[ennui2]

You know what bothers me the most about my most recent bout of coming back here on a regular basis?

No, it's not my sparring with Planty or pstarr. That's to be expected. It's about KJ. And it's not even about KJ's overall AGW denial. I gave KJ a homework assignment to watch Incredible Journey of Oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc

This is one of what I feel are the top 2-3 most important documentaries about doom. Earth 2100 and Project Home being the others I'd strongly recommend.

What I feel is most important about this is the way it explains the interrelationship between AGW and peak oil by looking at the history of the planet. The planet basically terraformed itself via life. And part of that terraforming is what resulted in massive carbon sequestration out of the atmosphere and into fossil fuels. By burning all that trapped carbon, we are turning the clock back to the primordial nature of the atmosphere, one that can't support complex life as we know it. I don't have an actual minute/second cue point in Youtube where this point is driven home, but when I watched it, everything finally clicked for me. I was already a doomer, but I then realized the whole alpha and omega of the planet being a closed system and the carbon cycle.

When I assigned this homework to KJ, I was not just trying to attack him. I really wanted him to open his eyes some more. Instead, he totally ignored my request, and then ignored all my subsequent checking of whether he had watched it. He then proceeded to continue issuing his AGW denial talking points.

To me, this is the very definition of ignorance. He has chosen to ignore data that could challenge his viewpoint. And this is NOT fringe wacko propaganda. This is a straight ahead science documentary.

For all of the time he spends posting AGW denial or wringing his hands about nuclear war and ay-rabs he could have watched this documentary many times over. So it's not that it would take too much of his time. He is just being intellectually lazy and closed-minded.

Now, if he were to just watch it and issue a rebuttal point by point, that would change everything, but by willfully ignoring relevant data, his credibility in any sort of AGW debate is shot to hell.

[KaiserJeep]

I watched that on Monday. I found no new material in it, and nothing especially worth commenting on. It was very one-sided, like so many "documentaries". None of the dissenting scientific opinions were represented. None of the data that seems to disprove carbon-forcing of the climate was discussed. Therefore it rates a "C" grade at best.

It was however an entertaining story with high production values. It reminded me most strongly of the "Planet Earth" series of videos.

Now, one more time for those of you who are completely dense: I don't believe that carbon dioxide forces climate change to any significant degree. I do not even consider CC the top issue we have, it's only a symptom of the #1 issue we have, which is a population overshoot enabled by our fossil fuel "energy slaves".

The #2 issue would be the central theme of the PO.com forum: Fossil Fuel exhaustion and the implications of this. Megadeaths will result. The downslope of the population curve may well be steeper than the upslope.

Compared to the really really serious threat of FF exhaustion, CC is simply unimportant. I'm frankly, tired of trying to enlighten all the closed minds around here. I would rather talk about what we can agree upon, which is we have to find solutions for FF exhaustion. Before we die because we can't burn enough FF's.

Now, if YOU want to debate CC, stand in front of a mirror, and debate yourself. That is not what we are here for at PO.com.

[Sixstrings]

I would rather talk about what we can agree upon, which is we have to find solutions for FF exhaustion. Before we die because we can't burn enough FF's.

It would be nice if in the larger national debate, it could shift to "what we can agree on."

The way I look at this -- just logically and rationally -- what are we really arguing about? Just the label of "climate change?" Just that conservatives can't feel culturally comfortable in a room with greens?

Logically -- what's bad about clean air acts, and clean water, and protecting endangered species (reasonably). This is all conservation. Even conservatives and "climate change deniers" should like to have clean water, and clean air.

So okay, why can't the national debate just move on? Oh -- because the koch brothers don't wanna have to spend any money on cleaner coal. And because industry will fight for the right to pollute, and things like what happened in West Virginia where they put coal industry chemical storage tanks right on the darn riverbank and then Chaleston's water supply was shut down for a darn month. That's just outrageous.

Who can be in favor of that, goodness, common sense conservation and clean water should be a "republican" idea too.

So I do wish we could get past the CC debate, and just pass things that both could agree on that would actually make the air cleaner, water cleaner, food clean, etc.

As for FF's running out -- they aren't running out. There's shale all over this planet. There's oil over that arctic. There's oil in all the oceans, too. Why do you think China is building an artificial island in the ocean? To claim the space around it, to drill for oil and other minerals, on the ocean floor.

FF's aren't running out. And as a moderate on CC action, I wouldn't be for going too far on that. But we COULD just get back to old fashioned environmental legislation. Nixon created the EPA. Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist. "Conservatives" should be "conservationists."

The biggest thing you and me agree about, kaiser, is on the space stuff. That's the ultimate answer. Break out of the planet earth bottleneck.

[Plantagenet]

None of the data that seems to disprove carbon-forcing of the climate was discussed.....

There is no data disproving carbon-forcing of the climate. Its simple physics----CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb thermal infrared radiation from the earth.

You can't "disprove" atomic physics, KJ, without abandoning the scientific method and repealing science. You are welcome to "believe" anything you want, but its fantasy to imagine that your personal belief system "disproves" science.

[davep]

None of the dissenting scientific opinions were represented.

Which CLIMATE scientists who are published (and aren't dubiously funded) can you cite?

[Sixstrings]

@allyouguys

And see, this debate just never ends. It's like a group of people that need to get off an island, but they can't ever build a boat because they're arguing over religion. Just build whatever boat we can all agree on, and move on already. Compromise, neither side being absolutist.

Clean air acts. Clean water. Clean food. Conservation. Mitigation and adaptation. Water issues.

Long term: put a lot of money into space development. Our descendants must break out of the planet earth bottleneck, the same that our ancestors broke out of the African sinai bottleneck.

We have to get back on track now, with space development. We have to make that start, for our descendants to build on. It's like a Columbus thing -- yeah it took a century or two to really get colonization rolling, but it all started with a few ships. Was it profitable, at that time? No. But the profits came, later. Space is the same way. It will be profitable 20 years from now, if we start today.

Europe was actually overcrowded, in the 16th century. The rivers were actually polluted. Much of Europe was actually already deforested. The population needed a frontier, they needed to break out of a bottleneck -- now the planetwide population is in the same situation.

So just build the boat. Stop arguing over religion.

[Ibon]

Now, one more time for those of you who are completely dense: I don't believe that carbon dioxide forces climate change to any significant degree.

Nobody's dense here KJ. In fact we all know very well that you don't BELIEVE that carbon dioxide forces climate change. Well said actually since you acknowledge with this statement that your position on climate change is roughly in the same category as religious faith.

I'm tired of murderous and self-obsessed AGW and Climate Change fanboys who use an online Forum to trumpet their disgust with the rest of the human race.

We are not completely dense KJ. We've got you pegged. Just read what you write. These are words that come from belief and dogma and polarized anger. These are words that come from an agenda.

What is dense is your inability to recognize your own subjective bias on the topic of CC. In fact, the level of cognitive dissonance that you display is actually fascinating.

[KaiserJeep]

None of the data that seems to disprove carbon-forcing of the climate was discussed.....

There is no data disproving carbon-forcing of the climate. Its simple physics----CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb thermal infrared radiation from the earth.

You can't "disprove" atomic physics, KJ, without abandoning the scientific method and repealing science. You are welcome to "believe" anything you want, but its fantasy to imagine that your personal belief system "disproves" science.

Whatever led you to believe that I don't understand the greenhouse effect? FYI I learned about it in 1962, when we discussed the findings of the Mariner 2 probe after it did a Venus flyby. I was in Junior High School.

Just because the greenhouse effect exists, does not mean that global warming outside the norm occurs because of excess carbon dioxide injected into the atmosphere. Global Warming is a natural occurrence, not necessarily human-forced.

AGW is a theory. As has been pointed out to me more than once, there is no proof that AGW is real. The AGW fanboys even insist that AGW cannot be proved or disproved, and that I am behaving foolishly to even ask for proof. They say there is only a scientific consensus about AGW, and therefore everybody should line up and have the same opinion.

I say BS. There are numerous times in the past when the scientific consensus was wrong, and by modern standards, even laughable. Once all astronomers were certain that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, save for one named Copernicus, who proved they were wrong. Once everybody thought that electromagnetic waves were vibrations in an invisible "ether" which pervaded everything - until quantuum electromagnetics. Once scientists and doctors all agreed that "bad air" caused diseases, before Pasteur's germ theory.

AGW fanboys all want you to accept a simple majority opinion. Then they lie outright about the numbers, change data to alter cooling trends to warming trends, etc. etc.

This topic is anything but settled, anything but simple, and an incredible number of lives hang on what we do with FF's.

Worst of all, AGW fanboys take the genocidal position that we must stop burning FF's. There are about SIX BILLIONpeople who are wholly dependant upon FF's right now. They would certainly die if we stopped using FF's, which is a lot worse than having a much smaller number possibly die from CC.

Now MOVE ON PLEASE, and discuss FF exhaustion, which is the theme of the PO.com Forum.

[Timo]

And see, this debate just never ends. It's like a group of people that need to get off an island, but they can't ever build a boat because they're arguing over religion.

Welcome to PO.com! We're all already in the boat you say we can't build. I have no idea what our destination is, or where we're going, but by logging in each time we visit this place, we're all jumping on board the very same boat. If we expected anything to change, that'd be insane!

[KaiserJeep]

Apparently, we are in agreement that the boat is sinking. I say it is the ever-growing number of passengers, 6X the recommended number for this size boat, that is our #1 concern. The number two concern is that we may not have enough fuel to get to shore and safety. But then there are those who think we should shut off the engine, with the number of passengers still growing, because the exhaust stinks, and the engine is causing the temperature inside the boat to rise to an uncomfortable level.

I agree that the exhaust stinks. I say shutting off the engine is insane.

[Plantagenet]

Just because the greenhouse effect exists, does not mean that global warming outside the norm occurs because of excess carbon dioxide injected into the atmosphere.

Every bit of the "warmth" (ie. radiative energy) captured by the "excess" (i.e. anthropogenic) CO2 is outside the norm. The increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ppm is human caused, and all the radiative energy captured by the extra CO2 is outside the norm.

Global Warming is a natural occurrence, not necessarily human-forced.

In the past the earth has warmed and cooled purely in response to natural forcing. Now climate change is being driven by the ever increasing amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

AGW is a theory. As has been pointed out to me more than once, there is no proof that AGW is real.

Gravity is also a scientific theory. However, if you don't believe in the theory of gravity then try jumping out a window.

Yes, AGW is also a scientific theory. However, in the same way reality confirms the theory of gravity the real world keeps confirming the validity of the AGW theory. The world is at record warm temperatures right now, just as predicted by AGW theory----check it out

--------------------------

PS: Peak Oil and AGW are linked---the more FF we burn the more CO2 goes into the atmosphere. IMHO its quite legit to discuss AGW here at PO.com

Cheers!


AGW is already very evident up here in the Arctic----but don't worry----you'll catch up to us eventually!

[Pops]

Really not a bad metaphor, KJ.

Personally I'm most worried about all the folks in steerage getting pissed and torching the boat.

[Timo]

Torching the boat is where we're all headed, anyway. That match was lit 200 years ago.

[vox_mundi]

Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”

More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”

While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. “The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said.

While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.

[KaiserJeep]

Really not a bad metaphor, KJ.

Personally I'm most worried about all the folks in steerage getting pissed and torching the boat.

I'm worried about the drunken politician who is supposedly steering the boat.

Literally. When I was in the USCG, my buddies went out to retrieve Senator Ted Kennedy several times. He was in his father's antique speedboat Rum Runner, the very smuggling boat that founded the Kennedy fortune during Prohibition. Kennedy was the only one to be rescued who would insist that you tow him to his party destination, not to the nearest smallboat station. He was always smashed.

There are times when I could not be bothered to whiz on a burning politician. Today was such a day.

Three more work days, and I'm retired.

[Timo]

Three more work days, and I'm retired.

KJ, you suck!

I have 7 years, and 7 is an unlucky number!

Or maybe that's 13, and 7 is lucky. But the point is, read point number 1.

[Plantagenet]

There are times when I could not be bothered to whiz on a burning politician. Today was such a day.

Three more work days, and I'm retired.

CONGRATS TO YOU, KJ!!!!

No doubt after you've retired you'll have more time to whiz on burning politicians.

[ennui2]

KJ has just moved up a peg I guess by virtue of having at least enough of an attention span to actually watch the damn thing. But to watch it and then shrug it off so casually in favor of current AGW "it's happening but it's a natural cycle" flavor of denial is indeed cognitive dissonance worthy of textbook analysis.

Again, it would be one thing if he were a corny, but to keep stomping his feet about peak-oil/overshoot (which is a problem of macro level scale of ecological/resource draw-down) and yet disregard AGW (which is a problem of macro level scale, that being industrial pollution caused by billions of humans drawing down those resources) is a blind-spot of the worst order.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this documentary brings these two halves together so they fit perfectly. Once you understand limits to growth, I don't see how you can quake in your boots regarding peak-oil and overpopulation and yet not see that CO2 is a key component in the pollution variable of the LTG equation.

And then for this thread to trail off with yuk yuks about retirement and politics is par for the course. Amused to death with smalltalk.

[KaiserJeep]

ennui2, I don't want to seem unkind, but I worry about the things that matter in order of priority, and I rate CC as #3 or #4. I run out of minutes in the day before I reach that one.

But you know what? Even if I became convinced that you AGW fanboys were entirely correct, then my priorities would not change. Compared to overpopulation, the various resource depletions, and nuclear war, it's just not important. Once we have solid solutions in place for the first three or four top priorities, then we can worry about AGW.

Meanwhile, I'm moving North of where I live now, arranging to have enough site-generated power to run A/C if I want to, and insulating the he!! out of my new house, and I really don't give a damn about AGW, after thinking it through.

The video was Popular Science at a Junior High School level, but slickly produced. But it will not convince anybody of anything IMHO.

[ennui2]

ennui2, I don't want to seem unkind, but I worry about the things that matter in order of priority, and I rate CC as #3 or #4. I run out of minutes in the day before I reach that one.

If you are only concerned with yourself, then I don't think you have much to worry about. You're 63 and by the time TSHTF you'll be dead or far enough along to feel like you got out of this relatively unscathed.

All I would expect from you is acknowledgment of these problems, not you "worrying" about them.

I'd like to hear what kind of evidence WOULD convince you of AGW, though... It seems like there is no mountain of evidence that would, despite the fact that the level of uncertainty there is less than peak oil (especially now with the current glut). So you are, by definition, closed-minded.

Seems to me that if you were to sit next to a climate scientist as he or she goes about their research, day in and day out, at liberty of asking questions at any time, that even that degree of immersion would not change your mind. That is some pretty colossal ignorance. And people wonder why some scientists are losing their cool... If people can't prove they can think rationally and incorporate new data into their paradigms, they're a lost cause.