quantum computers are God! — frank

And lads write the Bible.

"And the morning and the evening were the eighth day."

Herrington found that the data aligned with the predictions made back in 1972, which had a worst-case scenario of economic growth coming to a halt at the end of this decade and society collapsing around 10 years later.

So present 2024 data align with the 1972 "worst-case scenario". That rather indicates that they were more erring on the complacent side than the alarmist side, wouldn't you say?

The results were pretty terrifying — Agree-to-Disagree

The Lad Bible is infallible. the clue is in the name.

(this is not an exhaustive list) — Agree-to-Disagree

Speaking of exhausts...

When I was a kid, we used to watch the London to Brighton race.



We always laughed at how slow and crap and unreliable the old crocks were in the olden days. The above film is before my time but the old crocks are the same.

James Hansen’s New Paper and Presentation: Global Warming Has ACCELERATED

Please donate to http://PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos connecting the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.

James Hansen power point presentation link:
Dr. Pushker Kharecha power point slides and other scientists power point slides
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/y4zf25blgotzekhhjuwvk/AD5ejwIIbgxx6cRBdFRIWw8?e=1&mc_cid=8c6e107514&rlkey=sl54bq0g8t13jq6h9eerjvgxy&st=4rorogat&utm_campaign=8c6e107514-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_10_31_04_36_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=SDSN&utm_term=0_-01f09620b9-179349392&dl=0

Some key points to understand:
- the 1.5C target has already been surpassed
- with temperature increasing at an accelerated pace since 2010 of 0.36 C per decade (double the rate of rise from 1970 to 2010) we will gain an additional 0.5 in less than 15 years (15 year rise will be 0.36 x 1.5 equals 0.54 C) which will bring us above 2 C by 2040 at the latest
- climate sensitivity is 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2, much higher than the IPCC value of 3 C
- AMOC will likely collapse before 2050 due to fresh water hosing in the North Atlantic at much higher rates (double) than the value used in Hansen's previous paper
- last time AMOC shut down, global sea level rise went up several meters. Clearly, with an AMOC shutdown cooling the Arctic more heat builds up in the Southern Hemisphere and equatorial regions, so Antarctica melt rate increases rapidly and dominates the reduced melt rate from Greenland glaciers

James Hansen scientific paper link:
Publisher link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#abstractart
Actual paper link:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494?needAccess=true

Whenever someone claims the existence of some state of affairs, I feel entitled to ask "where?" and "when?" My carrot and lentil soup existed at 6:30 pm in a nice pottery bowl, but I have eaten it and now it is no more, though the empty bowl is in the kitchen.

Alas, it can make no possible sense to ask "where is space?" nor "when is time?". And for that reason, I can make no sense of claims that space and time exist; I'm with Kant on this one; they are how we have to think about existence.

I can see a little vid of Netanyahu looking 'quizzical' in an X screenshot thingy, a few posts back.

Which i interpret as "you weren't supposed to say that bit out loud yet." or thereabouts.

He completely blindsided Congress with his ridiculous Riviera in Gaza thought bubble, — Wayfarer

His first final solution speech. Now Hitler never made a final solution speech, it was implemented discreetly. It is difficult to tell the difference between market manipulations that will be flip-flopped, and real policies that await only a further accumulation of power. But the trend towards sovereign individuals is a global, economic fact, and automation leaves no place for the masses either as producers or consumers,

Added to that, addressing climate change or not addressing climate change means a population collapse. So taking over Greenland, and Canada accord with the long-term good sense of Sovereign Survivalists and wars with Panama, Denmark, Palestine address the climate crisis in their own way.

Unfortunately, the democrats have no plan at all other than resistance, and they are resisting economic and environmental necessity with no actual policy apart from "being agin'it".

I am somewhat gloomy; Nation states are going to cease to exist and most of humanity likewise. I don't have any plan that will contrive this without huge pain and suffering, and massive further damage to the environment. I don't think any decent, sensible human being would even be prepared to preside over such a transition, and thus we have Trump.

“Oh, hey, we’re going to impose huge sanctions on our two nearest and main trading partners, Mexico and Canada. …Wait on. What? They’re on the phone? Lemme talk to them…”

“OK, we’re NOT going to impose huge sanctions on our two nearest and main trading partners, Mexico and Canada. They were real nice to me, told me what a great president I am, and said they’ll send troops.” — Wayfarer

Meanwhile the markets went down, and then the market went up, and some people played the market and made a lot of money very quickly indeed. And in another month they can do the same again. And that is what it's about making big big bucks from insider trading.

Other factions have bigger ambitions that encompass surviving the societal collapse on the horizon becoming the elite of sovereign individuals served by techie servants and robots. The rest of us have no place in this imagined future. This is of course a conspiracy theory based on The Sovereign Individual, by William Rees-Mogand James Dale Davidson.. The author was a right wing hereditary peer, not to be confused with his son Jacob Rees-Mog, who was active in promoting, and making large amounts of money from, the disaster that was Brexit. Peter Thiel wrote the preface to the 2000 reprint of the book.

If anyone has an old guillotine in their basement somewhere, now might be a good time to check it for woodworm and renew the ropes and such.

Thanks, we here take great pride in our ability to have constructed such a Kafkaesque system. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I defy you to come up with anything remotely as Kafkaesque as spending 180 years compensating slave owners for depriving them of their slaves. Mind you, now that the people of Gaza have been reduced to a logistical problem, it is only two steps to the final solution; step one, concentration camp; step two, extermination camp. But even there, we Brits got there first in South Africa, though it took German discipline to industrialise the process efficiently.

I’ll be compiling a list of the stupid shit he’s brought up for the last 20 pages that were refuted, debunked, or retracted. — Mikie

Have loads of fun! I have paid my sewer clearing dues; you always hope to find a diamond ring or a bag of crack or something, but that stuff always happens to a friend of someone's friend. :sad:

1) I had an estate car for a couple of years when I started a vegetable and whole-food shop, and needed to transport goods in the 80s. It was petrol, because EVs hadn't been invented, except for very slow lead-acid accumulator vans used for local milk deliveries. Otherwise, I have never owned or driven any vehicle other than a bike.

2) EVs are not without costs to the environment, and public transport is the better option except in very isolated regions.

You won't be interested to hear that I have once flown in a plane, aged 10, taken by my parents. That was 1962. And I am a vegetarian, but not a strict one, and have been since I left the parental home.

The US paid off the huge WWII national debt through a combination of economic growth (a boom), higher rates of taxation (especially on top earners), and fiscal discipline. — BC

The U.K. government only just finished paying its debts to slave owners in 2015

But we paid our war debts to the US earlier.

In a competition for arsehole global saviour of the millennium, I think Britain has the edge, just because we have been at it longer and in more places than anyone else.

But panic not. Netanyahu is giving Gaza to Trump, and he will build the mother of all holiday resorts on it and the boom times will be back. You lucky lucky people.

But if you save all that $1.3 trillion, what are you going to do with all the time you won't spend making distributing and consuming all that junk? There'd be a fentanyl famine for sure; that's just the way the economy swings.

Fast fact 2. The British NHS covers every citizen. The N stands for "National".

Fast fact 3. chttps://www.cnbc.com/2013/06/25/medical-bills-are-the-biggest-cause-of-us-bankruptcies-study.html

But I have already pled guilty and withdrawn my accusation.

Mea culpa.

Good point, well made.

As long as the Soviet Union appeared to be an existential threat, — frank

You guys are still not convinced climate change is an existential threat? Well I guess we'll find out the hard way if there are limits or not.

I think the more serious problem with democracy is that it mandates short-termism in policy. Any problem that can be kicked down the road by 5 years isn't worth the cost of solving, any investment that won't show a profit within 5 years is not worth making. Either is liable to be an expensive free gift to one's opponents.

Always happy to help.

Wow. There's a lot of strong emotions about this. — frank

Here's a little education, to tame some of those strong emotions.

In a democracy there is no way to limit government spending. Only an entity who does not answer to the people can do that. It's kind of bizarre that it's Elon Musk doing it, but there you have it.

This fault in democracy is something the human race has yet to resolve. — frank

No, it's true. The US has struggled with the problem for decades. There is no solution within the framework of democracy. — frank

That's completely ridiculous. The US government doesn't even have a health service, and barely an education service. And the resolution of the problem is anyway completely automatic, and built into the financial system. If the government overspends, inflation balances the books by effectively reducing everyone's wealth and earnings. That regime is then liable to be removed at the next election.

Surely there must be an alarm bell ringing somewhere about this? — Wayfarer

Here is the alarm bell ringing in my ear. The climate catastrophe is eating your wealth, burning, flooding, blowing away, desiccating your assets faster than you can increase them. This results in some desperation amongst the electorate and makes them vulnerable to populist snake oil salesmen with promises of easy solutions involving making some other pay.

Now that you have elected said populists to power, you find that their purpose is to manipulate the markets by random acts of economic destruction that because they have inside knowledge of, they can profit from big time at your expense.

Such acts of destruction include the whole fabric of government , but prioritising anything relating to "checks and balances", "healthy and safety", or "quality control". This is how disaster economics works; most people are impoverished and immiserated, while a very few celebrate with a nazi victory salute.

So your response to the complete refutation of your first argument, is to repeat your second argument as if that has not also been thoroughly refuted.

And even if the arrithmeticial idiocy of subtracting cold deaths from heat deaths was correct, that does not make your previous suggestion that I am [water off a duck's back] for thinking that 8 deaths in 3 years is not a serious problem in the transport industry, any more legitimate.

It is clear that you do not have any coherent understanding, but are flailing about looking for contrarian ideas to whatever is the last thing that has been said. So let's go back to your claim about the serious problems with EVs. What serious problems?

So the number of excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and Wales is not as bad as the raw numbers suggest. — Agree-to-Disagree

Indeed. Lets divide by two because who cares if sick and old people die only a little bit early. So that's 8 deaths in 3 years compared to 1500 deaths in 1 year.

Summary of point 2

Most people spend most of the year a bit colder than is "best" (a bit below the optimum).

A little bit of global warming would save many lives, even in the hottest parts of the world. — Agree-to-Disagree

Now that I have to admire. When the numbers are not in your favour, just change the subject. Of course in this miserable damp and somewhat cold climate, premature deaths from cold are greater than those from heat. It does not follow that "A little bit of global warming would save many lives" though, because climate change is creating more energetic weather systems; this results in more extreme weather variations.

Some researchers expect that as many as 1.8 million deaths each year are attributed to short-term temperature variability alone. Large swings from cold to warm conditions, or vice versa, can put pressure on our organ systems and increase health risks.

For example, snow in Florida is also the result of climate change. Unfortunately such inconvenient facts rather mess up the neat statistics. And it's not just temperature, power cuts, floods, damage to homes also contribute.

Summary. Cherry picked statistics without an understanding of how climate is changing are worse than useless.

This is an emergency. Banjos ain't music, but I need something American I can smile at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9wHDrkjfk

Rational people know that there are some serious problems. — Agree-to-Disagree

Just to be completely transparent, there are of course always problems with technology and infrastructure. however, in relation to the problems of climate change, which, in case you had forgotten, is the topic under discussion. there are no serious problems at all; the problems you have suggested are trivial by comparison with the effects of climate change.

For example, just heat related deaths in England and Wales:

Different methods were used by Government bodies to estimate heat-related
mortality in 2022. A UKHSA analysis reported an estimated 2,985 excess deaths
associated with the five heat periods in England (Figure 1).32
Using a slightly different baseline, an Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis
reported 3,271 excess deaths associated with the five heat periods in England and
Wales.
33 The ONS also estimated there were 3,363 – 5,587 heat-related deaths in
England in all of 2022.34c

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0723/POST-PN-0723.pdf
Compared to:

In the UK, fires linked to lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes have quadrupled since 2020, killing eight people and injuring 190, external.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-heat-and-health

That's 8 deaths in 3 years, versus around 3,000 deaths in 1 year. Do you think 8 deaths in three years is the serious problem?

You are not reliable because you are wrong. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, I'll not try and argue with that. :fire:

By saying "No" you have proved that you are not a reliable source of information. — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

You can rely on the reliable truth of my non-agreement. On this matter I speak with authority. I am not pretending to disagree, I actually do disagree.

Do you accept that there are some serious problems with EVs, lithium batteries, solar power, wind power, infrastructure for charging EVs, infrastructure for getting electricity from where it is generated to where it is used, the fact that many people don't want an EV, the fact that EVs are not suitable for all situations, etc. — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

As far as I can see that collective will doesn't exist. — Agree-to-Disagree

And that's why most of us will die an early death.

Why do oligarchs all have big yachts?

You seem to have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with large scale energy storage.

Why don't you have faith that new technology will solve the problems associated with climate change (e.g. the CO2 level) ? — Agree-to-Disagree

Faith? I think it probable that new technology will improve in safety and efficiency. But addressing climate change is far more a matter of the collective will to change our lifestyle. I have no faith in that happening until it is far too late for most of us. But change we will, of necessity.

But I have clearly shown the evidence why MGUY is an unreliable witness, and your continued defence of the indefensible shows you to be the same. As I have hinted, the choice is between EVs and horses (or camels); but all this is a minor quibble, as are most of your posts.

Let us discuss the banning of all flights and the planting of all runways with vegetables. Let us discuss a 25% tariff on meat, a 50 % tariff on gas, and so on, let us have faith in bold politicians taking decisive effective action to address the global crisis. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :death:

I think that MGUY is concerned that the proposed solutions to climate change that are being rushed in will cause serious problems. I have the same concern. — Agree-to-Disagree

I don't believe you. It is not credible that either of you are concerned about safety, because you only bring up these concerns as a reason for not dealing with the safety concerns associated with climate change.

I think MGUY is concerned about possible restrictions on his enjoyment of fast petrol cars. He has videos on all these:

Mercedes-Benz SLK 350

Maserati GranTurismo (2013)

MG Midget (1971)

Ferrari 360

Mercedes C63 (2020)

These "sports" cars are what he is concerned about, and their safety is not their major feature, and nor is utility or economy. These cars are what is known as "penis extensions". EVs have superior acceleration, potentially, but they are too quiet to satisfy poseurs.

It may be that once the age distribution of gasoline cars and EVs is taken into account that they both have a similar risk of catching fire, There is also the possibility that the risk of an EV catching fire is greater than the risk of a gasoline car catching fire. — Agree-to-Disagree

And that is the careful conclusion that MGUY doesn't come to, because he's a petrol-head.

New technology has sparse statistics and as problems come to light, safety regulations develop. In some cases, the technology may have to be abandoned - the use of DDT, and asbestos comes to mind. It may yet happen with EVs, because large scale energy storage is a new tech, if one discounts the lead/acid batteries that powered EVs in the early part of the 20th century. But there is more than one kind of new rechargeable battery, and more variations will be developed.

But the persistent long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel use are extremely well understood. You, nor MGUY choose to remotely consider them:— all your research and all your criticism is directed at problems that arise from efforts to find alternatives, and the difficulties of pinning down the exact extent of a global change of inconceivable complexity, of which no one has any experience, even theoretically through geological records.

And so pages of script and hours of labour are wasted here, discussing your petrol head video maker, not to convince you, because no one here has any wish to argue with a climate change denier, but simply to explain to the general reader, why you and MGUY are not reliable sources of information.

Meanwhile the world burns. — Mikie

But at least it smells nice.

What do we eat?

cats kill 1000 times more birds. — Mikie

Yeah but horses hardly kill any birds - they're a win win solution.

Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video? — Agree-to-Disagree

- Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs. — Agree-to-Disagree

What about petrol cars? Can they not explode? Batteries are a new hazard that people need to become aware of. But the information that would be more informative than 'what fire chiefs say' is the comparison.

Australia’s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars. (The Home Office said it was unable to provide data for the UK.)

Elon Musk’s Tesla is the world’s biggest maker of electric cars. It says the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/20/do-electric-cars-pose-a-greater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles.

Fire departments are right to be concerned, and there are new factors to take into account, fumes and restarts, along with unknowns such as the rate of increase as batteries age. Nevertheless, MGUY is more than a little misleading in his representation of the risks of EVs that ignores completely the familiar, and by an order of magnitude greater risks of fossil fuel vehicles.

Horses hardly ever explode; perhaps cars should be banned altogether.

I would be interested to hear from other people on this thread what they think about MGUY's videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv — Agree-to-Disagree

Since you ask, looking at the banner of his website, he declares upfront that his site is an EV free zone. Then there are some videos highlighting problems with EVs. Then there are some videos extolling the virtues of high end petrol sports cars.

I think MGUY is a petrol-head. These are not a rare breed in the UK or in Australia. So it is not the site to look for a balanced view of EVs as a practical means of transport, never mind as a way to contribute to stabilising the climate.

Thank you for sharing that. I agree. My ex wife killed herself, and later my second wife's niece. I am left, as I am always left after contributions to this perennial topic, with a feeling of failure, and a feeling of reproach from an unanswerable source.

I feel some obligation to talk to people who might become another of those people who might become another that one can no longer talk to, but there is- as others have pointed out, no argument to be made. Might as well sing a song.

Doesn't seem very smart or insightful TBH. — Darkneos

I dunno, why is anything important? — Darkneos

Your honesty is admirable. But unimportant. Your estimation of my responses likewise.