Canadian Tar Sands Mining/Keystone Pipeline

[ralis]

State Department's report on Keystone XL pipeline is neither pro nor con.

 

 

I know there are many here that care deeply about nature as well as I do. Linked here is the latest State Dept. assessment of the Keystone pipeline. Link attached from Business Insider complete with photos that are shocking. The photos are a record of the devastating destruction of old growth arboreal forest. This is an environmental disaster in the making which will greatly contribute to global warming. The mass destruction covers 54,000 sq. miles.

 

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22700459/state-departments-report-keystone-xl-pipeline-is-neither

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-destructive-canada-oil-sands-2012-10?op=1

Edited March 2, 2013 by ralis

[Flolfolil]

i think you should join an activism forum or something, you'd fit in there

[Aaron]

i think you should join an activism forum or something, you'd fit in there

 

I think this is really an uncalled for comment. Being spiritual isn't just about what you do in your day to day life, but your awareness of the world around you. If we're not aware of the damage that's being done to the world, then there's not much room for change. It amazes me that people seem to have little issue with antisemitic rants and gay-bashing, but talking about the environment and the actual wrongs being done in society is somehow not welcome speaks volumes for our own spirituality.

 

Aaron

Edited March 2, 2013 by Aaron

[Harmonious Emptiness]

It's an interesting issue. Canada is getting some flak around the world for having the mines, yet it is the 3rd largest source of oil in the world, most of the oil is being bought and sold outside of Canada (mostly the US and China), and few of the companies running the mines are even Canadian.

 

The fines are so low it's frightening though. $275,000 for contaminating a source of clean fresh-water. That's basically the same cost of a tire change on one of their dump trucks ($45,000 x 6), which is a basically a minor business expense for a company that has a fleet of these trucks running overtime all year round. These fines should be in the millions if not tens of millions in today's day and age of fresh-water scarcity and pollution.

[Flolfolil]

I think this is really an uncalled for comment. Being spiritual isn't just about what you do in your day to day life, but your awareness of the world around you. If we're not aware of the damage that's being done to the world, then there's not much room for change. It amazes me that people seem to have little issue with antisemitic rants and gay-bashing, but talking about the environment and the actual wrongs being done in society is somehow not welcome speaks volumes for our own spirituality.

 

Aaron

 

 

i think you might have an issue with jumping to conclusions. i was being completely civil

 

i only meant that they seem to like posting threads like this, and an activism forum would get more goal oriented and hopefully meaningful responses

[ralis]

i think you might have an issue with jumping to conclusions. i was being completely civil

 

i only meant that they seem to like posting threads like this, and an activism forum would get more goal oriented and hopefully meaningful responses

 

This discussion is entirely appropriate for a Taoist forum. Taoism is about the natural world and how we care for it. Remember, separate being does not exist in this biosphere or anywhere in the cosmos.

[Flolfolil]

This discussion is entirely appropriate for a Taoist forum. Taoism is about the natural world and how we care for it. Remember, separate being does not exist in this biosphere or anywhere in the cosmos.

 

 

i am aware, and i agree that it is appropriate for this forum. All i am saying is that it doesn't seem like this is the best site for actually doing something about it. Localized area protest groups could help. Maybe people that know more about the environment other than just appreciating it. If we had a board dedicated to the study of nature and its preservation, where would you put this thread? Would you put it there or in somewhere like off topic or general spirituality?

 

Please see past the illusion of me trying to insult you, and see that i am actually making an entirely valid point.

 

Or maybe i should be more clear and just ask this - do you want to -actually- do something about this problem or just talk about it?

 

because i fully support actually doing something, but i do not support just posting something depressing to have a cry-fest. just my opinion here

Edited March 2, 2013 by Flolfolil

[Birch]

I've used this once so far http://www.avaaz.org/en/

[joeblast]

I think this is really an uncalled for comment. Being spiritual isn't just about what you do in your day to day life, but your awareness of the world around you. If we're not aware of the damage that's being done to the world, then there's not much room for change. It amazes me that people seem to have little issue with antisemitic rants and gay-bashing, but talking about the environment and the actual wrongs being done in society is somehow not welcome speaks volumes for our own spirituality.

 

Aaron

Well, concern for the environment is one thing, this should all be done as cleanly as possible and the fines for abuse should have teeth to them, but start bringing in the AGW bogeyman into this and you instantly lose your credibility. Are we talking pollution or are we talking bad coefficient grant-writing activism? One's a real concern, the other a way for academics to increase the gravy flowing from the spigot of government subsidy that the politicians have usurped for their own means in their exploits for more and more tax revenue to go after.

 

The carbon scam's been exposed already and only the ones with the blinders on really tight and fingers up to the second knuckle in their ears still believe plant food is going to positively feed back and kill us all.

[voidisyinyang]

 

This dude has been debunking the energy b.s. since the 1960s.

 

 

On the Red Lake sovereign nation land located in what is today known as northern Minnesota, an occupation has started at a location above the Enbridge-owned pipeline built without permission of the Red Lake Nation in 1949 (hashtag #RLblockade). Already a helicopter from Enbridge briefly landed next to the site (video), near the town of Leonard.

It is expected if the occupation proceeds for three days, the flow of oil – which may include controversial tar sands bitumen extracted from Alberta, Canada – will have to be shut down. The 72-hour countdown has started around roughly 3PM Thursday.

 

 

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/red-lake-pipeline-blockade/

Edited March 3, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[ralis]

Well, concern for the environment is one thing, this should all be done as cleanly as possible and the fines for abuse should have teeth to them, but start bringing in the AGW bogeyman into this and you instantly lose your credibility. Are we talking pollution or are we talking bad coefficient grant-writing activism? One's a real concern, the other a way for academics to increase the gravy flowing from the spigot of government subsidy that the politicians have usurped for their own means in their exploits for more and more tax revenue to go after.

 

The carbon scam's been exposed already and only the ones with the blinders on really tight and fingers up to the second knuckle in their ears still believe plant food is going to positively feed back and kill us all.

 

So far you have not shown me your statistical analysis or your so called model. You can spout all you want about what you perceive as a "coefficient grant writing activism" scam but throwing around terms to somehow impress others to convince your audience that you are qualified to posit absolute statements opposed to AGW is deceptive at best.

 

There is a vast difference in statistical analysis of forecasting as opposed to prophetic utterances. The latter is the category where the debunkers of AGW live. The science of AGW is only dealing with probabilities <1 and the reasons the model changes is due to the fact that new data is always coming in. The math of non linear dynamics i.e, complexity, defines the biosphere. Where the system is sensitive to initial changes i.e, dynamic. It only takes a small amount of CO2 greenhouse gas to cause a large change in the biosphere.

 

Your arguments about third order processes and coefficients fail to create a valid argument.

 

You make the accusation that academics are colluding with the government in a grant writing scam and therefore the work on AGW is an elaborate ruse? A little paranoid aren't you?

Edited March 3, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

So far you have not shown me your statistical analysis or your so called model. You can spout all you want about what you perceive as a "coefficient grant writing activism" scam but throwing around terms to somehow impress others to convince your audience that you are qualified to posit absolute statements opposed to AGW is deceptive at best.

 

There is a vast difference in statistical analysis of forecasting as opposed to prophetic utterances. The latter is the category where the debunkers of AGW live. The science of AGW is only dealing with probabilities <1 and the reasons the model changes is due to the fact that new data is always coming in. The math of non linear dynamics i.e, complexity, defines the biosphere. Where the system is sensitive to initial changes i.e, dynamic. It only takes a small amount of CO2 greenhouse gas to cause a large change in the biosphere.

 

Your arguments about third order processes and coefficients fail to create a valid argument.

 

You make the accusation that academics are colluding with the government in a grant writing scam and therefore the work on AGW is an elaborate ruse? A little paranoid aren't you?

You seem to forget that many an AGW "scientist" has some real concrete issues applying statistics. Professional statisticians have shown the errors pretty plainly and your only real retort against it is the sidestepping non-argument of "well, they're not climate scientists."

 

Bold is patently false, if you can back that one up I'd love to see you try.

 

Fail to create a valid argument? To you, "valid arguments" are only made by AGW-approved climate "scientists," and you feel perfectly comfortable ignoring any data that's not from "a correct source" so your assertion that truth comes from the right people and not truth itself is always a pretty good joke to laugh about.

 

It IS a grant writing scam - the academics get their grease in funding, the government gets the data it wants so that it can justify things like carbon trading, carbon taxes, none of which actually produce the desired effect, all they do is make energy more expensive, and that of course hurts the poor the most, ironically enough, since the people that push this crap at the governmental level do it under the guise of always having the plight of the poor man in mind. There's enough written out there about the capture of the peer review process wrt/ AGW that you've entirely ignored because it didnt come from the correct source, you'd know about it more thoroughly if you were open to data instead of merely being open to a narrative.

 

I destroy your arguments every time, its why you've simply stopped posting in every single AGW thread we've had here.

 

If you want to debate it, I'll have another field day with you, no problem here. But I'm still waiting for an actual argument out of you, all it has consisted of so far is disparagement of sources and ignoring of data you dont like.

[ralis]

Your argument is based on hearsay. Which statisticians? Which academics? Which scientists are having trouble with statistics? Exactly how do you prove this vast government conspiracy to manipulate data? Furthermore you state 'the government'; the entire government, a few people, a department of? How can that be a logical statement? Nothing more than a rhetorical generalization.

 

What I see with the groups opposed to AGW is an ignorance of statistical analysis. Confusing the noise for the signal. A basic primer on this would be Nate Silver's book 'The Signal and the Noise'. He clearly explains the difference.

 

You seem to have a problem with academics and higher education. Why is that?

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-Predictions-ebook/dp/B007V65R54/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1362420848&sr=1-1&keywords=signal+and+the+noise

Edited March 4, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

you also appear to be forgetting that we havent even been able to accurately pick out the co2 signal from noise yet do I need to drag the whole briffa story out again, mann has been a blight on scientific method, hansen turned into a cheerleader long ago.

 

manipulate data, how's things look 1200km smoothed vs 600km smoothed? what does that do to the averages it is attempting to model? (egregious hansen)

 

hansen was entirely wrong about solar cycle 24, was wrong in his last handfuls of el nino la nina predictions...

 

why does GISS almost ALWAYS have too high of a temp? also with hansen's fingerprints on it. I didnt believe him 10 years ago when he told me personally that man's influence has well overtaken the sun's influence and his calculations somehow show it. yeah, with that halfassed slice of the sun "total" solar irradiation?

 

why is the antarctic treated as one single climate zone, with changes in the peninsula having been extrapolated to represent the entire continent?

 

why is the arctic sea ice extent growing at a faster rate than we've seen on the record in the second half of last year?

 

why's the diurnal temp difference between desert and rainforest so vastly different?

 

tons of stuff unexplained by the agw friendly models. and every single catastrophic prediction of them is forever safely into the future, after the bad models break and show some freak result.

 

 

Look, I know hansen and those guys needed to find a way to explain the cooling that happened in the 70s, I know they "made their math work" by assuming aerosols were responsible for the waxing and waning of the ozone hole (=gave it a very high cooling weight for a coefficient,) then when it warmed up, they had to find a way to prove why it was warming, completely missing that fudge factors were the only reason they worked, so they ingrained the fudge factor by introducing ANOTHER fudge factor in the amazingly high warming coefficients for co2.

 

I called the above series of events in 03, 04, after having studied all of this stuff for a while and it was just admitted to in IPCC ar11 for chrissakes. (a claim they deny, since the co2-as-catastrophe is part of their mission statement, yet reading it, its right there.)

[voidisyinyang]

It's funny how Europeans and East Asians at a far higher percentage accept human-induced global warming. the U.S. -- ever since the Fairness Doctrine ended -- has been bombarded with corporate-funded "junk science."

 

But ecological denial is the great defining symptom of our times.

 

The truth is that only the supercomputers can model global warming and the supercomputers do not care about the future of Earth.

 

If there is any attempt at solving the ecological crisis it will only be by the Machines taking over. Automation is the number one cause of job loss.

 

So the supercomputers do not rely on deductive deterministic logic conducted by humans -- rather the supercomputers rely on unpredictable iterations that can not be demonstrated logically.

 

This is why quantum chaos math professor Steve Strogatz has stated that mathematics has become authoritarian and since math is the foundation for science then science itself has become authoritarian.

 

It's not that the science is wrong -- but only that the tool to "fix" the problem will just make the problem worse!

 

There's three great dynamics - Nature, Humans, Machines. The Machines are taking over.

 

Humans have exponentially multiplied but have inversely lost the means for a peaceful loving culture as was found in the original human culture - the Bushmen of Africa from 100,000 BCE.

 

So what is at stake in the ecological crisis is the very notion of rational thinking itself which was the great myth created by NeoPlatonic philosophy.

 

Bring it on with the corporate junk science - it is the last vestiges of a former regime -- the rational white man who thinks he can control Nature.

 

Move over hippies and Earth loving types. The future to the ecological crisis is the technospiritual ecofascist supercomputers using Richard Dawkins promoted nanobiomotors for synthetic biology, etc.

 

The only thing that remains is eternal Emptiness as formless consciousness.

[ralis]

It's funny how Europeans and East Asians at a far higher percentage accept human-induced global warming. the U.S. -- ever since the Fairness Doctrine ended -- has been bombarded with corporate-funded "junk science."

 

But ecological denial is the great defining symptom of our times.

 

The truth is that only the supercomputers can model global warming and the supercomputers do not care about the future of Earth.

 

If there is any attempt at solving the ecological crisis it will only be by the Machines taking over. Automation is the number one cause of job loss.

 

So the supercomputers do not rely on deductive deterministic logic conducted by humans -- rather the supercomputers rely on unpredictable iterations that can not be demonstrated logically.

 

This is why quantum chaos math professor Steve Strogatz has stated that mathematics has become authoritarian and since math is the foundation for science then science itself has become authoritarian.

 

It's not that the science is wrong -- but only that the tool to "fix" the problem will just make the problem worse!

 

There's three great dynamics - Nature, Humans, Machines. The Machines are taking over.

 

Humans have exponentially multiplied but have inversely lost the means for a peaceful loving culture as was found in the original human culture - the Bushmen of Africa from 100,000 BCE.

 

So what is at stake in the ecological crisis is the very notion of rational thinking itself which was the great myth created by NeoPlatonic philosophy.

 

Bring it on with the corporate junk science - it is the last vestiges of a former regime -- the rational white man who thinks he can control Nature.

 

Move over hippies and Earth loving types. The future to the ecological crisis is the technospiritual ecofascist supercomputers using Richard Dawkins promoted nanobiomotors for synthetic biology, etc.

 

The only thing that remains is eternal Emptiness as formless consciousness.

 

 

In what way has mathematics become authoritarian? I am familiar with Strogatz's work. I have his book on Non-Linear Dynamics.

 

I have repeated on the AGW thread in regards to supercomputers being necessary to perform the myriad iterations to model AGW. The purveyors of corporate junk science fail to mention that. The media has failed to report the whole picture around AGW but prefers to present fragments as if the biosphere is composed of unintegrated fragments.

[voidisyinyang]

In what way has mathematics become authoritarian? I am familiar with Strogatz's work. I have his book on Non-Linear Dynamics.

 

I have repeated on the AGW thread in regards to supercomputers being necessary to perform the myriad iterations to model AGW. The purveyors of corporate junk science fail to mention that. The media has failed to report the whole picture around AGW but prefers to present fragments as if the biosphere is composed of unintegrated fragments.

 

Yeah when the Economist reviewed Professor Nadeau's book on http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Endgame-Mainstream-Economics-Ecological/dp/0813538122 He made chaos science the focus of the book and the Economist didn't even mention it!!

 

 

In my own field of complex systems theory, Stephen Wolfram has emphasized

that there are simple computer programs, known as cellular automata, whose

dynamics can be so inscrutable that there's no way to predict how they'll behave;

the best you can do is simulate them on the computer, sit back, and watch how

they unfold. Observation replaces insight. Mathematics becomes a spectator sport.

If this is happening in mathematics, the supposed pinnacle of human reasoning, it

seems likely to afflict us in science too, first in physics and later in biology and the social sciences (where we're not even sure what's true, let alone why).

When the End of Insight comes, the nature of explanation in science will change

forever. We'll be stuck in an age of authoritarianism, except it'll no longer be

coming from politics or religious dogma, but from science itself.

 

Steven Strogatz, “The End of Insight,” The Edge World Question Center 2006, “What Is Your

Dangerous Idea?”

[ralis]

Yeah when the Economist reviewed Professor Nadeau's book on http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Endgame-Mainstream-Economics-Ecological/dp/0813538122 He made chaos science the focus of the book and the Economist didn't even mention it!!

 

 

 

Steven Strogatz, “The End of Insight,” The Edge World Question Center 2006, “What Is Your

Dangerous Idea?”

 

Human insight and computer technology combined is needed when modeling a complex system such as the biosphere. I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. Don't you agree?

 

I read part of the book in question and the author nicely points out the difference between linear and non linear chaotic systems. The purveyors of junk science are trapped in linear Newtonian systems and would have the public accept such fragmented thinking. Further, small changes in initial conditions e.g. (the energy of CO2) will drive large changes in non-linear dynamic chaotic systems (greater than three dimensions) and in this case the biosphere.

 

You were correct in pointing out the elimination of the 'the fairness doctrine' in that the media rarely engages in professional journalism and in this case only reports fragments of the AGW problem. Those fragments are used by the anti AGW crowd to debunk the model. Their efforts are futile.

 

Your link doesn't work.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Environmental-Endgame-Mainstream-ebook/dp/B000VZVWTW/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1362446920&sr=1-1&keywords=environmental+endgame

Edited March 5, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

 

Human insight and computer technology combined is needed when modeling a complex system such as the biosphere. I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. Don't you agree? Absolutely, but if you do not accept the limitations of the model and question its output and compare it with real life and actually are willing to give up on an idea when its run its course and gone sour, you're kinda pissing in the wind, dont you agree?

 

I read part of the book in question and the author nicely points out the difference between linear and non linear chaotic systems. The purveyors of junk science are trapped in linear Newtonian systems and would have the public accept such fragmented thinking. Further, small changes in initial conditions e.g. (the energy of CO2) will drive large changes in non-linear dynamic chaotic systems (greater than three dimensions) and in this case the biosphere. Says the models. Says the models far enough out into the future that the model breaks and produces an unrealistic result. CO2's energy absorption is mainly IR and once that gets saturated, the warming coefficient gets logarithmically smaller and smaller. If it werent such a picking a needle out of the haystack in terms of signal vs noise, we'd already know it was 1 at best for our current position on the logarithmic scale. This assumption that a positive feedback is just going to pop up and cause catastrophe on earth is unsubstantiated drivel from doggedly refusing one could possibly be wrong about something and continuing with it for decades.

 

You were correct in pointing out the elimination of the 'the fairness doctrine' in that the media rarely engages in professional journalism and in this case only reports fragments of the AGW problem. Those fragments are used by the anti AGW crowd to debunk the model. Their efforts are futile.

I'll agree the media only reports fragments of the problem, but its most certainly not those fragments used to destroy the AGW argument.

 

How about we get YOU backing up some of your claims for once on this? (That is, if you feel you could actually assemble something that would make your argument...you're welcome to try and you dont have a pal review process to keep offensive data and analyses out around here, though...that may fly at penn st and east anglia, but not in the real world!)

 

 

(lol, and once again, CO2/AGW scam has detracted from a real discussion on the environment.)

Edited March 5, 2013 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

political worldview debates are actually cases of differences in mind-body hard-wiring from puberty.

 

So intellectual views will never change another person's political views - there needs to be some deeper mind-body transformation.

 

This is, unfortunately, usually through genocide.

 

Basically Noam Chomsky accurately describes the West as lemmings marching off a cliff

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/25/dark-noam-chomsky-europeans-are-like-lemmings-their-society-is-committing-suicide-through-austerity/

 

 

The standard “he says/she says” coverage of the issue keeps to what is called “balance”: the overwhelming majority of scientists on one side, the denialists on the other. The scientists who issue the more dire warnings are largely ignored.

One effect is that scarcely one-third of the U.S. population believes that there is a scientific consensus on the threat of global warming – far less than the global average, and radically inconsistent with the facts.

 

 

They would be watching in wonder as the richest and most powerful country in world history now leads the lemmings cheerfully off the cliff.

Last month, the International Energy Agency, which was formed on the initiative of U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974, issued its latest report on rapidly increasing carbon emissions from fossil fuel use.

The IEA estimated that if the world continues on its present course, the “carbon budget” will be exhausted by 2017. The budget is the quantity of emissions that can keep global warming at the 2 degrees Celsius level considered the limit of safety.

 

 

John Reilly, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s program on climate change, told the AP that scientists have generally found the IPCC predictions to be too conservative – unlike the fringe of denialists who gain public attention.

 

The only thing that needs to be understood is logarithmic or exponential growth of energy use.

 

That is no need to even delve into chaos analysis.

 

 

This Albert Barltett lecture is deceptively simple and seemingly old-fashioned so people don't watch it.

 

It takes a couple views for his message to really sink in.

 

 

The greatest short coming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

 

Dr. Albert Bartlett.

 

This is just standard ecological analysis.

 

Humans are no different than any other animal species -- ecology proves that populations explode then exceed carrying capacity of the environment and then crash.

 

It's just that humans developed rational language with right-hand dominant technology so that humans have extended the destruction of this exponential growth and crash to be a global phenomenon.

 

It's really very simple but ecological denial is so deep.

 

People think that some technology will save us - supercomputers or maybe fusion energy, etc.

 

Nope. Why? Because reality is impersonal consciousness - the Tao -- humans are not in control of Nature nor are supercomputers, etc.

 

So this delusion of humans goes back to the "symbolic revolution" (Jacque Cauvin) of around 9,000 BCE - as I pointed out it's proven that human-induced global warming goes back to the origin of Western based plow farming.

 

So people think they understand exponential functions but they don't really understand the application of the functions.

 

Just listen to Dr. Bartlett - the whole lecture -- no matter how simplistic it seems. The results are stunning and irrevocable -- beyond any political views.

 

He's a classical physics professor.

 

So a person could easily throw out empirical data to make an argument - that is futile - because the person with the opposite worldview will throw out other empirical data to make the opposite argument.

 

Instead the basic mathematical principles proves the argument.

 

Western math is not "pure" - it is inherently tied to technological "evolution" because of the reliance on logarithmic irrational geometry that makes a logical error of type - a logical error between an arithmetic point and a geometric line - covered up as magnitude in physics.

 

I never accepted irrational geometry -- the square root of two is logically wrong.

 

But hey science works! Unless you are among the 2 billion people living in slums or the various victims of genocide or the victims of the fastest rate of ecological species extinction in the history of life on Earth.

 

Let's consider the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event when the asteroid hit Earth 65 million years ago:

 

 

The fossil record shows that the tempo of the K-Pg extinction was extremely rapid, occurring on a scale of thousands of years or less.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

 

So I suppose it is comparable.

 

Modern humans since thousands of years of ago are basically equivalent to a comet or asteroid hitting Earth.

 

 

So here is Dr. Bartlett giving the same lecture only updated to 2011 -- he's given the same lecture over 1700 times.

 

Just read the comments -- people still don't get it. haha. http://www.peakprosperity.com/dr_albert_bartlett That's a transcript of the lecture.

 

Just the other day a Professor Emeritus sent me a NY Times article stating Utah has new oil reserves that will double U.S. supply -- so I sent him Dr. Bartlett's lecture -- the answer is "so what!" Exponential growth proves that it doesn't matter. http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=364492 Yeah so double the world's supply.

 

So what! Exponential growth proves that doubling the world's oil supply won't change anything!

 

 

A friend recently tried to reassure me by asserting that there remained undiscovered under our country at least as much oil as all we have ever used. Since it has been about 120 yr since the first discovery of oil in this country, he was sure that the undiscovered oil would be sufficient for another 120 yr. I had no success in convincing him that if such oil was found it would be sufficient only for one doubling time or about a decade

http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section3.htm

Edited March 5, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[ralis]

political worldview debates are actually cases of differences in mind-body hard-wiring from puberty.

 

So intellectual views will never change another person's political views - there needs to be some deeper mind-body transformation.

 

This is, unfortunately, usually through genocide.

 

Basically Noam Chomsky accurately describes the West as lemmings marching off a cliff

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/25/dark-noam-chomsky-europeans-are-like-lemmings-their-society-is-committing-suicide-through-austerity/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing that needs to be understood is logarithmic or exponential growth of energy use.

 

That is no need to even delve into chaos analysis.

 

 

This Albert Barltett lecture is deceptively simple and seemingly old-fashioned so people don't watch it.

 

It takes a couple views for his message to really sink in.

 

 

 

Dr. Albert Bartlett.

 

This is just standard ecological analysis.

 

Humans are no different than any other animal species -- ecology proves that populations explode then exceed carrying capacity of the environment and then crash.

 

It's just that humans developed rational language with right-hand dominant technology so that humans have extended the destruction of this exponential growth and crash to be a global phenomenon.

 

It's really very simple but ecological denial is so deep.

 

People think that some technology will save us - supercomputers or maybe fusion energy, etc.

 

Nope. Why? Because reality is impersonal consciousness - the Tao -- humans are not in control of Nature nor are supercomputers, etc.

 

So this delusion of humans goes back to the "symbolic revolution" (Jacque Cauvin) of around 9,000 BCE - as I pointed out it's proven that human-induced global warming goes back to the origin of Western based plow farming.

 

So people think they understand exponential functions but they don't really understand the application of the functions.

 

Just listen to Dr. Bartlett - the whole lecture -- no matter how simplistic it seems. The results are stunning and irrevocable -- beyond any political views.

 

He's a classical physics professor.

 

So a person could easily throw out empirical data to make an argument - that is futile - because the person with the opposite worldview will throw out other empirical data to make the opposite argument.

 

Instead the basic mathematical principles proves the argument.

 

Western math is not "pure" - it is inherently tied to technological "evolution" because of the reliance on logarithmic irrational geometry that makes a logical error of type - a logical error between an arithmetic point and a geometric line - covered up as magnitude in physics.

 

I never accepted irrational geometry -- the square root of two is logically wrong.

 

But hey science works! Unless you are among the 2 billion people living in slums or the various victims of genocide or the victims of the fastest rate of ecological species extinction in the history of life on Earth.

 

Let's consider the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event when the asteroid hit Earth 65 million years ago:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

 

So I suppose it is comparable.

 

Modern humans since thousands of years of ago are basically equivalent to a comet or asteroid hitting Earth.

 

 

So here is Dr. Bartlett giving the same lecture only updated to 2011 -- he's given the same lecture over 1700 times.

 

Just read the comments -- people still don't get it. haha. http://www.peakprosperity.com/dr_albert_bartlett That's a transcript of the lecture.

 

Just the other day a Professor Emeritus sent me a NY Times article stating Utah has new oil reserves that will double U.S. supply -- so I sent him Dr. Bartlett's lecture -- the answer is "so what!" Exponential growth proves that it doesn't matter. http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=364492 Yeah so double the world's supply.

 

So what! Exponential growth proves that doubling the world's oil supply won't change anything!

 

 

http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section3.htm

 

 

Thank you for an articulate response!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Basically, civilians still think they were made by some god to own and control the universe... silly citizens.




Edit: Humans have a sub species of lesser evolved intellect, i call them civilians/citizens.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[joeblast]

So what! Exponential growth proves that doubling the world's oil supply won't change anything!

 

heh, well I of course didnt miss your sidestep about co2. nobody's contesting what the exponential function says, but of relevance is where are we along the curve, how fast could we move along the curve, where does the curve go, are other feedback mechanisms going to impact the progression? of course if you pack a million people per square mile in, that's going to necessarily heat the place up, but that doesnt address the artificially high warming coefficient of co2 that is being used as an excuse for the government to declare it now has a vast new source of tax revenue from which it may pull as much as it pleases. if there's a place that's particularly relevant in that vid, say so, the whole thing's an hour a fifteen.

 

anyway, to extrapolate off into infinity is folly - when you have a chaotic system that is kept in place by a significantly differing array of negative feedback mechanisms, that interplay produces nonlinear events, so if you are simply following a curve off into the extinction of humanity then you're missing some significant parts of the equation - the main real reasons why the long term predictions are very tough to model. climate scientists dont understand the sun well enough to have predicted the sunspot funk in 09-10, hansen declared sc24 was going to be a roaring rocket that would help send our thermometers through the stratosphere - so how do you model with a climate model what the sun did to the jetstream this past couple years since that low magnetism perturbation? if your climate model has a nice little coefficient for TSI and that's that, well, your "model" just modeled not-reality, because TSI cant even encompass what made the sunspot funk happen. the models arent correctly predicting el nino la nina events. I mean, how many things does one have to point out that arent being accurately modeled in order for those that believe the models to actually question them?

 

the zealots that head the EPA are fascists, eco-fascists, that will disregard inconvenient information, you dont need to FOIA what we're doing right mr windsor, I mean, ms jackson? sorry but any warning coming from the EPA on co2 can be take with a grain of taosalt, they have a tax agenda to pursue and that trumps reality for them, simple as that.

 

and people are going to have to face it - the dire warnings are coming from the models. models we know are not presently reproducing reality. I dont care how many petaflops your computer can do, if you have unphysical parameters in the equations it processes then your result is unphysical garbage that only loosely correlates with reality (if you've done your tinkering well enough.) the models have to continually be recalibrated to the present in order for its running predictions of the nearby time to stay within the bounds of reality. they only retrodict so well. their predictions are horrible, diverging wildly from reality as soon as you leave nearby time scales. that's why you see utter and complete crap like "the seas will rise 20 meters in the next 2 centuries" because a slice of reality is what is being modeled.

 

 

 

 

so regardless of whether or not we will have issues with energy and continually extracting more and more, this sort of thing has little to do with co2, because it simply does not have enough coefficient weight or cumulative mass to make the kinds of differences the alarmists are predicting. how long as we going to have to put up with bad results out of the models yet we're still being told they are accurately modeling reality? so all of these dire predictions wind up getting called into question because some scientists wanted to be right soooooo badly that they were willing to start fudging the story for it. not good for environmentalism or the scientific method, that's for sure.

 

the tax issue is just another facet of fascism fleecing the masses, that is all the carbon dioxide issue has become - a tax fight. you can bet your rear if the government couldnt find a way to extract tax money out of the issue, they wouldnt care one bit for it and wouldnt be subsidizing any and every grant-writer who has the wherewithal to put "global warming" in the subject of their grant proposal.

 

feynman

 

 

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

 

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. “Well”, I said, “there aren’t any”. He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind”. I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing – and if they don’t support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

 

and...

 

In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {University of East Anglia} said “We have 25 or so years invested in the work.

Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

”

– From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report).

 

Mcintyre:

 

“Serious people believe that it {AGW} is an issue. There’s a lot of promotion and hype, but that doesn’t mean that, underneath it all, there isn’t a problem. No one’s shown that it’s not an issue. The hardest part for someone trying to understand the issue from first principles is locating a clear A-to-B exposition of how doubled CO2 produces a problem and I’m afraid that no one’s been able to give such a reference to me – the excuse is that such an exposition is too “routine” for climate scientists. That’s the first attitude than has to change.”

 

 

I'll take Feynman, Dyson, Lindzen, any day of the week over Bill Nye the science guy.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

well.... humans are still powerless to stop civilians from passing legislation that makes fictional personhood out of businesses legally fact.

We're more screwed than we yet seem to know... and more content to drive the jagged rusty dildo deeper than to take it out and heal up... eeeuuuughhh nasty metaphor, but still not accurate enough...

[joeblast]

regardless...

 

...this energy is getting harvested.

 

the State Department draft review points out that Canadian oil sands will be mined, regardless of whether the pipeline is built or not.

 

The review estimates that if Keystone is not built, oil sands production will be only 0.4 to 0.6 percent less that if the pipeline is built, or less than 0.83 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually. This difference equates to less than two hours of U.S. emissions, a negligible amount. Seventy-four million US housecats annually cause an estimated 196 times this emissions volume. Why isn’t Greenpeace urging President Obama to ban cats?

 

personally I think it'd be better to send oil money to canada instead of to the saudis.

 

as usual, a one sided presentation in the OP leaves out facts like that and this...

 

The proposed 875-mile pipeline would add to the 55,000 miles of U.S. crude oil pipelines that have been operating for decades. The lower Great Plains region over the Ogallala aquifer is already crisscrossed by tens of thousands of miles of pipelines. The report concluded that potential oil leaks were unlikely to affect groundwater quality in four major aquifers.

 

+.015909%