VincentRJ

I think it's you who is confused. I was addressing the flaw in the following article you linked. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2 "No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era. "This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years." The point I've been making is that warm and cold periods are never globally coherent, whether in the past or the present, although it makes sense that the degree of the 'lack of global coherency' is never the same at any given point in time. The greatest threat to humanity in the future (exluding the possibility of a World War 3), is the foolish notion that we can make the climate of the planet benign by reducing our emissions of C02 from fossil fuels. The historical records from the fairly recent past, say 3,000 years, which include proxy records from tree rings and sediments, newspaper articles, the memories of indiginous populations, and so on, indicate that sudden and rapid changes in climate have destroyed past civilizations, or at least made life very uncomfortable. Imagine what it would be like if we had another 39 year drought in South Eastern Australia when energy supplies were unreliable and expensive due to the move towards unreliable renewables, and the shutting down of coal and gas plants. We need to protect ourselves from the recurrence of known, extreme weather events of the past. To do this requires plentiful supplies of cheap energy, in order to build more elevated roads, strengthen people's homes, relocate homes that were foolishly built in flood plains, build more dams, reshape the landscape, and so on.

Far more than one glacier is advancing. I'm not disputing that we are currently in a warming phase, and that more glaciers are retreating than advancing. I'm making the point that the current rate of warming is not uniform and synchronous, globally, and not unprecedented, and that there have been fare worse and much more sudden 'changes in climate' in the past. For example, studies of ice cores from Law Dome in the Antarctic have provided a 1,000 year history of droughts in Australia, indicating that the worst drought in that 1,000 year period occured during the Medieval Warm Period in the 12th century AD, and was 39 years long.

Didn't I mention in my previous post that warming and cooling periods are never completely synchronous, globaly? Your linked article fails to mention that there's also no 'sound and reliable' evidence for globally coherent warming during the industrial era. For example, whilst most glaciers might be melting and receding, the Hubbard Glacier, which is the largest glacier on the North American Continent, has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf Here's another example of an advancing glacier. "No one in the world has seen a glacier grow from virtually the very first snowflake. The 25-year-old Tulutsa Glacier is the fastest growing new glacier in the world. While most of mountain glaciers are shrinking or disappearing because of global warming, this US glacier keeps advancing at an accelerated pace." "Over the recent decades this baby glacier grew into the Hulk it is today and it’s growing in thickness by up to 15 meters per year." https://www.severe-weather.eu/cryosphere/earth-youngest-glacier-healthy-cryosphere-losing-battle-global-warming-rrc/ And of course, there's the example of the Antarctic, which has a general trend of increasing ice. From the following article: https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice "The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice."

That's quite correct. Most of the sea level rise (and presumable temperature rise) occurred between 20,000 and 7,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.6 millions years ago, and during that period there have been a number of Glacial Maxima and Interglacials. We are still, technically, in an Ice Age because the poles still have ice, but the warming and the sea level rise have slowed down significantly, which has presumably helped humans to create our civilizations. Why you think this point is disingenuous is very puzzling. Are you a true 'Climate Change Denier', believing that climate only changes when humans burn fossil fuels'? ???? "And from about 3000 years ago until some time after the advent of the industrial revolution, sea levels were quite stable. As was the global temperature average. Only in the last 100 years or so has the rise resumed at a much higher pace. What's more , the rate of increase is getting higher." I'm guessing you still believe in the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph which covered up, and excluded research which shows that during the past 3,000 years, or so, there have been a number of warm periods at least as warm as the current period, and that such periods were 'approximately' global, although not perfectly synchronous. From the following article: https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf "...as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal, advocates of the CO2 theory were very concerned about the strength of data that showed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the 20th century and that global warming had occurred naturally, long before atmospheric CO2 began to increase. The contrived elimination of the MWP and Little Ice Age by Mann et al. became known as “the hockey stick” of climate change where the handle of the hockey stick was supposed to represent constant climate until increasing CO2 levels caused global warming, the sharp bend in the lower hockey stick."

Good question, which I'll try to answer. The answer is found in the history of past changes in climate, which the alarmists can't be bothered to investigate because it's so much easier to accept what the mainstream media reports and/or what so-called scientific authorities, who are actually political activists, report. For example, whenever there is an extreme weather event, whether flood, drought, hurricane, or heatwave, how often have you heard on the news that it is the worst event since records began, or it is unprecedented? If you search for the actual, real, historical records on the internet, you'll usually find that the extreme weather event is not the worst on record, as reported, and is sometimes even the 6th, 7th or 8th worst on record. However, the mainstream media does not want to report the facts if they go against the alarmist agenda and propoganda. Bad news sells better than good news. Regarding sea level rise, it's generally accepted in the sciences of Geology, that around 20,000 years ago, at the end of the last Glacial Maximum, sea levels were at least 120 metres lower than they are today. Some studies report 130 metres lower. Those who are able to do basic maths should be able to calculate that a 120 metre rise over 20,000 years is an average rise of 6mm per year. However, for most of the time since the industrial revolution began, sea level were rising very slowly, at a rate of 1 to 2mm per year. Currently, the rate is estimated to be around 3mm per year, just half of the avarge rate over the past 20,000 years. How very alarming! ???? The attached graph of past sea level rise is from the following site. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506

There are always examples of islands sinking due to geological reasons, and/or erosion taking place due to poor management, such as cutting down trees on the shore line, or removing mangroves, but the data show that, on average, the islands in the Pacific are growing in size. Check out the following article. "Using rich collections of Landsat imagery, this study analyses changes in land area on 221 atolls in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Results show that, between 2000 and 2017, the total land area on these atolls has increased by 61.74 km2 (6.1 %) from 1007.60 km2 to 1069.35 km2." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305421000059

What a load of propaganda!! It's well known that mega cities like Bangkok are at risk of subsidence. Sea level rise is trivial compared to the rate of subsidence.

Rational people would meditate, or fast, or eat a healthy diet, or exercise regularly, for a good reason. Most situations have both positive and negative attributes. For example, meditating, which can take up a lot of time, is essentially 'doing nothing'. If you've organized your affairs so you have the time to sit down doing nothing, for long periods, then that's fine. The more rational you are, the more likely you are to discover and consider both the positive and negative attributes and compare their significance. The less rational you are, the more likely you will be attached to specific qualities which you like, or which give you pleasure, and ignore the other related issues which could have disastrous consequences in the future. Buying a house with a great view, without considering the negative attributes, such as losing the house in the next flood, is irrational, unless you are very wealthy, and/or can afford the huge insurance premiums, and/or have a private helicopter which can safely remove you from any sudden flooding. But even then, where does the helicopter land? A wealthy person might not have a care in the world about losing the house, but if he's a rational person he should consider the safety of himself and his family. "I speak of irrationality as a non-rational state that is beyond the mind (not achieved by thinking)." It's not accurate to describe all mental processes as rational. If there are no mental thought processes going on, then there's neither rationality nor irrationality.

Sorry! I can't agree. A lack of rationality is a fundamental cause of most of the problems and suffering so many people experience in this world. I'll quote just one example, although I could quote hundreds. ???? A couple are searching for a home to buy and come across a suitable house on a river bank with an amazing view. Wow! The price is good. The view is good, and the house is fairly close to our current work-place. Let's buy it. However, in many areas, rivers tend to flood every few years. Since we now have an internet service which provides records of lots of historical events in the past, in numerous regions, a rational person would think, 'Before I make a decision, I'll check the historical record of flooding in this area where the house is located.' I'm sure the Buddha would also have advised that (if he were alive today), but unfortunately the desire for a nice view trumps rationality. The couple buy the home, and 3 years later it's totally destroyed by a massive flood that records show, has occurred, on average, every 20 years since records began, and that there have been even worse floods in the same area 50, 80 and a 100 years ago.

The Buddha seems to have been a very rational person to me. It's why I've been interested in Buddhism. If one separates the mystical mumbo jumbo from his basic teachings, he's encouraging a rational approach to achieving a distress-free life. Have you read the Kalama Sutta? However, I suspect the Buddha understood that for most people, the desires for pleasures, sex, tasty food, fame, vanity, wealth and power to enhance one's ego, and strong attachment to these things, and so on, were too embedded in the population, and that his enlightened teachings, appealing to the rational mind, would only penetrate a few people, which is the reason why he initially considered continuing his life, after enlightenment, in a state of meditative calm in the forest, to avoid the hassles of teaching to irrational people.

Of course, no-one can do the impossible. That's the definition of 'impossible'. However, you surely must understand from the history of the human race, that many, many things that were considered impossible in the past are now possible, and many, many concepts that could not be grasped by the rational mind in the past, can now be grasped. That's progress. I don't even think any primitive tribal person would ever think that pointing at the moon with his finger is the same as being on the moon. ????

Everything that everyone experiences is an experience within themselves, whatever the motivation, goal or circumstances. Even when a group of people are participating, cooperating, or competing, as in a football match, the individual experience of each footballer will be their own experience, and will be different, to some degree, to the experiences of the other footballers in the same game. Since everyone experiences something within themselves, the important teaching of the Buddha is 'how to think for yourself', as outlined in the Kalama Sutta. Most people too easily just accept the advice of an established authority, whether the authority is a religion, a doctor's advice, a guru's advice, investment advice, or a claimed consensus of scientists promoting fear about increasing CO2 levels. "2. You say "...when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics." I think there is confusion on this point. The stress of that sentence should be on the word SPECULATING, because that's indeed a trap. Speculating is thinking, and thinking comes from the mind. So, it's a waste of time thinking about the unknowable, but that doesn't imply that one shouldn't use other ways to connect with the unknowable that don't include thinking. I'm talking about meditation. When you manage to keep your thoughts on a leash, you free and open yourself to different vibes, so to speak. And that's one of the most basic Buddhist teachings: that words are nothing compared to personal experience. Yes, the Godhead is unknowable for us, but that shouldn't stop us from trying." Wow! 'Words are nothing compared to personal experience.' What are you trying to say?? ???? All animals have personal experiences in order to survive. To flee from danger requires an experience of danger. However, humans are unique in the sense that we not only have a capacity for experience, but also a capacity for words that describe those experiences. Without that capacity for words we would still be like Monkeys and Apes. Even the most primitive tribes that still exist in remote places, have words, although relatively few words and no writing. As tribes or civilizations develop, more words are created in order to avoid confusing different entities as the same thing. For example, a primitive tribe might have just one word for all trees. Whilst they can probably see a difference between different species of trees, they haven't got around to creating new words to define those different species of trees. Meditation obviously can have benefits, resulting in a peaceful and calm mind, and a release from all the hustle and bustle of normal, human activity. However, using the strict meditation guidlines employed in certain retreats and advocated by certain gurus, can have harmful effects for certain people with pre-existing psychological problems. I believe some retreats require visitors to sign a documant stating that they have had no previous psychological problems, before they are accepted to begin meditation practice. Since a goal of Buddhist meditation is a cessation of all thoughts, whilst still being aware, it does make sense that no words could accurately describe such an experience. Words are thoughts. No thoughts mean no words.

I think it's rational to presume that nobody has any real and precise evidence of what the Buddha experienced in his meditation. In order to get such evidence, you would not only need to have some miraculous ability to get inside someone's mind and experience exactly what they are experiencing, but also to get inside the mind of a person who died around 2,500 years ago. Are you aware that there are no written records dating to the time of the Buddha's life? Everything we know about the Buddha has been passed down by memory over several generations. After about 400 years, those memories were first recorded in the Pali script, in Sri Lanka, during the first century BCE. The story about the Creator God, Brahma, persuading the Buddha to teach what he'd learned during his ascetic wanderings and meditation, seems very puzzling when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics. That the story is propaganda, to assist the Buddha to teach and integrate into a Vedic environment where most people believed in a Creator God, is the best explanation I can think of. Perhaps you have a better explanation. ????

Once again, we need to precise with our definitions. There's a distinction between Brahma and Brahman. Brahma is the Hindu (or Vedic) creator of the universe, that is, a Creator God. 'Brahman' is a metaphysical concept that connotes the highest universal principle, and/or the 'ultimate reality' in the universe, and/or the 'binding unity behind all diversity'. Buddhism initially evolved in this Vedic environment, and the teachings of the Buddha were opposed to some of the Vedic beliefs, in particular, the concept of a Creator god and a permanent soul, which obviously would create problems. In order to surmount such problems, a story was created about the Buddha's thoughts soon after he achieved enlightenment, He wondered if there would be any point in teaching his insights, because most people would be incapable of understanding such profound insights because they were so attached to material possessions, emotional pleasures, vanity, ego, greed, and power. He thought, perhaps he should spend the rest of his life in peaceful calm in the forest. However, according to the story, the Buddha changed his opinion when the Creator God, Brahma, descended into his consciousness, and implored him to teach his great wisdom, because at least a few people would understand his message, which Brahma accepted as true. Can you see the propaganda in this story? If the Buddha were to attempt to teach his enlightened views to a population who believed in a Creator God and a permanent soul, he probably wouldn't achieve much success. However, if that Creator God, Brahma, were to bow to the Buddha and encourage him to teach, then his success would be greater. And it was greater, because a new religion was created.

Corruption is never acceptable. However, there are sometimes positive aspects. In this case, the police are basically saying, pay us (for example) 30,000 baht, or we'll arrest you and charge you for your crime, and you'll pay (possibly) 500,000 baht in lawer's fees to defend yourself, and the Thai coverment will spend 500,000 baht in prosecuting you, and if you are convicted, the Thai government will spend a million or several million baht, supporting you during your jail sentence. Which is better from a purely economic point of view for the Thai government, as well as the perpetrator?

As long as we continue emitting CO2, the planet will be okay. Plants love CO2. It's their food. Without it, they all die. Without CO2, no life would exist. What a terrible pollutant is CO2. ???? (sarc)

Is it possibly a battery-operated car? Spontaneous combustion is a problem with electric Vehicles.

I agree that it is a beautiful circuit, but the highest point is 5,416 metres at the Thorong-La pass. This could be a problem for those who have not adapted to such heights, and/or those who have certain medical problems and are not fit. Attached are a few more images I took of the area surrounding Thorong-La. After a snow fall, it looks as though the track could disappear.

I've trekked in Nepal several times during my life. The first time was in 1964 and the last time was in 2013 when I trekked the Annapurna circuit, reaching a height of 5,416 metres. To avoid altitude sickness, if one is not used to great heights, one should approach the high points very gradually to give time for the body to adjust. The problem is that most people pay for a fixed schedule where everything is pre-organized, whereas I demand control overe 'where I will stay' and 'how long'. Sometimes the guides are not happy with this. Too bad! At, say, 2,000 metres, I find a hotel with a nice view, and stay a couple of nights or more, wandering around during the daytime taking photos of the village life. At, say, 3 to 4,000 metres, I'll spend another 2 or 3 days at a nice location, to get used to the height and explore the surroundings. Then when I reach 5 to 6,000 metres, I experience no altitude problems. Attached are 3 images I took in 2013 at the Thorong La Pass, which is at a height of 5,416.

Perhaps some of them are depressed because of the devastating consequences of human-caused climate change which is continuouslys promoted in the media. They have no hope for the future.

There is, of course, another Buddhist 'Sect', in Thailand, which addresses this problem of significant monetary donations to temple organizations, which seems against basic Buddhist principles. It's called Santi Asoke. The following article provides lots of details. https://www.asoke.info/bunniyom/insight-santi_mobi2.html "Going back to Buddha's fundamental teachings, Santi Asoke counters the mainstream materialism and consumerism and has set up an "utopian Buddhist society" in Nakhon Pathom where members live, work, and produce food on the basis of communal harmony. Apart from its model Buddhist villages, Santi Asoke members - predominantly professionals, middle class, to lower middle class - have also set up a model grocery store and herbal product business based on their intention to help consumers rather than make profits. The Santi Asoke projects have drawn much attention and admiration from academics for their projection of an alternative lifestyle according to Buddhist beliefs vis-a-vis Western-style consumerism, so much so that they are willing to dismiss his antagonistic approach."

It woukld take a long time to respond to every point you make, so I'll just begin with the distinction between objective realty and subjective reality, as I understand it, of course. Objective reality is a reality that applies to all people of all cultures, regardless of their differences. For example, if anyone were to kick a hard brick wall with his or her bare foot, with the same force that a footballer kicks a ball to score a goal, then the person will damge his foot, no exceptions. The extent of the damage, and how many toes are broken, will depend on many factors, such as the angle of the kick onto the brick wall, the force of the kick, and the physical strength of the person's foot. The subjective reality is the amount of pain and emotional stress that such a person would experience. If the person's leg were injected with a local anaesthetic, prior to the experiment, he/she would probably feel no pain at all. That's also an objective reality. However, in the absence of anaesthetcs or pain killers, the amount of pain suffered would vary subjectively. Some people would howl and cry and groan, whilst others would take it more calmly. A well-trained Buddhist monk who had succeeded in controling his emotions and thoughts, would probably feel just a basic pain that tells him something is wrong with his foot. Pain is a natural messenger from the body, which tells one that something is wrong and needs fixing. Another obvious example of the difference between subjective and objective reality, is the taste of food. Any plate of food can be successfully examined, through scientific analysis, to document all the various chemicals in the food, which is also objective reality. But that analysis cannot predict whether everyone will enjoy the food, but it can predict that anyone eating the food will die if the food contains a deadly poison. Enjoyment of the taste of a particular type of food is subjective and depends mostly one one's cultural background. However, modern science has the capability to detect such enjoyment through fMRI scans of the brain. In other words, if a person were to eat a plate of food whilst undergoing an fMRI scan, and for some reason lied that he liked the food, when asked, the fMRI scan would show that the person was lying. Here's an interesting article explaining the reward processes in the brain. "When exposed to a stimulus which is rewarding, the brain responds by releasing an increased amount of dopamine, the main neurotransmitter associated with rewards and pleasure. Dopamine is mostly produced in an area of the brain called the ventral tegmental area (VTA), located within the midbrain." https://www.simplypsychology.org/brain-reward-system.html#:~:text=When exposed to a stimulus,)%2C located within the midbrain

I can't remember reading it, probably because your posts are so long. I can't think of any example where the 'methodology of science' has failed, but there are numerous examples where the 'methodology of science' has not been applied with sufficient rigour, and numerous examples where erroneous assumptions have been made due to insufficient data and evidence, and/or incorrect interpretation of the data. For example, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity implied that the universe should be in a state of collapse, as each body exterts an attractive force on every other body (star and planet). At that time, however, there was no evidence that the universe was either expanding or contracting, so an assuption was made that the stars in the universe were static, and that God was keeping them static, against the laws of gravity. In those days the only observed galaxy was the Milky Way. When Edwin Hubble, using more powerful telescopes, discovered there were other galaxies in the universe and observed, due to the doppler effect (redshift), that the farther apart galaxies are from each other, the faster they move away from each other, it became apparet that the universe is expanding. It is the application of the 'methodology of science', in conjunction with new and more sophisticated tools and devices, which allows the discovery of errors that are frequently made during scientific enquiry. Got it? ????

One thing about which the IPCC is confident, is that warming will increase rainfall, globally. This should make sense to most people who have only a basic understanding of science. A warmer climate causes more evaporation of the oceans and lakes. The evaporated water does not leave the atmosphere to outer space. It comes back as rain. However, whilst some areas might get wetter, other areas might get drier. Changes in climate are not uniform over the entire planet. Fortunately, we have the technology to distribute the water from where the rain falls in excess, to where it doesn't fall, by building dams and long-distance water pipes. Increased rain and increased atmospheric CO2, plus a warmer climate, are all excellent for increased plant growth. On the issue of over-population, a friend who was an architect made the comment, a few years ago, that the entire world population, then around 7 billion, could be accommodated on an area of land the size of Tasmania. I thought at the time that was rather fanciful, so I did some calculations. The area of Tasmania is 68,403 square Km. One square Km is one million square metres, so 68.4 thousand square km translates to 68.4 billion square metres. Using a figure of 8 billion for the current population would mean that each person on the planet, (man, woman and child) would be allocated a space of 8.55 square metres at ground level. That's the size of a very small bedroom. A reasonable living area would be, say, 6x that area, which is around 50 square metres. That means a family of four would have more than 200 sqare metres of living area, which is equivalent to a large house. To achieve that allocation would require 6 storey buildings covering the entire area of Tasmania, but that excludes walls and roads, and many other requirements. To create space for these other requirements, one would have to increase the number of storeys. To create room for all the walls, corridors and lifts within each building, the height would be raised to, say, 7 storeys. But of course, one needs a lot of areas for roads, and also parks and recreational areas, otherwise living there would be awful. Thankfully, as a result of modern science and technology we can build 100 storey buildings. If we multiply the 7 storeys by 8, we get 56 storeys. In other words, the total area covered by buildings is just 1/8th of the area of Tasmania if all the buildings are 56 storeys. That leaves plenty of room for roads and parks. However, we still need to create room for shops, supermarkets, warehouses, maintenance areas, manufacturing areas, offices, and so on, so let's add another 10 storeys. We now have 65 storey buildings covering 1/8th of the area of Tasmania, all connected with roads which occupy, say, another 1/8th of the total area of Tasmania. That leaves 3/4ths of the total area for parks and forests. I'd say that any city which allocates 3/4ths of its area to parks and nature is acceptable. I should also add that I'm talking about the application of modern technology. All these skyscrapers would be located in different areas which are interconnected with sophisticaed railway networks. Wherever you live, you could travel quickly to any destination by taking the lift, and/or escalator, to the nearest railway station. Personal cars and electric vehicles would be obsolete in this situation. Also, in this situation where 8 billion people live in an area the size of Tasmania, there would probably be another 8 billion people, or more, living in the rest of the world, who are producing most of the food and various other products. The energy supplies for this vision of the future would have to come from nuclear power. Solar power and wind would not pass muster. ????

This illustrates the point I've been trying to make, and is why I introduced the issue of 'Climate Change' many pages ago in this thread. Most people don't have the ability or interest to do their own research on the internet and check the actual data. They prefer to watch the news on the TV or their iPhone, and accept what they are told, just like those who subscribe to a particular religion tend to accept the authority of the priests. The so-called great authority on the climate issue is the IPCC which has stated in the past that climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic system and that accurate predictions of future climate are impossible (or at least very challenging). In order to save face, as a result of past, inaccurate predictions, they now use the word 'projection', but such projections still rely upon computer models which cannot take into consideration all of the influences on climate, because all the influences are not known and even those that are known cannot be accurately quantified. The problem is, societies in general do not want uncertainty, and politicians cannot motivate the population to follow an agenda which involves the investment of huge amounts of money, if the true degree of scientific uncertainty is expressed, which is why, of course, every extreme weather event is used by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as a confirmation of human-caused climate change. The distinction between weather and climate is so often confused. How often have you heard the claim in the media that an extreme weather event was caused by 'climate change'? Climate is not a cause, but a result of numerous causes. However, what can be claimed with a high degree of scientific certainty, is that mankind's total effect on the environment, including deforestation, the creation of massive 'concrete jungles' (cities and roads), pollution due to the release of toxic chemicals and massive amounts of plastic garbage which is not recycled, and so on, must have at least some effect on our climate. Precisely quantifying that effect is an impossible task, so demonizing our CO2 emissions is the political solution, because all fossil fuels emit CO2 which is very expensive to sequester in the ground.