[KaiserJeep]

Oh, I well understand our present predicament. But the sad but true facts are that at least 90% of the humans presently on Earth are here and alive solely because we unwisely exploited cheap fossil fuels.

But those SEVEN BILLION excess people are already here. They are not going away because they inconvenience you.

Your understanding of the nature of the predicament does not earn you a special place among the cognoscente. It won't even begin to earn any respect here at Peak Oil, because most of us understood this predicament years ago.

Whether or not we can change the fate of humanity is the real question. Most of us despair about that for the most part, because we understand that to cease burning those conveniently cheap FF's would at the present time kill those same seven billion humans. We also understand that the survivors are likely to be amongst those who figure out ways of hiding FF's and using them to preserve life as we know it. We also understand that the 1% share of the human race, AKA "the elites", have already positioned themselves to survive the coming hardships, and that the rest of us will struggle.

Finally, we all understand that collectively, humans will burn every drop of oil, every lump of coal, and every unit of gas that we can lay our hands on, regardless of the global impacts of doing so, as long as we can gain access to such. Some of us even understand that the politics of AGW/CC are not really about "saving the Earth" because what underlies that and is the real motive is "saving what FF's remain for the exclusive consumption of the 1%".

Now you can accept reality or continue to be duped by the elites. It is up to you. At least think long and hard about it before you reply.

[jedrider]

Now you can accept reality or continue to be duped by the elites. It is up to you. At least think long and hard about it before you reply.

So, you have basically accepted my argument. Then why the beating about the bush, duped by elites, completely eludes me (unless you are a particular sort of denier, and I already know that

[KaiserJeep]

Oh, pardon me. I thought you were one of the mindless rabble here who want to "save the planet" by stopping carbon emissions. If you have moved beyond that, then you need to make that more clear. Because I believe that the real underlying purpose of all the carbon emissions/climate change/global warming nonsense is to further suppress the lower income side of the human spectrum, and further the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and make the distribution of everything needed for life and comfort even more uneven than it is today.

But many believe otherwise, many cling to the hope that we can stop burning FF's, and magically life will become beautiful for all. They prefer to ignore the fact that FF depletion is just the first of many resource shortages and that there are not a whole raft of other shortages being concealed by cheap and abundant supplies of FF energy. Or that the last best hope for the human species is that 90% of us at the minimum perish without irrevokably destroying the means for the other 10% or less to survive.

[onlooker]

And isn't that the hideously ironic catch 22 of climate change. That our species dare not withdraw from FF, given is pivotal role in keeping so many of us alive and well. And so as is day after day being undeniably demonstrated we are continuing to burn all kinds of FF and our climate agreements are a joke.

And so, we are paving the way for a MASS EXTINCTION EVENT. This is amply shown in the geologic record. Climate change is the most common reason for these MEE. So, that is what makes me so pessimistic not just about the prospects for our species but most higher life forms on this planet.

[Plantagenet]

I believe that the real underlying purpose of all the carbon emissions/climate change/global warming nonsense is to further suppress the lower income side of the human spectrum, and further the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and make the distribution of everything needed for life and comfort even more uneven than it is today.

So you think Climate Change science is just a giant conspiracy among tens of thousands of oceanographers and atmospheric scientists and earth scientists and climate scientists around the world to help the 1%?


Hahahahahahah! Thats pretty funny, you've got to admit!

Trust me---scientists studying climate change are interested in earth and atmospheric processes---nothing more. And I know because I R 1.

If you doubt that, then drop by the annual American Geophysical Union meeting sometime in San Francisco and see for yourself. Go to the climate change talks and you'll hear hours of numbing climate data, look at thousands of graphs and charts about climate change, and never hear a single whispered word about a how its all a secret conspiracy to help the 1% get richer, even in the evening parties after the science sessions end.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

I haven waded through this all yet but it looks like it may be of interest to some here.

https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/b ... ersion.pdf

There is often a curious distinction between what the scientific community and the general population believe to be true of dire scientific issues, and this skepticism tends to vary markedly across groups. For instance, in the case of climate change, Republicans (conservatives) are especially skeptical of the relevant science, particularly when they are compared with Democrats (liberals). What causes such radical group differences? We suggest, as have previous accounts, that this phenomenon is often motivated. However, the source of this motivation is not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem. This difference in underlying process holds important implications for understanding, predicting, and influencing motivated skepticism. In 4 studies, we tested this solution aversion explanation for why people are often so divided over evidence and why this divide often occurs so saliently across political party lines. Studies 1, 2, and 3—using correlational and experimental methodologies—demonstrated that Republicans’ increased skepticism toward environmental sciences may be partly attributable to a conflict between specific ideological values and the most popularly discussed environmental solutions. Study 4 found that, in a different domain (crime), those holding a more liberal ideology (support for gun control) also show skepticism motivated by solution aversion.

[Outcast_Searcher]

As far as weather getting more freaky/abnormal re extremes -- they're now forecasting 3 to 6 inches of snow for central KY Friday night into Saturday morning -- a "Winter Storm watch".

Per my searching and memory, living in central KY for nearly 60 years, 2" in 3 Aprils since 1900 are the current records. Since 1983, only a trace has occurred in April.

In 2015 we had record March snowfall AND cold that kept it on the ground for a week, instead of the usual one day rapid melt of any heavy March snowfall.

So more extremes over time here, both hot and cold.

[onlooker]

I think these odd and extreme weather patterns could be indicative of a definite disturbance of the climate system. However, nothing happening now, would be indicative of a true permanent change in the climate regime. At least that is my amateurish understanding. But certainly, a sea ice free Arctic would signal something drastic has happened and would set the stage for more extreme changes because of the importance of the ice albedo effect.

[Ibon]

I haven waded through this all yet but it looks like it may be of interest to some here.

https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/b ... ersion.pdf

There is often a curious distinction between what the scientific community and the general population believe to be true of dire scientific issues, and this skepticism tends to vary markedly across groups. For instance, in the case of climate change, Republicans (conservatives) are especially skeptical of the relevant science, particularly when they are compared with Democrats (liberals). What causes such radical group differences? We suggest, as have previous accounts, that this phenomenon is often motivated. However, the source of this motivation is not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem. This difference in underlying process holds important implications for understanding, predicting, and influencing motivated skepticism. In 4 studies, we tested this solution aversion explanation for why people are often so divided over evidence and why this divide often occurs so saliently across political party lines. Studies 1, 2, and 3—using correlational and experimental methodologies—demonstrated that Republicans’ increased skepticism toward environmental sciences may be partly attributable to a conflict between specific ideological values and the most popularly discussed environmental solutions. Study 4 found that, in a different domain (crime), those holding a more liberal ideology (support for gun control) also show skepticism motivated by solution aversion.

This has always been obvious for me since I first engaged in mitigating environmental imbalances starting 40 years ago. The solutions require a change of lifestyle exactly what Dick Cheney said is unacceptable years ago in Rio regarding climate change....."The american way of life is not up for negotiation".

The snag has always been about the solutions, it has never been about the science. From day one.

[Newfie]

Ibon,
As I’ve mentioned before if heard this or similar analysis of how to get the populace into the “correct” side of the ballot ledger. The activist advocate a message that the public will like. While I understand that such a measure is necessary in a Demicracy it is really just another form of manipulating the heard. Since both sides can play that game the best manipulator wins. That sounds like a pretty dumb strategy for planning the future.

Yet so it is. And it’s a fair part of the reason for my pessimism.

I like my truth straight up, warts and all.

If we can’t hear the truth and react appropriately, well then it may be time to end this genetic experiment.

[KaiserJeep]

Look at the last few messages and admit what we all know to be true: this is a political controversy, not a scientific one.

What irritates me is that most of you want to take the majority scientific opinion and make policy with dire consequences from it. If one accepts that to stop CC, AGW, or whatever, we must cease burning fossil fuels, it amounts to causing at least 3/4ths of the humans living to die ugly miserable deaths.

Yes, I understand that some of you really do believe that. Frankly, I don't give a rat's posterior what your beliefs would be on this matter. If you are going to save anything by condemning 3/4ths of the humans to a miserable painful death, then you better have an understanding of what you are talking about. Then 3/4ths of you true believers should be willing to die for what you believe, because it is certainly not "right" for you to kill 5 or 6 billion other people if you are not willing to join them.

The alternative of BAU keeps the can moving down the road without genocide. I remember all too well what the world was like 60 years ago, and how much it has changed for the worst, because there are just too many people for this planet to tolerate without suffering harm that will take a geological age to erase.

I am making plans to deal with the world we have, not the one I want it to be. If that means surviving AGW/CC and all the consequences, that's what it means. Deal with it.

[Cog]

The climate change(we are all doomed) folks are a death cult. They won't admit it openly but they want most of humanity gone. I've said it before here much to the derision of the usual suspects but its where their policies lead. I'd rather they just state openly they want to kill off most of the planet's population so the rest can survive. That would be honesty at least.

[Newfie]

Cog,
It’s not what is wanted, it’s what is needed.

Let’s say you have gangrene on your left foot. You don’t want it cut off, but it’s you only chance to live. Your choice.

[onlooker]

Are We F--ked? Decoding the resistance to climate change

The evidence is everywhere: forests retreating, glaciers melting, sea levels rising. Droughts, floods, wildfires and storms have increased five-fold over the past 50 years. And we're only just beginning to feel the strain of climate change. It's estimated that rising sea levels will threaten 30 million people in Bangladesh alone. Miami could disappear within a generation. Despite all of these dire events and projections, the attacks continue — on climate scientists. Part 1 of 2-part series. Part 2 airs Friday, February 9. **This episode originally aired September 7, 2017.

"No one wanted to pay attention to the implications of a world four degrees warmer… It's too horrendous to think about. And no one talked about it. Then a few scientists said let's have a conference and actually talk about it. They held this conference in Oxford and I went along. As the conference started, there was a kind of suppressed emotional intensity, except in the coffee breaks. It was then that I would buttonhole a couple of scientists and say: 'Well, you know we're speculating about this. But what do you really think is the situation?' And one of them just looked at me and said: 'We're f--ked.'" – Clive Hamilton

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/are-we-f- ... -1.4277614

[KaiserJeep]

Newfie, Killing perhaps 6 billion people is not at all like chopping a foot. Suppose you have a widespread infection, and the doctor tells you that you will lose all your limbs, most of your intestines, one kidney, one eye, one ear, and your teeth. You will still live a remainder of a normal lifespan and perhaps even longer in this condition.

Look around you, at your family and friends. Identify 1 person out of 7 who will live, and all the others will die. Don't take too long with your list, or we'll give the job to one of them, and you'll be on it.

Understand that those 6/7ths only exist because of cheap fossil fuel energy. Killing them is what it means to cease burning such while any remains. Fortunately, there is at least a 200 year supply of coal, because we will soon run out of oil.

That 200 year coal supply means that we kick the can for another 200 years. Unfortunate, because that is the most toxic FF and the one I hate most. Can't be helped, though.

[onlooker]

Kaiser what makes you so sure that 6/7 of the world's population will die due to elimination of FF as a prime energy source? The fact that so many people are alive today is not solely due to FF. It is also because of our acquired medical knowledge and farming knowledge. You talk of not condemning so many people to die horrible premataure deaths. Are you really thinking that disrupting the climate in ways that will render habitability of this Earth precarious for most of the current higher life forms a more compassionate way. Albeit it may take longer but the consequences will be probably much worse that with the weaning off FF. We are speaking of a Mass Extinction Event the likes of which have wipied out more than 90% of species at one time. I am not arguing here to antagonize you or anyone. But the calculus is grim and even more grim. I see you and Cog and some others more interested in the here and now than the ultimate fate of our species or most other life.

[Cog]

Cog,
It’s not what is wanted, it’s what is needed.

Let’s say you have gangrene on your left foot. You don’t want it cut off, but it’s you only chance to live. Your choice.

Then line up 90% of the population and kill them Newfie. Let me know when its my turn against the ditch. I don't want to miss my turn.

The deal is we believe in the concept of peak oil. Eventually the supply of oil will start to go down. Humans will either adapt to that change or die. Why do we as humans want to start killing people now? After all, aren't humans just another living organism like a nematode or virus? Why should we try to preserve them? And if climate change kills us first, instead of peak oil , why should that matter?

[Ibon]

KJ's and Cog's position is clear and is reflected in the population at large, furthermore, if I consider comments and discussions I have had in Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Panama and other countries regarding this then their position is also the dominant one globally.

It doesn't matter that nature batting last will end up more brutal than any solutions and limits that humans impose. Because it is nature doing the correction and not humans this is ok for both Cog and KJ and most of the world. Better let an external agency do the correction than any attempts made by humans that in any way detrimentally affect the current trajectory of humanity.

For years many of us have argued how much more exponentially humans will suffer letting nature bat last. That this is far worst than human agency even if we apply it imperfectly and not always fair to all.

I actually am now solidly in the camp of Cog and KJ and most of the world regarding regarding solutions which is why I am no longer in any way an activist. I also want to allow nature to bat last. Wisdom will not come any other way.

Human agency in solving human overshoot? I am utterly pessimistic.
Nature solving human overshoot. I am very optimistic.

[Newfie]

None of get to say who goes in the ditch.

None of has an answer for this conundrum or pedicerment as KJ likes to use.

Not saying I like it, just noting what the options are.

But that is the most likely truth as I see it ATM.

And yes KJ, it’s like cutting off most of your body. Horrid thought that.

But you guys are only trying to kill the messenger, the message is the message.

Read em and weep. I’ll join you.

Ibon.....well said.

[onlooker]

Here , here Newf. I second your thoughts. Look, it is about the distressing notion of so many people dying premature rather horrible deaths. I must admit part of me cannot reconcile with that. So, I like some of you do the calcutions and try and find some of the less negative outcomes. And hope that one exists. I try and understand Ibon and am rather sad that he choses to disengage. But I understand why especially given that he simply sees the Consequences as both needed and inevitable in respect to our Overshoot predicament. So the solution to Overshoot has always been Nature but Nature is death, disease and starvation. It is inevitable now. I personally wish that it was not.