This is a new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. As always, please be respectful of other commentators and try to avoid using repetition to make your points. Discussions related to the physical Earth System should be on the Unforced Variations threads.
“When the risk is existential, the alarmist is the wise man, the sanguine the fool on the hill.”
Yes.
Others will still disagree though. Let them have their rope. ;-)
thx to cody, AB, K and N
another short quote.
The impression that I get, is that some folks refuse to believe (deny) that there is anything dangerous about global warming. They wear blinkers, so that they never have to see the dangerous side of global warming. That means that they can dismiss the need to consider changes to their lives, or to society in general, and perhaps more proximately, that they can repress any feelings of discomfort, anxiety or even responsibility for the possible dangers posed.
That is psychological denial in a nutshell. And–in service to emphasizing that I don’t consider it an insult to say so – I’d say further that *all* of us – including warmists – use denial as a defense mechanism to some extent.
[end quote]
take care,
cheers
Regarding China and climate change mitigation.
Dan de Silva has some concerns worth considering, but he doesn’t really fully understand Chinas government. It is not a communist country by any normal definition. The fundamental definition of communism is where “the government owns all or most of the means of production”. Implicit in this is the fact the government directly runs these enterprises.
In China the state owns utilities like hospitals and about half of all businesses are state owned or partly state owned with government boards of directors. This is not really communism, and is more like crony capitalism. As RL points out China has thriving free markets in food, building construction etc. In fact I submit China is just China, and its not possible to put it into some kind of “box”.
And China has demonstrably made progress with renewable electricity. Because its a dictatorship its easier for Xi Jin Ping to use command and control systems when he wants to force environmental change. This could potentially actually see China race ahead of the west in terms of climate change mitigation as well as general technology.
Of course its a question of whether you can trust what China claims it is doing. Can you trust Americas claims? I think countries just have to start trusting each other, although obviously not in a naive way. What other frigging choice do we have?
Personally I dislike dictatorships in general terms. But fortunately China’s is benevolent, and its such a diverse country that only a dictatorship could provide some unity.
But getting back To Dan de Silvas endless worries. I think he is more worried about bossy government. He is free to tell me if I’m wrong. But how do we fix an obvious severe environmental crisis, without using the law? Theres no real alternative that works, just hand waving about the “invisible hand”.
Western capitalist free markets are efficient and productive, but poor at fixing environmental problems. This is the basic tragedy of the commons problem. Do we want frigging environmental problems? The only solutions are environmental law at a sufficient level to encourage the right behaviour.
Killians alternative solution to the climate and environmental problem is little alternative communities. They don’t magically resolve the problem of irresponsible behaviour and they have rules like any other group of people, either written down or unspoken. Even hunter gatherer communities have rules.
Anyway my point is “command and control” is not always wrong, regardless of whether you live in China, Cuba or America. It always comes down to more specific circumstances, and what just makes practical sense.
Jerry Taylor is a well known libertarian & conservative climate denialist, and has become a believer in agw climate change, and that we should do something about it. He cites damage to property and the fundamental role of government in protecting property. Think about it.
494 Cody
re Gail must be one of my kin or a long lost twin?
Gail’s work is different from that of other researchers in that she does not take widely-accepted views as a “given.” Instead she tries to figure out for herself precisely what is happening by looking at a wide range of data and literature, and by investigating leads offered by other researchers and by commenters on xyz.com. In a sense, her wide-ranging view is only possible because of the miracles of the internet (free ebooks, free docos on youtube, free lectures on youtube et al, and google scholar archive, plus archive.com, ipcc/economics related science papers, university knowledge access including emails to/from Professors) and of second-hand books available through Amazon (and Libraries of all places).
I suspect the quality of Gail’s ‘professional’ conclusions is on much firmer ground than my own. To me it’s merely a healthy hobby of interest that intersects with my other topics of personal interest. Not to mention her writing style. ;-)
Important very recent science research on sustainability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4#Tab1
A good life for all within planetary boundaries, Daniel W. O’Neill, Andrew L. Fanning, William F. Lamb & Julia K. Steinberger, Nature Sustainability volume 1, pages88–95 (2018), Published online:05 February 2018
Killian
When I said “thanks” to Thomas I simply meant “thanks for the reply”. This should have been obvious from my comments to thomas.
We need to both stop the silliness. Its like an episode of the muppets show.
Thomas @500
I meant wear “climate denialists down”. Typo. Yes the public should be talked to like adults.
Regarding banning climate denialists from certain forums. You have won me half over. Food for thought.
I dont bother with WUWT either. I have tried reading it, but its the same old stuff over and over. It’s all very ‘sciency’ sounding, but it never stands up to scrutiny. I have never bothered to post comments because its a waste of time. The only people we will convince are moderate minded people in the middle of the bell curve dont you think?
I do however think its important to rebut climate sceptics who appear on this website.
As to Mormons. Nice people, and I had a mormon girlfriend briefly. It didn’t last.
Lets just say religion is not my thing, but each to their own.
I find the best way to deal with religious people who knock at the door is to give them a lecture in athiesm and quote richard dawkins, over a cup of tea. They usually don’t come back.
Thomas @502
“They wear blinkers, so that they never have to see the dangerous side of global warming. That means that they can dismiss the need to consider changes to their lives,
Yes pretty much, but its all very complicated. We are all capable of what you say. Many people do that with smoking tobacco etc. Its a classic defence reaction. Yet it varies person to person.
However I used to smoke and knew the dangers all right, I was just simply addicted. And probably lacked the strength to give up, although I eventually did.
There’s just a lot going on with the issues you raise. Its a combination of psychology and politics and these things vary from person to person.
For example confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is huge with denialists. Something you have mentioned. I find I can discipline myself to try and objectively look at both sides, something Im reasonably good at. Im ok at avoiding these two problems affecting me too much.
However there’s also a psychological fear of making change, and in that respect I can be an indecisive sort of person. So while I have adjusted my lifestyle theres more I could do.
As you probably know psychologically we humans have trouble evaluating long term threats, but it varies person to person, and you and K are probably good at it. Im good with long term issues.
Then you have politics and for whatever reason people on the right figure more strongly in climate scepticism, seen in various studies. I think they are afraid it leads to “big government”. Im less paranoid about good environmental laws.
So its a bit of a complicated mix and a bit depressing. Be positive anyway.
Cody@494,
Do you seriously contend that a company that commits egregious crimes against the environment should not be held accountable because pension fund managers are silly enough to invest in their dirty business?
Really?
I suppose that all the oyster farmers and fishermen in Louisiana don’t count because they aren’t “real people” who have pensions. That may be–perhaps–the most reprehensible statement I’ve read on the Intertubes today–and I read the Gateway Pundit story on the Florida shooting!
#504 Thomas said 494 Cody
re Gail must be one of my kin or a long lost twin?
Gail’s work is different from that of other researchers in that she does not take widely-accepted views as a “given.” Instead she tries to figure out for herself precisely what is happening by looking at a wide range of data and literature, and by investigating leads offered by other researchers and by commenters on xyz.com.
Yet, ironically, that same approach is constantly derided here.
I suspect the quality of Gail’s ‘professional’ conclusions is on much firmer ground than my own.
Not necessarily. She is an actuary, and it shows. Her work on theoildrum leaned heavily to numbers and economics, energy over climate. I recall finding her work often a little too “cute” at times, if you understand my meaning. That is, not really objective, but driven from a definite POV.
I don’t follow her closely, but she definitely look more closely at climate now. A source worth one’s time in some cases.
#505 nigelj said Important very recent science research on sustainability.
Important? Not really. Nothing that wasn’t already known. Nothing you aren’t told here constantly. Nothing new.
However, its value lies in it being a “scholarly” source saying we really cannot go on living this way. It’s lack of value lies in a false picture of how comfortable it can be, with comfort here meaning modern, global 1%-style comfort.
In the end, it makes the same errors most make WRT resources, choosing a lifestyle level to defend rather than letting conditions/resources determine what that lifestyle must be.
WRT to resources, you cannot intelligently discuss limits in terms of “boundaries” or net energy, etc., because it is a system with pieces, some of them critical. If a critical piece shuts down, nothing else matters. I have discussed this before and have, multiple times, mentioned Liebig’s Minimum. If one is not familiar with it, all should be. Something as simple as keeping Liebig’s in mind can allow one to spot unworkable “solutions,” assessments, etc., quite quickly and without a need for 30k scientific papers on the subject. Logic and knowledge are quite often more than enough for effective and useful analysis.
And what the hell is comfortable? Please, go tell our tribal cousins they should live more comfortably…
Dr. O’Neill has not responded to my critiques.
#500 Thomas quoted 2) Can you think of something good to say about global warming?
[Something] more ‘cosmic’: global warming provides an existential challenge to humanity which, if successfully met, would see us structure our societies more rationally and sustainably, with due consideration for the real-world effects of our growing technological prowess.
Had the quote stopped there, but alas…
As far as it goes, this is one of the things I say to people generally, and specifically in response to things like being called a Luddite (by people who do not understand the term), having people throw the loin cloths and H-G Red Herring/Straw Man about, etc.
And it is true. Despite the dismissive, patronizing, false characterizations of my views here in similar/the same terms, it is absolutely true: This is the greatest opportunity humanity has ever had because it is the biggest challenge we have ever had. Well, crawling out of the ocean probably took millions or billions of attempts… and there were a couple mass extinctions on the way… But this is still right at the top or is the biggest. We fail big or we create an entirely different future. It’s a binary thing. Even a little off, and we risk extinction because of the nature of bifurcations and non-linear/chaotic systems. We simply do not have a proxy for how the planet will react.
But out of this can come a realization that we did some things right for 290k years and need to do them again, with improvements. Despite the lie I ever said tribal people live idyllic lives, they are, factually, measurably, happier, healthier, more cooperative, less sick in the heads and hearts, and know how to live within the means of their lands. Those who ignore and/or denigrate or minimize this are ______. Those who look to systems that have never achieved any of those things as the way forward… when it has failed for 10k years… are ________. Or maybe just need educating. Horses and water…
People think I am negative and doomerish. Clueless, they are. The only thing preventing a rapid shift to a sustainable global society and <300 ppm is that it involves people.
That’s a necessity if we are to continue as a technological society.
Exactly the problem: A goal chosen before the analysis is done. First question is, can we do so within ecological limits? The second question is, should we? Neither question is asked by the vast majority of people discussing these issues, which leads to constant circles of argumentation. BTW, the answers are 1. No. This makes all questions following moot. Yet, it’s all the stuff following that gets discussed. This whole thread is a perfect example of this.
In crisis, there is always opportunity. Face this crisis honestly, and we’ll be better able to face related issues
So, can we? Let’s see where this goes…
RE: “We have to wear [the public] down.”
I believe one needs to help lift people up. Needs to speak to them honestly like the adults they are. To not do so is disrespectful and would be lying to them.
Given a full appraisal, a pathway forward, people can, and will, do what is needed. But that honesty thing… Then there’s having a clue what those two things are… But assuming both are given to people, people can deal.
RE: “You just wanted climate denialists banned from here and the guardian etc.”
yeah, any public venue where the operators/owners have the inherent legal right to decide who gets to address the crowd.
The lack of effective education often is illustrated by shrill cries in private fora of censorship. We’ve seen them from this thread… LOL… Yes, censorship only involves public spaces and governments limiting speech.
Principles. Everyone has rights
Yes. The *right* to an opinion. There is no right to lie. In fact, lying that leads to damage is negligence, if not manslaughter or murder. Yet, despite the *fact* denial has killed many and will kill untold numbers more, somehow this is not seen as the illegal act it is.
Now, my tip is go have a look at who the agw/cc deniers are and what ideas and products they are ‘selling’ to the public.
Yes. we are talking intentional acts that have lead to deaths. That is not protected. For over ten years the voices of denial have prevented meaningful change. Understanding the Butterfly Effect, one can see these ten years might have been the key to extinction of the species eventually, and, as already mentioned, deaths already on their consciences. I was told here on RC to treat such behavior with respect. I ask again, after all these years, why am I supposed to be polite to those directly or indirectly responsible for so many deaths? But, then, I recognized Climate Change an existential threat all those years ago and knew they were lying. They had to be. Nothing else made sense. Well, we’ve seen the memos, eh? Science has only recently caught up to my “alarmism.”
#495 Thomas quoted “Watching the Winter Arctic Sea Ice Extent has gone from boring to horrifying in just a few short years.”
What an odd opinion. It hasn’t been boring since 2005. It hit horrifying in 2007 for me.
Gail The Actuary Tverberg said History and physics suggest that economies without adequate energy supply can be expected to collapse… collapses, might occur again if we cannot find energy alternatives that can be quickly scaled up to replace oil and coal in the very near term. These replacements need to be cheap-to-produce, non-polluting, and available in huge quantities.
The story that the economy doesn’t really need a growing supply of very cheap-to-produce energy is simply a myth.
Ergo, finite planet equals simplification or bust.
It really is simple. As the brilliant Mr. Surely You’re Joking Feynman said, if you can’t explain it to a 6 year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.
The Tverberg link.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2018/01/31/nine-reasons-why-globalization-cant-be-permanent/#more-42564
Sorry.
Thomas, #502–
Thanks for cross-posting my comment from over at Open Mind. Glad you liked it.
Something tells me you might like this, too:
https://soundcloud.com/doc-snow/laughing-fool-blues-2
(There probably be should be a prize of some sort for the first listener to identify all the contradictions uttered by the protagonist in the song, but I’ve never actually tried to count them all.)
It does not take centuries. The “Green Revoltion” aka the Death of all Soils, Waterways and Oceans, created a completely new food system with massive new infrastructure in less than 50 years. It moved modern societies from 70% farmers, e.g., to 1 or 2%. We went from horses and buggies to bullet trains in well under one century.
And I repeat: It is easier to stop doing a thing than to build out a thing. This is a prima facie truth and needs no 10k studies to “prove.” See Seneca Cliff, e.g.
http://www.patagonjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4041:how-a-patagonian-ranch-reduces-its-impact-on-global-warming&catid=187:guest-blog&Itemid=340&lang=en&utm_content=buffer0bffc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
499 Kevin McKinney says: Some links from Thomas that may or may not be worth checking,…..
would appreciate some feedback …. have I got this correct?
Sounds like you (and others before you) are saying my posting such short quote refs to current new Papers/agw/cc experts are not worth my time/effort posting them here in the first place. …. because you do not know if they are worth checking or not???
I suppose if they are from me then it’s questionable by default (or something)???
It sounds like the onus is all on me to “prove/show” to every RC reader WHY any ref is “worth reading” before anyone would bother clicking on the links… and from what I have done on that page you skimmed , what I have quoted/said is not sufficient to know???
and so pretty much worthless use of my time and the readers time? Which is what I already knew is the situation anyway, still so some plain speakin’ confirmation would be great to hear….. even the docsnow quotes are a waste of time/worthless???
EG I have posted 4 or so links w very short comment about the ASI and massive high temps etc since early january. and suggested it might be a good topic for gavin et al to address here sooner or later. not a peep.
so now that Mike has posted on that subject and ref Joe Romm I suspect all manner of posters to come out of the woodwork and also comment. Pretty weird, except (and OT on psycholoogy), as my ex-wife said to my eldest son decades ago now, Give a dog a bad name and it sticks
Of course the person who 24/7 badmouthed my son and labelled him a “dog” repeatedly was his mother. Go figure that one out.
cheers
fwiw, I am intentionally avoiding UV and posting this type of info here on FR only – new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation.
In a cutting-edge survey of satellite data published Feb. 13 in the journal Cryosphere, researchers from NASA and other institutions shows that ice loss from the critical region of Antarctica is happening at an increasingly fast pace.
https://qz.com/1213702/a-new-nasa-image-confirms-that-antartica-is-losing-ice-faster-every-year/
Paper: Increased West Antarctic and unchanged East Antarctic ice
discharge over the last 7 years
Alex S. Gardner et al
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/521/2018/tc-12-521-2018.pdf
Author info
1
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
2
Norwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, 9296 Tromsø, Norway
3
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80303, USA
4
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
5
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research Utrecht (IMAU), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
AGW/CC Impacts, regional and local.
Recently mentioned the longer term 21st century Multiple Impacts from the loss of the GBR (Qld, Australia) circa 2050->
Here’s another example of a similar thing at Alaska, but it’s arriving presently.
“Without (sea) ice as a buffer, Alaska coastal villages are no longer protected from big storms and their giant waves. Buildings are crumbling.”
This is what record low sea ice in the Arctic means on the ground, to real people living there TODAY …. simply CLICK PLAY on VIDEO
https://www.facebook.com/groups/152751678184818/permalink/1488269024633070/
And then dismiss it as mere anecdotal unscientific clap trap by fanatic mentally disordered extremists …. if you must in order to salve the Cognitive Dissonance. http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/stop-lying.html
(With a big shrug to all the Out-of-Date Lukewarm Science Minimisers on RC and everywhere else.)
83
Thomas says:
More Coastline AGW/CC Impacts posted here on RC in July 2016
More unprecedented climate change effects showing up in Australia
‘Shocking images’ reveal death of 10,000 hectares of mangroves across Northern Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-10/unprecedented-10000-hectares-of-mangroves-die/7552968
Mangroves = crabs, fish, nurseries, and biodiversity = food for humans
No mangroves means no seafood and destruction of coastlines and encroaching salt inland
Full Post: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/07/unforced-variations-july-2016/comment-page-2/#comment-657657
AND
Then the Published Science Papers followup in March 2017
133
Thomas says:
14 Mar 2017 at 1:25 AM
Busy busy times … I shared this event last year – here’s an update […]
Aaaw who cares and why bother anyway.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/unforced-variations-march-2017/comment-page-3/#comment-674350
However, the Reality is typically like this in Oct 2016 and still today in Feb. 2018:
215
Chuck Hughes says:
30 Oct 2016 at 11:26 PM
Thomas says:
30 Oct 2016 at 8:27 AM
187 Chuck Hughes, 182 Martin Bernstein, and 180 zebra.
I like what Mike said “You connect the dots, kemosabe.” And if you can’t then it isn’t my problem.”
Thomas, the idea that you’re going to connect my dots or anyone else’s dots is laughable. I’d prefer to hear from someone who didn’t spend their youth munching on lead paint chips.
216
Chuck Hughes says:
30 Oct 2016 at 11:48 PM
Nemesis says:
30 Oct 2016 at 12:47 PM
“About Thomas and “trolling” as some call it:
People are trying to keep sane, to keep rational, to keep calm, to keep cool, to keep optimistic ect blah blah, BUT:
The situation we are in is NOT sane, NOT rational, NOT calm, NOT cool, NO reason for optimism ect blah blah.”
Thomas is “spamming”…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spamming&defid=6045240
Scientific discussion has to be rational. It’s one of the few rational things humans do and I for one don’t care to read manic ramblings about disparate topics from a guy calling himself “Thomas”. Maybe you should start a thread for “Things I Found On The Internet” if you’re really interested.
217
Thomas says:
31 Oct 2016 at 2:03 AM
I’ve made a point this year to post snippets about unprecedented weather and climate events in Australia – and occasionally the latest research about such things. eg the bleaching on the GBR and theath of 800klms of mangroves in nth oz.
I’m am curious if there is are any archives/record websites of similar unprecedented ‘climate news’ anywhere online – be it for the globe or about other nations and regions.
Or is there a uni/science body that is tracking these events collectively.
If you ever hear of something like this please pass it on. thx
(answer=silence)
REF URL:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/10/unforced-variations-oct-2016/comment-page-5/#comment-661850
—
OK then, So I will answer the question! https://youtu.be/9FnO3igOkOk?t=37s
Cheers
(with a smile)
Let it go: The Arctic will never be frozen again
By Eric Holthaus on Dec 18, 2017
In an accompanying annual report on the Arctic’s health — titled “Arctic shows no sign of returning to reliably frozen region of recent past decades” — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees all official U.S. research in the region, coined a term: “New Arctic.”
[ internal Ref: ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2017.pdf ]
“What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic — it affects the rest of the planet,” Gallaudet said.
That the Arctic is now a relic of a time gone by — the first major part of the planet on a countdown clock — should shock us. It’s one of those facts that those of us who closely follow climate change knew was coming. And with its arrival, it is devastating in its totality.
https://grist.org/article/let-it-go-the-arctic-will-never-be-frozen-again/
https://www.climatescienceawarenesssolutions.org/blog-1/2018/2/21/rock-dust-in-farming-redux
#503 nigelj said Western capitalist free markets are efficient
How many kinds of cars? How many kinds of phones? How many different chargers? You have a strange definition of efficient. Captialism is absolutely inefficient. You are confusing, perhaps, a single life cycle production process, a la H. Ford, with efficiency for the society, both local and global. In no way shape or form is Capitalism efficient beyond single product lines. Even then, analyses show that no corporation would be profitable if it had to cover the cost of the externalities they cause. Which brings us to…
but poor at fixing environmental problems.
Because Capitalism is the source of those problems, and those are externalized to poor people and poor countries.
This is the basic tragedy of the commons problem.
False. You must have a Commons first.
Killians alternative solution to the climate and environmental problem is little alternative communities.
Don’t speak of my words unless you can do so with integrity. That statement is false..
They don’t magically resolve the problem of irresponsible behaviour and they have rules like any other group of people
Straw Man that we have already covered. See the above admonition.
Smaller communities better resolve poor behavior for several reasons: Connections to the people around you, aka caring about them; everyone being part of every decision, so all decisions are best for everyone; there would be no “company” to make selfish decisions as it would be a Commons.
This has been explained to you before. Integrity. Try it.
#519 Thomas said fwiw, I am intentionally avoiding UV and posting this type of info here on FR only – new class of open thread for discussions of climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation.
Given the hypocrisy of the witch hunting peanuts over there, understandable, but that post does belong over there.
#518 Thomas said 499 Kevin McKinney says: Some links from Thomas that may or may not be worth checking,…..
would appreciate some feedback …. have I got this correct?
Sounds like you (and others before you) are saying my posting such short quote refs to current new Papers/agw/cc experts are not worth my time/effort posting them here in the first place. …. because you do not know if they are worth checking or not???
I suppose if they are from me then it’s questionable by default (or something)???
It was a sad day K-Mc joined the Peanut Gallery. I can point you to the very moment: I had just criticized the Citizen’s Climate Lobby, in which he had been and/or was active, but sought engagement off-list. He rejected that and turned peanut. been that way ever since.
I don’t think he’s coming back. Peer pressure and group-think are powerful.
Thomas @521
This NZ climate website has a list of tweets of the latest and most important stuff on the climate issue, imho, and its updated constantly.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/
Perhaps humanity simply faces extinction regardless of what we do.
We have huge environmental problems, we could be hit by an asteroid or by deadly cosmic particles, we have a crazy economy, and the nuclear war possibility. It seems unlikely we will dodge all these bullets. I give humanity two to three centuries maximum.
We might as well have a good time while we can.
But still build windfarms, buy less superfluous crap, and plant forests.
Thomas 519 – 522, et al.
No hysteresis. Everything will go faster, as I’ve been saying since 2007.
No. Hysteresis.
The Solution Remains the Same, to coin a song title.
Killian, #524
You are running against walls (me too^^), things will not change until capitalism broke down. End of story.
Lets be clear on spamming. This is flooding websites with the same message over and over without ever developing or extending the message. Its usually a political message or some personal obsession or something vile and stupid or off topic. A simple google of definitions of spamming shows this.
I don’t see anyone on this website really spamming, although a couple of climate denialists come close, and the population message can get repetitive.
Thomas posts a lot of links. Given they are all different, I don’t see how this is spamming. When I have a slow day I read many of them, other times I don’t. If you are not interested in his interests you don’t have to read them.
Some discussion is a bit repetitive. But trying to sort out ideas just gets like this. and it doesn’t overly worry me personally – again within reason.
I don’t care how many comments people post or how long they are – within reason. Lots of comments is not spamming. Its easy to speed read things, and the threads on this website do not become excessively long. Some media websites have hundreds of comments every day, and in that case people should indeed limit their comments obviously. I try to keep my comments short where possible, but sometimes its just not possible.
People need to avoid petty stuff and stick to the big issues.
Just my opinion. However I don’t see any alternative that makes sense.
“The Solution Remains the Same, to coin a song title.”
I think you might mean “the song remains the same”, Led Zepplin.
Killian @524
I meant capitalist markets are efficient in the sense of producing more useful goods more cheaply that command and control economies like the old Soviet Union. (Although some goods are better produced by command and control mechanisms, like the nasa space project).
The main problem with free markets is they don’t self police very well, and they wreck the environment. As you say, they don’t automatically price for externalities if they can get away with it. And they try really hard to get away with it, and spend millions trying to lobby governments to let them get away with it.
Yes sure capitalism and free markets produces a lot of junk as well. I’m sometimes bewildered by the almost excessive range of confusing choice, and sometimes its twenty types of the same basic things with tiny little differences. Sigh.
Yes I agree capitalism doesn’t deal with externalities. This is why I said free markets don’t resolve environmental problems well – because this is the main externalities problem, although not the only one.
This leaves various choices. We either force corporations to price for externalities with for example carbon taxes, or we get rid of corporations completely, or people start their own alternative little economies, or we do something else. I think we should do all of these things in parallel, and see which is looking the most attractive.
Killian don’t take my last paragraph in the previous post on capitalism absolutely literally. Its a broad brush idea. I’m sure anyone should know what I’m basically saying.
531 nigelj, yeah, zebra’s just a big sook. So was Chuck. :-) Not worth worrying about mate. Just another mirror-mirror moment by him on UV, and I agree with your commentary on the spam matter, it is what it is. we all have to deal it best we can. occasionally I make a comment like above which is a quick review (example) going back years as a gentle reminder (that will make no difference) but it’s not a ‘worry’ to me. IT’s always been like that here, for various reasons, still better than others overall. btw could you clarify the NZ climate url pls? and fwiw I think NZ should take over the entire UNSC – you’d do a better job for sure. :-)
Killian, ‘Hysteresis’ is not my favourite new word :-) But I get it. in the 90s I think I grasped quite well the tipping points and systemic step-changes that shift to a new “system” suddenly. “systems” was a core part of my mngt roles/career that I was quite good at using “stats” & human info in real world situations of peaks and troughs in ‘flows’. Now it’s actually happening in an undeniable way for those paying attention and not obsessed with the rear vision mirror way of living eg MAR and denialists in general.
Kevin, the song is great …. you really cranked up your desktop studio program. I also thought your commentary was really WELL written and nailed some core issues is a very readable way. I wish I could write that well, but it;s not my forte. In various fora your style would be really effective – imho – I think you nailed several things in single sentences, which then linked together really well. Do more of it! Submit “essays” to sites as opposed to responses on blogs … vs being lost in the noise is my humble tip. My comments about “my links” was not about you personally, more a general point about where I sit, and the endless criticisms sharing important related info/science that flies right over the top of peoples heads, especially intelligent PhDs who cannot see the wood for the trees and have little holistic vision (imho).
Killian again, yes good points as usual … I get that material I post has it own limitations and narrow framed wheel barrow pushing by those people / groups …. I am always happy when someone points that out and make their own judgements. I don’t only post things that I 100% agree with, but my (default) principle is not to tell others up front what I think, nor what they should think about it … i think people should do their own thinking as much as possible, like working out the body in a Gym, the mind is a muscle to be strengthened – especially when it’s ‘weak’. :-)
thx to Nemesis of course you’re on ‘the money’ again. but few are capable of understanding the whole in such short simple sentences, lol, and thx to Kevin, an K and N and Ray ‘be happy anyway’. (smile)
I’ve pretty much run out of things to say …. that hasn’t already been said.
#522 is only true if we do nothing or too little. Return to 260ppm and the poles will syabilize and recover. It woll take a very long time to significantly reduce SL, but it will happen. It’s been modeled. Previously posted.
536 Killian, I agree and add that “we are doing nothing and too little” … therefore ….. (smiling)
I suspect the few hundred million that may be still around when the poles recover and we are back under 350ppm or even 260ppm will be having a great time of it. They’ll be happy telling their stories around the campfires with lots of jiggy jiggy going on in the forests, in the teepees, and on the pristine beaches again. (wink)
Regarding the discussion on mitigating climate problems by encouraging smaller population, perhaps the government could give people tax rebates for having small families.
Right now governments often pay families child support according to how many children they have, which actually encourages larger families unfortunately. I’m all for a little bit of tax payer support for needy people, but these sorts of schemes need to be carefully done, and have some cap / limit.
Thomas @535
The NZ climate url is just a climate website discussing the agw problem, started by some guy called Gareth Renowden. He is a farmer, and has some sort of science degree, and has worked in various jobs.
He is very passionate about climate change and the problem of agw, and knows his stuff. He does articles but not many in recent months, and has a twitter feed thingy. His politics appear to lean to the left, just reading between the lines, but I don’t know the man personally. But the website is a good source of all the latest stuff if you look down the rhs of the pages.
Killian, I don’t recall ‘rejecting’ your invitation to offline engagement. I do seem to recall an exchange or two, which however didn’t really go anywhere. Which is apt to happen when only one party in a conversation is actually listening.
#518, Thomas–My main point was that I had not, as of writing, checked said links. Until checked, I don’t know whether or not they are ‘worth checking’ *for me.* YMM always V… so, no slur intended.
And thanks for your later kind words. I do occasionally submit things to various fora, but from an essay each for SKS and Neven’s Sea Ice blog, without much success. Glad you enjoyed “Laughing Fool!”
Important to listen to anecdotal evidence
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-24/decline-in-insect-population-baffles-scientists/9481136
AGW/CC Impacts – and then there were corals
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/world-s-coral-reefs-face-new-peril-from-beneath-within-decades-20180222-p4z1ev.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/corals-are-dissolving-away1/
Latest Paper http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6378/908
—
Dr ‘Charlie Veron’s Virtual Corals Library
http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/page/home/
December 2009 – The former Chief Scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, Dr Charlie Veron, discusses the situation of coral reefs and the environmental challenges ahead.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/the-coral-reef-crisis/3094898
2012 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full
2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg-LQg8aMGc Aurelie Moya 205 views in 5 years!!!
2016 ‘Demise of the Great Barrier Reef’ – 2016 Coral Bleaching Event
2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC-zoE8GMJA ‘Charlie is angry’
2016 http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/conversations-charlie-veron-corals/7927724
2017 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21707
2018 https://www.youtube.com/user/CoralCoE/videos
(oops da url)
2016 ‘Demise of the Great Barrier Reef’ – 2016 Coral Bleaching Event
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE
#537 Thomas said 536 Killian, I agree and add that “we are doing nothing and too little” … therefore ….. (smiling)
I suspect the few hundred million that may be still around when the poles recover and we are back under 350ppm or even 260ppm will be having a great time of it.
I think if we miss the mark we are looking at goo for oceans. That’s why I have no interest in “good enough.” Look at it this way, back in 2007 and 2008 when I was trying to get it through people’s heads this was an existential threat – mostly to Peak Oilists who were dismissive of the danger of climate and climate deniers – I was an “alarmist” who knew nothing. Weeeeell, when the science starts echoing the alarmist know-nothing, you know it’s bad because the alarmist know-nothing in this case was talking about the worst case scenario.
But, hey, it’s a big planet. I suppose there would be places to ride out the tens of thousands of years of gooey oceans.
#538 nigelj said Regarding the discussion on mitigating climate problems by encouraging smaller population, perhaps the government could…
If we have decided to manage our way out of this existential threat a great many things will be different. Logically, if we have started to effectively do so, we are changing those things we must because of awareness. If we are aware, we are no longer having so many kids. So, the population debate is largely moot at this time. It will change as an effect of awareness because you cannot have a planet full of more than 9 billion and expect it to be healthy.
Population will NOT the modality by which we achieve sustainability because the only way that happens, at all, is what I already said: People come to understand and accept the risk. Once that is done, the solutions become pretty obvious. (Or should. This site is proof I am overly positive on this score.) So, people will not stop making too many kids till they realize it is suicidal. Add the function of population growth to that and you get a pretty decent lag. Population is not the short-term solution, though it is a long-term necessity.
#540 Kevin McKinney said I do seem to recall an exchange or two, which however didn’t really go anywhere.
It didn’t not go anywhere, you got pissy because I told you CCL was taking the wrong approach, and that you were. That does’t mean… Which is apt to happen when only one party in a conversation is actually listening.
And here, yet again, we have the supposed saint being rude, needlessly and incorrectly. Not being agreed with does not equal not being heard. Being told you are wrong does not equal not being heard.
That I understand the context better is demonstrable. That I tell you so is to help you understand, not because my ears don’t work.
You are and have been incorrect. In this dumb world we live in saying one is correct and another is wrong is somehow a bad thing. No, the bad thing is to respond egotistically to being incorrect.
Do better. Be better. This isn’t high school.
#533 nigelj said Killian @524
I meant capitalist markets are efficient in the sense of producing more useful goods more cheaply that command and control economies like the old Soviet Union.
You too often come back with a revisionist response. Say what you mean the first time. It would save a lot of grief, and column inches, on these threads.
I think we should do all of these things in parallel, and see which is looking the most attractive.
Wrong. (See, Kevin? Wrong is wrong. It is only weak ego that makes it an issue.) You chose the solutions that fit within the principles of the “natural” world. That is why I can and do reject virtually everything you suggest; I design by principles and analyze by principles. Break one, your solution is already flawed. It makes life quite simple without the error of being simplistic.
#532 nigelj said “The Solution Remains the Same, to coin a song title.”
I think you might mean “the song remains the same”, Led Zepplin.
What a beautiful example of the problem betwixt us. You virtually always fail to understand what I have posted, then fail to understand that you misunderstood.
FWIW, I meant exactly what I said, as I typically do, but, yes, the reference was to Led Zep.
#535 Thomas said Killian, ‘Hysteresis’ is not my favourite new word :-) But I get it. in the 90s I think I grasped quite well the tipping points and systemic step-changes that shift to a new “system” suddenly.
No doubt. I wasnt’t correcting you, I was making a specific addendum to make your point as clear as possible… in case you thought otherwise.