- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Lapsed Agnostic, I may have overstated the diffusion problem (a memory from around a decade ago), but it is referred to in engineering sources especially regarding gasket materials; unfortunately the citations from the following link are behind a paywall:
Obviously, diffusion was a minor issue for the early hydrogen airships; the inner hydrogen and outer air pressures were almost equal, and their ratio of volume to surface area was high due to their immense size. Both of the opposites are true when storing or piping hydrogen.
I didn’t claim that North Sea gas contains much hydrogen, I said that hydrogen can be mixed into it, which you just confirmed regarding the Winlaton trial. I first heard of mixing hydrogen into the gas supply some years ago from a friend at UCL who’s involved with energy security. Since then I think you’ll find it’s gone mainstream at around 10%; I expect the Winlaton trial was to test higher ratios.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) most definitely are produced in common combustion processes. They are produced in internal combustion engines; exhaust gas recirculation is a pollution reduction system to reduce NOx production by reducing combustion temperature. During the early 2019 / 2020 lockdowns in China, atmospheric NOx concentrations observed by satellite confirmed the lack of traffic in major Chinese cities:
Nitrogen oxides were the main cause of the acid rain crisis that poisoned swathes of European forests, though some of this was from nitrogen in fuels. NOx formation from atmospheric N2 (“thermal NOx”) certainly increases with temperature; 1200°C is usually treated as a sort of threshold even though low concentrations form below that temperature, but then natural gas and hydrogen burn in air at 1950°C and 2111°C respectively, and so do produce NOx:
– “Thermal NOx formation, which is highly temperature dependent, is recognized as the most relevant source when combusting natural gas.”
You’ve already stated your “I’m all right Jack” attitude to climate change, while my southern English village hit 40°C, leaves died on the trees and a third of Pakistan disappeared under floods. Your techno-optimism of humanity reviving species lost in the ongoing mass extinction is simply bizarre – you just assume that civilisation will survive to do this? Humanity hasn’t even discovered the majority of species, let alone preserved their seeds of genomes, and species can’t be replaced by just raising specimens and releasing them into the wild; parenting is as important in animals as it is in humans. I remind you that the most developed species are also the most dependent upon all that lie beneath. So citing a Spectator polemic on Roger Hallam and invoking conspiracy theory is just the cherry on the cake; I think I’m starting to understand how you made Natasha so cross.
You have grossly underestimated the potential dangers of climate change. The figures of 2°C and 3°C that you quoted are by the year 2100, but according to the IPCC, on those emissions pathways the temperature rise doesn’t level out until 2400. But we’d be on those pathways only if the Paris Accords were being adhered to. Not a single country is within its Paris commitments. Maybe future generations and even the young people of today matter as little as the people of Pakistan, but don’t go assuming you’re safe in Scotland; the Gulf Stream is weakening with the loss of Arctic ice (the reservoir of cold which drives that great convection current), and the sea ice will all be gone 20 to 30 years from now; that’s not a computer projection, just extrapolate the graph of ice measurements. Without the Gulf Stream Scotland will be plunged into freezing conditions colder than Iceland.
And you don’t seem to understand the fuel depletion problem. Having started over a century ago, our “proven reserves for 50 years at current rates” really isn’t very much fuel. Trivially, consumption rates are increasing exponentially (and I mean that mathematically, not as a superlative) – or at least, that’s what consumption rates are attempting to do, due to international capital’s addiction to GDP growth. I can’t be bothered to calculate what that brings the “50 years” down to because the dominant effect is actually the Huppert extraction curve; with only 50 years-worth left we must be well on the downside which means that very soon (if not already) increasing the production rate becomes impossible. At that point, as Natasha suspects, we won’t have sufficient fuel to build our shiny new renewables infrastructure unless we severely cut back on all the other things we use it for, and who’s going to vote for that?
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/06/shedding-our-fossil-fuel-suit/
I agree that it is the energy cost of energy that will be the problem. We cannot run the current consumer economy without unlimited cheap energy. Consumerism has been used to suppress the drive among populations in the West for political and social reform, and I believe this is why the political elites are panicking at the prospect of newly dissatisfied masses in a grossly unequal economy.
Lapsed Agnostic,
Try typing in your own phrase: “hydrogen doesn’t diffuse out of any container you attempt to use” into a search engine and you will see that EVERY hit shows hydrogen diffuses FASTER than any gas. Replacing pipes with plastic within 30m of where people live (as detailed in the link you give), is VERY £xpen$ive if it’s even possible to dig up the streets and under buildings in many locations.
And even if hydrogen leaks were solved ALL the other deal breakers (in links I give earlier in this thread) to hydrogen scaling up remain (very low efficiency as an energy carrier i.e. laws of thermodynamics), no matter how hard you bury your head in the sand wanting to whistle a different tune.
Please, why not do some basic research before posting such poor quality responses?
Another example, your claim that “Burning hydrogen doesn’t produce nitrogen oxides”(!) when it took me a couple of mins searching the net for “Burning hydrogen nitrogen oxide” and find this well referenced article …
https://www.cleanegroup.org/hydrogen-hype-in-the-air/
… amongst dozens of results showing very clearly that the science and industrial practice is replete with counterexamples of your unreferenced claim that “Burning hydrogen doesn’t produce nitrogen oxides”.
“The bad news is that H2 combustion can produce dangerously high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx). Two European studies have found that burning hydrogen-enriched natural gas in an industrial setting can lead to NOx emissions up to six times that of methane (the most common element in natural gas mixes).[17],[18] There are numerous other studies in the scientific literature about the difficulties of controlling NOx emissions from H2 combustion in various industrial applications.[19],[20]
Even the Trump Administration’s Department of Energy “Hydrogen Program Plan” identifies H2 combustion as a significant problem. It states that additional research is needed on a host of emissions control issues around H2 combustion. The point DOE makes is that at very low levels of H2 blending, the NOx emissions levels might be controllable. But at higher levels, it is not only difficult to control NOx emissions, but the technologies that have been developed to attempt to control those higher NOx levels remain unproven.[21] That research is years off.
This emissions problem is not a secret but a longstanding industry problem. A recent industry report from the European Turbine Network regarding H2 combustion states: “The higher adiabatic flame temperature of H2 will result in higher NOx emissions if no additional measures are undertaken…It will be particularly a challenge to achieve even stricter NOx-limits foreseen in the future.”[22]”
And if a few hydrogen airships crossing the Atlantic shows they don’t leak, then why did so many explode into flames and stopped being used in’ the 1930s!?
Clark writes about Lapsed Agnostic:
“[…] citing a Spectator polemic on Roger Hallam and invoking conspiracy theory is just the cherry on the cake; I think I’m starting to understand how you made Natasha so cross.”
Roger Hallam is an easy target in failing to recognise that fossil fuels are already over half way used up already, causing global GDP and future CO2 emissions to rapidly crash.
This means future climate change will be self limiting which many climate models fail to account for too.
Hallam and his XR crew, the ‘Greens’, ‘eco-warriors’ etc. also too often fail to acknowledge that population is directly correlated with fossil fuel supply.
In other words, the message from XR and Greta Thunberg’s etc. is deeply disingenuous since they too often fail to acknowledge that if we were to simply give up fossil fuels – as they constantly urge us to embrace ideally over night – then 75% of the worlds population will have to die too.
So the real question is: who is going to enforce / propagandise us into believing who is best suited to decide / this or that about who is going to have to die whilst we try to adapt our economies on ‘a pale blue dot’ to dwindling supplies of fossil fuels?
Natasha, Greta Thunberg is just a teenager; she cannot be expected to know all the aspects of humanity’s crisis. She has every right – indeed, a duty – to campaign for her and her generation’s future. Her resolve is admirable, especially in someone so young.
Roger Hallam is now dismissive of XR.
– “they constantly urge us…”
XR urges nothing of you, nor of any individual. “XR Principle 8: We avoid blaming and shaming. We live in a toxic system, but no individual is to blame”. XR’s demands are directed at the systems of power, consisting of governments, the media, finance etc. I think it was BP’s PR department that invented and promoted the idea that emissions reductions should be framed as individual consumer choice; government and media seized upon it for obvious reasons.
– “So the real question is: who […] ?”
XR’s Third Demand answers this question – a Citizens’ Assembly; an assembly of people chosen at random, like jury service, so that they represent a true cross-section of the population. The system is called sortition, and it is the earliest recorded form of democracy. Consequently, the assembly would contain the same proportion of psychopathic tendencies as the population as a whole – as opposed to a concentration of psychopathy, as we see in the systems of power.
This is why I support XR; XR has no energy policy except “reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, starting immediately*, which is entirely consistent with weaning human systems off of fossil fuels. And the only way that can be achieved with fairness and justice is with massive improvement to democracy; indeed, a transition to true democracy.
There are three great campaigns that must achieve unity, because seen correctly, in the global context, they are all the same struggle. They are the climate and ecological campaign, the campaign against war, and the campaign to transcend fossil fuels.
– – – – – – – – –* (The phrase “reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, starting immediately” is my interpretation of XR Demand 2 – “Carbon neutral by 2025”. I haven’t met a single person in XR who believes that this is possible, many XR activists state it as “act now” instead, and there have been many internal attempts to change it. The demand was coined in 2018 when there were seven years unto 2025; I suspect by analogy to the economic and social transformation implemented in the six years of World War Two, which proved that transformation can be achieved when people recognise the need.)
Interesting thread with participants i’d really enjoy sharing a discussion and decent wine/beer with. Seems logical to me that human activity must have some effect on global temperatures but personally doubt it’s a major problem. This year in particular i think the majority of people have woken up to geoengineering/chem trailing being real, a “conspiracy theory” which has actually long been proven. It was blatant this summer in the UK and i really think most of the freak climate events/catastrophes we experience, are caused by geo-engineering. Don’t know if you have heard of Operation Cumulus, which began in the UK during 1949 and led to this catastrophe:
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/lymouth-flood-disaster-raf-rainmaking-3215800
If such devastation could be engineered 70 years ago, just imagine what can be done with technology now.I also question if oil is a fossil fuel and that we’re in danger of running out of it. Definitely mean question, not deny, my mind is very open to new information, “the science” does not exist and i’m a genuinely scientific thinker, who evaluates new info which i might consider likely, for now. This is a short, good synopsis of abiotic oil theory:
https://healthresearchfunding.org/abiotic-oil-theory-explained/
hrf actually has a really good section providing short explanations of many theories:
https://healthresearchfunding.org/category/theories-and-models/
Personally have been vegan since the early ’80s and lead a more natural life than the vast majority, through choice. Still walk at least 5 miles most days now, actually need to get out into the surrounding countryside and escape what passes for life now, for a little while. It wasn’t idyllic but i grew up when people still used to truly interact with each other, instead of being glued to a smartphone screen, walked or used the comparitively excellent public transport, rather than jump in a car etc. Personally think the biggest danger to ourselves is losing our collective humanity.
Demeter, I have big problems with all of those ‘alternative’ ideas for the following reasons.
The Arctic sea ice melting away indicates a major climate problem. The ice loss is indisputable observationally; no fancy computer simulations necessary. Where is that heat flow going to go when the sea ice has all gone? The quantity of heat that will melt a kilo of ice, will raise the temperature of a kilo of liquid water by almost 80 degrees centigrade.
If widespread chemtrailing were real it would be detectable from the ground by using spectroscopy upon the trails – the same method used to assess the constituents of stars, and interstellar clouds.
If oil were being replaced abiotically rather than depleting, Huppert’s curve would be wrong, but Huppert’s work correctly predicted the peak and subsequent decline of “US lower 48 states” oil production (mid 1970s) and North Sea production.
I entirely agree that our collective humanity is falling apart. I’d say that distrust of the scientific community is an aspect of that.
I avoid resorting to “scientific authority” as much as I can. I try to keep my arguments scientific, by referring to evidence rather than the competence and qualifications of specific experts, because science is about evidence, not authority.
However, I will use the “scientific authority” argument backwards, eg. the rapid Arctic melting confirms the integrity of the (much maligned) climate science community. This matters because in complex matters, like modelling what specific changes global heating will cause, simple reasoning from undeniable facts is not possible, so we need be able to assess to what extent the scientific community is trustworthy.
Addenda – rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is only part of the problem. I know there are marginal counter arguments, but the CO2 dissolves into the oceans and lowers ocean alkalinity (“ocean acidification”), with devastating effects upon the base of the oceanic food chain.
Apologies for my “repeated afterthoughts” style of commenting!
Nothing to apologise for Clark, i too often post streams of thought comments. I’m sure there’s real climate change, which is probably fairly frequent throughout the existence of our planet but i don’t currently believe it’s an existential crisis for Earth’s inhabitants. As has been proven regularly computer models are only as good as the data they’re constructed from, sadly, too often they’re used for nefarious purposes to convince us we should rely on a technocratic, selfstyled elite. Posting a link to what i think is a great article giving some idea of how long the psychopaths have been planning their system of hell on earth:
https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/who-really-controls-the-world
Old enough to remember when we were being terrified about a new ice age, deadly anthropogenic climate change was introduced soon after the Club of Rome trotted out. S’pose i’m pretty much a love the planet/mother nature, hippie type. There’s nothing inherently wrong with technology, luxuries etc, so long as we don’t abuse our planetary home, fellow humans or other planetmates. Or let our pursuit of such things weaken our empathy/humanity.
Definitely don’t want to upset u Clark as you seem to be much more invested in your current tenets than myself, so will just post one other link to an article which might interest you:
https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/
Demeter, before I read your links…
The melting of the Arctic ice is not a computer simulation, and it is happening sooner than the IPCC’s computer models predicted. The extreme weather is not simulated either; it’s easy to have any opinion in places not so badly affected. Yet.
The 1970s predictions of an immanent ice age were media sensationalism and did not reflect the science of the time; look for systematic reviews of the scientific literature. As to my investment, how I wish I could make it go away just by not thinking about it. I don’t enjoy protest or facing arrest; quite the opposite, I loath confrontation and I’m terrified of prison.
Our planetary home is already being abused to a terrifying extent, but the only source of information about it is from the people who study such things, and that’s the appropriate scientists. Thousands of them are resorting to civil disobedience because governments have been ignoring their warnings for decades – please look up “Scientists’ Warning” and “Scientist Rebellion”. I have met some of these people; they are utterly genuine and in no way spinning a tale for the elite.
Around half of The Great Barrier Reef is already dead.
Should have mentioned I know stuff like that happens sometimes Craig but so far it refreezes too. Personally don’t see anything drastic enough to scare the horsies yet, do see so many attempts to put the fear of God, or whatever into us. Seems Earth has been much warmer in our relatively recent past, Scandinavians farmed in Greenland during the early last millennium.
Pushing 70 Clark and just seen so many things twixt heaven and earth, Horatio. You know what i mean, there’s very little I actively rule out, operate on what seems the most logical to me with current information.
The GBR is an ecosystem which could have been harmed by several issues. Don’t know if you’re aware of but it seems to be regenerating:
No disrespect, Demeter02, but it amazes me that intelligent people are willing to dismiss a large body of expertise from thousands of scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to a given subject.
Do you really think that climate scientists simply didn’t consider the items you raise in your dismissing their predictions? “Oh, it was warmer at the beginning of the millennium”, or “Climate always changes – the ice will come back” – like they never thought of that, forgot to examine records, nobody told them or they’re not interested in looking into it?
I fail to see how it even makes sense to consider it to be all just some great scam either. The super-rich are _already_ getting increasingly wealthy with the system they’ve got.
Isn’t it more likely that _they_ – the super-rich – want to poo-poo the notion of climate change, because acknowledging it would change the system that is making them such vast fortunes?
Great you’re quoting The Express there – a well known outlet for excellence in truth, scientific integrity and humanitarianism. Have you considered any journals which _aren’t_ owned by billionaires who want to advance their own interests?
Not dismissing it at all Glenn, just seems less likely to me with current information. Sadly, we’re not allowed easy access to alternative views, there are many climate scientists who don’t believe “the science”.
Oh bless, i share your disgust for the Express too Glenn, it was just the first link when i searched. This site might be preferable to you, definitely worth perusing:
Wikispooks offers info on and links to alternative views too:
Thanks Demeter02.
Which credible climate scientists were you thinking of? Perhaps there are a few, but considering they make up such a tiny proportion, is it really wise to accept their views? Forgive me, but it is entirely dismissive to not accept a solid consensus, and we should have very powerful reasons – and evidence – to make the case that they are all wrong, or lying.
Far from not being allowed access, such ‘contrary’ views are all over media and the ‘youtubes’, ‘facebooks’ and so on. Climate deniers have an enormous platform. They have been heavily promoted by right wing institutions and publications. Just like the anti-vaxxers and covid deniers. They are denied publication in scientific journals, though, because they are peddling pseudoscience. If they were presenting observations and theories which proved verifiable, they would be gaining awards, not silenced.
I understand you’re strongly invested in your beliefs Glenn and really don’t want to upset you. However, “the science” on climate change is far from settled, just alternative views aren’t offered by the mainstream.
Know you’re smart too and probably wouldn’t hesitate to conduct your own research on many mainstream views, climate change is one of the things it’s worth checking out other info on.
Demeter02 – I do appreciate your consideration, but actually I’m not personally invested in being proved right about this utter calamity which is climate change. On the contrary, nothing (or very little, anyway) could make me happier than to learn that I’d got it all wrong, had been totally hoodwinked, and in fact we have a positive, hopeful future.
But since I first learned of global warming in the mid 1980s, and noted the effect of CO2 together with its rising concentration, nothing that I have come across in decades of my attention to this subject has allowed me to feel any of the relief I would so like to have.
Of course, I could “do my own research”, as you suggest. I could commission the drilling of ice core samples from the Antarctic, to see what CO2 levels have been like for the past million years or so. I could set up institutions to fund scientists who actually know about this stuff to look into it. I could take measurements of temperatures throughout the planet over many decades, correlate them with CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, and see whether they are related. Perhaps I could even take gas samples from nearby planets, and gauge their CO2 levels against expected temperatures, comparing them with actual temperatures, given their intake of energy from the sun – thereby getting a sense of CO2‘s effect on planetary temperature.
Is this the sort of “doing my own research” you mean? Or should I be looking at the blogs, youtubes and sites of denialists? Because the real research has been – and _is_ being – done by accredited scientists, whose work is already out there and in the open; they welcome their data being examined. I don’t have the resources to really “do my own research”, and nor does anyone else.
Forgive me, but, “Do your own research” simply means, listen to cranks and stooges from the denialist industry. You hear _exactly_ the same from the Covid denialists and anti-vaxxers. Perhaps you are with the denialists on that front too? If not, why not?
*
I appreciate the respectful discussion, and honestly hope you continue it, together with addressing the points raised here. All too often – sadly, without exception in my experience – people say they want to ‘debate’, but they don’t. Instead, they refer one to this or that, and never follow any point to its conclusion. It’s always the next thing, and the next thing. “But what about this? But what about that?”, with no reflection – less still acknowledgement – that each point might be comprehensively met.And then they go away, only to come back under another guise, with the “killer point” they now feel they have. We’ve seen this _so_ often from the anti-vaxxer/ covid denialist people. They simply will not address a rebuttal, or reflect on the fact that the Great Authority they just cited is – in fact – a total charlatan with no expertise whatsoever. Just look at the current Forum topic on vaccines for recent examples! There’s never even an admission that, OK, that person made up their entire case (eg the “Virologist” Dr. Poornima Wagh) is a complete fraud.
So it takes so much more effort to refute falsehoods than make them in the first place, which is why these denialists get such an easy ride.
Demeter, do you know what systematic reviews of the scientific literature are, and what cherry-picking is?
“You hear _exactly_ the same from the Covid denialists and anti-vaxxers”
Ah! Lightbulb moment for me Glenn, now know it’s unlikely we have that many opinions/views on the world in common.I posted a few links to resources which are a good starter, they offer links to much wider information and resources. That’s the sort of research i meant, they have already done the sort of research you mention and are indeed accredited scientists but probably don’t fulfil your criteria. That’s absolutely ok with me, still think we’d enjoy an in person discussion, text isn’t a great medium for discussions where feelings might run high and misunderstandings occur. I wish you well but know it’s best for me to stop commenting on this thread.
“Demeter, do you know what systematic reviews of the scientific literature are, and what cherry-picking is?”
I do indeed Clark, referred to such events many times in my comments, that’s exactly what i think has been the case in so much of what we’re presented with in the mainstream. Wish you both well and really don’t want to upset you, so won’t comment further on this thread. Personally fine with agreeing to disagree, i don’t seek to impose my opinions, sure there are many other things we share in common.
Demeter, before you go, please clarify something for me. I don’t understand this part of your sentence…
– “that’s exactly what i think has been the case in so much of what we’re presented with in the mainstream”
in the context of the question I asked you.
Yes, it probably is best that you conclude the conversation; there is more to respect than merely being nice and polite to people. For instance, I find it insulting that you assume I’m merely accepting what you call “the mainstream”, without judging “alternative views” by means of indisputable evidence and critical thought. I tried to make this point earlier, in my three comments of September 7 at 13:17, 13:26 and 13:38.
There is another aspect to respect. Imagine we were both stood in a crowd outside a burning building in which some of your friends and members of your family were trapped; anyone can see smoke and flames (should they care to look), and hear the screams and cries for help (should they care to listen). You turn to me and ask for help. It would be very disrespectful of me to reply by encouraging you to “research alternative views” about whether the building was really on fire, whether it had caught fire on some previous occasion, whether those were really your family inside, whether fire and smoke are really dangerous to people etc. etc., and to sympathise with your “investment” in the folly you’d “picked up from the mainstream”. It wouldn’t matter how politely I expressed this; it would still be grossly disrespectful.
So yes, it is probably best if you stop commenting; I would rather you offered your help in addressing the current crisis on Earth, but failing that I will just have to ignore you for the sake of my conscience and sanity, so that I can get on with something that might help.
Having read that, please remember that I also asked you for a clarification.
Glenn_nl, I’m a bit busy at present, but this exchange has given me some new insight which I’ll post about on my “what is conspiracy theory” thread when I get the chance. That may not be until next week; I wish to go and be a useful idiot for the elite with Extinction Rebellion over the weekend. Obviously it would do more good if were to sit at home in front of some magical computing device trying to “raise my consciousness” about alternative views, but I’m too “heavily invested” in “views” I picked up “from the mainstream” for that to sit well with my conscience.
Hmm, Demeter – you did not address a single point that I raised, all of which were directly on point to your replies.
By contrast, I don’t think I failed to address a single one of yours.
Maybe you feel this is polite conversation, but I feel it is rather dismissive, and not a little dishonest.
For instance, you didn’t really mean that I should “do my own research”, did you? You meant “Look at these other sources instead!”
One rapidly finds these “other sources” are complete junk, but that never slows down the deniers.
Never, not once, has a denialist ever followed a point to its conclusion. Never! They all just disappear, as you are doing right now. But the rather evil thing about them is that they will continue to confidently push their denialism on others _as if their case was watertight_.
Your denialism is precisely what allows governments to get away with doing nothing to address humanity’s greatest problem, while the rich get ever richer in the destruction of our environment. You must be very proud of yourself.
Think Clark and Glenn have taken advantage of my not wanting to upset them by making unacceptable statements to me. As i said previously, my aim is not to impose my opinions on others but there are alternatives we’re denied easy access to, as they challenge the mainstream narrative which disgusting, even evil, people want to make our truth. I do mean make/force, so must reply, hope this is truly my last comment.
Sorry Clark and Glenn, i WILL NOT submit to the boundaries you want to set. Nor will i spend endless hours posting comments which only scratch the surface of what i want to convey. The links i offered open doors to much greater information, which can be perused at ones’ own pace.
Posting a link now to quotes by a very wise man called Michael Parenti, who also is an ENTPs, ENTP. We’re seriously out there, a rare breed. Personally have all his books, his Inventing Reality preceded Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent collaboration by 6 years:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/21234.Michael_Parenti
Think this talk of Michael’s might interest some, he has a very informed but accessible manner. Hope it will interest some in checking out more of his stuff:
https://odysee.com/@WinstonsWorld:a/Conspiracy—Class-Power—Michael-Parenti-(1993):d
Ah, the link doesn’t work, search for Conspiracy & Class Power – Michael Parenti (1993) which is still available on Odysee and Bitchute.
Demeter, you apparently ignored my request for clarification. In fact you’ve ignored much of what you’ve been asked, by both myself and glenn_nl. I don’t find being ignored respectful.
You submit to things every day. You submit to gravity, the electromagnetic force, probably the economic system and the laws of the country you live in – though these latter two are considerably more flexible. If you wish to deny reality you merely seem, let’s say, cognitively challenged; I suppose that’s to be pitied, though my belief is that you have a choice.
What “unacceptable statements” have I made to you? I exchanged a bit of banter with glenn_nl, but it does get frustrating attempting to debate with those who refuse to accept facts.
Why on Earth accuse others of accepting the “mainstream narrative” while posting links to the Express and the New York Post? You posted a link to a coral spawning event; do you think that sex, conception and birth never happen during a genocide? Shall we cherry-pick some children born to Jews in the Holocaust and thereby claim it never happened?
Apologies for being a servant of the disgusting and evil, and congratulations on being an ENTP. You clearly are very wise and humble. Funny how you use a small i yet make such a big deal of your opinions. Nature doesn’t care about our opinions, so we’d best bring our opinions into line with nature. Or do you frequently flutter down from tall buildings by flapping your arms? Surely you don’t submit to the mainstream on that one?
Demeter is an Ancient Greek goddess of agriculture, harvest and fertility:
Some of the most depressing conversations I’ve had have been with New Age hippies. I was told, for instance, that I shouldn’t have been supporting Craig in his struggle to expose, stop and prevent torture, because by doing so I was creating torture, manifesting it, by giving it my attention. Reality forms from our consciousness, it was explained to me, so it was me helping to create the torture.
“Demeter, you apparently ignored my request for clarification”
Seriously think you want to obfuscate now Clark, posted many links for people info with open minds, your apparent need for clarification hides those comments.
I enjoy, not promote Greek legends, that’s all there is to my nick.
Once again, will promote the link to Michael Parenti quotes:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/21234.Michael_Parenti
And it’s well worth searching for Michael Parenti’s Conspiracy & Class Power – Michael Parenti (1993) talk, which is still available on Odysee and Bitchute
“I was told, for instance, that I shouldn’t have been supporting Craig in his struggle to expose, stop and prevent torture, because by doing so I was creating torture, manifesting it, by giving it my attention”
Totally understand and appreciate that Clark. You’re probably a lot younger than me and haven’t seen all the sh.t i have, really empathise with what you said there.
Might identify me too much, which i no longer am much concerned about, not only an i am an extreme ENTP but i’m highly right brained too.
As a born left hander, i learned ambidexterity was beneficial, via teachers yelling at me, throwing chalk and even blackboard brushes at me. Disagree with left/right brained supposed functions, otherwise people like me are impossible. What’s interesting is children are initially left brained, whichever hand they use, until they enter the conditioning process called school.
Still inclined to favour using my left hand but use whichever hand is most useful the vast majority of the time.
Stupid but interesting, i write from right to left with my left hand, mirror writing, unless i correct it.
Oops, meant children are rightbrained until they start school.
No worries sharing this, a done just now personality result for me which is pretty typical for me:
Recommend taking the test yourselves, it’s a really good one which changes the questions so often. If you’re borderline you should be able to establish your norm after taking a few tests. Less detailed this test but the 3 absolute constants for me apart from being an ENTP are my Naturalist and Logical intelligence and my Left/Right brained result.
Unrelated but worth thinking about, i think Jeremy Corbyn won in both ’17 and ’19. Remember how he was demonised despite being such a reasonable person, i loathe how we’re told to be divisive politically, think most people just want a decent person in power, whether they’re left or right.
Thought he was robbed in ’17 but on the morning of the ’19 election, Laura Kuensberg said it looked bad for Jeremy as the postal votes were against him. There is no precedent for her saying something which is illegal, postal votes aren’t allowed to be opened until the polls are closed, so how could she make that statement?
It gets more interesting, Lord Ashcroft’s analysis showed 39% of votes were postal votes, when the average is 20%, that’s beyond strange but shows how much power is just taken out of our hands.
Demeter, before I read anything on this page (I’ve deliberately skipped down to the comment form without reading)…
Since having slept, I regret getting defensive; I’m sorry and I apologise.
I don’t wish to impose anything upon anyone. I’m merely in the same position as anyone else; the world presents me with facts, and I either have the humility to accept them, or I suffer, and cause suffering, by refusing to accept them.
I know that rich people conspire, and that corporations project propaganda, usually by distorting facts. It hurts when people insinuate that I’m too naive to recognise that, or that I’m an authoritarian trying to impose lies or distortions upon them. It hurts because I have spent a large fraction of my life’s time and a great deal of emotional and intellectual effort trying to correct such distortions.
But reality is rather miraculous; it has a wonderful consistency, making it possible to tell distortions from truth. This helps keep me sane; it has literally protected me from suicide over and over again (you’d need to know my life story…). Science (the methods, not the claims) and logic (the practice) have developed wonderful techniques to tell facts from carefully constructed fictions masquerading as facts, and from simple folly. This too is miraculous – good and truth truly are stronger than evil, lies, error and laziness, and this miracle is somehow built into the very fabric of reality.
I aspire to teach those techniques, and what a Christian might call the Good News – We are not powerless! The power of truth and consistency is woven into the fabric of reality itself, and everyone has access to it, no matter how impoverished or oppressed they are. Many have died horrible deaths at the hands of those projecting falsehoods, but no one and no power could prevent them from doing good.
– – – – – – –I again apologise for getting defensive. I shall return and read comments from last night, later on today. Kia kaha.
COLUMN: Every week, the people who trade electricity in the UK get to quiz the managers of the national grid.
Listening to them is getting scarier by the week — and suggests keeping the lights on will be more challenging than politicians admit. @opinion https://t.co/DBPWoyZVf2
— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) August 26, 2022
