On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:53:26 AM UTC-8, Bob Harper wrote:
> Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when
> the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you,
> argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, just argue.
>
> Bob Harper

I heard this expression in slightly different form:
When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table.

Replying on behalf of the earth my version would be:

"Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way
He was right, dead right, as he sped along
But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong"

On 11/11/21 11:23 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 12:53 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 11/11/21 4:45 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2021 4:07 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 07:45:59 UTC, raymond....@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
>>>>>> Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the
>>>>>> first place.
>>>>> Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See, that's exactly the problem.  Characterizing, with one broad
>>> stroke, anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care
>>> about people and their future."  As opposed to people who think that
>>> facts are different, for example.   You could have just called them
>>> stupid, but you fell better demonizing them.
>>
>> Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when
>> the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against
>> you, argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you,
>> just argue.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> "Arguing" implies being willing and able to reason.  Lacking either,
> name calling ensues.

'number six' puts it differently, and more correctly, I think:

"I heard this expression in slightly different form:
When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When the facts are
against you, pound on the law. When both the law and the facts are
against you, pound on the table."

Whole lotta table-pounding coming from certain quarters, or so it seems
to me.

Bob Harper

On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 01:07:56 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
> Whole lotta table-pounding coming from certain quarters, or so it seems
> to me. >> Bob Harper

If you're referring to me, Bob, then yes there's no doubt that action over climate change is a table pounding issue, a marching issue, a pressure group issue and anything else that will increase public awareness and lead to the action required. Frank finds it convenient to call me an extremist and a minority but neither are correct at all. I'm just a bog standard middle-of-the-road supporter of the science on climate change and the action that is being shouted from the rooftops by the Paris Accord, COP26, the United Nations and all climate scientists. I'm nothing special, just one voice of many trying to combat the complacency and inability to make change that has the world headed for a 2.5 degree increase. That's the current estimate.

I can't do much at my age but I do what I can - I recycle everything, don't use my car much, hardly ever go on aeroplanes and I turned vegetarian 2 years ago. The least I can do is to make the case for change - I owe that to my son and hopefully his children who are going to see a very different world from the one we are comfortably living with at present. The writing is on the wall for everyone to read that can read. It's really very simple, really really simple.

On 11/12/2021 4:22 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 01:07:56 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>> Whole lotta table-pounding coming from certain quarters, or so it seems
>> to me. >> Bob Harper
>
> If you're referring to me, Bob, then yes there's no doubt that action over climate change is a table pounding issue, a marching issue, a pressure group issue and anything else that will increase public awareness and lead to the action required. Frank finds it convenient to call me an extremist and a minority but neither are correct at all. I'm just a bog standard middle-of-the-road supporter of the science on climate change and the action that is being shouted from the rooftops by the Paris Accord, COP26, the United Nations and all climate scientists. I'm nothing special, just one voice of many trying to combat the complacency and inability to make change that has the world headed for a 2.5 degree increase. That's the current estimate.
>
> I can't do much at my age but I do what I can - I recycle everything, don't use my car much, hardly ever go on aeroplanes and I turned vegetarian 2 years ago. The least I can do is to make the case for change - I owe that to my son and hopefully his children who are going to see a very different world from the one we are comfortably living with at present. The writing is on the wall for everyone to read that can read. It's really very simple, really really simple.
>

Does it bother you that attendees of climate conferences frequently do so on their private jets?

Do you realize that your own personal contribution to climate-improvement via not driving or flying or eating meat can make zero difference to anything? Better you should strengthen yourself with meat and fly at every opportunity to climate gatherings to activate others.

Now don't take this accusation of insanity personally, as we all suffer from it to some extent. Why does anyone vote when no significant election has ever been determined by a margin small enough to make one's particular vote matter?

I know, I know, we vote for other reasons - to exercise our right, to be socially responsibility, for the pleasure of having our "say."

I just wish you would lighten up, because you would be happier. In the end, you will be just as dead either way.

Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.

On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:16:58 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>

Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.

But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.

So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.

On 11/12/2021 10:31 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:16:58 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
>
> Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
>
> But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
>
> So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
>

Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.

On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:56:55 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.

I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.

Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 16:56:55 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> On 11/12/2021 10:31 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:16:58 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
> >
> > Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
> >
> > But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
> >
> > So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
> >
> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.

<g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.

Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.

Henk

On 11/12/2021 12:58 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:56:55 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
>
> I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.
>

That's the problem. Malthus, rhat Stanford guy (was it Erdmann) and all the others couldn't see the future. Not remotely. Why suppose we can? I know, the science is better.

On 11/12/2021 1:00 PM, HT wrote:
> Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 16:56:55 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
>> On 11/12/2021 10:31 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:16:58 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
>>>
>>> Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
>>>
>>> But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
>>>
>>> So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
>>>
>> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
>
> <g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
>
> Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
>
> Henk
>
>

You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.

Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 20:44:17 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> On 11/12/2021 1:00 PM, HT wrote:
> > Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 16:56:55 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> >> On 11/12/2021 10:31 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:16:58 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
> >>>
> >>> Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy..... and so on.
> >>>
> >>> But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
> >>>
> >>> So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
> >>>
> >> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
> >
> > <g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
> >
> > Henk
> >
> >
> You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.

In the context of all the disasters that have struck us over the centuries and continue to do so until now, we could say by analogy that the predictors of doomsday (I do not know your definition of it) have been only mostly wrong.

Henk

On Saturday, 13 November 2021 at 09:28:39 UTC+11, hvt...xs4all.nl wrote:
> Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 20:44:17 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > On 11/12/2021 1:00 PM, HT wrote:
> > > Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 16:56:55 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > >> On 11/12/2021 10:31 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:16:58 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>>> Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy...... and so on.
> > >>>
> > >>> But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
> > >>>
> > >>> So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
> > >>>
> > >> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
> > >
> > > <g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
> > >
> > > Henk
> > >
> > >
> > You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.
> In the context of all the disasters that have struck us over the centuries and continue to do so until now, we could say by analogy that the predictors of doomsday (I do not know your definition of it) have been only mostly wrong.
>
> Henk

The vast majority of these doomsday predictions, many of which are human related issues (capital punishment etc.,), evolution of social standards, or angels descending in hordes from above, come from crackpots, religious or otherwise, who need their day in the sun. It really should be no surprise that they are overwhelmingly proved wrong.

Those who reject climate science are merely kicking the can down the road, so that future generations have to deal with the gross negligence and/or deliberate actions of the present. Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"". In this sense they are worse than criminals, because they are betraying their very own progeny. They are contemptible, even to their own kind.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 11/12/21 10:09 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/12/2021 12:58 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:56:55 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters
>>> of doomsday were wrong.
>>
>> I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.
>>
>
> That's the problem.  Malthus, rhat Stanford guy (was it Erdmann) and all
> the others couldn't see the future.  Not remotely.  Why suppose we can?
> I know, the science is better.

I believe you mean Paul Ehrlich, author of 'The Population Bomb', which
got things so spectacularly wrong. Didn't stop him from continuing to be
wrong.

Bob Harper

On 11/12/2021 10:10 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 11/12/21 10:09 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 11/12/2021 12:58 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:56:55 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
>>>
>>> I sincerely hope you're right! I just don't see it, unfortunately.
>>>
>>
>> That's the problem.  Malthus, rhat Stanford guy (was it Erdmann) and all the others couldn't see the future.  Not remotely.  Why suppose we can? I know, the science is better.
>
> I believe you mean Paul Ehrlich, author of 'The Population Bomb', which got things so spectacularly wrong. Didn't stop him from continuing to be wrong.
>
> Bob Harper

Yes. Ehrlich. Ravi Batra is an SMU economics professor who wrote a book about a coming economic collapse (The Great Depression of 1990). Sold thousands. Didn't happen. So he wrote another book about why it didn't happen but was still going to. Sold thousands. Didn't happen. Never happened. Became a TV commentator on economic matters. Eventually they figured out he had no idea what he was talking about.

In article <7ace947b-5625-4c11-b120-c75d22dc16f5n@googlegroups.com>,
raymond....@gmail.com <raymond.hallbear1@gmail.com> wrote:
>Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live
>on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"".

Yes, the sheer laziness alone is disgusting.

As are the constant blathering rationalizations about "not being
sure." As such uncertainty is not expressed as a kind of (true)
personal ignorance, no! Instead, it's offered as affirmative reason
to do nothing. In other words, it's pure rhetorical rationalization.

Well, just as before, if one rejects a likelihood because one "cannot
be sure," then one is embracing an unlikelihood. This is called
"wishful thinking," plain & simple. It's not an argument.

On 11/12/21 3:24 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> Those who reject climate science are merely kicking the can down the road, so that future generations have to deal with the gross negligence and/or deliberate actions of the present. Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"". In this sense they are worse than criminals, because they are betraying their very own progeny. They are contemptible, even to their own kind.
>

People who are actually serious about climate change oppose Free Trade
and Immigration, and wouldn't pretend otherwise. Yet, powerful
self-claimed "climate activists" have only death threats for those who
question mass immigration or Free Trade. It's not really "climate
activism" to support Free Trade and/or Immigration no matter how the
media is uniformly in favor of it.

In article <E4CdneBCuY98-Q38nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
<weary flake> wrote:
>It's not really "climate activism" to support Free Trade and/or
>Immigration no matter how the media is uniformly in favor of it.

This is really an argument about "growth." And our society has no
idea what to do other than "growth."

On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 01:46:47 UTC, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> This is really an argument about "growth." And our society has no
> idea what to do other than "growth."

That's one big part of it. Another big part for the US and some other developed nations is what has been called the "cult of the self" by British psychiatrist Anthony Storr, who argues that the emphasis on the "self" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Previous to that populations lived in social groups and functioned more in largely unquestioned interactive ways. The media and advertising has elevated the "self" into cult status, because it's then easy to sell distinctive products and brands to the "self" with slogans like "because you're worth it (L'Oreal)". And terms like "self fulfilment" are the cornerstone of life coaching.

Adapting to both pandemics and climate change require populations to go back to functioning in self-supporting social groups again, and judging from all the protests about anti-vax, lockdown and everything else threatening "personal freedom" they just can't get their heads around the idea that it's the wider society that is now important, not the pampered "self". The response to the pandemic in many of the Asian nations was more successful because their populations were more used to functioning collectively as a society.. So I would also argue that the more developed nations have very little idea of what to do about collective responsibility. There's a very great deal of what we call NIMBY - "not in my back yard", and the whole idea of carbon trading is a good example of NIMBY - "I'm not going to do it so I'll pay you to do it". Action on climate change requires us to move beyond the self, and that's going to be a radical sea change for many.

In article <d9ed8862-ae80-4971-9855-1c9b56b59b74n@googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performanceandmedia@gmail.com> wrote:
>The media and advertising has elevated the "self" into cult status,
>because it's then easy to sell distinctive products and brands to
>the "self" ....

Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
improved by overconsumption. Only profits.

On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 08:45:11 UTC, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
> actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
> in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
> improved by overconsumption. Only profits.

And this is where perceived "quality of life" links back to "growth". Life is not critically threatened or even unpleasant in a democracy with a functioning economy and legal system if the population eats vegetables, insulates their homes, rides bikes and doesn't depend on aeroplanes or gas guzzling cars. But our culture has made this unthinkable in most developed nations. Not just the USA but countries like Argentina and Brazil where people routinely eat large beefsteaks once or twice a day, even for breakfast. And surely we can live without most of the consumer goods that are shipped by sea in containers from one continent to another or indeed in aeroplanes? Big changes are required, and a lot of the important changes are surprisingly stress-free, except for the company profits that leech off over-consumption.

Op zaterdag 13 november 2021 om 00:24:18 UTC+1 schreef raymond....@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, 13 November 2021 at 09:28:39 UTC+11, hvt...xs4all.nl wrote:
> > Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 20:44:17 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > > On 11/12/2021 1:00 PM, HT wrote:
> > > > Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 16:56:55 UTC+1 schreef Frank Berger:
> > > >> On 11/12/2021 10:31 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > > >>> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:16:58 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >>>> Personally, I have confidence that technological change will avert the worst case scenarios you fear so much. But such confidence may mark me as just as insane as everyone else.>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Many things could happen - another pandemic could wipe out half the world's population. Nuclear fusion could become a new source of energy...... and so on.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But the Law of Parsimony, otherwise known by variants Occams Razor or Lloyd Morgan's Canon, would indicate following the simpler solution, which is cutting emissions. However uncomfortable for those in the human race accustomed to their creature comforts and luxuries, this would work in preventing the worst of the catastrophe (we think....). Solutions like carbon capture are in their infancy and radical action has to be taken now, not in several years time when maybe - just maybe - carbon capture will make a significant difference.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So do I have confidence in technological change? Yes, there will be some degree of change, but I have absolutely no confidence at all that it will make big enough changes fast enough. I follow the science as closely as I can and this isn't being talked about as a "probable" solution. And scientists are way ahead of us lowly forum posters.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Well, there is the comfort in knowing that all previous forecasters of doomsday were wrong.
> > > >
> > > > <g> Hardly. Those who believed there would be no WWI, let alone a WWII, were also wrong. Even those who believed that nuclear weapons would not be used, or that enlightened governments would abolish capital punishment and torture, were and are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, I do not see how we could tackle the climate crisis without the help of science and nuclear power.
> > > >
> > > > Henk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You don't seem to know what "doomsday" means. Quibbling, nuclear weapons have not been used since WWII and many governments (whether we call them enlightened or not) have abolished capital punishment. So someone who had forecated the non-use of nuclear weapons and the abolishment of capital punishment would have been be mostly right.
> > In the context of all the disasters that have struck us over the centuries and continue to do so until now, we could say by analogy that the predictors of doomsday (I do not know your definition of it) have been only mostly wrong.
> >
> > Henk
> The vast majority of these doomsday predictions, many of which are human related issues (capital punishment etc.,), evolution of social standards, or angels descending in hordes from above, come from crackpots, religious or otherwise, who need their day in the sun. It really should be no surprise that they are overwhelmingly proved wrong.
>
> Those who reject climate science are merely kicking the can down the road, so that future generations have to deal with the gross negligence and/or deliberate actions of the present. Many demonstrate no shame, content to abuse the planet they live on, while expressing wishful views that ""something will turn up"". In this sense they are worse than criminals, because they are betraying their very own progeny. They are contemptible, even to their own kind.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

We must take science seriously as science, not as something it is not (infallible). I trust science when it says that the climate is changing and that the consequences may be serious. I am not so sure about the proposed solutions, precisely because they are based on science - science interpreted by politicians.

Meanwhile, I am prepared to do what I have to do, which at my age is not too difficult. I do not feel the urge to revisit the rest of the world like some of my friends, and according to my energy supplier, we consume less per year than most in our situation.

For my children and especially my grandchildren, it is much more difficult. They have jobs and schools and a certain lifestyle. They live in a globalized world that has much to offer. Wrong decisions (including the decision to do nothing) will hurt them, not me.

The call for "Action! Action! Action!" (to quote our Prime Minister) is not very reassuring. What we need is not more action (over 400 private jets to Glasgow, wrangling over a final declaration) but know-how.

Henk

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 9:45:11 AM UTC+1, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>
>
> Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
> actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
> in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
> improved by overconsumption. Only profits.

But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?

On 11/14/2021 9:55 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 9:45:11 AM UTC+1, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
>> actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
>> in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
>> improved by overconsumption. Only profits.
>
> But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?
>

It's only other people whose over-consumption must be controlled.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:40:14 PM UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 9:55 AM, Herman wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 9:45:11 AM UTC+1, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, as I've mentioned in similar threads here, people are very
> >> actively goaded into overconsumption. This is quite substantial,
> >> in terms of resources. And "quality of life" is not actually being
> >> improved by overconsumption. Only profits.
> >
> > But what about the next 120 cd box of stuff we already have?
> >
> It's only other people whose over-consumption must be controlled.

Frank, I do not harbour the slightest illusion I can "control" anything outside myself. None whatsoever.

So re: the subject above: I do not ever buy cd boxes over 3 cds, also because I know I never listen to 'boxes' in their entirety. The past ten years I have rarely bought cds at all, because I already have quite a bunch. I have stopped buying into the 'holy grail' illusion of thinking there are such things as the ultimate recording of X, Y or Z. So I have bought a couple of new / contemporary music cds, and that's it.

I buy books. But most of those are 2nd hand / antiquarian, just because I tend to find those more interesting. So I\d say I am controlling my consumption to a degree - but those matters are relative.