How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Rory]

You are pro-nuclear? Like, for real?

Wow - explains a lot.

[Ben D]

You are pro-nuclear? Like, for real?

Wow - explains a lot.

Yeh...like I'm in good company with James Hansen who thinks Nuclear Is Safer Than Fossil and other pro-nuclear environmentalists.

[KUAN]

Ben D

The connection is that our destiny is of and among the stars, and we can't leave this rock without understanding and mastering the nuclear and beyond technologies that will take us there...it is about what and who we really are!

Oh yes,,,the 'let's have our cake and eat it too' Laodician luke warmers...fine if that's your choice..but the 'hot' view is that the physical reality is such an insignificant part of the Cosmos, the next step is to evolve an energy form, and sooner rather than later. So I live my life in a way that is primarily conducive to the unfolding evolution towards humanity's greater cosmic destiny....not in way that is primarily meant to conserve the present state of humanity and the associated environment that spawned it.

Sorry to move into esoteric territory but you forced my hand... for to be honest, my sense of destiny is way beyond the conventional conceptual framework context.

Pretty much what the Egyptians believed before the workers saw the writing on the wall and downed tools

[Ben D]

Ben D

The connection is that our destiny is of and among the stars, and we can't leave this rock without understanding and mastering the nuclear and beyond technologies that will take us there...it is about what and who we really are!

Oh yes,,,the 'let's have our cake and eat it too' Laodician luke warmers...fine if that's your choice..but the 'hot' view is that the physical reality is such an insignificant part of the Cosmos, the next step is to evolve an energy form, and sooner rather than later. So I live my life in a way that is primarily conducive to the unfolding evolution towards humanity's greater cosmic destiny....not in way that is primarily meant to conserve the present state of humanity and the associated environment that spawned it.

Sorry to move into esoteric territory but you forced my hand... for to be honest, my sense of destiny is way beyond the conventional conceptual framework context.

Pretty much what the Egyptians believed before the workers saw the writing on the wall and downed tools

Quaint belief..do have any evidence of the nuclear fusion energy expertise developed by the Egyptians?

[KUAN]

You believe that it's onwards and upwards, even to the stars do you Ben?,
collapse is what happened to the Egyptians while they were thinking the same thing. And their technologies were obviously more advanced than nuclear because us dumb savages haven't worked it out yet....

[Ben D]

You believe that it's onwards and upwards, even to the stars do you Ben?,
collapse is what happened to the Egyptians while they were thinking the same thing. And their technologies were obviously more advanced than nuclear because us dumb savages haven't worked it out yet....

Belief doesn't come into it, the evolutionary way of the Cosmos is to unfold it's mysteries to those who are ready, for those who are not..well the weeds and chaff are ploughed back in...and that's the purpose of the cycle of the rise and inevitable collapse...separate the wheat from the chaff...those who oppose the evolutionary thrust cause the collapse of civilizations. The question of good and evil in the cosmic context goes like this...good is all that works with the cosmic plan of unfoldment, evil is all that tries to oppose it...the conservationist minded folk who try to keep the world the way it is when they get the power to do so in the dark age are doomed.

The cosmos is alive and omnipresently conscious...and works omnipotently towards the goal...you may get a hint of this idea of how this cosmic consciousness induces change in the physical world of form if you watch the Hammeroff/Penrose youtube piece on the "Your Brain Works Like a Radio" thread. Best you respond there if you want to carry on as this is getting way off topic here.

[KUAN]

The wheat and chaff have the same destiny - what goes around comes around..

and......

you can't push the river...

[Sounder]

not in way that is primarily meant to conserve the present state of humanity and the associated environment that spawned it.

My point generally is that present state of humanity is built on bad assumptions, change the (initial) assumption and the ‘present state of humanity’ will go poof. That ‘present state’ results from making a radical distinction between the material and the spiritual, just as you do Ben.

I think it’s safe to say Ben that you do not much think about the actual structure of the physics that will form a basis for beyond nuclear technology. Nuclear seems more like your thing and that is conventional thinking based on dualism.

In my book that makes you a dualist.

[Ben D]

not in way that is primarily meant to conserve the present state of humanity and the associated environment that spawned it.

My point generally is that present state of humanity is built on bad assumptions, change the (initial) assumption and the ‘present state of humanity’ will go poof. That ‘present state’ results from making a radical distinction between the material and the spiritual, just as you do Ben.

I think it’s safe to say Ben that you do not much think about the actual structure of the physics that will form a basis for beyond nuclear technology. Nuclear seems more like your thing and that is conventional thinking based on dualism.

In my book that makes you a dualist.

The duality is thinking that the 'spiritual' path is somehow competing with the 'material' journey of cosmos. There is no equality among mankind, never was and never will be...those minority on the truly spiritual path can be considered the 'architects' or 'mind' of the plan for mankind's evolutionary path forward and the rest are the 'builders' or 'form'. Without the former there would be no evolutionary direction, and without the latter there would be no evolutionary journey. Though still of one essence....mind and form rely on each other like the ying and yang of the unitary Tao. There is no mind without form and no form without mind...but the mind is not form and the form is not mind.

The existing structure of physics does indeed form the basis for beyond nuclear technology, but nuclear must be mastered before the beyond nuclear can be...opposition to the natural evolution of technology is also opposition to higher cosmic order so there will be dire consequences when the blocking process is ultimately dissolved.

Nuclear is not my thing, nor was the motor car in the technological step of replacing the horse and carriage....I just see it as an inevitable essential step of technological evolution.

[Sounder]

I just see it as an inevitable essential step of technological evolution.

Then you see development of knowledge to be essentially incremental and made up of 'building blocks', whereas I see models as being potentially incommensurate, such that the building blocks of one system do not fit well or at all with a new system.

The duality is thinking that the 'spiritual' path is somehow competing with the 'material' journey of cosmos.

Are you suggesting that because you (say you) do not see these two paths competing that you are not a dualist?

In my mind, you do treat them as being competing paths. And you see them as being fundamentally different, and you subscribe to a dualist derived science.

You are a dualist.

For the way I model reality, they do not compete because they are (essentially) the same thing.

This is OT, so I will move any further comment over to the mind matters thread.

[Rory]

There is nothing that screams spiritual evolution and the ascension of mankind's essential energies, quite like using nuclear boiled water to drive turbines to power tumble dryers and plasma screen TVs.


Namaste

[stillrobertpaulsen]

There is nothing that screams spiritual evolution and the ascension of mankind's essential energies, quite like using nuclear boiled water to drive turbines to power tumble dryers and plasma screen TVs.


Namaste

Word, Rory, word. Here's another:

[smiths]

nuclear energy is favoured because it allows centralised corporate/state control with long contract times and no easy get out,
contracts constitute the corporate system

solar/wind distributed across decentralized networks run by households and small collectives challenges corporate/state control,
independence cuts the ties

in the places where localized household level power generation has been the most successful, govs are now disincentivizing it

"A report by the Edison Electric Institute, the lobbying arm of the power industry, says this kind of law will put “a squeeze on profitability,” and warns that if state incentives are not rolled back, “it may be too late to repair the utility business model.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opini ... inion&_r=0


make no mistake, when you advocate nuclear as a 'solution' to climate change you are singing from the Corporate songsheet, when you argue that it is "needs to be part of the mix" you are singing from the Corporate songsheet

environmentalism isn't about employing capitalist methods to fix problems, it isn't about technological solutions - these are insane and utopian daydreams by pre-pubescent men-children who never grew up from their greedy fantasies of how to get more toys and keep them all for themselves

real environmentalism is about fundamentally changing the system, starting with its motivations, it is leveling and redistributive, it cares as much about sweatshops and children mining coltan for iPhones as it does whales or Indonesian forests
and it was urgent long before the IPCC formed

it is the enemy not just because it threatens profits but because it threatens a wholesale collectivist approach to living with decentralization, conservation of resources and thoughtfulness instead of mindless consumption

there is no room for profit-making corporations in this model, there is no room for the 1%, even if they feign philanthropy

[Ben D]

Too funny...a thread about AGW caused by CO2 emissions from 'fossil' fuel power generation and now here on RI, the supposed faithful believers of the AGW IPCC party line reject the non-CO2 emission alternative nuclear power generation solution recommended by top AGW climate scientist James Hansen and the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change itself who are advisors to all world governments.

[Sounder]

Whats funny is a guy that does not believe in AGW or carbon forcing advocating for nuclear even after a full meltdown, or not.

Read the original politico article to get that real smarmy sense of Gore's 'depth of vision'.

100 times? I suppose it's all for a good cause, so no foul.


http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/20 ... d-weather/
April 27, 2014

Al Gore makes ‘extreme’ claims about global warming and weather

By Michael Bastasch Published: April 25, 2014

Former Vice President Al Gore made some amazing claims about global warming. The failed presidential candidate told Politico Magazine that “extreme weather events” are 100 times more common today than they were 30 years ago due to global warming.

But Gore’s claims actually run counter to mounting scientific evidence that global warming is not making the weather more “extreme.”

“The game changer for the first question is the extreme weather events related to climate that are now 100 times more common than they were just 30 years ago,” Gore told Politico. “This is having a huge impact. And they’re getting more frequent. More common. Bigger. More destructive. And people are looking at their hole cards.”

“The extreme weather events and the knock-on effects with the stronger ocean-based storms, the bigger downpours, more floods, mudslides, the saturation of that hillside in Snohomish County, for example – these things are way more common now, because the extremes are more extreme and they are more frequent,” Gore added.
Gore’s claims, however, are not even in line with evidence presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group often cited by Gore as evidence that global warming could be catastrophic.

The IPCC found that there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

The IPCC also said “there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale” adding “that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”

Extreme weather has been a major talking point for environmentalists and Democrats who want to show evidence that the planet is warming. Last year, politicians jumped on the devastating typhoon that hit the Philippines, saying it was more evidence that human activity was making the weather worse.

“This is all over the world,” Gore said. “In the Philippines, there were four million homeless refugees and still are. That’s twice as many as the Indian Ocean tsunami. The Philippines has always been hit hard by typhoons, but this is something different and the warmer ocean is connected to it. And all over the world, people are saying, ‘Whoa, this is getting pretty crazy.’”

But the IPCC isn’t the only body to counter Gore’s claims. University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. has also presented evidence that weather has not gotten more extreme.
“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Dr. Pielke told the Senate last summer. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”
“Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900,” Pielke added. “The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970.”

So far this year, the United States has experienced a record-low number of tornadoes, according to Pielke, and the number of deaths and the amount of property damage from tornadoes has decreased dramatically in the past six decades.

“The average annual U.S. property losses caused by tornadoes, from 1950 to 2013, is $5.9 billion in today’s dollars,” Pielke wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “However, for the first half of the data set (1950-81), the annual average loss was $7.6 billion, and in the second half (1982-2013), it was $4.1 billion—a drop of almost 50%.”