There is no Planet B

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The problem with the whole global warming thing is that it's masking the real issues. C02 isn't going to wipe us off the face of the Earth. What's going to wipe us off the Earth is uncontrolled consumerism. I'll just about guarantee most "alarmists" own one or a combination of fairly new cars and computers/tablets/phones/electronics that are just a few years old just for starters. It's not their fault, it's the way the modern western society has been conditioned to operate.

Thousand dollar + mobile phones, tablets and computers that cannot even have the battery economically replaced. Cars that require replacement modules containing up to hundreds of components when just a single part could be replaced because it lowers inventory and increases the bottom line. Manufacturers in general that offer just the one solution of throwing their failed products in the bin once warranty expires. The world has become a place where it's more important to make stuff as cheaply as possible and sell as much of it as possible for the most profit than it is to conserve resources and reduce land (and sea) fill. Yet you don't read about this in the media. It gets pushed aside by "hottest year on record" headlines.

It goes on and on and on. We live in a world where the product packaging gets bigger to compete on the supermarket shelf whilst the actual product shrinks in size. Where just about every moment of our waking lives exposes us to "Buy, buy, BUY!" (just look at this web page for proof!).

This is the real issue, not global warming. Forget about wind and solar and EV's saving the day. These require battery technology to be practical and the cold hard truth is that lithium resources will be exhausted well before oil if the world goes truly green and continues to consume at ever increasing levels.

Bingo... We have a winner......

[mrm]

Originally Posted by StuM

It is really as simple as trying to sustain an infinite growth model in an infinite universe.

At the moment our universe/habitat is this single planet we happen to live on and therefore quite finite.

Dreaming about conquering the Universe (who doesn't like to read a good SciFi, eh?) is one thing, but surviving till we can actually accomplish that is another. Priorities, priorities...


In the meantime.. reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will give you plenty of info should you choose to just leave the mess behind, but beware of Vogon poetry

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mrm

At the moment our universe/habitat is this single planet we happen to live on and therefore quite finite.

Dreaming about conquering the Universe (who doesn't like to read a good SciFi, eh?) is one thing, but surviving till we can actually accomplish that is another. Priorities, priorities...


In the meantime.. reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will give you plenty of info should you choose to just leave the mess behind

in the infamous words of Mr Douglas Adams
Don't Panic.

[mrm]

Originally Posted by newhaul

in the infamous words of Mr Douglas Adams
Don't Panic.

Good one
Yet.. Don't Panic does not equal Don't Think.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mrm

Good one
Yet.. Don't Panic does not equal Don't Think.

I know this sounds fake but Don't Panic was the original name of my 1963 columbia defender. The first owners were friends with Douglas.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The problem with the whole global warming thing is that it's masking the real issues. C02 isn't going to wipe us off the face of the Earth. What's going to wipe us off the Earth is uncontrolled consumerism. I'll just about guarantee most "alarmists" own one or a combination of fairly new cars and computers/tablets/phones/electronics that are just a few years old just for starters. It's not their fault, it's the way the modern western society has been conditioned to operate.

Thousand dollar + mobile phones, tablets and computers that cannot even have the battery economically replaced. Cars that require replacement modules containing up to hundreds of components when just a single part could be replaced because it lowers inventory and increases the bottom line. Manufacturers in general that offer just the one solution of throwing their failed products in the bin once warranty expires. The world has become a place where it's more important to make stuff as cheaply as possible and sell as much of it as possible for the most profit than it is to conserve resources and reduce land (and sea) fill. Yet you don't read about this in the media. It gets pushed aside by "hottest year on record" headlines.

It goes on and on and on. We live in a world where the product packaging gets bigger to compete on the supermarket shelf whilst the actual product shrinks in size. Where just about every moment of our waking lives exposes us to "Buy, buy, BUY!" (just look at this web page for proof!).

This is the real issue, not global warming. Forget about wind and solar and EV's saving the day. These require battery technology to be practical and the cold hard truth is that lithium resources will be exhausted well before oil if the world goes truly green and continues to consume at ever increasing levels.

Exactly right.

Try and imagine the population of the rest of the world trying to live the same lifestyle, and using up the same resources, as the members of this forum do. The earth would be done in 90 days.

So, really, how worried is anyone here about this stuff? They won't stop doing it themselves, yet they insist that everyone else on the planet do so, and then wonder why they aren't take seriously outside of their own echo chambers.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by newhaul

in the infamous words of Mr Douglas Adams
Don't Panic.

A friend of mine named his power boat "Don't Panic".
It was in really big letters across the transom, upside down.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

in the infamous words of Mr Douglas Adams
Don't Panic.

"It’s all devastatingly true — except the bits that are lies” ~ Douglas Adams
might be more applicable; whichever side of coin you claim as yours.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by mrm

At the moment our universe/habitat is this single planet we happen to live on and therefore quite finite.
Dreaming about conquering the Universe (who doesn't like to read a good SciFi, eh?) is one thing, but surviving till we can actually accomplish that is another. Priorities, priorities...

Coincidentally:
The Bizarre Planets That Could Be Humanity’s New Homes
“... Astronomers believe that most of the planets in our galaxy that have Earth-like temperatures are likely to be tidally locked. Because their orbital period is the same as their period of rotation, these planets will always present the same face to their sun—just as we always see the same side of the moon, as it orbits Earth.
And the reason for this glut of tidally locked worlds is pretty simple. Up to three-quarters of suns in our galaxy are red dwarfs, or “M-dwarfs,” smaller and cooler than our sun. Any planet orbiting one of these M-dwarfs would need to be much closer to its star to support human life—as close as Mercury is to our sun. And at that distance, the star’s gravity would pull it into a tidally locked orbit ...”
☞ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...lanets/582661/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

A friend of mine named his power boat "Don't Panic".
It was in really big letters across the transom, upside down.

That's good. But I hope your friend never has occasion to read his boat name right side up!

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

do I make patently false statements? No I don't and what I post I have provided links to the various studies somewhere in all of the climate threads....

Originally Posted by newhaul

...Btw remember the IPCC is a political body .

Rarely does anyone (even you) contradict themselves in the same page of a single thread...

Please provide proof of the IPCC making any policy decision for an individual (or group of) government(s).


Hard to make much difference politically if one doesn't make policy changes.

Of course, if you're using 'political' colloquially, then everything human, conceptually or concretely, is 'political', rendering your pronouncement meaningless at best, or, on the other end of the conspiro-spectrum, nonsense.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Rarely does anyone (even you) contradict themselves in the same page of a single thread...

Please provide proof of the IPCC making any policy decision for an individual (or group of) government(s).


Hard to make much difference politically if one doesn't make policy changes.

Of course, if you're using 'political' colloquially, then everything human, conceptually or concretely, is 'political', rendering your pronouncement meaningless at best, or, on the other end of the conspiro-spectrum, nonsense.

the ipcc makes policy recommendations

You should actually read their mission statement.

[hpeer]

I’d we are going into a reading mode I suggest this

https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-...ks-report-2019

worldnEconomic Forum Global Risk Analysis - 2019

Published ever year. Pretty interesting stuff.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I’d we are going into a reading mode I suggest this
https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-...ks-report-2019
worldnEconomic Forum Global Risk Analysis - 2019
Published ever year. Pretty interesting stuff.

Downloadable here https://www.mercer.com/our-thinking/...sk-report.html

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the ipcc makes policy recommendations

You should actually read their mission statement.

Glad that you agree that, as stated previously, the IPCC is an a-political institution, since they don't make policy decisions.

T'would seem an astute observer would realize that since the abbreviated 'mission statement' quoted in the original post was abbreviated, the statement was read before being 'abbreviated' (otherwise how would one know where to make the abbreviation?)

Of course, that leaves out the obvious failing of your sad complaint, failing to post their full 'mission statement' (which would allow an independent, objective observer to verify [or, in this case, refute] your claim), which I'm happy to do here.


"Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.

The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks.

An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research."


Rhetorically, (since it's obviously impossible), please show how the IPCC is 'political' in the standard definition of the word; i.e. making and enforcing policy decisions that affect the socio-economic-cultural functioning of the human environment...

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if we should suspect you of being a double agent, in the employ of Skeptical Science, James Hansen, the IPCC and all the other MMGW co-conspirators...