VincentRJ

Good point! Most people have a natural ability to turn the excess food they eat into body fat. It's a survival trait which helped our ancestors to survive famines, and food shortages due to seasonal variations. However, a few people, due to different genetics, lack that ability, and any excess food they eat is flushed down the toilet.

The love of money is the root of all evil. Don't Buddhists understand this? 😒

In case anyone is confused. From the article: "Iceberg A23a, a massive block of ice covering around 3,500 square kilometres – an area over twice the size of Greater Bangkok – has been lodged off South Georgia Island, near Antarctica since it detached from the ice sheet in 1986." In other words, the ice of Iceberg A23a was already in the sea in 1986. The detachment from the ice sheet does not cause any sea-level rise. When sea water freezes, there is no fall in sea level. When the ice melts, there is no rise in sea levels. However, when the origin of the iceberg is due to a melting glacier on land, which slides into the sea, then the sea-level immediately rises because of the additional water in the form of ice, but the sea-level does not continue to rise as the iceberg melts.

Good point! The relevant quote from the article: "Adding to these concerns, the influx of fresh meltwater from A23a is likely to elevate sea levels, with implications for coastal areas." What nonsense!

Porn is not allowed on this site. Didn't you know? 🤣

“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “Alongside President Trump, we are living up to our promises to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, and work hand-in-hand with our state partners to advance our shared mission,” added EPA Administrator Zeldin. Watch the video below for more information.

Yet the Danes have a higher quality of life than the average American.

Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that a major reason for Denmark's high electricity prices is due to its high taxation on the electricity. It seems that Denmark is one of the lucky countries with ideal locations and wind conditions that are suitable for wind turbines. "Denmark experiences relatively strong and consistent winds, particularly along its coastline, which is ideal for wind turbine placement. With over 7,000 kilometers of coastline, Denmark has ample space for both onshore and offshore wind farms." Also, I wasn't aware that Denmark's initial subsidies for wind power, including capital grants, were progressively reduced and eventually repealed in 1988 as reliability and cost-effectiveness improved. However, it seems this is about to change, according to the following news item. "COPENHAGEN, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Denmark will halt all ongoing offshore wind tenders as the existing framework where no subsidies are offered does not work under current market conditions, its energy minister said on Friday. The global offshore wind industry has been hit by surging costs, rising interest rates and supply chain bottlenecks. Denmark said in December that its latest tender for wind at sea had failed to attract any bids." https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/denmark-halt-offshore-wind-tenders-revamp-subsidy-model-2025-01-31/

Do you not know the distinction between 'falling costs' and 'plummeting costs'? 🤣 I have no objection to the development of battery storage and BEVs, but they are still too expensive for me.

How can you get things so wrong? 🤣 "Moving water is by far the most important form of renewable energy source in Canada, providing 61.7 percent of Canada's electricity generation in 2022. In fact, Canada is the third largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world." If you check the following site you can see that wind and solar represent just 8% of Canada's electricity supply, although that has risen to around 10% in 2024. https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+source+of+most+of+Canada's+renewable+energy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enAU879AU879&oq=what+is+the+source+of+most+of+Canada's+renewable+energy&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCjQ3MzM2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBexKHSV3tTyx&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=vtRDbQcDeSWCnM&vssid=l The country which produces the most energy from wind and solar is Denmark, which is amongst the top ten countries with the highest electricity prices in the world.

I'm surprised there has been no mention in this long thread of Trump's plan to stop wasting money on inefficient renewables, such as wind turbines and solar farms, which produce intermittent and unreliable energy, and rely upon huge amounts of government subsidies which result in high electricity prices. The two fundamentals of economic prosperity are the true cost of energy, and the ways we use that energy. A country can compensate for high energy costs by using the energy more efficiently, but cannot compete with a country that has low energy costs and also uses the energy efficiently. The reason why China can produce such inexpensive products which they export to the world, is because they use less expensive energy sources, such as fossil fuels and nuclear power, and use those energy sources very efficiently, by paying workers less, and using advanced technology. The purpose of Trump's tarrifs on certain imported products is to encourage the production of those products in the USA. However, unless energy costs in the USA drop, the prices of such products will rise and the cost of living for most USA citizens will also rise. But this is not the plan. The plan is to reduce the true cost of energy, and use that energy more efficiently, which includes reducing the massive subsidies to stupid renewable projects. Drill, baby, drill!

Hi Rocky, I did a Google search on the meaning of the Buddhist quote: "that which was never born, can never die". Following is the answer, which was AI generated. "In Buddhism, the phrase "that which was never born can never die" refers to the concept of "anatta" (no-self), meaning that there is no permanent, unchanging soul or self that is born and dies; instead, our experience of life is a continuous flow of impermanent phenomena, so the "self" we perceive is simply a collection of constantly changing sensations and perceptions, which therefore cannot be said to have a true beginning or end."

Hi Rocky, I don't know why most people turn to Buddhism, who haven't been brought up in a Buddhist culture. One would need to conduct a widespread, world-wide poll to find the answers. However, I suspect that those in Western countries, who do not have a religious faith, and who are agnostics or aetheists, find that Buddhism, in relation to the basic teachings of Gautama, is a rational alternative to religious dogma, and many of those basic teachings accord more with the understanding of modern science, than other religions do. A couple of examples are: "nothing is permanent, and everything is subject to cause and effect." As I understand, the term Nirvana refers to the extinction of greed, ill will, attachment to things and the delusions in the mind, which are the cause of the various types of suffering that most of us experience to some degree. The concept of 'eternal existence in the state of Nibbana' seems contradictory to the basic Buddhist concept that there is no permanent soul or self.

I achieve awakening every morning when I wake up from around 7 hours of sleep. We know that people can have all sorts of experiences, related to their inheritance characteristics, environmental conditions and events, education, lifestyle practices, and so on. However, these are individual experiences that might not represent a reality that applies to others. We are all different to some degree. The story of the Buddha's first departure from the palace is quite extraordinary. He was 29 years old, yet wasn't aware that everyone eventually becomes sick and dies. His charioteer, Channa, had to explain that to him. The background for this, is that Gautama was protected from such basic knowledge whilst growing up in the palace. Imagine what it would be like to be 29 years old yet not be aware that people get sick and die from all sorts of causes, then suddenly realize that this is a normal state of affairs. I think most people, at the age of 29, would be very shocked, as Gautama was.

My interest in Buddhism is mainly from a philosophical perspective. I find wisdom in many of the teachings that make practical sense and do work to reduce suffering. However, there's also a lot of unbelievable stuff in the scriptures, which I'd describe as 'mumbo jumbo'. Consciousness is the state of being aware of oneself and the environment. In order to function in life and understand our environment, and ourselves, we begin by learning to identify and name separate items. Dualism is prevalent. However, all such naming and understanding is reliant upon consciousness. There are hundreds of different scientific disciplines, and hundreds of thousands of different words used to name these separate or different items. Consciousness is one of them, and there are a number of scientific disciplines investigating the nature of consciousness. However, there is a major problem in the study of consciousness that seems impossible to overcome. The methodology of science requires objectivity. In other words, we try to separate the personal characteristics of the observer from the item that is being investigated. Therefore, in order to study consciousness effectively, and arrive at a complete and objective understanding, we would have to separate consciouness from consciousness. How is that possible? In order to study the functions of the mind, we separate the mind from the body and observe the nuerological effects in the mind and its effects on our emotions and the body, using our consciousness as the observer. In my opinion, the Vedic and Buddhist concept of reincarnation, whereby some sort of consciousness survives the death of the individual, and injects itself into another lifeform at the beginning of its birth, is based on a dualism, that is, a separation of consciousness from the body. In my view, consciousness and the body and mind, are one integrated whole. When a person dies, consciousness dies. But I could be wrong.

I just did an internet search for electricity prices in Asean countries. Thailand is not too bad; 5th lowest out of ten countries. https://www.lekise.com/en/blog/2024/08/how-do-thailands-electricity-costs-compare-to-other-asean-countries 1. Singapore average 8.01 Baht/Unit 2. Philippines average 7.10 Baht/Unit 3. Cambodia average 5.45 Baht/Unit 4. Indonesia average 4.21 Baht/Unit 5. Thailand average 4.18 Bht/Unit 6. Vietnam average 3.57 Baht/Unit 7. Laos average 2.29 Baht/Unit 8. Malaysia average 1.80 Baht/Unit 9. Myanmar average 1.70 Baht/Unit 10. Brunei average 1.48 Baht/Unit

At least they are not blaming CO2 emissions for such disasters.

Hi Rocky, Your questions require complex answers, so it's not surprising you have had few replies. However, I'll delve into them because I have been thinking about these issues for some time. 1. That which was never born can never die. Basic logic would imply 'that which is never born' doesn't exist. However, the process of being 'born' has many stages. The first stage is the fertilized egg know as the embryo, which travels through the fallopian tube to the uterus. The next stage is the development of the fetus which is the unborn child in the mother's womb. The final stage is the actual birth of the child. As we should all know, the unborn, developing child can die at any time, therefore the statement 'That which was never born can never die' is clearly not true. 2. As our ego is an accumulation of conditioning over our life/lives, it is impermanent. This would appear to be logically true since nothing, in the environment we normally observe, is permanent. Everything is changing or degrading at different rates. However, there might be microscopic things that most people don't normally observe, which are permanent, such as fundamental particles that are subatomic particles which are not composed of other particles. Science is not certain about the permanence of such particles. 3. Death is followed by endless cycles of re birth into future lives, driven by attachment to craving. Rebirth in Buddhism is a rather confusing issue. On the one hand, the Buddha claims that there is no permanent soul and no permanent Creator God, and that what is reborn are just the 'characteristics' of one's behaviour in this life. On the other hand, there is a detailed description in the Pali Canon of the night under the Bodhi tree when the Buddha reached enlightenment, recalling dozens of his previous lives in great detail, including his name and activities. This is more than just characteristics. The questions we should ask ourselves is, 'How can rebirth of behaviour and characteristics be reborn?' 'Is there some magical spirit, outside the realms of science, that floats around, waiting to inject itself into a female's womb at the time of conception?' In Buddhism, karma is the idea that our actions, especially those driven by intention, have consequences that affect us in the present and future. How does this happen? Well, I think it's not too difficult to understand how it happens in the present. If you steal or murder, there will be dire consequences if you are caught. If you over-eat unwholesome food and don't bother exercising, you will likely become obese and suffer from many ailments. However, how our intentional actions affect the future with regard to rebirth, is more complicated. Physical rebirth can only take place through the process of copulation, with regard to animals and humans, and usually through the process of seed germination with regard to plants, although some plants can grow without seeds through a process called 'asexual propagation' which involves a part of the plant, such as a stem or root regenerating into a new plant, with nutrition from the soil. During the times of the Buddha, there was no knowledge of genes. Why apparently good people could somtimes suffer and die unexpectedly, was a puzzle. An explanation was Karma. The apparently good person died prematurely as a result of bad actions in a previous life. This is merely a speculative hypothesis. Modern science reveals not only that genetic defects can be transmitted from the parents to the children, but there is also a process called 'epigentics' which can transmit the 'behaviour' of the parents to their children. Epigenetics is the study of the heritable changes in the genome that are independent of variations in DNA sequences. Another example of how our actions in the present, 'Karma', can affect future generations, are the consequences of War. Even when the war has ended, future generations often feel, and pass on, the hatred towards the enemy. The most obvious examples are the current wars in Ukraine, Palestine, Jordan and Syria. These never-ending conflicts are the effects of Karma, passed down through generations. 4.The cycle of re birth continues, until one is awakened as a result of practice resulting in the quenching of craving. When a living organism dies, the rotting carcass, animal or vegetable, provides nutrients for future growth. Anyone who does not have children achieves Nirvana on their death. There is no rebirth of any characteristics, without successful copulation.

Excellent strategy! This may not be the most efficient method of producing energy, but the value of the energy produced at least offsets the cost of managing waste disposal in an environmentally safe manner. Such 'waste-to-energy power plants' should be used world-wide. It's far more sensible to spend money on such projects instead of spending the money trying to reduce CO2 emissions, which are not a pollutant and which benefit the environment by increasing plant growth.

It's rather sad that the most people on our planet do not seem to understand the most basics processes of the 'methodology of science'. This process begins with some questioning and research on a particular topic, followed by the creation of a 'hypothesis' which might appear to explain the observed phenomena, but which is not certain. In order to reach a high degree of certainty, many experiments need to be done, and repeated by other scientists. If the results of numerous experiments are consistent and align with eath other, and the ypothesis is not falsified, then the original hypothesis becomes a confirmed theory. However, this is not an 'either/or' situation. There are many degrees of certainty or uncertainty, and there are many examples in the history of science where confirmed theories have later been demonstrated to be incorrect. The existence of a 'Creator God' is very much an uncertain hypothesis. However, the concepts of the 'Big Bang' origin of the universe, and the existence of 'Dark Matter and Dark Energy', are also hypotheses, despite ongoing research. In fact, recent research on Dark Matter and Dark Energy suggests it doesn't really exist, or doesn't need to exist to explain the observations of an expanding universe. Here's a link to the research for those interested. "The fabric of the cosmos, as we currently understand it, comprises three primary components: ‘normal matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and ‘dark matter.’ However, new research is turning this established model on its head. A recent study conducted by the University of Ottawa presents compelling evidence that challenges the traditional model of the universe, suggesting that there may not be a place for dark matter within it." https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-universe-27-billion-years-old-study/

Maybe this is due to 'climate change'. Oh no! Wait! Maybe it's due to: "Rapid urbanisation without a suitable development plan has left Phuket vulnerable to natural disasters. Moreover, roads that block waterways as well as clogged canals have aggravated the level of inundation. Phuket city's flood-draining infrastructure -- which has been used for decades without any substantial improvements -- has not kept pace with the rate of urbanisation." https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2822743/dont-let-phuket-drown

"So while it may not yet or maybe ever be possible to predict how many thunderstorms will occur in a given locale over a period of time, it is entirely possible to predict the rise in global temperature. In fact, most of the models created in the 1960s and 1970 created very accurate algorithms to predict the rise in global temperatures for example." Sorry I haven't responded to your comment until now. I've been rather busy, and it's taken me some time to dig up some reliable scientific studies on this issue. However, I've found a few that may 'tickle your fancy'. Here's a recent article in Nature magazine, written by Gavin Schmidt who is a climatologist and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, so I guess you would consider him reliable. WORLD VIEW 19 March 2024 "Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory." "For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z Here's another article from an independant Climate Research publisher. "Given the host of uncertainties and unknowns in the difficult but important task of climate modeling, the unique attribution of observed current climate change to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, including the relatively well-observed latest 20 yr, is not possible." https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v18/n3/p259-275/ And here's another from a Hydrological Sciences Journal. "Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671 And here's another study which claims the evidence suggests that increases in CO2 levels are an effect of temperature rises rather than the cause. "All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. That link is not represented in climate models, whose outputs are also examined using the same framework, resulting in a link opposite the one found when the real measurements are used." https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35 And yet other one. "The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory." https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full And here's another study addressing Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). "We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985–1999) and CERES (2000–2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x

"That’s all I need to know. “Doing your own research” means reading articles on the internet that you like reading, that reinforce what you think you already believe. " That's a good point which merits addressing. It might mean that for some people, but not for me. I do research on any topic that interests me, in order to learn more about the subject. When the scare about anthropogenic global warming became prominent in the media in the late 1990's and eary 2000's, and after listening to interviews of climate experts on the media, such as James Hansen and James Lovelock, I assumed it was a serious threat. Why should I not? I'm sufficiently educated in Physics and Chemistry to understand that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' because it absorbs infrared radiation, and I understand that CO2 can dissolve in water to produce carbonic acid. I also understood that an ocean which is too acidic might not be good for sea life in general. However, at the time, I knew very little about past climate changes and the many processes that cause climate to change, and the information I gained from the media, mostly through interviews of scientists on the media, raised some perplexing questions in my mind. In order to find the answer to these questions, I began searching the internet, including Google Scholar, Wikipedia, NASA, NOAA, BOM, and The Working Group 1 part of the IPCC reports (which addresses the science rather than the politics), and what I discovered, surprised me. In order for this post not to be too long, I'll just give one example, but I have many. After hearing many reports of the alarming effects of ocean acidification, I began to wonder what is the normal pH of the oceans. Are the oceans slightly acidic, or slightly alkaline, or possibly neutral. I understood that 'acidification' meant 'becoming more acidic', which would suggest the oceans are normally either acidic or neutral. I also understood the pH system, which is important if you do gardening, because most plants thrive in slightly acidic to neutral soils, but some also thrive in slightly alkaline soils. If one adds too much lime to increase the calcium content of the soil, the soil can become too alkaline and the growth of certain plants will slow down. A pH of 7 is neutral. Less than 7 is acidic, and greater than 7 is alkaline. I was puzzled why the media never mentioned what the pH of the oceans are, and how much they have changed since industrialization. So I began to search for the answer on the internet. What my research revealed is that the average pH of the oceans' surface (up to a depth of 500 metres) is 8.1, which is significantly alkaline, and that most estimates claim that during the past 150 years or so, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average pH has fallen from 8.2 to 8.1. Wow! It's no wonder that the media never mentioned that. That's definitely not alarming. 🤣 Digging deeper into the issue, I also discovered research that shows the pH of the ocean's surface, at any particular location, can vary by more than 0.1 pH on a daily basis, and on a seasonal and regional basis it can vary between pH 7.9 and pH 8.3. Furthermore, coastal waters can routinely vary even more, between a pH of 7.5 and 8.5. Why should anyone be alarmed about a rather uncertain estimate of a 0.1 change in average pH over a 150 year period, in the top 500m of the sea, and a rather uncertain rise in average global temperatures of 1 degree C during a similar period? The best answer I could find is the following quote from Stephen Schneider who was a Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University. "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Sounds a bit like politics.

"Where do get your information....YouTube and Christmas crackers?" Don't be silly! I'm not a Christian, and YouTube videos are far too slow for my learning purposes. I prefer to read the transcripts and/or the pdf versions of actual scientific studies.

"The vast consensus among climate scientists with respect to the effects of human activity is incontrovertible" Where did you get that information from? The media? If you had an enquiring mind and did your own research, you'd find lots of controvertible evidence about the effects of CO2 on the climate. The problem is, the alarm about human CO2 emissions has become a type of religion, and as we know from history, questioning religious faith has had dire consequences. There are numerous scientific studies which provide controvertible evidence, but the results tend to be ignored in the media or dismissed, and the authors are often censored, which is the antithesis of the true 'methodology of science' where every bit of controvertible evidence should be fully examined. "Do I really need to point out that projecting the long-term effects of continued CO2 emissions is quite different from predicting whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow?" No, you don't. The weather predictions for the next day are reasonably accurate. Usually greater than 50%. However, climate is defined as an average of weather events over a 30 year period. Accurate predictions of the 'average of weather events', 30 years, 60 years, 90 years, and so on, into the future, is not possible.