This post is more about types of response than about the nature of truth.
The author asks, ‘Should I do everything I can to avoid something that nobody is trying to avoid?’
When faced with the multiple thermodynamic crises of our time (of which climate change is just one) do we respond by trying to change high-level policy, or do we focus on our own lives and on our local community? Should our response be macro or micro? For example, am I wasting my time walking to the store rather than driving when the governments of India and China are building large numbers of coal-fired power plants? Am I wasting my time growing vegetables in the back yard when major oil companies have pivoted away from their alternative energy programs?’
Regarding the truth of climate change. I live in central Virginia (USA). The official first and last frost dates are October 31st and April 9th. This year our first frost took place in the last week of November, and our last frost was probably the final week of February. That’s all I need to know about the truth of climate change ― I see it while gardening. The frost season is two months shorter than ‘it should be’.
I don't see that we've been lied to. I see it that we haven't asked for the truth. Therefore, we have been told whatever will make us worry less or put the blame on someone else. When I say "we" I mean the general population. The conversation between those who study these issues is a different world.
To most people the economy runs on money. A few know it runs on energy. The fact is it runs on exergy.
Moving from a gold standard to a debt based fiat currency system meant that the people in charge could spend fiat currency with gay abandon but as that was going on for 37 years 1971-2008 exergy was starting to collapse. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall in 2008 and could not be put back up again due to a problem with exergy. That gave them 11 years to put together the plandemic.
My background is in long-range planning for HMG here in the UK and had a boss in the late 1960s who reckoned that without fusion it would all be over by 2010. We have created a tsunami of debt since 2008 to keep the patient on life support but that bubble is about to pop.
As you say no one has lied to you, it is just that if the vast majority of people were told that West. Ind. Civ. would end around the 2010s it may of been difficult to manage the situation.
I'm not sure they put together the pandemic. However, I do believe what you wrote factors into how it was handled.
But in everything else you wrote I agree with you 110%. Once fiat currencies grow past energy resources nothing good will happen. My date is 2015, but does it really matter what date? We're past it.
I've known since the late 1960s that my chances of a pension/health care/social care in old age were slim. So when Boris Johnson told the nation, 13.12.2019, that he was planning a final solution to adult social care I knew exactly what he meant. People I know said it made their blood run cold.
"I'm not sure they put together the pandemic" they really had no alternative, and not just a UK problem, a world wide 1st world problem, hence a world wide pandemic.
I have never failed to be amazed at how much of our history is written by the winners, the covid will go down in history and the history books will never give a mention to exergy. Difficult isn't it?
My very best wishes for even thinking of going on this journey, but wait till you delve into The Adam and Eve Story!!
There is parable that I read, I do not recall where, perhaps on the site or over at Ecosophia, site of John Michael Greer, that I will paraphrase:
During a forest fire various animals gathered on the shore of lake for safety. There they saw a hummingbird dipping its legs, underside feathers into the water, and also taking a sip into its beak.
The hummingbird would then fly over the raging forest fire and do a shake to release a few drops and also squirt the water in its beak, over and over again. The forest animals saw this and were bewildered, Raven then asked Hummingbird, "What are you doing?" and Hummingbird answered "I'm doing my part to put out the fire."
Climate change in the past has been normalized into the accepted narratives of history, but the little ice age was a bitch, and not at all evenly distributed.
Forgotten Climate Chronicles of 16th-Century Transylvania Hold a Dire Climate Warning
We can't fall prey to false equivalences. What Gregoire is really writing about are the consequences of unfiltered free speech. The Clarion call to free speech has opened a Pandora's Box of lies, while traditional newspapers and television networks, once the main source of information in the public square, labor under editorial principles and redundancy (reporters have editors who themselves have publishers) Science has peer review. Both are imperfect as Fox News and the number of retracted scientific papers demonstrate, but we must avoid equating political speech and it's amplification through unfiltered social media with other forms of speech that are subject to some controls. I am no expert on climate change, but there are a number of well researched, peer-reviewed publications quantifying the additional rainfall or rapid intensification of hurricanes that can be tied directly to higher sea water temperatures and the ability of the air above to hold more moisture. In turn the trend to higher sea water temperatures is consistent with the effect of additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of the longer-term predictions may not come true because climate scientists failed to understand that there is not enough economically recoverable petroleum to support the models, but these shortcomings are not the same as the untested, unvetted, unfiltered speech that can be heard everyday from politicians and through their amplifiers on social media. Scientists frequently admit uncertainty with statistical confidence levels and other means, something you almost never hear with other forms of speech. If only a minority can make these distinctions, they are still worth fighting for.
I've often thought about this conundrum - the constant lies by the establishment makes convincing people they are not lying about climate change impossible.
Ironically, it's probably the case that many people within the establishment peddling lies - on covid NOT being from the Wuhan lab, on Biden being sharp as a tack, on constant terrorist attacks in Europe being perfectly normal - understand these are lies, and therefore also falsely believe climate change is just another one of these lies. So basically most people, including much of the establishment, believes climate change isn't real.
Did you not see my post on what Einstien had to say about global warming. What they are not telling you is that the magnetosphere is collapsing which is causing temperatures to rise and a lot of other stuff.
Einstein's mind was exercised by the question of how much energy was needed to evaporate 400ft of sea water at the start of the last ice age in order to create 2 miles of ice over much of the northern hemisphere. All that heat and all that cold both at the same time.
If you like a good detective story then finding out why it has been necessary to come up with this silly global warming nonsense could be the most exiting adventure you have ever been on without leaving your front door.
"The Adam and Eve Story" by Chan Thomas would be a good place to start.
Suffice to say that the CIA's grubby finger prints are all over this particular psyop.
The answer is that INDIVIDUALLY the right answer is to live without care of any consequence that is not directly affecting ourselves or that have an automatic sharing effect: polluting is an automatic sharing event because the consequences are "shared" by nature to all and doesn't affect only the polluter...
The answer also is that COLLECTIVELY the consequences are more important more individuals they affect, a small imposed lost that affect all humanity is quite a problem even if individually could not be even perceived.
We have to ask ourselves what we are doing and why, it's quite important to understand that there is no universal "right things" or similar in human world because all is based on perception and frame.
One interesting book to read is Justine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_(de_Sade_novel) ) because show a good point of view about vice and virtues, to understand it is important to know that the author wrote it during his detention in the Bastille during the French Revolution by a nobleman that pissed off both revolutionaries and the restructured monarchy! The problem is that it framed "virtue" as a selfish act at the same level as the various deranged and degenerated that interact with the main heroine, arguing that all are acting equally on their selfish desires.
Today we are subject to a lot of contrasting information and believes, usually the "truth" is not even considered because it's "relativized" to the individual perception, philosophically we have been driven to accept "truth" as a personal experience, so there is a complex of truths that are different for every human but that have parts shared between groups, the meme concept!
We are being lied from any other human being as a rule because at best we share SOME of the meme (truth) of other and usually are exposed to competing meme, during the past the situation was far less extreme because belief were strong linked to direct survival of the individual and the community in which he lived, so truth had a meaning in "what keep me alive" and because accidents happen to survive was needed that the most of the community survive. Less energy the system have more the "truth" will fall back to that primitive, common, grounded state.
As rule more complex is a system, more description (models) we could have of it and anyone could be tailored to predict effects based on different variables (truth), if we look at a set of variables we will find one or at best a small fraction of the possible model that work, so the other could logically be described as wrong (lies).... The system is always the same, truth or lies change with the description (model), what is important is the outcome we are looking for and the variables that we could manipulate, the path is to choose an outcome and look at what we can change to create a model to get there.
How does anybody know what the truth is, I treat everything that’s been touched by the internet as suspect. Take Climate Change (CC), let’s say using University of Google it say’s, just for argument sake, a pole of 900,000 say it’s not the result of human activity, and 500,000 say CC is the result of human activity, and that for arguments sake that’s actually true. None of us know what biases were written into the algorithm, particularly an AI’s algorithm, as it might be game playing for whatever reason. The polling could be totally imaginary, and if you asked for it to be verified I’m sure the AI could provide imaginary proof. I don’t trust anything that comes via the internet. We now live in a physical world full of fantasy. So what does that tell us, it tells us (humanity) we are so Fu%&ed🤔
A comment received from Ian Sutton -- he had problems in posting it; so I am doing that for him.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
This post is more about types of response than about the nature of truth.
The author asks, ‘Should I do everything I can to avoid something that nobody is trying to avoid?’
When faced with the multiple thermodynamic crises of our time (of which climate change is just one) do we respond by trying to change high-level policy, or do we focus on our own lives and on our local community? Should our response be macro or micro? For example, am I wasting my time walking to the store rather than driving when the governments of India and China are building large numbers of coal-fired power plants? Am I wasting my time growing vegetables in the back yard when major oil companies have pivoted away from their alternative energy programs?’
Regarding the truth of climate change. I live in central Virginia (USA). The official first and last frost dates are October 31st and April 9th. This year our first frost took place in the last week of November, and our last frost was probably the final week of February. That’s all I need to know about the truth of climate change ― I see it while gardening. The frost season is two months shorter than ‘it should be’.
All the best,
Ian Sutton
I don't see that we've been lied to. I see it that we haven't asked for the truth. Therefore, we have been told whatever will make us worry less or put the blame on someone else. When I say "we" I mean the general population. The conversation between those who study these issues is a different world.
Max, absolutely spot on. In my world the link between Nixon closing the gold window in 1971 and the medical emergency in 2019 is cast iron.
How do you see the connection?
To most people the economy runs on money. A few know it runs on energy. The fact is it runs on exergy.
Moving from a gold standard to a debt based fiat currency system meant that the people in charge could spend fiat currency with gay abandon but as that was going on for 37 years 1971-2008 exergy was starting to collapse. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall in 2008 and could not be put back up again due to a problem with exergy. That gave them 11 years to put together the plandemic.
My background is in long-range planning for HMG here in the UK and had a boss in the late 1960s who reckoned that without fusion it would all be over by 2010. We have created a tsunami of debt since 2008 to keep the patient on life support but that bubble is about to pop.
As you say no one has lied to you, it is just that if the vast majority of people were told that West. Ind. Civ. would end around the 2010s it may of been difficult to manage the situation.
I'm not sure they put together the pandemic. However, I do believe what you wrote factors into how it was handled.
But in everything else you wrote I agree with you 110%. Once fiat currencies grow past energy resources nothing good will happen. My date is 2015, but does it really matter what date? We're past it.
I've known since the late 1960s that my chances of a pension/health care/social care in old age were slim. So when Boris Johnson told the nation, 13.12.2019, that he was planning a final solution to adult social care I knew exactly what he meant. People I know said it made their blood run cold.
"I'm not sure they put together the pandemic" they really had no alternative, and not just a UK problem, a world wide 1st world problem, hence a world wide pandemic.
I have never failed to be amazed at how much of our history is written by the winners, the covid will go down in history and the history books will never give a mention to exergy. Difficult isn't it?
My very best wishes for even thinking of going on this journey, but wait till you delve into The Adam and Eve Story!!
In short we all live in separate worlds. You may well be a brain surgeon, I know nothing about brain surgery but I know an awful lot about exergy!
Please check out my post down thread about what Einstein discovered about the global warming psyop back in the 1940s.
What is coming is rather worse than a few feet of sea level rise. But why bother telling anyone as people would only panic.
Will read, thanks!
There is parable that I read, I do not recall where, perhaps on the site or over at Ecosophia, site of John Michael Greer, that I will paraphrase:
During a forest fire various animals gathered on the shore of lake for safety. There they saw a hummingbird dipping its legs, underside feathers into the water, and also taking a sip into its beak.
The hummingbird would then fly over the raging forest fire and do a shake to release a few drops and also squirt the water in its beak, over and over again. The forest animals saw this and were bewildered, Raven then asked Hummingbird, "What are you doing?" and Hummingbird answered "I'm doing my part to put out the fire."
The End
CANCEL believe I think it’s a collapse of belief IN bullshit
Climate change in the past has been normalized into the accepted narratives of history, but the little ice age was a bitch, and not at all evenly distributed.
Forgotten Climate Chronicles of 16th-Century Transylvania Hold a Dire Climate Warning
http://zmescience.com/ecology/climate/forgotten-climate-chronicles-of-16th-century-transylvania-hold-a-dire-climate-warning/
Climate shifts fueled famine, war, and the rise of empires.
Almost "everything" is delusion. Some delusion is intentionally misrepresented, and becomes lies.
Choose your poison ;-)
And there is recurring catastrophic bad-space-weather as our magnetic poles wander and magnetic shields collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2decDcEJqo&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw
We can't fall prey to false equivalences. What Gregoire is really writing about are the consequences of unfiltered free speech. The Clarion call to free speech has opened a Pandora's Box of lies, while traditional newspapers and television networks, once the main source of information in the public square, labor under editorial principles and redundancy (reporters have editors who themselves have publishers) Science has peer review. Both are imperfect as Fox News and the number of retracted scientific papers demonstrate, but we must avoid equating political speech and it's amplification through unfiltered social media with other forms of speech that are subject to some controls. I am no expert on climate change, but there are a number of well researched, peer-reviewed publications quantifying the additional rainfall or rapid intensification of hurricanes that can be tied directly to higher sea water temperatures and the ability of the air above to hold more moisture. In turn the trend to higher sea water temperatures is consistent with the effect of additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of the longer-term predictions may not come true because climate scientists failed to understand that there is not enough economically recoverable petroleum to support the models, but these shortcomings are not the same as the untested, unvetted, unfiltered speech that can be heard everyday from politicians and through their amplifiers on social media. Scientists frequently admit uncertainty with statistical confidence levels and other means, something you almost never hear with other forms of speech. If only a minority can make these distinctions, they are still worth fighting for.
I've often thought about this conundrum - the constant lies by the establishment makes convincing people they are not lying about climate change impossible.
Ironically, it's probably the case that many people within the establishment peddling lies - on covid NOT being from the Wuhan lab, on Biden being sharp as a tack, on constant terrorist attacks in Europe being perfectly normal - understand these are lies, and therefore also falsely believe climate change is just another one of these lies. So basically most people, including much of the establishment, believes climate change isn't real.
We're doomed.
Did you not see my post on what Einstien had to say about global warming. What they are not telling you is that the magnetosphere is collapsing which is causing temperatures to rise and a lot of other stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2decDcEJqo&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw
Einstein's mind was exercised by the question of how much energy was needed to evaporate 400ft of sea water at the start of the last ice age in order to create 2 miles of ice over much of the northern hemisphere. All that heat and all that cold both at the same time.
If you like a good detective story then finding out why it has been necessary to come up with this silly global warming nonsense could be the most exiting adventure you have ever been on without leaving your front door.
"The Adam and Eve Story" by Chan Thomas would be a good place to start.
Suffice to say that the CIA's grubby finger prints are all over this particular psyop.
Interesting question, it's another analysis of the "tragedy of the commons": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons .
The answer is that INDIVIDUALLY the right answer is to live without care of any consequence that is not directly affecting ourselves or that have an automatic sharing effect: polluting is an automatic sharing event because the consequences are "shared" by nature to all and doesn't affect only the polluter...
The answer also is that COLLECTIVELY the consequences are more important more individuals they affect, a small imposed lost that affect all humanity is quite a problem even if individually could not be even perceived.
We have to ask ourselves what we are doing and why, it's quite important to understand that there is no universal "right things" or similar in human world because all is based on perception and frame.
One interesting book to read is Justine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_(de_Sade_novel) ) because show a good point of view about vice and virtues, to understand it is important to know that the author wrote it during his detention in the Bastille during the French Revolution by a nobleman that pissed off both revolutionaries and the restructured monarchy! The problem is that it framed "virtue" as a selfish act at the same level as the various deranged and degenerated that interact with the main heroine, arguing that all are acting equally on their selfish desires.
Today we are subject to a lot of contrasting information and believes, usually the "truth" is not even considered because it's "relativized" to the individual perception, philosophically we have been driven to accept "truth" as a personal experience, so there is a complex of truths that are different for every human but that have parts shared between groups, the meme concept!
We are being lied from any other human being as a rule because at best we share SOME of the meme (truth) of other and usually are exposed to competing meme, during the past the situation was far less extreme because belief were strong linked to direct survival of the individual and the community in which he lived, so truth had a meaning in "what keep me alive" and because accidents happen to survive was needed that the most of the community survive. Less energy the system have more the "truth" will fall back to that primitive, common, grounded state.
As rule more complex is a system, more description (models) we could have of it and anyone could be tailored to predict effects based on different variables (truth), if we look at a set of variables we will find one or at best a small fraction of the possible model that work, so the other could logically be described as wrong (lies).... The system is always the same, truth or lies change with the description (model), what is important is the outcome we are looking for and the variables that we could manipulate, the path is to choose an outcome and look at what we can change to create a model to get there.
Climate change is moot.
Sort of like that one extra sock you never use because you never found the missing one.
How does anybody know what the truth is, I treat everything that’s been touched by the internet as suspect. Take Climate Change (CC), let’s say using University of Google it say’s, just for argument sake, a pole of 900,000 say it’s not the result of human activity, and 500,000 say CC is the result of human activity, and that for arguments sake that’s actually true. None of us know what biases were written into the algorithm, particularly an AI’s algorithm, as it might be game playing for whatever reason. The polling could be totally imaginary, and if you asked for it to be verified I’m sure the AI could provide imaginary proof. I don’t trust anything that comes via the internet. We now live in a physical world full of fantasy. So what does that tell us, it tells us (humanity) we are so Fu%&ed🤔
I've lost my respect for you.
Jakub, please explain why.