Going Dark.... Guy McPherson

[beauanderos]

Anyone read his book, skimmed his website... vetted the science? I've already read some books on the subject, so it's not
new material for me, but his outlook is the most radical in the field.

If you buy the premise, it will change the way you view life, what's important.

[68Camaro]

If you believe that the universe brought itself into existence, if you buy into atheistic nihilism and/or any of the other "stuff" that I saw on his site within a 30 second skim, those things will certainly change your life. Not for the better, IMO, but there is absolutely no doubt that they will change your life...

Sorry, while I support his life to live, I would prefer that he lived in another country, or even another planet... I have no use for him.

[IdahoCopper]

With 7 billion of us, it is pretty much impossible to extinguish the human race. We only need 100 to 300 individuals to survive a ELE.

[johnbrickner]

With 7 billion of us, it is pretty much impossible to extinguish the human race. We only need 100 to 300 individuals to survive a ELE.

And most of the survivors should be women.

[beauanderos]

http://guymcpherson.com/2014/06/mcphersons-wrong-about-global-warming-thoughts-on-some-possible-psychological-and-emotional-motivations-for-the-attacks-on-guy-mcpherson/

very interesting read regarding why we think the way we do... cognitive dissonance, etc.

[68Camaro]

I couldn't read it all, skimmed it, found it too bizarre to continue onward. It seems that people who disagree with someone who has an opinion without proof are somehow crazy.

In contrast I support Mr. Mcphersons right to believe what he wants as long as he doesn't impose those beliefs on me either directly or indirectly. BTW I had never heard of him before this.

[Treetop]

These are very complex topics. I happen to read basically EVERY paper on climate that is not paywalled. Despite the headlines the data in no way supports the idea we are or will cause considerable warming. When I have more time if you like I can link the studies highlighting aspects of this if anyone actually cares enough. I used to be a LOUD voice trying to get people to care about this issue until that is I had studied it in depth.

He covers other issues as well though. Peak oil, claims of "peak soil", (a total delusion) and other peaks, as well as nuclear war. Malthusians have been predicting wed run out of resources for a looooong time. We do indeed have several areas this is possible, but every one of them Im aware of we have answers. Take soil for instance. Again despite headlines the real place most of our lost topsoil is going is flushed down our toilets. Parts of africa being in great transition agriculturally speaking have shown simply having some trees at the edge of a field and turning the leaves into their fields both gave them a new crop and more then maintained their soil. It isnt the only answer to such a problem, but "peak soil" will only ever be a problem if we fail to acknowledge the new variables and account for it.

We often hear that water will run out!! Yet here I sit in the high desert, and if I had a cistern and roof collection, and was frugal Id have all the water I need. Ive heard of systems that you need only pump a cities waste water to the top of a purpose built hill that filters it all and mineralizes it, meaning a city could affordably and safely re use water basically indefinitely if perhaps you have roof water systems adding new water etc.

Lets go another way. 2 people move next to a lake. Build an outhouse next to the water edge. All is well. Eventually 20 more join them. Fish seem harder to catch, people starting to get sick from the waste being so close to the water. Is the problem to many people or how they are living? humans through the centuries have REPEATEDLY came up to barriers that would crush other species and we find new patterns and rise right over them. Im not in fact saying we WILL always do so, but we are more then capable of it.

As for food, I can elaborate on this at length if anyone is curious. We could feed this world many times over. Even without taking new lands to farming if we decide this is desirable. Many multiples more food is possible in fact.



All that nonsense he talks about involving "human supremacist beliefs" is silly. Ive seen people who DIDNT think humans were the top of the food chain or power structure who were equally or even less apt to make needed changes. That has nothing in the world to do with it. He seems to want to blame religion, lol. The article goes on to say....

"These arguments grow directly out of magical, human supremacist reasoning with popular ideas to the effect that “We can do anything if we just put our minds to it” and “No limits exist to what we can do on Earth.” In reality, many physical, biological limits exist to what humans can and cannot do on Earth. We have long since passed Earth’s carrying capacity, and we have lived for decades, literally on borrowed time, by burning the sun’s energy stored on Earth in the form of the limited quantities of fossil fuels practically available to us."

In what way have we passed earths carrying capacity? It certainly isnt in terms of food, nor water. We can answer those readily if we tried with our human superiority complexes. We dont in fact NEED massive amounts of energy to grow food nor procure water. As for the rest of energy needs, none are mandatory besides possibly heating a home, which in most regions can be done by how you built the home if you employ the right knowledge. Even in places with shallow water tables built on the surface with soil over them can have many windows and still get most of the buffers from under ground housing. Big topic itself but there are answers. Then of course although it would cost more, we could use geo thermal, wave generators solar etc indefinitely if we decides not to use nuclear, or fossils. Since regulating temps of a home costs like 40% I believe (might be wrong) of the average persons energy needs better building design along in most regions (surprisingly even very cold or warm ones) we could even keep rather advanced lifesyles and pull more of the world into advanced lifestyles while still all having food, clean water and warmth on demand. Ive actually debated many on this Ive known over the years. Give me enough time to lay it all out and Ill make anyone a believer we do indeed have answers to every issue of this nature you can come up with. Well besides maybe nuclear war type stuff, lol no idea how to make a sane government. Not sure such can exist for long.


Heres part of the complexity, do we actually want to live in the world wed need to live in? The more humans we have the more draconian we seem to need to be to ensure we arent for instance poisoning eachother and we all have a way to eat. Larger the population it also seems easier to control us. (hence my wish most decisions were done locally) Robots make this even trickier. Most of the worlds poorer less skilled people are about to be obsolete, what changes would need to happen politically to ensure they have food? We definitely can do it, but what will this voting block want politically? A little land to eeek out an existence on? of course not. They will want like always the most they can have.

So for me rather then us not having answers for all these issues, we have many.... the real trick will be employing them. Not because humans "think" they are on the top (we undeniably are, atleast on this planet in the physical plane) but because politically we will likely fracture or end up in a draconian state with answers coming from less and less sources, and given enough time even benevolent groups trying to do the right thing will make the wrong choice and instead of taking their city state or country with them, might take human culture itself to its knees. To be clearer, it will imo NOT be our failure to act, it will be how we choose to act that leads to more dangerous paradigms for our species. One avantage humans always had in addition to our big brains and ingenuity was being contrarians. Someone or some group gets it right when all others fail in part or whole. It is theoretically possible we build a system That accounts for this diversity while also addressing our current issues, but very unlikely since so few even want that, see the need for it or value this trait in its true glory.

So ultimately Id agree humanity is and facing and will likely fall several pegs as a whole from our current place, but this imo is not because we cant manage our resources better its because of the political and social ways we are most likely to try to attempt to adjust. In fact the very things Ive seen this guy you reference suggest would imo play right into our downfall. He thinks weve already gone to far for one thing. There are no real ways to adapt, to ensure a good life or enough food without killing other species etc. This is dead wrong, we do have ways. Others see the potentials and want to empower a government to dictate every aspect of life top down. Give me time and I can show example after example of countries that had an issue, and easy workable answer or several but instead ended up politically doing something that gave them more current issues or set them up for future worse ones. Not because we falsely thought we were superior but because as a species we are horrible at picking leaders or learning from history.

To the idea this could go far enough the species dies, or most other species do? Nearly impossible. which circles back to part of my point in how people react politically actually. I have read the work they base this on in depth. It is all very purposely misleading, and often provably ignores whatever contradicts it. Activists have cemented this in as real and not only possible but likely or even as this guy sees it inevitable. It would take an event at the cosmic level to wipe out humans. We spread across the earth as we have for good reason. We are adaptable contrarians.

lol I just woke up and likely rambled of course of my points a bit I dunno but this is a favorite topic of mine for many years. I was very socially aware of these issues at a very young age. Studied these issues in depth since grade school. Its what ultimately lead to to study politics and human cognition and history. We are contrarians. We ALWAYS adapt, but usually reactively rather then proactively. This dude is wrong imo as to the reason why we do it this way though. It isnt because we falsely think we are the best, imo he interpreted only certain aspects of how humans relate to these things and ignored the bigger picture then pretended everyone else did that, not him. Ive offered answers to people for various issues this greater topic covers for many years, I cant think of a single time a human superiority complex was the reason such an answer could be dismissed. Food for instance. I lay out a way we could produce enough food, and people often think if it works as I said wed be doing it. We spend billions a year for our fertilizers and to increase production etc. We use XYZ amount of energy to produce one calorie!!! We are pushing the science as far as it goes. All true. Yet although not all the things I would suggest have been done much of it is very proven. It ultimately comes down to conceptualization. UGh fully explaining about how I see that would be another book, Ill just stop here. I think I got my general stance across. lol.

[Thogey]

With a few citations treetop's article is clearly fit for national publication.
The quality of his responses is always outstanding.

Just to add. Even if all these perils are set to destroy us. Why worry? We live and we die.

You might just have control over the disposition of your own soul, not peak soil.

[beauanderos]

Thanks, Zach... a BIG thanks for your long and detailed answer. And Eric, Peak Soul? Seems like we passed that a long time ago. Hope some of those people
find their way back before it's too late for them as individuals.

I haven't been following the crusade to inform/convert new proponents to adapting a more sustainable lifestyle except for having ran across Chris Martenson's
Crash Course (now PeakProsperity.com) website. Like I indicated, McPherson's emphasis on the Earth already being on hospice, and that all we can do is
support and comfort others as they accept this... with a deadline (so to speak) of 2030 seemed extreme. I'll be the first to admit I'm very ignorant on some of
the topics, although I'm curious enough to enjoy rectifying that. This thread over at BS did elicit some good links http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/the-mechanism.html
and I'm trying to wade through the science. I do feel that the warming curve has the potential to climb from linear to more of a hockey stick... as to the repercussions
that would ensue were that to happen?

I am surprised and unable to verify (so far) the claim that the Earth is losing 200 species a day. I see that number bandied about from site to site. Zach, if you don't
mind, could you either PM me, or maybe post a link of a few of the best books you feel summarize the situation? I want to get both sides of the story.

[beauanderos]

Here's an image that sums up (some of the) thinking currently on the topic. I see it as credible, the time line, however, is subject to debate.

[Thogey]

Here's an image that sums up (some of the) thinking currently on the topic. I see it as credible, the time line, however, is subject to debate.

Ray you must not be much of a gambler. Do you know how hard it is to hit a 4 team/bet parlay, even with very known quantities and records?

There are too many unknowns to make a prediction like this. Even if there were only 10 variables for each of the four steps, the odds of predicting a particular outcome in four phases is 10,000 to 1. There are far more variables by many orders of magnitude.

The prediction will not happen.

[johnbrickner]

Zach, it's going to take me a few days to respond to your post! If I can get around to it. You rock, man. Love the world thru your eyes.

"although not all the things I would suggest have been done, much of it is very proven. It ultimately comes down to conceptualization"

And this sentence fairly well takes all I was going to say and ends it. Except for the, could you detail the steps were our soil is getting flushed down the toilet?

Just kidding, I've got the Humanure book.

[Thogey]

This is far more likely.
This video is a simulation of a 500m asteroid impact in the pacific ocean. The accompanying singing is enough to kill every man.
Enjoy.

http://www.sonicbomb.com/iv1.php?vid=as ... d%20Impact

[beauanderos]

This is far more likely.
This video is a simulation of a 500m asteroid impact in the pacific ocean. The accompanying singing is enough to kill every man.
Enjoy.

http://www.sonicbomb.com/iv1.php?vid=as ... d%20Impact

good video if you turn down the sound! Ok, so I need to add submarine to my preps?

[Treetop]

Species extinction is interesting. We have a guessed at "backround rate". To come to the 200 a day number you dont actually count species we cant name a fraction of a single percent of the claimed lost species. The various numbers they come up with may or may not be real, they arent actual measurements though. They then compare this to historical extinction rates. Then we are told we are in the range of past extinction events. So people take that headline and think we are all doomed. Important to note though, even if its true we are in a historical extinction level event globally for the last 500 years driven by humans, most of the events they speak of had those levels sustained for millions of years. The shortest was 10s of thousands and drastically more extreme. So an issue yes, but unless things changed immensely it wont happen in our lives. Interestingly when you go through modern published work on individual species that are threatened from climate specifically there are vast holes in everything Ive seen. Literally excluding data to make their case.

Heres a link for one of the more extreme cases, but there are many others. lol we have papers claiming x species is movin uphill to flee warming! then you look at local data and it isnt warming in that spot at times, or you provably have populations at lower elevations.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/c ... lden-toad/

As for the temps driving it? Total myth. The hockey stick as we call it was born out of marrying tree based data to modern collected data. Why not just use tree based data all the way until the present since it exists? Well if we do that then its getting colder fast. Why do I say this? because in this particular set of proxy data we use trees as thermometers, and assume their growth is directly related mainly to temps. Obvious holes in this thinking but that is the claim. Except as compared to past tree rings wed then have to assume it is colder now because that is what the trees show us if we assume its all temp based. So instead we just splice modern data directly measured into this tree based data and then we have a hockey stick.

Basic aspects of the theory of co2 driving warming are false. We do not have the hotspot mandatory to the physics of the theory. Sources like "skeptical science" wrote long articles pretending we do, but only one published work even attempted to pretend we loosely did in a vague not really existent way. We spent immense amounts of cash on the weather balloons to find this hotspot, also on satellites we were sure would find it. Instead nether found it and we are told to ignore the satellites (because they show a flat temp trend???)

The poles are supposed to warm faster according to the theory. However antarctica hasnt warmed at all. And warming in the arctic and melting is being driven by a change in ocean current not direct warming of air temps. We only have minimal stations in the arctic and we extrapolate data as far out as 1200km and somehow decide its warmest where we do not measure. The fact antarctica isnt warming at all is brutal by itself to the theory. If you look at official sources for the arctic ice levels you will find the idea it was all solid ice until very recently. Russians however were there measuring way back in the 30s and earlier, and the past warming period in the early 1900s had similar levels of melting in the arctic, due to ww2 they stopped going the last few years of that period of warmth so we cant be sure it melted to current levels but every indication it was on track to do so. Guess what? ocean currents changed, it re froze. We have every reason to think based on past patterns the arctic is poised to refreeze in the next few years.

feedbacks we are told will cause 2/3 of the warming. Yet weve had data coming in for years making it clear the feedbacks mandatory for the dangerous end of the claims simply do not work as we thought. or pretend.

here are some of the more interesting often ignored papers on feedbacks. keep in mind water vapor is supposed to do about 1/3 of the warming, methane another 1/3 or more. This means without these feedbacks even if co2 did what was claimed it would never reach what they claim is dangerous levels of warming. The "old guard" they were once called were all the folks back in the 80s when this theory gained traction telling us how unlikely such feedback systems are. If this was true then we would likely see evidence in our geological records.

Noaa study on water vapor, not what it might do but what it actually did. They talk of what level it drove past temps in recent years after compiling what measured levels actually were. Worth mentioning is that as a feedback water vapor was supposed to be completely controlled by warming. Instead, water vapor levels dropped worldwide in key parts of the atmosphere even after the world being a bit warmer recently. Apparently something other then temp is driving a large portion of water vapor levels.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... vapor.html
Methane is supposed to be even worse if you follow headlines. This was what your link was about ray, enhanced warming from methane we have no reason to think is possible after we bothered to measure biological action of methane eating species.(btw your link claimed the ocean was warming "rapidly" then give a chart forgot to mention it was in joules, purposely misleading) This tidbit is ignored by most of the field. there is a biological system in place that we have every reason to think will soak up any extra methane in real time. Over time we always knew it would be used up, if the arctic melts then all that trapped organic matter get out!!! but it used to be alive, the idea was it is slow to be used up. We now know that is false... Yet if you plug methane and warming into a search you are very unlikely to find the study I linked below, that actually measured biological aaction of a methane using species. Instead yull find stories about how the oceans will boil.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25871932
also to that same theme... so even not looking at bacterial life solely as above just straight biomass is increasing in real time. This may or may not be from warming itself or from more co2. plants are starving for co2 if youre not aware. They had much more most of earths history, and most adapted originally at 1000ppm or more. A considerable portion of our leading crops are c4 plants having arisen due to low co2 levels and their better efficiency at these low levels.
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/09-0102.1
heres one on arctic lakes soaking up greenhouse gases. Exact opposite of what our models still pretend is true. Actual marurements on a large variabkle simply ignored to continue to make the case warming is imminent.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131630.htm
heres one where we slowly warmed an area over 20 years at predicted rates for global warming and there wasnt the excess release of greenhouse gases we still pretend is true. biological processes appear to have balanced it all out.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/war ... tic-carbon

Strangely if we look at past data then warming would = a calmer climate and more diversity. Not less. It is inside the computer model that more warmth is more energy and thus more chaotic. On actual earth past data suggests rather it is the difference between warm and cool air that drives the extremes of weather, and those have a greater difference in a colder world. We are currently told weather is more extreme then ever. Yet no type of extreme weather is trending up in frequency or extremity. No published work even attempted to claim this until very recently despite all the headlines. They did claim it WOULD happen, but only recently has anyone claime dit actually has, by raw numbers it hasnot however The work was rather vague that made the claim.

Did you know we have three official sources for a weather "product" of estimated global temps? All three showed no warming trend until about six months ago when a guy from I think NOAA with the last name karl put out a paper adjusting how we estimate temps over the oceans. The others followed suit. So currently officially there is a tiny fraction of the expected warming. I had those other links out, will take me a long time if you want me to cite everything I said but its all out there. despite this we are still well below the expected warming rates. This inconvenient truth simply glossed over by wording. Smoke and mirrors.

Also I have this one handy on nasa trying to figure out if the missing heat from the theory is in the deep ocean. According to them it is not. Unlike most ways people attempt to come to this answer nasa used measurements.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... oct_abyss/

Heres an interesting aspect. did you know russians, and china and others never believed this at all? Both have studied climate. Putin is calling out western leaders over it currently. Says its just a plan for global government. And well, that is literally the goal of the paris talks. This isnt conspiracy "theory", its happening even if you think its justified 100% or desirable in goal or outcome. Paris is about trying to get binding agreements towards a global body for decision making. Back in the 90s when they were a bit more ambitious towards this end, they literally wanted the ability to draft laws and an army to back them, all supposedly stemming out of environmental concern. People at the international level constantly telling us that countries having sovereignty is the real issue here. Considering the vast holes in the theory it seems like it might be more about agenda then biased or bad science. It is hard to fathom, yet I barely scratched the surface of published works I could cite ripping the theory in half and just what I put here calls it deep into question. actual measured results. not models. club of rome mentioned publicly using environmental issues as a means to have better control as far back as the 70s.

None of which is to say we dont have real environmental issues, we should change our relationship to various resources to overcome. We do, especially if we keep raising our population. But even IF they are right that co2 can cause the apocalypse they claim it can, it remains true it is being used as a means to attempt to foster a global government. For better or worse. So even if you totally believe the claims, we should be careful in addressing any threats and make sure we dont set our selves up for worse ones. Russia and I expect china, islam maybe? might fight it out if or when they really try to forge a global gov, which luckily the paris type talks coming up are loosing traction.

[Treetop]

"because in this particular set of proxy data we use trees as thermometers, and assume their growth is directly related mainly to temps. Obvious holes in this thinking but that is the claim."

I should extrapolate on this point a bit more. A large portion of our datasets show we arent in an unusually warm period whatsoever. Some suggests we are about the same as other recent and semi recent warmer periods. Some suggests its unusually hot now. We didnt have modern measurements until recently obviously. So we use various proxy datasets. Even as recently as the early 90s the whole field thought the 1930s were possibly slightly warmer then now, roman warm period and others were warmer. The IPCC itself (the international body pushing this) even acknowledged this in their two earliest reports. When you study in depth how these conclusions were drawn and changed over time, it looks exactly like politics and nothing like science however. Heck in the 80s year to year global average temps didnt matter AT ALL. Why? the dataset has a bigger margin of error then claimed warming!!! It was only trends over many years that we were supposed to pay attention to. The goalposts shifted here as well. Now we pretend great accuracy when within current margin of error it might in fact have been cooling this whole time. In fact this potentially explains ocean warming but thats a huge topic itself. We might rather thn actual ocean warming be seeing upwelling, basically warm water escaping as the oceans cool.

another interesting side note, did you know we might not be affecting co2 levels much at all? The idea we are is based isotope levels changing over time to relate more to what is trapped in fossil fuels. Might be true. But another potential within the same data we have is basically ignored. C4 plants use any co2 molecules even ones other plants find hard to use. Corn, sorghum, amaranth, millets, sugar cane and others are all major crops and also c4 plants. We grow vast seas of them currently. So why would I say this is possible when we know co2 levels are rising? Well in our ice core data co2 levels always track temps not vice versa. Did you know that while human levels of co2 output have skyrocketed the rate co2 levels have risen has remained constant? Or that when we give co2 to plants in enclosed areas they use up the extra in real time during their lives? We also currently have a greening of the worlds deserts currently. This is based on co2 letting them more efficiently use water. So despite all youve heard its very possible we arent even affecting co2 levels at all, that temps are doing it, and plants use whatever is left. This was openly debated in the context I laid it out until rather recently. Officially the isotope issue put the debate to bed, but its one data point and we know c4 plants used to be a tiny fraction of the whole of what is green and now they have significant numbers, no one even measured what this might do to the issue Im aware of, but c4 plants would atleast alter it a little. Did you realize residence time of co2 is entirely guessed at? This is a key point as well. We assume with no data it must be 100 years currently, based on almost nothing in terms of data. The field used to say 10-30 years. If the old stance was right then this also about halfs the impact of co2 itself when the fedbacks mandatory for most of the warming arent working as thought either.

I better stop myself here. I can find time eventually for more citations if called for. Not that I want to, I got burned out on debating this topic but I expect if anyone wants a debate on it here it will most likely be a civil one.

[68Camaro]

The "science" behind McPherson's assertions and those in his camp is so bad or biased that I don't bother debating. They have an agenda, which I have to admit I don't fully understand as it appears to be anti-humanity (and I don't understand that). (That topic does form the topic of some SHTF fiction, whereby radical environmentalists who are convinced that humanity is a negative virus contaminating mother Earth create something to kill-off most of humanity so that the earth can "recover".)

Zac has far more patience than I do. There is enough of those claims that are just basically wrong "by inspection" - using common sense that I have to wonder why people would pay attention to anything else he says. If he has gotten something right it would appear to be by accident.

We've got enough real, provable natural events that could kill us for me to to worry much about issues that don't really exist. The real ones might include: CME events, magnetic field reversals, ice age cycles, asteroid impacts. Not to mention the real man-made events that we should focus on: terrorism driven war, economic collapse, failure of the overall system we've created, pandemic disease, etc. But, cheery news, life is terminal - we're going to all die sooner or later, and eventually the planet will die as well. Not that we should purposely poison the earth, of course not - but let's focus on enjoying each day as it comes.

[Treetop]

One last thing, true or not one product of this push has been there is now an army of left leaning people BEGGING for global government. They might not realize it, but that is the goal of those at the international level for a few decades now. Something to ponder even if you believe the theory despite the vast holes in it. lol I mean they literally copple together data from very different types of proxies, throw massive margins of error on it, then pretend it ll has extreme accuracy. Amazing to watch. Modern directly measured data supports it in no way whatsoever especially when you understand the battle over which(past) proxy data to acknowledge. Did you know there are dozens of warming events in the ice core data? Or that even going by the most extreme claims we would still only relate to one of the smaller ones?? Most not all of these events were associated with booms of diversity btw. Not hard to believe when you stop and look at how the world sits today, colder regions have far fewer species overall, the warmest regions if they have water have more then we can count.

[beauanderos]

George Carlin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

[Treetop]

Something else to ponder. Over fishing is another issue we have an international group supposedly trying to solve. Most of these related groups like the IPCC (the group pushing global warming) list over fishing well below warming as a threat. Yet simple numbers suggest by as early as 2050 fishing will crumble close to most nations oceans. The suggestion thus far has been to fish less, as the US does. This is easy for us, we are wealthy, we simply farm fish and buy from poorer nations. Many countries though rely heavily on these fish. Some nations have massive populations crammed along coasts relying heavily on those fish. Meanwhile and I forget the numbers here, but artificial reefs have proven to greatly multiply ocean life where applied. They support the base of the food chain which moves right up the food chain to the species humans use. Based on past work Ive seen we have every reason to think it would be rather affordable to ensure many many multiples more fish then back round rates before humans ever caught a single fish. Enough to answer the entire issue? not sure the only major work Ive seen on it was one advocate that had collected data on several spots globally with the same results over and over and well we have no real idea how far it could be pushed potentially more then answers the issue, but its cheap and will in the least make a huge dent in the issue. Yet an international team of experts just tell us we have to stop using the fish. Again easy for us as a nation for many out there in coming decades they will need new sources of food. Go look at asian nations especially who rely on this, packed along coasts at such levels farming other crops might not be a workable solution, buying from others might be rough also when they barely feed themselves as it is.

So here we have an issue with basically zero debate, (unlike AGW which despite the headlines every single point is in contention in the published work) everyone whos studied it at all sees the looming issue even if the severity of it is over estimated (some claim the entire ocean food chain will crumble) we can still see its a major issue. Over a billion people rely heavily on this easy and historically cheap food source. This is something happening within the lifetimes of most humans alive today. Not "theoretically by 2100, and vaguely if you tweak the math at not actually measurable levels". We even have a cheap answer to greatly alter the course of this issue or possibly even reverse it entirely, yet this is not expanded on or studied in better depth. Nope, we just are told to stop using fish. An option that ensures many parts of the world will chase the last of this resource to its potential breaking point. another interesting point was when looking at artificial reefs, it didnt seem to matter if fishing continued unabated numbers still soared. There are only so many places the base of the oceans foodchain survive or thrive, and we can expand that base.

The international "answer" to this thus far has been basically to ignore it and suggest something those especially relying on this source arent currently capable of. Even though weve got an affordable answer for all or most of the issue.

A similar type of paradigm exists with the international group relating to "desertification". Its a more complex issue, but all "answers" given for it so far ensure more and more centralized control, while ensuring the issue likely gets much worse before any action at all. Even though for instance several groups in africa a place at the forefront of this issue have shown systems that effectively combat the issue by storing more water in the soil while also making their food production more stable. Once this became somewhat known of an issue in a few circles over there, these same international groups switched from basically saying we cant do much, to saying the ONLY answer was using similar variables as to what some private groups had done, BUT saying it only worked in one specific way, which happpens to be a way you need very centralized management of only large cattle herds. Meaning it works, but takes food production out of the hands of the masses, where it still rests mostly today.

You will be hard pressed to find an environmental group that mentions the two above issues in context, although Ive seen a few. With the desertification you will find groups championing the ideas that do work, but as I said with very centralized control. With over fishing still offer only chaos and rainbows and unicorns essentially. As if we can wish the issue away. (then blame evil short sighted human later and lack of central panning??) Both issues very real and threatening human lives within many people alive todays lifetimes. Both with ignored affordable answers and the seeming push for more chaos and a path for more control.

I am sure you realize the ways in which current economic policies of many places do similar patterns as the above. AGW is no different. Even if the claims were real and backed by the data i is being used to attempt to have more control.

[fansubs_ca]

http://www.sonicbomb.com/iv1.php?vid=as ... d%20Impact

Ok, so I need to add submarine to my preps?

Um, as much as I'm a "fan of subs" did you watch the video? I didn't see any unvaporized
water left in it towards the end. The only safe place in the event of that kind of impact
is another planet all together.

[Treetop]

Here's an image that sums up (some of the) thinking currently on the topic. I see it as credible, the time line, however, is subject to debate.

Ray you must not be much of a gambler. Do you know how hard it is to hit a 4 team/bet parlay, even with very known quantities and records?

There are too many unknowns to make a prediction like this. Even if there were only 10 variables for each of the four steps, the odds of predicting a particular outcome in four phases is 10,000 to 1. There are far more variables by many orders of magnitude.

The prediction will not happen.

I didnt notice rays graphic as closely as I could have the first time. Interesting they mention "accelerated arctic warming". The theory actually says BOTH poles will warm faster then other areas which is not happening. The antarctic is cooling actually. The tropical hotspot mandatory for the physics of the theory also doesnt exist.

As to what thogey said, we would also see proof of such mechanisms in our geological proxy datasets and we simply do not. The exact opposite actually, There appear to be mechansims that balance out the extreme in global climate not accelerate them. A handful of papers to make the case they found such feedbacks but each Im aware of provably ignored known data to make such a case. Such as co2 rising following not leading the temp changes.

Have those of you still thinking co2 is an issue looked at the "climategate" emails? I know the TV told us these were benign but you can read them yourself, they absolutely were not benign. Open (well private email that got hacked) discussion about controlling the debate, lack of warming, how to mislead people by cherry picking and several major names in the field involved or mentioned. Phil jones was one of those, he stepped down and went on to give a major interview to the BBC in which he changed his stance on major points. The interview is even more damming if you know the intricacies of the debate, the way he answered several questions was an amazing dance. ike how he answered the question about why he thinks the warming since 1950 was mostly caused by humans even though he admitted several other periods had similar trends, he listed two factors and said it wasnt those so it must be co2. Strangely he didnt acknowledge a dozen or more other known major variables, some of which we barely even bothered to study much. He is well voiced in the field he knows his answer amounted to the way a politician would answer something. Amazingly through this and many other major datapoints the meme stayed alive that the science is settled. Even as dozens of papers piled up trying to explain why it wasnt warming as predicted. It is absolutely bizarre to watch. here is the BBC interview, keep in mind directly before phil jones did this interview his public stance was we were all going to fry. Here we are in the "information age", with one side of this issue claiming the other has a well funded "denial machine" yet it isnt common knowledge that climategate emails showed agenda controlling what is portrayed as a matter of pure science. (climategate emails are easy to look up, very interesting to read the actual excerpts and then what alarmists say to try to act like it was no big deal.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

here is an article about african villagers being displaced over carbon trading policy. This isnt the only time it happened.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world ... nda&st=cse

[neilgin1]

"The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?


“I the Lord search the heart
and test the mind,
to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds.”




Like the partridge that gathers a brood that she did not hatch,
so is he who gets riches but not by justice;
in the midst of his days they will leave him,
and at his end he will be a fool.




A glorious throne set on high from the beginning
is the place of our sanctuary.


O Lord, the hope of Israel,
all who forsake you shall be put to shame;
those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth,
for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water."

Jeremiah 17:9-13