Wyoming Forum, June 2014

The forum in Wyoming on the evening of 4 June 2014 was filmed by Pauline Schneider. Catch both parts here, with the action starting at the 32-minute mark.

Comments 146

  • @Godofredo

    I would suggest that you understand the nature of man and social relations in general. That would not only help you fully understand family as a capitalist construct, but our current precarious predicament vis-a-vis the environment.

  • @Rod;

    ‘Kevin Moore’s SUN project sounds interesting.’

    There may be some confusion here. My Sun project consist of attempting to live simply, capturing energy released by the Sun through the use of chlorophyll in plants, passive solar, and greenhouses which provide microclimates for growing plants. And using motorised transport as little as possible. I am in the process of divesting myself of most things considered essential. Like most people, I am still trapped in the system, but less trapped than most around here.

    @Henry.

    I am not saying we are AT 1100ppm CO2 equivalent NOW, but I am saying we are very likely around that figure NOW.

    It you take the accepted multiplier for CH4 over 20 years of 72 and recognise that CH4 decays roughly exponentially, with a half life of maybe 7 years (none of these numbers is set in stone because they vary according to atmospheric conditions and especially the concentration of OH ions and Oh radicals in the atmosphere) you quickly realise that the instantaneous (commencement of the decay curve) value must be a hell of a lot more than 72. That is the value I still have been unable to discover (still awaiting Paul Beckwith’s response).

    Let’s use the figure 250 times CO2 that Paul Beckwith suggested instead of my postulated 300. 2ppm methane times 250 gives you 500 CO2e. Add that to the 400ppm actual CO2 and you have 900ppm CO2e. Now add N2O with a forcing factor of (rom memory) at least 90. That takes us to 990ppme. And do not forget the effect of water vapour, which increases with temperature. And I have not even mentioned any of the other trace gases with CO2 forcing factors in the hundreds or even thousands.

    I think you can see that 1100ppm CO2e is a realistic figure. It may even be too low.

    You ask why have we not witnessed rapid meltdown and surging temperatures.

    1. Using old units, it takes 80 calories of energy to change 1 gram of ice at 0oC into water at 0oC. The temperature of a container of stirred ice-water will not rise until all the ice has melted. Once the ice has gone the energy now starts to heat the water. 80 calories could raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 80oC but in practice what is much more like to happen is that 80 calories will raise the temperature of 100 grams of water by 0.8oC. So, what I am saying is the ice that is still present is ‘sucking up’ a lot of the heat energy and preventing rapid temperature rises. once the ice is gone expect unprecedented [in human history] temperature rises in the Artic region.

    2. The oceans are deep and cold. It takes a long time for heat at the surface to warm water at great depth, yet that is exactly what has been happening to an ever greater extent over recent years. Warm oceans eventually deliver heat to the Antarctic ice and melt it from below.

    3. There is much evidence that the amount of solar energy reaching ground level is being reduced by aerosols and particulate matter in the atmosphere, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, the so-called Global Dimming factor. In other words industrial activity is masking the true extend of forcing, and when industrial activity declines warming will accelerate until a new, much higher equilibrium temperature is achieved.

    15 years ago I speculated that severe overheating would occur around 2100. Now I believe it will be before 2030. I have little idea how steep the average temperature graph will be because we entered uncharted territory some time ago and there are just too many self-reinforcing and mutually-reinforcing positive feedback to attempt any meaningful analysis. So I talk only in terms of generalities, which does not go down with those who demand peer-reviewed papers published in journals before they will believe.

  • Robin Datta,
    The links look interesting,we are on limited downloads so may only be able to listen to the radio . Spike Milligan was not only an excellent comedian,but highly intelligent and had some wise things to say.One of them was that one should never hit a child, as what was being taught was that violence is justice.
    Godofredo,
    Good luck with your project.At least you are thinking about things,and not just interested in following the latest celebrity,or as George Monbiot puts it in his ‘The Impossibility of growth’essay,’recipes,renovations and resorts’

  • Hello again from the flames of hell in Thailand. I posted here several time over the past 3 years. I just wanted to let you know I have some immediate concerns that are now transcending NTE.
    Now it is illegal to show a three finger hunger games salute in public. It will get you dragged away and placed incommunicado in a black hole, along with at least 3700 others who have disappeared. El supremo military honcho just declared himself Marshal of the economy. That means he will be protecting 1st world direct investment and profit flows to lovely places like NZ, OZ, UK and US, filled with lovely people who would never lift a finger to help a bunch of disenfranchised low wage unfortunates with a disagreeable pigmentation. I had M-16s pulled on me and mil guys in fatigues taking home movies of me everywhere I went last week. To say it is terror would be an understatement. Like, I know we are all going to die, and stuff. But there are real things that you could be doing before the off switch is flicked to end suffering of a bunch of people I know personally, and at minimum help to assuage my malignant and growing PTSD. And who is to say this is not a dry run for what is planned for your country’s upcoming enema?? {croak} Help {gag} please. Thank you.

  • “Your claims are totally ridiculous, but you won’t budge. No amount of evidence will convince you that humans need clean air, potable water, and healthy food to survive and that we’re headed for a planet without any of those ingredients.”-GM

    Of course we are headed there on some timeline.  Extinction has always been a guarantee.  The issue here is how long it takes to achieve a 100% knockdown.  I am pointing out the many avenues still open to try, and which no doubt will be tried as things progress along.  Most people aren’t going to just roll over and die if they have options.  There is no way you are going to get 7B people all dead inside 36 years.  If there is any ridiculous claim being made here, it is this one.  Even a pathogen with 90% infection rate and 90% mortality would not do it that fast.  I mess with these models all the time, and you can’t do it so fast.  Major knockdown yes, extinction no, not on this timeline.  It is an asypmtotic problem of population reduction, and unless every last ecosystem is destroyed inside 36 years, you can’t knock down the whole population so fast.  Even 6C rise will not knock down every ecosystem everywhere.  There simply are too many possibilities to conjure up a timeline as short as the one you promote as absolutely INEVITABLE.  You make your  case seem silly by putting such a short timeline on this. It is absolutely wrong on every population experiment ever done, INCLUDING the reindeer on St Mathews Island.  Even 46 of those reindeer remained after the knockdown.  100% knockdown of a succesful species takes a good deal of time.  Particularly a species that has capabilities of creating micro environments for survival as HS does.  You simply cannot do this in 36 years, not short of a collision with a Planet Killer Asteroid.

    “I suppose your food will grow belowground, too.”-GM

    No, that will best be done above ground inside grow domes.

    Greenhouse Dome tents

    “Greenhouses began as simple structures meant to keep tropical plants warm during the winter. Later they were, and are, used to extend the growing season. Dome greenhouses do all this, plus they can do things no other greenhouse can do. The geodesic design is self-insulating, and amplifies winter lighting.”

    Now, please give me your scientific explanation for why you could not use dome greenhouses to do your food production during the WINTER months instead of during the summer when it is too hot?  Not to mention using thermal mass to store nightime cooler temperatures inside your dome.  Inside a dome this size, utilizing a hydroponics water conservation system, you could grow enough produce to feed 20 people EZ.  Explain to me in scientific terms why me and 200 other Diners can’t plop 10 of these up say around Talkeetna and not keep food growing when temps are 3.5C above baseline?  Ionizing Radiation shouldn’t be too bad either, closest Nuke Puke plant is down in the lower 48.

    “mo flow says “RE’s thinking is the *heart* of the insanity that drove us all here in the first place.” Bingo.”-GM

    This is an opinion, not scientific fact.

    In fact the exact opposite is true.  The thinking that got us into this mess was that we could burn as much stored energy as we wanted and destroy the planet without consequences.  SUN Project thinking is 180 degrees opposite to that.

    SUN Principles are:

    No Burning of Fossil Fuels

    Decommission all Nuke Puke Reactors

    Living within the energy budget provided each day by the Sun

    Utilize Energy collection systems from basic materials with simple techniques

    Conserving resources and restoring ecosystems to health

    Now, quite obviously we are not going to get up enough domes in time to keep all 7B people currently walking the earth fed here.  Nor will we collect enough fresh water through condensation techniques to slake everybody’s thirst either.  Once again though, to avoid EXTINCTION, you don’t need to keep that many people trolling the earth at one time, long as you can keep 10-20,000 going, there is always chance for a rebound.  Who knows?  In 2050 Yellowstone might blow and flip us into a volcanic winter.  Pitch up tons of new mineral wealth from down deep, REBOOT TIME!

    There is nothing wrong with the principles outlined above, and there most certainly is not any scientific proof it can’t be done, in fact most evidence points to the fact it could be done, certainly past 2050 anyhow.  You wanna go a century or 2 out here, with complete collapse of the phytoplankton, you likely get a complete extinction.  Not by mid-century though.

    What are the choices you have here?  I certainly haven’t read any better ideas on NBL, where the general meme seems to be just roll over and DIE.  For myself, this doesn’t make too much difference, I will be dead long before 2050 anyhow.  It DOES make a difference to younger Diners with families.  Who wants to see their kids starving if there is something you can do to prevent that?  You can’t depend on Da Goobermint to keep issuing out the SNAP cards you know.  Is there a better option here than putting up your own Grow Domes with other members of your community?  If you got a better suggestion than just rolling over and dieing, I am all ears.

    RE

    PS: Apologies to the many commenters who brought up other questions, but I am limited to 2 responses a day here and jamming responses in to everyone in one post would clutter this up ridiculously.  I can answer all the questions on energy collection without photovoltaics, long term food storage etc, and have done so many times on the Diner.  For GS, here is a video of military rations 40 years old that were still edible.  In fact, with freeze-drying, autoclaving and vacuum sealing, a century is quite possible for food storage.

    At Guy’s request, let me briefly address Kevin’s issues:

    1. The mammals that got through the asteroid impact and the PETM were about the size of shrews (smaller than my thumb) and ate invertebrates.

    Homo Sapiens can eat insects too.  I personally am partial to grubs and earthworms.  I don’t like crunchy exoskeletons.  Even soft shell crabs are yucky.  In a pinch though, I’ll eat a grasshopper. Size is not that important, as long as there is sufficient total energy in the system to support a larger organism.  We are not talking less available energy here as it gets warmer, MORE will be available.  It is the gradients you need to maintain that determine how much effective conversion there can be of energy to work.  This is basic thermodynamics.

    2. Humans cannot live without sunlight. Vitamin D is essential. You will need a regular supply of artificial sunlight. The compact fluorescent lamp I have on my desk stopped working after about four year’s use.

    You expect Sunlight to stop in 36 years?  I don’t advocate underground living 100% of the time, that would be quite difficult though not impossible, at least not for 20 years or so.  In fact I expect mostly above ground living, and Sunlight is important for many reasons beyond the Vitamin D aspect.

    3. Humans are unusual in that, unlike most mammals, they need a constant supply of vitamin C obtained from fresh fruit. Vitamin C does not store well

    Doesn’t store well, but produces well from Tomatoes grown quite easily through hydroponics.  In fact, nothing besides Marijuana does better than Tomatoes with Hydroponics.

    4. Human excrement is not particularly pleasant, and in the absence of natural systems will quickly give of large quantities of ammonia, a rather poisonous gas. Also, in the absence of natural systems it will give off copious amounts of methane, and if the conditions in your sealed cave deteriorate, hydrogen sulphide, a very poisonous gas.

    Humanure can be processed well as fertilizer.  It can also be used as a source of Methane if processed inside high compression spheres, which can be constructed utilizing similar techniques for dome construction.

    5. Any photovoltaic systems you might consider as energy capture systems would have to last well beyond the current life-expectancy of any known technology, and would have to be protected from being covered in whatever dust or other crap might fall on them and prevent them form working.

    If you read the Diner, you would know that I think Photovoltaics are basically a stupid technology to develop or depend on.  The energy collection methods myself and Roamer pursue are very simple systems designed around thermal mass or mechanical energy storage.  Basically, nothing you can’t build from the typical Auto Junkyard or build with Rocks and Hay Bales.  Electricity is mostly a goner here, though probably can be maintained somewhat for 20-30 years after complete industrial collapse by scavenging.  I don’t figure complete Industrial collapse for another 10 years, so probably you can maintain some electricity past 2050, though not much and not too useful either.  Mainly you need mechanical systems to enable things which otherwise take a lot of human or animal labor to accomplish.

  • Biosphere 2 was an interesting failure on a number of counts.

    For example: ‘Biosphere 2 suffered from CO2 levels that “fluctuated wildly” and most of the vertebrate species and all of the pollinating insects died.[18] Insect pests, like cockroaches, boomed.’

    And: ‘There was controversy when the public learned that the project had allowed an injured member to leave and return, carrying new material inside. The team claimed the only new supplies brought in were plastic bags, but others accused them of bringing food and other items. More criticism was raised when it was learned that, likewise, the project had been pumping oxygen inside, to make up for a failure in the balance of the system that resulted in the amount of oxygen steadily declining.[22]’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

    Bearing in mind that Biosphere 2 had all the advantages of a stable climate on the outside, and full support from a technological society, I really do think you are dreaming if you think you can establish and maintain any similar system for an extended period when climate instability will result in be truly massive swings in temperature, with violent storms delivering golf-ball size hail, deep snow drifts, avalanches and other devastating phenomena witnessed with increasing intensity and frequency over recent years, and there will be no means of repairing inevitable major damage to the structures. Iron/steel always rusts, aluminium often corrodes, seals always deteriorate. People always go mad or become violent when kept in enclosures with others who have different ideas about how to do things.

    Also, it is worth noting the incredible SIZE of Biodome 2 compared to the number of people (just 8) it managed to support for a relatively short period of just two years. The cost was enormous then and would be even more enormous now.

    And you’d have trouble getting a building permit from the local or regional council.

  • RE says:

    “Explain to me in scientific terms why me and 200 other Diners can’t plop 10 of these up say around Talkeetna and not keep food growing when temps are 3.5C above baseline?”

    Ummm…I’ll take a stab at it —

    ‘Cause there are exactly 0 Diners (out of the 3 regulars) ready to sell their McMansions and move to Talkeetna??

  • Dredd has a post today that is on-topic:

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-military-nsa-cant-hack-my-car-nor.html

    The Military NSA Can’t Hack My Car Nor Can AGW Make Us Extinct

    Wrong.

    Many Dredd Blog System posts, as well as Snowden’s whistleblowing, has informed us that the military can hack any electronic device that contains certain types of electronic circuitry.

    Your car is composed of many electronic systems that can be fully hacked, and that is the public position of The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

    The video at the bottom of this post indicates that any device containing certain electronic circuits can be hacked, will be hacked, and are being hacked (see also the detailed video @ ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller – 9).

    The circuits of our brains also can be, will be, and are being hacked (The Matriarch of the Matrix – 3, The Ways of Bernays).

    For example, the reality of human extinction has been removed from the brains of deniers by psychopaths who failed to do their long term prognosis once upon a time (The Peak of Sanity – 3, Viva Egypt – 2).

    Recently published scientific papers indicate that humans cannot survive an increase of global warming beyond a point that is approaching:

    Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning.

    Heat stress is already a leading cause of fatalities from natural phenomena. While fatalities appear associated with warm nights, hot days alter the lifestyles and work productivity of those living at low latitudes. Both impacts will clearly worsen in warmer climates, but most believe humans will simply adapt, reasoning that humans already tolerate a very wide range of climates today. But when measured in terms of peak heat stress—including humidity—this turns out to be untrue. We show that even modest global warming could therefore expose large fractions of the population to unprecedented heat stress, and that with severe warming this would become intolerable.

    (PNAS, “An adaptability limit … heat stress”, emphasis added).

    Human extinction is in the cards, if remedial action continues to be avoided, because our physical bodies can’t handle too much heat (we are like the planet we live on).

  • Awoke this morning, put my metaphorical wrong shoes on my metaphorical wrong feet, and I realized, I METAPHORICALLY DIDN’T CARE.

  • “What are the choices you have here? I certainly haven’t read any better ideas on NBL, where the general meme seems to be just roll over and DIE.”

    Wow. I don’t recall reading anywhere that the thing to is to roll over and die. Not even from Pat who ends just about every post with a Church of Euthanasia note “Save the planet, kill yourself.” Which you never seem to notice starts with the words SAVE THE PLANET. Active suicide is hardly a rolling over move.

    In fact, no one here, absolutely no one, is cheerful about the end of the world — except you. You are the only person who talks in terms of “weathering the storm” as if collapse of civilization and thousands of years of temperatures far higher than anyone has experienced are something that can be easily overcome with a little bit of technology and can-do spirit.

    Acceptance of the future is not rolling over. It’s acceptance of the future. Not rushing about with plans to build an End of the World bunker is not the same as weeping by the side of the road. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that praying to the mighty of gods of Luck and Technology is suicidal. Take a look around you. One of the reasons we’re in such a sorry state is the belief that technology would solve everything.

    From what I can tell, the only person who is afraid of death is you. From what I’ve read, there seems to be a fair amount of fear of life in your posts as well. You sound desperate, clutching at straws, lashing out blindly. Most of us here are more relaxed. Don’t confuse activity for accomplishment. Don’t confuse the quality of things as the quality of life. Don’t confuse living long as living well.

  • RE reminds me of this line from Albert Einstein: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Forgoing evidence for belief, he keeps parading human ingenuity as if that’s a solution instead of a problem.

    RE continues to lie about my sentiments, and others commenting here, claiming we’ve all given up on any action. We’ve pointed out the lie many times, but RE can’t wrap his head around any ideas except the most simplistic ones (i.e., his way or the highway). It’s reminiscent of a line incorrectly attributed to Goebbels: “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

    Chernobyl caused about a million deaths, mostly from cancer, and it was contained. Fukushima poses a serious threat to humanity.

    RE, I’m asking you to conduct an experiment with ionizing radiation. Please demonstrate its safety in a bunker.

    Ditto for temperatures 3.5 C above baseline. Better yet, make it 16 C above baseline, and rising rapidly, by 2033 (per Paul Beckwith). Pay careful attention to each of Kevin Moore’s comments, and the others here. So far, you’ve avoided addressing anything of significance by brushing it aside. For example, your diet isn’t the issue. Surviving wet-bulb temperatures of 95 F is an issue. Growing food is an issue, and not in your cute bio-dome, which have temperatures sufficient to denature proteins of plants and will be saturated with ionizing radiation. An ocean without phytoplankton is an issue: Earth has not harbored life on land without life in the ocean.

    Biosphere II conclusively demonstrated that domes cannot harbor humans. Even with unlimited fossil-fuel energy, Biosphere II failed within two years. Anybody who understands biology knows why. Failing to understand biology leads directly to RE’s ludicrous suggestions.

  • I’ve posted a new guest essay, courtesy of Peter Melton. It’s his first in this space, and it’s here.

  • Oops! I forgot to address to C-ration cake video.

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, the colonel wasn’t later spending hours on the can regretting he bothered to taste the item.

    Let’s further assume that a single 3 ounce can of cake is enough food for a grown man for an entire day. Army intelligence has seen fit to put close to 8000 calories in those 3 ounces, so one is actually more than enough.

    37 years is 13505 days — ignoring leap years. So RE needs
    13505 cans of cake to survive.

    At three ounces a can, the total weight for canned food would be
    40515 ounces, or 2532 pounds of canned delicious life-saving cake.

    The only way to know for sure if this can be done is for RE to go out and buy 13505 cans of C-Ration cake and see how long he can live on them, buried underground. A video feed could be set up to watch the progress. It is entirely possible that more than one can a day would have to be consumed. But without him trying, there is no way to know for sure. Hope he goes for it, because I would hate to think of him as a quitter.

  • I see Sam Carana recommends geoengineering the Arctic immediately to regain sea ice and prevent the ice-free summers. Does the government have any plans to try this or is it already too late? From what I have read it’s irreversible at this point. Just wondering if you could weigh in Guy. I have heard your talks on it not being likely, as it’s not researched as to what it would actually do, but just thought I’d get your most recent opinion. Thanks ahead -Jim

  • From my climate-change summary and update, Jim: As pointed out in the 5 December 2013 issue of Earth System Dynamics, known strategies for geoengineering are unlikely to succeed (“climate geo-engineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming“). “Attempts to reverse the impacts of global warming by injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere could make matters worse,” according to research published in the 8 January 2014 issue of Environmental Research Letters. In addition, as described in the December 2013 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, geoengineering may succeed in cooling the Earth, it would also disrupt precipitation patterns around the world. Furthermore, “risk of abrupt and dangerous warming is inherent to the large-scale implementation of SRM” (solar radiation management), as pointed out in the 17 February 2014 issue of Environmental Research Letters. Finally, “schemes to minimize the havoc caused by global warming by purposefully manipulating Earth’s climate are likely to either be relatively useless or actually make things worse,” judging from research published in the 25 February 2014 issue of Nature Communications. As it turns out, the public isn’t impressed, either: Research published in the 12 January 2014 issue of Nature Climate Change “reveals that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative.” Despite pervasive American stupidity, the public correctly interprets geo-engineering in the same light as the scientists, and contrary to the techno-optimists.

  • This is the testimony of the daughter of Inna Kukurudza.

    Her mother was bombed in the city of Lugansk by a war plane of the Kyiv government, on June 2, 2014 – a month after the Odessa massacre. 8 passers-by in the mostly Russian speaking city were killed and 20 wounded in the bombing,which targeted a public building under the control of the anti-Kyiv population.

    This, among many others, was a crime against humanity committed by the government in Kyiv for which they must be prosecuted by the Hague tribunal, according to the Geneva conventions, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed (see note* at the end of the blog).

    The government in Kyiv has been killing civilians in the east since March. Under the pretext of an imaginary war with Russia, they are pursuing their ultra-reactionary “national revolution,” which aims at getting their fatherland free of “occupants” and “Moskali,” as they call the Russian speaking population in the east.

    To pursue this agenda, the neo-nazis who control state armed forces are building themselves a separate 60,000 army – which will be under their control and which will be used to command state power.

    The massacres of civilian population in Ukraine, praised by the West, are just beginning. Under their cover, the government can also maintain a state of emergency in Ukraine, which they need so that the IMF is not met with any resistance to their brutal capitalist accumulation, a.k.a “structural adjustment.”

    http://revolution-news.com/the-bombing-of-civilians-in-lugansk-by-the-kyiv-government-graphic-behind-ukraines-walls-of-fire-iv/

  • @Godofredo, I did not respond to the rest of your “hard drive” comment, because it was standard “good parenting” that few people would argue with. My issue wasn’t with any of that, but with the unsupported underlying idea that you can mold children according to your wishes.

    I can say from acute observation that that is not true. I strongly believe people are born with the personalities they will have their whole lives: some are more passive or cooperative, others more aggressive and driven, even “ethical” vs. “unethical”—I don’t see the paternalistic traditionalist thread that you do as working in reality.

    “You have a whole chance to make good persons, that will do what you believe is the right things, with each one of your children. You have 20 years to seed in them the basis, supported with example. That will stay there until they die. And part of it will be transmitted to your grandchildren. It is all in your hands.”

    This is just not true. It’s another example of unwarranted self-regard and anthropocentrism, that you have the POWER to shape the behavior of future generations. It’s unclear whether humans (like any other organism) have ever in the aggregate behaved in ways contrary to maximizing their capture of energy as well as dissemination of progeny. Strategies like cooperation work, just as do more violent strategies of coercion and cooptation. Whatever “ethics” works for you, the ethics and morals you say you want to hand down, are, generally speaking, “coincidentally” exactly those which happen to work well for you personally in your time and context.

    We might say we are “ethical”, perhaps, in that “we do not steal”. But “we do not steal” is just a fancy way of saying “we pay armies and corporations to steal for us”. We are constantly engaged in face-saving rationalizations of this kind.

    You rationalize the projection of your lineage* [*not that you have to, I merely see you doing so…] by asserting that, “it’s ok, my kids are *good* kids because I raised them correctly, etc.” I don’t doubt that you are a “good” person and that your kids are “good” kids. Even leaving aside, though, the potentially offensive insinuation that other people are not good parents and thus less worthy of procreating, your children’s “goodness” is completely beside the point, however, of resource extraction and overshoot, a mechanistic process that doesn’t respond to treatment by purely social conventions such as morality. It’s just special pleading on your part. A “good” person has the same habitat requirements as a “bad” person.

    There’s a witty phrase, “the more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons..” or something to that effect. Whenever I hear anyone raise the spectre of “morals” or “ethics” or “justice” these days, I fnd myself having a hard time taking them seriously. IF ONLY our predicament were simple enough to address in those terms… if only!!!

    The naked fact is that we live in a physical and biological world which does not operate on the level of morals/ethics/justice. Those are all human political terms, meaningless in the larger context. No one discusses the morality/ethics/justice of a hawk munching on a chicken… The bottom line is survival or non-survival. To survive does not carry inherent meaning. To die does not have inherent meaning. All these meanings are extraneous socio-political material that we have brought to the table, and that we worry ourselves with to the point of distraction. There is no solution to be found there.

  • “RE reminds me of this line from Albert Einstein: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” “-GM

    Since you bill yourself as a scientist, I asked for scientific explanations. Instead you napalm me as “stupid” with a tired cliche from Einstein. Napalm is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

    Creating a “Biosphere II” isolated from the external environment is not the objective, the objective is to run a greenhouse. Greenhouses and hydroponic systems have been run successfully for decades. As long as you have sunlight and can maintain a moderate temperature (which I explained how to do utilizing thermal mass storage)you can grow plants. Raise fish too.

    I am still waiting for what you suggest a young family does here if you don’t support the idea of building greenhouses and domiciles capable of handling more violent weather while we undergo climatic change. What do you recommend?

    RE

  • You’re insulting napalm, RE, and I didn’t label you stupid. Most of your ideas regarding adaptation to climate change cannot possibly work, as illustrated by numerous critiques in this space you’ve failed to address.

    I recommend the same steps I’ve recommended for years in this space. You’ve apparently not noticed, in your pointed attempts to look the other way. Pursue a life of excellence. Protect what you love. Get to know yourself.

    Too complicated? Try looking inside for a while, for a change.

  • “Most people here think that I am illiterate, clueless, and ignorant.”

    That’s not true at all. I think you are… susceptible.

    As we are all susceptible. It’s our nature to invent convenient truths.

    ============
    Regarding RE..

    I just signed up for Netflix as an alternative to cable for my TV-watching husband. The last three days he’s chosen some interesting films for himself.

    1.) Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life” (best skit is the one where “Every Sperm is Sacred”, imo… “I’m sorry, it’s got to be medical experiments..”) Very apropos in light of the Sisters of Bon Secours.

    2.) Dr. Strangelove. I believe I already quoted generously from this film in re. RE’s bunker plans:

    https://guymcpherson.com/forum/index.php?topic=522.msg42283#msg42283

    3.) Star Trek whatever: The Wrath of Khan. Faced with the (unwinnable) Kobayashi Maru test, Kirk historically wins by cheating in the film’s backstory, but my ears perked up just now when I heard this phrase: “I don’t believe in the no-win scenario”. How wonderfully Kirk/Star-Trek/AMERICAN. How like RE! Just don’t believe in it!

    I think RE has watched too many movies.

  • “And Obama, with his “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being…” speech, whatever its intended irony (is he blinking in code, “Help me! I’m being held captive by zombie Hitlers!”?) is riding that tiger with no visible efforts to stop its rampage. Are they wearing out the Zapruder tape they plug into his sleep program every night?

    I think it’s time to watch “Manchurian Candidate” again; made it halfway through it a few years back. I keep looking for Angela Lansbury to appear in real life, though…”

    Would you add the “dead broke” Clintons to the code blinkers list?

  • Guy chose to delete my last response here on NBL. You can find the text for that response on the Diner.

    In the meantime, it’s Raining Diners. :)

    IT’S RAINING DINERS

    Sing to the tune of “It’s Raining Men”

    Music by Paul Schaeffer. Lyrics by RE. :icon_mrgreen:

    Hi-Hi! We’re your Diner Doomers- Ah-huh!
    And have we got news for you – You better listen!
    Get Ready, all you desperate Preppers
    And leave those Mountain House Freeze Dried foods at home. – Alright! –

    Tornadoes are Dropping, Hurricanes are rolling in
    According to all sources, a Dome is the place to go
    Cause tonight for the first time
    Just about half-past nine
    For the first time in History
    The Diner is the Place to Dine!

    It’s Raining Diners! Hallelujah! – It’s Raining Diners! Not Whiners!
    I’m gonna go out to run and let myself get
    Absolutely soaking wet!
    It’s Raining Diners! Hallelujah!
    It’s Raining Diners! Not NBL Whiners!
    Tall, blonde, dark and lean
    Rough and tough and strong and mean

    God bless Mother Nature, she’s a single woman too
    She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
    She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
    So that each and every Diner could flip the bird at Guy!
    It’s Raining Diners! Hallelujah! – It’s Raining Diners! Amen!!
    It’s Raining Diners! Hallelujah!
    It’s Raining Diners! Not Whiners!

    I feel stormy weather / Moving in about to begin
    Hear the thunder / Don’t you lose your head
    Cozy up under the Dome and stay in Bed!

    God bless Mother Nature, she’s a single woman too
    She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
    She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
    So that each and every Diner could flip the bird at Guy!
    It’s Raining Diners! Yeah!

    Humidity is rising – Barometer’s getting low
    According to all sources, a Dome’s the place to go
    Cause tonight for the first time
    Just about half-past nine
    For the first time in History
    The Diner is the Place to Dine!

    It’s Raining Diners! Hallelujah! – It’s Raining Diners! Not Whiners!
    It’s Raining Diners! Hallelujah! – It’s Raining Diners! Not Whiners!

    RE

  • There are only two rules here, RE, and you violated one. In fact, you violate it quite often.

    1. Limit yourself to two comments daily.

    2. Address ideas, not people (i.e., don’t be an asshole).

  • Lidia

    How can I say this…
    I do not pretend to convince you about what I see and say.
    It is you who has to decide.
    I just can give you some guides.
    What I say comes from a combination of my experience and thinking, and I want to share it. Just because it makes sense, in an absolute term.
    It is the result of a journey along life, looking for answers, that nobody could give me.
    That´s all.

    A few meditations about what you mention.
    The real “good parenting” is mostly not practiced, because one basic requirement is not met. If you are the mother, you cannot work, Otherwise cannot fulfill one basic requirement for “good parenting”, REAL 24/7, for at least ten years. Unless you can work at home. I cannot understand how such a relevant task that is, being mom, has got so low in the scale of important activities for the society.
    Then, it is clear to me, that most families in the world, do not practice good parenting, as many women work at the same time they are parenting.
    So, there is a big distance between what it is “good parenting” in reality, and what most parents actually practice as “good parenting”. The concept has been bent to fulfill our IC needs, and our need to satisfy our egos through success, material things, and money.
    The issue is that parenthood has been reduced to a process with no relevant purpose but feeding the world with more consumers and at the same time, satisfying our needs as consumers. Nobody cares about the future, something we all know it is.

    I guess you question my position mainly because your starting point is rather simple. Maybe contaminated by our IC culture. (I guess).
    Behind your words I see acceptance of our present reality (society, politics, power, purpose).
    It seems to me that you cannot accept that those concepts can be changed. As RAM does in some way (see below).
    And have concluded, that the power to change, comes from “building” or “making” new people. Our children, no other way.
    Changes must come naturally. It does not matter if takes many generations, but in the end things will change, if we know that what we have today is wrong.
    It seems that, to most, if we are not going to see the changes, the effort is useless. Something I totally disagree. Why we have to see the changes? Is that related with instant satisfaction concept?

    Raising children is a task that requires a long term purpose, and love, the love of giving everything, in terms of guidance, support, and understanding of their unique qualities.

    I do not have to be offensive to say many parents are not good parents. Just look at their children. And be objective. Go a little bit farther, look at our society. Would you say that parents are being good parents (in an absolute scale)?.
    But, the problem is that they believe they are being good parents, and in reality, that is the root of the problem. I do not blame them too much, they are trapped by our society, unable to break the circle. Although they have intelligence, and can question. But mostly do not do it.

    As I have said recently about my proposals, things are not simple. Our entire reality is more complex we would like it to be, we have to learn to deal with that. You and others, try to put my views in simple words, but, it can´t.
    What you should do, is not to take my words so literally (as the hard drive issue), instead ask yourself, what are you missing. I do not have the time to fully explain, because it requires a lot of space, and another problem, I do not speak English daily. So to me, to find the right words is sometimes a whole task.
    My views and ideas are the results of decades of thinking, questioning, and carefully watching. Connecting dots, of real persons, noting events, distant as much as 40 years, even more sometimes. As I do not want somebody to give me the answer about some truly basic concepts about life. As many have done before, I guess we have a responsibility with the future, and we have to make the effort, and give our views to others.
    My entire life will not be enough to complete the task. At most, I will begin to understand some things, how they are related. Maybe my girls, will take some of my views, and continue adding things.

    Ethics is a complex situation.
    What is wrong with killing to survive?, that is nature, we created the conflict. By putting ourselves above the rest (by not wanting to see how cattle is killed everyday, or chicken, or pigs, or fish), and later trying to put the rest to the same level (animal welfare).
    What I see is wrong there, is to believe that we are SO different. We are different, but at the same time, not so much in some issues, and we can be very different in others, without conflict.
    We pretend to be something we are not. And so, most of our basis is wrong.
    We have to learn and understand that we have limits. For the time being, we believe that we have no limits, and act as like that. We want to live forever for example.
    Some time ago, I spoke about a new ethos. Because, what is right today, just by watching were we are, it is clearly wrong. How much can be saved?, we have to see. But for that, we have to begin to question the basis. It has to be done. A then, look for new answers.

    I have questioned the purpose of the family.
    I have questioned how from being a child we become some specific adult.
    I have questioned the current roles of male and female in our society.
    I have questioned our purpose as beings.
    I have questioned our basic rules, as society.
    I have questioned the economy (the system).
    I have questioned the way we can change things in our system.
    I have questioned how we became part of the biosphere.
    I have questioned the way life has become more complex along millions of years.
    And a long etc…
    The point is that, after questioning, you have to look for answers.
    Something I have been doing for long, a task that I will keep on doing as long as I live..
    My basic conclusion is that everything is connected.
    Changes with purpose.
    Family with children, children with changes, changes with changing what is wrong.
    Family and children with adults, and later with society.
    Purpose with family and children, and the rules of our society.
    Purpose with environment.
    The roles of male and female, with family.
    Economy with our purpose.
    Our purpose with how, and why we were created.
    Us being created with the rest of the animals, as we were the last and most complex system of all.

    So when I say that things are more complex than they seem, about us, and our society, it is only based in what can be seen, just if you bother to take a look.
    I invite you to see things in a different way, and put reason to everything. And you will find, going deep in the questions, that many things do have a connection. And understanding the links, you see that there is a logic behind. And things begin to make some sense.
    I keep on looking certainly, what I talk about is about what I have barely understood. But it does not pretend to be the final truth. Just better to me, more logic, than what is offered to me by the society.

    I guess when George Mobus says “question everything”, this is what he means.

    One more thing, about being susceptible, I was just joking. I does not affect me. I do not care much about the other´s opinion, as they are based in just a post, sometimes based in a line.
    I can barely imagine who you are, based in your posts. I have a rough idea, but I would not try to catalog you.

    To RAM

    I have been studying and watching the process of human relations for 40 years. And one of my conclusions is that 99.9% of people do not question the system. Or question it, taking as reference a pre existing pattern, as you do. I see that what is hard for you to accept about my view, is that I do not even think in capitalism. And I do so, because, capitalism may fall (as I think it will happen soon), and the family will prevail. In that scenario, what would be the relation between family and capitalism, if there is no capitalism?.
    The family, existed long before the capitalism. So the capitalism has changed the purpose, and that is very different from what you say. I see that what most people accept and practice as family, is mostly going the wrong way. To my view, part of the problems of IC come from this situation. Families that have lost the north, the real purpose. Forgotten I would say.

    To Apneaman

    Thanks for the link.

  • Guy, what do you think of Sam Carana’s latest lengthy blog entry suggesting in the next 10-15 years we cut emissions by 80-90 percent, switch over to wind and solar, harvest methane clathrates, and destroy already existing methane in the atmosphere with lasers? To me this all just sounds like an overly optimistic techno-fantasy type plan. After all, doesn’t the 40 year lag of CO2 alone, and the fact we have emitted more in the past 30 years than the previous few hundred, take us to 4 C by 2030. If we did in fact switch over to 80 percent renewables, wouldn’t that precipitate a 2 C effect immediately? Thanks again -Jim

  • Jim, I agree with your statements and I disagree with Carana. Such a drastic reduction in emissions would result only from collapse of industrial civilization, which we know takes us to 1.95 C in a matter of days. We’re headed for >4 C by 2030 based solely on methane from the Arctic Ocean.

  • @Godofredo Aravena:
    Whatever name you use to describe the totality of the ‘system’ that pushes and pulls us collectively in a direction probably none of us individually wish to travel, the family, especially the nuclear family, is as much it’s creation, and it’s instrument, as anything else. I think the idea being put to you is that it might be delusional to expect to achieve anything within such a ‘socialisation unit’ that is not, say, 95% playing straight into the agenda of that system?

  • “There are only two rules here, RE, and you violated one. In fact, you violate it quite often.

    1. Limit yourself to two comments daily.

    2. Address ideas, not people (i.e., don’t be an asshole).”-GM

    1- I have limited myself to 2 posts a day.

    2- You were the one that called me stupid first.

    RE

  • RE says:

    “1- I have limited myself to 2 posts a day.”

    Au contraire my arithmatic deficient friend –

    1.Reply #110 on: June 09, 2014
    2.Reply #125 on: June 09, 2014
    3.Reply #127 on: June 09, 2014

  • To 18000days

    We are the system.
    That is the conflict that most fail to understand.
    Just like “nature”, and “the planet” seem to be somewhere else.
    The key point here is, if you pretend to see the changes, or not.
    I guess, the point is that most want to see the changes, and as that seems to be unlikely, the position is, we cannot change. The system is too big.
    That is why, I believe children are the only way to just expect some changes.
    Sometime in the future.

    As we face NTE, also something that seems to be too big, and that everything seems to be lost, you have two choices, do nothing, and not do something to solve the problem, instead, just simply bet, that somebody will survive. Against all odds. And then act as that possibility may become a reality.
    I we are all going to be dead, nothing to loose.
    The key issue here is your mind, that is what has to be prepared, and then, be prepared for a different scenario. A radical one. And if there are survivals, a new society will also be needed.

    I do not call this faith, is just that we cannot be totally sure of our future. I have previously said that scientist and highly prepared technicians, have made mistakes. Models have already failed, by some percentage (sometimes big).

    I respect those who believe that we are totally done, and there´s nothing to do.
    I just don´t see things that way.
    And my support is past and real experiences, enough to me.

  • ““1- I have limited myself to 2 posts a day.”

    Au contraire my arithmatic deficient friend –

    1.Reply #110 on: June 09, 2014
    2.Reply #125 on: June 09, 2014
    3.Reply #127 on: June 09, 2014”-BS

    The 2 Post Rule only applies to the Headline Article, not to older articles. The Butterflies article is now the headline article. At least that was how it was explained to me originally.

    RE

  • Really? Two posts per day isn’t clear enough for you? Let me try this again: Please restrict yourself to two posts per day. Every day. Total. Altogether.

    I’ve never been a baby-sitter. Well, not until now. Grow up, people.

  • Seeing the record temps broken in Sacramento lately, I decided to do a simple search.

    ” Early Summer heat broils northern hemisphere ”

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=280

  • The thing I don’t understand is why anyone desires that much money or power for that matter. Is it like the way I collect comic books (before in paper, and now electronically), the more the merrier kind of mentality? I’ve always felt that power is an illusion and I’d never want the responsibility power thrusts on me and I refuse to accept it (so my mentees are as much my mentors as I am theirs). If I had power to do something I’d definitely mess it up given the chaotic nature of interesting dynamical systems. So it seems that people who collect money or acquire power are only being self-destructive. I don’t see any enlightened self-interest.

  • “You were the one that called me stupid first.”

    Wasn’t this the title of a country and western song
    back in the late ’70s, early ”80s? Right up there
    with “Take this Job and Shove it,” “You picked a fine
    time to leave me Lucille” and “Mama don’t let your
    babies grow up to be cowboys.”

    OH you were the one that called me stupid first
    Broke my heart and done me worst
    Thought I’d go out in a rented hearse
    because you were the one that called me stupid first.

    We were down at the five and dime
    we were having a mighty fine time
    then I ordered a beer with lime
    and you called my beer a crime

    Then you made fun of the way I talk
    and made remarks about my walk
    You swooped on me like a hawk
    and wrote rude words with sidewalk chalk.

    Then things went on from bad to worst
    As you listed my flaws in a rapid curse
    And maybe I was wrong to steal your purse
    but you were one that called me stupid first.

  • Guy,
    To be fair to R.E.,I think he genuinally mis understood the rule.I do remember someone stating in the comments a long time ago that the 2 post rule applied to the top or current post only. Evidently they were misinformed,and you have made the rules clear in your comment,but I was under the same impression as R.E..

  • My understanding of the “2 Post Rule” comes from this comment by Bob S., around the time we migrated NBL in order to fix the problems regarding Posting and Spam that were causing havoc here.

    Bob S.

    Submitted on 2013/12/26 at 6:19 pm

    Since I got motor mouth today and already violated the two post rule on the most current thread – had to add my 2 cents.
    Two posts on most current thread is a rule we must abide. It has been one of the cornerstone of our space here.

    Nobody, including Guy ever dropped in to say that the 2 Post Rule applies to anything other than the most current thread, which this one is not.

    Many people violate the 2 Post Rule here, even on current threads, including BS himself as noted in his own posting.

    I understand the reasons for this, you often get people online who will dominate a commentary, I am one of them. However, this rule has negative consequences as far as Group Think is concerned.

    My opinions are in serious minority here, if I post up, 10 Batters will step up to the plate and hammer on me. That is 20 possible posts for that side. I only get 2 chances to respond. Particularly bad is if I actually wrote the article, then EVERYBODY is hammering on me.

    Guy has accused me recently of not addressing all the commentary here that is in opposition to my POV. How can I? I only get 2 posts a day, and there are a dozen or more in opposition.

    IMHO, at the very least the Author of an article should be allowed to respond to all queries made on his/her article. It is simply unfair to let everyone join in the bashing party and not let the author respond to their bashing.

    RE

  • As I understood it, Guy tolerated ongoing discussion in old posts that had not been closed if they appeared to him to be constructive or worthwhile to the participants, because he left the threads open, and I had some long exchanges exceeding the 2 daily comments, on old threads, even after several new posts had appeared. But that was before we had the Forum.

    I think it’s quite reasonable now that anyone who wants to make more posts should use the Forum to do so.

    RE has a deliberately challenging and provocative attitude and insists on promoting his own version of survivalism which really has nothing much to do with what this blog is about, imho, or why most of the people are here.

    This gets explained to him on every thread and has been for months, but it makes no difference. He sees it as a challenge to his willpower and manliness to ‘prove’ that he can overcome what he sees as weakness and negativity, and instill his superior brand of ‘HOPE’.

    Unfortunately, he completely misunderstands the situation.

    People who are interested in his stuff will have already joined him at the Diner. Trolling this blog for converts is like having any other sales person shoving their product in your face and demanding you buy it. First time, you decline the offer politely, but when they keep on doing it, patience wears thin.

  • Ulvfugl: Exactly. In the forum, pretty much anything goes, except for unwarranted, clearly commercial spam. But there is no stopping anyone from starting a thread, or from posting whatever they want in a thread. Forum posts do not appear on the main blog and one can address whatever point they wish to make to their heart’s content.

    Any point. No matter how trivial, wrongheaded, clueless, self-serving or otherwise worthless. I have three or four threads dedicated to the worthless there. It’s grand.

  • RE, you’re quoting an incorrect interpretation by Bob S. as evidence in support of your incorrect view. And then claiming it’s correct because I didn’t correct Bob S.

    I’ve been clear from the beginning, although you keep trying to weasel around the clarity. Considering your view of evidence, it’s small wonder you believe humans can survive on a dead planet.

  • Q. Who was Jesus, did he exist, if so, what for, and why?

    A. The Man from Earth

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAarR4tVEHU

  • Curtis A. H. –

    I love that movie. a real gem.

  • “RE, you’re quoting an incorrect interpretation by Bob S.”-GM

    I see. Perhaps Bob S. can explain how he arrived at this misinterpretation.

    ” Considering your view of evidence, it’s small wonder you believe humans can survive on a dead planet.”- GM

    Seems like misinterpretation is a common problem here on NBL. I have never made any such claim.

    The planet didn’t die during the PETM, and I don’t expect it to die this time either unless temperatures substantially exceed the PETM. In neither case do I expect this to occur inside a 36 year timeline.

    Now, once we get a clarification from Bob S., all our misinterpretation problems should be resolved.

    RE

  • RE, does it matter how Bob S. got it wrong? Does it validate you to quote an incorrect interpretation and claim it as the basis for your conclusion?

    The evidence is clear: We’re headed for an ocean with little or no phytoplankton and few land plants within a few years. At the same time, we’ll all be bathing in ionizing radiation. I’m still seeking the reasonable analysis to support your belief that humans will survive in bunkers.

  • “RE, does it matter how Bob S. got it wrong?”- GM

    Of course it does. BS may have a valid reason for having this interpretation of the 2 Post Rule. It wouldn’t be in character for BS to make such a statement without being able to back it up.

    ” I’m still seeking the reasonable analysis to support your belief that humans will survive in bunkers.”-GM

    That isn’t my belief, it is your interpretation of my belief.

    To be clear, I think the situation is bound to deteriorate here, but I don’t have a Crystal Ball that is so clear that it shows complete wipeout of HS inside 36 years. The exact timeline for how long a Bottleneck or Extinction will take is not clear, there are quite a few different estimates and opinions pitched about on this one, Guy’s timeline is about the shortest one out there.

    Since you can’t know with 100% certainty how long it will take or what the final outcome will be inside your own lifespan, you have to figure out how to make the best of a bad situation through this time period.

    I don’t advocate moving below ground into caves, I advocate building resilient structures that can withstand many climatic disturbances. I don’t make the claim Greenhouse/Hydroponics will last if/when there is complete phytoplankton collapse, only that this sort of food production is bound to last longer than conventional Ag techniques. Uses less water, less fertilizer and is more productive by the square meter, by about 40X.

    I am fully cognizant of the fact that Extinction is a possibility here, I just don’t buy the Mid-Century timeline Guy draws for this, nor do I buy the idea there is nothing you can do to help yourself and your community as things spin down, if you work together.

    Extinction may come, but it is not here yet and there is plenty that can still be done by every community to improve the situation as it gets worse, so why not make the effort? You have nothing to lose here by doing so.

    RE