Collapse of Civilization

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Thanks for the offer to start a new thread about your neat suggested new topic.......I have no idea what it might generate........good or bad or irrelevant......

But I will politely decline.

Since Henry Lam hived me, and others, onto Tatooine (I now think it was a good idea), I have become "over-exposed".......I do have trouble, like a bass, not rising to the bait though!

Participation is key to ChessTalk........it is its lifeblood......I'm always happy to see new CT'ers, and to see all CT'ers generating new topics, chess or non-chess.

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

"Does capitalist democracy still work?" Key member of the WEF's 'Board of Trustees' and deputy PM of Canada, Chrystia Freeland, openly declares war on the concept of democracy, in the name of tackling "climate change". "Our shrinking glaciers, and our warming oceans, are asking us wordlessly but emphatically, if democratic societies can rise to the existential challenge of climate change."

Democracy is FAR from perfect, and what we have now―globalist uniparties taking turns at implementing the exact same globalist Net Zero/Agenda 2030 policies, while pretending to be political opponents―can barely be called democracy in the first place, but the fact that these globalist puppets now feel brazen enough to openly call for an end even to the façade they claim is democracy, is concerning to say the least.

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Peter McKillop

Thanks, Pargat, for an insightful and thought-provoking post. Going to need some time to digest all of the information in this one. :)

I agree, Peter...........Pargat's post are often quite informative for me........

Bob A

Yes, there is a lot to digest. This is why I fight against the absurdly simplistic postings about Libertarianism. It isn't personal against Dilip, it's logical against Libertarianism. We tried that with the dot-com era. We handed capital to almost anyone, in the belief they could create online businesses that would totally transform the economy. It went bust, as it logically must have done.

Just think about the Libertarian ideal of everyone on the planet having a unique business idea that could be an actual thriving business. Does that make sense? Well, what businesses can operate without workers? Businesses need workers, it's just common sense. So not everyone can run a business, some must be workers.

What is the ideal ratio of business owners to workers? Maybe we are already there, already in the goldilocks zone. In that case, Libertarianism would take us OUT of that zone and disrupt negatively the overall economy. I can't say if anyone knows the actual ideal ratio, or if it can even BE calculated. But I think we are very close to the ideal already.

And that doesn't even address the whole "Natural Law" aspect of Libertarianism that would turn the world into a police state. Until Dilip or someone gives us a precise definition of "fair competition" that allows an entity to harm others, we have to use our current system of laws and judiciary to determine when injustice is being done.

I am increasingly in favor of Bob Gillanders' billionaires tax model, with the added caveat that money raised from that tax (other taxes still in place) must be allocated to only such work that will save humanity from extinction. How do we decide that? Perhaps it is a redefinition of the Libertarian Natural Law. That law talks about fair competition when it should be talking about survival of humanity.

Any attempt to discover and produce drugs against terminal diseases or genetic conditions would be considered as vital to human survival. Any attempt to stop environmental degradation (cutting of Amazon rainforest, as one example) would be considered as vital to survival of humanity. Any attempt to increase food production without resorting to gmo or pesticides would be considered as vital to humanity. Any attempt to create renewable energy without pollution or other adverse effects would be considered as vital to human survival. And I would add one thing: colonization of Mars. Simply because we cannot assume that Earth will always be here, plus we must have the vision that we humans build the technology that allows us to expand even beyond the Solar System some day far in the future.

But even when I write "any attempt" to do these things, I realize that some attempts that could be contrived might not be in our best interests, and so there must be a body that determines without prejudice whether a specific research attempt should be funded by the billionaires' tax.

The biggest challenge to all this is to keep it all free of greed and corruption. I am open to ideas as to how to do that. Another thread, Bob A.? How To Eliminate Human Greed and Corruption. I think that is a key topic for even your DM ideas.

I already have some ideas I could post there.... :)

[Bob Armstrong]

I agree, Peter...........Pargat's post are often quite informative for me........

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

....

Thanks, Pargat, for an insightful and thought-provoking post. Going to need some time to digest all of the information in this one. :)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip and Sid and all the rest...

except the nonsense-puking nasty troll...

[Pargat Perrer]

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle...&impID=5666892

Peter, after the real painstaking research has been done at the Universities, big-pharma pays a paltry amount to 'buy it' and vey little additional investment is needed to convert it into a drug.
They then spend large amounts orchestrating, by hook or by crook, (i) the conduct of deliberately faulty studies to 'misguide' overuse of that drug, (ii) hype these faulty studies across medical centers and (iii) work behind the scenes in getting overuse guidelines created... Instead, these should ideally be in the domain of the Medical Universities, and one way to stop current practice which is harmful to patients (more side-effects) and to whoever pays for the drugs, is to have a system of adequate public rewards to the University intellectuals, and give open access (without restrictive patents) to drug manufacturing...

When a university lab creates through research a novel molecule that can be patented, no one knows for sure what that molecule will do inside the bodies of human beings given all the variations of DNA and immune systems and lifestyles (smoking, recreational drug use, etc) and cultural differences.

The research needed to find out takes let's say 5 to 10 years of trial studies. Somebody has to pay for that. The universities are not in that game, unless funded by corporations. So right now it takes corporations and venture capital to raise the extraordinarily huge funds to finance the drug game. It's all a hit-or-miss proposition. And that makes it very much like the normal venture capital method of starting any new business. Except new businesses usually fail within the first 1 to 3 years, so the losses on a bad bet are not so extreme.

The drug industry is like the "high roller" room in a casino. If you don't have deep pockets, you don't place any bets.

Now, Dilip's ideal world of Libertarianism in which almost everyone can give up "working for the man" and launch their own idea, with vast pools of capital for them and almost total lack of regulation, is bad enough applied to non-pharma business.... refer to my previous mention of the dot-com bust in 2000, that was Libertarianism reduced to tears (you had vast sums being handed to anyone with a web-based business idea, with no oversight -- the epitome of Dilip's Libertarianism other than the "web-based" part.)

It can't work because very few people really have workable business ideas. Far too many are chasing the next Pet Rock instead of doing something really worthwhile like efficient economically-viable renewable energy for example.

Dilip still can't answer your question, Peter McKillop. He links an article about cancer oncology that says absolutely nothing about where the money comes from and how investors get confidence of being paid back. Dilip simply has no inkling of how that can be done, because he refuses to think about the only alternative model (to the venture-capital high-roller model) that can do it.

That model is something Dilip can't stomach. Since extraordinarily huge sums of money are needed, and huge losses may occur, the money has to come from the only vast pool that exists: the unimaginable cash reserves of the Gates, the Buffetts, the Bezos, the Musks of the world. THEY have to pay for the things that will save the world and avoid collapse of civilization. I would also add the Saudi princes and the Russian mafia, but who can make them pay?

So like Bob G.'s billionaire tax, they get taxed to the max 100% over some specified amount (that can change year to year). The catch is that the money collected from them must go to things that will save humanity from extinction: renewable energy, drug research, food production, environmental protections. In other words, these industries get nationalized and financed by billionaire tax income. So under this model, yes, universities could be doing the drug research as Dilip says he favors, paid for by billionaire tax revenues rether than venture capital that must be raised with false hopes of (or falsified studies promising) returns.

There is still the possibility we could go extinct. We simply might not find the drugs we need to survive all the toxic chemicals the capitalists have infected the world with in pursuit of plastics and pesticides and paraphenalia ... i.e. a whole lot of crap that now pollutes our oceans.

Do I think this model will ever be imposed? No! Human greed is much too pervasive. Dilip and Sid and all the rest are just not going to let it happen, they would rather see humanity go extinct than save humanity by this means, the only means that can possibly work in the world of today.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

Can't think of a more useless thread to verify to the world that we are all, here, adled!

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

Like.........what am I guys.........chopped liver?

Bob A

Bob, shouldn't this topic have its own thread? :)

[Bob Armstrong]

In Defence of ChessTalk (Non-chess Forum)

Part III of 3 (Parts I & II above)

CT/Negative Climate Change

Statements Update

C. Secretarial Rulings

I – Procedural

Ruling # P1 (Post # 1624 – 23/8/23)

New Proposed Statements must be accompanied by a short, executive summary, set of reasons.

[Note: If the Support Texts are extensive, they will have to be shortened by the proposer; these Statements are often repeated and updated in future postings, and extensive support texts, with graphs/charts/ long book or report quotes, etc., will simply become too unwieldy; but the Post # & date of the Extensive support texts will be noted for those viewers wanting more information than the executive summary.]

II – Substantial

Ruling # S1 (Post # 1682 – 23/8/24)

There shall be put forward no Statement on the cause of current Canadian wildfires.

Support

There is great controversy outside this group, and inside, as to the cause of current Canadian wildfires (Natural, Accidental Human, Deliberate Human [arson]). A generally accepted Statement is not possible.

D. CT'er Group Decisions

1. Discussion Protocol (Post # 1736 – 23/9/3)

This CT'er group will continue to use the "Generally Accepted" (The Conversation Format Protocol) Protocol . It has rejected the “Free-Form” discussion protocol.

2. Group Secretary Position (for group process in generating Statements) – Post # 1817 – 23/10/26)

The group secretary position is now unfilled.

Bob A (As Past Group Secretary)

NOTE

All this created by some ChessTalkers!!!!

I have 2 more posts coming to further drive home my point to put a stake through the heart of the MYTH that nothing intelligent ever is generated by ChessTalkers!

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

In Defence of ChessTalk (Non-chess Forum)

Part II of 3 (Part I above; Part III below)

CT/Negative Climate Change

Statements Update

Statement # 8

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Support - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1606 - 23/8/7

The definition of sustainable agriculture used does not explicitly say that this involves necessarily only organic farming. The definition leaves open the possibility that Non-Organic farming could be "sustainable". It is argued that used correctly, certain fertilizers have no effect on health or the environment. But this is still an open question.

Secondly, the statement does not take any position on whether or not farming DOES have a negative effect on climate.

Statement 9

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Supporting Reasons: Sid Belzberg Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Statement # 10

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1733 – 23/8/31 (Secretary)

Statement # 11

The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

Support

As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.
[Chart – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5]
The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.

Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

B. Rejected Statements

Statement A

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Supporting Reasons: Sid Belzberg Post # 1730-2 – 23/8/31

Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28

I think statement # 10 is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

Statement # 6 now is:

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Sid's Statement # 10 (Proposed) is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2:

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Sid's Statement # 10! Recently moving into the 400 PPM range is a big spike in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many scientists see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

I agree with Bob G - it is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Statement B

There is no climate emergency.

Opposition Challenge # 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1788 - 23/10/2

"...it is not generally accepted under any reasonable definition of generally accepted.

Court cases are now underway and winning to protect the environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXY..._channel=MSNBC

Besides, where is the definition of "emergency"?"

Opposition Challenge # 2 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1791 - 23/10/3

"There IS a "climate emergency". Tons of material now exists in the public domain to this effect. Governments and private organizations (World Economic Forum) are sounding the alert. We are seeing the effects of climate change across the globe: wildfires; floods; landslides; rising sea levels; melting polar caps; etc. It is now well-accepted, both inside this group, and in the world at large, that it is likely the human species will be unable to adapt to this new increasingly hostile environment, and will go extinct.

What other definition is there of an "emergency".

The fact of this very thread shows that there is NO general acceptance within this group (This is Post # 1,791!! and BOTH sides are posting their little hearts out).......there IS raging controversy

This Statement is both wrong, and not generally accepted by this group."

Opposition Challenge # 3 - Pargat Perrer - Post # 1792 - 23/10/3

"Just this past week, New York City suffered floods due to precipitation levels not seen in a single day since 1948. That's 75 bleeping years. The extent of the widespread damages is still being worked out.

Guess what that is going to do to property insurance rates in New York City?

Property Insurance companies are the canary in the coal mine; if you want to know whether we are in a climate emergency, follow the falling fortunes of the biggest property insurers and of their customers. Never mind what CO2 levels might have been hundreds of thousands of years ago."

Bob A (As Past Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

...how would you raise the massive amounts of money required for drug research and development if you can't provide prospective investors with the confidence that any successful outcomes will be protected by patents/etc long enough for them to recoup and profit from their investment?

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle...&impID=5666892

Peter, after the real painstaking research has been done at the Universities, big-pharma pays a paltry amount to 'buy it' and vey little additional investment is needed to convert it into a drug.
They then spend large amounts orchestrating, by hook or by crook, (i) the conduct of deliberately faulty studies to 'misguide' overuse of that drug, (ii) hype these faulty studies across medical centers and (iii) work behind the scenes in getting overuse guidelines created... Instead, these should ideally be in the domain of the Medical Universities, and one way to stop current practice which is harmful to patients (more side-effects) and to whoever pays for the drugs, is to have a system of adequate public rewards to the University intellectuals, and give open access (without restrictive patents) to drug manufacturing...

[Bob Armstrong]

I'd like to defend Henry Lam/Francis Rodriguez & ChessTalk!

This non-chess forum DOES produce much rational and sound discussion, among all the noise of those making little contribution (Personal attacks are due to not knowing how to factually rebut).

Please review the following:

[Part I of 3 parts]

1. Negative Climate Change

CT/Negative Climate Change

Update

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

We now have 11 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

We use “The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)”. All Statements are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are now no outstanding Proposed Revision/Opposition Challenges.

A. Statements

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]

“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".

Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”

Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27

“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods

Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.

Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab “

Support 3 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1526 23/7/27

“This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.

July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce “

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)

"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)

"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)

"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”

Statement # 6

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Supporting Reasons - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1735 - 23/9/1

The source of the percentage of CO2 in the air, both historically, and currently is given. The spike in CO2 after the human Industrial Revolution (Approx. 1850 A.D.) coincides with the period of increased warming. CO2 is only one of the greenbelt gases forming the non-porous heat canopy around the Earth.
This Statement deals only with CO2 in the air/atmosphere. It does not tie the rising temperature of the Earth to the spike in CO2; that will have to await future Statements, if there can be a generally accepted on in this group at all.

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)

“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”

Support # 2 - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417 – 23/7/2)

“It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.”

Support # 3 – Sid Belzberg (Post # 1419 – 23/7/2)

“In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.”

Support # 4 – Bob Armstrong (Post # 1423 – 23/7/2)

“Please note that I have introduced ....... including in renewables, "tidal" & "water turbines".”

[See Parts II & III below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Peter McKillop]

Thanks Peter.
You are right, my first instinct that a thoughtful conversation on chesstalk was a pipe dream was correct.

In fact, if I stay away from posting I may even experience a jump in IQ.
I think I will try that for a while. Wish me luck.

I hope you don't go, Bob. CT needs some sanity.

A thought: what have we 'sapiens' accomplished during our relatively brief time on the planet that would make us deserving of a brighter future? To me, our time here is like a gigantic, reeking pile of pig manure with a few, widely interspersed birthday candles burning to signify humans' worthy accomplishments. And guess what?: PayPal is not a fucking birthday candle. One example of a birthday candle: during WW2 some brave Dutch citizens, at great risk to themselves and their families, hid Jews to protect them from the Nazi slime. Now THAT is a birthday candle!!!

[Peter McKillop]

.... It is best not covet thy neighbor's goods. There is a reason that it is right there in the ten commandments. .... Lets tone down the Bernie Sanders and AOC silliness.

And didn't the same guy (or a very close associate) who gave us the ten commandments also say, do unto others as you would have them do unto you? How does that fit into your biblical-cum-capitalist world?