rigorousintuition.ca

I water my herb garden with antifreeze, it's blooming gangbusters!

A more likely scenario is that vast swathes of the human population will die off, or be killed off, and the remainder will survive using high technology and a robot workforce powered by solar energy.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d398f90 ... tml#slide0

FT is paywalled

Rory » Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:56 am wrote:

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:33 am wrote:

justdrew » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:55 pm wrote: Let me recap: the energy balance is already way out of whack, if we emitted not one more CO2 molecule, sufficient damage has already been done to ensure that MOST life on earth is doomed. Right now. We made the mess, only we can pick it up.

Drew...you may like to read this....Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2



Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.

Further confirmation that BenD is a troll.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwe ... ganisation

They are propagandists for big business - Big Fossil Fuels, AgriCorps, GM food, BigPharma, Patent gangsterism, Climate Change denial, etc.. And apparently they have a culture of misogyny and workplace bullying and harassment.

LULZ - Business As Usual is helping the planet grow! Poisoning the living flora and fauna is helping them live! Killing you with love - namaste

Rory....badmouthing the source of the science is futile...the facts remain, CSIRO is a reputable global scientific organization whose scientist's papers are widely published. The paper was published in the peer reviewed Geophysical Research Letters here....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract

norton ash » Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:09 am wrote:BenD, you are really terrible. Keep celebrating, idiot, I'll share my water with you on the dry road someday.

So norton ash....would you please explain the reason for your ad hom for my posting a relevant response to the claim that the present levels of CO2 have doomed most of the planet?

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:11 pm wrote:

Rory » Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:56 am wrote:

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:33 am wrote:

justdrew » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:55 pm wrote: Let me recap: the energy balance is already way out of whack, if we emitted not one more CO2 molecule, sufficient damage has already been done to ensure that MOST life on earth is doomed. Right now. We made the mess, only we can pick it up.

Drew...you may like to read this....Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2



Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.

Further confirmation that BenD is a troll.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwe ... ganisation

They are propagandists for big business - Big Fossil Fuels, AgriCorps, GM food, BigPharma, Patent gangsterism, Climate Change denial, etc.. And apparently they have a culture of misogyny and workplace bullying and harassment.

LULZ - Business As Usual is helping the planet grow! Poisoning the living flora and fauna is helping them live! Killing you with love - namaste

Rory....badmouthing the source of the science is futile...the facts remain, CSIRO is a reputable global scientific organization whose scientist's papers are widely published. The paper was published in the peer reviewed Geophysical Research Letters here....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract

Badmouthing? They have been litigated against for lies and corporate disinfo. They harassed and bully people that disagree with them. They deny actual science (climate science, study's that prove GM food harm, etc..) and propogate PR and propoganda for corporate dealers in poison and gangsterism.

Just up your street, eh, Ben? They are about as reputable as you are on this forum.

Namaste

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:16 pm wrote:

norton ash » Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:09 am wrote:BenD, you are really terrible. Keep celebrating, idiot, I'll share my water with you on the dry road someday.

So norton ash....would you please explain the reason for your ad hom for my posting a relevant response to the claim that the present levels of CO2 have doomed most of the planet?

Carbon cycle and ocean acidification. CO2 concentrations will doom us, one way or the other

Rory » Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:44 am wrote:

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:11 pm wrote:

Rory » Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:56 am wrote:

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:33 am wrote:

justdrew » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:55 pm wrote: Let me recap: the energy balance is already way out of whack, if we emitted not one more CO2 molecule, sufficient damage has already been done to ensure that MOST life on earth is doomed. Right now. We made the mess, only we can pick it up.

Drew...you may like to read this....Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2



Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.

Further confirmation that BenD is a troll.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwe ... ganisation

They are propagandists for big business - Big Fossil Fuels, AgriCorps, GM food, BigPharma, Patent gangsterism, Climate Change denial, etc.. And apparently they have a culture of misogyny and workplace bullying and harassment.

LULZ - Business As Usual is helping the planet grow! Poisoning the living flora and fauna is helping them live! Killing you with love - namaste

Rory....badmouthing the source of the science is futile...the facts remain, CSIRO is a reputable global scientific organization whose scientist's papers are widely published. The paper was published in the peer reviewed Geophysical Research Letters here....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract

Badmouthing? They have been litigated against for lies and corporate disinfo. They harassed and bully people that disagree with them. They deny actual science (climate science, study's that prove GM food harm, etc..) and propogate PR and propoganda for corporate dealers in poison and gangsterism.

Just up your street, eh, Ben? They are about as reputable as you are on this forum.

Namaste

You ignore the fact that the science of the post is peer reviewed in the Geophysical Research Letters ....CSIRO are not involved...it is just that the scientists involved worked for them at the time of doing this research.

Now you can badmouth CSIRO all you like...it doesn't change a thing...the science is now out there for all to see.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3/abstract[/quote]

If you find the science faulty...please provide your refutation?

Rory » Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:45 am wrote:

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:16 pm wrote:

norton ash » Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:09 am wrote:BenD, you are really terrible. Keep celebrating, idiot, I'll share my water with you on the dry road someday.

So norton ash....would you please explain the reason for your ad hom for my posting a relevant response to the claim that the present levels of CO2 have doomed most of the planet?

Carbon cycle and ocean acidification. CO2 concentrations will doom us, one way or the other

Rory...the most likely scenario of doom imho is nuclear war...but by all means name your own poison, however in the event that humanity makes it through the various predictions of its relatively immanent demise...there is one thing looming that can not be avoided....the end of this interglacial and a new ice age.



Based on past history...the world spends only about 7% of the time in 'warm' interglacial periods....these periods average about 15,000 years in duration...we are approaching the end of this one and there is no way human technology is able to do anything to avoid this as these cycles of alternating interglacials/ice ages are caused by the changes in the amount and intensity of the Sun's radiation on the planet's surface as a result of cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit.

The CSIRO study doesn't contradict climate science. It's actually a confirmation of one facet of the conventional wisdom of climate science. Increased co2 makes things grow better, which is an advantage, but that's a long way from saying increased co2 is going to be a net benefit to the human population.

Morty » Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:06 pm wrote:The CSIRO study doesn't contradict climate science. It's actually a confirmation of one facet of the conventional wisdom of climate science. Increased co2 makes things grow better, which is an advantage, but that's a long way from saying increased co2 is going to be a net benefit to the human population.

Morty, my posting of this study was only in the context of this..."if we emitted not one more CO2 molecule, sufficient damage has already been done to ensure that MOST life on earth is doomed."....humanity is not synonymous with the earth...the earth has its own destiny and can't be limited to what's good for humanity, or any other part of present nature.

Fwiw, I don't think of the world as being created as a 'goldilocks' just right environment for the present natural flora, fauna, etc.,....for it's clear from the historical records like the Ice Ages one in my previous post, that adaptation is essential to ongoing survival of any species. Regardless of the geological and climatic changes in the future....there will not be total extinction...and so the cycles of planetary evolution proceeds unabated towards it ultimate destiny....a thousand years is like a day to the Lord!

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:47 pm wrote:Regardless of the geological and climatic changes in the future....there will not be total extinction...and so the cycles of planetary evolution proceeds unabated towards it ultimate destiny....a thousand years is like a day to the Lord!

Here then finally is the meaning of it all in a nutshell. I always suspected you really were a bit insane. Now I know.

brainpanhandler » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:51 pm wrote:

Ben D » Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:47 pm wrote:Regardless of the geological and climatic changes in the future....there will not be total extinction...and so the cycles of planetary evolution proceeds unabated towards it ultimate destiny....a thousand years is like a day to the Lord!

Here then finally is the meaning of it all in a nutshell. I always suspected you really were a bit insane. Now I know.

Oh goodie...it takes one to know one...my oddball friend....anything in particular that gets to you? Oh..and in context...."Fwiw, I don't think of the world as being created as a 'goldilocks' just right environment for the present natural flora, fauna, etc.,....for it's clear from the historical records like the Ice Ages one in my previous post, that adaptation is essential to ongoing survival of any species."

Sounder » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:28 pm wrote:Good on you for going back to Ruppert on this issue stillrobertpaulson. I have not read this thread as its not my cup of tea, but still feel like suggesting that while this increasingly brittle coercion culture will be extinct in one hundred years, humans will not. A change in styles in expressions of consciousness from objects over to relationships, would surely cut commodity demands easily in half. Current metrics will not apply to the future that is in store for us.

One particular point that I thought was excellent regards the binary thinking surrounding NTE and civilization being an "all-or-nothing" proposition. Mentally, I keep going back to Ruppert and this quote in the last part of Apocalypse, Man sticks: "There is going to be a die-off. That is a balancing. That cannot be averted. I cannot offer some happy Pollyanna solution to that. Love is the only vibration that's a higher vibration than fear. Our physical reality is a product of our consciousness which is a product of what we carry in our hearts. And if we carry fear in our hearts, to the point where the consciousness is one of fear, then all we would manifest would be more destruction. The means to save, to resurrect, to make amends with, to reconcile with, to heal ourselves with Mother Earth and everything that lives here, will only become available to us once we realize that cooperation rather than competition, that love rather than fear is the only state of consciousness in which we can successfully live, and lo and behold, those are the ways our ancestors lived 40,000 years ago."

We all need to take it to heart.

justdrew wrote…

obviously the need for urgent and massive carbon sequestration is as clear as can be.

and swarms of millions of parasol satellites giving the poles some shade.

these two activities must immediately become the primary guiding principle of human civilization, and anyone or anything that stands in the way of this reorganization must be utterly and remorselessly destroyed.

Yeeah, uh, no thanks.

Thanks Sounder. Another Ruppert quote from Apocalypse, Man that I think has bearing on your perspective was the opening quote: "The planet is being destroyed all around us. Using money to try to address that problem; it's shooting yourself in the foot. Evolve or perish, grow up or die. An entirely new level of human consciousness is needed right now. Or we're all dead." There's no techno-fix solution to the problems we face that won't compound the hole we've dug. Not until we find a way to change the way money works.

So I've gotta concur with Sounder, justdrew, the Plan B you propose has no chance in hell unless we abandon Plan A first. Plan A, of course, is the Infinite Growth paradigm/pyramid scam. As David Wasdell said, "This is the race to get out of carbon! It is a crime against humanity and against life itself to continue emitting carbon dioxide from our industrial processes."

well, ruppert's all-or-nothing agenda worked out real good for him didn't it?

They day I stake my survival and the survival of 'most life on earth' on even MANY humans "evolving" is they day I give up. Not. Going. To. Happen. and even if it were to happen, no one has any idea what that would even look like or accomplish. I have little interest in reincarnating as deep soil bacteria or a thermal vent tube worm. Someone please point to one living example of this evolved-human please.

The idea that this is all somehow "beyond" us is nuts defeatist, doom-porn.

This is a solvable problem. IF we act.

so let's agree on 'evolving' enough at least to fucking do something.

keep in mind, I'm absolutely talking about reshaping the nature of the economy and down-sizing free market capitalism extensively, but some 'command and control' is called for here too. People can work together very well indeed, when the economic system isn't designed to pit them against one another.

the changes that are required will be opposed though, and there's zero time to tolerate that.

Ruppert got where he did because he refused to answer for himself the question I asked him in 2002, "after we've won (...) what does the world look like?"

Rather than come up with practical answers, he turned to mysticism. which mind you, has it's place, but is in no way a substitute for actually envisioning and working on a viable future. It's that gap that leads to inconsolable despair.