AuthorTopic: The Trouble with Guy McPherson  (Read 12424 times)

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11666
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #75 on: April 03, 2016, 07:28:30 PM »
Just cant help standing up for an underdog GO. I obviously dont have a vote but support  Bernie for putting the insurance industry and pharmacos on notice to be driven out of the industry like Jesus drove them out of the temple.



To call Trump, the ultimate Wall Street insider, an "underdog" is the epitome of Orwellian discourse.
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2719
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #76 on: April 03, 2016, 08:04:08 PM »
If you outlawed cars how would you get to the tooth biz?  How would the customers get there to have their teeth drilled?

I have a plan for me, not sure what the patients would do.

It would change healthcare demographics radically, but technically there would not be a loss of caregivers. I think dentists would have to spread out again,have a more local practice. It's not insurmountable.

We'd have to have mass transit to keep a more or less modern lifestyle. But that would be a lot better for the planet.

We won't outlaw cars, but they are being priced out of a lot of younger peoples' lives already. They may be taxed into extinction, that's another possibility.

I favor electric vehicles but of very lightweight construction with limited speed and range but enough of both to make everybody’s life work.  This could mean they are as lightweight as a horse and buggy carrage.  You check them out at a curb and when you are done using them you leave them at a curb and swipe a card.  Aggressive goals need to be set for fossil fuel use curtailment.  This can revitalize the economy because it can get everyone working rebuilding a resource friendly infrastructure.

Where there is a will there is the way, but we lack the will!
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34944
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #77 on: April 03, 2016, 08:23:51 PM »
I favor electric vehicles but of very lightweight construction with limited speed and range but enough of both to make everybody’s life work. 

AKA...Ewz!   :icon_sunny:


RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2016, 05:29:18 AM »
The video confirmed all the criticism of Guy. He says there will be no society in the UK in 2025, less than 9 yrs away and yet population there is still increasing.

He bases all this on a sudden increase of about 4C because the arctic ice keeps all water at 0C as long as there is any then suddenly it almost boils. I dont think i could have spent 15 minutes swimming in the sea if that were true. He also makes it clear he believes the situation is hopeless and any attempt to change course is "bargaining", so promoting renewables is also pointless. He does quote bloggers as sources, eg korowitz in 2012 saying the economy would implode by multiple vectors in the coming years possibly within 3 weeks. We have had over 3 years since then. He cites truthout.org as a scientific source. They talk about all the bloggers that interviewed him but not the msm news interview where he admitted his previous predictions had not come to pass. He contradicts himself by predicating his predictions on a giant methane burp but also says we dont know what type of heating or how much it creates, yet he is still certain it will cause a 4c rise within a few weeks. This on top of a 4C rise from lack of global dimming, not covered in the vid but meaning nobody flying without explaining why. Overall im skeptical that the scientists in general know things are much worse but are sugarcoating it for us. Its possible Guy is correct but he certainly has not convinced me.

I saw in today's paper another column on trump claiming he is a misogynist and his supporters are all misogynists.  Moved up to page 4 now,  not back somewhere in the middle under World, its that important to tell even the world who cant vote for him anyway.

They only cited his saying last week that women should be punished if they have an abortion. They did not mention the question put to him was if abortion was made illegal should a woman who has one be punished. Obviously if something is illegal there has to be a penalty or it is not illegal. I can safely assume he hasnt actually proposed it be made illegal or we would have heard about it. So this outrage is just a product entirely of their own making like the kkk and nazism. They also did not mention that he changed his stand on that the following day, thats two lies of omission. They also repeated the lie he said "mexicans are rapists"  implying he meant all mexicans, another lie as he clarified in the same speech he did not mean all of them , but is never mentioned. The real misogynists are those who dont care to do anything about the women being raped.

I dont know which msm youre watching, the one i see peddles lies about the guy every day. Youre right bernie also doesnt get a fair showing. Hes been declared DOA twice, when if im not mistaken he still has a chance. There was no story in bernie and the birdie here either which was fairly newsworthy.  He pays for  some ads though i assume, and if anyone is influenced by the media misinfo on trump, he is one of their other options anyway.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 07:00:46 AM by Uncle Bob »
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 7225
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2016, 10:33:44 AM »
Guy's science is formulated from a gravity based Universe model.
This is why I don't waste my time chasing my tail around the dining room table.

A gravity based view  ;D:
       





A more nuanced view :



And the coyote lives to crash & burn another day.
Thanks Ag
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2016, 03:33:17 PM »
I'm of the opinion that Guy is extremely well informed, and draws reasonable conclusions about the future that don't conflict a great deal with other climate scientists. For instance, I myself read Bill McKibben's book in 2010 and it scared the shit out of me. It says pretty much what guy says....maybe not quite as bluntly.

Only climate scientists who are bought and paid for have any thing good to say these days.

To whom do you refer? Nearly every climate scientist is bought and paid for, if there wasn't money for them to deliver the answers they would have to go out and get real jobs, or worse yet, teach students.

Quote from: Eddie
I do  take issue with the whole NBL death cult. I prefer to live out my life in the hope that catastrophe can be avoided through carbon sequestration and planting trees. The disappointing thing is that we, as a race, prefer to whistle in the wind instead of getting motivated to do something.

We "do" something every day...RE is motivated to "do" a road trip, just as I have been telling everyone for like a year now.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline roamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2016, 09:05:25 PM »
Weirder yet Bill Mckibben has been funded by the Rockefeller s.

I'm sure he is as neutral and objective as it gets though. 

Offline roamer

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2016, 09:32:48 PM »
Suppose I need a link to aforementioned claimhttp://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/rockefellers-behind-scruffy-little-outfit

Online Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16369
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #83 on: April 05, 2016, 05:20:00 AM »
Weirder yet Bill Mckibben has been funded by the Rockefeller s.

I'm sure he is as neutral and objective as it gets though.

He's considered a major sell-out by the NBL crowd. One man's ceiling is another man's floor. His 350.org movement is considered too accommodative to BAU by hard core eco-warriors, from  what I understand.

I don't spend much time thinking about it, other than to look at my own part. This is all old news for all of us here, and it's up to each of us as to how we decide to deal with it.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: The Trouble with Guy McPherson
« Reply #84 on: April 05, 2016, 03:48:49 PM »
Weirder yet Bill Mckibben has been funded by the Rockefeller s.

I'm sure he is as neutral and objective as it gets though.

Zealots are zealots. Believe first, then round up only the information you need for the rationalization.

Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2719
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Guy McPherson is not alone.
« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2016, 07:36:42 PM »
Concentrating on Guy McPherson as a chief Lucifer of doom happens when one concentrates on shooting the messenger.  But Guy is not the only one with more than two brain cells to rub together.  Others share his views.  Doom is upon us and the troops of Satan are on the march.

:evil4:



If energy is going to be dissipated on extreme views how about going after the GOP and all those bent on driving the world to ruin instead of Guy.  Just a thought.


Chomsky: 'Republicans Are a Danger to the Human Species'
The author and philosopher discusses global warming, war with Russia, the U.S. presidential election and the survival of human civilization.
By Patricia Lombroso / il manifesto

http://ilmanifesto.global/chomsky-republicans-are-a-danger-to-the-human-species/

March 18, 2016

With terrifying clarity, the author and philosopher Noam Chomsky spoke to Il Manifesto about chaos, barbarism and destruction of human life. After so many years of giving alarming interviews, Chomsky is more cynical than ever that we can avert global disaster.

“The human species is facing a situation that is unprecedented in the history of Homo sapiens,” he said. “We are at the crossroads of a situation that has never occurred before, and very soon we will have to decide whether we want the human species to survive into something that has the appearance of existence as we know it, or if we want to create a planetary devastation so extreme that one cannot even imagine what could emerge.”

Il Manifesto: What is your opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, with Scalia’s final imprimatur, to block attempts by the Obama administration to limit the disastrous consequences of global warming?

Noam Chomsky: The decision is very important, and it is very serious. The five judges of the Supreme Court were well aware of the political value of that vote. In fact, even the press release issued after the vote underlines not by chance that “this decision is unprecedented in U.S. history.

IM: You believe that this was a political decision that went beyond the constitutional balance of power?

NC: Certainly. The five Supreme Court justices are Republicans. And now with the death of Scalia nothing will change. The Republican majority vote eliminates any future legal step through a court of appeal and eliminates all the opinions of the courts that preceded this decision. Their message to the participants at the Paris conference is, in practice, “Go to hell.” Not that the Paris conference had achieved much in terms of limiting global warming, but it must be remembered that the most thorny and difficult problem was getting the agreements made between governments to be binding through an international treaty. And France knew well that the Republican Party in the Senate would never ratify agreements binding on the government. Consequently the five Republican judges on the Supreme Court virtually expressed, with their decision, what they think of the rapid advance toward the destruction of the planet and the human species.

IM: Can they ignore (at their expense) the serious economic and social repercussions of this choice?

NC: Republican leaders know the daily consequences of the epochal migrations of populations from one hemisphere to another, such as has never occurred in history. They also know of the destruction of that part of the world we know as civilized and the risks that this entails, but each candidate vying for the race for the White House in today’s presidential campaign denies any evidence of the effects of global warming and has no intention of doing anything. Today’s Republican Party, I would add, is one of the most dangerous organizations in human history.

IM: Why does the thinking of the extreme right in America scare you more than the far-right ideology spreading across Europe?

NC: The extreme right in Europe is indeed tremendous, but it does not have the support necessary to accelerate the destruction of life on the planet.

IM: The U.S. defense budget for 2016-17, approved last week without any debate in Congress, quadruples spending on NATO arsenals and to protect the security of Eastern European allies. What is the message?

NC: Certainly there are risks of an escalation of clashes and strategic tensions between the countries belonging to the sphere of Russian influence and those under American influence. But could the United States ever allow at its borders what is happening at those of Russia? Would it not be unthinkable to deploy NATO missiles on the border with Canada and Mexico? We’d all be incinerated. I think this further expansion of NATO constitutes a strategy, a very dangerous geopolitical provocation. I agree with what George Kennan argued during the Cold War, that a “nuclear deterrent” would lay the foundation for a final confrontation for the existence of all humanity. It is not an exaggeration. Ongoing tensions and recent examples, such as the downing of the Russian jet by Turkey, are events that could explode into a nuclear confrontation.

IM: Does this mean that more and more extended wars entail the risk of a Third World War?

NC: It would not be the first time we have been at the brink of a nuclear conflict. Mind you, wherever the origin of a nuclear attack, it means the end of the human species. A clash between two superpowers involves what is called nuclear winter. A tragedy of catastrophic proportions. It reminds me of what Einstein said when asked what weapons, after nuclear, would be used in war. He replied that the only weapon that would remain available to man was a stone ax. The risk of a world war is very serious.

IM: Do you believe the leaders of globalization have a strategy or attempted to create a controlled catastrophe that got out of hand?

NC: You’d have to live under a rock not to realize the damage they’ve caused. The fossil industry for decades has been aware of the devastating consequences of an industrial policy based on oil. The executives of Exxon-Mobil are not stupid, but rather dedicated to a specific ideology of the maximization of profits and stock prices. Everything else is of insignificant value compared to this. It’s like for believers in the various fundamentalisms, be they evangelical Christian or Islamic extremists. They are like religious dogma, before which there is neither doubt nor argument. We all know that it is very easy not to give credence to what we should believe as truth, but in this case the refusal to want to believe the evidence of historical facts involves lethal consequences.

IM: In this disastrous context, what risks do we run in 2016, the election year for the next president of the United States?

NC: The risks are very serious. If the comments of the Republican leaders vying for the presidency correspond to the reality of the future White House, we should expect a real disaster, and that is: We ignore global warming, we tear up the nuclear agreements with Iran, we increase our military power, we act with greater aggressiveness and determination in the rest of the world despite the risks of unleashing a world war. If a country with the power of the United States endorses these policy strategies, the chances of survival of the human species are minimized.

Making sure Bernie wins is a big deal!
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
The Trouble With Money

Started by Guest « 1 2 » Economics

24 Replies
6154 Views
Last post April 04, 2016, 01:49:36 AM
by RE
2 Replies
588 Views
Last post June 25, 2015, 07:49:09 AM
by azozeo
86 Replies
10748 Views
Last post November 21, 2017, 09:14:25 AM
by RE