UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Phatscotty]

Except I already know it doesn't matter to you what I post in response. Wouldn't I just be wasting my time? I'm not asking for all your links, because I already know what they say. Don't you already know the argument for solar cycles? Then why ask for them as if this is the first time you heard of it?

Of course it matters to me; why else would I be asking? The whole point here is to understand what your perspective is. Particularly, I'm interested if you know "the argument for solar cycles" (whatever that is). I can't have a discussion with you if I don't know what it is you actually believe. It's not like there's a single consistent climate change denier narrative; there's multiple (usually conflicting) perspectives, so I can't just know what you're thinking by saying "solar cycles."

Or, to try another tactic I witnessed in the gun thread "this thread isn't about the chemical makeup of stars, so it should be moved"

This thread is about whether climate change is caused by humans. So, a discussion about possible explanations demonstrating that it is not, is quite relevant.

Yeah....you're real objective

Let's start here then

[Metsfanmax]

Let's start here then

OK, we'll start there. If solar cycles are really the dominant contributor to the Earth's temperature, why is it that the solar irradiance is decreasing from 2000 to 2010, but the temperature is higher than ever?

Also, what is the source of the data in that graph? How do I know it's legitimate?

[Phatscotty]

We can get into irradiance, but first do you have a comment about radiation cycles? There seems to be quite a distinct pattern.

from University of California-Berkeley..... for future reference I wouldn't even post a chart that didn't have the source displayed on it (the bottom). You should already know that, but pretending like you don't is what makes you appear so pretentious.

I have never had any interest whatsoever in scoring worthless points or gotchyas. Leave that to everyone else

[Metsfanmax]

We can get into irradiance, but first do you have a comment about radiation cycles? There seems to be quite a distinct pattern.

Look at the vertical axis title. What they're plotting is "total solar irradiance" (often abbreviated TSI, in the literature). That is the amount of power per square meter that is incident on the Earth's surface. So "solar radiation" and "solar irradiance" are being used interchangeably in that plot.

from University of California-Berkeley..... for future reference I wouldn't even post a chart that didn't have the source displayed on it (the bottom). You should already know that, but pretending like you don't is what makes you appear so pretentious.

Read it carefully: the UCB Earth Surface Temperature Project. That's the source for the US temperature record. There is no citation for the solar irradiance data (and that's what I was asking the source for; evidently we don't disagree that the Earth is warming). I'm asking for a specific reason: calculating the actual value of the solar irradiance as a function of time is a notoriously hard task, and there's a lot of uncertainty attached. But there's no error bars on that plot!

[notyou2]

I just read a thread in a private forum that said if Phatscotty would shut the hell up for one year, the global temperature would drop by one degree celsius. It further went on to explain that he is solely responsible for 1% of the earth's hot air per annum.


ONE DEGREE CELSIUS!!!!!

Can you imagine?

[Neoteny]

It's cool bro. f*ck everyone else. Just roll with it.

If that's what you need to believe about anyone who disagrees...Demonize on!!!

Just paraphrasing, guy.

[_sabotage_]

I can't believe we have someone claiming the sun doesn't effect climate. Brainwashing is powerful...

Mets you have studied yourself into stupidity.

[Metsfanmax]

I can't believe we have someone claiming the sun doesn't effect climate. Brainwashing is powerful...

Mets you have studied yourself into stupidity.

Of course the Sun's radiant energy is the dominant forcing of our climate. But solar variability has a fairly small influence on our climate, especially relative to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

[_sabotage_]

If you are so worried about climate change, then perhaps you can skip the background and jump straight to solutions then.

Spend some time promoting technologies that do exist which are a path to sustainability with our environment, howsoever it be. These technologies can nearly eliminate current emissions, cut resource use and provide us with better habitats than which we have. No more bullshit about carbon taxes, etc, because that crowd supports and is active in polluting our land, skies and water for our supposed benefit. So back off the problem, think about it for a bit and then think of solutions and stop reproducing propaganda and miniscule arguments that mislead.

[Metsfanmax]

If you are so worried about climate change, then perhaps you can skip the background and jump straight to solutions then.

Spend some time promoting technologies that do exist which are a path to sustainability with our environment, howsoever it be. These technologies can nearly eliminate current emissions, cut resource use and provide us with better habitats than which we have.

The main reason why these technologies haven't come to the fore yet is that fossil fuels are artificially subsidized (aside from their direct subsidy). We don't pay for the destructive effects of global warming at the price at the gas pump. If we did, then grid parity for solar, wind, etc. would be within reach for most parts of the country very soon.

No more bullshit about carbon taxes, etc, because that crowd supports and is active in polluting our land, skies and water for our supposed benefit. So back off the problem, think about it for a bit and then think of solutions and stop reproducing propaganda and miniscule arguments that mislead.

Oh, the "Hitler was a vegetarian, so let's all eat animals" argument?

[PLAYER57832]

As I've said a million times, I agree with those scientists as well....that humans have an impact. But that doesn't really confirm anything other than it would be silly to argue that humans have less than .00001% impact.

Each individual person? That would be a pretty hefty impact!!! All humanity together? Just based on land occupancies alone, that is way low.

The climate in central valley of CA, Sacramento, in particular has changed within not just my lifetime, but the past 2 decades. The Valley always heated up in the summer, regularly reaching over 100 degrees most days in the summer. but at night winds would come up the delta from SF bay, cooling everything down for he night... to 60 or below. The joke at places like the state fair was that you could always tell the locals because they carried heavy coats in 100 degree weather! Now,that has changed. Subdivisions block the air flow and so Sacramento doesn't cool down like it used to. Historical records show similar imnpacts came from NY City, other places.

ON other fronts, we know that farming practices, other complex issues have led to the spread of deserts.

These are all relatively small,localized events. They stretch hundreds or thousands of miles, but on a world scale are still "localized'". Those types of impacts alone probably account for your .0001%

But, as usual, this doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about, which was the cooling of the earth. I noticed you shared a link about the earth being warmer, and here is where I would normally post 1 of thousands of links, studies, or articles showing evidence the earth has been cooling, yet nothing would change each others mind. So it is pointless here.

The reason nothing you have posted has changed anyone mind is because you have not posted anything still valid and actually verifying your point. Science doesn't end with publication, nor does publication mean irrefutability. instead, publication is where everyone else gets to see your data.. and challenge it. The studies you have posted so far have either not really supported your view, or have been refuted. You are welcome to post whatever you wish, but it would be helpful if you actually looked at WHY we have not accepted what you posted. Its not because they disagree with our view. Our view comes because the DATA supports our view.

WE keep asking you to present your data,but you just claim "discrimination", etc when we say your data is either wrong (has already been refuted) or that you misunderstand the results. We keep asking for more... but if we refute one or two sources, you tend to just give up.

Personally, I think the sun cycles have more to do with our climate than anything, and any human activity which I would describe as 'pollution' impact would start with China, certainly not with the United States.

Look, this isn't a competition where we are looking for the "big impact' and concentrating on just that impact.

Of course the sunimpacts our world, as do many other natural factors. But, here is the thing. It really doesn't matter if our impact is 80% or only .000000000000008%. What matters is if the change is harmful an if we can change it. Being fatalistic "what will happen will happen" is easy, but many people, scientists in particular, just are not willing to let that stand.

You can take a pristine lake and add a small amount of all kinds of substances without causing harm. At the same time, You can add all kinds of substances just short of the point of causing die-offs of fish,other flora/fauna. On the surface. the second lake might appear to be little or no different from the first. YET---try adding even a little of just about anythingto the second lake and you will see things begin to die, and stopping the die-off will be hard. Add a LOT to the first (the pristine) lake and you may see little damage. Further, what damage there is is relatively easy to correct.

Right now, we are living in that second lake... only many people wish to pretend we are not.

The Earth can be seen as a finely tuned machine. Unlike most machines, it can absorb a lot of various impacts, it has a lot of inbuilt buffering. Still, each of those buffers can be overrun. The thing about buffers is that once they are overrun, its not just that you then start to see problems, its that you have lost all ability to withstand future problems.

The good news is that we still have time... I would say we have to believe we have time, but we cannot keep ignoring the natural systems and what those systems are 'telling us'about the world around us. We also cannot keep pussy footing with p[olical arguments that have more to do with who is in control of what than any real future for humanity.

[_sabotage_]

No the: "You're singing their song while they're doing their dance" argument.

The thing you are promoting is a wolf in sheeps clothing. One on-going aspect is called geoengineering whereby we allow them to pollute everything in exchange for an unproven positive, creating an environment in which only bioengineered crops can be grown. Another aspect will be the herding of us. UN and President Obama think we need to have our lands redesignated so that all spaces are for specific activities for specific people. What kind of future are you helping them build? And go f*ck yourself while I'm thinking it.

Independence is the key and the future is too build up the independence of the individual.

[Metsfanmax]

No the: "You're singing their song while they're doing their dance" argument.

The thing you are promoting is a wolf in sheeps clothing. One on-going aspect is called geoengineering whereby we allow them to pollute everything in exchange for an unproven positive, creating an environment in which only bioengineered crops can be grown. Another aspect will be the herding of us. UN and President Obama think we need to have our lands redesignated so that all spaces are for specific activities for specific people. What kind of future are you helping them build? And go f*ck yourself while I'm thinking it.

Independence is the key and the future is too build up the independence of the individual.

Who do you think is going to build all these wonderful technologies you're speaking of?

[PLAYER57832]

No the: "You're singing their song while they're doing their dance" argument.

The thing you are promoting is a wolf in sheeps clothing. One on-going aspect is called geoengineering whereby we allow them to pollute everything in exchange for an unproven positive, creating an environment in which only bioengineered crops can be grown.

This is pretty much the opposite of anything I would or have ever suggested.

Another aspect will be the herding of us. UN and President Obama think we need to have our lands redesignated so that all spaces are for specific activities for specific people.

???? I have no idea what you mean, unless that a lot of people are in favor of keeping some lands as designated forest, others as range, others for crops, etc, etc,etc BUT, whaq you miss in your "redesign" argument is that any such plan voiced with intelligence is about preserving what is already in place. It is protecting the "design" put here either by Nature or God or some combination (depending on your beliefs).

You make it sound as if Obama has some plan to create a bunch of reservations for different groups of people or some such.

What kind of future are you helping them build?

Science investigates and provides outcomes based on results/data, etc.
The future I want is one that will support my kids,grandkids,great-grankids, etc. I like the systems we have (the natural ones), because they basically work. However, a lot of people want to tinker, have tinkered, do tinker. i certainly benefit from a lot of that tinkering. i live in a house heated by natural gas, drive a car, have kids who have benefitted immensely from modern medicine. Still, I don't just accpet all that and pretend there are no consequences or that I have no responsibility. I benefit, therefore I have inherent responsibility to ensure that I mitigate or help repair damage caused by my actions.

Independence is the key and the future is too build up the independence of the individual.

people depend upon each other. Independence can be more destructive than working together with others. This is particularly true when dealing with complex issue/problems. No one person, alone, can truly understand... never mind fix the problems alone.

[_sabotage_]

Player, the government preys on our good qualities: our trust, our sense of charity, our compassion, as much as they prey on our fear, our anger and our desire to protect. Sun Tzu early identified the need to possess the moral high ground in order to succeed. His ideas traveled far and wide being incorporated into business, politics and warfare worldwide. Most of this is used to drive the economy and create power. This has always happened in close cooperation with the media and education.

If we take the War on Drugs. We have now a decades old policy which provides an ever increasing number of jobs and points towards GDP in a number of ways. On the street level, it provides for snitches, police, DEA, ATF, IRS, Coast Guard, Border Patrol and a host of others large departments, but it also provides a reason to search people on the street, at the borders, in your car and house. There are few other reasons to do so, and without drugs these things would lose personnel and privilege. We can then take it to the courts. Drugs account for half of all prosecutions. The average legal fees involved are $50,000. So half the DAs and Judges and lawyers in the country are no longer needed, were their biggest customer (drugs) freed. For the politicians: they know very well that a war on drugs increases drug use, create violence around it, provide gangs with funding for other activities especially terrorism, creates a prison pipeline for sectors of the population. And then we have the prison system which now pays a lot of private corporations $76,000 a year to house an offender in a situation proven to result in a 90% recidivism rate for a more serious crime within a year of release. Knowing this, what does the committee spend most of their discussion on? Who gets the contract for what and where to make the arms, build the prison, place the division. The prison's alone are more than $150,000,000,000 industry just for housing drug offenders, not including those who began their institutionalization through drugs. Then you have the parole and disenfranchisement aspects.

To make a long story short, we can say: how much are we spending, who's getting it and what are we getting in return. It's quite clear we are actually generating a huge industry around prison and can't let it go without losing millions of jobs. So we have millions of people getting paid to harm millions of others for the sake of the economy, politics and big business interests.

Where did this all start? The media fear mongered, illegal drugs have meant less stability in quality and people have overdosed, and the outcry was used to create this industry. But Amerika is not the only frog on a lilypad and by comparison, we can see that we are by far the worst case scenario in relation to drug policies. We are getting a lot of armed men, steel gates and privacy abuses, so that we can pay for these power hungry bastards to have more agents.

Climate change is not going to be any different. The clamor for action is coming. The media has been hyping up any little storm, folks like Mets feel they have sufficient evidence to demand action and the plans for the actions that will be taken have been long in the works by massive corporate assholes. Of Course Mets doesn't realize this, he thinks he is on team Good Guy, not knowing that team Bad Guy has bet the farm on Mets win.

Now we are just waiting on the crisis. When the crisis comes, there will be many new departments in our life, with many new little controls on us and our herding will be near complete.

Obama has said he feels that people who live in the country exact a tax on city dwellers due to their higher resource infrastructure cost. David de Rothschild presented a resource and habitation plan at the Copenhagen conference which would further designate lands. When a crisis hits, they will both come in quickly. We have all lost our concept of home in the last few years, with them needing to geoengineer our land, it won't be safe to live in after the crisis, according to them.

But the War on Drugs crisis was generated by their very policies, the government has long allowed cancer causes products line the shelves at the supermarket, and we have a War on Cancer earning the GDP some needed points, we have a War on Terror against a network we created, an 80% boost in revenue for the arms manufacturers for the last 12 years and into the foreseeable future, do you really want a War on Climate? When the crisis comes, it would be better to be independent within your community or of the 1%.

Mets, a lot of these technologies already exist, it is merely implementation. There are a few things I'm working on that I hope could easily become widely implemented. But then again there are already many things available that are cheap and easy to construct and use that people aren't using because of lack of information. But it's more than ignorance, it is getting trapped in a never ending debate and a lack of action. Millions of people are screaming it's true, it's true like the guy in the moving pointing at Godzilla and saying it's Godzilla before he gets trampled, but others are busy setting traps for him.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, the government preys on our good qualities: our trust, our sense of charity, our compassion, as much as they prey on our fear, our anger and our desire to protect.

OH please. People still do have control of the government in the US,but keep talking like you are...keep spreading the conspiracy doomsdayism,encouraging people to stop paying attention to and working with our elected leaders and you will bring on the very doom you claim. Except,it won't be their doing, it will be YOURS.

Leaders in our government are nothing but people who, for a variety of reasons want to be in power or simply find themselves in power. Most have agendas. BUT, does that mean they ignore facts and data? Lately, yes... particularly if its the tea partiers and other extremists. Saying "no new taxes" as if it were an end goal in and of itself is just plain stupidity. New challenges MEAN new expenses. That is true in your personal household, AND it is true in the government. Of course, there must be limits. BUT that requires looking at data, results.

Politics will never be "pure". Too many people have too much to gain from even a little gain in power. Even so, when the problems are great enough, folks can and have pulled together to find solutions.

Say what you like, but Sputnik DID bring on a new focus in science education, which DID very much benefit everyone alive today.

one misstep was the misguided focus on energy conservation in the 70's, coming so close on the heals of the 60's. Although the focus did drive many people to find real solutions to real problems, the threats were overstated. Or rather, the doomsayers seemed to indicate they knew more than they really did. Gas was limited, but the Alaskan fields were enough to supply us for a few more decades. It made predictions voiced then seem like false alarms and folks have been primed since to think every warning is just "crying wolf".

Except... the data, real scientific data,doesn't lie. It CAN be misinterpreted. (we have seen plenty of that in this thread). However, there is no misinterpretation to the fact that the Earth is warming, OR that this trend is not a linear (straight line) event. Phases of apparent cooling, particularly in localized areas (in this context, a worldwide context, the entire US is "localized") don't prove the theory wrong. They simply prove that some people are lazy or just willing to believe what is convenient.

Sun Tzu early identified the need to possess the moral high ground in order to succeed. His ideas traveled far and wide being incorporated into business, politics and warfare worldwide. Most of this is used to drive the economy and create power. This has always happened in close cooperation with the media and education.

Yeah, well, I don't like all those political games. That's why i studied science. Science, at its heart, is about determining facts. Granted, there is politics in the funding, but the answer is not to stop funding research you just don't like, its actually to fund all types of research on many fronts, so that small bits of information are not slanting the decisions people have to make.

If we take the War on Drugs.

You want to compare climate change to a 'war" on drugs?

in one way,there is a comparison, but its not the one you think. The "war" on drugs was manufactured and is an excercise in stupidity, BUT.. why did that happen? Becuase groups of people decided to assert their power, flex muscles WITHOUT bothering to do real research to back up the actions. "Fighting' drugs made a lot of people feel good, but wound up generally causing more trouble than it solved. (there is,among other issues, a lot of blame for the violance in Mexico today traced directly to the US anit-drug efforts... but that requires a few other threads)

Anyway, climate change is about the opposite. The scientific data shows it is happening,shows that humans are increasing the problems and that unless we are able to stop the changes, we will face very significant harm.

Some power brokers (including some politicians,but largetly those behind and influencing the politicians) today have found great purchase in naysaying the science. They have a LOT to gain, in the short term,by denying that the climate is changing or that there is any possibility of correcting the situaion. Sadly, the long term prospects if these people get their way (as they seem to be doing) is that humanity will pay a far far greater price... perhaps one our great great grandchildren won'tbe able to pay.

Climate change is not going to be any different. The clamor for action is coming. The media has been hyping up any little storm, folks like Mets feel they have sufficient evidence to demand action and the plans for the actions that will be taken have been long in the works by massive corporate assholes. Of Course Mets doesn't realize this, he thinks he is on team Good Guy, not knowing that team Bad Guy has bet the farm on Mets win.

The only part that is correct in your statement is that we don't, right now, know fully and completely how to stem the climate change. That IS worrisome, and is definitely reason for caution. Too often the very things that initially seem to be solutions to a problem wind up either not solving the problem or causing other,worse problems. Sometimes the "solution" just makes the problem worse.

HOWEVER, I make 2 points here. First, this means we need more research, not a puiling back of resources. Second, while we don't know all that is happening with climate change, we DO know a lot about various types of damage we are causing the world, and thus our futures. Many of these solutions, things like protecting the natural systems we have left, protecting and rebuilding our forests/rangelands/marshes/reefs, etc.... those things all benefit across the board. They even,in the long run, benefit business-- just not necessarily the current pet project of whoever wants to plop money down to build whatever.

Now we are just waiting on the crisis. When the crisis comes, there will be many new departments in our life, with many new little controls on us and our herding will be near complete.

Nope, environmentally, we ARE in crisis. No sane scientist disagrees, not even those few who are not fully convinced that our climate is changing.

Obama has said he feels that people who live in the country exact a tax on city dwellers due to their higher resource infrastructure cost. David de Rothschild presented a resource and habitation plan at the Copenhagen conference which would further designate lands. When a crisis hits, they will both come in quickly. We have all lost our concept of home in the last few years, with them needing to geoengineer our land, it won't be safe to live in after the crisis, according to them.

i would have to read more on the ideas you are talking abou there to comment.

Taht said, cities are both part of the problem and part of the solution. There is a lot we can do to make cities mnore sustainable, for example. However, that would require a lot more discussion. If you want to get into that here, you probably should start another thread.

But the War on Drugs crisis was generated by their very policies, the government has long allowed cancer causes products line the shelves at the supermarket, and we have a War on Cancer earning the GDP some needed points,

Interesting how you try to tie these two things in together.

The problem of cancer comes from a reverse requirement that we, the public have to prove products are dangerous before they can be removed. Though you disparage the government, there actually have been a LOT more restrictions placed on companies. The number of tests, the proofs required before companies can release products of any type are far greater now than decades ago,nevernind centuries. Still, I,and many others would say we need an entirely new approach. Why is it up to me to prove a product is dangerous before it gets pulled? The person gaining from the sale should carry a far greater burden of proof. AND,because we know many impacts are long term, the requirements must also be long term.

The opposition to this is business interests, particularly in various chemical industries...and any more, "chemical industries" means virtually all manufacturing and many forms of processing.

we have a War on Terror against a network we created, an 80% boost in revenue for the arms manufacturers for the last 12 years and into the foreseeable future, do you really want a War on Climate? When the crisis comes, it would be better to be independent within your community or of the 1%.

So you think the climate will create Al Quaida-like fighters?

Sorry, but I don't anthropomorphize things that way.

Mets, a lot of these technologies already exist, it is merely implementation.

Depends on what you mean. The "new" sand mound and holding pond technologies being used very successfully to filter homes and municipale water systems is based on plain old marshes. Even so, it did take some research to both prove the full effectiveness of the techniques, to assess their limits and to develop safe and relatively easy modes of construction. Ideas are great, its "Implementation" that takes the work and money

There are a few things I'm working on that I hope could easily become widely implemented. But then again there are already many things available that are cheap and easy to construct and use that people aren't using because of lack of information. But it's more than ignorance, it is getting trapped in a never ending debate and a lack of action. Millions of people are screaming it's true, it's true like the guy in the moving pointing at Godzilla and saying it's Godzilla before he gets trampled, but others are busy setting traps for him.

Too non-specific to comment upon. You could mean almost anything in that last paragraph.

[Neoteny]

Man, it sure is warm out where I'm at. Must be global warming.

[Night Strike]

Man, it sure is warm out where I'm at. Must be global warming.

Man, we're coming close to setting record lows here. Must be global warming.



See, I can be a climate "scientist" too!

[Neoteny]

[_sabotage_]

Player,

You are tripping off that cool-aid.

In choosing the president you are choosing nothing. All recent candidates have maintained a steady propagation of most policies. Our government is a bunch of salesmen selling an unstable economy. We need to keep spending money on waste. It's the very concept of capitalism. Shit needs to break, water needs to be polluted for the system to work. Clean water means no bottled water, fewer soft drinks sold and a healthier population. GDPs a dropping. Broken window economics, because unbreakable windows would break the system.

Paul Stamets successfully showed the micro-filtration ability of mushrooms 20 years ago and he also showed, in a test, the ability of the Oyster mushroom to degrade hydrocarbons a decade ago. Yet they prefer to use the heavy chemicals that failed the same test. He has shown that the agarakon mushroom is better in all ways than riboflavin. And yet, his easy to implement, naturally occurring remedies are universally ignored by our government, except as bio-weaponry.

If you correspond this with the work of Viktor Schauberger and some recent adaptations of his work, you can easily and passively have some of the best water in the world available 24/7 without the government or any corporations and minimum maintenance. A set-up for a village could run on a single 4' x 6' solar panel.

This can be expanded upon. Hemp based construction can eliminate a lot of waste both during construction and habitation. Eliminating waste means eliminating cost as well as load. This means that smaller solar, wind, our other energy generating methods are needed or can accommodate more.

I could go on. But we already have a good example to learn from. Mike Reynolds created the first Earthship about 40 years ago. A house which absorbs the radiant heat of the sun and disperses it during cold weather. His house can house, water, passively provide heat and energy and even feed the inhabitants: total annual bills less than $100, nearly zero annual emissions. Initial investment, a few thousand dollars. How has the environmentalists crowd responded to this method of recycling material, producing little to no carbon and providing the ability to live off grid? With silence, they don't and won't talk about it. How did the government respond? They shut him down for nearly a decade through legal battles. But his houses aren't perfect, they leave much to be desired, but were even a percent of the people who are so busily trying to prove climate change engaged in the improvement and proliferation of his ideas, then we could see a massive downward shift in energy infrastructure requirements, in cost of living and an improvement in health, disposable income and community spirit. In the documentary, the Garbage Warrior, the lobbyist clearly states the reason that the government shut him down, they don't want people living cheaply. If the concept were pursued and other existing technologies incorporated, then anyone, anywhere could live dependently, more cheaply than in a polluting manner.

But what does this mean for the government? Lose of revenue and power. What would this mean to the environmentalists? Lose of thing to freak out about, lose of jobs, lose of prestige. So it would appear that solutions to the proposed problem are seen as the problem to the very people we intrust to alleviate the problem.

The government and environmentalist or climate scientists solution will always be to provide them with a more money and more power. But we don't know the big players, they have not put their seal on the project, but we can see already who is gaining from the outcry and we can see that the response is to the overall detriment of the general public for the benefit of the few.

Consider this before you double-speak to me again: if raw milk, or hemp oil, or mushrooms: all of which have been proven to cure cancer and are all widely available to the point they can't be easily limited were conclusively proven beyond a doubt to 100% cure cancer of all forms without any special application or processing, would the government cover this up and save the future livelihoods and current positions of ten of thousands of doctors as well as mega-rich corporations or would they deregulate raw milk and make it widely known? Perhaps a video of a family farm invaded by machine gun, blacked out agents would help you decide.

The average American/Canadian uses 11 cancer causing products a day on our bodies (for men, 14 for women), products which have been shown to have a direct correlation with cancer rates, which have been banned in Europe, but are AOK in the USA (and Canada). The War on Cancer should be called the Cancer War/Corporate US against the people.

I don't know in which fabled fairytale Obama has become your knight and shining armor, but I don't want to visit. I just ask, and kindly, not just to you, but to others, if you don't know what you are talking about, listen. Just because some handsome/beautiful person comes on TV and gives you the "inside" dope for two minutes does not make it true. Just because a university has not published something does not make it false.

[Neoteny]

[mrswdk]

See that, PLAYER? sabotage knows how to make people want to read a wall of text from start to finish.

After I got to the bit about machine gun-wielding security forces raiding dairy farms I was absolutely compelled to see it through to the end.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

You are tripping off that cool-aid.

In choosing the president you are choosing nothing. All recent candidates have maintained a steady propagation of most policies.

Now where have I heard THAT before? Oh yeah... in my posts,particularly around each of the last 2 elections.

Except, well, who said the only election we have is that for our presidents? Tha tyou think it is... well, that illustrates a good part of the problem!

Our government is a bunch of salesmen selling an unstable economy. We need to keep spending money on waste. It's the very concept of capitalism. Shit needs to break, water needs to be polluted for the system to work. Clean water means no bottled water, fewer soft drinks sold and a healthier population. GDPs a dropping. Broken window economics, because unbreakable windows would break the system.

Seems like I have pretty much said this over and over as well. The only difference is that I EXPECT politicians to be salespeople. I lay the blame at those writing the scripts. The script, today, is largely being written by the idea that our lives, our prosperity, our future is dependent upon keeping stock prices rising. THAT skews everything.

I also blame those buying "the goods" the salesmen offer.

I blame the public, not just a few politicians. (although I do hold politicians responsible for certain specific acts of their own -- just not the overall, general situation).

Paul Stamets successfully showed the micro-filtration ability of mushrooms 20 years ago and he also showed, in a test, the ability of the Oyster mushroom to degrade hydrocarbons a decade ago. Yet they prefer to use the heavy chemicals that failed the same test. He has shown that the agarakon mushroom is better in all ways than riboflavin. And yet, his easy to implement, naturally occurring remedies are universally ignored by our government, except as bio-weaponry.

LOL -- well, gee, I am more family with Gearhart and the Arcata Marsh, et al.
I worked on thodse... over 20 years ago, now.

AND, a lot of that technology has been implemented. Water hyacynths are another filtering plant that has been used extensively.

I will look into Paul Stamets research, but your description pretty much sounds like just a variation of the basic idea that plants (or fungus) can filter things out well.

I have no ideal what you mean by saying that a particular mushroom is better than riboflavin. Riboflavin is one of the B vitamins basic to our survival. Maybe you mean those mushrooms are a good source of it? Anyway,so are many other things....

Per the last... today, funding for government research keeps getting cut. That is part of the problem. Private companies want to invest in things that get THEM money,not "just" things that benefit humanity as a whole (though some nice PR comes under the heading of "benefits THEM").

I can say that the marsh technology, along with some other technologies to contain more heavy metals and such are being utilized and researched,though not as much as I myself would like to see.

If you correspond this with the work of Viktor Schauberger and some recent adaptations of his work, you can easily and passively have some of the best water in the world available 24/7 without the government or any corporations and minimum maintenance. A set-up for a village could run on a single 4' x 6' solar panel.

Again, i don't know enough of what you mention...but it sounds a lot like things I myself have worked on or with already.

This can be expanded upon. Hemp based construction can eliminate a lot of waste both during construction and habitation.

Hemp is a good plant that can do a lot of things and which is currently underutilized, particularly in the US partially as a fallout of the war on marihauna (though the real story is that hemp's threat to various industries is part of why we have the intense pressure against marihuana even today).
However,it is better used in clothing, food, etc...not so much for housing. Other things make much better houses.

Eliminating waste means eliminating cost as well as load. This means that smaller solar, wind, our other energy generating methods are needed or can accommodate more.

To some extent, but each of these technologies has their own issues.

I could go on. But we already have a good example to learn from. Mike Reynolds created the first Earthship about 40 years ago. A house which absorbs the radiant heat of the sun and disperses it during cold weather. His house can house, water, passively provide heat and energy and even feed the inhabitants: total annual bills less than $100, nearly zero annual emissions. Initial investment, a few thousand dollars. How has the environmentalists crowd responded to this method of recycling material, producing little to no carbon and providing the ability to live off grid? With silence, they don't and won't talk about it.

Actually, a lot of those ideas are being used all over,though I cannot say i have heard that particular name in conjunction with it.

How did the government respond? They shut him down for nearly a decade through legal battles. But his houses aren't perfect, they leave much to be desired, but were even a percent of the people who are so busily trying to prove climate change engaged in the improvement and proliferation of his ideas, then we could see a massive downward shift in energy infrastructure requirements, in cost of living and an improvement in health, disposable income and community spirit. In the documentary, the Garbage Warrior, the lobbyist clearly states the reason that the government shut him down, they don't want people living cheaply. If the concept were pursued and other existing technologies incorporated, then anyone, anywhere could live dependently, more cheaply than in a polluting manner.

Some truth to this, but replace "government"with "big money corporations"-- and understand that those corporations are powerful not just because they provide jobs, etc,but also because most people's retirement now depends upon many of these large companies doing well.

But what does this mean for the government? Lose of revenue and power. What would this mean to the environmentalists? Lose of thing to freak out about, lose of jobs, lose of prestige. So it would appear that solutions to the proposed problem are seen as the problem to the very people we intrust to alleviate the problem.

See above.

Per the environemtnalists... some are looney, some are very well vested in the corporate American and some are honestly trying.

The government and environmentalist or climate scientists solution will always be to provide them with a more money and more power.

Those are 3 very distinct groups that absolutely do not agree with each other OR work together very often. I actually wish they WOULD work together.. we might have some real progress!

But we don't know the big players, they have not put their seal on the project, but we can see already who is gaining from the outcry and we can see that the response is to the overall detriment of the general public for the benefit of the few.

Rhetorical nonsense. We know most of the players AND who benefits. To the extent there is not more outcry, its because the average citizen is both heavily vested in corporate success and to preoocupied with various things to get worked up about what seem to be far off problems.

Its not some guy in a dark room you have to convince, its the guy at the gas station, the factory,the farm.

Consider this before you double-speak to me again: if raw milk, or hemp oil, or mushrooms: all of which have been proven to cure cancer and are all widely available to the point they can't be easily limited were conclusively proven beyond a doubt to 100% cure cancer of all forms without any special application or processing, would the government cover this up and save the future livelihoods and current positions of ten of thousands of doctors as well as mega-rich corporations or would they deregulate raw milk and make it widely known? Perhaps a video of a family farm invaded by machine gun, blacked out agents would help you decide.

enough rhetoric.

At some points, you sound like an intelligent person who cares about these issues, but researching issues means far more than just finding a few people outside the mainstream to whom you wish to listen.

Or, to put it another way...neither Neoteny nor i are as ignorant as you seem to believe, and that is why we don't just accept what you are saying. A lot of it is, while well intended and partially correct, also wrong.