Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
I have never implied anything negative about homosexuals or their impairing the lives of others. I simply don't find the topic worthy of my time. I am anti-tribal as it pertains to the subdivision of humans into separate categories. I am interested in issues which impact the human tribe as a whole. The habitability of the planet is such an issue. For me, everything else is a se
I am in complete agreement with you in the hazards of the tribalism that we have today. I think social media often exacerbates the problem as it motivates unnecessary conflict over problem solving.
As I've said before, it's like being a sports team fanatic; your entire team's roster can change, move to another city, change their name and logo and fools will still pour their hearts into them or riot and throw a hissy fit over what exactly?
From the political angle, the tribalistic ones are certainly the loudest and broadcasting their bullshit, making it seem like everyone else is either in camp A or B. But I really don't think the real world is as polarized in that department as it's made to seem.
I am in complete agreement with you in the hazards of the tribalism that we have today. I think social media often exacerbates the problem as it motivates unnecessary conflict over problem solving.As I've said before, it's like being a sports team fanatic; your entire team's roster can change, move to another city, change their name and logo and fools will still pour their he
The people controlling what is broadcast are the ones who are emphasizing the camp A vs camp B. And that is largely a very few very wealthy oligarchs.
Bezos owns WAPO. Musk owns Twitter/X. Zuckerberg owns Facebook/Meta. Ellison now has his chunk of the media. The Murdochs have their piece as does Sinclair and Brian Roberts at Comcast.
They see themselves as Gods and the rest of us as their subjects to be divided and conquered. They don't trust us with the truth.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1511903276...
This is great
The NYT posted an article today about the Trump Administration relaxing Biden era regulations on the release of atmospheric methane.
I emailed the following letter to the authors of the article.
________________________
Thank you both for the article about the Trump Administration deferring rules designed to regulate methane emissions.
I want to make a comment about a paragraph in the article which I find to be misleading in understating the risk. That paragraph reads as follows.
"Methane is considered a "super pollutant" because, while it breaks down more quickly than carbon dioxide, it traps about 80 times as much heat in the atmosphere in the short term. It is responsible for nearly a third of the rise in global temperatures since the start of the Industrial Revolution. "
First, I want to say that it is true that the median methane molecule has a short atmospheric lifespan and has a heating impact of ~ 80x that of a CO2 molecule over a 20 year period. According to this article from MIT, methane warming is at least 100x as powerful in the immediate sense.
Why do we compare methane to carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe? Are we underrating the importance of methane emissions? | MIT Climate Portal
As far as I'm concerned, I consider it a shortcoming of our society at large that the exact short term heating multiple is not found anywhere. Because that is the reality we are dealing with. Despite the true fact that an average single methane molecule has a short lifespan, the aggregate situation is that more methane is being added to the atmosphere than is exiting it and the heating impact of that methane today is some unknown number in excess of 100x that of CO2.
What concerns humans like ourselves is not the mathematical impact of a single methane molecule. It is the aggregate impact of all the methane in the atmosphere which you have stated to be responsible for less than one third of the rise in global temperature.
Where is the math which supports your claim that methane is responsible for less than one third of warming ? My math disagrees and I'll share it with you.
CO2 has increased by 150 ppm since the industrial revolution.
Methane has increased by 1300 ppb or 1.3 ppm. Multiply the increase in methane by a conservative minimum of 100x (since the actual multiple is unpublished) results in a heating equivalent of 130 ppm of CO2.
Methane is likely responsible for at least as much warming as CO2 and probably more.
I am challenging any statement which claims it is responsible for less than one third as you have forwarded in your article. I hope you will investigate the truth of your claim.
Sincerely,
(A name other than nut nut)
I actually think what you wrote would make a really strong first blog post.
It’s framed in a way that avoids the usual “you people aren't doing enough?” angle and instead calls out the messaging failures of institutions and environmental communicators. That’s a much more compelling narrative and way more shareable, especially in activist circles, ie, it puts the responsibility on the system, not on the audience.
***
[Blog name] The Climate Auditor
[Headline] Why Is the Media Still Downplaying Methane?
[Subhead]How One Misleading Claim About Methane Is Skewing the Entire Climate Conversation.
[Intro]The New York Times recently published an article on the Trump administration’s rollback of methane regulations. The science they cited — specifically the claim that methane is responsible for “less than one-third” of global warming — is not just outdated and wrong; it fundamentally misrepresents the scale and urgency of the threat.
Below is the letter I sent to the article’s authors.
[....]
Sincerely,
The Climate Auditor
I actually think what you wrote would make a really strong first blog post.It’s framed in a way that avoids the usual “you people aren't doing enough?” angle and instead calls out the messaging failures of institutions and environmental communicators. That’s a much more compelling narrative and way more shareable, especially in activist circles, ie, it puts the responsibility o
Thanks for the rare compliment. I won't let it go to my head :-)
Where does NYT states methane accounts for less than a third of global warming ?
Also, after a quick search, CO2 ppm is around 400 to 430 , and methane around 1.7 to 2?
Even in the most extreme scenario co2 400 and methane 2 , and with a 100X for warming, maths checkout ?
Maybe I misread.
Edit: I got it, increased since industrial revolution.
I'm reflecting today on an analogy to help people grasp the bigger picture.
The term fossil fuels comes from the fact that these fuels are the compressed remains of dead plants and animals. The biggest fossil fuel deposits are associated with historic episodes of mass death of life on Earth. Those mass death episodes were obviously preceded by an environment which was inhospitable to life.
By releasing all of that carbon back from its Earth reservoir into the atmosphere, we need to consider the possibility that we are recreating the conditions which led to the mass death episodes that made those fossil fuel deposits in the first place.
If we study the greatest extinction event on record, the Permian of 250M years ago, it seems the answer is yes. That was a staged process taking place over tens of thousands of years which involved sequential pulses of carbon dioxide and later methane to completely alter planetary chemistry and result in 98% of Earth species going extinct.
What we are doing so far is emulating the Permian extinction. The magnitude of the event is not yet as profound, but the pace of change in atmospheric and ocean chemistry is going much faster today than during the Permian.
I thought of an analogy today.
That the fictional character Gollum in LOTR is the character embodiment of humans relationship with money and that this leads to a recurring cyclical disease of malignant wealth concentration followed by a chaotic redistribution or populating thinning event.
Gollum had no friends or human connection. He was so absorbed in his possession.
The hobbits were the rich ones. They were friends. They rooted for each other. They loved each other.
Human connection is what makes us happy. Someone to share a meal with or have sex with. Someone to play board games or go hike with or dance with. Someone to hug.
Not money.
Why don't we choose to build a world around happiness ?? Why do we have to go through these chaotic events over and over again ? Wouldn't we be better served if our societal dick measuring contest was based upon what we contributed to society and not what we extracted from it? Is a peaceful existence really that unbearable ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZsz39RE...
Good science video explaining the process of the greatest mass extinction on Earth about 250M years ago. Wiping out over 95% of species.
For those who don't want to spend the time ..... here's a synopsis.
Phase 1 - Massive volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia over many thousands of years release enough lava to cover the continental US.
The eruptions also release massive amounts of sulfur dioxide which cool the planet and yield a lot of acid rain. Massive plant die-off.
Phase 2 - Release of CO2 warms the planet by 5C.
Sum of phase 1 & 2 is the loss of 1/3 of land based life.
Phase 3 - Ocean warming causes the ocean circulation to stop. The stagnated ocean de-oxygenates and becomes breeding ground for anaerobic bacteria that fill the ocean with hydrogen sulfide. All ocean breathing life in the ocean is lost.
Phase 4 - The ocean warming releases methane hydrates from the ocean floor which outgas into the atmosphere causing relatively sudden warming of another 10-15C. Almost all life on land disappears. The survivors which are the precursors of mammals made it through by surviving in underground burrows.
The video is filled with interviews with scientists who helped put the puzzle together.
So today I went onto Chat GPT and asked it for the elements of a good story.
The response was as follows.
1. A Compelling Character
A great story needs at least one character the audience can connect with — someone who wants something, fears something, or struggles with something.
Why it matters: Emotion drives engagement. If we care about the character, we care about the story.
2. A Strong Desire or Goal
The protagonist must want something: to win, to escape, to find love, to uncover the truth.
Why it matters: Purpose gives the narrative direction and momentum.
3. Conflict
Something stands in the way of the character’s goal — an antagonist, a crisis, an inner flaw, the world itself.
Why it matters: Conflict is the story. Without obstacles, nothing changes.
4. Stakes
The audience needs to feel what’s at risk.
Ask: What happens if the character fails?
The higher or more personal the stakes, the stronger the tension.
5. Change (Character Arc)
Great stories show transformation — in the character, the world, or even the reader's understanding.
A character may grow, fall, learn, or fail, but they shouldn’t end the story the same as they began.
6. Structure
Whether you follow three acts, the hero’s journey, or a more experimental form, stories need some sort of shape:
Beginning: Set up character + problem
Middle: Rising complications
End: A meaningful resolution
7. Theme
A deeper idea beneath the plot — love, identity, justice, freedom, redemption.
Themes should emerge through characters and events, not be preached.
8. World / Setting
A vivid sense of place — whether a fantasy kingdom, a spaceship, a small town, or an internal psychological landscape.
Worldbuilding isn’t just scenery: it influences character choices and conflict.
9. Voice
How the story is told — tone, language, rhythm, attitude.
Voice is often the subtle “secret sauce” that makes a story feel alive.
10. Surprise
Great stories avoid predictability. They include twists, reversals, or revelations that feel both unexpected and inevitable.
The setting (# 8 above) is a combination of a species / civilization in peril and the internal psychological landscape of an author who feels a magnetic compulsion to advocate for survival.
It's important to understand that I don't see myself as a virtuous character. In the end, humans go extinct regardless of any efforts on my part. I'm effectively just playing a game in which I'm competing for the longevity of our species. That's a preference.
There is opposition to my preference. There are genuinely people who believe the path to heaven rests upon a foundation of destruction of the habitability of Earth. Armageddon. Rapture. Etc.
So today I went onto Chat GPT and asked it for the elements of a good story.
The response was as follows.
If you want to save the planet, you should probably stop using energy hogging LLMs that are terrible for the environment.
No. You’re the one who’s retired, research it yourself. Something you could have easily achieved instead of asking me to do it for you.
Or whatever, maybe just continue to be blissfully naive while utilizing data centers that consume electricity, fresh water, and rare earth minerals so that ChatGPT can solve your prompts on how to save the environment.
No. You’re the one who’s retired, research it yourself. Something you could have easily achieved instead of asking me to do it for you.
Or whatever, maybe just continue to be blissfully naive while utilizing data centers that consume electricity, fresh water, and rare earth minerals so that ChatGPT can solve your prompts on how to save the environment.
Looks like it's about 0.13g per query on Chatgpt. Gemini is more efficient in that way.
The average American emits about 30,000 lbs of CO2 per year * 454 g/lb
So a person doing 100,000,000 chatgpt queries would equal the average american carbon footprint
Burning a single gallon of gasoline results in nearly 70,000 time as much CO2 release as a chatgpt query. It's not zero .... but its pretty small.
Sounds like you found a way to justify increasing your carbon footprint in your twilight years. Rock and roll, god bless america 👍
Sounds like you found a way to justify increasing your carbon footprint in your twilight years. Rock and roll, god bless america 👍
I guess magnitude means nothing to you.
Zero emissions makes it impossible to function. I'll content myself with being in the bottom 5% when it comes to carbon footprint.
I'm actually making some progress writing in the background. I've pounded out 50 typed pages of text this week.
I'm reflecting on some historical parallel with malignant liberties.
As we look back on history, the southern slaveholders occupy the role of historical villain based upon their claim to the liberty to own other human beings. But to the citizens of the south during the Civil War, they were born into the privilege and brainwashed within their communities to believe they were superior and entitled to that liberty. They even convinced themselves that they were doing the slaves a favor and were actually providing for them.
The future villains are going to be the predominantly wealthy people who have likewise been born into a system which grants them the right to pollute.
When the pollution steamrolls over boundaries necessary for a stable society, it seem that the people who stubbornly cling to that privilege are going to be on the losing end of a future civil war.
History repeats itself, no ?
When the pollution steamrolls over boundaries necessary for a stable society, it seem that the people who stubbornly cling to that privilege are going to be on the losing end of a future civil war.
I think the rich will be able to buy the land and the homes where the effects of climate change aren't as severe. I mean, they've got the political and legal leverage to regulate favorably in their way if needed. They get the clean water, the farmland that still produces while others kill themselves over the crumbs.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf...
Lancet study shows that the public is open to degrowth policies
