Messages

1

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 03:33:25 PM »

No Tom. I can't support a site that backs flagrant liars. You guys keep your klondike kat, people like me will just leave. I don't want to read anti-science. That's the result you get when nobody corrects someone like  that and their intentional obfuscation game, you get to keep the liar, and the people who actually follow science closely will just leave.

This is not a good place to go for climate discussion when you have to wade through garbage and misinformation from weirdos with an agenda. I'll go elsewhere.

2

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 03:12:12 PM »

I agree with Tom and Kiwi. This all can be explained by (misguided) optimism. Kat has to be given the benefit of the doubt.

That said, i wonder when this thread will calm down and goes on topic again. Endless debates of who might be a troll are tiring and aren't helpful.

If someone thinks someone isn't suited for this forum, isn't the way to go to bring it to Nevens attention? He has shown to act accordingly when the concerns are grounded in reality.

Can we please stop accusing and insulting other members now?

So correcting completely false information with a rebuttal and more accurate information and empirical observations from actual science instead of ten year old cherry picked papaers is off topic?

You people here prefer false information, and don't want it to be rebutted with real observations then?

I see what the problem is. Carry on with your garbage information sharing then.

This place is turning out to be a ridiculous joke.

3

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 05:16:36 AM »

Very good Bruce. Regarding the birds, I have a family of Magpies teaching their young how to fly right now outside of my window. They like being around my place, because they know it's a safe place for them, and that I'm not going to kill them. That's my best reflection of how I live my own life regarding the biosphere. The biosphere likes me, and certainly isn't trying to kill me.

Hahahahaha.

Cheers Bruce. You seem like a good being.

4

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 04:42:09 AM »

Well Bruce, I don't see how that's pertinent, what with the 7 billion other people on the planet not on this forum.

But if it interests you, I don't have a bank account, or participate in the economy, or work for a corporation, or participate in consumerism ... or fly, or go out for dinner, or eat meat, or have a retirement in the stock market or the banking system for them to do their thing with ... and etc, etc, etc ... sacrifice ... all starting way back twenty five years ago. I left civilization a long long time ago. I've done more than most people I meet do to not feed the beast out of fear for themselves.

But what does any of that matter? That doesn't do anything to change the wider cultural dysfunction, or people who try to argue that there isn't even a problem. That's why I was speaking up. Against the counter-productive BS'ing about there not even being a problem to solve.

Cheers Bruce. I kind of like how you think. Drinks! But I don't drink. 
.

5

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 03:59:54 AM »

Thanks Bruce for you thoughts.

I didn't see my discussion as being so OT. I pointed out a pretty definitive effect from climate change last year in an effort to point out how only looking in isolation at how many hurricanes there are is dishonest and an example of dysfunction.

If you don't think temperatures have risen, then you don't think arctic amplification has occurred, then you don't think the the jetsream has changed, then you don't think that changed jetstream caused the blocking pattern which definitely affected Florence last year in a very empirical way.

If you intentionally ignore all that, and make a red herring argument based on the one thing that hasn't changed about these storms ... their frequency, how many there have been ... then yes, in that red herring silo you can then say that hurricanes have shown no changes due to climate change. Someone even published a paper about that a few years ago, pointing only to frequency and concluding that therefore ... no changes due to climate change (a particularly renowned meteorologist climate change denier published it.)

But that's dishonest, it ignores all those other empirical observations that have been made, and I gave a link to a pretty renowned scientist discussing those observed empirical effects. That's the social dysfunction I in particular was pointing out, is the omission of pertinent information to the argument in question, that climate change is not influencing hurricanes, except only through speculation about the future, and not in any current observations.

It's typically when I speak up, is when someone tries to peddle some BS like that through omission.

And still people veer back to frequency. I guess this is not a site for discussing hurricanes, except maybe as a rubbernecking sort of sport.

No worries. I presented what I did about Florence, which I didn't think was so OT. Oh wait, I guess it was, because that was last year. 

Thanks again Bruce, I didn't disagree with anything else you said, just about being OT when I corrected someone's specious red herring. Poor arguments shouldn't be tolerated, especially when they seem to be an attempt to intentionally mislead. So, I countered the argument, and pointed out how it was disingenuous and specious, which I find dysfunctional, and presented some sound evidence of climate change affecting a hurricane last year.

But I'll leave you guys to your hurricane discussions now. Enjoy.   

6

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 02:06:12 AM »

I'm not talking about social action. I was pointing out social dysfunction. You don't present facts, you isolate information and compartmentalize it into silos, ignoring other connected observations and omitting 'facts' heavily when you make your many specious arguments here on the site ... all always leading to the same conclusion, to underplay climate change.

That's what I was calling you out for. You don't present science, you intentionally misrepresent it.

Like with your frequency red herring.
.

7

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 01:44:04 AM »

Aside: Accusations of trolling and denial do not advance the discussion. I reply in another thread.

While I have some suspicions about the motives of some who comment here, it serves no purpose to argue. Present your argument, backed up with links, and move on.

I disagree. The struggle to address climate change has turned out to be a social problem. It's the last thing there is to actually tackle about it, the thing hanging us up.

Yet when you point out the social problem, it makes people uncomfortable. I would say that's why we are were we are. My biggest interest in this subject is about solving the social problem that's hanging us up. Shoving more data at people certainly hasn't done anything for thirty years ... because it's a social problem. That's what needs to be pointed to. But I realize it's foreign to our culture to do this. I point to the social problem when I see it. And typically get this same response.

It's no different than pointing out the bad arguments of a creationist, which also makes some people uncomfortable, all because it's an ingrained social taboo.
.

8

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 01:24:38 AM »

And I would add changes to the jetstream as another thing that's influencing storm activity ... already. Here's some science from Dr. Jennifer Frances discussing this regarding Florence last year, which didn't turn north when traditional meteorology would've thought it should have, and stalled it in place for awhile even, because of a blocking high in the Atlantic that was present due to the changes we should all be familiar with regarding the jetsream, it's increased amplitude and slower movement, and the resilient ridges it's been forming on either side of North America recently, a direct result of climate change.

Just talking frequency, and arguing people aren't seeing changes ... currently ... is a red herring. People are watching meteorology you know, just like how people here watch the ice. If you are close to the data, you are familiar with things long before someone publishes a research paper about them, if they even ever do about a particular event sometimes.

Jetstream, jetstream, jetstream. Those of us who follow weather data as closely as people here follow the ice didn't even need Dr. Francis to tell us about this. We watched it happen ourselves, in real time, and knew exactly what we were looking at, and where that resilient jetstream ridge in the Atlantic came from, and why it was there, and what it was connected to, and how it was affecting Florence. Then we watched Florence stall over Carolina, and even turn south a little, as it tried to find a way around that high, all because of the recently changed jetstream.

https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-double-whammy-may-be-steering-florence-into-the-carolinas-says-researcher-e125cad60819/

9

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 12:52:02 AM »

That's what I took Klondike Kat to task about once before on this site wili, was for pointing only to frequency, while conveniently omitting the observations being made about other changes to storms recently observed, and using only frequency to support a conclusion that there are no changes to storms related to climate change (because he only discussed frequency, and then drew that into a more general conclusion, a pretty definitive one.)

And are we to not look at May's ice behavior, or June's? Because I don't think there's a published research paper out about May or June's ice melt behavior yet. No, we look at the observations, here on this site, long before those papers come out, just like tropical weather analysts are able to do. So let's get real. Is there official papers out about the ice melt? Should we not make observations then?

10

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 12:34:40 AM »

Neither does constantly making tobacco industry style arguments advance the discussion of AGW.

No knowledge base is ever complete. Sometimes, when considering the risks of not acting, we quite often act after just enough information has been gathered to make a reasonably informed decision. That's what eventually happened in the tobacco debacle.

I'm on a tropical weather blog every day, and there's enough evidence gathered to make some reasonably informed conclusions about recent hurricane behavior, especially considering the pace at which climate change is accelerating and the fact that we don't have the luxury of studying this forever before 'noticing.' We also do a lot of things with gravity without having a complete understanding of that either.

In fact we move forward on many things in science confidently, with only cursory information to inform our decisions. Haven't you noticed how with climate change, there's a stall tactic by asking for more and more ... and ever more ... absolutely conclusive evidence before acting? Which is a tactic the tobacco defendants (some of them scientists) put forth to stall action on tobacco as well?

I'm surprised to see you defending such a tactic. People who watch tropical weather closely, along with other connected meteorology, definitely know some things have changed recently, with lot's of atmospheric connections to back up those observations.

I would say some of the institutions embedded within certain particular countries and cultures have been pushed into taking an unusually conservative stance on what they will say. They wouldn't want to be axed completely after all. Their official statements can often differ what the people actually doing the looking are seeing.

Anyway. Complain away in defense of your denier friend.

11

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: June 11, 2019, 12:15:23 AM »

sidd, please put me in your kill file.

12

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 10, 2019, 09:57:30 PM »

And you did backpedal when confronted. Walked straight backwards and backed off of what you were trying to shmeeb with your doublespeak. It's a smarmy way to be.

Meanwhile, your country is drowning, and burning, and getting blown away. It's absurd what you do here on this site with your stream of contrary arguments.

But whatever. Knowing you were banned before brings some solace. Not sure why you aren't banned again, you definitely just bring obfuscation to the subject of AGW.

13

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 10, 2019, 09:51:07 PM »

No, it's what the politicians and economists have asked for as a stalling tactic for thirty years ... more evidence ... while they delayed and blew past the chance for anybody to do anything about it, where the scientists were quite sure of what they were seeing. Extremely long term statistical evidence is just one singular line of reasoning.  For some people, they could still be asking in a thousand years for more statistical evidence. It's a ruse, and supports the, oh, it will change back argument that people like Trump make.

You'll notice that when it comes to spraying chemicals around, or damning a river, that there's no need to bother with long term statistical evidence in your society. They just spray it. It's a ruse. Your whole tact here is to obfuscate what science is certain of. Quit trying to present yourself as rational. You're need for never ending statistical evidence is called prolonging the debate, a well known doubt merchant strategy, whether you are aware of yourself doing it or not.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. - A. Einstein

14

Policy and solutions / Re: What's New in Climate Change Acceptance and Action

« on: June 10, 2019, 09:00:48 PM »

And climate protester nearly gets head run over:

Simulated execution. A tactic used by cops worldwide in order to suppress protesters.

Was very popular in Nazi Germany too.

Raising fines to the level that would ruin some people's lives as debt collectors guaranshee their wages to collect punishing penalties imposed solely to discourage civil disobedience,  are one way Canada is deterring people from civil disobedience. Like, 5,000 just for being there in support.  It's working too, fewer people are willing to risk a criminal record, jail time, or crushing debt just for showing up to a protest.

“The older population of otherwise good standing in the community, without a criminal record is the population that must be deterred,”

https://www.burnabynow.com/news/update-judge-sentences-grandmother-to-7-days-in-jail-for-pipeline-protest-1.23385060

15

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 10, 2019, 08:04:02 PM »

So now you change your story from a very solidly stated 'no connection' to 'too early to make one very specific procedural conclusion, a long term statistical one' ... admitting now that there are observed changes, they just haven't been observed for long enough.

But that's very different from what you first tried to BS us with, which is that there was 'no connection,' implied in a context that there have been no observed changes whatsoever. I know it's subtle, but this is what you do here on this site. You spin things.

That was my point, your here to support the denialists. Same goes with all the other Cato Institute arguments you present here on this site, ad nauseam.  You spin, is what you do, heavily.

We scientists, you say. What, are you a dentist or something? Don't flatter yourself.

16

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 10, 2019, 06:57:59 PM »

Here's how you like to phrase things:

"... linking hurricane activity with global warming have found no connection."

Would you like to talk about the jet stream, AGW, and hurricanes?

Jennifer Francis had some thoughts about it's influence on Florence last fall.

You would be laughed off Dr. Masters site for the ignorance you spew about there being no connection between AGW and hurricane behavior, which is what you're arguing hard to try and imply here.

You're just a subtle doubt merchant dude, and it's annoying to watch you do it. Desperately trying to show how it's not happening with most everything you post.

17

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 10, 2019, 06:22:48 PM »

The point was, you try to discount AGW effects through a great deal of omission when you present your arguments. It's pretty obvious to see what your intention is here at ASIF. That was my point.

You try to create a sense that hurricane behavior is not actually changing much, by omitting most of the ways they are being observed to be changing when you make points in isolation.

Your arguments you make here are clearly specious in their nature, dishonest. You're here to obfuscate science, that's pretty clear from watching you make your arguments against climate science here (which is what you do, even though you say you don't.)

A troll.

18

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 10, 2019, 05:53:20 PM »

Klondike Kat, you seem to like to omit a lot of things, isolate certain points while being guilty of omission. I find you to be like a subtle doubt merchant more than any sort of legitimate skeptical thinker, which is how you like to present yourself.

You claim to know a lot about hurricanes, but you just mentioned shear, when Michael last fall rapidly intensified in a high shear environment, which confounded the historical ideas of a lot of experts in the field.

You also ignore the way these systems are both stalling, and also steering differently, due to the changes AGW has produced in jetstream behavior, which is also noted by hurricane experts. I called you out on your omission of that once before here. Think ... Flo last fall and the Carolina's, stalling, and steering, from noted and observable jetstream changes.

You don't seem that up on hurricanes. I find you to just be a doubt merchant, not a legitimate skeptic. You omit a lot of things to make points in very isolated contexts, and I find that disingenuous. Yes, just an intentional doubt merchant, grasping at straws in isolation through a lot of omission and placing things outside of their larger context a lot.

19

The rest / Re: Unsorted

« on: June 09, 2019, 07:51:10 PM »

Yes, ivica, I neglected to mention the yogis and yoganinis. Kundalini yoga, in particular, is a branch that focuses heavily on reaching out and interacting with a fluid reality. All of it can be related back to the double slit discovery, which western science is working hard to stuff back into a Newtonian box of an objective, fixed reality, built on certainties. I can totally see and relate to why your interests lead you there for a looksy.

I like breath too, pranayama, it's a great thing. Good luck in your endeavors. 
.

20

The rest / Re: Unsorted

« on: June 09, 2019, 06:00:05 PM »

johnm33, thanks for the links i'll take a look...

Main intention with The Gadget post is to inspire/motivate a reader to think a bit about own body/mind and power of it.

Most people around me are not aware even of own nasal cycle, so my main interest is on elementary stuff, like breath... and how to get people to pay more attention to their basic faculties and stop doing variety of nasty things they do unconsciously to themselves.
To get people to think, feel, understand and experience little more is harder then i previously thought.

Much harder than you might have thought.

Another place you might look for not just observation of, but interaction with realty at this level, is to indigenous shamanism. The Australian aboriginal noticing that reality acted more like a fluid dream, South American methods for finding the fluidity of objective reality as relayed by the Carlos Castaneda works, and even in a better, less western, understanding of what the North American indigenous were really forcing themselves to experience on their personal vision quests.

What I was teasing about with my silly post, was about this fluidity of reality, it's malleable qualities that the Australian aboriginals could force themselves into seeing on their walkabouts, as with the North American indigenous on their similar vision quests. What I was saying in my silly post, is that wherever collective minds reduce anything into a certainty, they have collapsed the wave into a particle, so to speak, as was demonstrated in the famous double slit experiment ... and those things become fixed in reality, certainties, with very little malleability anymore. Wherever things can remain probabilistic, however, the way the waves collapse can remain fluid and then still be collapsed into a number of different certainties. Careful what you make certain, in other words.

Weather, is still very uncertain to western culture. They can only predict it out a few days, and even then if something unpredictable happens, people, even people who are very certain about what they think, will shrug their shoulders and say, meh ... weather, can't really predict it. Too variable. Too chaotic. This is a great place to run your own experiments, exactly because it contains so much uncertainty. You don't need any math (that's trying to force certainty.) You just need yourself and objective reality.

I would suggest the Taoists were also quite onto this, and had developed a methodology for observing it, and also for interacting with it consciously, rather than just blindly (as you alluded to in your statement about the subconscious.)

Good luck. Especially with formal western thinkers. They mostly only like objective certainties, and shy away from leaving such things in a fluid wave state. That's why all the math. I feel they missed the boat on what that double slit experiment was showing them about the fluidity of reality. They are working hard to collapse it into something else, and doing quite a good job of it too.

All you need is a brain and a reality to run your own experiments with this, like the indigenous did, or the Taoists. Some advice from someone with experience can help sometimes too.
.

21

The rest / Re: Unsorted

« on: June 09, 2019, 04:52:57 AM »

No, ivica, I was just sort of kidding around. Sort of.

I definitely suggest people do start reading their user manual.

You're ok to go.

22

The rest / Re: Unsorted

« on: June 09, 2019, 01:45:55 AM »

"Experiments Suggest Humans Can Directly Observe the Quantum":

Please, I say please ... leave these last few un-collapsed uncertainties un-collapsed. By collapsing this last probabilistic frontier into a mundane certainty, you are likely to take away the one and only weapon we have against the elites, who have already captured every other power anyone has to resist them and remove them from power. Don't screw this up for us!

Signed, Tim, the probability bell curve adjuster.

23

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: June 07, 2019, 05:36:33 PM »

You're just trading one catastrophe for another, a catastrophe today, for a different catastrophe in the future.

Did we learn nothing from CO2? Now, let's trade CO2 damage for radiation damage. It's myopic, and desperate. People ignored CO2 as well, because it wasn't a direct problem to them yet. Same goes for radiation, if you're able to look at the whole big picture and see the trajectory into the future with clear eyes. It's the selfish solution regarding life in the future, past just 'me' today. There's your desperate emotional response, if you want to go there. The current nuclear infrastructure is already starting to crumble around us, didn't you read any of the posts above?

I certainly do advocate against nuclear energy. And I can if I want to. 
.

24

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: June 07, 2019, 04:31:38 PM »

Nuclear reactors are definitely no better than fossil fuel energy.

If you look around at how the current market system works, the incentive to build new projects is entirely based on getting in low upon the announcement of a new infrastructure project, and growing your investment as others pile in with their money after you. That's the only incentive. Then, once an infrastructure project is built, there is absolutely no mechanism in the market to generate money to maintain that infrastructure afterward. In fact, the incentive that is there afterward is just to cut costly upkeep, or else the growth of the stock drops, and the money will flee to some other new venture.

If you look around, this is the pattern ... infrastructure failing as it gets old and isn't ever dealt with ...ever. The incentives were about building money as the hype of a new project gets announced, and after that, maintaining infrastructure is nothing but a loss to investors.

One could say ... well, we need to get serious and change that. Except, look around, you won't change that, it's just a flaw built into the nature of the economic system. You won't change that about our society, there is no mechanism to change that about the market system.

I would say nuclear only appeals to people panicking about only just climate change, and who don't pay attention to the hundred other ways civilization has collapsed the biosphere around it. In the long term, because of how our society is, which appears to be impossible to change, nuclear presents the exact same imminent risks to the future of life and the biosphere as fossil fuel burning did. You have to look at the big picture, not just at any desperate attempt to escape climate calamity today, by doing just as much harm to the environment down the road in just some other different way. It's myopic.

Our system isn't designed to deal with nuclear at all, unless you completely ignore the future. Nuclear energy is a fools errand. They're already all collapsing into ruin. That's just how the free market works and always has. Except, nuclear goes haywire when it's infrastructure crumbles into ruin. There is no way to effectively deal with the radioactivity. It's short term thinking, just like fossil fuel burning was, just as bad, not any better, the exact same thinking.

25

The rest / Re: SpaceX

« on: June 05, 2019, 04:43:55 AM »

Tim,

Great point. Perchlorate is a severe hazard. It is a powerful oxidizer and toxin. Even in trace concentrations it is a huge health problem. Perchlorate and pertechnetate (radioactive waste) substitute in the body for iodate (iodine’s active form in the thyroid). In doing that, they wreck havoc on thyroid and pineal gland function and with other organs and tissues to a lesser degree.

Sam

The soil can be cleaned or brought from Earth. Do you really think that life on Earth in the next 10-20 years will be better and safer than on Mars? 

Read the latest news from the next branch.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2728.msg203412.html#msg203412

Human Civilization Faces "Existential Risk" by 2050 According to New Australian Climate Change Report 

Strange logic.

If, as has been pointed out, the ability to inhabit Mars is practically nil, for the myriad of reasons just explained ... deterioration of civilization, or even the entire earth system, does not increase those possibilities of inhabiting Mars up from nil.

The report you presented doesn't magically make Mars more inhabitable.

26

The rest / Re: SpaceX

« on: June 05, 2019, 01:14:30 AM »

Yes, love movies.

With the recent carbon capture success story, Shell Carbon-Capture Plant Hits 4 Million Ton Milestone Early ... we just need 80,000 more of those huge and expensive projects to get the job done. Musk should be applying his resources there instead of wasting it on Mars.

I guess I just get frustrated at the distraction he causes with this. I mean, people actually think ... oh, never mind. 

27

The rest / Re: SpaceX

« on: June 05, 2019, 12:14:32 AM »

Plus ... perchlorate in all the soil. What? Can't use the soil? Can't even come into contact with it? Can't even be exposed to the dust that would be impossible to keep out of the protective bubble habitat you'd have to exist in, permanently, forever? What, science fiction fans didn't know about the actual chemical makeup of the deadly martian soil?

Pffft. What a waste of resources all this living on Mars bullshit is. People tried to live in a sealed habitat right here on earth, spent tons of money trying, and it failed miserably. Look that up too.

The high levels of perchlorate found on Mars would be toxic to humans, Smith said.

"Anybody who is saying they want to go live on the surface of Mars better think about the interaction of perchlorate with the human body," he warned. "At one-half percent, that's a huge amount. Very small amounts are considered toxic. So you'd better have a plan to deal with the poisons on the surface."

Any humans exploring Mars, Smith said, will find it hard to avoid the finest of dust particles. "It'll get into everything…certainly into your habitat."

https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html

It's all just so stupid.  Why not just stop killing the planet you've got?

28

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 02, 2019, 07:08:21 PM »

But Neven, didn't you just have a meta discussion yourself? 

29

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: June 02, 2019, 06:53:18 PM »

@wili

And I think some of us weren't even discussing the concept of natural or unnatural at all. But that seems to have gone unnoticed as people try and stuff what was being presented back into that context, which I continue to find bizarre and myopic. It must be a social media thing. 

I'll go back to avoiding this thread, and just let people misrepresent other people's input all they want by trying to stuff  what I was pointing out back into the natural and unnatural debate.

The entire subject header of the thread was a meta discussion question anyway, about the semantics people use when they have a discussion. It was a meta discussion.

30

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: June 02, 2019, 03:49:04 PM »

So the Great Oxygenation Event was natural. But the Great Fossil Carbon excursion  is unnatural because humans have a notion of Supremacy ?

No Sidd. This has nothing to do with natural or unnatural at all. It had to do with whether or not the insanity that has caused the biosphere to collapse, in multiple other ways other than just the fossil carbon excursion, is an aspect of innate human nature as so many people on this forum refer to it, or whether it's just the aspect of one select group of humans, one culture, and the way they have organized their insane worldview, one specific to just their culture, that has caused this.

Obviously this thread is locked into the social media silo'ing effect of where every single thought expressed is interpreted in the context of the headline: "Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about why civilized people are about to go away due solely to their insanity, and pointing out how that culture has a hubris of referring to their insane worldview as 'all humans,' as you have also done in your comment. I know it's subtle, but it's part of pointing out the greater insanity that grips this one culture, one of the things that keeps them locked into it.

The concept of Nature hospitable to humans is a human conceit.

I could rephrase that to say the concept of Nature inhospitable to humans is a civilized construct, one of conceit.

Nature would be perfectly happy with Canfield ocean and methanogenic life. Or a barren crust with the planet evaporating into solar red giant stage. As will happen in a few billion year or so.

So if I knock your house down, that's ok with you, because in hundreds of hundreds of years that house would've rotted away and fallen down anyway. That's what you just argued, that's what you just rationalized and normalized there.

I'm not saying that an insane culture killing itself is unnatural. I'm actually saying the opposite, that it is natural for something insane to eventually remove itself from evolution through natural selection. I was just trying to talk about why it is that the culture of civilization clings to their insanity, and promotes it, and why they rationalize it away and defend it and try to normalize it with all sorts of mental gymnastics, instead of just changing their worldview. All I was trying to do was point out that worldview.

But that always gets a fight from civilized folk, as we've seen on this thread. That's actually part of the observable insanity too, a psychological reaction against ever recognizing or acknowledging  their own wordlview, or that they even have one. They like to call it human nature instead.
.

31

The rest / Re: Pareidolia

« on: June 01, 2019, 06:55:03 PM »

Hurricane Michael having a malevolent chuckle just before it hammered the US last year.

32

Consequences / Re: AGW consequences where you live

« on: June 01, 2019, 05:21:53 PM »

And here's some pine beetles killing entire swaths of forest. (The purple is pine beetles killing trees, the purple is an enzyme they release into the tree, which clogs up the tree's veins and starves the tree, killing it. Eventually all that purple turns into grey, dead trees.)

33

Consequences / Re: AGW consequences where you live

« on: June 01, 2019, 05:20:53 PM »

Not sure why other pics didn't attach. Here's the changed jet stream. Red is the way the jet used to look, the blue shows the wild amplitude swings it now takes. Where it swings high, anomalous heat, where it swings down, anomalous cold. And it's getting stuck in these patterns longer, and repeating the patterns, because the Rossby waves (the amplitudes) are moving off slower due to the changes as well.

34

Consequences / Re: AGW consequences where you live

« on: June 01, 2019, 05:19:18 PM »

Tom, you're looking at this wrong to think this is all just about adding a few degrees to your local temperature, such as 3C global average rise means 3C warmer in your area, what's the big deal, sounds nice.

It's about the knock on effects those seemingly slight changes have on earth systems. Let me tell you not about what people predict might happen, but what already has happened to my area, and some of the earth system changes that have happened to cause that, and it's all been very bad.

The 1C rise so far, so tiny it seems, has led to the arctic melting. That reduction in albedo and open water has actually led to the arctic beginning to warm faster than just the 1C global average. Knock on effect one.

This has led to the knock on effect two of a radical change in the way the jet stream behaves, because the jet stream was driven by what used to be a sharp difference in temperature between the cold arctic air and the warmer mid latitude air. Now that this differential has been reduced, the jet stream has slowed, causing massive changes to the amplitudes in it's sine wave pattern. Those amplitude waves are also getting stuck in one place for longer than they used to. This has all amounted, already ... not in the future ... to drastic changes in how weather manifests in the middle latitudes. The first picture I've attached is a picture to demonstrate this change. This is knock on effect two.

What's that jet stream change has caused for my area in southern Alberta Canada, is that these huge amplitude jet stream ridges have been reaching high up toward the arctic during our winters for the past ten years, and getting stuck that way for months and months on and, and continued to happen year after year after year. This virtually eliminated the cold winter temperatures for our area. When these ridges form, which have been called ridiculously resilient ridges, we don't just change by a 1C global average temperature, we go from sub freezing temperatures that used to be the norm in our area, it means we change by 20C, or even 30C from what used to be the norm, virtually eliminating what used to be 'winter' under the old way that the jet stream used to behave. These patterns now 'lock' and stay this way for months. No more winter here.

We would call this 'weather' ... but it has been drastically changed by climate change altering the jet stream. And this is all just caused from the 1C global average change so far.

Knock on effect three, and I'll group a few things together here, has been what this elimination of winter has done to our local ecology that evolved to be stable under the 'old' jet stream behavior, and can't handle these changes to the jet stream. The plants all come out of the ground and trees start to form buds during these extended winter warm periods of 20C to 30C warmer 'weather.' Then they die when the buckled jet finally moves off and the cold swoops back in. They weren't adapted to swing back and forth in these extreme shifts. The animals that hibernate will come out of hibernation, thinking it is spring, and find they are out of step now with long evolved symbiotic systems, and there will be no berries for them to eat because it isn't actually spring yet. They die, or wander into human settlements looking for food, because they are starving. Then they get shot.

This loss of winter has also led to another incredibly massive knock on effect too ... the pine beetles that had evolved to die back over a cold winter, now no longer die over the winter. This has led to them expanding in a way they never used to, to the point where they have ravished the boreal forests of western Canada to the point where they have killed half the forests already since the 1990's. I'll put a picture of this happening up as picture two. Let's call this knock on effect three.

For knock on effect four, I'll talk about the wildfires that are erupt from having all this dead wood standing around that has been killed by the pine beetle changes (all caused through these knock on effects of climate change in just a 1C changed world so far.) There are wildfires burning 600 miles north of me right now, 1000 km away, and in picture three I'll show you what my area looks like right now because of this. It's awful, and extremely hazardous to people's health, especially the very young and the very old. This is smoke, for the third summer in a row now. The last two years this was how our entire August looked like. It's almost approaching unlivable to spend a solid month like this, in smoke, every summer. This would be knock on effect four in my local example.


All this earth system change from just a 1C global average rise so far. 20C to 30C changes for my area in winter, not from the global average rise, but because of how it has changed the arctic, which changed the jet stream, which changed the weather, which changed the pine beetle, which changed the fire activity.

See what it's about? Tacking 3C onto your nice sunny weather is not at all what it's about. It's about changes to the sensitive earth system that even small changes to the gloabal average temperature produce. Remember, it's only a few degrees C cooler and you trigger a whole ice age. These tiny changes produce massive changes to the earth systems, including 'weather.' Think ... Mississippi flooding. That's a stuck pattern. California drought, that's a stuck pattern. Hurricanes dumping a deluge on North Carolina from a stuck jet stream ridge in the North Atlantic when it was expected to have turned north. That's a jet stream change. Think extremelt abnormal heat in Scandinavian countries. Jet stream changes.

That's what you're missing. You're looking at it wrong. You need to expand your learning of the impacts of climate change. Not just what people say might happen, but what even now already [has] happened. It's much more drastic than the way you've framed it. It's about changes to the entire system from tiny global average temperature changes, not about tacking a few degrees onto your nice summer afternoon temperature.

35

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 30, 2019, 11:32:54 PM »

Here's something relaxing to listen to while we wait ...

36

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 30, 2019, 07:11:53 PM »

Tim,

I refer you to my reply #164

Thanks

I didn't see you saying much there. You started to lay a foundation of sorts, and then trailed off into railing about other people again. That's why I suggested you quit railing against what other people have to say, and just focus on developing what it is that you are trying to say. That was a few paragraphs of your idea, which wasn't saying much, compared to the volumes you've now written about what other's had to say. You need to develop what you're trying to say with that same enthusiasm. I didn't get much from your reply #164. Actually, nothing.

37

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 30, 2019, 06:44:10 PM »

wdmn,

I think you should quit with this interrogation and negation of anything other's contribute to your thread and just cut to the chase and say something proactive of your own. So far, you haven't done that. When there's no one for you to arbitrarily argue against with your strawmen you create and then knock down, I notice the thread just falls silent.

So far, I don't think of you as having really much to say on your subject at all.

It was obvious to me that what nanning meant was the way people within civilization talk, the memes they express, which is entirely in line with what you were opening up the discussion to in your first comment. And there you go, just looking for ways to be as difficult as possible. You couldn't tell what nanning was getting at there? Really, please, you were obviously just being obtuse.

Why don't you say something about your subject then, because so far, you haven't. Crickets.

38

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 30, 2019, 05:19:11 PM »

@nanning

I liked your squirmy worm metaphor. Very apt. 

39

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 30, 2019, 04:45:22 PM »

... my problem is with the lack of nuance in the position that you two (and previously Lurk) have put forward. I.e. dividing all of history into two worldviews, civilized and indigenous seems to me a very impoverished worldview itself.

You've done that thing you do again here wdmn ... taken what a person was talking about and rephrased it into something they never said at all. I've pointed this out about you several times now, and you just call it attacking you. You make specious arguments, which means you are only intent on misleading people in order to win some argument you are stuck on having. It's disingenuous.

Indigenous cultures represented a myriad of worldviews, a diversity, all living in a way that allowed them to be stable within the particular environmental niche they lived in. It was diversity. The contrast I then compare that to is the civilization worldview that replace, by policy, all that diversity of culture with one singular worldview, its own.

You have misrepresented, or completely misunderstood, what was even being discussed again. And my pointing out these specious arguments you continue to make is not attacking you. It's just pointing out specious rewordings of what was said. I do question why you mislead like this though, other than to just win an argument by dismantling it, instead of arrive at any sort truth. This is why I find talking to you a waste of time.

Now, you've claimed I was saying something that I clearly wasn't. That's ... like lying while you argue. Why do you continually do this? (Rhetorical question, don't bother answering that, I know why you do it, it's called being a bullshitter.)

Here's what I had said (note the bold):

Your Civilized culture is racist towards all forms of life other than their own, including other homo sapiens sapiens cultures that they've now just about eliminated from what used to be a diversity of cultures, and turned it into one big mono culture of just themselves, just their one culture ... supremacy.

What I would've been teasing out was what some of these other worldviews and cultures had in common throughout evolution that civilization mono culture has discarded. (Hint: it has something to do with an idea of conquering, with self importance, about supremacy over everything else in their environment and beyond ... a meme, which ties into how they now view themselves as 'all of what humanity is and ever was.')

You have claimed something I explicitly didn't say. That's why conversations with you go nowhere but down the toilet. You are just being adversarial when you argue in such a disingenuous fashion. You've claimed I was saying something that I clearly wasn't. That's dishonest, and why talking to you is pointless.

40

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 09:58:56 PM »

No. It's a Cree term ...

"The term wetiko is a Cree term (windigo in Ojibway, wintiko in Powhatan) which, to quote Forbes ... and bla bla bla."

You went to some goofs website on the internet, one that wasn't even much about wetiko at all.

Read a historian ... not the first internet reference you see. It is the Cree term for it, absolutely.

Yes, yes ... more rationalizations. la la la la la.

You're totally wetiko. That's exactly what Lurk pointed out about your mocking hostility. A very wetiko trait, and I'm sure very self inflating for your ego. So are your rationalizations that seem ever so convincing to yourself. Enjoy your winning. You sure chased me out of here, which is exactly how the narcissistic wetiko keeps its bubble intact. Now you can preserve your mythology without me disturbing it, right on cue. Classic. That's some of the subconscious psychology I was pointing out.

You'll never solve this with your myth intact and perpetuating, and still growing.

.

41

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 09:14:40 PM »

I began by trying to tease apart the way people refer to the dominant culture as 'humans' in their language, which erases the idea that they are really just one culture and really don't represent the quintessence of 'human nature' necessarily at all. That was one of my discussions of subtle memetics. The way that gets phrased all the time throughout civilized culture.

You came back with a really, really cheesy example of an Indian you know who drives a pick-up truck as a way to try and deny there was even any such thing as other worldviews or cultures. That's the only way your statement could possibly be taken. It was a typical first shot people take to try and preserve the myth that there is only just 'them and the way they are,' presented in a very simplistic way that works on many unintelligent people. Nice try.

That digressed into arguing about trying to show other cultural worldviews other than 'this one' by looking towards the indigenous. You still are trying to claim we know nothing, and can know nothing, about these other cultures to even have examples to give of them in your negation strategy, by pointing to the Amazon and omitting the tomes and tomes of information we do have about many of these other worldviews. It's all just another continuation of the cheesy way you pointed to the Indian in the pick-up truck to try and imply there is only one type of human behavior ... yours.

You're still stuck on that myth, trying to deny you're just part of a single behavioral culture, and perpetuate this myth that you represent some basic human nature instead of just representing the expression of a single cultural worldview.

You're stuck in the myth. Yes, the way you try and negate that truth is by this gish-galloping you do. Seriously, you think (and claim) we can know nothing about these other worldviews and still continue to throw out many specious arguments trying to support that view. The first one, pointing to a Canadian dude driving a pick-up ... was absurd. You've never heard anything about any indigenous history around the world? Really? There's tons of it out there if you look for it.  I'm not surprised though, because that's what the dominant culture's myth discourages.

Yes. Gish gallop. First pick-up trucks ... then onto how we can have no knowledge of these other worldviews. You still are on that myth train. Seriously?

No. You just argue about being right and interrogate and negate with a barrage of specious arguments.  I was just presenting information about a subject was all. You're interrogation style is just a diversion, it's exactly what gish galloping is.

Anyway. Maybe others want to engage you. I don't feel like presenting any more information about memetics than I already have. You very skillfully ended that discussion as far as I am concerned, and would just do the same again I'm sure. I'll stop posting now. This time, I promise.

No idea about any other culture but your own hey? Can't even ever know about them according to what you said. Wow, that's quite the myth you tell.

Indian's driving pick-up trucks. Sheesh.

And I never called you a racist. I only just pointed out where you use racist cultural language as you relay some of your myths. That's what I was pointing out ... as an example of yet more memetics.

Sorry, long post again. I guess I'm not part of the tweet culture either. Go figure.

And I escaped civilization because I never joined it in the first place. Irrelevant to a discussion about memetics though, and just another one of your gish gallops. That's why there was no point in answering it. Like the weird question about Jack Forbes speaking English.

42

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 08:05:03 PM »

The reason I'm not going to play gish-gallop with you and your irrelevant gish-gallop questions, are because your thread was about language use and how it somehow might matter. When I engaged you in that discussion, you strayed off into talking about Indian's driving pick-up trucks.

No. I wanted to discuss the very real importance of memetics and the role it plays in driving civilized culture to wherever it is that it goes. You just wanted to play gish-gallop and diverged entirely from your own subject matter. No, I'm not going to play gish-gallop off into the bush of where you've diverted this conversation into.

You answer your own questions. I was here to talk about memetics, which is a subject you seem to know nothing much about, so that's why I'm disengaging. Now we're just having a silly argument is all, about nothing much. Gish-galloped right off into the rhubarb, lol. 

You didn't much care for a discussion about memetics and just railed against it, so why did you start one? That's what I'm puzzled about.

43

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 07:46:32 PM »

They're not ad hominems. I'm merely holding you up as a near perfect example of your culture's psychology is all, for the purpose of instruction. You make a good case study of civilized thought structure.

Oh gosh. I came back and commented again. Gasp! Whatever does it mean? Gasp!

How is that relevant to anything? Now that's an example of an ad hominem.

Cheers wdmb.

44

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 06:58:50 PM »

One last thought wdmb, to point out your deflectionary tactics. You keep claiming we can know nothing about indigenous lifestyles and worldviews by drawing the focus onto un-contacted Amazonian tribes. What a shmeeb, and that's why I'm so disappointed in your tactics. I mention other indigenous people's too, one's where anthropologists and sociologists have gone and lived with them. There are many other examples of that too.

This fallacy you create by omission and by pointing at only the Amazon, is an example of being disingenuous. All you want to do is argue, with pretty see through tactics. At least I can see through them. You're just a bunch of shmeebs all through this thread. I find you to be dishonest. And rude.

Meh, with your silly thread. And thanks for the underhanded poke about long comments too. See what you do? It's silliness. You're just a bunch of aggressive psychology. That's what talking with a forked tongue is all about. That's how you argue.

45

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 06:37:33 PM »

Oh, and you got rude first dude. Watching you try and spin that now is quite the rationalization. Meh.

46

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 06:34:58 PM »

I was talking about language use. Bringing indigenous cultures into to this, if you'll recall back when I joined the thread, was simply just to point out how people continually using the phrase 'humans' when discussing the current predicament is a mind game they're playing in their heads with themselves. It puts it off as some inevitable problem afflicting the entire human race, which places it in the realm of the unsolvable, like it's just what humans do, always have done, and can't help doing. It's not, it's just one culture that collapsed the biosphere. That's a very different thing, and I was pointing out that common misappropriation of language. I was pointing at indigenous cultures simply to counter the almost universally held worldview of people from civilization that they and their particular set of behaviors and beliefs represent all of human nature itself (you hear people referring to 'humans' in this exact way everyday on this forum when talking, and it's a fallacy. It's away of distancing themselves and their culture from responsibility.)

That's where I entered this thread. In a discussion about language use and why it matters.

Anyway wdmb, if you supposedly knew all about this to the point where you'd corrected it in yourself, then you wouldn't be going around spewing all they myths like you've been doing here when you speak, a few of which I've pointed out to you. Now you keep insisting on dragging the conversation off into something else, a diversion, on your terms.

How does Jack Forbes speak English and not be like a member of civilization? Because he doesn't repeat the common myths of civilization when he speaks with English words, that's how. If you read him, you'd notice that about him. He would never use phrases about needing to control the biosphere, or refer to what's happening as a 'human caused' predicament. It's pretty simple, really.

No. I don't want to hear your rationalizations anymore wdmb. You clearly don't get this, and I don't like the way you hold a discussion. You're all over the map.

Cheerio ...

47

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 29, 2019, 04:41:04 PM »

wdmb,

You asked for specifics, and what I was giving you is something specific. I identified for you the root of the entire cultural problem that's leading your people into collapse. You can't solve a problem, until you know what that problem actually is.

Your cultures problem is like racism. Which is a concept of supremacy. Racism towards plants. Racism towards animals. Racism towards insects. Racism towards rivers, and oceans, and soils. A worldview of superiority about yourselves over all other things on the earth, over all other forms of life on the earth, over the entire earth system. Civilization is a culture of supremacy and dominance over other things. That's what racism is; the idea of superiority and supremacy over other things. That's what it calls progress.

I pointed it out to you in the language you use, which forms a story-line. All any culture is, is just the enactment of a story so as to make it come true. Your cultures story, it's language, is about putting yourselves first. It's about dominance and supremacy over the entire earth ... you first, only yourselves, only you.

You said you want to know the way to transform your culture, and that's what I was showing you, specifically. And all you did was rail against what I was showing you in a dozen different ways and called it boring after you rationalized away the points I was making at every step of the way. You didn't want to hear it at all, so you went on the offensive to stop it, which is classic wetiko behavior.

I called you a wetiko, because in this thread you demonstrated all the behaviors and tactics of a wetiko. A wetiko is a narcissist, that's what it means in western language. You said, "Yes, I was somewhat edgy in calling your posts boring, but was trying to provoke ..." That's what a wetiko does, is start provoking whenever someone starts poking around in their beliefs, until it stops the discussion, which you have succeeded in now doing. It's just a subconscious tactic. Congratulations.

I called the language you were using racist, because civilization is a racist culture, one that uses subtle racist language to tell a racist story that their culture then enacts and makes come true. That's what a culture is, the enactment of a story formed through the particular language they use. Your culture is racist towards all forms of life other than their own, including other homo sapiens sapiens cultures that they've now just about eliminated from what used to be a diversity of cultures, and turned it into one big mono culture of just themselves, just their one culture ... supremacy. They've also done this to the entire biosphere now too, which is why it's collapsing. All I did was point that racist language out to you and showed you where you were repeating it, in several different ways. Most of the people on this forum repeat this mythological language almost anytime they're talking.

I called you forked tongued, because that's the argument style you use with all your deflecting and avoiding and hostility towards what I was trying to show you about the very specific problem your culture needs to solve (by just stopping being the way they are, by stopping enacting that story of supremacy and dominance you are enacting and passing along through your language, by finding another story to enact.) I showed you how thinking you are stewards over the planet is just another dominance story. How calling the indigenous 'the past ... over, impossible to know anyway (now that your culture has killed them all)' ... how that is just the enactment of a dominance and supremacy story. I showed you how saying you're 'not just another animal' is a story of supremacy. I was showing you how your language is rife with this story you all now enact. The language is what drives it, that's what memetics is, which is what you began your thread about without even seeming to know it.

And you didn't want to hear any of it. You flew into a narcissistic rage, and chased me out of here. Yup, that's being a wetiko alright. That's why I identified you as being one. That's why therapists won't even treat a narcissist. Because they're trapped in a delusional bubble of supremacy so complete that they just rage at any therapist who points out their problem to them, just like you've done in this thread. They'll proclaim out into the air that they've heard nothing of value from the therapist, just like you've done in this thread. If the therapist gives them an explanation, they'll just say they haven't been given one, just like you did at one point in this thread. Then they'll call the therapist boring and say they don't want to continue, just as you've done in this thread. Pretty classic dude, if you had any awareness about the condition. Most people in civilization are afflicted with narcissism, consumerism actually encourages it as a behavior, which is something experts fully acknowledge. That's what wetiko is.

I called you an idiot, because you kept saying you felt like an idiot, so I finally just agreed with you was all. I tried not to for a long time, but when you became foul and provokative at me, I aquiesced and simply just agreed with you.

There is no point talking to you any longer wdmb. Look at you, demanding nanning answer your questions like a control freak. That's your culture talking again ... control, dominance, supremacy ... and you can't even see it, because the narcissist can't see he's a narcissist, that's part of their whole problem. Like you even know the right questions to be asking anyway, which you most abviously don't or you'd have solved this problem on your own already and understood what the problem is even about, instead of railing against an explanation of it the way you've done in this thread.

There's no point continuing with you wdmb ... you're steeped in enacting a story that you don't even know you're a part of, and don't want to hear about it when someone tries to point it out to you. You call it boring and say they're not actually saying anything. Talk about covering your ears and saying la la la la la.

"Yes, I was somewhat edgy in calling your posts boring, but was trying to provoke ..."

Yup, you sure were, all the way through the thread. What kind of dialogue is that? It's the classic tactic of an incurable wetiko to provoke people. You can see this behavior on facebook all the time. I'm sure you would rationalize away how you were doing something else other than what you actually were, because you can't even see it in yourself. That's how the wetiko illness manifests, as a bunch of rationalizing and deflecting away from ever recognizing your own behavior, or your story, or your language, or your culture.

So ... go solve your own problem wdmb. But I don't think you will, because you don't know what the problem even is, and you'll just chase away anyone who tries to point it out to you. Nice job you're doing with this. You should go conquer space next. Maybe that would help. More conquering.

Goodbye wdmb.

48

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 28, 2019, 07:03:14 AM »

<snipski, snapski, leave it be guys, you've reached the end of the line; N>

49

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 28, 2019, 06:58:28 AM »

Says the crybaby who whined all the way through the thread.

You speak with a very forked tongue all through your irrational discussions, like typical wetiko.

 

50

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"

« on: May 28, 2019, 06:50:37 AM »

Look wdmb ... you started a thread discussing memetics ... without even knowing that's what you were talking about I think ... and that's what I engaged you in, was a discussion about memetics.

And you had no clue what I was talking about.

I think you're the bore dude. Rather boorish too.

You're right, your thread was pointless with you leading it.