Peak Oil News and Message Boards

KaiserJeep wrote:Nothing will prevent global warming, which is mostly natural with a minute contribution from burning FF's. But the warming will not be catastropic, either.

Yes KJ we all know you think you know more than all the leading scientists in the field, but like flat earthers what you believe is irrelevant to reality. You didn’t even try to answer the question which wasn’t addressed to you. Please try again or befoul a different thread?

Thanks, ATN

I would remind everyone that Ad Hominem attacks are forbidden by the Forum rules. To hearken back to the thread topic, dohboi and a number of other posters have displayed a continuous tendancy to blame others for their own actions. Pretty much everybody uses petroleum fuels and coal sourced electricity, and thus is directly responsible for spewing carbon into the atmosphere. dohboi for example has attacked meat eaters, billionaires, and tourists as planet-killers. Then he literally claimed that his own wastes smelled better than others because he was vegan.

FYI if you believe that AGW is anything but a theory, you need to go read the threads devoted to just that topic. There is no "proof" of AGW, only opinions. Even the concensus of opinion in places like the IPCC is disolving with each new Assessment Report. Among those fools who worship Science and for whom the priesthood wears white lab coats, there are always dissenting opinions, and the majority opinion does not make a theory a fact.

If you want any respect around here, push back at the opinion and not the Forum member.

AGW has always had a religious fervor to it. Heretics are to be humiliated and burned at the stake should they not recant the error of wrong-think.

[face palm]

These constant attempts to place blame anywhere but on the entire species are nothing but denial. The five stages of grief are real and your behavior proves it every day.

Subjectivist wrote:These constant attempts to place blame anywhere but on the entire species are nothing but denial. The five stages of grief are real and your behavior proves it every day.

I do not think the subject of overshoot is relevant to blame. Species act in accord with a predetermined set of traits and capabilities. Our brains have allowed us to create magnificent creations but it has also led us astray. Would you blame a bear(s) for entering a human dwelling because they are hungry and subsequently being put down. One can say it is an irony that our brain which allowed us to be so successful is now leading us to possibly total catastrophe. I wonder if Ibon or someone else can point to another species which has been too successful for its own good

"I wonder if Ibon or someone else can point to another species which has been too successful for its own good"

Azolla Event

onlooker wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:These constant attempts to place blame anywhere but on the entire species are nothing but denial. The five stages of grief are real and your behavior proves it every day.

I do not think the subject of overshoot is relevant to blame. Species act in accord with a predetermined set of traits and capabilities. Our brains have allowed us to create magnificent creations but it has also led us astray. Would you blame a bear(s) for entering a human dwelling because they are hungry and subsequently being put down. One can say it is an irony that our brain which allowed us to be so successful is now leading us to possibly total catastrophe. I wonder if Ibon or someone else can point to another species which has been too successful for its own good

You rather make my point, threads with titles like "[people I don't like] are to blame for [issue that troubles me]" are common around this place these days, particulary from a couple members.

Time has long since passed for the blame game. Time to focus on real solutions rather than self justification.

"blame game"

A term made up by people guilty of atrocities eager to evade responsibility!

Subjectivist wrote:Time has long since passed for the blame game. Time to focus on real solutions rather than self justification.

I'd say the time to focus on "real solutions" is also long since passed. There are none (at the macro level) as the mob has spoken. Trump and our continued consumption habits are symptomatic of that. It will just be a combination of mostly brown-tech and a growing but inadequate slice of green-tech to kick the can of BAU down the road until the law of diminishing returns prevails.

Subjectivist,

Titles of that ilk are not common, unless I’m mistaken they are the work of a single poster. Dohboi.

I love you, too, Newf!

And a very happy new year to you and to all!

Look, the title is a simple empirical claim. You can respond by finding data that proves or disproves it, and talk perhaps about the consequences, or you can react all emotionally to it, as many here seem to have done. I am not responsible for other people's emotional instability or inability to have rational arguments about the multiple extreme circumstances we are in.

(It is rather psychologically interesting how many brave souls here do feel the need to rush to the defense of poor, hapless billionaires on this and other threads. Are there that many billionaires frequenting POForums?! Or is there some kind of bizarre loyalty some feel here to the super rich? Kind of curious, to me...)

dohboi wrote:I love you, too, Newf!

And a very happy new year to you and to all!

Look, the title is a simple empirical claim. You can respond by finding data that proves or disproves it, and talk perhaps about the consequences, or you can react all emotionally to it, as many here seem to have done. I am not responsible for other people's emotional instability or inability to have rational arguments about the multiple extreme circumstances we are in.

(It is rather psychologically interesting how many brave souls here do feel the need to rush to the defense of poor, hapless billionaires on this and other threads. Are there that many billionaires frequenting POForums?! Or is there some kind of bizarre loyalty some feel here to the super rich? Kind of curious, to me...)

It's amusing to see that the more you accuse others of faults like emotional instability, the less of it you seem to show, over time.

But of course, to challenge your assertions, whether fact based or not, and especially to use data to back the challenges up -- by anyone but you that MUST be due to irrationality.

Got it. Meanwhile, in the real world, the overall amount of FF's consumed by well over 7+ billion people, coupled with BAU growth is clearly the primary problem, and clearly isn't anywhere close to being all caused or controlled by under 3000 billionaires globally.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
Got it. Meanwhile, in the real world, the overall amount of FF's consumed by well over 7+ billion people, coupled with BAU growth is clearly the primary problem, and clearly isn't anywhere close to being all caused or controlled by under 3000 billionaires globally.

I am sure there are a few vegans among those 3000 billionaires that might like to have a serious chat with Dohboi.

"isn't anywhere close to being all caused or controlled by under 3000 billionaires globally"

Nice attempt at a strawman argument.

To be a leading cause, it doesn't have to be all, or even nearly all. Over half would be more than adequate. I have studied lots of footprint research, and they all seem to agree that if you were to use just one data point to determine a person's ecological footprint, it would be their wealth/income, and it would generally be a pretty good indicator.

So, given that, and given that" The wealthiest 1 percent of the world’s population now owns more than half of the world’s wealth," I think it's fair to say that the global wealthy have the majority of responsibility. But add to that the enormous control that the very richest have over corporations and governments, the responsibility suddenly skyrockets. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest ... ealth.html

But if you want to keep handwaving and claiming you know better...just...because..., then knock yourselves out!

On the rest, I will just quote a former president, who when a fan cried: "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" Truman replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's Hell."

But if moderators in their wisdom are no longer comfortable for inconvenient truths being clearly and forcefully articulated on these threads, they should not hesitate to banish me. But they should take out a few others with me!

And Ibon. I hope you were being ironic or sarcastic or something. Because otherwise that snarky comment was one of the most idiotic things you have said on these forums (that I have read, at least), and quite a departure from your generally thoughtful (if still often wrong ) comments here. Do you really think it's impossible for a vegan to also have a huge footprint in other ways? Multiple beyond-imaginably palatial homes, fleets of aircraft to ferry pets and footmen around...Even a vegan diet can, of course, be high impact if you try really really hard at it! Import every thing you eat from around the world and it's still gonna have a very big carbon footprint.

dohboi wrote:To be a leading cause, it doesn't have to be all, or even nearly all. Over half would be more than adequate. I have studied lots of footprint research, and they all seem to agree that if you were to use just one data point to determine a person's ecological footprint, it would be their wealth/income, and it would generally be a pretty good indicator.

So, given that, and given that" The wealthiest 1 percent of the world’s population now owns more than half of the world’s wealth," I think it's fair to say that the global wealthy have the majority of responsibility. But add to that the enormous control that the very richest have over corporations and governments, the responsibility suddenly skyrockets. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest ... ealth.html

According to Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/p ... -world.asp, it only takes an income of $32,400 US dollars to place you in the top 1% of earners world wide. People in first world countries think of one percenters as being millionnaires and billionaires and they do not see their own consumption as excessive. The reality is that just about any middle class person in a first world country is quite wealthy in comparison to anyone in the remaining 99%. Millionaires and Billionaires may have an excessive amount of consumption but I would expect consumption by middle to upper middle class to be more significant because they are far more numerous.

That’s completely correct. Someone making $32,000/year is spending every dime. Savings rates are extremely low. The billionaires can’t spend their annual income consumption, they save large parts of it.

If Bill Gates shared out all his wealth across the world it would be spent on consumption almost instantly.

If you won a $1,000 chances are you would buy something with it.

If you win $1,000,000 chances are you would invest a good chunk.

If 1,000 people won $1,000 each it would be spent in weeks in consumption with almost no savings.

Newfie wrote:That’s completely correct. Someone making $32,000/year is spending every dime. Savings rates are extremely low. The billionaires can’t spend their annual income consumption, they save large parts of it.

If Bill Gates shared out all his wealth across the world it would be spent on consumption almost instantly.

If you won a $1,000 chances are you would buy something with it.

If you win $1,000,000 chances are you would invest a good chunk.

If 1,000 people won $1,000 each it would be spent in weeks in consumption with almost no savings.

Wealth redistribution (which seems to be what you are talking about) isn't the same as those at the top accumulating less wealth. That accumulation of wealth involves a much larger footprint per capita among those doing the accumulating. You say those folks "save" that wealth, when in reality they are re-investing most of that in carbon-producing endeavors, much of it on things no one really needs.

As long as humans, collectively, are maxing out their ability to consume, it doesn't really matter who is doing the consuming.

" You say those folks "save" that wealth, when in reality they are re-investing most of that in carbon-producing endeavors, much of it on things no one really needs."

Good point, GH.

People also have no conception of the lifestyles of the ultra-rich...multiple mega-mansions, each with multiple helicopter pads, swimming pools, jets...

You have to constantly prove to yourself that you are absurdly wealthy, and able to buy more toys than the next guy down the ladder...

yc wrote: "I would expect..."

Provide numbers to back it up, rather than the hand waving you, newf, and most others seem settle for.

Thanks.