of years through processes we don’t yet understand. A million years of natural reversal suggests no need for alarm. QED.
Please, please, please, can we go back to using science and logic again on this and every other issue, instead of starting from the conclusion to advance our beliefs and agenda? Please.
