WDSmart

Yes, before I wrote my book, I did a lot of reading - and still do. Oh, and I don’t think I’ve ever "changed my tune" in this forum topic. I have, however, "changed my tune" since I wrote the book. In it, I proposed that there were only three sources of energy: nuclear, solar, and gravity (the Moon’s effect on the Earth). Since then, I’ve "changed my tune” to a single note and single source of energy: gravity. That’s the common name of the force (energy) that draws atoms together.

I have sold over 100 books, but I give them away for free on my website, and I’ve had over 500 downloaded.

This statement is also untrue, and even further exposes you as a fraud that simply regurgitates nonsense and presents it as fact. Hey, just redefine energy like you did technology and you'll be right about this as well. Name me one technology that "creates” energy. I say there are none, and they just "harvest” energy from some source. Neither nuclear fission nor fusion “creates” energy. The energy is already there; we just "harvest" it for our own use, and in the process create a lot of pollution. Let's go back to the title and topic of this forum, "Scientists warn earth near irreversible “hothouse” state." Although I am not a scientist, I agree with that conclusion from the scientific perspective. However, because it is a scientific statement, it addresses only the scientific aspects of this crisis. My book and I focus on the human aspect of this crisis. One example is one of the three main causes I identify for this crisis: human overpopulation. I propose reducing our population by reducing the birth rate to one woman/one child. My projections show that if we did this, we could reduce our population by 90% in about 150 years. The two obvious problems with that are that we, as humans, would not want to announce and enforce a one-woman/one-child law, and even if we did, we, IMO, don’t have 150 years left before the Earth’s biosphere has been so destroyed that it no longer will support human life. Also, as a side issue, as our medical technology "improves," our average lifespan increases, which only adds to our overpopulation. So, I don’t disagree that scientifically, this crisis could be solved. But I am confident that when you factor in the human perspectives, it won’t be solved. These are topics I cover in more detail in my book.

I clearly stated that that part of the online definition is the one I accept. I am not an expert in energy, but I wrote a book on energy technologies in which I emphasize that they do not "create” energy; they "harvest” it from one source, transform it (usually into electricity), and then distribute it for human use. All the steps involved in the creation, distribution, use, maintenance, and, finally, retirement of energy technologies cost more energy than they ever produce. The energy technology section of my book goes into detail about this: solar panels, which most people believe is a "green" and renewable technology. They, and no other technology, are that.

And our (human) activities, mainly those employing technologies, will probably achieve that in the next 10 years or so. Maybe sooner.

I do not emphasize CO2. My emphasis is on energy (energy unusable by humans), which usually takes the form of heat.

I think your understanding is incorrect. WDSmart - This is the definion of technology from the online dictionary, and the one I mean when I use the word "technology": "machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge:" This would not include what I believe is referred to by the word "arithmetic." I believe "arithmetic" is an approach to creating technology, among other things, but not thetechnology itself. If you meant all energy technologies pollute, you should have said that. WDSmart - I said "all technologies pollute," and that would include energy technologies. I said this because my book focuses on energy technlogies. You may believe this, but everything in your statement above is false. WDSmart - My reasoning and details behind this statement are a large part of my book. There, I specifically focus on solar panels, because mot people believe they are "clean (green) and renewable" technologies. They are neither, nor is any other technology. My understanding is that "arithmetic" refers to an approach or a process, not a technology. "Technology" is defined in my online dictionary as "machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge." (The underlining is of my doing.) I did mean all technologies pollute. Energy technologies are included in that. I emphasize them because those technologies are the focus of my book. I do believe this, and I gave many reasons and details in my book. I don’t believe anyone could prove"any of my statements in the book are false,

That’s the best piece of sarcasm I’ve ever read on these forums! 😄Thanks!

I notice and understand your sarcasm. I just believe this topic is very important, and I want to steer the conversation back to the real problems.

That's not true. All technologies pollute, and technologies are made by humans - all humans.

Yes, printing my books and almost EVERYTHING I do is part of the problem. Why do I say that? Because all HUMANS are the problem, and I am a human.

The way I understand it, "arithmetic" is an approach to technology, not a technology by itself. And, yes, I say again, "All technologies pollute," I mean that, but am talking specifically about "energy technologies,” such as nuclear reactors, solar panels, windmills, tidal turbines, etc. They all cost more energy to create, operate, and dispose of than they ever produce.

The biggest disappointment I have with this story is that only 53% of people think Trump is trying to conceal something. WTF do the other 47% think he's doing? 😟

Name me one technology that does not pollute...

But most scientists focus only on technological processes, not on human proclivities. My book identifies three causes of our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere: 1. Technology (all technology pollutes); 2. Overpopulation (humans); 3. Human Hubris (the belief that we (humans) are the most important thing in the universe, and everything else can be used and destroyed at our whim).

In my most recent book, I say as far as our (humans') destruction of the Earth's biosphere, we're already "over the cliff." We can only slow it down, but cannot stop or reverse it. 😢

Yes, this conflict, if you believe what's written in the Bible, in Exodus, goes back to around 1500 BCE when the Jews conquered (militarily) and took over the land of Canaan, which is now called Palestine. ☹️

Yes, they did. It's unclear what you mean with "this war," i.e., whether you are referring only to the current war in Gaza that started on Oct. 7, 2023, or the entire conflict stretching back to 1947-48. In either case, Palestinians initiated the military action. Yes, I consider the admittedly horrible Palestinian attack on Oct 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people, as just another chapter in a continuing war (conflict), which started back in 1947-48. Since then, in this chapter, there has been an admittedly horrible bombing of Gaza by the Israelis, killing 69,000 people and injuring many more.

I am 80, and I have a plan for the end of my life. I have a will that has all my bank and online accounts and passwords. I have a close friend who lives near me who has agreed to be the executor of the will. In my will, I state that I do not want my body cremated or embalmed. I want to be buried in a biodegradable sack, called a "body pod," and a tree planted on top of me.

I'll send you a list of the titles in a message. I've been warned about posting them here on Asean Now Forums. I think the Wikipedia articles on Trump and Cat Behavior are the same article. 😉

I read Wikipedia except for the science stuff. Too many interpretations. I know there are things called books. I’ve written and published ten of them.

Here's a good article for you to read... 1948 Palestine war - Wikipedia

The Palestinians didn’t start this war. The UN actually set up the conditions of the war by giving about half of Palestine to the Jews in 1947. The Jews (now called "Israelis”) then started the war by increasing their claim on the land from about 50% to now about 95% over the past 70 years. And how did they do that? By military actions, which are now increasingly seen by the general public as despicable anti-Semitic genocide.

Global opinion is turning against Israel because people are learning more about just what it is Israel is doing, and has been doing for the past 70 years. 😡

“De facto annexation”? No, it's absolutely genocide! 😡