And in that vein of wanting more than the news media provide, there is plenty in the IPCC reports, for those interested. Here is a link to the Summary for Policymakers:
But you can dive quite deeply if you want with their technical reports that support this summary.
I repeat a term that I believe many fail to comprehend - perception is reality. Said another way - officials respond to the most vocal faction, so the most aggresive mouth get the attention, while the minority will simply be forced to comply. What you don’t know or can’t see won’t hurt you, like the 282 million obsolete cars that will be just so much trash. Right now, they’re distributed in ones and twos or more in virtually every driveway, parking lot or street. Imagine how high that pile is when they all get consolidated, and where will they eventuallly be consolidated. I imagine most readers though I was making a sick joke when I said a deep trench in the ocean . . . Nobody can imagine trash just being dumped in the ocean. What animates me are the idiots focusing on collecting the plastic waste swirling around in ocean currents. Have they first considered any effort to stop the dumping. I’m sure they probably have, but if somebody decided to dump it in the ocean because they didn’t have anywhere else to put it, the goodie is just collecting it and dumping here. What will they do with Indonesian trash when we run out of space. Does New York still barge their trash out to sea, along with the free food the undocumented vistors don’t eat. The food slop previously went to feed pigs, but I believe they stopped because it was tainting pig meat.
I like the comment that if you knew what was in scapple or hot dogs, you wouldn’t eat it. Everybody complains about pollution, yet we all the feel of a roaring campfire. Why not give it up for an efficient stove and eat air dried fruit and meat. That’s coming. So is a ban on the wood burning stoves and fireplaces in the home, or the barbeque grill, charcoal grills . . . Why wait. Just ban it now, or enjoy it while you can. It’s a personal choice.
Indeed not.
Perception is how individuals see, understand, or interpreting things. Different individuals perceive things differently.
Reality is how things actually are. It is not subject to the judgments or biases of different individuals.
And I thought we were disageeing, howevrr the correct text book defenition doesn’t change anything does it, because they’re both factually right from their perspective, aren’t they. At least we agree 
, and both will go to their grave insisting that they are both right. The one thing missing is that neither is smart enough to see reality, but one will eventually overpower the other, treating him like an imbecile who denied science, humanity, religion and common sense. The evil done to the idiot will be rationalized that the end justifies the means. That’s why one side wants to disarm the other, but the other side won’t allow that, because they fear what will happen to them. You might laugh, but I remember a current president saying what good are your M16s when I have F16s. In the next breath, he says, "We need to get along . . . Meaning: as long as you agree with me. Perception is reality.
I’m still waiting for the scientists to tell me what we plan to do with the 282 million cars and how do we manufacture that many EVs to replace them, and what happens when the 50% of the gas stoves are converted to electric, or how the shop I work for will afford to heat the building with electric when he can’t afford the fuel oil, and what happens in Florida when whole swaths remain without power and they wont be able to even get away. I need to have answers to that before I get sidetracked with statistics and certainudes. Actually, I don’t disagree with the global warming part. Im on board with that. My concern are the juvenile fixes.
Yes, they are both right from their perspective (e.g. perception), but only one can be factually right.
What really is reality even in science it is often a moving target. We are talking about a reality that implies the end of the human race if not corrected. That you would think would catch the attention of the majority of the population of the world pretty fast. If I’m convinced that @castoff is correct and the true reality is that “we are rapidly deconstructing the web of life” and we have had the science known to us for 26 years, and the media hasn’t been buzzing non stop for at least the last 20 years on this subject. Why isn’t Al Gore or Greta talking about phytoplankton if “you can’t get back the time frame that has meaning for mankind”.
There are other realities when we talk about the end of humanity that are not based in any of the common fields of science, but rather in the science of economics. Or even political science. My parents spent their young adulthood during the great depression and watched much of the humanity surrounding them end because of poor social science. The world and the country then had nowhere near the pressure of population it has today and the people caught in it were way more self-sufficient than the people today.
In my mind if the phytoplankton problem is 10,000 years away till it kills us all and the rising seas are 5,000 years away until they kill us all, then maybe we shouldn’t kill us all in 20 years by shutting down the world by making a rapid correction that may kill us with the solution to the problem.
The folks in Sri Lanka as I mentioned before had a super great idea to do their part. They didn’t go all in just one little change of stopping the use of chemical fertilizer made from evil fossil fuels. In just a year they almost killed off their humanity with crop failures. They went from a place of being an exporter of food to Thank God an importer. The resulting tail spin economically spread into every facet of their existence. Picture that happening to say North America.
I roll all this into my processing of the “science” and organizations like the UN telling the world this has to happen now.
Then I like others here don’t disregard the argument by the counter scientist and I’m not talking Joe Rogan. But rather past members of the IPCC and other well accredited climate scientists saying wait a minute we did not say that. I have posted links and videos before of their takes, but there is a cancel culture that doesn’t debate them but labels them as aluminum foil hat wearers. None of them are climate deniers that I have seen, but paint a far different picture of the problem and solution. They always find something in their past like they once worked on a project that had a grant from an oil company or something and that’s proof their science is distorted science.
In my mind and I have tried to find “Reality” over this issue and have concluded if this is truly an issue that as I’m told will be the end of mankind, it should easily boil down to black or white and I have yet to see it.
It gets confusing when Greta misquotes a scientist in 2018 and warns the end of humanity will come if fossil fuels are not stopped in the next five years. Of course she didn’t say humanity will end in five years nor did the scientist she said she quoted and 2023 rolled around and nothing happened except she made the tweet vanish after someone pointed it out he was still alive. The problem is a whole large group of young people had depression over these kind of issues and felt like why try. People on the fringe of these issues are for some reason pushing a desperation about this and the population or about half the population is feeling the rhetoric to be the science.
Again for anyone reading if we change nothing and keep doing what we are doing now with energy, tell me within a span of say 100 years when will the first person will die from the CO2 phytoplankton problem? Can you also tell me or take a guess even within 100 years when will the CO2 phytoplankton problem will wipe out humanity?
In a 66 year time span we went from the first powered air flight to landing on the moon and returning back to earth. That’s easily one life span could have seen both events. That era was powered by fossil fuel that made both events happen. If we are talking the next 100 years and that technology is not at all linear over the span of mankind, I have to say I have faith we can figure it out. That is if we don’t get stupid and put ourselves back to 1903. We might have produced more CO2 than other countries in the last 100 years, but look at what we have given the rest of the world.
But they both know theu are factually right, but they are not lookingbat the whole picture. They lack insight and are too stupid to realize it. Maybevits tunnel vision. Are you not seeing that? Its crystal clear to me!
That’s my fear! Everybody talking and nobody listening. Do something! Anything! Anything is better than nothing. Even if the solution is . . . untenable with unexpected consequences that are worse than the original threat. It’s ok, as long as you know you’re right.
Anyone who is troubled by all of this has the time and resources to think they have input that can possibly matter.
For the majority of people worldwide Maslow’s heirarchy is their driver. It’s difficult to think "outside the box " when you’re hungry ,thirsty, cold, or being shot at.
I probably have the wrong heirarchy but Flotsam will correct me in 1000 words or more.
That mankind is driving these changes is well established by the body of the scientific evidence. It is the reason I present it. That we can do things to offset it is also true. The rate of change isn’t as immediate as a large asteroid impact. But it’s orders of magnitudes greater than the length of interglacial/glacial periods that have been driving factors of biological change during this time period on earth. It’s not tunnel vision to see that changes need to be made.
It’s not tunnel vison to evacuate before a fire or hurricane. It is sensible. We don’t have a place to go we just have this planet. So, evacuation isn’t an option.
It is probably more sensible to build a fire break and to do controlled burns to prevent the fire from forming or spreading in the first place. To build homes on higher ground and to have building codes so the homes can survive the on slot of the wind and flooding. That way you don’t suffer the same economic impact of property and job losses.
I am aware of the environment costs of all kinds of mining not just lithium. I wonder if those complaining about the impact of lithium mining are going to give up their electric devices like smart phones and laptops and all their other lithium rechargeable battery devices.
There is lithium available to be mined in this country, a lot of it apparently. But there is rapid and constant research on improving battery tech and new materials to replace the use of lithium. Sand batteries for power storage on a large scale at solar farms and wind farms that will absorb the excess electric production for later use when it’s dark or windless. There has come out a sodium car battery that is cheaper to produce, the downside is the range and energy density are less, but the concept is to replace the battery at a battery station in 15 minutes and continue on down the road. There is a lot of out of box thinking taking place. Things aren’t standing still. This is just some of the recent stuff going on.
What I view as tunnel vison is being stuck in the past.
As for Maslow’s hierarchy it is concerned with the levels of needs being met to reach self-actualization. However, I get what you are saying. I think that puts the onus of making the world a better place squarely on the shoulders of those that have the time, freedom, and money to make those changes. There are many things wrong in this world, but reducing our carbon footprint isn’t one of them.
You’re on track.
As for 282 million cars being junked all at once, I doubt it. There are 12 to 15 million cars scrapped every year. Of that 282 million cars they will mostly be scrap in about 20 years.
That number of 12 to 15 million represents normal replacement, and with that limited normal turnover, there were problems finding new cars, with the exception of EVs, which are not selling, because people don’t want them. So the solution is to eliminate the option in the next 11 years and make EVs the only option. When the replacement rate is 12 to 15 million a year, deleting 282 million and replacing them with 282 million new cars that use more complex technology is goingbto be a snap with a government administration that stopped the availability of baby formula. That don’t hurt me - I ain’t got no babies to feed! Couldn’t find cream cheese or eggs; couldn’t find nothin and knobody could tell you why. The guy responsible for the transportation sector was feeding his baby and riding a bike. Didn’t have no computer chips for them dang infernal combustion engines. We can solve that problem. Just make electric cars. They don’t need no stupid computer chips. It’s bloody juvenile, and it reads like a hollywood script. We’re approaching the point where rose petals fall from the sky.
The more this topic is discussed, the more quesey I feel. There is no plan for an easy transition. There is no parachute, just a knotted rope. I’m 72 now. This is going to be a long, slow and painful death. Anybody have some more statistics to ease my torment.
Yes… swapping out batteries.
I worked in a factory that used a lot of electric forklifts / towmotors. As a rule they would run for a shift and then sit idle while being charged. If they ran out of juice before the end of the shift they would get a battery change. I had assumed that when we converted to electric cars we’d be stopping in at battery exchange stations if our cars ran out of juice before we got to our destinations (home chargers); like swapping propane tanks for grills.
Battery stations would replace gas stations.
I’m reading that Buc ee’s has lots of Tesla supercharging stations. Looks like that’s the future.
Why not just swap cars like the E-bikes I see sitting around big cities. Build a couple hundred million E-cars and set them at the ends of mass public transportation hubs. E-cash is just around the corner so you wand your card over a pad and the car unlocks and you rent it for a combined time and power amount. You will get in tell it where you are going and it will self-drive you there. Once there it will ether wait for you or like an uber take off and move someone else or go to the nearest charging hub and charge itself. You will have no reason to own a car it will be part of the collective and a drivers license will be a thing of the past. Just like traffic cops and speeding tickets. There will be no auto accidents as the AI that runs the system will be all knowing. You will be 100% safe and comfortable along with relaxing or being productive during your journey.
Now there will be an issue if you say want to go canoeing or kayaking. That will be solved just like the car issue as the E-car will take you to the nearest rec area where a paddle boat will be waiting for rental. Along your adventure rental experience there will be periodic stopping points with the entire camping experience waiting. Little worries about drowning as the whole selected section of water way will be patrolled by AI drones and the water temp will be maintained a constant 76 degrees. Rescue will never be more than a few seconds away. That of course will be reserved for the wealthiest of us. Those of less importance to the collective wont be able to afford that but will be able to pay for a simulation paddle experience. It will be pretty realistic though all done with 64k video. When people see the photos we post of a sim artic canoe trip they will ask was that real or not.
The benefit of all this is we wont really have to work in the new era of a pollution free world so we will have lots of spare time to do all kind of fun things the AI will think up and allow us to do.
I will try and sort thru the logic here. The occurrence of a large asteroid impact would for sure be a major climate change factor and could happen at any time. I gather we are somewhat looking out for such things but then again we would have zero control over the outcome. So it become of concern based on I would assume a very low probability happening that a day and time prediction would be hard to make way in advance and if it were to happen soon we would have no control of.
Likewise we will have little control of the interglacial cycle that happens about every 100,000 years. Our CO2 production the manmade component is truly causing some effect though and if we are speaking about some order of magnitude less than the 100,000 years according to your prediction of when the problem will be catastrophic for mankind are we say talking 1,000 years say for the first person to die from lack of O2 and then 10,000 years till extinction.
I agree the time to act is as much in advance as possible. To take your example of a hurricane say and I live in say Fla I know with almost 100% certainty that there will be a hurricane in the next 10 years that would be dangerous. So of course if I’m building a new home I should build it with the idea of a hurricane in mind. But should I start my evacuation today for a hurricane that may happen a year from now or ten years from now?
Here is what the UN is telling us. It is what the media has ran with (or worse) and we are being told 2030 is the point where we need to cut CO2 in half worldwide to have any chance. That’s just 7 years away and that has to be followed closely with “net zero”.
This all sounds good and is a lofty plan to save the world for sure. Nowhere in the plan do I see the socioeconomic implications of following the plan?
The USA has made some progress. I get lead by example and all that. But countries like China and India to name a couple are not going to cut CO2 output by 50% in the next 7 years it is not in Chinas 100 year plan. If anything they are going in the other directions making the goods we will need to try and make our goals. As I’m always told we all share one big world.
What I want to know is if the IPCC plan is based in real world reality. Even if I accept their science and the science may well be different than the plan. I’m pretty sure of that.
What good is taking on the implications of a plan that we know wont work, vs keep going. Like the Wright Brothers showed us in 66 years we will be flying to the moon and back.
My reaction to those who see claim to things with crystal clarity and who know they’re right:
I grin and nod and back away slowly and I hear Paul Simon’s The Boxer (“… a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…”) playing in the background.
I’m almost 65 and I sure hope I’m not alive to live this scenario…
