your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

You talk as if there's never been an amendment, or you don't understand how they work. 98% support is far more than needed.

The founders foresaw this sort of issue, and created a constitution that can evolve with the culture. Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability.

That's the thing about having a party in control that doesn't represent the majority (edit: or even the vast majority of their own supporters), the will of the people is neutered.

Duh.
You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!

Almost as stupid as holding the producers of the toxic product AND the misleading or outright false information about it's hazards blameless. Because they actively misled their customers, I give them the vast lions share of blame, but maybe not 100%. There's plenty to go around.

You don't have to live in poverty to abandon fossil fuels.
Not.
Even.
Close.
I bought solar 10+- years back...it paid for itself in 8. It's lifespan is 20+-. I get 12 years of free electricity for abandoning that portion, with no blackouts, no brownouts, and no rate increases.

True, the video could be better at sharing the blame, but it stayed on topic instead, that topic being major polluters greenwashing their mage. I didn't take it as assigning ALL blame to one source, just not allowing the worst offenders to shirk all responsibility for their products.


Every one of these is the likely outcome of any anthropogenic rise over 2-3C because of feedback loops that drive us to 6-12C rise. Only the wars are likely this century, but I didn't put a timeframe on those outcomes. 140 million + will be displaced by just a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections.
That wipes out mangroves and other fish nurseries, further impacting the struggling ocean food webs. All the while it accelerates as our ability to cope erodes like the shorelines....it doesn't just halt at 3' rise.
The natural food webs on land are also struggling, and are unlikely to survive ocean collapse.

Not just from deforestation, but diatoms are near a point of collapse from ocean acidification. https://diatoms.org/what-are-diatoms. That's over 1/2....and the base of the ocean food web.


Since the IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates) now says at current rates we could hit as much as a 6C rise by 2100, and rates of emissions are rising as fast as carbon sinks are shrinking, they're not just a possibility, they a likelihood in the near future....but granted the hydrogen sulfide clouds are far in a worst case scenario future, far from guaranteed.

Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

That's why you and Trump are leveraging everything you own and buying up cheap coastal properties that will jump exponentially in value right after this fraud is exposed, or when the sea doesn't rise....no? Why not? If you believed what you spout, it's an absolute no brainer, the fact you (and others like you) don't act on it is proof that you don't believe your own position yourself.

Perhaps it's because the people who tell you there's a vast scientific conspiracy perpetrated for the sole purpose of milking that sweet sweet research money are paid by fossil fuel industries. Perhaps it's because the Pentagon agrees with the science and even Trump agrees when his money is on the line. Perhaps because of the hottest 18 years ever recorded, 17 occurred after 2000. Perhaps it's because these immigrants you are so afraid of are migrating in part due to climate change already. Perhaps it's because numerous Pacific islands are disappearing. No matter why, it's clear you really do believe in climate change, or you would own a huge chunk of Florida coast already.
Pathetic, Bob.


*nochannel
*politics
*nature
*science

I know many Americans have a tendency to put cops on a pedestal, politicians and media outlets talk about how "dangerous" policing is and how they have to do a tough job under constant threat of violence while completely ignoring that part of the threat of violence comes because of police misbehaviour. It's also not a very dangerous job. Statistically, being a gardener is more dangerous than being a cop. You don't see gardeners stabbing random black shrubs with shovels and quoting the dangers of their profession to justify it do you?

Most of the problem of out-of-control policing is because they're held up as holy warriors, haloed in glittering samite, when they're just people, and many of them are BAD people.

The whole hero cop myth just needs to die, but it won't because Americans, by and large, are cowards. Afraid of the shadows, afraid of black men, afraid of foreigners, muslims, anything or anybody "different". You think you NEED cops to be tough, rugged heroes to save you from the things that go bump in the night. You NEED cops to be brutal and without remorse, killing at the slightest provocation because they're "just doing their jobs". Otherwise every street corner would have a mugger ready to rob you blind.

Truth is, the vast majority of Americans have been the victim of a crime. They probably didn't even know it, and you can be sure the cops never investigated. Wage theft in America amounts to far more than all other criminal activity combined. It's intentional and ongoing. Until the Walton family is in chains the cops will never truly be in your corner. They are a tool of people like the Waltons. Their job is not to protect you, it's to protect the status quo. If protecting you helps maintain that status quo, then that's what they'll do. If not.... well, ask Willie McCoy about that.

Thanks for your concern, I can feel it and much appreciated.

Those church goers doesn't dictate me, I'm more like one of those that love to call out on any BS hypocrisy shit-disturber in the church. Why? Mainly because I don't really care about going to heaven and belong to a religion organization. But I do look up to Jesus as a great philosopher/role model. Actually, to be honest, the bigger role model in the Bible to me is Paul.

So far, there are many good people in my church that are genuinely involved to the community at large (not just within the church), those I would
sincerely call friends and partners, a vast majority are the regular church goers - there for their own purpose (like to belong to a community, trying to figure things out), and some bad apples (the alt-right type in the USA).

I'm just glad I'm a Canadian, where Christians doesn't play the political game as hard-core (read: bat-shit crazy) as in the States. Pretty European, clearer separation of religion and state.

If one day my church is too much for me (i.e. I see a negative value in the community), I'm more than happy to go.

I hope people like you on Videosift can keep me grounded. This community is pretty unique to me.

The time scale is so vast that I can't even begin to imagine what "we" might be.

To elaborate, it's more like "I hate the feeling stirring inside me (frustration, exacerbation, etc) whenever I hear those people offering thoughts and prayers"... but hey... my fault for not being clear.

You're right thought, we just shouldn't be hateful towards fellow beings. But I think there's legit room to hate evil deeds.

But man...I don't know... I live in Canada and I just feel Christians as a group is vastly different from what I see in the US. I can't stand those loud "Evangelicals" in bed with Trump and the Republican. What Christian values that those Republicans stand up for that's enough for US Evangelicals to be kept silenced or down-right condone of all the non-Christians deeds they're doing to this world or the USA? Cynically, if I'm forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils" then it's the Dems any day. Things in the USA is so twisted, it is a circus horror show.

I spend a lot of time blabbing about it, if that's what you mean :-)

As for maintaining a healthful diet, once you know what to put in the shopping cart it takes no more devotion than eating any other diet

It's essentially this https://www.drcarney.com/images/easyblog_shared/b2ap3_large_PCRM-Power-Plate-Small.PNG

which is very similar to the government's recommendations - https://i.dietdoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/myplate-467x425.jpg, minus the dairy. (Canada has recently dropped dairy from their government recommendations, so it's becoming a mainstream thing to accept that dairy is not required in the diet - and even the dairy industry themselves are starting to give up, no longer is their own biased research saying dairy is healthy, they've begun to settle with dairy is not harmful lol)


It is important to me, personally because my close relatives died from easily preventable diseases, and I myself suffered from nephrotic syndrome, which would have killed me. And I mean suffered, my wounds were opening up, I had ulcers appearing on my skin, my joints were swollen, and my muscle mass was wasting away because I was pee'ing out all my protein....... AND THEN I FIND OUT IT'S BASICALLY AN OPTIONAL ILLNESS - and my life is saved.

It absolutely pains me to see the western world with it's epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart-disease, cancer, and less common diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis and so on, suffering unnecessarily like I did because they do not know the how easy it is to avoid, prevent, and often reverse these diseases. The vast majority of people could easily be healthy if they switched to a whole food plant-based diet. Not everyone, but most.

We're doing it to ourselves. We're giving ourselves these horrible diseases, and destroying the planet, and killing 80 billion land animals, and 2 trillion sea animals to make ourselves sick. To me it's pure insanity.

You didn't dispute their science, did you? Are you pretending this was reviewed by outside scientists who aren't card carrying vegan zealots...or even by non contributors to the paper they've presented? Do you know who funded it, since that does matter? Any meat producers among them?
You know they neglected to include a list of possible conflicts of interest the authors had, too. Could that be because the vast majority made/make their living selling veganism in one way or another?

I gave specific points of contention with specific details of eat lancet including it's scientific validity, with specific data you failed to address at all.

I'm just pointing out the deficiencies in your movement's new attempt at science...it may have some good points none the less.

I'm much less concerned with the messenger than the science. Veganism pushes out these new claims so often that it takes an army to keep up with debunking them, it's no surprise some soldiers are less than perfect, I don't know these two enough to care....but do you contradict their article's scientific points, ignoring the authors likely bias?

All that said, I don't disagree that red meat once a week is a decent limit, or that less sugar and processed grain would be even more beneficial to average people's health (not everyone)...and that's far from suggesting veganism...but those three suggestions seem to be the main takeaways from the synopsis I've read, but the devil is in the details, which seem to need serious work.

And what exactly does veganism have to do with alcohol consumption? The vast majority of alcohol is vegan friendly.

Vegans have nothing to gain from decreased alcohol consumption.


----
Also Dr.Greger makes no claims. He simply reads out the research from a world wide scope of researchers, none of which are vegan.

And cherry picking what exactly? He's presented literally 10s of thousands of research papers all from unrelated researchers. And it's not like he's picking out some fringe groups, he's quoting the biggest health organisations in the world.

While it's easy to call him a cherry picker, I challenge anyone to find any credible evidence of cherry picking. I'm yet to hear back from someone over the last 6 years.

And I also challenge you to find an article that isn't funded or tied to the egg/milk/beef/fish industry which claims that eating x animal product is healthy.

Even easier, find an industry funded study which shows the detrimental effects of their own product. You won't, because they are inherently biased - an industry would never publish something that would hurt their bottom line. And no he doesn't ignore or cherry pick around industry funded studies, he exposes their tricks and data manipulation as well. That's not cherry picking, that's proper analysis.

And actually thanks to the freedom of information act, we can see how many studies they hide from us (when they don't like the results), and only publish the ones that suit their revenue centered agenda.

And this is why he's labelled a cherry picker - revenue loss. Broccoli ain't making anyone rich.

Let me put it into perspective:

He did a few video on how those WIFI sensitivity diseases are fake, and the comments are insane - because it's hurting people's income. And this is a pretty niche market, so you can imagine what a billion dollar industry would attempt to do to discredit him. Of course, they never address the research, just him.