[evilgenius]

Those responses actually sound dogmatic to me. There is this glorification going about concerning a retreat into the past. I think that way is only going to see many surviving segments of humanity fail, as they no longer have an overarching idea of society and social response to look to. I think this because one thing seems certain, the effects of climate change will not be entirely predictable. Where there will be droughts or flooding won't be where we will be able to always predict. They will probably strike enough of those primitive settlements over a meaningful period of time, should that be how man chooses to respond, for it to become truly tragic for humanity. That doesn't mean that a large enough number of people wouldn't make it through the worst of it, but that the odds that a large enough group will would be diminished. I think there are better odds when we go through it together. Of course, we would have to find a better way of rationing prosperity than the current most successful method, which allocates the extreme bulk of reward to those at the top of organizations. Not only that, but our current method also allows the commoditization, for the allocation to those at the top, of many things, like healthcare, which are truly essential to the nature of the enterprise of collectively surviving as a species. We have let the monied interests cloud the divide between needs and wants.

[jedrider]

Here's a talk by Guy McPherson.

A lot of what he says seems very possible.

Not that cheerful, but very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDG5rfFBKSQ

Well, scientists are coming around to his point of view now. Yeah, he is sometimes off and over-reacts in the short term. The problem is how difficult it is to comprehend an exponential rate. First, things are slower than expected, then they happen too quickly.

Warming Faster: climate disruption in next decade—David Victor interview—Radio Ecoshock 2019-01-16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPR6OVOvDBc

You may believe climate disruption is arriving sooner than we were told. You are right. Three power-house scientists have published a warning: “Global warming will happen faster than we think.” They explain three emerging threats that combine to bring climate danger out of the year 2100, and right into the next decade.

[AdamB]

Here is a more recent, short interview with Guy McPherson.

Guy McPherson interview

He predicts that all humans will be extinct by 2030.

He predicted that civilization would collapse half a decade ago from peak oil. He predicted that civilization would end last September, and if he got that wrong, he then claimed it would certainly happen this September.

What is it Plant, did you get a little extra "special" grief counseling to keep you in the "please stay stupid and don't ask questions" club?

[dohboi]

eg, you seem to want a continuation of global civilization, but that's not really in the cards. It's probably impossible to maintain even at 3 C above pre-industrial levels of CO2e, and we're heading much further than that.

And you falsely imply that all plans involve going backward. Innovations are happening all the time in best practices for no-till farming, organic farming and permaculture practices, all based on scientific study unavailable to early farmers.

But then I guess it is useful to you to paint your opponents as something that they are not. Good luck with that.

[Plantagenet]

I found this YouTube video interesting.

Guy McPherson interviews Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski

Maslowski is the guy who predicted the Arctic would go ice free by 2019.....and even though we are record low levels for sea ice right now, it isn't on track to disappear by the end of the summer.

Guy asks Maslowski what went wrong in his modeling and why his prediction has been falsified, and Maslowski explains that he based his earlier work on 2D ice extents, and with new satellites they can now get 3D or volumetric estimates of Arctic Ocean ice extent. The Arctic Ocean continues to warm, and the Sea ice has been getting thinner for the last few years. As it gets thinner it becomes easier to melt it off.

Maslowski explains that the scientific definition of an ice free Arctic is a sea ice extent under 1 million km2, with the North Pole ice free. Maslowski is cagey about his current prediction for an ice free Arctic , but he notes as the sea ice gets thinner it is easier and easier to quickly melt huge areas of Arctic Sea Ice.

The jet stream is extremely wavy right now and warm air is being pumped into the Arctic over Alaska and NW Canada. This should keep the melt going strong in the Arctic as he head into the official start of summer on June 21.

CHEERS!

[asg70]

The way to respond is to become increasingly complex.

There was a flurry of prescriptive books about bright-green mitigation 10 years ago. Things like Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Nobody cared. They hunkered down with the recession, then bought SUVs and elected Trump.

So I just roll my eyes when I see anyone post "we should (fill in the blanks)". There is no facing this problem head-on because too many people are in denial and even if we weren't in denial, we wouldn't reach enough of a consensus to achieve big projects.

[Revi]

Maslowski was just saying that the blue ocean event will probably not be this year. We only dodged the bullet for this year (maybe). Meanwhile the extent of the ice is still shrinking. Even if we don't get down below a million square kilometers of ice this year, we are still screwed some time in the early 2020's. I liked his saying that with loss of the albedo we go from 90% reflected to 90% of the heat absorbed. That's going to change things for sure.

[Ibon]

There was a flurry of prescriptive books about bright-green mitigation 10 years ago. Things like Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Nobody cared. They hunkered down with the recession, then bought SUVs and elected Trump.

.

Just like Reagan had the solar panels removed from the White House that Carter installed

Just like Cheney's comments in Rio that Americans lifestyles are not in question regarding climate change.

And of course all the lip service like Obama did resulting in the blaringly obvious truth that vested interests rule to the point that any negotiations are watered down to becoming a farce.

This is a pattern.

[Revi]

I have been watching the videos, and seeing the talks by Peter Wadhams as well. Very scary. I wonder when we will listen? I think we loved scientists when they were telling us we could have flying cars, but not so much when they give us bad news. Very hard to get the message out at all. That's why I like Extinction Rebellion. They seem to be able to get people to listen a bit...

[KaiserJeep]

"Vested Interests", indeed. It's an election year next year. That means that anybody who pays lip service to the concept of CC gets a few extra votes for injecting same into the conversation. Then those people who voted for him/her can safely put the topic out of their minds forever. Because, you see, they did their part by casting that vote, they are no longer required to even think about the topic. There will be no mention of added taxes, much less lifestyle changes. Nor will such things come about, because they would imperil the pursuit of wealth and comfort.

That is the role of CC/AGW/anything remotely Doomish in an election. Don't hang any hopes there, nobody is actually interested in "saving" anything or anyone. It is the Trajedy of the Commons, writ large in capital letters, with exclamation marks.

When we run out of any critical and necessary resource, most especially the cheap FF energy that enables access to just about everything else, then the "hunt for the guilty parties" will commence. When that happens, those who spent their time in office enriching themselves, will be hiding behind lawyers, and speaking through lawyers, from comfortable locations unknown to you, as they relax in comfort and watch with fever bright interest in their eyes as their former electorate perishes.

You actually understand all of this already. You comfort yourself with the belief that casting a vote for somebody who says the right things is all you have to do. Those with even larger heaps of guilt will recycle instead of trash, eat plants instead of critters, and even go to $100/plate fundraisers for the environment. To save the world.

[onlooker]

And then following the narrative of Kaiser ie. Trajedy of the Commons, which I agree with comes the denoument. And that is CC will lay low the wealthy and the poor, the smart and dumb etc. If you think we can survive sonething akin to the Great Dying, you have more faith in technology and our species than I do

[Ibon]

KJ,

Your cynical assessment is likely all true.

I was thinking how genocide is so much easier than finding solutions for everyone during human overshoot.

We are going to move through some deep darkness before coming out on the other side purged of our excesses.

Remember something regarding the rich....their wealth is also a massive chain around their necks. In their attempts to preserve their privelege and hold on to unsustaunable lifestyles they wont be watching the electorate perish with bright interest as you suggest. They will be increasingly freaked out as the surviving electorate gain more feral street smarts regarding their fate.

Evolution will happen in the gutters while the wealthy will be hanging on frozen on islands that exert no force toward adaptation. Just obsolete values that will be mowed over by rogue but better adapted survivors.

The wealthy are more imprisoned than any of us can conceive...

Should I mention that the middle class is the greatest fodder in this ensuing correction, being undermined from those savvy survivors from the lower classes while the wealthy will offer no support.

And since this middleclass in aggregate are the greatest consumers the genocide of this demographic will advance the necesarry correction far more than any climate change agreement.

[AdamB]

Come on Revi, you aren't a 10 year old who with wide eyes believes any crap spoon fed them by the adults.

Do you have ANY information that his data leading to his proclamations of end of civilization are any more right today, then they were the other times when he was wrong?

The truth is really hard to take. I resisted it for years, but now am becoming one of those who see things as they really are, unfortunately.

I didn't ask a question about some random truth or another revi, I asked if you had any information indicating that Guy "Openings for Groupie Doom Chicks, as long as they are good looking" McPhee learned from his since discredited claims of collapse that have already come and gone?

I did a little thought experiment. It takes 80 calories of heat to melt a gram of ice. That same 80 calories takes that water to 80 degrees celsius. That's almost boiling.

You aren't describing a thought experiment. You are describing basic physical properties of water. Are you unhappy with how the laws of physics work? Or is this one of Guys latest end of times angles to for some end of the world polyamory?

Guy says that the global temperature goes up 6 degrees when the arctic ice melts. It's possible that it could happen in the next 5 years.

Guy said that civilization ended years ago during his peak oil prediction days. He also said that an ice free Arctic would collapse human civilization last September. And in case someone like you was a bit uncertain about that prediction, he gave them some solace, saying that if civilization didn't collapse last September as he claimed, it certainly would this September.

I ask again Revi, do you have ANY information that his data and conclusions leading to his proclamations of the end of civilization are any more right today, then they were the other times when he was wrong?

The funny thing is that the thing that could save some of us is Peak Oil. If we can't get our hands on the stuff and burn it maybe we have a chance.

Guy claimed that peak oil back around 2012/2014 or so would cause the collapse of human civilization. You would appear to not believe him in this regard. Was it because his previous predictions failed and this informed your current belief? Or has lack of the peak oil your movie was about caused you to revisit your position on that topic altogether?

[AdamB]

Here's a talk by Guy McPherson.

A lot of what he says seems very possible.

Not that cheerful, but very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDG5rfFBKSQ

Well, scientists are coming around to his point of view now.

Perhaps we should all get together and rewrite the rational wiki on his value then?

[asg70]

Adam, Guy may be overstating the environmental sitaution but as time goes on the experts continue to gravitate closer and closer to his position, like the news stories going around lately talking about civilizational collapse by mid-century. So don't be too quick to disregard his warnings.

More to the point, in the last 20 years or so climate scientists have consistently and without fail UNDER-estimated environmental impacts. This has been so consistent that never a week seems to go by without a news report saying projections for this or that are now "worse than expected". This has been going on for so long and has been so obvious that I'm surprised nobody has accused the establishment of being denialist. Not denialist in the sense of the Koch brothers or Trump, but denialist in the sense of clinging to some internal bias required to have an inflated sense of hope, as once hope is gone there's no reason to do anything OTHER than eat drink and be merry (which would come full circle with the Trump style denialists).

I'm not much of a peak oiler anymore, but I AM still a doomer, because the data still supports environmental doom--in fact it's stronger than ever. I call denialists when I see them, whether they're peakers who deny the world has more oil than they'd like to admit remains, or cornies who deny the notion of runaway climate change as the polar vortex shifts and icecaps and mountain snowpack melt and sealevel rises, etc...

THAT is the current doomer trajector. Peakoil delayed, other limits to growth accelerated, and all along BAU continuing apace (for now).

[KaiserJeep]

Yet the statistics are so against Doom. From the time our ancesters huddled in caves and feared the lightning, there have been peeople crying Doom. Some were Shamans who could be reluctantly persuaded to save everyone for a generous share of the best food, the prettiest females, and the warmest part of the cave. Since then, thousands and perhaps even millions of proclamations of approaching Doom.

Still, TEOTWAWKI has not come. The world continues, a little more sick and broken every day. Some parts of the world are in outright collapse, with War/Famine/Pestilence/Refugees, while others are having fashion shows, obsessing over tech toys, and having liposuction and Botox procedures.

I'll have to say, chances are millions to one that such things will continue, indefinately.

[Ibon]

Still, TEOTWAWKI has not come.

Here is how I see this. Sentiments of doom are in the domain of those living in such abundance that they can actually afford the indulgence of obsessing about it.

When cycles really do exert 'doom' type events people are preoccupied with coping and thus do not perceive what is happening as doom. Witness the great depression or living in Lima or Bogota in the 80's.

Doom sentiments are really about a cowardly sense of loss of comforts and enough wealth to fret over it.

It falls in the domain of the intangeable. Tangible real events wake you up to coping. Imagining doom is intangible as the scenarios you conjur up just circle around in your head.

An easy way to explain this.........

What ifs create more neurosis than what is

[KaiserJeep]

The wy I look at it, neuroses are bad things. Wallowing in imagined approaching Doom is just about as unhealthy an indulgence as possible, bordering on psychosis. Spend too much time obsessing over the end of all things, which obstinately does not happen, and you are far too likely to solve your problems the way Mike Ruppert solved his.

Besides which, TEOTWAWKI actually happened Tuesday last, and most people have yet to notice.

[asg70]

Doom sentiments are really about a cowardly sense of loss of comforts and enough wealth to fret over it.

THIS.

This is also a big reason why doomers "lead the target" by treating any and all negativity happening in the world as TEOTWAWKI. The stuff doomers point to as "doom-now!" are at best a first-world-problem compared to the "bring out yer dead..." Malthusian catastrophe to come.

[Plantagenet]

I have been watching the videos, and seeing the talks by Peter Wadhams as well. Very scary. I wonder when we will listen? I think we loved scientists when they were telling us we could have flying cars, but not so much when they give us bad news. Very hard to get the message out at all. That's why I like Extinction Rebellion. They seem to be able to get people to listen a bit...

Prof. Wadham's TED talk is great.

Wadham TED talk---A Farewell to Ice

As an older man and a very senior scientist Prof. Emeritus Wadham is now free of the requirement to play politics to get research grants from the government. This has freed him to speak freely and honestly about global warming. Wadham is scathing about the cowardice of the scientists in the IPCC who rig their models to downplay how much warming we will see, and the irresponsibility of our politicians who are failing to take the steps needed to reduce global CO2 emissions.

Cheers!