Hottest Week on Record, Hottest June, Record hottest days, Record Low Antarctic sea ice

[Pommer]

At the turn of the 20th century, NYC was panicking over what they were going to do with all the future horse poop in town. New tech eliminated the problem. And without government intervention or incentives.

Good point!
Yes the [crap] was off of the streets and into the air.
When the oil industry discovered that adding tetraethyl lead to the petrol gave better performance in engines they did that for 50+ years (even though it was known fairly early on that those amounts of lead being breathed in by the people could/did lead to cognitive changes in the population).

My point being that any technological developments are going to come with advantages and drawbacks but continuing to use old tech because it’s just easier (and the entire economy is well-fitted to old-tech), assumes that we’ve reached the absolute pinnacle of progress.

Yes, Virginia, there will be “lithium barons” and work will have to be done in third world nations to ensure worker safety and environmental damage be kept to a minimum and all sort of “problems” to be overcome, but if Jesus doesn‘t “come back” we will have to have done a lot of this work fairly soon otherwise we will miss the chance to do anything at all.

 

[USincognito]

Regarding your first sentence, that's why I don't take the MSM seriously. ( I dumped TV in 1997. When I am exposed to it I'm shocked at the simplicity and lack of accuracy.) But Heller has proved himself. For starters, he presents historical climate coverage by the media to make many of his points.

The media is utterly irrelevant to the data.

Regarding your second paragraph, well, no need to re-invent the wheel. Let me respond with this:

Mad Scientist: 6 Scientists Who Were Dismissed As Crazy, Only To Be Proven Right Years Later​

Utterly irrelevant to the data.

And then there is the former head of Greenpeace, that seems to have had his own "come to Jesus" moment regarding climate:

Former Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore Says Climate Change Based on False Narratives​

Science is evidence based, not authority based. One persons opinion is irrelevant.

Then there is John Clauser and all the other "deniers with strong credentials".

He won a Nobel Prize. Then he started denying climate change.​

Again, science is evidence based, not authority based. Seeing as how he's a physicist who specializes in quantum mechanics, he's not even an authority.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Good point!
Yes the [crap] was off of the streets and into the air.
When the oil industry discovered that adding tetraethyl lead to the petrol gave better performance in engines they did that for 50+ years (even though it was known fairly early on that those amounts of lead being breathed in by the people could/did lead to cognitive changes in the population).

My point being that any technological developments are going to come with advantages and drawbacks but continuing to use old tech because it’s just easier (and the entire economy is well-fitted to old-tech), assumes that we’ve reached the absolute pinnacle of progress.

Yes, Virginia, there will be “lithium barons” and work will have to be done in third world nations to ensure worker safety and environmental damage be kept to a minimum and all sort of “problems” to be overcome, but if Jesus doesn‘t “come back” we will have to have done a lot of this work fairly soon otherwise we will miss the chance to do anything at all.

Good point!
Yes the [crap] was off of the streets and into the air.
When the oil industry discovered that adding tetraethyl lead to the petrol gave better performance in engines they did that for 50+ years (even though it was known fairly early on that those amounts of lead being breathed in by the people could/did lead to cognitive changes in the population).

My point being that any technological developments are going to come with advantages and drawbacks but continuing to use old tech because it’s just easier (and the entire economy is well-fitted to old-tech), assumes that we’ve reached the absolute pinnacle of progress.

Yes, Virginia, there will be “lithium barons” and work will have to be done in third world nations to ensure worker safety and environmental damage be kept to a minimum and all sort of “problems” to be overcome, but if Jesus doesn‘t “come back” we will have to have done a lot of this work fairly soon otherwise we will miss the chance to do anything at all.

Nothing to disagree with there.

 

[Paulos23]

The push for EV's is a serious problem. I used to be a huge fan of EV's until I bothered actually researching beyond the surface.

IMO, our ability to exploit the benefits of oil is directly and singularly responsible for the existence of civilization as we know it and all its benefits. Yet there are those that think we can just phase it out with no consequences. Don't get me wrong, we may be able to someday. But it would be the result of new technology as yet undiscovered.

At the turn of the 20th century, NYC was panicking over what they were going to do with all the future horse poop in town. New tech eliminated the problem. And without government intervention or incentives.

I don't think new tech will be the solution, it will be a change in habits and behaviors. And that is hard, getting a whole civilization to change, even if it is over three decades. Sure new tech will be part of that change, but right now, we need to change how everything moves and is produced to lower the amount of CO2 we are making. Even if it is through new zoning laws and gas taxes.

I agree EV's are not the wonder bullet everyone wants to make them. But if we say where we are, waiting for new tech, it will be so much worse in the future.

 

[Laodicean60]

Science is evidence based, not authority based.

I beg to differ such as Big Tobacco and now Big Sugar. Money is a driving factor.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I don't think new tech will be the solution, it will be a change in habits and behaviors. And that is hard, getting a whole civilization to change, even if it is over three decades. Sure new tech will be part of that change, but right now, we need to change how everything moves and is produced to lower the amount of CO2 we are making. Even if it is through new zoning laws and gas taxes.

I agree EV's are not the wonder bullet everyone wants to make them. But if we say where we are, waiting for new tech, it will be so much worse in the future.

I honestly don't think it's a "habits and behaviors" thing. People don't really realize just how much we depend on oil for far more than just energy for driving places. Although it is true that we could cut back on a LOT of ways we use it, it would involve suffering - and totally unnecessary suffering. I've read science fiction books that try to deal with the idea of a post peak oil world with no real alternatives. In their fantasy world people just accept a seriously scaled back and compromised lifestyle and find that it is "better".

But that is not how it actually works in the real world. People simply don't "voluntarily" do that. Removing oil from the modern world would be like removing wood from teh 19th century world. It wasn't just used for heat.

You might as well ask people to voluntarily give up the internet.

 

[Whyayeman]

I honestly don't think it's a "habits and behaviors" thing. People don't really realize just how much we depend on oil for far more than just energy for driving places. Although it is true that we could cut back on a LOT of ways we use it, it would involve suffering - and totally unnecessary suffering. I've read science fiction books that try to deal with the idea of a post peak oil world with no real alternatives. In their fantasy world people just accept a seriously scaled back and compromised lifestyle and find that it is "better".

But that is not how it actually works in the real world. People simply don't "voluntarily" do that. Removing oil from the modern world would be like removing wood from teh 19th century world. It wasn't just used for heat.

You might as well ask people to voluntarily give up the internet.

Some people don't realise how much they depend on oil and gas, it is true. But some - a large and increasing number - do. Habits and behaviour are the very things that need to change.

It might involve suffering inconveniences to avoid the heat death alternative. So many tipping points are right on the cusp. The modern world will resemble the Eighteenth century unless drastic action is taken very soon. That is not science fiction. It is what scientists are forecasting here and now.

 

[Paulos23]

I honestly don't think it's a "habits and behaviors" thing. People don't really realize just how much we depend on oil for far more than just energy for driving places. Although it is true that we could cut back on a LOT of ways we use it, it would involve suffering - and totally unnecessary suffering. I've read science fiction books that try to deal with the idea of a post peak oil world with no real alternatives. In their fantasy world people just accept a seriously scaled back and compromised lifestyle and find that it is "better".

But that is not how it actually works in the real world. People simply don't "voluntarily" do that. Removing oil from the modern world would be like removing wood from teh 19th century world. It wasn't just used for heat.

You might as well ask people to voluntarily give up the internet.

It would require giving up traveling on a whim, even for long distances. But that is doable, speaking as someone who has done it. It means not using plastics for everything. Again, it is doable, and we can even go back to reusing glass bottles for many things (not all, I realize). Again doable.

But we do need to kick out the idea of relying on oil, at least to the extent we are currently. We can cut way back if we moved into more dense living so more services are within walking or biking distance. We need to accept our life of high energy may be on the decline.

 

[Laodicean60]

People don't really realize just how much we depend on oil

Everything we enjoy has petroleum in it. I do believe in conserving petroleum instead of filling the landfills (also the ocean with plastic bottles) or burning it all.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It would require giving up traveling on a whim, even for long distances. But that is doable, speaking as someone who has done it. It means not using plastics for everything. Again, it is doable, and we can even go back to reusing glass bottles for many things (not all, I realize). Again doable.

But we do need to kick out the idea of relying on oil, at least to the extent we are currently. We can cut way back if we moved into more dense living so more services are within walking or biking distance. We need to accept our life of high energy may be on the decline.

Plastics give us things we would not otherwise have. An old example was given to me about 30 years ago. Imagine a cassette tape without plastic. Plastic provides a HUGE benefit to modern life. Regarding the traveling, I think that that will take care of itself for many people but it will take a generation or three, and can happen organically* - that is, not forcing people's hand.

But I don't think our use of oil is a bad thing, so our different world views create a bit of friction regarding our thoughts on what solutions are best, especially when one of us thinks there is nothing to be solved - at least through "non-organic" means.

*When I use "organic", I mean people simply choose to abandon or embrace technologies. The government didn't create tax exemptions for cars or laws against horses to get people into cars. It was an organic move.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Everything we enjoy has petroleum in it. I do believe in conserving petroleum instead of filling the landfills (also the ocean with plastic bottles) or burning it all.

I'm with you there. There was a youtube short that I can't find where a guy is mocking "just stop oil" activists, pointing out that their clothing, and their source of transportation to get there, not to mention many other things they were using, are made of oil.

Bottom line, at least in my opinion, is that the way to drastically reduce oil use is a return to the dark ages. And even if it is attempted, the world will quickly be conquered by those that choose to keep using oil.

Anybody serious about reducing oil use at this time is also a strong proponent of massive building of nuclear power plants. If they are not both, they are either lying or are an ignorant tool of those that are lying. IMO, of course.

 

[Paulos23]

Plastics give us things we would not otherwise have. An old example was given to me about 30 years ago. Imagine a cassette tape without plastic. Plastic provides a HUGE benefit to modern life. Regarding the traveling, I think that that will take care of itself for many people but it will take a generation or three, and can happen organically* - that is, not forcing people's hand.

But I don't think our use of oil is a bad thing, so our different world views create a bit of friction regarding our thoughts on what solutions are best, especially when one of us thinks there is nothing to be solved - at least through "non-organic" means.

*When I use "organic", I mean people simply choose to abandon or embrace technologies. The government didn't create tax exemptions for cars or laws against horses to get people into cars. It was an organic move.

It is like you don't even want to change. We need to cut down on our use, and yes I think we need to force companies to use less plastics or reuse plastics more or some other reusable/recyclable container. And that takes laws and/or public opinion for them to change. We just can't wait for this to move on its own. I am talking about even small changes, and the few I have seen are so greenwashed that I don't even trust them when they say 100% recycled on a plastic bottle.

If we let things go as they are, we are going to keep burning oil until we run out. And then people will really be hurting.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It is like you don't even want to change. We need to cut down on our use,...

If we let things go as they are, we are going to keep burning oil until we run out. And then people will really be hurting.

Regarding the first line, You are right about me not wanting to change. And it is rooted in your second sentence there - You think we need to cut down. I don't. I don't see a problem that causes us to "need" to do anything.

Regarding the second line, I disagree. We are discovering oil faster than we are using it. And when the day comes where the opposite is happening, we will find a solution as we always do. Why? Because it will be a clear and present problem that needs to be solved. But it is not right now. And, truth be told, we actually already have solutions waiting in the wings. e.g. Build more nuclear power plants and exploit emerging new battery tech.

Too many people are wasting energy, both physical/financial and emotional on future problems that have not actually happened. It's fine to plan for them in some way, but it is not reasonable to starve your family now in preparation for a catastrophic famine that "is a comin'" at a distant future date. Especially when all predictions made so far have failed to materialize. Old Jewish law tells people to stone false prophets, yet we are surrounded by false climate prophets, and too many of us still believe them. That amazes me. I had more faith in mankind than that. I suppose the good news is that most of the people that hang on their every word are under 25 years old, which is the age the human brain is fully developed. i.e. many of them will come around as they mature.

 

[Whyayeman]

I don't see a problem that causes us to "need" to do anything.

That is staggeringly obtuse. The ice caps are melting at an accelerating rate. The temperature of the oceans has risen and continues to rise. The weather is becoming more violent.

Especially when all predictions made so far have failed to materialize.

The rise in temperature of the oceans and the melting polar ice were predicted. They have happened.

 

[USincognito]

I beg to differ such as Big Tobacco and now Big Sugar. Money is a driving factor.

Ah yes. The old "scientists driving to work in Champagne powered Ferrari's" argument.

Tell me what university and government scientists are having money shoveled their way by "Big Climate".

 

[USincognito]

Plastics give us things we would not otherwise have. An old example was given to me about 30 years ago. Imagine a cassette tape without plastic.

Sure. It's called "Spotify".

As a teenager in the 80s, I would love to have had the almost free access I have now to music and not be encumbered by cassette tapes.

 

[Paulos23]

Regarding the first line, You are right about me not wanting to change. And it is rooted in your second sentence there - You think we need to cut down. I don't. I don't see a problem that causes us to "need" to do anything.

Regarding the second line, I disagree. We are discovering oil faster than we are using it. And when the day comes where the opposite is happening, we will find a solution as we always do. Why? Because it will be a clear and present problem that needs to be solved. But it is not right now. And, truth be told, we actually already have solutions waiting in the wings. e.g. Build more nuclear power plants and exploit emerging new battery tech.

Too many people are wasting energy, both physical/financial and emotional on future problems that have not actually happened. It's fine to plan for them in some way, but it is not reasonable to starve your family now in preparation for a catastrophic famine that "is a comin'" at a distant future date. Especially when all predictions made so far have failed to materialize. Old Jewish law tells people to stone false prophets, yet we are surrounded by false climate prophets, and too many of us still believe them. That amazes me. I had more faith in mankind than that. I suppose the good news is that most of the people that hang on their every word are under 25 years old, which is the age the human brain is fully developed. i.e. many of them will come around as they mature.

Sorry, take a look out your window at the weather sometimes. The consequences are here and are getting worse. I work for an insurance company. The cost of weather-driven catastrophes is going up, and the number of catastrophes that affect us is also going up. As well as normal losses that are weather-driven, like hail.

The insurance industry as a whole is seeing this. The consequences are here and are growing. I am not asking for people to starve, but we do need to change. Even one less trip per week helps, as a start.

 

[Laodicean60]

Science is evidence based, not authority based.

What about it fella? Big tobacco, sugar? This is a blanket statement.

Ah yes. The old "scientists driving to work in Champagne powered Ferrari's" argument.

Tell me what university and government scientists are having money shoveled their way by "Big Climate".

Ah, I see your mind is skewed to arguing. Your answer seems a little childish my keyboard warrior.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What about it fella? Big tobacco, sugar?

I think you understand perfectly. At trials, Big Tobacco would trot out its tame scientific authority to confuse people into thinking there was some controversy over the health effects of tobacco. In fact there has long been a scientific consensus about the health effects of tobacco.

Similarly, you point to some putative authorities (neither of them are climate scientists) who assert some controversy about climate change as though it balances or negates the conclusions of the scientific consensus. It does not.

 

[Laodicean60]

Similarly, you point to some putative authorities

Who?