The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[esldude]

25 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

You really don't want to give this young woman the benefit of the doubt do you, esldud? You really think there's some kind of conspiracy here, and that she is a 'pawn.' Nice way to deny her power as an individual. She is terrified, as we all should be, and instead of waiting around for the adults to do something, has vocalized the panic most kids feel these days.

 

Obviously NOT panicking hasn't done shit, so it is time to panic and instill fear. It's human to put off difficult duties, but the time has come to put politics and machismo aside and start doing something. You know it's not the planet that's going to die - it's been here billions of years and will be here at least another billion, even if it's just a hard cold rock with some bacteria. No, it's humans that are going to die in the end. As DJT would say, 'A great beautiful death, or at least I heard from somebody it will be. But what do I know? Might be death, might be life." 

 

I am giving her every benefit of the doubt.  I believe she is telling us the truth about what she believes and feels.  She also is a political pawn even if willing or unaware.  No conspiracy is needed for any of that.  I'll grant her all the individual power she is due as an adult.  And no most kids don't feel the panic she does these days.  Too many do.  Her feeling this panicked fear daily is unhealthy and unwarranted.  

 

If you think trying to solve what is probably the most complex and deadly important problem ever to face humans worldwide is to panic and instill fear I hope you have very little influence over people or say so in the matter.  A healthy concern for and real effort to fix the problem is needed and will require many many years.  Panic is the last thing needed.  It would be deadly to have a majority of a whole generation panic about this. A Manhatten style project for this is one thing, but it isn't panic. 

 

EDIT: oh yeah, not panicking hasn't worked so let us panic.  Or maybe not ignoring it hasn't worked so less ignore it.  Or maybe not starving off people so there is less energy needed hasn't worked so less starve off a few billion to save everyone else.  I'd hope you had the logical capabilities of a 16 year old, but it looks like you are more around an 8 year old.  

[esldude]

1 minute ago, wdw said:

 

We should be afraid!

You show up on an audiophile site with a signature and a series of posts showing an attitude suggesting we are all idiots so it is no surprise to me that you are a roughly a climate denier with a, what appears to be,  slavish deference to authority...that is so completely obvious.  

So, please, take your particular malevolence, stuff it, and not use it to abuse this young woman.  Just mock audiophiles, please.

You don't pay attention very well.  You let your quick judgment of a stereotype for who I am blind you to what I've actually posted.  

 

I am not, nor have I ever been a global warming denier.  I don't even like the euphemism of climate change, because it is global warming we are talking about.  You might want to re-think this and actually read what I post without the filters about who you thought I was or what you thought I think. 

 

Global warming caused by human activity it is and a huge problem which we are very late in coming together to deal with.  Yet knowing how things are, I think expecting a complete turn around in so much we do in one generation or so is being blind to the history of humanity.  This kind of quick response was a fairy tale that was never going to happen.  So take that into consideration and do something meaningful and enough with the knee jerk bull shite.   I'm also not one who thinks we should ignore it and continue with business as usual because it is "too big a problem".   And still I'm not happy with using children and creating fear and panic in them.  If global warming causes the problems expected it will cause plenty of problems.  But Greta Thunberg doesn't have good reason to experience panic and fear from now till the end of her days.  Perhaps her grandchildren will have good reason for that.  

 

You can't fix a problem if you approach it unrealistically.  That is why I don't care for how she is being used.  We need some realism and sober assessment of the issue to move forward.  Not some social gimmick of panic in our children growing up.  

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

 

You used panic so I ran with it; how about grave concern instead? No, panic doesn’t work in here and now, life and death situations, but ‘panic’ for abstract things like this can work as a wake up call.  Look at the freaking weather - you may not be panicking but there sure are a lot of people that are, esp in the Caribbean and Gulf states. And most of them are adults. Perhaps they should just take a more measured approach - maybe pitching a few rolls of paper towels at them will Make Everything Great Again. 

 

And I’d rather be an illogical eight year old than a grown man who’s so full of themselves they feel the need to take down a sixteen year old girl from Sweden on a mission to try and save us from ourselves. 

I live in the gulf states area.  The people here have less concern than they should.  You apparently also stereotyped me like wdw did as a climate denier.  I'm not.  And I'm not trying to take down a 16 year old girl.  She should be protected and guided to make a real difference.  Her well expressed genuine fear is another sort of wake up call.  Just not the one you seem to prefer.  Not the one that makes you feel righteous as a grown man based upon the notoriety of a 16 year old girl's fear.  You should feel ashamed she feels this way.  

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

Would you agree that it's declining massively more rapidly now?

Perhaps the little girl won't live to be 30... Not that this isn't already happening in some areas of the globe.

 

You were the one should guilt trip, not me.

She may not live to be 30 as she is so fearful and panicked daily.  Nothing to do with climate change.  

 

I'd place a sizable wager that the world population will be larger in 14 years (when Greta is 30) than it is now.  Care to put up?  

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It was Greta's self-induced panic that triggered the alert.

 

And the fact of the matter is that the problem can only be solved through a change in paradigm, meaning political and economical model.

 

The ultra-liberal free-market consumerist US model of society has to go.

In my lifetime I've never felt such an ideological gulf in the Atlantic as I do now. The US I am sorry to note is no longer leader, no longer the beacon. It's becoming increasingly a sub-developed country with a few pockets of developed nation.

So are you fearful the next time Europe needs saving from itself the USA won't be there to pull you out again?  You could be right.  

[esldude]

38 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The causes of climate change don't only affect our habitat but also increase poverty and reduce access to clean water. Life expectancy has been decreasing in the poorer North of England for a few years now because of this.

Ms Thunberg has talked of an existential threat.  It may come to that one day.  I say if she thinks her existence is under threat in her normal lifetime or even that of her children she is woefully mistaken.  If she believes what isn't true, then she'd be open to very misguided decisions about policy that effects people.  

 

Ms Thunberg has said she won't pursue a career in science or technology because it isn't a best fit for her.  I agree, but I don't wont her or her overly fearful ilk calling the shots.  It is science and technology that will supply the solution if one is possible.  

 

So what level of standard of living are you willing to call good enough?  You've posted consumerism spreads and the earth suffers.  I've seen analysis years ago that if Chinese citizens manage to meet the lowest part of middle class existence as it is defined in western countries you'd need the resources of about 3 earths to supply that.  So how about it, where do you call it?  How do you handle it?  You have posted we must end free markets as seen in the US, so what do you offer as a superior replacement in its place?  We can see some problems with things, but do you have a better idea which is really going to benefit the world in toto?  

 

I suggest instead of some radical break, we evolve a better solution  more slowly and soberly.  Due to politics, and culture, and the lack of a unified humanity that is the only path open.  It may be too slow, but I don't see other choices that are clear cut winners.  To wager some pie in the sky once and for all fix is what you'd expect from fearful and panicked people.  Stop spreading FUD.  Look at the issues and fix them one at a time as best we can.   Sure in retrospect vs whatever happens one could see a better path to have taken, but as long as it works well enough then that is all you are going to get.  You don't get do overs in the real world. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

 

This is the most ridiculous thing you've written yet. Daily? If I was on the world stage I would act how I want the world to hear my message. So she should just be a polite girl and not talk except when spoken to, and never on difficult subjects? Go back to the Victorian Age please (or are you just stuck in the 1950's?). And you don't know anything about her except from her few weeks of media appearances. Anyone that can pilot a boat across the Atlantic on their own isn't just wallowing in depression and self pity.

 

And she totally owned Trump on Twitter (replacing his backhanded insult as her bio), proving that she has a thick skin and a sense of humor, neither of which our current President has. Lets not even begin about the ability to take the higher road....

You really should pay more attention.  She has said more than once she feels fear daily.  She has said she started the protests because if she sat at home she was unhappy and fearful about the world.  She has said she wants the adults to feel her daily fear and panic.  So those are her words not mine.  

 

I'm not saying she shouldn't speak.  But make no mistake she is a media darling other people are using for the publicity.  The manner in which she describes climate related problems of the near future aren't in line with reality.  It is fear mongering even if she genuinely feels that fear. 

 

And no she didn't pilot a boat across the Atlantic.  She was ferried with father on the Malizia II skippered by Pierre Casiraghi and Boris Herrmann (a grandson of the prince of Monaco) and a cameraman.  This on a high tech carbon fiber racing boat which cost $4 million plus.  I'll give her credit for trying to live what she preaches more than say Al Gore.  On the other hand, they are flying another crew over on jet airliners to sail the boat back.  So like most such things just a show put on for the cause.  The owner says he wants to highlight that there are alternatives to jet flights for cross Atlantic travel.  I wonder if he'd show up and sail me to Europe for the cost of a plane ticket?

 

 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

 

I feel ashamed my ten year old lives in fear of climate change. And we make a point to not talk about it at home (though he's actually better about it now than three years ago). Please just stop with the 'being used' meme. You, Mansr etc should be ashamed of that. Why can't young people have a voice? Or better, young people should have a voice. Just like with Parkland, they're the ones most at risk, yet are constantly told that they're not mature enough , or just let the adults handle it (right...). 

 

And FTR I can read: I never thought you were a climate change denier - in fact much of what you say makes sense - though imo we need to start fast, not slow, as slow isn't working. You're just oddly conservative and triggered for some reason by this passionate young woman. 

So your 7 year old daughter(3 years ago) was fearful enough you have to avoid the subject?  I'm sorry for you.  It shouldn't be that way.  This is what I don't like. 

 

It isn't being triggered it is about the unreality of it all.  It is about filling a generation of people with unreasonable fear during the years they are growing up.  That should not be happening.  This particular girl, Ms. Thunberg, is being used to hype up that same out-sized fear for the future.  One of the reasons she or someone like her is used is because everyone's natural reaction to any criticism is that mean old people are attacking this concerned little girl.  

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

40 inches of rain in East Texas from a storm that didn't even make it to hurricane status (second "thousand year event" there in what, 3 years?), Downtown Miami has 30 days a year of "sunny day flooding" and is on track for 150 days in 20-30 years, and we're worried that Ms. Thunberg is scaring the kids too much? I'm more worried she isn't scaring the (supposed) adults enough.

Don't become part of the hype.  2nd 1000 year event in 25 months.  

 

It is estimated Texas is seeing what were considered 100 year rain events about 4 times that rate now.  So yes a problem.  

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Ms. Thunberg is telling us the truth about climate change, not just her feelings.  (unless I missed something in her stmts.)

 

There are 3 major effects of  climate change:

1. global warming

2. ocean acidification

3. shifts that favor plants using certain photosynthetic pathways (which favor high CO2) - that is now causing disruption of some ecosystem types in the US, and is a major contribution to extinction of some bird species

 

I left out ocean deoxygenation as I don't know how major an effect it is.

 

Human civilization may well be imperiled by climate change, or it may just be set back somewhat - perhaps a few centuries.  I call it the "New Dark Ages."

 

And I am an optimist among my scientific peers.

 

I consider it sufficiently important that I moved from one research area to another, as well as doing some other things.

 

Dennis, I don't think you grasp the clear danger, and suggest you read the latest IPCC reports or at least the summaries.

I do grasp the danger.  I have read the IPCC report summaries and some parts of the reports themselves. 

 

I too think it might well result in a new dark age.  I think it is far enough along given the constraints of the world there is very little chance to keep things under 2 degrees.  I think more effort should be put toward how best to mitigate the effects on humans in the future.  As well as how to bring things back in line eventually.  

 

I don't think there is a good clear path to accomplish that which is feasible to implement.  It is a big nasty problem.  

 

So give me an idea of workable fixes.  I know of things that would work or be a step in the right direction, but you'll never get much of the world to go along.  How do you feed the world population without ruining the economies that supply that food?  Sure if you don't do something the climate may stop that supply of food in time anyway.  You'll be asking those in developed countries to impoverish to some extent their own children's future in order to help other people's unborn children.  People are selfish and aren't likely to do that.  What level of standard of living do you shoot for or limit people to living?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

workable fixes?

 

workable mitigation includes rapid deployment of solar PV, nukes (not rapid), NG as a transition fuel, and quite a few other things

 

due to the lag time (or dwell time in the atmosphere) of CO2 there is no workable fix - carbon capture is in R&D right now

 

- your posts don't appear to comport with the reading you've done, so I think you are not coming across well

 

 

I must not be coming across well.  I've indeed done the reading.  

 

Emissions in the USA of carbon is largest for electricity and transportation.  Transportation could be most easily reduced by having people buy efficient vehicles.  Unfortunately the Obama administration let the auto industry jury rig the new guidelines which resulted in the entirely predictable result that we have lots more pickup trucks and SUVs, only they are even larger than before.  Cars are more efficient, but a couple makers are going to mostly stop building cars (they don't sell anyway).  Then the current administration will either delay or rollback even those feeble standards.  It would have been relatively easy to reduce that part of the contribution by 50% without much loss to consumers (actually would have saved them money too).  I use fairly small and efficient machines myself, but I can't make all the other people stop buying those big ass vehicles they want so badly.   The late T Boone Pickens wanted to convert most large trucks to natural gas away from diesel.  But he couldn't convince people to do that.  Nothing infeasible about this except politically. 

 

Current costs for electricity make solar and wind a bit better than natural gas.  Coal is nearly double the cost of gas and is for that reason phasing itself out for economic reasons.  That takes time unless you want to take the hit for banning coal in short order and forcing a switch over to natural gas.  Solar so far is only a couple percent of the total, but should grow pretty well over time.  

 

Nuclear is good, but very long build out times and electrical cost probably triples.  Is it worth that to reduce carbon emissions?  That is a hard question to answer.  I've seen where long term mitigation of climate factors indicates it is worth it.  Those were obviously very rosy predictions for nuclear advocates, and ignore that the cost is displaced from one group to another.  Wealthier nations pay more, and poor nations are spared ill effects.  Everyone is spared those effects, but it would hurt poor the most if nothing happens.  Again something of a political problem as well as an economic one. 

 

I'd think at least US emissions could be reduced 40% of the total for all sources in the next 20 years if things are done right.  But they aren't being done right or at all.  Then all we need is someone to straighten out China and India.  China is nearing double the carbon emissions of the US currently.  US carbon emissions are going down.  Not as fast as the EU, but in the right direction.  Even then manage to reduce carbon output by 50% and we still only have something like 30 years by which time it either needs to be near zero or we have to come up with carbon removal that works on large scale.  

 

I've thought for about 45 years that one way or another we'll eventually be powered by solar, nuclear (and hopefully one day fusion).  They are the only sources that make sense long term.  The only sources large enough for the whole world in the future even if not everyone reaches median standards of living for western countries.  

 

I've thought a good approach for developing countries is solar.  It is getting to be the least expensive way.  I think maybe they shouldn't follow western countries example.  Maybe they shouldn't attempt 24 hr power generation.  Have power in the daytime.  Have factories that only run in the daytime so on and so forth.  Not a bad idea for everyone else when it can be done.  Having humans work 24 hrs a day isn't natural anyway.  Wouldn't be everything you might want, but could still improve their lives vs now. 

 

And still this is not going to be enough. 

[esldude]

https://climatefeedback.org/

 

Maybe someone can send Ms Thunberg this link.  It might calm her anxiety a bit sometimes.  This is a very fair and balanced site.  Not climate denying, nor fear mongering.  

 

Responses are by scientists with expertise in the field of climate science. 

 

Here is an example rebutting Stephen Hawkings claiming Trump could cause a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus. 

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/

 

Or this one rebutting a Washington Examiner and Zero Hedge article about the failure of climate models.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/

 

Or this one where they confirm an NBC news story on climate change was accurate.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/nbc-news-story-accurately-covers-research-on-two-millennia-of-climate-history-jaclyn-jeffrey-wilensky/

 

 

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, shtf said:

Before some of you get too worked up over Greta's angry speech, why not spend some time reading up on Club of Rome?  If you do, you should discover that it was David Rockefeller (the grand daddy of US globalism) and his globalist buddies who in I think 1978 at Rockefeller's vacation home in Rome conceived of the idea of creating a global crisis that the entire world could rally around and contribute their resources to.  They called it Global Warming.  If you do your research there, you should easily discover why they did it (it ain't pretty) and why some of you are evidence that their strategy is working rather well.

 

Maybe then you can fast forward to 2009 and google ClimateGate and there you should discover that some of you have been duped for decades (by scientists no less) and there you'll also discover why overnight they ceased using the phrase Global Warming and now use the phrase Climate Change.

 

And if you think all this is joke, why not spend a few moments to research what some of the globalists' ultimate goals are.  Try googling Georgia Guidestones and there you'll see in 10 languages the globalists 10 tenets / suggestions for mother earth.

 

I know, I know.  Some of you are thinking I'm just another nutty conspiracy theorist but that's not true at all.  I'm just smarter than some of you. 

It was 1968 for the Club of Rome.  I've seen the Georgia Guidestones. The boat Greta used to travel the ocean was originally named Edmond de Rothschild.  It's current name translates as "the Wily one".   Some of us are being duped I'm sure of it. I assume you've read the Creature from Jekyll Island.  

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

Another excellent site for climate science: http://www.realclimate.org/

Yes good site. I've read it now and again for more than a decade.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, shtf said:

 

It's nonsensical that you think I somehow was comparing Greta to Nazis.  I was merely illustrating how perverted governments and globalists use similar tools to promote their propaganda.  See below.  Perhaps I could have substititued your charicature in place of Greta's but I don't have one.  Please send me one.

 

In case you're unaware, one of the Third Reich's many strategies was first indoctrinate the women, then the children, and the men will follow.  Have you noticed in recent weeks all the children protesting climate change?  If you wanna' follow the leadership of a brainwashed / indoctrinated 16-year old  girl with autism, that is your choice. 

 

As for George Soros, yes, to the best of my knowledge he's a major player in this new world order / globalist movement.  Far more engaged than even somebody like David Rockefeller, if that were even possible.  But he's still a puppet.  As for jews, not sure why you bring them up, except that Soros himself is jewish and was a traitor to his own. 

 

What are you insinuating?  That Soros doesn't exist?  That he's not a globalist or that he's not caused great damage to the US and to other nations?  That globalism is good thing led by those who care about you and your family?

 

It's been said that condemnation without investigation gives clear evidence of indoctrination and I'd venture you've substatiated that with your response here.  Then again, if all of your news comes from NPR and mainstream media, well, that's still a choice you made long ago and you have only yourself to blame. 

 

Speaking of which, feel free to research operation mockingbird that was started in the 1950's and continues to this day.  Or since you don't seem too keen on research maybe you can learn something from this 43 sec excerpt of a speech David Rockefeller gave at the Council on Foreign Relations back in 1991.  That could give you some insight.  Unless of course you think the CFR itself is a branch of gov't including a group of really nice people who have your best interest in mind. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZD7pDPK7N8

 

Yes Soros funds lots of things that appear to me not good for America.  And not by accident.  And yes, it is a strategy to indoctrinate or draw in the women, then the children, and the might of the men is nulled out.  The men end up following.  Definitely not by accident. 

 

Let us see, just an off the top of my head example is the DA in Chicago, who "mis-handled" the Jussie Smollett Hoax crime.  Yes Kimberly Foxx.  She was largely funded by Soros to get that position.  She is on a list of a couple dozen DA's who were funded by Soros money.  They all follow a similar pattern too.  Ignore or wipe off the books petty crimes (because it is racist).  Drop prosecution of such things selectively.  The selection is obvious too.  

[esldude]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Soros believes in democracy and is/was a serious anti-Communist. 

Some may or may not agree with some of his opinions, but those who  portray him as part of some sort of anti-US cabal are mistaken. He apparently has a different idea of what a society/democracy should be like than many people. 

We can disagree with peoples opinions without thinking that those who don't think like us have nefarious motives. 

 

Note that I'm not specifically referring to you here. 

Well I disagree with his opinions very strongly.  I think he is transparent about what he thinks, but I disagree to the point I think they are nefarious.  Maybe not a nefarious plot with others, but nefarious.  He has the resources to approach this from several angles and does.  It isn't a conspiracy with anyone except himself.  He is a naturalized US citizen.  I don't think his actions are making life in the USA (where he is a naturalized citizen) better.  

[esldude]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

Can I ask why it's important to emphasize that he's a "naturalized" citizen? Does that somehow make him less of a citizen?

I didn't emphasize it.  In the past I've heard people say he has no business spending money in US politics because he isn't a citizen.  He is a naturalized citizen.  That is different than a native citizen.  Not an emphasis just a description of how he is a citizen since many people know he is Hungarian by birth. 

[esldude]

7 hours ago, semente said:

What do you mean by America.

The continent?

The people who live in the continent?

The USofA?

The people who live in the USofA?

Some people who live in the USofA (privileged middle aged white men?

Business (originating from or based in the USofA)?

In the USA, people typically refer to America.  Yes actually there is north and south America and it isn't all the USA.  So yes by America I mean USA.  And yes the people who live here.  And while his actions make help one group while not another (which is usually the case with anything of significance) I believe in totality it is a negative for the USA's population overall.  For that matter I think the same of the Koch brothers (or as it now is the one Koch brother).  

[esldude]

3 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

 

My wife is a naturalized citizen. Never knew she was part of a giant globalist conspiracy to take over America and put all the stupid white conservative men in concentration camps.... actually, on second thought... maybe she's on to something... 

 

But I'll just stick to ignore lists, both of which esldude and sthf are now on ( they're the first). Threads like this are good for that. 

I see you are still displaying unusual talent for jumping to conclusions that don't make sense.  Pity you'll not see this since I'm on ignore. 

 

I described him as a naturalized citizen which he is.  I didn't say he was a globalist conspirator, in fact I said I thought there was no conspiracy, but he had the resources to apply influence in several ways that can make it look that way.  Yet somehow you dreamed up the idea I implicated naturalized citizens as naturally part of a conspiracy along with other motivations I never implied (in fact denied).  Since you have gotten all the facts wrong it is fine with me if you ignore my posts.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

People complain about George Soros but we never hear anything about how the Koch Brothers funded the Anti-global warming ideology. 

I started to mention the Koch Brothers, but figured it would lead to even more needless knee jerk reactions.  I think they are on the other side, and bad for the country as a whole.  And yes at least in my circle of acquaintances you would hear people complain about the Koch Brothers effect on politics.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I would say some part of that is very possibly due to the Asperger's. Folks on that part of the spectrum are often very intelligent but have an anomalous affect (using the psychological meaning of that word). So I cut her some slack in that regard.

I can cut her some slack on that too.  It is more the petulant child who will school the adults on how things not need to be done, but must be done that rubs me the wrong way.  

 

She follows the IPCC summary about how we have to reduce emissions by 50% in the next 30 or so years to keep the warming at 1.5 to 2 degrees C.  The next part is after that we have to be at zero emissions and/or start removal of carbon from the atmosphere on a large scale.  I've got bad news for you.  That latter part at least isn't going to happen.  I don't see a viable way to achieve that in such a time frame.  

 

So Greta Thunburg lays down the law about what we must do.  Says she isn't going to work in science as we already know what we need to do we simply have to stop emissions.  Well a child can think that way.  It isn't a winning formula for how to do it.  I also think she has been scared beyond reason about her future being stolen.  And yes I know what the future possibilities are in regards to what the IPCC report says can happen.  Making the bulk of the world effectively uninhabitable by humans is dire.  But that isn't in the cards for Greta Thunberg's lifetime.  

 

There are theoretical ways to achieve what is needed, but given the political nature of the world I fear it effectively cannot happen that quickly.  You always have a hard time convincing people to radically in very short time frames alter what they do for a future effect many alive won't experience all that much, and which doesn't become a total disaster until they are are gone.  No matter how certain it is. 

 

I still remember when the air was brown and much of the natural water was polluted like a sewer (or worse).  There has been excellent progress made in those the last 50 years.  The changes for that were much smaller than required to stop man made contributions to global warming.  Yet it was a hard sale at the time.  

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Puts me in mind of a couple of things: Kennedy saying we should go to the moon "not because it is easy, but because it is hard;" and the old GE engineers'(?) slogan, "The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer."

 

Plainly, saying we're not going to achieve lofty goals isn't a great way to motivate people to try. I'm more inclined toward "Dammit, let's do this or go down fighting!" than concentrating on how difficult or perhaps impossible it might be. And any 16 year old, let alone one as motivated and with as blunt a manner as Ms. Thunberg, might well react with anger to repeatedly being told the previous generations have screwed things up so irretrievably that she must allow us to continue comfortably sliding toward hell rather than try to fix anything.

 

BTW, she and the kids around her do have some sense of humor:

 

 

How are things working out for GE these days? It was just a slogan for marketing you know.  One that actually was used by the Army Corp of Engineers in WWII.  One similar to the saying of the Finance minister for Maria Antoinette and King Louis.  The fellow that attempted a far reaching financial reform to deal with France's debt.  Which precipitated the French Revolution.  His plan was to tax the noble wealthy to pay off France's debt.  He personally kept his head, but had to leave the country.  So I'd say the US Army made better use of the slogan.  

 

I find this meme of anger at prior generations curious too.  Doesn't matter, when Greta is an adult and the previous generation or two is gone, one can be angry all you want.  It isn't going to get you toward a solution.  I don't see how it usefully motivates people toward handling what they face.  It isn't true that prior generations used up your future to leave the mess for you in their minds.  They made the best decisions they could.  The result may be the same, but spending time on anger or placing blame doesn't get you anywhere.  Maybe it is harmless if it gets people's attention.  

[esldude]

56 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

No, prior generations did NOT make the best decisions they could.

I think collectively at the time they did. I certainly don't think they were thinking, " you know we could trash the future environment making it easier on us. So let's do that. We don't care about our grandchildren.".

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Politicians were thinking "how can I get elected" & biz people were thinking "I'll get mine" - to say nothing of the aggressive PR campaigns by the fossil fuel industry.

Sure, just like any business does.  Just like all politicians do.  I did use the word collectively, because there is this idea future generations won't forgive past generations.  I'd think that includes more than just execs and gov't officials.  

 

I think most people were going about their daily lives like anyone does and weren't thinking about screwing up the environment so they sure weren't thinking of I'll screw it up now, profit, and let the future take care the effects of that.  

 

So here is something I'd like to know, it is 1970.  The environmental movement which mostly was established in the 1960's was on lots of peoples minds, and politically could have a good effect.  So in broad outlines what could have been done differently so that we weren't in this rock and a hard place situation now with 10-30 years to make drastic changes.  You'll have the benefit of hindsight.  However I don't mean something ridiculous like, "suddenly in 1970 everyone would have seen how important being green was and would only have supported sustainable business or done without".  No that won't cut it. Because there was no chance that was going to happen.

 

Go ahead and dazzle me with how some of you would have fixed things starting then.  

 

There were of course some who knew about warming and sea level rise prior to 1970.  It wasn't generally linked to increased carbon emissions until the late 1950's though knowledge of carbon in the greenhouse effect was known long ago.  Lyndon Johnson was the first US president to mention sea level rise and the use of fossil fuels being linked.  So I think 1970 is a good starting point for how it could have been done differently and done better.  So I'd really like to see how the generations since WWII could have done far, far better. 

 

And once you've convinced me you could have done it right starting in 1970, you can outline viable ways to make it happen between now and 2050.  

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

It's been 31 years since James Hansen's Congressional testimony, longer since his work was initially published. Compare how short a time it took to ban DDT after Silent Spring. This is more like the time lapse between the Surgeon General's report in 1963 and the state lawsuits against the tobacco companies, and for similar reasons: a wealthy industry with political and media connections working feverishly to postpone the day of reckoning. 

I agree.  Doesn't seem like a reason to condemn an entire generation for sins of the past.  If anything currently wealthy entities have their ducks in a row to an unprecedented level to continue that kind of activity.