Climate change in Chile

Unless one can distinguish between what is real and what is imagined, I wouldn’t expect anything good.

Hi lostfree, I hope you are doing well.

What do you propose to discuss here? Do you want to talk about science, adaptation, government action to cut emissions? Ways for individuals to cut their impact?

In the past we had disputes about the science and so on… I just wonder if it makes sense to have a thread that is specifically about discussing how to reduce emissions. or climate action.

That could avoid arguments since those who don’t believe in reducing emissions, or prefer to talk about the science of climate change, could ignore that thread , and we could have two threads if necessary.

Everything changes constantly, and is interconnected. Those who see the underlying causes and conditions – they know the real nature of the changes.

For me, it would be interesting to hear first-hand personal experience of old-timer expats. Whether or not the weather pattern changes, in what manner, what do our own feelings tell us.

Speaking of the “science”, it tells me that cow’s fart is dangerous but nuclear power plants are all “green” and clean, that old-fashioned light bulb in my home must be banned but electric cars are totally encouraged and bitcoin farming goes on full speed. This “science” doesn’t tell people to just stop consuming beyond their needs.

Or it tells companies that have more money than sense that buying “carbon credits” makes all the thick putrid smoke, vivisection of endangered animals, totally ok and everything

It reminds me of the medieval indulgences. Sure you can do wicked things to people weaker than you AND you can just purchase divine forgiveness in a carnal shell game


It looks like we have a different opinion on this topic. I think it will make sense if I start a second, separate thread to discuss how to cut emissions and how to take action for those of us that are firmly convinced that this is the right thing to do. I think that’s what I’ll do unless I hear otherwise from a moderator.

I think your comments lost free, and many of the comments on these topics on the previous two forums, amount to what I view as a kind of denialism. If not an outright denialism of the idea that humans are causing dangerous climate change, then at least a kind of scepticism of the need for urgent action. Since those of us who believe in taking actions to slow human caused climate change are now a majority, we can discuss how to move on without engaging with the minority of people who don’t favour action. Long winded debates with the minority who don’t agree just slows down the majority being able to move forward with what we want to do.

I don’t want to start another thread today, firstly since I think I’ll allow time for any moderator response on the idea, and also since the forum is very young, two threads on climate change at this point seems like overkill when there are only about 5 threads in total. So I’ll perhaps wait a bit and see whether or not the forum builds up first.

In the mean time:

“what do our own feelings tell us” we should judge mostly on facts, science not feelings.

“cow’s fart is dangerous” Cows do belch methane which causes global warming so changing to vegetarian meals will have a benefit for those that want to. If the number of cows gets down to a natural level similar to the number of tigers or buffalo of course it won’t be an issue.

“nuclear power plants are all “green” and clean” I don’t think nuclear power plants are green and clean however more people are killed from accidents and climate change and pollution from fossil fuels every week than in the entire history of nuclear energy generation.

“old-fashioned light bulb in my home must be banned” I don’t support bans but If you have old fashioned electric bulbs in your home in sockets that are regularly used 2-3 hours per day or more, you are throwing money away at this point.

Regarding the “majority” and the “urgent action”.

When there are 100 people, 98 of whom are fish vendors but the remaining 2 are world-renowned scholars, professors of medicine: how would you be willing to decide, in case of your own health emergency, the question of the best treatment? Would you listen to the majority, or the minority in the know?

Exactly so, asking the opinion of the majority of this planet population is not always the best way to resolve urgent questions.

Do I believe that the humanity is going through tough times, and that the urgent action is needed? Yes I do. What is the nature of such action? I believe that the urgent action has to be firstly directed at one’s own body and mind, and the proper effort is to investigate, and understand their functioning in detail. As a result, mental clarity arises, and the true vision of the real nature of any of the world processes, and our possible best action (if needed). When there is no such clarity, any “urgent action” undertaken by the “majority” has much more chances to be destructive.

I tend to agree with the evidence that man is impacting the climate and that we, as the more “intelligent” species, should help mitigate the effects that are inevitable warming our planet.

I think no matter what your point of view is, we can all agree that the debate can be fruitful and exposing our points can be done in a respectful manner. I’m a big believer in healthy debates.

Lastly, I was all for renewable energy via solar and wind but this Ted talk was very informative and really helped me put things into perspective.

Of course, there are those of the “climate change” is real side but we disagree that it is global warming caused by man vs. we are on the precipice of anther ice age mini or full blown that has nothing to do with man (known as the sun determines all as history shows via solar minimums or max). If we make the wrong choice here (shutting down fossil fuel production for heat and energy) many will die, but that is what TPTB want.

Thanks for the video. Not a single word on nuclear accidents worldwide, the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant, and the true number of fatalities from radiation-induced cancer. As one of the YouTube comments under the video reads (I quote): “FACTS AND DATA MANIPULATED BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY”. A one-sided video, this is a dishonest way to present data.

{… the rest of the post was edited out by the author …}

Regarding radiation…

There is proof that smoking protects the lungs vs. what mainstream media and science says.

My father died of lung cancer, yes, he was a smoker.

But he spent many days to weeks in the USA SW desert as a USG civil engineer on waterworks projects during the nuclear “tests” of the late 60’s to 70’s.

Of course, lung cancer has continued very strong even among non-smokers to the present (actually even more so).

One theory for the explosion of post WWII lung cancer (when previously it wasn’t present in a high smoker population) is the radioactive particles circulating because of those tests aerial and land (Russia, the South Pacific, the US, etc.).

The real effect of this will never be studied.

But I do not deny that for some, perhaps this radiation may be a benefit but my gut says more damage than benefit in the numbers.

YMMV and you have every right to believe what you want to believe as long as you do not impose it on others.

I thought the video was interesting, it doesn’t shape my opinion but it allows me to analyze perspectives, and it was never meant to be evidence of anything. I do think it’s important to continue to have these conversations in a respectful manner.


As my gut feeling is telling me, sometimes there is just a personal observations sharing, but sometimes there is a skillful crafting of an effective propaganda tool which can be successfully used. Analyzing the entire set of charts, graphs, facts, and photos presented, and taking into account all that which intentionally remained unsaid, unfortunately, I decided that the video belonged to the later category. I am sorry if my feeling was not serving me properly. As I had way too much exposure to real people’s accounts of tragic consequences of their living close to the “unseen” and unknown so-called “numbered cities” – either nuclear waste disposal sites, or various other related projects.

Yes I am always open to conversation on sensitive topics, and am always trying to self-moderate. Sometimes very unsuccessfully.

Here’s a full-length movie that covers the same ground as that TED talk but also reveals how big business has co-opted and perverted the environmental narrative.

It includes a critical scrutiny of the curious environmentalist attitude towards the “biomass” industry (that even simple old me knew is just burning wood) and makes the point that none of the current “solutions” being implemented solve the underlying problems, in fact they often make things worse.

The global tragedy of the commons situation, that most are only dimly becoming aware of, is insoluble imho, and its folly to think that we can continue indefinitely as we do by applying technological quick-fixes.

Most of the world doesn’t even have the cows to put on the global commons yet. But they want them, and who can blame them?

It´s an awful movie, at least the part I watched is. I watched it when it first came out, but it was so bad I gave up well before the end. This movie has rightly received tons of criticisms for its many errors and imperfections. It seems to be saying that wind and solar are just as bad as fossil fuels, which is ridiculous.

If you search for information on this movie on a search engine, you will easily find lists of various false statements and you can easily verify that they are false for yourself. You don´t have to take my word for it. Anyone with the time to investigate can easily confirm for themselves that this is true.

Note that in order to make the false claim that renewables don´t provide much power they visited a really old solar array built over a decade ago. Renewables have improved dramatically since then.

In order to make the claim that electric cars run on coal, they showed footage from a 10 year old car launch event, but coal has been declined since then and is obviously on the way out, at least in the Americas and Europe.

Why did their criticisms of renewables and electric cars show 10 year old stuff, ignoring the dramatic improvements since then? They don´t have an answer.

We have solar panels and we are getting 85% of our car and home energy from solar. There´s no reason why others can´t do the same.

Criticisms on biomass are fairer.

Overall this is a movie that makes false statements to stoke controversy and have a contrarian viewpoint. Many of us suspect that they are deliberately making false statements since the alternative would be spectacular ignorance and incompetence.

Oops, it must have rubbed you up the wrong way.
Its a cheek to rubbish it this way without even taking the trouble to watch the whole thing.
There are a lot of negative comments on the net, I guess from people who think like you. Fine, but there are alternative points of view which deserve to be heard as well, Its called Tolerance, perhaps you disapprove?