Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society

Yes ... it's an important part of the scientific process to question every bit of a theory.

I had a list of 16 items above which listed various outcomes we have both observed and can expect to further observe as a result of a doubling of greenhouse forcing.

You questioned none of those.

As a demonstration of objectivity, it is not only important to identify the areas where you have potential points of contention. It is also important to identify the areas in which you either in agreement or have no objection. It helps to acknowledge that you have reviewed something.

So far you have yet to ask a single question related to a theory that we have initiated feedback loops which will destroy the present version of human civilization. So your assertion of the importance of questioning every but of a theory is met with some skepticism as to its authenticity. Your attitude is completely antagonistic and not reflective of someone who is open minded or concerned for the implications of the well being of persons who might be harmed if this theory is accurate.

I must be blind but at first glance this graph looks nothing like consistent.
At 1st glance it looks like variations are getting more intense with a clear global upward trend.

Even oscillation doesn't look consistent.

I don't have an explanation for that.

Regarding addressing specific points of yours, it's kinda hard when you are spamming wall of texts.
You should be happy to have any question at all.

If we going to play at science and set an example of the role of scientific interaction here weeeez, peer review and having someone kick the tires in indeed valuable. A peer reviewer's role is to make sure that work is reviewed and corrected before it is released. I welcome criticism.

But a peer reviewer's role is to actually review everything .... so if I make a list of 16 expected outcomes which exemplify the feedback loops and consequences central to the theory .... you review those too and provide feedback to demonstrate evidence that the peer review is indeed happening.

This means a peer reviewer is not only responsible to identify the portions of the work which they feel need improvement or correction, they are also responsible to identify the portions which they find to be well supported. Are you capable of that ? Are you capable of concurring on anything ?

The graph is meant to depict peaks and valleys ~ 100k years apart and a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Can you see those ?

As discussed, the Earth is dynamic and sensitive. There are forces at which impact the amplitude and timing of the cycles.

I'll decline. If anybody wants to know they should do directly to original sources or places that do a good job explaining the research with links to the original sources. Me going in and summarizing summaries is not adding any value and is just another layer where mistakes and misunderstandings will arise.

Some quotes from Sagan's remarks to Congress. Again this was 40 years ago.

"The power of human beings to affect and change and control the environment is growing. And we have clearly reached the stage where we are capable, both intentional and inadvertently, of making significant changes in the global climate. "

"That massive changes have occurred (as a result of human activities) is clear from the historical record"

"Because the effects occupy more than a single generation, there is a tendency to say that these are not our problem"

"If you don't worry about it now, it's too late later on"

"We are passing on extremely grave problems for our children"

"The greenhouse effect makes life on Earth possible. If there were not a greenhouse effect, the temperature would be 30C lower. A little greenhouse effect is a good thing. "

"But there is a DELICATE BALANCE of these invisible gases"

"And here we are, pouring enormous quantities of CO2 and these other gases into the atmosphere every year"

"The overall picture is quite clear and quite widely accepted and understood"

"Source of calibration is other planets. Every planet with an atmosphere has some degree of greenhouse effect .... it has been possible to calculate those greenhouse effects fairly accurately. And therefore .... the method used to calibrate the greenhouse effect on earth can be calibrated against those other planets. If we keep coming up with the right answer in all those different cases, then probably we understand fairly well how greenhouse effects work"

"at the present rate of activity, there will be a several degree increase in global temperature by the middle to the end of the next century"

(He is speaking of this century and the rate of activity has greatly increased since his speak 40 years ago)

"It is a global problem"

"In order to solve the problem, nations have to make a change from their traditional concern for themselves and not about the planet and the species. A change from the traditional short-term objectives to longer-term objectives"

"That requires a degree of international amity which certainly doesn't exist today"

"I think that what is essential for this problem is a global consciousness. a view that transcends our exclusive identifications into the generational and political groupings, into which by accident, we have been born".

My political positions and scientific outlook are so closely aligned with what Sagan had to say 40 years ago that it would not be unreasonable to suspect me of plagiarism.

But the truth is that I borrow from a multitude of sources that I find trustworthy.

I have invented none of this. What I do have which is perhaps unique with respect to climate scientists is a 25 year career in finance as a CPA, controller and CFO.

I understand intimately people's emotional relationship with money which is of course necessary for survival in a capitalist society. I am well acquainted with the ruthless personality types which permeate the ruling classes and the acquisition of government legislative outcomes with money. As a person who made the conscientious decision to disavow recreational aviation, I am aware of how environmental focus can be a mating obstacle. My cohort of Boomer women is largely not going to let their pollution get in the way of their travel aspiration.

So I see the problem through a behavioral lens.

It is also a demographic problem. 80% of emissions come from the top 20%.50% comes from the top 10%. These are the people who control our political levers.

I made a bet with 2 wealthy friends that in 2023 that global recreational aviation would be canceled within 10 years as a result of carbon poisoning.

Their response ..... "rich people will never give it up"

That will be the epitaph of the human species. We are in a spiral of our own nature from which we cannot escape.

Not reading walls of texts that repeats the same assertions without backing up the assertions in a logical fashion.

Nothing against you. But I, and I suspect most others, have little patience for texts that don’t say what the authors purports to say.

I think I, and many others in this thread, have given you more than good faith and you have simply refused to engage in a discussion. You want to lecture. You want an audience, not discussion.

I will bow out.

Or you could just assume that he’s wrong. Because it’s Sklansky and this is a poker forum and major revisions to the laws of physics would probably come from someone with physics training and be published and vetted someplace other than a poker message board.

None of this takes a rocket scientist to understand. It's all very simple and straightforward.

That's why no one in an audience which is thoroughly primed to stick a needle in an argument has anything to say.

"Bowing out". That's misleading ... you were never in.

It's interesting ..... trying to gather material for a book and being accused of submitting "walls of text".

How is a book different from a wall of text ?

That's not a relevant example here.

I'm not challenging the work of important scientists ..... I'm promoting them.

Did someone here ask you to write a book???

[/QUOTE]

Well that ended your inquisition right quick.

But see how that works? You had no interest in listening to posters on this board who obviously know what they're talking about. Instead you went for a highly reputable source. You're fighting against a very deep human heuristic.

I'm a big Sagan fan too. But mostly as a writer. And he's a great example of someone who excels in science proper but was largely ineffective in political science. That's true of most scientists, who are the highest iq cohort in the world. And the reason for that is in their disipline facts persuade.

Why the science community can't get anyone to listen is because most scientists would make horrible sales people. And you're a perfect example of that.

First day out there selling vacuum cleaners and you knock on weez's door.... And then you get into this huge argument because he's okay with his hoover... and you start getting into technical argument over air flow and fluid dynamics.... and when that doesn't work you start insulting him over how he's killing his kids by not using hepa bags. Master sales people have a great technique for dealing with people like him: some do, some don't, so what, next. Otherwise they would go insane with all personal rejection that comes job.

You just did the same thing with me. It's not good enough that we both pull the same color lever or that awe both agree we need to be doing more for the environment. Instead you pull out the neo-marxist playbook and start attacking me for not believing everything you believe. It's good enough I'm willing to buy the vacuum but no.... You insist that I have to agree that Kirby is the greatest vacuum ever made and launch into a tirade of personal attacks if I'm like well I don't really understand all the science....

And its not like I'm saying you don't have persuasive skills; you have negative persuasive skills. So quit blaming the world for not being swayed by your approach.

There's so much fabrication in there that I don't know where to begin John.

But the fact remains that not a single person has provided any rebuttal to the theory that we've initiated feedback loops destined to destroy human civilization.

They correctly pointed out that my understanding of orbital dynamics was incomplete and did not include an understanding of factors which are irrelevant to the theory regarding the feedback loops and future of human civilization. The assertion that I did not listen is false. I have acknowledge the incompleteness of my understand on at least a half dozen occasions.

I'm not blaming the world. The world didn't choose itself. God did. I'm explaining the forces which are propelling us to the destruction of human civilization. How God designed us to destroy ourselves. We are vain creatures.

As far you ..... what is your contribution here ? To claim that your mind is closed. To suggest that I need to persuade the people who are capable of persuading you but refusing to provide evidence of who those people are ? You're hiding dude. Creating a lot of smoke in my direction to avoid disclosing what's going on inside of you. If you believe in a judging God, then that God would know you are bearing false witness.

Moses had poor persuasive skills too. Despite plague after plague, Pharaoh was stubborn. John, you're just an exemplar of a modern day Pharaoh.

Persuasion takes two .... it requires a person who is open to persuasion and you have come out and acknowledged your lack of openness. There is more than a drip of irony in your stance.

God is going to be the deliverer of environmental apocalypse. The plagues have begun and just like in the story of Exodus, God will gradually ramp them up. God is quite clear about that and when God talks, I listen.

Enjoy your day Pharaoh.

Sagan was ineffective in political science because most people are stupid like you. They want an idiot like Trump who scapegoats brown people and vents the anger and fear they feel. They want to be an angry mob.

Sagan was a visionary. Beyond the coarse and primitive tribal warfare that animates the average citizen.

Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to black_Jack21. Go look.

And that wasn't the first time itt I corrected you on that.

Responding to him .... but talking about me.

Good grief

That's just doomer stuff. Mainstream consensus is overwhelmingly saying if we take action these apocalyptic scenarios will be avoided.

We had this argument a while back and after a few million posts you agreed with me that actually is the Mainstream consensus. Remember? That's when you went into the whole they're afraid of losing their jobs spiel. Remember? And then I asked you about the scientists who are retired or found out they didn't have long to live. Of course you didn't respond.

You're the one that requires a stupid audience so you shouldn't be complaining.

A lot of mainstream climatolists say that all this doomer stuff is causing a paralysis in people and really hurts their call to action. So when I run across people like you peddling their pseudo theories I do what I can to discredit the claims and encourage others to do it too.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2766...

Here's a chart of annual global CO2 emissions. Nearly double what it was when Sagan warmed Congress about the problem back in 1985.