Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

charliem wrote:Thanks for the answer Diogenes.

So, if I understand your correctly, you say that we are going to have an overpopulation problem in the world, just not in the US, is that right?

I see several possible futures. Many of them are very bad. I like the one proposed by pbelter above, but I am not optimistic that this is the one we are going to end up with. Malthus may get us yet.


I try to weigh all the forces I see swirling around me, and try as I may, I still cannot see sufficiently of the pattern to make any confident guesses as to how things are going to turn out.


We currently do not have a population problem in the United States, but eventually, perhaps. By the time we start to have a population problem in the US, I expect we are going to see simultaneous solutions to various population problems occurring elsewhere. Hopefully they will not be of the "final" sort, but the one sort of progress that seems consistent in human history is improvements to killing machines.


Cheering for SpaceX is my current plan of action.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

NotAPhysicist wrote:Can I restate this video link please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
This is, an admittedly cutely animated, short video on over population sponsored by the Gates Foundation who, I assume, are pretty intimately aware of population issues around the globe.
I'd suggest watching that, you are certainly free to disagree with what it is saying but I'll assume for the moment it is reasonable well researched and not trying to horribly misrepresent what appears to be happening.

I watched it. I noticed immediately what I regarded as flawed assumptions, and a lot of presumptions. Implicit in every aspect of the video is the notion that "birth" will be controlled. That there is some sort of switch to turn it off and on so that when a population decides to do it, it just happens. The underlying premise is that "birth control" is a given, because I don't see anything less than "birth control" stopping people from having babies, because i'm pretty sure people are not going to stop having sex.


It also recounts what I think is a flawed premise; That all people and all cultures are interchangeable, and that the behavior or history of one culture or people may be used as an accurate predictor of another.


I think the video is more pie in the sky wishful thinking by liberal academic types who are out of touch with the real world. I just read yesterday that the Civil War in the Congo killed five million people. I saw the other day where the Rwandan genocide resulted in 800,000 Tutsi being murdered.


Completely left out of the video is David P. Goldman's observation that wars of conquest and expansion often occur after local population booms. Feeding people into a meat grinder is a tried and true method of dealing with population issues.

NotAPhysicist wrote: The short version is that we haven't hit peak population yet but are likely too relatively soon as living conditions gradually improve around the world - so far there is a very strong inverse correlation between living conditions and birth rates everywhere an upswing in living conditions has been seen. That is, the better conditions the less kids you tend to have. You get some lag with older generations coming through from worse conditions but eventually this stabilises.
Hopefully we can achieve a fairly stable population that is sustainable in good conditions - seems at least possible if we don't mess things up.


You might find this video unsettling to these notions you have expressed.

https://youtu.be/6-3X5hIFXYU
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

charliem
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 8:55 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by charliem »

pbelter wrote:If/when technology advances to the point that I live on Earth but work on Mars and spend weekends on Alpha Centauri II, which place am I overpopulating?
OK, so your opinion is that we will probably be able to travel to other habitable planets within this century, and exploit their resources, ergo, no problem with too much people on Earth.

I am also very in favor of space exploration but, frankly, don't see us advancing that far, that fast.

Diogenes, you sound more pessimistic. Don't you think there are other things (beyond developing space travel) that we can do to help with the situation?

About population growth in the past and present, and other related data, for anyone interested in the numbers I recommend the stats in this place. They have info from most countries in the world, from a few decades, to more that 2 centuries back. The graphs are quite easy to understand, and they can be made to go back and forth in time, making easier to see tendencies. There are graphs about population, GDP, health, reproduction, life expectancy, agriculture, education, and many more. The director/founder of the site, Hans Rosling, is also a very good communicator; I found his TED talks enjoyable and informative.

edit: grammar
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

charliem wrote: OK, so your opinion is that we will probably be able to travel to other habitable planets within this century, and exploit their resources, ergo, no problem with too much people on Earth.
If Woodward is right it may be within our lifetime. No need to wait for 100 years.
Of course as long as the govts don't stop development with "restrictions to growth" such as high regulation and taxation using the AGW fallacy as as one more excuse to do so.

We can choose to embrace the growth and reap its benefits or squash it and stagnate. The Rome Club approach with its zero growth policies is stagnation by design.

Image

Image

Technologies like EM drive, Fusion, Artificial Intelligence and Genetic Engineering have been in the disappointment part of the graph. If they take off now...

NotAPhysicist
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by NotAPhysicist »

I'll get to the video later but the title and ominous starting music do not fill me with confidence that it will provide a reasonable analysis, could be wrong :)

In the meantime I'll note that Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country and has so far had the quickest reported response to the improved life style, less babies inverse correlation, since the above video appears to be related to Muslim rates I thought it worth pointing out.

As I say, later, things to do..

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

charliem wrote: Diogenes, you sound more pessimistic.

There are times when I think I am being too cynical, and then something happens that makes me realize I wasn't being cynical enough.
charliem wrote: Don't you think there are other things (beyond developing space travel) that we can do to help with the situation?

I hear Christianity is spreading in China. I think that will help some of the situation, but whether it becomes significant quickly enough to matter I cannot say. I see a little bit of progress in India. I see some progress in Russia. I see no progress in Africa or the Middle east. I see little to no progress in South America. I see North America going backwards. Europe has lost it's F***ing mind. Other than a lot of the sort of progress suggested by Max Planck, I am at a lost to suggest how the situation might be improved.

The problem with humanity is cultural in my opinion. I see the overall culture growing worse, not better.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by paperburn1 »

I can not help but notice our development seem to parallel our caffeine use.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

New Maunder minimum progressing as expected.

Earth Cooling At The Fastest Rate On Record

Image
http://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/e ... on-record/

NotAPhysicist
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:51 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by NotAPhysicist »

Or not: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satell ... sphere.htm
I'd also say that to me that graph doesn't show a clear cooling or warming trend, but to each their own.

Interestingly the stratosphere is apparently predicted to cool.

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

NotAPhysicist wrote:Or not: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satell ... sphere.htm
I'd also say that to me that graph doesn't show a clear cooling or warming trend, but to each their own.
In the long term it doesn't, but Abdusamatov predicted that the new Maunder Minimum will have its first impact in 2015. If you look at the graph since 2015 it kind of doe show a pronounced trend.

Of course it is too short to prove anything but it observable data aligns with theory that predicted it before it happened, the theory is worth a closer look.

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

A journolist goes to Allepo, looks at the destruction and draws the conclusions :

Climate change is to blame!

I haven't seen that one coming :lol: .
How much more ridiculous the AGW needs to become to be laughed out of existence?


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

Is there anything Climate Change can't do?
I caught a flat tire the other day and I thought it was because of the nail that I found in it.
Now that I think about it again, it much be the expansion of hot gas in my tire caused by AGW that did this.

charliem
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 8:55 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by charliem »

You know, I was a global warming skeptic too, until about ten years back (a bit after reading Michael Chichton's novel, State Of Fear, in which climate change activism plays a big part), what I have never been is very interested in persuading anyone else, neither before nor after.

What DOES interest me is studying how we think. This is why I'm so curious about why people without any evident interest in a topic that I can see [financial, fame, prestige, etc.], are so much into convincing others.

I'm not trying to be derogatory here, just attempting to explain my perception, but to me it sounds weirdly similar to religious convictions; I wonder if there is a common psychological mechanism at play.

Another thing that I find interesting. It seems there is very little correlation between the level of knowledge a person has in a certain area, and his/her desire to spread their ideas. In fact, if there is any correlation, it seems to be negative, the more a person knows about anything, the less likely that they are interested in talking about it [to non specialists].

Shouldn't it be the opposite?

We humans, are reeeeeeeally weird ;)
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

charliem wrote:You know, I was a global warming skeptic too, until about ten years back (a bit after reading Michael Chichton's novel, State Of Fear, in which climate change activism plays a big part), what I have never been is very interested in persuading anyone else, neither before nor after.
Interesting you should say that. I read the novel too back in 2005 and what I remember form it is was about data manipulation by the AGW proponents to create the "State of Fear" that will allow authorities to get away with things they normally could not. I just checked Wikipedia entry on that book and that is pretty much what it says. Wikipedia says that the book has:
"Numerous charts and quotations from real world data, including footnoted charts which strongly suggest mean global temperature is, in this era, lowering"
And you are saying that the book convinced you AGW is real?
How odd.

The "State of Fear" is a standard tactic exercised by authority, especially in totalitarian regimes to control the society. In Soviet Union they believed that Fear was the best motivator and brought the State of Fear to a new level by creating State of Terror.
State of Fear throughout history is competing with Financial Incentive as the 2 most efficient mechanisms to run a society.
The fearists believe that people are stupid an lazy and the only way to get any results is to coerce them. They preferred social order is slavery, where they completely eliminate the Financial Incentive and fear of punishment is the only driver. Financial Incentive promotes a libertarian state. Most likely those two are also on the opposite ends of speed of technological progress, where the progress is slowest in slavery with most restrictions and quickest in a libertarian state with no restrictions.
charliem wrote: I'm not trying to be derogatory here, just attempting to explain my perception, but to me it sounds weirdly similar to religious convictions; I wonder if there is a common psychological mechanism at play.
Are you saying AGW is a religion? BINGO!
I think there is an important mechanism why people believe in stuff and go to lengths such as making data falsification (euphemism: Policy Based Evidence Making) an official policy just to fit their world view.
The reason is that we evolved to believe in a higher purpose as believers have more children so they can live for that purpose. This is usually a religion, but in these areligious times people have to find substitutes.
Imagine that there was a 2 competing theories/religions where one spells doom and gloom, and the other that paints a bright future. The pessimists are more likely to go for the first one while the optimists for the second. In the long run the pessimists die out since they don't believe as much in having children or doing much of anything, as they see downsides to everything.

The dominating ideology in the West today is pessimism, which manifests itself in falling birth rates and depression pandemic. This creates fertile ground for all kinds of false ideologies that spread fear:
- AGW is going to kill us
- vaccines are going to kill us
- ... is gong to kill us
- we need to coerce everyone to our belief system or otherwise there is no escape of the doom and gloom
- if the government doesn't act nobody will. Only be heroic and coordinated effort pf the entire society can save us!

It is pretty hard to escape this mental state, but is usually done by a new generation that rebels against the old ideas at the same time as the old generation dies out. This is slowly happening as people get tired of the doom and gloom same old stuff.

On the other hand we may be heading for Universe 25:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-sci-fi-dy ... r-animals/

charliem wrote: What DOES interest me is studying how we think. This is why I'm so curious about why people without any evident interest in a topic that I can see [financial, fame, prestige, etc.], are so much into convincing others.
Are you suggesting that is me? I can't identify myself with the group.
First I don't want to convince anyone for the sake of convincing. I just want to be left alone and not taxed or regulated especially not for the sake of other people totalitarian fantasies. If that involves convincing people coercion is bad, so be it. It that involves convincing people a religion is false, so be it. If they want to believe in Dark Matter, Dark Energy or fairy tales, let them do so, it is harmless.

Second, I do have financial incentives not to be excessively taxed especially to pay for other people's false beliefs, and I want to work for companies that are successful and can pay me more instead of paying for overregulation to keep hordes of bureaucrats fed.
charliem wrote: Another thing that I find interesting. It seems there is very little correlation between the level of knowledge a person has in a certain area, and his/her desire to spread their ideas.
That statement is false. People spread ideas they believe in. How much they need to know about something to believe in it, that depends on their environment but it is largely driven by the desire for inclusion in a group. That depends how ideologically motivated the group is and how they tolerate dissent. The more a group beliefs become a religion the less they are willing to tolerate dissent.

The letter from Judith Curry that Diogenes posted
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-i ... more-22651

indicates that the AGW academia are growing pretty fundamentalist and tolerate no dissent.

charliem
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 8:55 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by charliem »

Thank you for your comment pbelter, it gave me a lot to think about.
pbelter wrote:
charliem wrote:I was a global warming skeptic too, until about then years back (a bit after reading Michael Chichton's novel, State Of Fear
And you are saying that the book convinced you AGW is real?
No, that novel didn't convince me, but it started a process. If anything it was because I thought the book made such a good case that I could not understand how anyone could still sustain that AGW was real. I decided to solve the question by studying the subject on my own. I thought that, having a physics degree, it wouldn't be that hard.

Boy, was I wrong.

After dedicating it a good part of my free time for months (hundreds of hours), I discovered two things: One, that this subject is much more complex that I had thought, to learn it I would need years. Second, once I checked them, most of the arguments in Crichton's book seem to be cases of cherry picking the data.

After this I started being much more critic about other people's stances in all kind of scientific matters [not just climatology].
pbelter wrote:
charliem wrote: I'm not trying to be derogatory here, just attempting to explain my perception, but to me it sounds weirdly similar to religious convictions; I wonder if there is a common psychological mechanism at play.
Are you saying AGW is a religion? BINGO!
Not exactly. What I mean is that the fervor I detect in many (most?) in both sides looks almost religious, and a bit short on critical thinking.

As I said before, how many of the people discussing this issue have any training in climatology? Ergo, almost everyone goes by "faith" in the work/word of others.

In that sense both, defenders and opponents, are a bit religious-follower-like. :D


Switching subjects a bit, I'm a bit worried about our future. The present day world is absolutely dependent on technology, and that technology is dependent on its underlying science. I perceive a movement, a shift, what seems to be an increasing number of people rejecting science, from the anti-vaccine movement, to the moon landing deniers, or the alternative medicine believers, etc.

Until a few years back all those people where just something I read on the web, or hear about on TV, but I've started to meet them face to face off-line, and that makes me think that, maybe, those kind of anti-science ideas are spreading. Maybe it is just that irrationality is on fashion ... but THAT is scary. I'm a firm believer in that irrationality (also known as stupidity) has caused much more suffering, and much more death in this world, than any evil force.

One funny (or not at all) anecdote: This acquaintance of mine, telling me how the last videos by SpaceX and Blue Origin, recovering their respective rockets, are transparent fakes, since "anyone with a high school knowledge of physics" knows that rockets can't stand straight under their own power. Since he knows I studied physics, I wonder whether he thinks I'm part of the conspiracy.
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by pbelter »

charliem wrote:Switching subjects a bit, I'm a bit worried about our future. The present day world is absolutely dependent on technology, and that technology is dependent on its underlying science. I perceive a movement, a shift, what seems to be an increasing number of people rejecting science, from the anti-vaccine movement, to the moon landing deniers, or the alternative medicine believers, etc.
It is very bad but it find it completely unsurprising.

There is a lot of money to be made in elaborate scams and the carbon trading scheme was supposed to be worth couple trillion dollars.
Plenty of opportunities for abuse especially that nothing real is being traded.
Contrary to what you are saying my experience tells me that things are simpler then they appear, and if something is very complex it is unlikely to be true. It is a simple principle worked out by Ockham back in the middle ages and it stands at the foundation of scientific method.
It is not a coincidence that snake oil salesman stories are the most elaborate and they are also the least likely to be true.

When you discard scientific method then "scientific" predictions stop being scientific.
When scientific predictions became useless because they are driven by science that is designed to get more funding rather than produce results you get AGW, Black Matter and Black Energy designed to plug holes in current theories in violation of Ockham's razor or non-falsifiable String Theory. Non falsifiable theories are great for funding and safe retirement harbors. You can study them until retirement and nobody can prove you wrong as this impossible by definition. There is a great book on this subject by Lee Smolin, titled "The trouble with physics".

When people hear how the poles are going to melt and seas rise then nothing happens, they just see the scandals like Climategate, they start perceiving the problem for the great moneymaking scam it is. Then they see 2 things:

- failure of science to get to the bottom of real life problems
- scientists making money off scams

The result is predictable. Where is the most money? In pharma. What causes autism? Scientist don't know.
Add the 2 together and you get a great moneymaking vaccine causing autism conspiracy and things start rolling down the hill from there.
"Eat only organic food as you don't know what they put in it, they are putting poisons in food to sell us drugs later"
"Genetic engineering is bad and is going to poison us too"
It starts with real scams like AGW, then it goes into scams that may conceivably have some plausibility and then it just gets wild like the Moon landings.. .

Abusing science for political expediency causes the effects you are describing. Reap what you have sown . Explaining to people that the "science is too complex to understand" makes it worse as i it doesn't agree with their individual experience. Ockham came up with his principle by observing real life and the Ockham's razor is just another term for common sense.

Fallacies like AGW have been sown, conspiracy theories harvest is here.

Post Reply