On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:54:16 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> Canada has suffered awful wild fires, USA is now suffering floods.
>
> When will America start doing ANYTHING significant about radically cutting emissions? They still don't get it.

Don't most Americans feel that $ucce$$ is more important that anything else? Even survival?:

- Not even a collapsing world looks dark to a man who is about to make his fortune.

E.B. White

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:58:48 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
> > According to this:
> >
> > - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
> >
> > https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html
> Hilary:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNXFjrF3WPk

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/historic-draught-colorado-river-california-nevada-arizona-water-crisis-1234816087/

I've been saying this for AGES.......

“Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability," said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. "However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural."

In Deutsche Bank's outline of economic history over the last few centuries, growth has been the tide that lifts all boats, a “game changer for health and living standards.”

But if climate change makes a sustainable path forward for growth untenable, then our modern societal organization around this economic policy could be upended.

“We think we will soon enter a stage where there will be a realization of the immense economic and personal trade-offs we will collectively have to make in order to hit domestic and globally agreed climate targets,” the firm writes. “Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies.”

Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”

On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 23:54:45 UTC+10, Andy Evans wrote:
> I've been saying this for AGES.......
>
>
> “Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability," said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week.. "However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural."
>
> In Deutsche Bank's outline of economic history over the last few centuries, growth has been the tide that lifts all boats, a “game changer for health and living standards.”
>
> But if climate change makes a sustainable path forward for growth untenable, then our modern societal organization around this economic policy could be upended.
>
> “We think we will soon enter a stage where there will be a realization of the immense economic and personal trade-offs we will collectively have to make in order to hit domestic and globally agreed climate targets,” the firm writes. “Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies.”
>
> Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”
>
> On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.

The above is merely saying that what should have been enacted 60 years ago or more with more sensible planning, is now too late. When the world is driven by profit, with no regulatory and societal restraints, then ultimately it will pay the piper. And it seems to be doing that just fine.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:46:16 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> According to this:
>
> - Nature is changing. Today's hurricanes tend to be stronger, wetter, and less predictable than those of the last century. They hold more moisture, speed up more quickly, and stay together longer.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html

Long-term trends:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/climate-scientist-discusses-this-summers-extreme-weather-and-long-term-trends

On 9/6/2023 7:55 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 23:54:45 UTC+10, Andy Evans wrote:
>> I've been saying this for AGES.......
>>
>>
>> “Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability," said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. "However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural."
>>
>> In Deutsche Bank's outline of economic history over the last few centuries, growth has been the tide that lifts all boats, a “game changer for health and living standards.”
>>
>> But if climate change makes a sustainable path forward for growth untenable, then our modern societal organization around this economic policy could be upended.
>>
>> “We think we will soon enter a stage where there will be a realization of the immense economic and personal trade-offs we will collectively have to make in order to hit domestic and globally agreed climate targets,” the firm writes. “Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies.”
>>
>> Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”
>>
>> On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.
>
> The above is merely saying that what should have been enacted 60 years ago or more with more sensible planning, is now too late. When the world is driven by profit, with no regulatory and societal restraints, then ultimately it will pay the piper. And it seems to be doing that just fine.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Although the concept of human-caused global warming goes apparently goes back to 1896, it was not necessarily viewed as dangerous or threatening. It wasn't until the 1980s that serious climate activism was even a thing, so the possibility of a response to warming 60 years ago is nil.

On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 07:25:33 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/6/2023 7:55 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 23:54:45 UTC+10, Andy Evans wrote:
> >> I've been saying this for AGES.......
> >>
> >>
> >> “Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability," said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. "However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural."
> >>
> >> In Deutsche Bank's outline of economic history over the last few centuries, growth has been the tide that lifts all boats, a “game changer for health and living standards.”
> >>
> >> But if climate change makes a sustainable path forward for growth untenable, then our modern societal organization around this economic policy could be upended.
> >>
> >> “We think we will soon enter a stage where there will be a realization of the immense economic and personal trade-offs we will collectively have to make in order to hit domestic and globally agreed climate targets,” the firm writes. “Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies.”
> >>
> >> Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”
> >>
> >> On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.
> >
> > The above is merely saying that what should have been enacted 60 years ago or more with more sensible planning, is now too late. When the world is driven by profit, with no regulatory and societal restraints, then ultimately it will pay the piper. And it seems to be doing that just fine.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> Although the concept of human-caused global warming goes apparently goes back to 1896, it was not necessarily viewed as dangerous or threatening. It wasn't until the 1980s that serious climate activism was even a thing, so the possibility of a response to warming 60 years ago is nil.

Very picky. Lets correct it to 40 years then for global awareness. Even so, with hindsight, and in addition, for those concerned about our planet and the environment, it was obvious that the excesses taking place should have raised alarms amongst those concerned about such matters. The smogs in London, and elsewhere, were evident long before 1980. The same can be said about pollution in many places throughout the world. It was allowed to carry on regardless, and has obviously contributed to the present situation. No ifs or buts.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 9/7/2023 9:02 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 07:25:33 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/6/2023 7:55 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 23:54:45 UTC+10, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>> I've been saying this for AGES.......
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability," said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. "However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural."
>>>>
>>>> In Deutsche Bank's outline of economic history over the last few centuries, growth has been the tide that lifts all boats, a “game changer for health and living standards.”
>>>>
>>>> But if climate change makes a sustainable path forward for growth untenable, then our modern societal organization around this economic policy could be upended.
>>>>
>>>> “We think we will soon enter a stage where there will be a realization of the immense economic and personal trade-offs we will collectively have to make in order to hit domestic and globally agreed climate targets,” the firm writes. “Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies.”
>>>>
>>>> Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”
>>>>
>>>> On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.
>>>
>>> The above is merely saying that what should have been enacted 60 years ago or more with more sensible planning, is now too late. When the world is driven by profit, with no regulatory and societal restraints, then ultimately it will pay the piper. And it seems to be doing that just fine.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>> Although the concept of human-caused global warming goes apparently goes back to 1896, it was not necessarily viewed as dangerous or threatening. It wasn't until the 1980s that serious climate activism was even a thing, so the possibility of a response to warming 60 years ago is nil.
>
> Very picky. Lets correct it to 40 years then for global awareness. Even so, with hindsight, and in addition, for those concerned about our planet and the environment, it was obvious that the excesses taking place should have raised alarms amongst those concerned about such matters. The smogs in London, and elsewhere, were evident long before 1980. The same can be said about pollution in many places throughout the world. It was allowed to carry on regardless, and has obviously contributed to the present situation. No ifs or buts.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

It was hardly obvious before the 1980s. IIRC global cooling was a cause de celebre in the 1970s. IF it's so obvious that 1890s smog in London should tip us off the the environment was in danger, why didn't it? There's a reason we have the expression "hindsight is 20/20." Sure the idea that warming could occur or even was occurring was around, but it generated nothing like the concerns of today's scientists. It's disingenuous to argue to blame the previous generation.

On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 13:01:37 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/7/2023 9:02 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 07:25:33 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 9/6/2023 7:55 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 23:54:45 UTC+10, Andy Evans wrote:
> >>>> I've been saying this for AGES.......
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> “Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability," said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. "However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural."
> >>>>
> >>>> In Deutsche Bank's outline of economic history over the last few centuries, growth has been the tide that lifts all boats, a “game changer for health and living standards.”
> >>>>
> >>>> But if climate change makes a sustainable path forward for growth untenable, then our modern societal organization around this economic policy could be upended.
> >>>>
> >>>> “We think we will soon enter a stage where there will be a realization of the immense economic and personal trade-offs we will collectively have to make in order to hit domestic and globally agreed climate targets,” the firm writes. “Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies.”
> >>>>
> >>>> Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”
> >>>>
> >>>> On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.
> >>>
> >>> The above is merely saying that what should have been enacted 60 years ago or more with more sensible planning, is now too late. When the world is driven by profit, with no regulatory and societal restraints, then ultimately it will pay the piper. And it seems to be doing that just fine.
> >>>
> >>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >> Although the concept of human-caused global warming goes apparently goes back to 1896, it was not necessarily viewed as dangerous or threatening. It wasn't until the 1980s that serious climate activism was even a thing, so the possibility of a response to warming 60 years ago is nil.
> >
> > Very picky. Lets correct it to 40 years then for global awareness. Even so, with hindsight, and in addition, for those concerned about our planet and the environment, it was obvious that the excesses taking place should have raised alarms amongst those concerned about such matters. The smogs in London, and elsewhere, were evident long before 1980. The same can be said about pollution in many places throughout the world. It was allowed to carry on regardless, and has obviously contributed to the present situation. No ifs or buts.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> It was hardly obvious before the 1980s. IIRC global cooling was a cause de celebre in the 1970s. IF it's so obvious that 1890s smog in London should tip us off the the environment was in danger, why didn't it?

For the same reasons many people even now deny climate change. Lets kick the can further down the road, and with luck it might disappear.

>There's a reason we have the expression "hindsight is 20/20." Sure the idea that warming could occur or even was occurring >was around, but it generated nothing like the concerns of today's scientists. It's disingenuous to argue to blame the previous >generation.

I don't agree, which goes without saying in response to your known views. There are people still today, or even a few years back, who still will deny climate change. If you had read my reply correctly, the same "lets kick the can further down the road ...." attitude prevailed many many years ago. You said inasmuch yourself just above. So it takes a few newspaper reports and media headlines to raise awareness does it, rather than looking around and seeing things deteriorate as they actually happen? As if most of these journalistic grubs could care anyway, other than to sell newspapers. God help our planet.

You can have the last reply, as you are so fond of. I won't waste my time further.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 22:25:33 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:

> Although the concept of human-caused global warming goes apparently goes back to 1896, it was not necessarily viewed as dangerous or threatening. It wasn't until the 1980s that serious climate activism was even a thing, so the possibility of a response to warming 60 years ago is nil.

I've been saying or AGES that the standard economic model based on constant growth will NOT be a solution for global warming. You didn't believe a word I said, told me I was ignorant of economics, misunderstood the growth model, blah blah.

Now you have heard it from Deutche Bank you might start believing it, but I doubt that you have the capacity to change and adapt your thinking. You never have up to now. Not going to happen, is it......

"In Deutsche Bank's outline of economic history over the last few centuries, growth has been the tide that lifts all boats, a “game changer for health and living standards. But if climate change makes a sustainable path forward for growth untenable, then our modern societal organization around this economic policy could be upended.

“We think we will soon enter a stage where there will be a realization of the immense economic and personal trade-offs we will collectively have to make in order to hit domestic and globally agreed climate targets,” the firm writes. “Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies.”

Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”

On 9/7/23 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>  It was hardly obvious before the 1980s.  IIRC global cooling was a
> cause de celebre in the 1970s.

"Cause de celebre" as opposed to "scientifically valid." This is a
long-debunked point. From 2008:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

"Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of
peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only
seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson
says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

The casual reader could reach the incorrect conclusion from the popular
press:

"The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York
Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating
on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice
age."

There was also a "nuclear winter" idea publicized in the eighties.

On 9/8/2023 10:28 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 9/7/23 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>   It was hardly obvious before the 1980s.  IIRC global cooling was a cause de celebre in the 1970s.
>
> "Cause de celebre" as opposed to "scientifically valid." This is a long-debunked point. From 2008:
>
> https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1
>
> "Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."
>
> The casual reader could reach the incorrect conclusion from the popular press:
>
> "The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age."
>
> There was also a "nuclear winter" idea publicized in the eighties.

Does any of this refute my point? Are policy makers expected to read and evaluate scientific journals? Most of the doomsayers in the 1970s were always-wrong Malthusians.

In article <271a6378-3c42-4745-afa0-b1ba850bb644n@googlegroups.com>,
raymond....@gmail.com <raymond.hallbear1@gmail.com> wrote:
>Very picky. Lets correct it to 40 years then for global awareness.

Not that these details really matter at this point, but I got
involved in this professionally in the early 90s, so just over 30
years ago now. At that time, it seemed there were many worthwhile
things we could have done, transitions that would have been much
easier. (Simply NOT doing the dumb stuff done since then would be
an obvious improvement....) Anyway, as per the history, the Exxon-led
petroleum industry study was produced in the late 80s... I want to
say it appeared in 1987 or 1988. It was still proprietary, but not
much of a secret -- since I worked as a scientist on a mix of public
& private projects at the time. The petroleum industry dropped its
political position against anthropogenic climate change only in the
00s, though -- i.e. after they'd cornered the market on most
"alternative energy" in the 90s, as well as as the Exxon study
itself showed remarkable accuracy. (The projections of the Exxon
study continue to track climate change broadly today.) So, not to
lay the blame here entirely with the petroleum industry, there's
now been a couple of decades with no real "industry" opposition to
climate matters. Rather, it's become its own political topic for
the sake of politics alone, since it appears that many voters remain
eager to vote "against" environmentalism. Largely because they
dislike the people who raised these concerns. As one can observe
from bickering even here.

On 9/8/23 1:25 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/8/2023 10:28 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 9/7/23 10:01 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>   It was hardly obvious before the 1980s.  IIRC global cooling was a
>>> cause de celebre in the 1970s.
>>
>> "Cause de celebre" as opposed to "scientifically valid." This is a
>> long-debunked point. From 2008:
>>
>> https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1
>>
>> "Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens
>> of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that
>> only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming.
>> Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate
>> trends."
>>
>> The casual reader could reach the incorrect conclusion from the
>> popular press:
>>
>> "The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York
>> Times and National Geographic published articles at the time
>> speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the
>> possibility of a new ice age."
>>
>> There was also a "nuclear winter" idea publicized in the eighties.
>
> Does any of this refute my point?

It adds context, but I do think "cause de celebre" is an exaggeration
and in recent decades references to "global cooling" are frequently
dodges from taking warming seriously.

> Are policy makers expected to read and evaluate scientific journals?  Most of the doomsayers in the 1970s
> were always-wrong Malthusians.

Yes, please.

Now maybe Climate issues is On Topic:

Conductor allows concert climate protest

https://www.cnn.com/videos/arts/2023/09/11/conductor-allows-concert-climate-protest-contd-kj-tp-orig.cnn

On 9/11/2023 6:25 PM, Notsure01 wrote:
> Now maybe Climate issues is On Topic:
>
> Conductor allows concert climate protest
>
> https://www.cnn.com/videos/arts/2023/09/11/conductor-allows-concert-climate-protest-contd-kj-tp-orig.cnn

Sure, but he was extorted. I'm sure some people think it is alright to disrupt other people's lives because they have a cause they believe in. I would liken this to civil disobedience. The protester has to be prepared to pay whatever penalty is for the disobedience in real time. If eventually what he was protesting is declared unconstitutional, then ex poste he has committed no crime. Of course, he may have spent some time in jail in the meantime. I don't know if he can sue for damages or or not. In the climate case, I would say if they protesters turn out to be right and the world as we know it ends because of political inaction, perhaps they societal disruptions are warranted. In the mean time they are criminals.

Some guy glued his feet the the floor in the stands at the U.S. Open tennis tournament, disrupting the play for almost an hour. I hope he's jail.