Climate Change

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, Stosh said:

 

Go do it, go make it real for yourself. 

You have spoken your mind, it's locked in the stone of digital storage... 

Go live like a San dude. 

Or ancient Farmer.

 

Give your belongings away and go find some uninhabited spot where you can live greenly , recycle your own waste for cooking fuel and weave your fingernail clippings into placemats. 

 

Because you guys are telling westerners, including yourself,  to sacrifice all the goodies we have , while the developing world reproduces out of control , destroys forest, and so forth,  VISIBLY trashing the place.

Instead,

 be honest , and sincere, n Go to China, and tell them to cut it out.

,....buuut

You probably won't...

 You say one thing and do the complete reverse of it,  as you are saying it. 

That there ,is what is ridiculous.

 

I guess you don't read my blog http://elixirfield.blogspot.com

This is not about some individualistic mission. There can be Daoist masters or other spiritual healers but yes the overall trajectory of life on Earth is quite different - that is a structural imposition that Westerners like to ignore. I recommend reading Noam Chomsky's book Year 501: The Conquest Continues or the book "Ecological Imperialism" by professor Alfred Crosby.

 

What have I done "individually"? Yeah I literally ate out of dumpsters for 10 years since the US wastes so much food - while riding a bicycle all year long about 10 miles a day. I also worked for half a dozen environmental nonprofit organizations - Greenpeace and Citizens for a Better Environment and UW-Madison Greens and Resource Center of the Americas and Clean Water Action - and others. I did lots of "volunteer" activism - organizing coalitions and campaigns.

 

Yes I did humanure composting - and still do. I grow mushrooms in a mini-forest now.

 

So I've been doing environmental activism since the mid-80s - I became vegetarian in high school and started a recycling program at my high school and then I picked up 2 big garbages full of JUST cigarette butts along the Mississippi river.

 

I planted an acre of chestnut trees - and pulled out 5 acres of buckthorn (european invasive) with a pick axe. I worked on an organic CSA farm full time for a summer and then 2 years in an organic fruit warehouse job.

 

Yeah it's been fun but I was definitely going against the grain - people think I have just wasted my life and "done nothing." haha.

 

So technically you can not live on your own land as a "permanent resident" unless the building is "up to code" - international code council - so you need to have "facilities" for certain building size and electrical smoke detectors hard-wired in - so electrical wiring and then pressurized water and some kind of septic system or into the utilities. This takes at least 30 thousand US dollars just to be a legal "permanent resident" - to have a "domicile."

 

But if you live in a tent then you can legally live on your land for 7 months a year on a short term basis and then camp for 2 weeks at a time and then you can camp for free in the national forest also for 2 weeks at a time. So I bought land nearby the national forest - and so I can grow mushrooms and then camp year round for free. Technically I will be "homeless" so I could not have a driver's license as that requires a "permanent residency" to get a photo ID. So I would just have to use bicycles for transportation but as I said I already did that for 10 years nonstop while living in the city.

 

So that's been my life. How about your life?

[voidisyinyang]

On 7/8/2019 at 7:27 AM, joeblast said:

 

and lol Drew...

 Cargill is the world's largest private corporation yet most have never heard of Cargill. Cargill works with the US as "food for peace" imperialism - aka "food dumping." So Cargill recently admitted they can't stop all the deforestation they caused when Cargill put illegal soy bean storage elevators in the Amazon rainforest. At the time the "liberal" corporate-state mass mind control media was PROMOTING Cargill's raping of the Amazon rainforest.

 

 I even wrote an article against this - in 2006. Now the "liberal" news is pretending like they were not part of the problem when they could have done something about it. That's the typical corporate-state "time frame." So that Kim Iverson lady says the Democrat Elite is now stating Iran attacked the US - that's the Rockefeller Big Oil agenda - while the "new green deal" is dismissed as unnecessary idealism by naive young people (AOC).

 

So as long as indoctrination is effective then ignorance will be bliss. People either blame "the left" (thinking that the liberal elite are the "left" which is a total joke) or people blame the "right" (meaning the brainwashed lapdogs trained to "sick" the poor outsiders of the Empire). Yes as Chomsky points out - controlling people's minds is much easier than controlling people physically.

 

 https://www.tcdailyplanet.net/stop-cargills-destruction-amazon/ So here is my article - when that was published in a local "free" (no one reads) newspaper website - at the same time the local "liberal" corporate-state mass mind control was saying the OPPOSITE.

 

Cargill puts up $30 million to fight deforestation in Brazil - StarTribune ... www.startribune.com/cargill-puts-up-30-million-to-end...in-brazil/511237702/ Jun 13, 2019 - Cargill Inc. is putting up $30 million to fund new ideas for ending deforestation in Brazil, where the conflict between economic growth and ... So now the corporate-state news tries to "spin" it as a PR puff piece. pretty creepy. So then you click on the link and what does the ACTUAL print article state?

 

Quote

Cargill says goal for ending forest destruction in Brazil will be missed

 

[voidisyinyang]

3 hours ago, joeblast said:

  Hide contents

who need to write grants to tickle the fancies of the grant approvers (politicians)

wrote whatever they needed to write in order to put food on their table.  Which ironically is the exact same thing Big Oil is accused of doing.

yes the problem goes back to Plato as an olive oil merchant - the foundation of Western civilization is based on lies - what I call the "Liar of the Lyre" - it's literally the wrong music theory. So you want to say scientists are sold out? Yes I call it the "salaried sellout" phenomenon. I had that debate with my hippy commune classmates taking ornithology at UW-Madison in the early 90s - I said - there's been enough scientific studies, what we need now is policy change. But now it's too little too late. So to change the trajectory of the past several thousands of years of history? Nope - it's not gonna happen.

[voidisyinyang]

On 7/8/2019 at 5:07 AM, rideforever said:

According to research conducted at ETH Zurich, restoring all degraded forests all over the world could capture about 205 billion tons of carbon in total (which is about 2/3rd of all carbon emissions, bringing global warming down to below 2°C)

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/04/world/forests-capture-two-thirds-of-carbon-emissions-scn-intl/index.html

 

Plus just think of the virtue signalling opportunities for young people.

Plus you don't have to attack half the planet for "being bad", which people don't generally appreciate.

Certainly it would be awesome to do this. What I did was give "gift certificates" for http://trees.org as they plant trees along the equator as forest gardens. The trees grow much faster along the equator.

Unfortunately the science and media underestimate the situation as global warming emissions are currently at something like 550 ppm and we already have lots of positive feedbacks due to the arctic melting so fast - and permafrost melting - methane releases, etc. The ocean can store much more carbon so it will start releasing it back and also oil use keeps growing.

 

China is literally GIVING out chainsaws to poor Africans to cut down their old growth equatorial forests - in Cameroon for example.

Edited July 9, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

9 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

No. You are wrong. You are not reading what I am saying, so I'll repeat it: I would much rather spend effort building tools to enable humanity to survive despite changes in the climate than bankrupt civilization in an attempt to change the climate.

 

 

For example: cheaper power driving ubiquitous cooling systems to combat rising temperatures and cheap desalination to combat reduced rain fall.

 

An advanced civilization can live anywhere, under any conditions, but a bankrupt society will find it difficult to live under the best circumstances, and I do not want to bankrupt our civilization.

yes what you are saying is ignoring the Global Dimming Effect. So the more electricity use then obviously the more greenhouse gases emitted. There is a diminishing rate of return on energy investment - this is why the last oil is too expensive to take out - the Tarsands and the Fracking and the crude dirty oil, etc. So lets say we switch to renewables like the New Green Deal wants? Problem is that the coal power plants have been cooling the planet by at least 1 degree Celsius - so the more renewables and less coal means less sulfur aerosols. There is a good BBC doc on the Global Dimming Effect but it's hardly been watched - 2005.

 

[Stosh]

25 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

I guess you don't read my blog http://elixirfield.blogspot.com

This is not about some individualistic mission. There can be Daoist masters or other spiritual healers but yes the overall trajectory of life on Earth is quite different - that is a structural imposition that Westerners like to ignore. I recommend reading Noam Chomsky's book Year 501: The Conquest Continues or the book "Ecological Imperialism" by professor Alfred Crosby.

 

What have I done "individually"? Yeah I literally ate out of dumpsters for 10 years since the US wastes so much food - while riding a bicycle all year long about 10 miles a day. I also worked for half a dozen environmental nonprofit organizations - Greenpeace and Citizens for a Better Environment and UW-Madison Greens and Resource Center of the Americas and Clean Water Action - and others. I did lots of "volunteer" activism - organizing coalitions and campaigns.

 

Yes I did humanure composting - and still do. I grow mushrooms in a mini-forest now.

 

So I've been doing environmental activism since the mid-80s - I became vegetarian in high school and started a recycling program at my high school and then I picked up 2 big garbages full of JUST cigarette butts along the Mississippi river.

 

I planted an acre of chestnut trees - and pulled out 5 acres of buckthorn (european invasive) with a pick axe. I worked on an organic CSA farm full time for a summer and then 2 years in an organic fruit warehouse job.

 

Yeah it's been fun but I was definitely going against the grain - people think I have just wasted my life and "done nothing." haha.

 

So technically you can not live on your own land as a "permanent resident" unless the building is "up to code" - international code council - so you need to have "facilities" for certain building size and electrical smoke detectors hard-wired in - so electrical wiring and then pressurized water and some kind of septic system or into the utilities. This takes at least 30 thousand US dollars just to be a legal "permanent resident" - to have a "domicile."

 

But if you live in a tent then you can legally live on your land for 7 months a year on a short term basis and then camp for 2 weeks at a time and then you can camp for free in the national forest also for 2 weeks at a time. So I bought land nearby the national forest - and so I can grow mushrooms and then camp year round for free. Technically I will be "homeless" so I could not have a driver's license as that requires a "permanent residency" to get a photo ID. So I would just have to use bicycles for transportation but as I said I already did that for 10 years nonstop while living in the city.

 

So that's been my life. How about your life?

Not good enough buddy,  you're not there yet  , its a decent start though , IMO, 

As for my life , I don't do any of that , nor do I claim to , nor do I tell anybody else to. 

But I didn't opine that you wasted your life. I just said that if you want to live green, go do it ! Two thumbs up. 

Tell me I have to do that crap , two thumbs down.

Nor are you picking on the most destructive countries, you are still dodging that. 

 

[windwalker]

"So that's been my life. How about your life?"

 

You you post a lot on the internet. One would think that you would not want to use the technology that you complain and post about, to post about it.

 

Those who often complain about the technology of the West are often the ones who most benefit by it.  

[ralis]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

yes what you are saying is ignoring the Global Dimming Effect. So the more electricity use then obviously the more greenhouse gases emitted. There is a diminishing rate of return on energy investment - this is why the last oil is too expensive to take out - the Tarsands and the Fracking and the crude dirty oil, etc. So lets say we switch to renewables like the New Green Deal wants? Problem is that the coal power plants have been cooling the planet by at least 1 degree Celsius - so the more renewables and less coal means less sulfur aerosols. There is a good BBC doc on the Global Dimming Effect but it's hardly been watched - 2005.

 

 

The Permian Basin is being exploited to the max. Fracking only makes this possible. 

 

According to recent estimates this field is larger than Saudi Arabia’s field. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=permian+basin&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

 

[joeblast]

2 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

yes the problem goes back to Plato as an olive oil merchant - the foundation of Western civilization is based on lies - what I call the "Liar of the Lyre" - it's literally the wrong music theory. So you want to say scientists are sold out? Yes I call it the "salaried sellout" phenomenon. I had that debate with my hippy commune classmates taking ornithology at UW-Madison in the early 90s - I said - there's been enough scientific studies, what we need now is policy change. But now it's too little too late. So to change the trajectory of the past several thousands of years of history? Nope - it's not gonna happen.

Even Lawrence Krauss showed up in Epstein's book

 

It'll be interesting to see where the world goes once the deep state perversion is ripped out

 

and hopefully we no longer have banksters pouring money into the co2 hoax - cuz face it all those long term predictions from the co2 hoax are garbage, one thousand times moreso since we dont have a good solar model that can predict the solar cycles properly.

 

hell we still arent predicting el ninos and la ninas yet

 

but those models can tell us the world's gonna end in 12 or 50 or 150 years?  *chuckles* 

 

no, that's just hol-ey models having their assumptions go parabolic.    they dont properly recreate what they are attempting to model - instead of an incredibly stable system dominated by negative feedback mechanisms, we have a frankenstein facsimile that is not stable and tips on its side a million times more easily than nature actually does.

 

this is what you're warning us of

Edited July 9, 2019 by joeblast

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

yes what you are saying is ignoring the Global Dimming Effect. So the more electricity use then obviously the more greenhouse gases emitted. There is a diminishing rate of return on energy investment - this is why the last oil is too expensive to take out - the Tarsands and the Fracking and the crude dirty oil, etc. So lets say we switch to renewables like the New Green Deal wants? Problem is that the coal power plants have been cooling the planet by at least 1 degree Celsius - so the more renewables and less coal means less sulfur aerosols.

 

Nuclear energy.

[joeblast]

I love how coal plants both cause runaway global warming and cause a decrease in insolation at the same time

 

that's a good one, but its not quite as good as water pressure magically changing and the sea magically rising way faster in some places and its rooted in co2 to boot   /fknkneeslaps

Edited July 9, 2019 by joeblast

[Lost in Translation]

There are two sure-fire ways to know that people don't actually believe in Global Warming as much as they claim to:

 

1) People still buy very expensive beach front property.

2) People are terrified of nuclear energy.

 

When the Left starts selling all their million dollar beach front homes and begins to endorse nuclear energy I will begin to take them seriously. Until then they are just babbling, histrionic, childish morons and I have no time for their self-hatred by proxy.

[Stosh]

I love nature, I am out in it a lot. It rejuvenates my attitude. But, somebody suggested this to me and it's worth considering.... Maybe it's just fine for the world to be tamed, and maybe it's just fine, if sea levels do rise. Maybe it's fine if humanity drowns, and nature restarts. 

Once upon a time the Earth was a big snowball.... Once upon a time , photosynthesis was evolved and the poisonous oxygen swamped the atmosphere,... In a galaxy far far away, there was a planet completely enveloped in a city....

 

 

And just how many people does the US ,,or the world, need?

 

Actually, I am amazed we haven't had a massive plague. 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Stosh

[ralis]

46 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

There are two sure-fire ways to know that people don't actually believe in Global Warming as much as they claim to:

 

1) People still buy very expensive beach front property.

2) People are terrified of nuclear energy.

 

When the Left starts selling all their million dollar beach front homes and begins to endorse nuclear energy I will begin to take them seriously. Until then they are just babbling, histrionic, childish morons and I have no time for their self-hatred by proxy.

 

Take your hate for progressives somewhere else! As Void said this is a Taoist site. There is no room for using those tactics to destroy dissent that you don’t agree with. Why not discuss scientific investigation as opposed to derailing this important issue. 

[Lost in Translation]

12 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Take your hate for progressives somewhere else! As Void said this is a Taoist site. There is no room for using those tactics to destroy dissent that you don’t agree with. Why not discuss scientific investigation as opposed to derailing this important issue. 

 

I don't hate progressives. I hate their policies. I think progressives are immature.

 

Can you name a single progressive who has sold his beach front property out of fear of rising sea levels?

Can you name a single progressive who endorses nuclear energy as a PROVEN alternative to fossil fuels?
 

Progressives, lead by AOC, think we are nearing an extinction level event due to climate change, and their solution is to transfer money from coal and oil into solar and wind, all the while ignoring nuclear?!? Wake up, man! It's a power ploy! That's all it is. It's a means to an end, the end being the assumption of power. Climate has nothing to do with it.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Lost in Translation

[joeblast]

29 minutes ago, ralis said:

Why not discuss scientific investigation as opposed to

because you reject all science that doesnt agree with the conjecture?

 

puh-leez, dont even try to posture yourself as simply wanting to discuss science   every time Science disagrees with the conjecture, its hand waved away and you say "well that's funded by big oil" (so I can safely completely ignore 100% of it and not even give it any consideration whatsoever.)  (and still tell myself my view is complete!)

 

*chuckles* why not discuss scientific investigation, ralis?   

 

at least drew tries to put up stuff, even though there's fundamental issues with it so that they ultimately dont have the predictability to be considered robust in the least.   (what's the winter of 2026-27's chances of la nina looking like?  what's the prediction for sunspot count for 2032?  got sheeeyot!)

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 1 day
2019 total: 119 days (63%)
2018 total: 221 days (61%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
2008 total: 268 days (73%)
2007 total: 152 days (42%)
2006 total: 70 days (19%)
Updated 09 Jul 2019
 

Edited July 9, 2019 by joeblast

[ralis]

3 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I don't hate progressives. I hate their policies. I think progressives are immature.

 

Can you name a single progressive who has sold his beach front property out of fear of rising sea levels?

Can you name a single progressive who endorses nuclear energy as a PROVEN alternative to fossil fuels?
 

Progressives, lead by AOC, think we are nearing an extinction level event due to climate change, and their solution is to transfer money from coal and oil into solar and wind, all the while ignoring nuclear?!? Wake up, man! It's a power ploy! That's all it is. It's a means to an end, the end being the assumption of power. Climate has nothing to do with it.

 

‘Don’t tell me to wake up or make condescending remarks such as “babbling, histrionic, childish morons” which are remarks towards others and not policy. Are you somehow superior to others with no faults of your own? 

 

Given the amount of species becoming extinct the biosphere is experiencing the 6th mass extinction or Holocene extinction. That is a fact! 

 

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

Are you somehow superior to others with no faults of your own? 

 

I have my faults. That is true. But in the matter of climate change and how it relates to public policy, I absolutely hold superior ideas to progressives. 

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, joeblast said:

because you reject all science that doesnt agree with the conjecture?

 

puh-leez, dont even try to posture yourself as simply wanting to discuss science   every time Science disagrees with the conjecture, its hand waved away and you say "well that's funded by big oil" (so I can safely completely ignore 100% of it and not even give it any consideration whatsoever.)  (and still tell myself my view is complete!)

 

*chuckles* why not discuss scientific investigation, ralis? 

 

Are you a research scientist? 

[ralis]

Just now, Lost in Translation said:

 

I have my faults. That is true. But in the matter of climate change and how it relates to public policy, I absolutely hold superior ideas to progressives. 

 

Actually you don’t. You are more of the position of squishing dissent which you fail to understand. 

[joeblast]

9 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Are you a research scientist? 

ah yes, appeal to authority, on to the logical fallacies

[Lost in Translation]

8 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Actually you don’t. You are more of the position of squishing dissent which you fail to understand. 

 

Squishing dissent? Far from it. I want more conversation on the matter. It is the progressive left that has coined the term "climate change denial' as a means to squash dissent.

 

And I don't claim the climate is not changing. I don't even claim that man is not partially a factor. What I am asking is what should we do about it? The left repeats the mantra of coal bad, oil bad, nuclear bad, water good, solar good, wind good. If actually enacted, their policies would do nothing to aid the climate, since countries like China won't make the change. All that would happen is the western world would bankrupt itself and developing countries in Africa and India would be stymied in their attempt to pull themselves out of poverty. I don't call that "progressive." I don't call that "compassionate." That sounds like good old fashioned virtue signaling. It's a balm to soothe the white liberal guilt for the crime of being born. It's a cancerous idea and needs to be cleansed before it kills the host, which in this case is modern civilization as we know it.

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Lost in Translation

[ralis]

The Tao is about the inter connectivity of all life and whatever humans do will have far ranging effects. That is a very simplistic explanation. 

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Squishing dissent? Far from it. I want more conversation on the matter. If it the progressive left that has coined the term "climate change denial' as a means to squash dissent.

 

And I don't claim the climate is not changing. I don't even claim that man is not partially a factor. What I am asking is what should we do about it? The left repeats the mantra of coal bad, oil bad, nuclear bad, water good, solar good, wind good. If actually enacted, their policies would do nothing to aid the climate, since countries like China won't make the change. All that would happen is the western world would bankrupt itself and developing countries in Africa and India would be stymied in their attempt to pull themselves out of poverty. I don't call that "progressive." I don't call that "compassionate." That sounds like good old fashioned virtue signaling. It's a balm to soothe the white liberal guilt for the crime of being born. It's a cancerous idea and needs to be cleansed before it kills the host, which in this case is modern civilization as we know it.

 

 

White liberal guilt? 

 

It was Frank Luntz that changed the precise term of AGW to climate change. I never use that term given that I am not a brainwashed lackey. 

[Lost in Translation]

2 minutes ago, ralis said:

White liberal guilt? 

 

It's important to realize that climate change is not a standalone issue. It is tied part and parcel to progressivism as a whole, which means the full panoply of social justice, including the lurch towards socialism, anger towards the grievances of the past, racial division, and a slew of others. These all have one thing in common: the transfer of power from those who currently hold it to those who want to hold it. They are all straw men and red herrings.