tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post3954086324927835350..comments2024-03-28T22:29:15.590-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Is Global Warming an Existential Threat? Probably Not, But Still a Serious Issue.Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-35301482649896960772020-08-02T01:17:30.825-07:002020-08-02T01:17:30.825-07:00Thank you, Cliff, for your truly scientific observ...Thank you, Cliff, for your truly scientific observations per Our Climates, natural or otherwise. '<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Taylor, in Oregon, first spurred my interest in'Climate prediction" when I edited an Extension newsletter for 10 year. I quoted his note that our PNW tempertures... a highly predictive of available water waa in the 1 to 2 inches for July and August... allowing planting of many monsoon-Asian plants though they need irrigation given our PNW droughts. Thank YOU for maintaining a scientific perspective per "ClimateHeleniihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818799407655986949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-85516542138968070002019-08-22T10:22:03.210-07:002019-08-22T10:22:03.210-07:00I disagree with this view. Technology will help us...I disagree with this view. Technology will help us move forward even as the population increases. 95% of the world population occupies 10% of the land mass and the land mass is only one third of the total surface of the Earth. You have to be careful with how you "stabilize" population as you may end up with an aging population. That is not how nature designed the cycle of life. Challenges for the future will be how to reduce or even eliminate pollution, and find sustainable sources of food, water and energy. With enough political will, these challenges can be resolved.<br /><br />I agree with you about the cost of higher education. I believe the solution is to focus more on vocational training. The problem is that there is a lot of politics involved because universities in America are run like businesses. On top of that, you can no longer default on student debt thanks to one of the previous (democratic) presidents. There are too many entities including the banks that profit from the current American university system.EuropeanManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16989032380024260304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-35523516165979617592019-08-21T15:57:41.878-07:002019-08-21T15:57:41.878-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.EuropeanManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16989032380024260304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-2217917303733874222019-08-20T15:20:56.002-07:002019-08-20T15:20:56.002-07:00Low birth rates associated with increasing prosper...Low birth rates associated with increasing prosperity are already a reality everywhere except Africa. The developed world is below ZPG. Economic growth in less developed countries outside Africa has produced dramatically falling birth rates that suggest that the entire world outside of Africa will soon be at ZPG. This is admittedly a controversial topic. Some still cling to the idea that world population in 2100 will be 11 billion and climbing. Others citing newer information say world population will peak in 2050 at 8 billion and start falling. Frank1123581321https://www.blogger.com/profile/10763365898155961918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-32811186993752827712019-08-19T19:33:15.400-07:002019-08-19T19:33:15.400-07:00The late Dr. Carl Sagan believed the only way that...The late Dr. Carl Sagan believed the only way that population growth can be controlled is for the entire world to industrialize. He also recognized that if the entire world industrializes, then humanity must accept the risk that other problems with increased pollution and environmental degradation might emerge. It was his opinion these problems can be dealt with as they appear, and that the benefits of world industrialization are well worth the additional risks. Betah Blocherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05830083338356921513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-40328261915736987392019-08-19T15:25:44.752-07:002019-08-19T15:25:44.752-07:00Excellent article cliff......thank you.
Since cli...Excellent article cliff......thank you.<br /><br />Since climate science was hijacked for a political agenda, most of the information that reaches the average person comes from sources that have an allegiance to the politics vs being committed to authentic science. Thus, the inability of many people, educated about a fake climate crisis in this manner to put it into proper perspective based on the realities that you described.<br /><br />One should also note that over 100 scientific studies show that it was this warm 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period and that warmth was found to be global. Similar to even warmer conditions existed during the Roman Warm Period, around 2,000 years ago and the Minoan Warm Period around 3,500 years ago.<br /> The Holocene Climate OPTIMUM between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago was MUCH warmer than this in the higher latitudes.<br />Up until climate science was hijacked, the word OPTIMUM was used to describe conditions for life on this planet when it was warmer than this.<br />Now, it's a climate CRISIS......despite the planet greening up from a beneficial gas, violent tornadoes being reduced from the meridional temperature gradient and the fact that cold kills 10 times more effectively than heat.<br />Life still needs to go dormant or hibernate or migrate south in many areas during the Winter to protect itself from the real threat and find food that comes with warmer temperatures.<br />The current atmosphere holds around 6% more moisture than the one of a century ago, since warmer air holds more moisture, so heavy rain events and flooding have increased.<br />However, going back to that atmosphere with CO2 starved plants/crops(100 ppm less than today) and colder temperatures would result in food production losses of around 25%. This would result in a massive deficit in supplies to feed the massive world population as it approaches 8 billion people. One can reasonably estimate that within 3 years with such deficits, close to 1 billion people on this planet would starve and rationing from the disparity between today's demand and the supply from growing crops from last centuries climate/CO2 levels would cause prices to at least triple.....until an equilibrium was established.<br />We should also note that sea levels are rising at just over an inch/year and that climate model projections, which do help us to see potential outcomes, have a wide range/spread and so far, they have mostly been warmer than the observations, not the other way around. So ramping up the alarmism with more extreme views(it's worse than we thought/predicted) to scare people into taking political actions is not scientifically justified.mike maguirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17176167926282465487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-36851962075200917262019-08-18T20:28:24.385-07:002019-08-18T20:28:24.385-07:00Cliff: Though I general agree with most of the th...Cliff: Though I general agree with most of the thoughts in this post, there is a reason that many will disagree. Though it isn't always obvious, their reasoning begins with these words: <br /><br />"As described below, global warming is a serious problem and its impacts will be substantial---but in no way does it seriously threaten our species or human civilization. And with reasonable mitigation and adaptation, mankind will continue to move forward---reducing poverty, living healthier lives, and stabilizing our population." <br /><br />Many people, particularly the affluent (and ivory tower academics?), believe our current lifestyle is already unsustainable. Even if GHG-mediated climate change were not coming, they would fear that their descendants were going to be worse off than they are due to over-population, resource depletion, pollution, etc. Such beliefs predated climate change. Given the expectation that these problems were inevitably going to make it challenging for their descendants to even maintain their current lifestyle, it would be immoral to add to even a modest amount of climate change to the problems future generations face. The price of limiting CO2 emissions is irrelevant, when saving the world for generations is a moral imperative. <br /><br />The developing world, on the other hand, wants to enjoy the many benefits the developed world obtains from an energy-rich society. The same thing is true for the non-affluent in the developed world. It is impossible for leaders of the developing world to plan for a future with limited and/or extremely expensive energy. The developing world wants to emulate China and grow GDP at 6% for the next three decades. Coal has been and is likely to continue to be the cheapest path to the energy needed to drive that GDP growth. GDP-growth is the primary moral imperative, even at the cost of immediate air and water pollution, much less the delayed problem of climate change. Their much richer descendants can deal with the consequences of rapid development, just like Americans dealt with the problems of water and air pollution beginning around 1970. <br /><br />The Ramsey theorem provides a mathematical framework for understanding these to perspectives. The Ramsey theorem says the optimum discount rate for all kinds of investment is proportional to the future economic growth rate. Mathematically, if you expect little or no future economic growth, you should apply a low discount rate future damage from climate change and be willing to pay a lot today to reduce emissions. If you expect robust economic growth, you would apply a high discount rate to damage from future climate change and would be willing to spend very little to help your much richer descendants avoid the problems you have left behind. It is impossible to come up with an economically rational GLOBAL strategy for limiting emissions, because we have very different expectations about future economic growth. The developing world will be happy to follow a low carbon strategy as long as the developed world is willing to pay for it. Thus the INDC from developing countries are based on business as usual (robust economic growth) and contingent on foreign aid that everyone knows won;t be coming. In the US, Republicans believe in a future with high economic growth and dramatic technological progress more than Democrats. Even if climate scientists had an unambiguous value for ECS and economists had the same from future damages from climate change, we still would't be able to agree upon an economically rational program for reducing emissions. Frank1123581321https://www.blogger.com/profile/10763365898155961918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-16606814915989680482019-08-17T22:28:11.247-07:002019-08-17T22:28:11.247-07:00The full content of the commentary I was going to ...The full content of the commentary I was going to be posting in five parts, because of its its length, can instead be found here: <br /><br /><br />https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/17/from-the-b-school-a-plan-to-win-the-millennials-war-on-carbon/#comment-2773044<br /><br />If the Green New Deal can't deliver on its promises in quickly reducing America's carbon emissions, climate activists already have the authority of the Clean Air Act to rely upon should they decide to use it. <br />Betah Blocherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05830083338356921513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-84401614581035974982019-08-17T09:32:28.845-07:002019-08-17T09:32:28.845-07:00"Secondly, you are using a very US-centric me..."Secondly, you are using a very US-centric metric for assessing the impact of climate change. Most of the world's population are far more vulnerable to changing climate"<br /><br />I keep hearing and seeing this and wonder what the source is. Of course, if you are a poverty stricken nation - and the IPCC is basically a NATO organization - and there is a chance to get some serious money, you are going to distribute biased information that might help you get some of the money. I work with computer models... in my case they are all related to forestry. They are quite simple models, really, and do not rely on any proxy data - only real time data collected by forest technicians and, in some cases, remote imagery such as LIDAR. What has always amazed me is that, even with robust data input, they are often wrong. So I am very skeptical of models that are substantially more complex, and frequently rely on proxy data (the dendrochronology assumptions are extremely flawed and show the folks doing the models don't understand much about tree physiology) to arrive at trends and predictions which are accepted by so many "scientists" as highly, or even reasonably, probable. <br /><br />But shouldn't we prepare for the worst? I'm not an adherent of this approach. We should prepare for the reasonably probable. That is why casinos always win, from a cumulative standpoint. And they always will. <br /><br />But, if someone can point me towards an unbiased longitudinal study that does not rely on proxy data and that specifically can explain how and why as financial status decreases, negative effects of climate change (a term I wish would be replaced since climate has NEVER been static) increase, I would truly appreciate the opportunity to objectively look at it. Heck, it would not even need to be a longitudinal study. Just anything that makes a convincing case would do. Mike in Olympiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863600762557464648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-76486421629333051252019-08-16T23:07:02.275-07:002019-08-16T23:07:02.275-07:00OK. I am a former forest firefighter and fire beha...OK. I am a former forest firefighter and fire behavior specialist. I keep hearing this thing about more wildfires... where is this coming from & how can you reasonably predict this? When you build 4,000 square foot mostly wood homes in areas that have always had a 20-50 year extreme fire event history, you are going to have trouble. Incredibly, there are areas in southern California where the homes have cedar shake roofs!! You seem to be a bit of a Kool-Aid drinker... what are the "many other phenomena" you infer? Please cite credible sources. Mike in Olympiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863600762557464648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-31597080667919141572019-08-16T22:58:52.179-07:002019-08-16T22:58:52.179-07:00I find this idea that climate change is going to s...I find this idea that climate change is going to selectively target poverty areas to be fascinating.... are we talking about the sea rise thing, or what? As far as I know,the wealthiest people tend to live on the coasts. So we must be talking about deserts and the assumption that many millions of poverty stricken folks live there? And a change of temp. from 102 degrees to 105 or so would mean the end for them? This is a new one I've seen a lot of this last year.... usually with no viable explanation that is free from hysteria. And don't hang the "hater"moniker on me either.... being rational does not equate to hating people. In fact, my experience has been that no one hates people more than radical environmentalists. Mike in Olympiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863600762557464648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-86930828621193202492019-08-16T22:49:37.066-07:002019-08-16T22:49:37.066-07:00Sir, how can climate models suggest anything about...Sir, how can climate models suggest anything about any species? That is a debate for biologists, not climatologists. This is a MUCH more complicated issue, and, even with the species of trees and plants that I study the most I could not begin to say with any confidence what the effects of a 2-3 degree change might be. I would GUESS that natural selection will do what it has always done and that those individuals with the most beneficial genetics in regards to the disturbance agent *in this case, temperature, will experience a relative increase in abundance. <br />The reply Dean S gave is bunch of voodoo ecology mumbo jumboMike in Olympiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863600762557464648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-32321526883138467862019-08-16T22:36:17.994-07:002019-08-16T22:36:17.994-07:00You seem more intent naysaying the concerns of the...You seem more intent naysaying the concerns of the environmental community with a suite of optimistic assumotions than scientifically discussing the range of severity of possible impacts.<br /><br />You use a lot of fancy words, Colin, yet I suspect that you may be lacking in a fundamental science background. What precisely, are your qualifications to, as you say, "scientifically" discuss the range of severity of possible impacts. Personally, I am only concerned with Probable impacts.... range of severity of Possible impacts basically means from absolutely NO effect to irreversible global annihilation of all life. On how many issues do we consider the absurdly improbable if we are believers in scientific method?Mike in Olympiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863600762557464648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-90400187595435497192019-08-16T22:28:26.299-07:002019-08-16T22:28:26.299-07:00Please explain how lower snowpack will result in h...Please explain how lower snowpack will result in higher sea levels. Please cite credible sources. I agree on the glaciers, but they were shrinking before global use of fossil fuels. Some of my favorites are nearly gone now, but I am far from convinced of the primary cause being anthropogenic temperature increases. Those glaciers once spread down to the Alvord Desert in SE Oregon. Climate has never been static. Mike in Olympiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863600762557464648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-7670768326543114242019-08-16T22:22:42.710-07:002019-08-16T22:22:42.710-07:00I am so glad to hear a credible climate scientist ...I am so glad to hear a credible climate scientist admit that we need to pursue nuclear power in A BIG WAY. A few Teslas, Nissan Leafs and a bunch of hybrids won't amount to a drop in a 50 gallon drum. I am a forester of nearly 45 years and I can tell you that I have seen absolutely no, and I mean zero, change in west side of the Cascades forests over that period of time. I would like to see wind turbines exposed for the feel good, insignificant factor that they are as well. And you are right: the IPCC, Governor Inslee, and many other have cried "wolf" much to often... when they are not running around like Chicken Little that is. And the hypocrisy is mind blowing amongst the most strident, such as the Hollywood crowd. <br />Mike in Olympiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863600762557464648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-88767835899687031712019-08-16T09:25:05.581-07:002019-08-16T09:25:05.581-07:00Population increase is fine as long as a few facto...Population increase is fine as long as a few factors are considered:<br /><br />1) Everyone can be gainfully employed at the very least. <br />2) Everyone (as in whole planet) doesn't aspire to be a wasteful American consumer.<br />3) Everyone has opportunity to decent healthcare and education. <br />4) Everyone can get clean water, decent food and breathable air. Maybe even a roof over their heads.<br /><br />Some would probably brand that "socialism". It doesn't have to be that taboo on our culture but there has to be opportunity to achieve those things. Plus, clean air, water and decent food? That should be a right. Not something earned or something at the mercy of the markets. <br /><br />That is from the perspective of before robots take up the mantle of doing everything that is currently considered "work". Its not the folks that George Carlin told jokes about that are going to take yer job. Its automation in the form of Robots and AI. Even so called "creative" work can be done by a learning AI in due time.<br /><br />Looking on the streets of Seattle, the tent cities are already inferring that we either have surplus people and/or the system can't cope with them. Its not just Seattle. Its migrants crossing the Med in overloaded barges or even Central Americans trudging through Mexico to make a run at crossing the Rio Grande. <br /><br />So yah. We don't really know what to do with the people we have, let alone what to do with billions more. Perhaps at the very least get the population stable and practice decent replacement. It doesn't make sense to punch out litters of kids that might not have much of a future and in turn just end up on some kind of public assistance dole or worse living on the street like the population in "Soylent Green". Quality over quantity works best these days and that requires folks have access to those aforementioned things BEFORE the robots redefine what "work" is. Long story short is the system needs some serious tweaking to accommodate more people. Maybe that should be proactive instead of reactive? BAMCIShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05285865892838328830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-19304592600643199912019-08-15T22:58:39.291-07:002019-08-15T22:58:39.291-07:00Agree. Why does the Malthusian Theory continually ...Agree. Why does the Malthusian Theory continually crop up? It's steeped in depression and disharmony. If those factors aren't present then create them through policy. I prefer the Optimum Theory it makes more sense. LiveOutLoudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922944349713247362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-70080867088406299472019-08-15T15:05:18.465-07:002019-08-15T15:05:18.465-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.EuropeanManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16989032380024260304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-27768492933501244332019-08-15T12:21:06.956-07:002019-08-15T12:21:06.956-07:00Sea level rise is far from the only threat associa...Sea level rise is far from the only threat associated with a warming planet. Drought, flood & wildfire are 3 of many phenomena that will increase in frequency as the planet warms. When it happens, the decisions we make today will reverberate over the coming decades. In a world with billions of refugees we will end up with either eco-socialism or eco-fascism. Let's pray for the former.el_sordohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05593797366201609041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-47147112468651936772019-08-15T08:44:01.917-07:002019-08-15T08:44:01.917-07:00Andy
Gross over reaction by leftist politicians to...Andy<br />Gross over reaction by leftist politicians to a non-existent threat (climate change) is the actual existential threat.<br /><br />We have 78 years of experience with rising CO2 levels and an intermittent, slightly rising global average temperatures, of which the IPCC claims "over half" is man made (meaning up to half is NOT man made), with no scientific proof their "over half" wild guess is true. <br /><br />Cliff Mass fails miserably to explain all the (imaginary, actually) harm done by the global warming in the past 78 years (an average global warming rate of less than +1 degree C. in a century, from 1940 through 2018).<br /><br />In fact, adding CO2 to the atmosphere in the past 78 years has been good news, 'greening' the planet, and is likely to be additional good news in the next 78 years.<br /><br />We don't have to do anything about fossil fuels, except to make sure they are burned with modern pollution controls, because adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not a problem, it is a blessing (ask any greenhouse owner about CO2 enrichment systems).<br /><br />When the current Holocene inter-glacial ends, and the climate gets a lot colder, people living on this planet will miss the "good old days" of mild, intermittent global warming, when the upper half of the Northern Hemisphere got warmer in the coldest six months of the year, mainly at night.<br /><br />Richard Greene<br />Bingham Farms, MI<br /><br /><br /><br /> The Cliff Claven of Financehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541954550199246606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-71178027984957778562019-08-15T08:31:17.042-07:002019-08-15T08:31:17.042-07:00This had been a good meteorology blog.
I added i...This had been a good meteorology blog.<br /><br /><br />I added it to my one dozen favorite bookmarks.<br /><br />This article is an embarrassment.<br /><br />I've now deleted this blog from my favorite bookmarks.<br /><br />Mr. Mass has no idea what the future climate will be.<br /><br />The IPCC has no idea.<br /><br />Stating an opinion with great confidence does not create "truth".<br /><br />I have no idea.<br /><br />This planet has had 325 years of experience with mild, intermittent global warming, since the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, in the late 1600s. <br /><br />The last 78 years, of those 325+ years, 1940 through 2018, included increasing man made CO2 added to the atmosphere.<br /><br />Those 78 years harmed no one.<br /><br />There is no logical reason to claim the next 78 years of adding man made CO2 to the atmosphere will be bad news. <br /><br />Our planet has been 'greening' for the past 78 years. <br /><br /><br />Winter nights in Alaska are warmer. <br /><br />Where is the bad news?<br /><br />It appears the bad news from global warming is ALWAYS in the over-active imaginations of leftists, and other people who believe in the always wrong predictions of climate computer games, and other climate fairy tales.<br /><br />Richard Greene<br />Bingham Farms, MichiganThe Cliff Claven of Financehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13541954550199246606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-35532303454300547122019-08-15T08:09:19.360-07:002019-08-15T08:09:19.360-07:00While your argument is successfully played out at ...While your argument is successfully played out at the macro level you analyze, a more problematic outcome may be in store for a micro level of analysis. Taking some of the projections from the CIG for alteration in precipitation patterns, along with increases in stream temperature from the warming air temperatures and reduced summer flows, not to mention other forms of habitat destruction resulting from more people moving to the NW to escape environmental damage in other regions, it is a very real possibility that salmon may be extirpated from Puget Sound this century. This may be exacerbated by the devastation of their food supply due to the impacts of ocean acidification brought on by climate change and increased nutrient runoff. Suer there may be salmon in Alaska, but perhaps not here in Puget Sound.<br /><br />What does this do for the livelihood and culture of Tribal people who are dependent on the fish for their well being? They cannot simply move to Alaska; their rights to fish are based on our land and waterscape right here. At this scale the existential threat to their traditions and culture are very real. Sure, human civilization may not be gone but the culture that has persisted in the northwest for thousands of years may be. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04708522836735388694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-31636856001386874422019-08-15T06:44:10.425-07:002019-08-15T06:44:10.425-07:00"That's a eurocentric perspective that do..."That's a eurocentric perspective that doesn't acknowledge the very real existential threat to millions of people living in low lying areas..."<br /><br />"Existential" means that people no longer exist...that they die. How are millions of people in low-lying areas going to die?<br /><br />"...and the tropics (which don't require much of a temperature increase to become uninhabitable,..."<br /><br />You're saying, for example, that the climate of Singapore, or Abu Dhabi, or Dubai will become unihabitable? Mark Bahnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05768989010234358695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-78830660941728898982019-08-15T06:38:19.658-07:002019-08-15T06:38:19.658-07:00Yup, stabilizing the Human population at a level l...Yup, stabilizing the Human population at a level lower than it is now will solve many issues and is considered the number 1 solution for climate change. In a constant growth economic model it might not pencil out, though. Since almost everything is leveraged on some kind of future growth, there has to be either more people being consumers, tax payers and workers or everyone has to be vastly more productive per capita. <br /><br />There is still the aspect of consumerism and the throw away culture that is being perpetuated. Tearing raw materials out of the ground for a quick dopamine rush at a 30% off sale so that they can just be dumped in the ocean down the road is not a good long term solution other than for corporate bottom lines. For every billion people added to the world, that damage goes up exponentially. <br /><br />Personally, less people would be fantastic. Just go sit in traffic in any city during any time of the day it seems. Or witness the lines of people going up Mt Everest. Can't really seem to find anywhere to completely escape people. They are everywhere, acting their usual stupid selves. <br /><br />Its an issue that may solve itself in the fact to raise up a kid in the modern age costs a truckload of money. To give to them all that society demands such as tech, college educations, sports etc apart from the usual room and board is monumental. Of course the oldsters living into their medical system straining 90s and SS/pension fund managers get nervous about that. BAMCIShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05285865892838328830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-89419963512171510742019-08-14T17:55:35.374-07:002019-08-14T17:55:35.374-07:00The conservative approach (by definition of the wo...The conservative approach (by definition of the word) would be to organize our society to prepare for the changes that are coming at the same time as we look for solutions to mitigate the extent of the changes. I'm hopeful the majority will come to see this as the way forward. Surely we are capable of improving our world, not just hoping that it only degrades slowly. Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11698397470514452345noreply@blogger.com