Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lurk

Pages: [1]
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: March 19, 2019, 01:34:22 PM »
A Vivid contrast to the leadership that rises to the top in the United States of America all the time, versus most of the nations of the truly civilised world.

"Donald Trump telephoned a grieving Jacinda Ardern in the aftermath of New Zealand’s largest ever mass murder. The President asked what the United States could do and received an answer he can’t have been expecting. “Sympathy and love for all Muslim communities,” the Prime Minister told him.

Jacinda Ardern has been widely praised as doing a magnificent job in a situation no national leader should have to face. In response to unimaginable horror, she is deliberately employing language of empathy not hate. She has chosen a message of togetherness instead of reaching for the easy, crude politics of division that have worked so effectively, and for so many, in the past.
In these circumstances, kindness is a radical act.

The traditional script for a world leader reacting to a terrorist attack on home soil is one of power and retribution, to prosecute an "us and them" case. By way of example, you might recall that US President George Bush wanted to "find out who did this and kick their ass" in the wake of 9/11. He later declared that Osama Bin Laden would be taken "dead or alive".

Ardern is taking a markedly different approach. She’s barely wasted a word on the perpetrator of this crime, instead focusing her energies on the victims, their loved ones, and a nation that needs to heal. By declaring "they are us", she set the tone for how people should respond to this tragedy. The unspoken message? Victims of this crime may not share your faith or ethnicity, but they are New Zealanders and that is all that matters."

Probably half the leaders in Australia still need to lift their game, no, totally change it. I think the same goes for Canada, the UK and many other great white nations too.

Trump is not a cause of problems in America he is but a one of the many symptoms of a legacy of untreated and denied pathology across the whole nation decades and centuries old. 

The rest / Re: The problem of social media
« on: March 17, 2019, 06:07:41 AM »
The social media strategies used by the accused Christchurch mosque shooter and Islamic State (IS) media are overlapping, says a Harvard researcher investigating online radicalisation.

An analysis of the digital footprint of Tarrant's documents revealed recruitment techniques observed in far-right movements and terrorist organisations.

"While [he] frequented fringe social media platforms, his strategy more closely resembles tactics used by the Islamic State during its peak propaganda output in 2014 and 2015," Mr Decker said.

Twitter posts purporting to be Tarrant's contained several download links to his manifesto, which was later shared on messaging boards less than 30 minutes before the attack at a Christchurch mosque.

Photos were also posted of weapons and ammunition cartridges scrawled with Nazi and far-right references, and were seen being used in the video.

Mr Decker said, like IS, Tarrant's manifesto used symbolism and coded language to paint a historical narrative about the victimisation of a specific people attempting to reclaim a lost glory.

The meme culture of mass shooters

In his manifesto, the accused shooter referenced a number of popular video games. During the livestream of the attack, a reference to a popular gaming personality pre-dominantly watched by young children and teenagers could be heard.

While extensive academic research does not suggest a link between violence in video games and real-world violence, it is central to the culture existing on online forums and social media pages mass shooters inhabit.

Mr Decker said the first-person shooter angle, common in video games, used in livestream of the attack was commonly used in IS recruitment videos and said there was an "intersection of extremist violence and online gaming culture".

"It's a commonplace lens through which to witness violence and was a central component of IS recruitment, particularly of westerners," he said.

IS fighters had used headcam footage while they battled Iraqi forces for control of Fallujah in 2016. Similarly shot videos were also used by IS supporters in combat scenarios in the Philippines.

A 'growing threat' in Australia

The supposed white supremacists' views of the manifesto's author did not germinate in a vacuum, according to Victoria University's Debra Smith, who has spent 18 months working on a report on the subject from Melbourne.

Dr Smith said far-right extremism was a "growing threat" in Australia and leaders in those communities were leveraging racial hatred and bigotry to grow their numbers.

She said hateful speech allowed people to feel like they were the "vanguards of a social movement".

"What research [shows is] that anti-Islamic rhetoric is being used as a strategic tool by the far-right to recruit people into the movement," Dr Smith said.

"It's very clear the far-right respond to public debates around the role of Islam in society, around things like marriage equality and so-called African gangs, to sow fear and division to recruit people to their cause."

Tamino usually makes sense.  (?)

So Tamino still believes the illusion that whoever wins the Democrat primary and the US Presidency will actually make a difference to the global climate crisis and the GHG emissions of the USA into the future. Gosh they might even be able to roll out a Green New Deal ... wow.


There's one born every minute.

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: March 08, 2019, 02:09:07 AM »
What a great idea, Rob! Hurrah for neoliberalism!

Sure, Neven.

If not the "neoliberal" IMF, who else do you suggest is going to pay for the $50 billion in debt that Venezuela is currently defaulting on ?

You ?

Concern Troll

Americans also end up paying for such lies and manipulations with life and limb.

Venezuela Debt $50 Bln = $1,613 per person

USA Debt $22,000 Bln = $66,666 per person

USA Interest Payments per year @ 3% = $660 Billion per year every year

Total Venezuelan Debt $50 Bln (according to Rob) Interest = $1.5 Billion per year = Chicken Feed

"you support a dictator who gases his own people"

"you support an dictator who is stealing from his own people"

"you support  a Government that is Bankrupt"

"you support a dictator whose people are starving and won''t allow humanitarian aid to come in"

... and on and on goes the Concern Troll. It's what they do.  It's all they got.

Maybe a course in Debating or Economics or Political Science or Psychology or History might help?

I seriously doubt that. :)

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: March 07, 2019, 03:45:26 PM »
US taxpayers and the citizens in general are the one's who keep on paying, and paying and paying.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: March 06, 2019, 02:13:47 AM »
It seems he objects to my pollyana-ish language ...

You are correct about the first part of your comment. But off the mark with this one above. How you speak, your style, beliefs and your opinions are fine. As is your "emphasis" even if I think it;s a little over the top/exaggerated at times. But we all do that when it comes to what we feel and believe is the important "message".

I think (and hope) if one had an objective view at my own (at times over-exaggerated) responses I generally "focus" on the missing details, especially in regard "media/blog" references. I don't claim to know everything about everything but when I see distortions and extreme cherry-picking or laziness by "journos/PR hucksters" this is what motivates me. I abhor people being misled by only hearing a slice of a story that claims to be the whole cake.

And/or appears to be the most important issue when it is not. Or where a series, a pattern of narratives keeps saying the same things that when taken together overtime presents a distorted reality of what is - this can occur even when everything said is basically correct and true in itself - but it's what is consistently missing from that narrative that causes the distortions in peoples minds and therefore their beliefs if they hear it often enough. 

That's my focus on these pages. Nothing personal and yes my own style and choice of words can also be a pain but that's really not the point is it. I do try to look past peoples beliefs opinions and style and see what the "information" is behind that which they are relying on. That's my "focus" even if sometimes I get the "facts" wrong myself or miss the mark in telling the whole story or placing things in the broader context - but no one can ever do that to everyone else's satisfaction.

Misrepresentations by the media, by politicians, by lukewarm scientists, by deniers, by greenies, by corporations, by PR writers, by advertisers, by bloggers, by forum/news media comment posters, by CEOs including Elon Musk, by religion and cults, by anyone in fact, has been a life long trigger and therefore a personal interest for all kinds of psychological personal reasons. The later half of my life has been spent learning everything I can about this phenomena. It's a key reason why I was never ever a potential victim of climate science denialism - and that had little to do with my climate science knowledge at the time - but was a motivator to get to the scientific facts as well and what they really "meant".

My Taurus Excretus antennas are highly tuned and nuanced. ;) (imho)  It is not a necessity to always know the all the objective facts to still be able to establish someone is lying through their teeth or so biased and unknowing their word is always unreliable and not credible.

eg I have a lot of faith in my ability to pick a Pathological Narcissist on the other side of the world - when I have had enough time to see them speaking and/or reading what they say and how they say it and what they look like when they are saying it. (That is not to say anyone else's here is worse or I am better than.) And it is not a comment about participants here but about those in power and those who have positions of 'authority' including in the media eg Luke Harding of The Guardian, Chris Monckton, or as easy as 'nailing' Donald Trump and his main competition in 2016. 

However my apologies for when I do come across as too harsh, strident, or intolerant and might appear to be blaming the 'poster' for the material they post. I try hard not to yet it is still a work in progress.

The rest / Re: The problem of social media
« on: March 04, 2019, 09:20:43 AM »
The Social Media Meme goes like this: Pro-Palestinian = Anti-Semitic

That's called a Non-Sequitur = it does not follow.

It's false. Another everyday example of Fake News.

It's Israel, racist xenophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, Neocons, The Lobby, and the US national security apparatus weaponising Identity Politics in defence of the indefensible.

There's a new World War going on today.

The battlefield where this is taking place is your Mind.

Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey (NY) on Twitter.
    Lawmakers must be able to debate w/o prejudice or bigotry. I am saddened that Rep. Omar continues to mischaracterize support for Israel. I urge her to retract this statement and engage in further dialogue with the Jewish community on why these comments are so hurtful.
    — Nita Lowey (@NitaLowey) March 2, 2019

    I have not mischaracterized our relationship with Israel, I have questioned it and that has been clear from my end.
    — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) March 3, 2019

    Gross islamophobic stereotypes - like those about @IlhanMN recently featured on posters in WVA - are offensive and have no place in political discourse. Anti-Semitic tropes that accuse Jews of dual loyalty are equally painful and must also be roundly condemned.
    — Nita Lowey (@NitaLowey) March 2, 2019

People who are not anonymous cause far more problems than those who are.

Sono Motors have presented the final design of the Sion.


9417 Preorders and counting

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 02, 2019, 11:53:43 AM »
A History Recap may be a helpful reminder again

First Post by Neven on this Topic

This thread is to be used for the most part to post articles that Tesla Inc. is either successfully implementing its business model, or that it's failing to do so. The Internet is full of tiresome discussions on this subject, so I'd appreciate it if you partake in them elsewhere. Post your evidence for either stance, and then exercise patience.

For a more general discussion on EVs and their future, usefulness and technological aspects, use the thread that was always meant for that: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....

Neven, please don't take Zizek out. We can handle a few angry voices around here.

I won't, but I want him to take his rants about the moral implications of Tesla/Musk elsewhere, like here or here.

This thread isn't about Tesla per se, but about whether Tesla is going to go bankrupt soon or not.

And then I read this thread. Sigmetnow has a particular knack for posting only positive news about Tesla. And obsessively.

That's the whole idea of this thread! How often do I need to repeat it?


Take the rants elsewhere (preferably a Green BAU thread) or create your own thread. I've been very clear about what this thread is about: Tesla's survival/demise. Not the consequences of its survival/demise, or the moral implications. Next rant will be snipped.

Enough with the general debates already! This is a forum full of threads, and if you can't find one to fit your general debate, then create one!

I have to sleep at night, and now there are too many off-topic rants, one after the other. But the next time I will delete every single one of them. I created this thread to discuss Tesla glory/failure. I want to see bull/bear links, op-eds, videos, whatever, and not too much personal opinion, let alone rants and insults.

This is going to play out for a while, so please, have some patience and stop this repetitive vicious cycle.

NASA completes certification of SpaceX Dragon Crew capsule; sets March 2 launch date for Demo-1 flight to International Space Station; will provide live coverage and updates.

Off topic. Nothing to do with Tesla, nothing to do with it's ultimate success or failure as per N. guidelines (?). Others talking about spaceX the same.

I agree, SpaceX stuff should go elsewhere, perhaps a new thread in the same location as astronomical news? It's off-topic here.

SpaceX thread is here.

"It's not Rocket Science!"   ;D

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 28, 2019, 03:22:24 AM »
The numbers mentioned in the article are at least consistent and IMHO answer well the doomsday cries often made here regarding EVs and the impossible requirements they impose on electric grids. However the article makes a blatant omission by failing to mention the need for storage (and backup) to fit the supply and demand curves. Both short-term storage over the day, and longer-term storage over dead periods, are needed and would cost extra, though I would expect that is certainly doable. And in rare cases I expect natgas backup to be needed as well, these plants already exist but must be maintained. Not mentioning this causes me to take the article's analysis with a grain of salt, as I suspect a lack of objectivity.

That's a fair comment. This surely is the problem with (almost) all our media these days. To much PR spin not enough hard facts and explaining the fuller context involved.

So to me, this article like most others like it, rather than being a message of hope "yes we can", is really more a message that "no we can't - we're screwed", if this is the expectations for "a plan" for a solution in the next 20 years or less. 

I suspect many/most the "purveyors of hope" have not yet fully realised the extent of the massive disruptions in society in economics and accepted norms that is essential to properly tackle the problem head on. Instead they are relying solely on the "news reports" of technological incremental improvements on the margins only. A more cynical view of this approach is calling it "snake oil".

Of course the technology and capacity exists to build out Renewable to 800 GW per year - plus complement that with storage be it battery or some other method. But that technology (it's known potential then), our capacity and ability existed in 2000 as well - it was merely hidden behind a whole slew of BAU beliefs, far mongering, denials and therefore a total lack of investment and Government funded / legislated development goals at scale.

That same core problems exist in doing that today. Nothing foundational has really changed.  The UNFCCC Goals are still inadequate and do not confront the reality of the problem or yet meet the challenges to overcome it. Globally we're still playing around the margins despite all these "good news" stories. imo.

Political Forecast - Election Predictions

Thanks that was fascinating insights.

Here's the link to the source info

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 27, 2019, 03:10:36 AM »
This will be my last time posting on this thread, as well as ASIF.  The real reason I come to ASIF is for info on the ice. Point is, many posters here lack either urgency or understanding of the entire situation we find ourselves in. I would like to point out I mean no ill will towards people i disagree with. So thanks for all the contributions everywhere. This is a good forum, filled with many good people.

Totally understandable. At least take a break and nurture yourself some. Being compared to "climate deniers" is a shot below the belt. It's uncalled for and it all adds up.
Maybe a meetup with would help you feel a lot better and validated among friends (which you deserve and need - we all need imho)
 Take care.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 23, 2019, 03:55:27 AM »
Tesla Model 3 deliveries in China are starting earlier than expected

Tesla sold more pure EVs globally than any other brand in 2018 — including Chinese companies.  And the Model 3 was the best selling BEV in the world.

RE: "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."

I agree. I am not standing in the way. So .....

1) Buy your first Tesla 3 yourself - put your $ where your mouth is and your Refs are - Do it.
2) Buy more TSLA shares now while the price is deflated despite all the "good news" - Do it.
3) Check your bank and see if you can't get a loan on your Home to buy even more Shares. Do it.

Now only $295 / share after being as low as $291 yesterday. Quick the price is going up.

Yes, do it!

A bit of silly humour for an otherwise tedious very repetitive thread about a Brand Name :)

Me, I prefer LA Ice Cola, what about you?

Better still what does the Scientific and Sales Data have to say about different Cola brands?

Don't they all have too much Sugar for Safe Human Consumption?

Are not all Brands a Common Bad which represent Over-Consumption of a Societal Ill?

I'll be back later, have to run buy a stack of LA ICE Cola Shares to make a killing on the stock market. ;)

My high quality refs of why that's a great thing to do!

Facing Slumping Sales, Coke Hopes To Catch A Wave Of Fans With New Flavors

The main reason for the drink's popularity is that it is cheaper than some of its rivals, costing as little as $1 for 2 litres.

Highly credible source - The Guardian
Yet some analysts still insist that Coca-Cola is finally going flat. In early 2016, UK volume sales were down 5%, while the lower-calorie Coca-Cola Life has flopped and in 2018 the sugar tax comes in. After years of stuttering growth globally, in which Coca-Cola has arguably failed to adjust to a new healthier era, could it face years of slow decline?

See any similarities there to tesla commentaries and refs? (smile)

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: February 22, 2019, 04:48:26 AM »
I appreciate what Dore does despite any failings because he goes a little further by putting some meat on those bones of the basic "news reporting"

Dore and many like him today have provide a huge Plus Element by presenting a more holistic perspective placing simple facts into context,  what these facts actually means in the big scheme of things especially when it comes to critical warmongering regime change issues that in truth go far beyond one dufus Presidents crazy ideas and into the extreme systemic problems in the USA and it's bought and paid for clients states in South America and across the world.

Quoting Jimmy Dore here:

"I think that's interesting to say the very least. Everyone knows - like it's out in the open now - but it's somehow like no - (Democrat) Nancy Pelosi supports this cool stuff in Venezuela and pretend she's for the people.

What Nancy Pelosi's really revealing is that she's a sociopath and I'm not saying that that's not hyperbole that she's a sociopath because she knows this is the actual truth and (yet still) she's for overthrowing (the legitimate Government there),  she's for arming rebels causing a civil war, she's for all this horrible stuff and I'm not just picking out Nancy - I'm picking on her cuz she's the leader that everybody in Congress is like this with Trump pretty much -

Everybody is okay and they know that it's, they know that this is what it actually is, it's a it's a it's a grab for oil - everyone knows this except somehow the American people are still deluded because everybody on every corporate news show and lots of lefty news shows repeat the government propaganda  that's propaganda - that's called Manufacturing Consent."

Yes, the Democrats under Pelosi and Schumer are 100% behind this as much as the GOP warmongers are because the Democrat Party are as an Institution of Sociopathic War Mongers too. It's obvious. It's provable. It's right in people's faces and yet still most refuse to see it - all they see is Trump and a short McCabe quote from his book - most people miss the rest of it - they cannot see it - they cannot be told. 

The MSM is 100% behind this Propaganda. The EU is 100% behind this Propaganda. Canada's Govt and Media along with NATO nations are (except for Turkey) 100% behind this Propaganda. Australia and Saudi Arabia and Israel are 100% behind this Propaganda.

Yes this is old news about the Manufacturing Consent Reality:  aka The Truth and Jimmy Dore is spot on for raising it and going ballistic about it.,2571.msg189481.html#msg189481

For even Bernie Sanders fell into line on the Venezuela issue. He had to or it would have ruined his Candidacy announcement for President where he would have had weeks of being pilloried by the Press for "defending a murderous socialist dictator" etc etc etc etc

Jimmy Dore? Yes I like him because like me he is able to capture the really important (but unstated) details and the critical Principles in the connections and interrelationships of what's going on in the now that 99% of people totally miss and almost 100% of the MSM intentionally ignore.

More refs about Manufacturing Consent if interested.,2554.msg187444.html#msg187444

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 22, 2019, 01:53:06 AM »
IMHO, these are issues from "production hell" time, that are much less likely to happen now.

So what? Today's management is still the same management who caused "production hell".

Your 'opinion' doesn't help those who bought $65,000 worth of crappy shoddily built cars. Tesla says they have fixed the cause of the problem ... whoopie ... has Tesla actually fixed all the problems that customers are complaining about for free already and compensated them yet?

How many people have had accidents because they became distracted by the screen doing crazy things while they drove down the road?  That's what I would want to know before buying a Tesla myself. They cannot meet production targets. They cannot meet delivery dates to customers who have paid their deposits. Now we find they can't even produce a finished product to specs - again!

But what do people says about this stuff all the time? Oh it's OK IMHO because look at the great things Tesla and Musk are doing for us all - saving the world from Climate Change - besides such problems and failures are much less likely to happen now. Gee don't be critical, don't get frustrated or angry about the endless 'spin', be patient, don't worry about the litany of broken promises, don't worry about the unstable dishonest untrustworthy dude who is running the company, so give them a Break because Tesla is Great!

You should go buy one asap IMHO to help save the world. :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 21, 2019, 04:27:41 PM »
I found it quite fascinating, and it formed the basis for my post.

Great at least one person knows what the basis, purpose and meaning of your post was. You. :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 21, 2019, 06:47:30 AM »
“A person familiar with the matter said Butswinkas was not a good cultural fit with Tesla and wanted to return to his family and law practice in Washington, D.C.”

Yet no one could work this out during the personnel source period and during the interview stage? Not even the one who accepted the job and decided to move... AFTER considering family impacts and the change in the kind of legal work he was going to be doing.  With this level of judgement do not hire him as a trial lawyer! :)

On the other hand he simply wasn't aware of the "culture" of Tesla at Board/Executive levels? That's his reason for quitting after 2 months? Fair dinkum what a bs excuse that is. Reminds me of the excuses why the CIA Director wanted to go play more basketball with his son who was in College. Wants to spend more time with his "family". Garbage. And people swallow this stuff anyway. How truly pathetic and naive to take such utterance on at face value. People in cults think like this and defend their leaders like this. Exactly the same psychology is at work here.

(edit) Now if this guy was merely a one-off event one would not necessarily jump to any conclusions about it and give them all the benefit of the doubt. However when there is already some 'shadowy' 'weird' stuff already been going on in the organisation and some quite unusual 'ethical issues' arising on all kinds of aspects of the business, including several 'whistle blowers', lawsuits ongoing, and Elon Musks own personal comments, odd actions etc. well there's an existing pattern that's at least 'questionable' - and then this happens again.

Some may well think there's nothing to it, it's only another beat up another handwaving false accusation by conspiracy theorists and anti-Muskites or short sellers. OK they can think that. Doesn't bother me. Whatever happens to Tesla and Elon Musk is going to happen anyway longer term. If the "product' really is good value for money the product will survive no matter what.

If self-immolation of Teslas continues in the EU well I wouldn't be surprised if one day there is a major Product recall notice sent out.  Fires don't start themselves and the owners sure didn't start them.

The rest / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: February 20, 2019, 09:02:43 AM »

Policy and solutions / Re: BAU until they peel my cold dead hands from it
« on: February 20, 2019, 05:23:21 AM »
The average American would rather murder 100 faceless brown people in a distant country than ride his fat ass to work.

ROFL and if they did ride a bike they'd still be packing heat! :)

Some perspective?

If tesla could string together 4 quarters in a row their total Sales would be $25 billion / year.

Light vehicle retail sales in the United States from 1978 to 2018 (in 1,000 units)

That's about 17 million new unit sale in 2018

Let's make a stab at an average price of only $40K USD per vehicle

Total sales revenue = $680,000,000,000 = $680 Billion / year (vs Tesla $25 Billion)

Add in a few $Billion more for Fossil Fuel petrol, gas and electricity costs to run them for a year which might be about $50 Billion... which totals $730 Billion give or take. 

Each year the USA taxpayers spend now $722 Billion / year plus on "Defence" (sic) 

Plus many $Billions more on shadowy expenses not really labelled as "Defence"

So imagine a world where the USA was able to cut it's Defence Budget by let's say $500 Billion per year. It would still the #1 most expensive most powerful Military Establishment on Earth by far.

But how much GHG emissions would be saved and how much wasted irreplaceable resources would be saved by cutting such a Defence Budget by at least $500 Billion per year forever back to sanity levels? 

So why would Climate deniers and their Corporate funders and Media enablers be so focused on the "scientific fraud" that is AGW/CC Science is and how if such recommended action is enacted it's going to destroy the economy and cost the taxpayers $ Billions they cannot afford?

What's the Cognitive Dissonant pay-off in "so-called" pro-AGW/CC action proponents especially the Luke Warmers from doing the same by ignoring the elephant in the room - a primary source of massive GHG emissions and wasted taxpayer funds in the USA - by gas-bagging endlessly how Tesla and other things are going to save the world, humanity and their current exclusive preferential Top 10% wealthiest in the world Lifestyles?

I think you know the answer to both those questions. Keep at it but keep your cool along the way. Try not to let people get under your skin.

(edit image) AKA stop stressing over shitty people ... be it the avg American or those who really hold the power in their hands. :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 20, 2019, 04:36:18 AM »
In other news:

-new estimates of Tesla US inventory have grown to over 10,000.

-it has become known that AutoPilot is actually more dangerous than no AutoPilot
I have no knowledge of the other info you posted, but these two pieces are from FUD sources as far as I am aware, certainly the second one.

What's the point of the Tesla Glory/Failure thread if nobody actually bothers to read any the negative Tesla articles
You actually replied directly to the post I linked the autopilot report:

In 2017, the feds said Tesla Autopilot cut crashes 40%—that was bogus

But now NHTSA's raw data set is available, and, if anything, it appears to contradict Musk's claims. The majority of the vehicles in the Tesla data set suffered from missing data or other problems that made it impossible to say whether the activation of Autosteer increased or decreased the crash rate. But when QCS focused on 5,714 vehicles whose data didn't suffer from these problems, it found that the activation of Autosteer actually increased crash rates by 59 percent.

arstechnica is definitely not what I would classify as FUD. And if you can explain to me how this report:
is FUD.  I'll offer the same wager to Rob to you.  $50 dollars to an org of your choice. Prove to me how this report can be classified as fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Give me some evidence. We are on a science-based forum after all.

Or maybe I don't understand your definition of FUD. Is FUD simply anything that casts Musk and Tesla in a negative light, even if it exposes lies and dishonesty? Any criticism, no matter the implications nor the quality of evidence, is simply cast aside as FUD. Why don't we just take it a step further and have Neven moderate any negative Musk discussion. Sticky this thread and let sigmetnow post in peace.

I just don't understand your obsession with Tesla, Oren. You're clearly a smart person, and have your head on straight about climate change. But your brain just switches off when anything Tesla/Musk related comes up .

I think you're missing the point zizek. There are hundreds of forum members who'd agree with you overall and who ignore this thread for good reasons. I did a scientific experiment by "testing the waters" to see what might show up only to find it poisoned beyond recovery. A waste of time iow.

All the facts data in the world will not make any difference to those who chose to argue the point with you. They don't care anyway and don't really think telsa will put a dint in agw/cc either nor make any real difference to anything else.   They just like to argue about issues that have nothing to do with telsa or evs. Sig seems to be stuck in the 2000s when reports about technical feasibility were more effective. Lost in the past iow. It used to be a barrier and now it's been swept away more or less leaving the really big important barriers more exposed. Rather than move on and address those unfortunately some here prefer to live in the past and keep up with old habits. Ever heard of big fish little pond? :)

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 18, 2019, 06:16:13 PM »
[ sorry I accidentally edited this when I was trying to reply to it - doh]

Slightly off-topic as it goes beyond the Arctic (should it go elsewhere?)

AGU Very  strong atmospheric methane growth  in the  four  years 2014 -2017:
Implications for the Paris Agreement E.G.Nisbet et al

Plain Language Summary

The  rise  in  atmospheric  methane  (CH4),  which  began  in  2007,  accelerated  in  the  past  four years.  The growthhas  been  worldwide,  especially  in  the  tropics  and  northern  mid-latitudes. With the  rise  has  come  a  shift  in  the  carbon  isotope  ratioof  the  methane.  The  causes  of  the rise  are  not  fully  understood,  and  may  include  increased  emissions  and  perhaps  a  decline  in the  destruction  of  methane  in  the  air.  Methane's  increase  since  2007  was  not  expected  in future greenhouse gas scenarios compliant with the targets of the Paris Agreement, and if the increase  continues  at  the  same  rates  it  may  become  very  difficult  to  meet  the  Paris  goals. There  is  now  urgent  need  to  reduce  methane  emissions,  especially  from  the  fossil  fuel industry/

10. Conclusion

The  need  to  determine  the  factors  behind  the  recent  rise  in  methane  is  urgent:  indeed, essential  if  global  warming  is  to  be  limited  within  the  Paris  Agreement  limits.  If  the  main causes  are increased anthropogenic emissions,  they need  to  be  reduced.  If  the  increased methane burden is driven by increased emissions from natural sources, and if this is a climate feedback –the warming feeding the warming -then there is urgency to reduce anthropogenic emissions, which we can control.

If, however, the increase in the methane burden is driven by a decline in the oxidative capacity of the atmosphere, and this is a climate feedback, then the implications are serious indeed.

Reducing methane emissions is feasible, especially from fossil fuel sources,and would have rapid impact on the global methane burden. This permits optimism but not complacency: the challenge  is  large.   But  there  is  no  single  silver  bullet:    there  are  many  frontiers  in  methane research,  and  successfully  meeting  the  Paris goals demands  wide-ranging  progress. Unless these questions are addressed, and much more attention paid to reducing methane emissions, especially from fossil fuels and biomass burning, the success of the Paris Agreement may be at risk.


    Guardian article
    Sharp rise in methane levels threatens world climate targets
    Experts warn that failure to act risks spike in global temperatures
    Robin McKie
    Sun 17 Feb 2019

    “What we are now witnessing is extremely worrying,” said one of the paper’s lead authors, Professor Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London. “It is particularly alarming because we are still not sure why atmospheric methane levels are rising across the planet.”

    “We have only just started analysing our data but have already found evidence that a great plume of methane now rises above the wetland swamps of Lake Bangweul in Zambia,” added Nisbet.

    “However, that does not look so simple any more. We don’t know exactly what is happening.

    “Perhaps emissions are growing or perhaps the problem is due to the fact that our atmosphere is losing its ability to break down methane.

    “Either way we are facing a very worrying problem. That is why it is so important that we unravel what is going on – as soon as possible.”


    And from 2016 along the same lines by Euan Nisbet, a climate researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London
    Why is atmospheric methane surging? (Hint: It's not fracking)

The rest / The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: February 18, 2019, 02:06:53 PM »
This isn't going away. Outright War appears imminent now. So rather than try and fit news about this into existing disparate threads I think a new one is appropriate.

Trump's NSA John Bolton is now referring to Venezuela under the current Maduro Govt as one member of the Troika of Tyranny. With echoes of GW Bush's 'Axis of Evil' and what happened next to Iraq it seems self-evident where this is going. I don't yet know who the other two countries are in this Troika but if I find out I'll you know. :)
Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton made a speech November 1, 2018 announcing the new sanctions against the Venezuelan government. He warned that there was a "troika of tyranny" in the Americas: Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. His speech implied that Trump would support a coup against Maduro.
( Is that all? )

I'll copy in a few of the best items already posted here about Venezuela over coming days but to get it started here's a related story about what's happening in Haiti. People concerned about the war rhetoric towards Venezuela have already been asking question like: 'How come the Trump Administration doesn't have a word to say about the uprisings and protests in Haiti?' Seems quite hypocritical but that of course is par for the course for American leadership for decades!

First some background on Petrocaribe and why Haiti is directly related to what's happening in Venezuela too. Nothing happens in a vacuum, everything is related in some way shape or form.

Petrocaribe is an oil alliance of many Caribbean states with Venezuela to purchase oil on conditions of preferential payment. The alliance was launched on 29 June 2005 in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela. In 2013 Petrocaribe agreed links with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), to go beyond oil and promote economic cooperation.

ALBA or ALBA–TCP, formally the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America or the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America – Peoples' Trade Treaty, is an intergovernmental organization based on the idea of the social, political and economic integration of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. The name "Bolivarian" refers to the ideology of Simón Bolívar, the 19th-century South American independence leader born in Caracas who wanted Hispanic America to unite as a single "Great Nation".

Founded initially by Cuba and Venezuela in 2004, it is associated with socialist and social democratic governments wishing to consolidate regional economic integration based on a vision of social welfare, bartering and mutual economic aid. The ten member countries are Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela.

Suriname was admitted to ALBA as a guest country at a February 2012 summit. ALBA nations may conduct trade using a virtual regional currency known as the SUCRE. Venezuela and Ecuador made the first bilateral trade deal using the Sucre, instead of the US dollar, on July 6, 2010. Ecuador withdrew from the group in August 2018. (after a change in the President of that nation.)

The Lima Group is a multilateral body that was established following the Lima Declaration on 8 August 2017 in the Peruvian capital of Lima, where representatives of 12 countries met in order to establish a peaceful exit to the crisis in Venezuela.

Among other issues, the now 14-country group demands the release of political prisoners, calls for free elections, offers humanitarian aid and criticizes the breakdown of democratic order in Venezuela under the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela.

Twelve countries initially signed the declaration: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. Guyana and Saint Lucia joined later.

The International Contact Group, comprising the EU as a bloc, eight European and four Latin American countries, was set up early February to push for snap elections in Venezuela. In a joint statement with Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini stated that the group aims to contribute to "a political and peaceful process" allowing Venezuelans to "determine their future."

Given the urgency of the situation in Venezuela and as announced in the statement by EU High Representative Federica Mogherini on behalf of the European Union of 26 January, the ministers decided to establish an international contact group on Venezuela that was agreed among EU Member States and with some Latin American countries that will participate in it.

The objective of the International Contact Group is to, within a limited timeframe of 90 days, promote a common understanding and a more concerted approach among key international actors on the situation in Venezuela aiming at a peaceful and democratic solution to the current crisis.

The group will help to build trust and create the necessary conditions for a credible process to emerge, in line with the relevant provisions of the Venezuelan Constitution, enabling Venezuelans to determine their own future, through the holding of new elections with all guarantees for a free and fair electoral process, supervised by international independent observers.

"Part of the group will be on the European Union side — obviously, the European Union, but also some of our Member States: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK — and on the Latin American side we already have confirmation from Ecuador, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Bolivia", said Federica Mogherini at the press conference.

By the Real News Network in Baltimore Maryland USA.

How Haiti's Spontaneous Uprising is Connected to Venezuelan Solidarity (1/2)

How Haiti's Spontaneous Uprising is Connected to Venezuelan Solidarity (2/2)

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 16, 2019, 02:21:13 PM »
That's all well and good. Though doesn't that 2.5ppm also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts too?

Huh? Do you mean the 1.5-2 values we have recently had 'also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts'? The linear trend at 2.5 looks to level out both the peaks and the troughs.

A statement couched as a rhetorical question. It made sense to me in the context of what was being said. Surely there is nothing wrong in checking my understanding was correct "out loud"?

Perhaps I need to explain it further?

Given you now say basically the same thing in: "The linear trend at 2.5 looks to level out both the peaks and the troughs." isn't that saying the underlying decadal trend is +2.5 ppm with ENSO removed? Maybe not exactly in a hard set 10 yr time frame but it's close enough especially if one expands it out further. And yet in the middle of that 2014-2016 human emissions slowed with 2015 actually falling. But in 2015-2017 CO2ppm went through the roof anyway. 
It's really quite interesting to me (ymmv) - "In 2015 and 2016, OCO-2 recorded atmospheric carbon dioxide increases that were 50 percent larger than the average increase seen in recent years preceding these observations. These measurements are consistent with those made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That increase was about 3 parts per million of carbon dioxide per year -- or 6.3 gigatons of carbon. In recent years, the average annual increase has been closer to 2 parts per million of carbon dioxide per year -- or 4 gigatons of carbon. These record increases occurred even though emissions from human activities in 2015-16 are estimated to have remained roughly the same as they were prior to the El Nino"

What that nasa report says to me is the spike in 2015-2016 (carrying over to 2017) following on an actual decrease in 2015 human emissions was almost all driven by dry and heat (record temps in 2016 right?) from the super el nino. CO2 Growth jumped to 3 ppm per year. Since late last year to now CO2 growth is very close to an equivalent growth rate and yet that cannot have been all the result of the early/weak El Nino that is only just beginning this time around.

To me it just doesn't follow the usual "patterns" so I am looking to understand it better without making any wild claims or assumptions. I am not only speaking about yoy changes either. At MLO the Jan increase on Dec 2018 is at the upper bounds. The February increase on January number is  typically the smallest of the year ~0.3 ppm but this year it is currently tracking almost 3 times higher almost +0.9 ppm. On top of an already high gain in January, but of course that could change before the end of the month but gain "typically" February does keep rising through the month.

January numbers are usually about the mid-point between the year before of March and April. This year not only is January above April last year it is equal with June 2018 - I have never seen it that high before relative to other months/years. Nor in the 2015/2016 super el nino period specifically. There's obviously a reason for these variances however it is far from normal imo.

Nasa also adds this: “Understanding how the carbon cycle in these regions responded to El Nino will enable scientists to improve carbon cycle models, which should lead to improved predictions of how our planet may respond to similar conditions in the future,” said OCO-2 Deputy Project Scientist Annmarie Eldering of JPL. “The team’s findings imply that if future climate brings more or longer droughts, as the last El Nino did, more carbon dioxide may remain in the atmosphere, leading to a tendency to further warm Earth."

What that says to me is that the historical patterns of typical el nino effects may have already shifted. I don;t know but am certainly thinking about it and looking. That 2015/16 el nino has possibly left far more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before. On top of that 2018 human emissions is back close to levels of the 2000s growing +2.7%. What else?   

Furthermore nasa says in that OCO report: "In eastern and southeastern tropical South America, including the Amazon rainforest, severe drought spurred by El Nino made 2015 the driest year in the past 30 years. Temperatures also were higher than normal. These drier and hotter conditions stressed vegetation and reduced photosynthesis, meaning trees and plants absorbed less carbon from the atmosphere. The effect was to increase the net amount of carbon released into the atmosphere."

How close were conditions in other parts of the world in 2018 in the nth hemi summer/fall with extreme droughts and wildfires, and now the very same thing occurring in the sth hemi recently in Australia, Africa and Sth America ... but all this is BEFORE there was any declared El Nino event happening.

I have not been able to keep up to date with every region in the world nor check every data point, but it looks to me that recently the "weather conditions" in Australia, Chile and Argentina as three examples is more like life in the middle of a Super El Nino already .. and yet it is not. Still CO2 levels are clearly spiking and totally out of the normal patterns right now as if we are in the middle of 2015-2016 again already (which is quite subjective at the moment ... so I am waiting to see what comes from here on in) and checking to see if I have perhaps missed something along the way.

Because if we are about to flip into an official major El Nino event now or in the next few months then I cannot imagine what that's is going to be like or what the numbers will look like this year and next if it lasts a year or more --- on top of human emissions going gang busters again versus the lower levels they were at during the last el nino phase.   

Which make me wonder if there isn't something else going on that is unusual/different than simply ENSO affects.

Why would you think anyone was claiming there aren't other effects besides ENSO?

ENSO is largest known effect, that doesn't mean there aren't other effects. Besides emissions, natural uptake as mentioned, I would expect other oceanic oscillations to also have an impact.

Who says I was thinking anyone was claiming there are not other effects? I wasn't.

Though I did wonder if something else was going on that is unusual/different than simply ENSO affects of late. That is why I am asking questions (in case anyone else is interested about my motivations.) I am certainly not looking for an argument.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 15, 2019, 03:30:10 AM »
PS "annual estimates may be too high" and "could be mistakes" applies to every paper on every AGW aspect I have ever read. It comes with the territory. They all say that somewhere sometime. It's how scientists and researchers speak.

In the meantime despite "science" being based on the notion that what a scientist does in a paper needs to be "replicable" so that others can repeat the "experiment" when it comes to AGW/CC issues this never or rarely (hens teeth version of rarely) happens.

I have not seen any group actually go and replicate verbatim a S7S research study in the field. Have you? AS in the same place in the same time of year using the exact same MO for measurements and the math used to estimate long-term regional wide emissions?

and then found errors and corrected those assumed errors and made a different estimate for the future or region concerned and then compared the two results side by side and explained them clearly.

I did see Archer use a totally different MO to claim that S&S estimates were "may be" wrong.  But he did not replicate what they did instead using a totally different MO by using long-term Modelling to get a different result. Well why wouldn't he get a different result when they were doing two different thing entirely - like mixing water and oil?

I have no issue in these different outputs, it's just the way it is. It's actually impossible to replicate other studies all the time, there isn't the funding the time or the capacity to do so. I tend though to pay special attention to those groups who replicate their own studies years later. That's what I see as "apples to apples" comparisons worth heeding. Because even if there some errors poor assumptions a fair comparison can still be made. Like happens with MLO CO2 readings over time - same MO for decades. Anyway whoever is more right or more wrong doesn't matter in the least in the big picture anyway.

I'm content knowing that whatever is known today more will be known tomorrow. And reality trumps every science paper ever written. I take it all with a grain of salt - including the IPCC "summaries" :)

The rest / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: February 14, 2019, 04:18:03 PM »
Last year Chris Hedges' new book tour gained some attention. Several refs to that were shared here at the time.

Here's another one from Canada radio which is a nice reminder of his key points and upon which they were built. It's a good interview. Boy he sure covers some territory even about corrupt pastors.

But most pointedly is that Chris hedges is so far to me the only person who has been able to cogently assemble an accurate self-sustaining grounded in reality critique of Trump and the imminent dangers of the movement he now leads.

The Bernies, the Tulsis and the AOCs are good and they're way too nice and cute about it while Pelosi Obama et al are simply useless - Chris Hedges on the other hand is cut throat about it. He calls it as it truly is and still connects the dots back to every other ill and egregious myth and falsehood.

Hey, but that's just me and my take. I'm weird as I much prefer 'stories' that are still grounded in historical facts. You may think differently about it. I mean, he does have an RT TV show after all. Gotta a be a big bad cross that one, right? ;)

The rest / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: February 14, 2019, 03:37:16 AM »
Actor Danny Clover tears apart the American Neoliberal Corporatist Disinformation Anti-Democracy Propaganda Campaign over Venezuela and South America.

"... so this whole thing this whole way we were watching we watched and we saw this we witness we were drawn to it the left may have criticized parts of it it wasn't didn't go far enough what was explained as socialism may have been considered to be social democratic etc etc but this movement was in the process and everything else.

At the same time all these conspiratorial forces were there to try to undermine it, to limit its effectiveness and subvert it. And those things were happening and we see this in Venezuela especially because the ideas came out of Venezuela."

Because Venezuela is not a country of 200 million people so it's difficult to get a consensus among 200 million people you know, but Venezuela it's a very small country so the sample size of building two million homes, training doctors, of having doctors to service communities, in the Barios  and other communities that had been disenfranchised and not served at all, well all that
was doable on the way to eliminate eradicate illiteracy as well

All this was doable in the sense so all these things which we would take out to the world (as real PROGRESS) were necessary, necessary demands for the human existence and their progression in their lives, everything, those things were happening right here.

So what we see now is a brutal attempt to stop it all and whether it whether it finds itself in the  illegal imprisonment of Lula Da Silva (in Brazil) or the illegal coup that occurred, the coup it happened a Legislative Coup it happened with President Dilma Rousseff, so all these things are happening right now ...."

(this time in Venezuela with Maduro after several attempts by the very same Criminal Conspirators to get rid of Chavez which failed.)

Consequences / Re: Abrupt Warming Event
« on: February 13, 2019, 12:08:11 AM »
I think this stands as a record breaking event...responses to 2 comments I made nearly 6 years ago.  :D

I'm so old, I don't remember making them. :-[

That is funny. I am at  a loss as to why this thread 'suddenly' appeared as if it was recent.

Aha, now I see why. OK, well it's still funny :)

PS Nothing of important significance has changed since 2013 anyway.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 12, 2019, 01:07:41 AM »
thanks to AbruptSLR

Title: "Climate updates What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?", November 2017 DES5123 ISBN: 978-1-78252-306-2

Extract: "With the next assessment report (AR6) not due until 2022, it is timely to consider how evidence presented since the publication of AR5 affects the assessments made then.

In summary, gradual climate change could trigger abrupt changes – with large regional and potentially global impacts – associated with thresholds in the Earth system. The possibility of crossing any of these thresholds increases with each increment of warming."


plus this extract

Perhaps the largest obstruction blocking societies willingness/ability to face the true risks of abrupt climate change can be characterized by what Sir Francis Bacon described as the 'four idols' of the mind (see the first linked article).  Consensus science (as well as other populist movements) get(s) bogged down by various preconceptions of the human mind, ....

 Such scientific mindfulness would enable scientist to consider/address issues beyond the preconceived specialist silos that they typically work within, so as to better address the many 'fat-tailed' risks of abrupt climate change:

Title: "The 17th-century philosopher whose scientific ideas could tackle climate change today"

asif link,2205.msg188469.html#msg188469

plus these responses very useful imho:,2205.msg188473.html#msg188473

An easier way (for me at least) to pull all those threads together is the notion that: You do not solve paradigm crises by the same kind of thinking that got you into them and which (obviously) continue to sustain them.

When I say "change the system" I don't mean make adjustments I mean dump it for a completely new system from the ground up ... iow a new Paradigm of Thinking and Acting and Values. The one we have is broken and no longer fit for purpose.

IMHO these matters also manifest in all kinds of ways including the two and fros here about is Arctic Methane Release a concern worth being concerned about - and who's science papers are the best ones to rely upon and which consensus is the "real" consensus - all these erupt from foundational thinking, memes, beliefs, paradigms etc.

It's been proven by Cog science and linguistics (see Chomsky Lakoff etc) that our ways of talking and thinking are inseparably one unit. The talk will not change until the thinking changes first. Nor will the Voting which is also "speech". ;)

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 08, 2019, 07:11:01 AM »

and pay special note to Dr Hansen's comments above. I think it puts the matter clearly and into perspective for now and the possible futures still up for grabs. Major Arctic CH4 "feedback releases" is still part of future possibilities ... it all depends if man made ghg emissions are stopped or not stopped. 

I’ve posted more clips (BELOW LINK) from the interview with Dr. Ruppel, now up at Yale Climate Connections​
Highly recommended to better understand this critical point.
We have a big, big problem with climate – but it’s not time to run for the hills. It’s not ‘imminent human extinction” as some youtubers would have you believe.
We’re not getting off that easy. We have to turn and fight for the future.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: February 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM »
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Gavin A. Schmidt and Ken Lo (06 February 2019),
"Global Temperature in 2018 and Beyond"

Abstract.Global surface temperature in 2018 was the 4th highest in the period of instrumental measurements in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.  The 2018 global temperature was + 1.1°C (~2°F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base period

The four warmest years in the GISS record are the past four years, 2015-2018.

(note: which mimics the last 4 years being the highest CO2 readings in the records too. )

The strong 2015-16 El Niño in the equatorial Pacific Ocean is more prominent in the annual 2015 map than in 2016, yet the impact of the El Niño on global temperature is greater in 2016.  This is a result of the lag of 3-4 months between El Niños and their effect on global temperature.

Global land area has warmed about twice as much as global ocean, as shown in Figure 3.  Linear fit to the period 1975-present yields a warming about 1.6°C over land and 08°C over ocean.

( note: the land is where most people live, have thier homes and businesses and farms )

Thus average warming of land is about 3°F .... The warming is reaching levels at which it becomes easier for the public to appreciate that the warming is significant

If a substantial El Niño develops, 2019 global temperature is expected to rise, although it is unlikely that the El Niño will approach the strength of the 2015-16 El Niño.

Continuing changes in global climate forcings also affect global temperature.  The record 2016 global temperature was abetted by its near coincidence with a solar maximum (Figure 6). 

Climate forcing by greenhouse gases (GHGs) is the dominant drive for climate change, because it is continually increasing, but changing solar irradiance is not a negligible factor.

It has been argued that the coming Solar Minimum could be prolonged with the irradiance declining below its range so far in the era of accurate satellite data, analogous to the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715 (Eddy, 1976)4 when sunspots supposedly were almost absent.  The next few years of solar irradiance data may be particularly informative.

( In summary - it's hot and it's getting hotter fast! The primary cause, increasing human driven GHGs are continually increasing. It's not rocket science folks. )

The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: February 02, 2019, 08:30:15 AM »
This info more or less fits here because it's about the 2020 elections and who might become president.

Recent Gallup research info is via this show @ 14 minutes

Howard Schultz is talking about running on the basis he is economically conservative and socially liberal. He claims that is where most Americans are but he is completely wrong. Therefore he will not get anywhere.

Abortion changes are in the news again this time from Democrat bases. eg
 Dems Are Wildly Out of Step With Voters on Abortion
Ashley McGuire, USA Today
Reproductive Rights Under Siege Across the U.S.
Jennie Wetter, The Hill

Fact is the extreme radicals on abortion in Democrat circles are wildly out of step with Voters. A distinct majority of Americans are socially conservative. Abortion is a red rag to a bull. If the Dems don't tone that done it might do them in in 2020. Yes, just that alone could do it. People's beliefs run deep. Trump really isn't an ideological "right to lifer" but he does know what side his bread is buttered. So he says what needs to be said. He is certainly no emotionally charged 'born again' christian type either but he's happy to act as if he is and pretend he believes what they believe if it gets him elected. He's a pragmatist through and through.

Those registered as Independents are not really "Independent" at all. They are primarily either strong Republicans or strong Democrats. They Vote the same way each and every election. Only about 10% of all voters are truly flexible and independent individualist  "Independents."

So targeting one's speeches and advertising to the "independent voter" is pretty much a waste of time and resources.

A MiSU political scientist puts it this way: "Pure Independents were more stable in their Party support across 2000-2004 than strong Partisans were 1972-1976" Things have changed iow.

Also see the Ideology grid below for 2016.

Top half are socially conservative voters. Bottom half socially liberal.

Left half are economically Liberal / Progressive and
the right half are economically Conservative RWingish.

The red and blue predominately sit where you'd expect them to be - top right and bottom left.
Howard Schultz sits in the bottom right - it's almost empty.

The Top Left is where the real action is to be found. That is likely where many "independent voters" may reside too.

That is a highly populated quartile. Socially Conservative but Economically Liberal and progressive.

It is also from where Trump derived a core part of his support which continues to this day. Predominant strong Social Conservatives segment especially.

Social Liberalism, endlessly discussing minorities like gays trans mexicans immigrants and bathrooms, and always making Abortion the issues really pisses these people off ... to a point where they will stop listening to ALL your messages no matter how much they would agree - even to addressing climate change economic issues with a Liberal/Progressive mindset. They might easily agree to a New Green Deal but not if it comes with being forced to also accept promoting gay marriage, trans, going soft on drugs, stopping the death penalty, or barring Muslims, Mexicans border invasions and promoting the Pill and Abortion as well.

But with democrats talkingbaout Medicare for all and how to pay for it, so the socially conservative poor can have health care too, then they'll listen up. Might even Vote for you.

Social Conservatives may well support a strong US Military and always leans to defending the Military no matter what they do badly, they are also smart enough and Liberal enough leaning to realize that keeping on spending $700 plus Billions every year is not rational and helps no one at home to live better or to pay less taxes.

But the more the Democrats choose a leadership that pushes Conservative "middle of the road" Economics then they are TOAST across the whole electorate that might Vote for them.

Which is pretty much what happened in 2016. If they do not take the hint from all the Economic Progressive Liberal Democrats who won Primaries and Elections in 2018 then the Democrats are toast again.

The rest / Re: Political theatre/wrestling
« on: January 31, 2019, 04:32:38 AM »
From the RCP front page - aka where are the Brightest Media 'heads at' Today?

Howard Schultz's Venti-Size Disaster
Jeff Greenfield, Politico
Howard Schultz Could Actually Win the Presidency
Roger Simon, PJ Media
Why Schultz's Candidacy Should Be Taken Seriously
Josh Kraushaar, National Journal
Howard Schultz, Please Don't Run for President
Michelle Goldberg, New York Times
Howard Schultz: I'm A Billionaire, I Thought That Was The American Dream

Stone Clown Show Is Trump Presidency in Microcosm
Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Roger Stone's Indictment Is All Bun and No Beef
Jon Healey, Chicago Tribune
Why Arrest Stone Instead of Asking Him to Surrender?
Alan Dershowitz, Gatestone
Why You Should Have Faith in Mueller's Russia Probe
Joyce Vance, USA Today
Stone Indictment Suggests Mueller Isn't Done--Not Yet
Glenn Kirschner, NBC News
The Collapse of the Russian Collusion Narrative
James Robbins, USA Today

How the Partial Shutdown Helped Trump
Rob Crilly, The Spectator
The 'Rotten Equilibrium' of Republican Politics
Thomas Edsall, New York Times
Trump's Manufactured Border Security Crisis
Rep. James Clyburn, The Hill
Is Congress Too Broken to Compromise on the Border?
Mollie Hemingway, Federalist
 Make Government Shutdowns a Thing of the Past
USA Today

and of course ....
Record Cold Forces Rethink on Global Warming
Harris & Ball, PJ Media
Experts Say Extreme Cold Doesn't Debunk Global Warming
James Rainey, NBC News

Dem VA Governor Endorses Murder of Born-Alive Infants
Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire
Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat
Mark Stern, Slate

Life: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Far-Right Fan Club
- Ben Schreckinger, Politico

Kamala Harris's Message Can Win in 2020
Yascha Mounk, Slate
Kamala Harris: Not New, Not Fresh, Not Different
Rush Limbaugh, Rush

An Opportunity to End America's Longest War
David Rohde, The New Yorker
I Was Ambassador to Afghanistan. This Is Surrender.
Ryan Crocker, Washington Post
Trump Is Delivering a Better Republican Foreign Policy
Ross Douthat, New York Times
Why I Sued Obama, My Commander-in-Chief
Nathan Smith, The American Conservative

Try not to cry too much.

Obama has done more against AGW than ANY other president in history.

So he's not taking credit for the Oil boom then or the wealth generated on the stock markets? Must have been fake news. But considering the competition, GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, yeah you could say that. A pretty low bar. He also actively fought the Court case Our Children's Trust to the hilt that's how concerned he was about getting serious action happening in the US.

His permanent legacy is what exactly? Given anything he did or signed or said has been undone. Compare Obama's Climate action legacy to Johnson's Civil Rights Act which has never been repealed. Obama doesn't have a legacy. Only new over-paid speaking engagements with wealthy corporatists. He's doing nothing for climate chnage action today - nothing - not a single thing! 

What is there to defend except a kind of mystical belief and aura that he actually achieved something sustainable when he didn't. He'll always be a war criminal President too. Like his "new mates" were.

The core reason why GHG emissions went down for a period during Obama's term was because of the GFC. That's it. Any other 'reduction' is marginal at best and irrelevant it's so insignificant. That's how I see it.

The way I see it, if there was a time ripe for change in the USA it was in 2009 to roll out a New Green Deal - to actually a large portion of that TARP money to develop new industries and redevelop the heartland of manufacturing that had been so devastated the prior 20 years and all but destroyed in the GFC lunacy.

But no, the New Green Deal is merely a "hope for change" held by a small minority group of elected Democrats and their visionary supporters now in 2019. A decade later. But Obama was in a prime postion in 2009 to be not only a visionary for hope and change but to actually act on that and drive economic reform across the nation.

But no, because he was ill-prepared to be a decent Democratic President like say Roosevelt, Kennedy or Johnson (not that they were necessarily the bees knees in all respects either.)

The problem was "I am a really nice guy" and "Let's sit down and talk about it - you'll see the logic in my ideas and will agree with me" is NOT a rational political strategy for success in the USA given the TPTB aligned against such enlightened reforms needed to truly address GHG and climate change.

So Obama et al gave Billion$ to GM say when they could have given them some, taken a partial Nationalization stake that could have been repaid by selling that "nationalized" stake on the open market 4-10 years later and instead seriously tackled the fundamental Systemic barriers to alt-renewable energy and greening of the country possibly turning places like Flint Michigan into a New Green Deal Hub.

But he was not up to the task and neither were the rest of the Democrats or the Republican power bases. My point is NOT that it's all Obama's fault, or he's a Bad bad guy --- my point is that he didn't even realize he could have tried something like this. He was very ill-prepared as President and he really didn't have a clue what he stood for and what he wanted to achieve or how to go about it.

Why praise someone for doing basically NOTHING as if he did when he didn't? How does that drive change and reform or bring in to reality a NEW GREEN DEAL today? Go look who Obama is talking to in 2018/2016 .... CORPORATE-MEDIA SHILLS and the Mega-Wealthy and charging them Million$ for it. Is he speaking about AGW/CC urgency and strategies to address it? No, he is not!

That's the "true colours"[/i] of the man right there. Forget him and move on is what I suggest but remember enough of the IMAGE CULT-ivation to not make the same mistake again in the Ballot Box and in the Primaries next time.

By 2012 he had lost the Democrat Majority in Congress instead of building on it by appealing to that sector of society that would end up Voting for Donald Trump in 2016. Clueless imho. Clueless and incompetent or he always was a FAKE candidate, I don't know.

Obama both Lacked Vision and basic Logic if he ever saw himself as an Agent of Positive Change for the USA and the battle against Global warming.  Why people would now be looking at his time in Office as "the good old days" or a period of "great environmental successes" defies belief and the facts. imo at least.

Better than Trump? Well sure. But if that's your "yardstick" you may as well be comparing Obama to windup monkey toy clapping little cymbals and saying he did so much better. Because when it comes to long term positive actions to drive action against Climate Change the USA is the Laggard of the more enlightened global community - from Europe to India to China.

As I pointed out it took him his entire 8 years to \produce his action plan to tackle Climate Change .... Here read the date of publication and the announcement from his office AFTER Trump had won the 2016 election.

CORRECTION - Blast, now I cannot find that Report/Plan and can now also see I've a muddled memory on this because he did produce several others during his term. Anyway, there was a Climate Action Report completed in Dec 2016 by the Obama White House. Sorry I cannot find it now - I thought I had saved it, downloaded it too but can't even find on my pc either.

Here fwiw is his 2013 Climate Action PLan fwiw, all water under the bridge I suppose.

and here is a summary of Obama's Admin "achievements" regarding that plan in mid-2016

and other appraisal

SCOTUS impacts


Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: December 23, 2018, 09:57:03 AM »
Q: "How do you view humanity's present situation in terms of the climate crisis and our attempts to deal with it at the UN climate negotiations?"

NOAM: Well, we face a very serious dilemma. A stark, cruel dilemma. On the one hand there is a severe, dire crisis. Dealing with it cannot be delayed. It's the most important issue that has arisen in human history. This generation - in fact today's leaders and people - will make a decision as to whether organized human society can survive in any decent livable form. It's no less than that.

That's one horn of the dilemma. The other horn of the dilemma is that we have to face the reality of the world. We have to find ways of reacting that are not only justified, but are also feasible and effective.

So, for example it would be entirely justified to send the most powerful person in the world, the President of the United States to The Hague for trial for severe crimes against humanity. And many lesser figures as well. That would be justified. (But) It's not feasible, it's not effective. To choose approaches that are feasible and effective, we have to recognize the reality of the situation we face and adjust our approaches accordingly. [...]

No one's gonna brought to the Hague. But recognizing that it would be legitimate and justified is an important way of helping the people comprehend the enormity of what is happening before their eyes. We should always bear in mind the slogan that Antonio Gramsci made famous: "We should have pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will." It has never been more important than it is now.


This is an emergency situation – action is urgent.
Our Government isn’t acting in accordance with what science and history tells us.
Therefore our Government is criminally negligent.
We have a moral duty to rebel, whatever our politics.
History shows us that peaceful civil disobedience is an effective way to bring about change.
Our lives have meaning when we follow our conscience and fight to protect what we love.
We ask others who feel the same way to join our peaceful Rebellion.

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: December 17, 2018, 02:04:20 PM »
Seven decades ago I was born into a System. I never demanded a single thing which already existed nor which came later. I was born into a coal fired electrical grid system, an ICE transportation System, an existing MIC System, a nuclear armed ICBM System. I was born into a manipulating predatory Capitalist Corporate Profit Gouging System. I never demanded any of it. Did you?

Who demanded that virgin rainforest across Indonesia be bulldozed and burned to ashes in order to grow Palm Oil so that it could be produced and put into multiple food stuffs, shampoo, soap, and facial creams? Cable TV and Reality TV shows to be produced and sold for profit? Demanded we have thousands of stealth F35 fighters, the B1 Bomber, tens of thousands of UAV Drones sold for profit? Please show me these "consumers" who demanded these things and everything else.

Consumers aren't part of the capitalist system. Consumers are 'dimwitted powerless pawns' on the chessboard being endlessly emotionally manipulated by TPTB using the knowledge of the sciences and it's technologies only they can afford to purchase and deploy at a mass scale.

The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism
« on: December 15, 2018, 03:18:09 AM »
The Psychology of Gaslighting

Ask me to explain the details in the molecular physics and mathematics behind the actions of GHGs and I will be at a loss. On the other hand I think I was blessed to have some good teachers about human behavior and psychology. With many opportunities to practice and observe some of the things I was shown at work and in social settings among groups of all kinds of different people. I have also seen those very same things I had learned being played out in the media and especially politics where life can become very stressful indeed.

When people feel under pressure, are being criticized or are stressed there are 4 default communication modes that are typically adopted unconsciously. The most common one is to become a Placater, to be submissive. We all learn this mode from the moment we are born from our parents, our families and in kindergarten especially. The template is laid down in our neural pathways.

The next most common response mode is to become a Blamer back. This has been called by some the Blamer Blamer mode. The best form of defense is to attack. Behind school yard bullying and peer-pressure is this Blamer communication mode. Why? It tends to work a treat. Especially if one can do it successfully without any guilt and with self-righteous indignation. It too becomes a template laid down in an individuals neural pathways when a child or a teen.

Understanding how this can operate on a personal level helps by also understanding that typically when someone is pointing the finger against another for some poor behaviour or harm that has been (perceived) to be done, then 3 others fingers are pointing back upon themselves. Try it - point to the wall and see what your three little fingers are doing. It's a physical representation of a psychological truism. This is what the DNC and the Hillary Clinton Campaign have essentially been doing since 2016.

Part of my observations have involved seeing how individual people function within Institutional settings eg when in schools, colleges, Government departments, businesses, corporations, political movements, bikie groups, religions and churches. While they can adjust the personal behaviours to fit the framework in which they are operating once there is excessive stress involved they all tend to default back to their individual modes of communication.

An Institution that is being criticized, outed or is under attack therefore mimics as a whole entity similarly to what the people inside are feeling like and how they are reacting when stressed.

The analogy is to imagine an unfaithful husband. The wife gets a 6th sense something is not quite right. She tries to ignore the changes she has noticed but eventually, upset, stressed, she confronts her husband with her unproven evidence free suspicions. Knowing she is right and therefore immediately triggered by the stress of being found out the husband switches immediately to Blamer Blamer mode - "How dare you accuse ME of such a thing!" - "I have had all this extra work to do, I am doing my best, but it's YOU who hasn't been paying me enough attention or supporting me through it." And they're off.

People can only defend themselves based on what they already know. They cannot be instinctively creative when under stress. Unfaithful husbands know what they have been doing and how they have tried to avoid being exposed. Knowing that, they will automatically begin to recall examples in their wife's own behaviour that 'mimics', looks very similar to, the things he has done himself.

In blamer blamer mode the husband can turn the tables and lay out all these examples of how 'suspicious' some of the wife's own 'changes' and odd behaviour have been lately. She knows she has not been unfaithful, and so what she is presented with is a very powerful case of Plausible Deniability on the part of the husband. Gosh, maybe she was just being paranoid and reading too much into it, she thinks.

The key point here to remember is that the guilty party knows exactly how things work when one is covering up secrets, nefarious, underhanded or unethical behavior.  Even more than this, this is precisely how they generally think. It's their basic Psychology iow.

However usually, the wife will immediately switch to the Placater mode because she feels guilty - she can see well yes, what he says could be true too. Maybe 5 years later she finally come across the hard evidence she was right all along.

All Institutions are made up of people. As such whole Institutions operate in a very similar way. They too point fingers. But all of them find 'placating' an impossibility. Their default position when under stress is always to defend, to attack, to blame the accusers as much as possible. You've seen this happening all your life - from both sides of the fence. Maybe you never thought about it at a human personal level before or ever imagined some core default human communication mode being in play by an Institution.

How do you think the Catholic Church and the thousands of other Institutions who have avoided their complicity and cover-ups of child abuse for so long?  Every Institution operates in the same ways. It's in their 'nature' do be like that. Because they have all been 'created' by human beings to a particular standard design for centuries.

So knowing all this and being able to see it play out in the real world up close and at distance one can get a really good hint about what may be going behind the scenes even with a total lack of hard evidence. But when people are unable to even become suspicious about anothers behaviour they have little to no chance of ever thinking about what kind of evidence might even exist or where to go find it.

Placaters simply accept what someone tells them at face value. They do not wish to be seen as accusatory or radical or argumentative. Silence works to decrease one's stress levels and help them turn away from things they do not wish to even contemplate could be true.

So if you really want to gain some insights into the possibility of the guilt or innocence of the DNC and the Clinton Campaign then I suggest the following. To understand what they know, and to understand how they think about things in general, and what their ethical standards may be, go read their Court submission for their Lawsuit against Wikileaks and the Trump campaign. It's an 'open book'.

You see, I posit that it's more likely than not that the DNC et al know exactly what it is like to be thinking about and doing those things they are blaming the others for. They also know how to go about it in practice. They are speaking about things they already intimately know about from their direct first hand experience.   :o

It has been said 'the eyes are a window into the soul.' I say people's words (and the words of Institutions) are a window into their mind and how it thinks.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: December 10, 2018, 10:11:06 AM »
The U.S. has a total nominal capacity of 338 GW from coal as Lurk states, but China has 259 GW from coal just "in the pipeline."

This is true. So is the graph you posted true enough. Though even this needs to be kept in perspective. China's population is 1,417,468,999 as of Sunday, December 9, 2018. And United States of America is 327,772,747 as of Sunday.

So China is 4.3 times the nation that the USA is. Therefore a conversion back to the size of the USA means the Chinese only have "an equivalent" of 259 GW / 4.3 = 60 GW of Coal power plants in the pipeline (assuming your numbers are fair enough).

And that doesn't include the old dirty one they have been closing and are continuing to shut down, much faster than the USA etc are. Nor their annual wind, solar and nuclear power deployments - all of which are running faster and larger than anyone else as they hurry to fulfill international orders for all the products the wealthy in the west want to buy.

China needs energy - what else are they supposed to do? They are working a plan, beating their targets, and will stabilize then start to reduce FF energy use circa 2028. On top of that they are the major renewable energy and battery manufacturing exporter in the world. Can't beat that effort surely?

Lastly the big ticket item is one that is often overlooked - I think because it is so hard to calculate and find the up-to-date numbers on it. The China which 4.3 X the USA is the manufacturing, IT components, and industrial heartland of the USA, the EU, the OECD and many Asia & Sth American nations.

Consumers love Made in China - so do the smaller manufacturing nations who buy a major part of their materials and components 'Made in China'. See? That all needs energy and raw materials. Korea I think is the largest ship builder for a long time - where did they get a significant portion of their steel from?

While Trump criticizes the trade imbalance with China, he isn't complaining about all the GHG emissions the USA is off-shoring to China, Mexico, Japan, Sth Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil, and even the EU. Trump,nor the American people themselves, are offering to cut US emissions below the old Paris Treaty levels because of this off-shoring of their GHGs to Asia. ;) 

This is why the F&D carbon tax idea included a Border Adjustment system. If China did not apply and equivalent F&D carbon tax to whatever the USA had, then the US would apply their same F&D upon ALL of China's imports.

If China did have a F&D at the same rate, then their exports would automatically be more expensive, but there would be no extra F&D carbon tax applied at the border entry points ... therefore an even playing field.

But of course the world is no where close to this level of cooperation among nations today than it was 20 years ago. Cheers

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: December 09, 2018, 12:37:28 AM »
Chinese banks and investment agencies have committed more than $21 billion (18.5 billion euros) to developing 31 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity in a dozen countries, and an additional $15 billion is on offer to support projects that would generate 71 GW in 24 nations, for a total of more than 101 GW.

Many of the recipients of China's largesse—Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe and half a dozen others—currently have little or no coal-fired power, and no coal to fuel future plants.

They will owe on loans on stranded assets.

How about this groundbreaking 2013 Paper in its Conclusions pg 34?
Chinese Renewable Energy Technology Exports: The Role of Policy, Innovation and Markets
Jing Cao and Felix Groba,

The  results  highlight  that importing  country per  capita  income has a  significant positive  effect  on  solar  PV  and  WETC  imports  from  China.  The  growth  of  Chinese  per capita income also has a significant effect on exports. This is in line with the general trade literature   showing   that   trade   increases   with   country   income.   It   also   supports   the   environmental   Kuznets   curve   hypothesis   arguing   that demand  for   (and   supply   of) environmental   goods   increases   with   income.   Additionally,   the   area   of   importing countries, seen as a proxy for economic mass and also for renewable energy potential, has a significant effect.

I cannot see the basis in the article for assuming these high efficiency/low pollution coal plants will be stranded? In 10-20 years coal will incredibly cheap for them, as the developed world abandons it. These new power stations will likely last well past 2050.

I am confused how "overseas investments" and "overseas aid" can be morphed into "largesse" so easily? Is it only because it's "China" and not Germany, Canada, the UK or the USA doing that investment, aid and development - then it's little suspicious?

Like I cannot point to where Germany, Canada, the UK or the USA or anyone else is Investing and providing Aid for building 101 GW of renewable energy in developing nations? I believe it is happening like this with coal fired plants because there are genuine logical reasons for this, yet the article appears to ignore those completely.

China, the #1 deploying nation of cutting edge renewable & nuclear energy technology in the world today? That China?
China, the #1 builder / exporter of Solar & a major Wind (WETC) to the developed world? That China?
China, the #1 nation for closing the most old high GHG (high SO2) emitting coal fired power plants on earth this century? That China? :)

Now about that 101 GW number itself. Context matters. We are not speaking about Annapolis, Zurich, Dresden, Miami or Tokyo cities. Right? We're speaking about extremely low GDP per capita under-developed relatively high-population countries that are extremely under-serviced by basic electricity supply to begin with.

There's another critical point about that 101 GW - it's a drop in the bucket globally - almost a irrelevant small fraction of the total. The article is also inaccurate because it has ignored all the new Coal fired power plants being financed and built by Chinese companies in EUROPE !!!  ;)

(I believe) this story is a bit of a beat up - biased handwaving (?) and possibly it's Click Bait.

For a more balanced perspective? Include the following and the bigger picture overall:
- In 2009, there were 1436 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with a total nominal capacity of 338 GW[8] (compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000).[9] (wiki)
- The richest nation on earth cannot afford to get by without coal.   
- The USA added 60 GW +400 plants of NEW Coal Fired capacity in the first decade this century.
- The nations listed in the article probably added next to none.
- From 2013-2016 China added 42.4 GW of carbon free Hydro power to their network. Add in the 3 Gorges Dam in 2008 brings it to 65 GW of new clean energy.
- The nations in the article added none.
(those numbers are via wiki for ease)

Check this site: note those states that export Coal Fired power to other states
See: WV, ND, WY, TX, KY, IL, AL, GA, PN for example. FL runs on Natural Gas. Can't they afford solar or wind? ;)

This China? - In 2015, global new installed wind power capacity reached 63.01GW, up 22.41% YoY, refreshing new installed wind power capacity records again. China continues to lead the global wind power market with new installed capacity of 30.75GW in 2015 (~50% of global) and the first worldwide ranking for six consecutive years.

Just a little anecdotal background fwiw. Of course building renewable would be better in countries that already had a modern-day functioning power grid, with base-load dispatchable power in place and operating. I think in the west we often take too much for granted when judging what's going on in our poorest developing nations.

If interested, have a skim of this wiki page and see what's it really like there. Note the MW outputs and those surviving on really small diesel generators. The data shocked me when I first saw what the reality was.


The rest / Re: A must read
« on: December 07, 2018, 01:47:43 PM »
What Lies Beneath


Revised and updated August 2018

From the introduction:

In his book 1984 , George Orwell describes a
double-think totalitarian state where most of  the
population accepts “the most flagrant violations
of  reality, because they never fully grasped the
enormity of  what was demanded of  them,
and were not sufficiently interested in public
events to notice what was happening. By lack of 
understanding they remained sane.”

Orwell could have been writing about climate
change and policymaking. International
agreements talk of  limiting global warming to
1.5–2 degrees Celsius (°C), but in reality they set
the world on a path of  3–5°C of  warming. Goals
are reaffirmed, only to be abandoned. Coal is
“clean”. Just 1°C of  warming is already dangerous,
but this cannot be admitted. The planetary future
is hostage to myopic national self-interest. Action
is delayed on the assumption that as yet unproven
technologies will save the day, decades hence. The
risks are existential, but it is “alarmist”  to say so.

Lurk369:Best of Bookmarks

The rest / Re: Unsorted
« on: December 07, 2018, 01:04:39 PM »

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: December 06, 2018, 03:23:12 AM »
It's frankly bizarre that so many people are suggesting to Neven to turn off politics.

Today, yesterday, and tomorrow are some of the most pivotal days of human history.

+1,000,000 ppm

imo your contributions should be celebrated, not canned. You represent a group of readers of this forum that will still be alive when the impacts seriously kick. The majority of actual posters here will be long gone. They've already had "their day" which led to today. And yet still can't let go of the belief it is they who have all "the right" answers and assume only "they know" how to make a difference in 2019 onward, or run a forum, while trying to silence anyone who dares disagree with them or whose style is totally different and passionate and in fact realistic.

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: December 04, 2018, 03:27:34 PM »
Connecting the Peace and Climate Dots 
The Sunrise CLIMATE Movement

Let’s face a second crucial fact: whether as separate issues–or as properly connected–our elites (and the major parties and corporate media who reflect their agendas) don’t give a flying frack about peace or climate. This fact is clearly illustrated by their deafening silence about the twin apocalyptic threats of nuclear war and climate Armageddon throughout the midterm election campaigns. A silence which Noam Chomsky rightly brands “moral depravity.”

When elites (and their political and media lackeys) wish to bar all policy action on an issue, they simply shroud the issue in silence. And blather endlessly about distractions to crowd the far more serious (but taboo) issue out of media space. That the peace and climate issues have been given the silence-and-distraction treatment is compelling evidence they are taboo issues our elites don’t want discussed, much less acted on.

What I hope I’ve established so far is that peace and climate are tightly interconnected life-or-death moral issues, both subject to political and media conspiracies of silence and distraction, that our ruling elites have overwhelming vested interests–contrary to humanity’s interests–in not acting upon. What follows is that peace and climate activists have an overwhelming vested interest in joining forces (and making a huge public stink) on these tightly linked life-or-death issues, now tabooed from mainstream political discourse.

As the real adults in the room, peace and climate activists must play regent to the willful, destructive, “child king” of our ruling elites, overruling their edict that everyone must overlook their unspeakably reckless acts of juvenile vandalism. While the planet literally burns.

The only important strategic question, for peace and climate activists desperately savvy enough to join forces, is whose issue should take the lead as the banner issue. I’ll argue here that it should be the climate issue, but framed not merely as a call for climate action but for climate justice, where world peace is rightly viewed as an absolutely critical precondition for addressing humanity’s climate emergency.

So my case here depends partly on arguing that climate justice–which includes peace–is the master moral and political narrative of our times. But even more importantly, it depends on highlighting a potent newsmaking force for climate action–and latently for climate justice and peace–already on the ground: the Sunrise climate movement.

Sunrise is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.

We're building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people.

We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country. Everyone has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us - if we unite by the millions we can turn this into political power and reclaim our democracy.

Lurk369:Best of Bookmarks

The rest / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: November 28, 2018, 05:07:49 AM »
"People living in glass houses should not be throwing stones." Truism

Jesus: Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, “Friend, let me take the speck out of your eye,” when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You, hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

Buddha: The faults of others are easier to see than one’s own; the faults of others are easily seen, for they are sifted like chaff, but one’s own faults are hard to see. This is like the cheat who hides his dice and shows the dice of his opponent, calling attention to the other’s shortcomings, continually thinking of accusing him.

Short enough?

Lurk: "There are as many fake Buddhists as there are grains of sand on a beach!"

Pages: [1]