RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Climate Science / Forced Responses: Feb 2019

Forced Responses: Feb 2019

by

A bimonthly thread on societal responses to climate change. Note that there is another open thread for climate science topics. Please stick to specifics as opposed to arguments about ethics, politics or morality in general.

Reader Interactions

493 Responses to "Forced Responses: Feb 2019"

  1. How will we mitigate global warming?

    http://www.theactuary.com/news/2019/02/insurers-publish-new-guide-to-help-mitigate-climate-risks/

    Infrastructure insurers are thinking about the financial risks associated with the damages they foresee with global warming. These folks need to talk forcefully with the right wing conservative parties about what needs to be done. I think it’s safe to say that the insurance industry leans more right than left generally.

    Maybe we will see some kind of phase shift in a short period similar to the one that took place when the US transportation system changed from 40-legged horsepower to fossil fuel horsepower. Maybe we will look back and feel like it happened suddenly.

    https://www.themacrotourist.com/img/posts/05/20170718-1905.png

    https://www.themacrotourist.com/img/posts/05/20170718-1913.png

    8 years and NY streets shifted from horse to auto. It was probably unimaginable to most folks alive in 1905 who traveled by horsepower. Maybe fossil fuels will disappear like that. It’s hard to imagine.

    Cheers

    Mike

  3. zebra, #278–

    But “moral” rules don’t work that way; they have no constraints in reason or societal discourse, either in how they are arrived at or in consequences.

    I don’t think many would agree with you, zebra. It is very frequent that those adhering to moral codes believe that their code–typically viewed as the correct and normative one–is in complete accord with reason (though, most often, because divinely ordained and reason is both a divine attribute and a divine gift to humanity). Often enough, this accord is worked out in elaborate and highly logical detail–as in Scholasticism, or Rabbinal Judaism, for example.

    For my own part, I wouldn’t agree with you, either, though I can’t claim anything like the logical rigor of an Aquinas or a Maimonides.

    FWIW, I’d label your ‘moral’ honor killing as a cultural imperative, not a moral one–one with lots of company throughout history, including slavery, racism, gender-based oppression, inter alia. And let’s not forget our current normative [mis]treatment of the environment when we make the catalog. I suspect that much of what we do now, often without a first thought, let alone a second, will in the not-so-distant future be viewed rather in the way we view slavery now.

    I grant you that all of these past and present immoralities have been morally justified and even exalted. Some still are.

    But human fallibility in prescribing morality doesn’t logically mean that morality does not exist, any more than our inability to constrain climate sensitivity as tightly as we would like implies that there is not a real value of that parameter in the real climate system. And perhaps one day we will more tightly constrain both.

  5. Mike @310, you could be right, but when things changed quickly from horses to automobiles, there was no Donald Trump, multi billion dollar lobbying industry, and tea party etc! Still, this is but one country.

  6. Carrie @286

    “One of the things that you can do for yourself is, if a question is important enough, do spend some time thinking about how you might be wrong. Often you needed to realize cautions or questions that you would not have been otherwise aware of.”

    Good point. We could all do this better, including you. And learn some communication skills and diplomacy, and you might not make so many enemies around here.

    “One of the plus elements of people complaining about me is at least it has minimised the mystical fantasies and useless chatter about hypothetical approaches to reducing Population as if it is a key component to addressing “societal responses to climate change” and the critically important need to be reducing GHG emissions rapidly within in the next 12 years.”

    Except that reducing population is obviously an important part of climate change mitigation,because its painfully obvious we could “miss” the Paris goals and population policy would be a powerful tool if we do. And the policies discussed are not hypothetical, because many policies are already working around the world as in the links I have posted. Its about how we can ramp them up.

    Thats not to say I agree with all Zebras views on the issue. He never fronts up with just what he thinks governments should do to help impliment his “vision”.

    And please do what Al bundy asked. Have you got something against smaller population? Please front up and answer a simple question.

    Carrie @292

    Yes that was me. Nothing to do with getting any facts wrong. I was changing my mind on an issue about a type of welfare benefit, simply being open to persuasion. And so what? Have you never changed your mind on anything in your life?

    I’m deliberately trying to show you guys stop being so precious and scared to change your mind. Its rigidity and stubborness thats causing half of humanities problems. Yeah firm convictions are also important. I think (hope) you know what I mean.

  8. 297 Al Bundy are you this mysterious spouting Thomas? It’s fun to watch how bent out of shape and desperate people can get. I’ve nothing to do with someone called thomas. I don’t even know why you and others like MAR keep bringing it up. I couldn’t be bothered finding out either. But clearly you all wanted me to say something about – so I have. Do you feel better now?

    “Lurkers have no skin in the game”

    So what? Lurkers can be as stupid as you can be too. Right? What makes them more right than me or you?

    I mean, I never said a word about “insulting” so where did that come from – your own right-sided brain I suspect. Get a clue Al. Try harder to understand what people are saying and why. Is Al Bundy really your name or a sockpuppet excuse for a name here? If my name was Al Bundy I’d have it changed by deed poll as soon as I turned 18.

    read this again … you must have missed something important
    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/forced-responses-feb-2019/comment-page-6/#comment-721477

    Take a moment and stop proving P. T. Barnum was right about you too. :-)

  10. 296 Barton Paul Levenson says:
    BPL: No, it wouldn’t. That would be a “straw man argument” and a “complete distortion of my position.”

    It’s the most popular game being played on RealClimate lately. I can’t see it stopping anytime soon.

    GHG emissions will drop to Net Zero before it stops. LOL

  11. 290 nigelj says: “You never specify why you disagree …”

    Another Lie. It’s why I don’t bother engaging you in any genuine discussion and pretty much ignore everything you say.

    Yes, there are exceptions to this rule. I don’t pointing your most egregious errors that prove you barely know anything at all about a topic. Plus I enjoy the sport.

    Best Inflatable Punching Bag For Toddlers 2019
    https://www.starwalkkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-original-dozo-bop-bag.png

    THis post
    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/forced-responses-feb-2019/comment-page-6/#comment-721477

    Clearly that did not apply to you at all. But it does apply to me, right? :-)

  12. Amateurs practice till they get it right, professionals practice till they can’t get it wrong.

  13. It’s a comedy of errers. A sussuration of Straw Men. A concatenation of hypocrisy. A slew of self-delusions.

    Play, Nero, play.

  14. Carrie frequently accuses people on this website of lying (almost always without providing any actual evidence).

    Well some enlightenment might be in this article “Why do people that often don’t tell the truth (liars) accuse honest people of lying?”

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-that-often-dont-tell-the-truth-liars-accuse-honest-people-of-lying

    Carrie says @309 ” Al Bundy asks another leading question: “Is there something that irks you about those who see a smaller population as a desirable goal?”

    Carrie goes on “No. Why do you ask? Learn to read and understand better.”

    But Carrie has consistently attacked Zebras comments on smaller population, for example in comment 44 responding to Zebra @1 “Listen zebra old fellow, it’s not scientific, it’s not quantitative, and it’s not reasoning either. Time to let it go?” Sure looks like Carrie was rather “irked”.

  15. #303 Kevin McKinney,

    z:

    But “moral” rules don’t work that way; they have no constraints in reason or societal discourse, either in how they are arrived at or in consequences.

    K:

    “I don’t think many would agree with you, zebra. It is very frequent that those adhering to moral codes believe…”

    But science isn’t about belief, as we always try to explain to the Denialists, eh. I think my view is in line with the consensus of modern philosophy, if there can be such a thing.

    But you are doing the same thing as BPL and Al were doing with each other, which is failing to define what it is you are “disagreeing” with me about.

    I know what it means to say “gay sex is illegal“– I explained that concept. This is a testable hypothesis.

    Can you tell me what it means to say “gay sex is immoral”? What’s the test?

  16. There’s a record playing through my head for quite a while:

    The fossil fuel industry’s simple strategy is denial of anthropogenic induced climate heating for decades despite knowing the scientific/climate consequences ( smokeandfumes.org ). And Donald Trump’s simple strategy is denial of anthropogenic induced climate heating…
    Call me nuts or whatever you like to call me:

    It’s a strategy, the all to well known strategy of the fossil fueled Empire, who might as well put another climate saviour like Obama or Mother Theresa into the presidential chair next time.

    Have fun with the final outcome 38)

    Love,
    Nemesis

  17. re: “The best case for worst case scenarios”

    Now does anyone besides me on this thread here see where the real interest of a broad range of people from scientists to fisherman is at?

    There’s many reasons why people do not contribute me and the #1 reason is not Carrie being a pain in the butt or being a troll or telling lies and giving false information either. So have a another look.

    It’s not on naval gazing hypothetical fantasies of no relevance to the real world issues people actually care about – their honest genuine serious concerns about where exactly are we and what the hell can we (all) do about it? And fast.

    So yes, by all means let’s “discuss” or present detail high quality information about the GND but at least be factual about … get to the meat of the problem and know precisely what the present Justice Democrats GND contains, who is behind, who is against it (especially in the democratic party) and why it is so very different to the Greens GND etc. which for all you know might even be a better program.

    The only way to know is to educate yourself, hopefully educate others as well as learn from others but first up to at least know what you’re talking about in the first place. Otherwise you’re just a know nothing troll taking up oxygen.

    So when experts like Killian speak about and shares his specific knowledge about regen agriculture, trying listening and asking serious questions, ask for more refs instead of raising daft arguments about it or being obsessed with someone’s personal STYLE … jeez. Same goes for Scotts info about CO2 storage in land, but most of the rubbish raised here (including the complaints and appeals to God’s wisdom) should be off topic and banned imho.

    Like what is New Zealanders GND? What does that sound like – do they even have one? If they don;t do they already have things in place the GND is calling to be introduced a NEW change in the USA. eg like long term unemployment benefits, minimum wages that provide a living wage so people can afford to invest in a solar panel to begin with …. when will NZ be 100% off fossil fuel electricity? How do they do that?

    Talking about real things – actual hard facts – true knowledge regarding real societal responses to climate change – on real climate would be a lovely change.

  19. I have been attacked for getting the author of the Green New Deal wrong. Ironic considering the following article which says “A fact sheet from AOC’s office about the Green New Deal was wrong. It also highlighted the underlying tensions in the Democratic Party.”

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/11/18220163/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-faq-tucker-carlson

    But apart from that, it is an interesting article on the GND issues and broadly supports my own comments on the issue. I repeat there is much I agree with in the GND.

  21. 234 James 23 Feb 2019 — “I’ve looked back over a lot killian/carrie’s old posts. Always the bile. Always the insults. Always the smug know-it-allness.”

    That’s all you can see because Killian/Carrie have penetrating intellect, and vast knowledge and understanding, that FAR exceeds yours. Hence your need to lash-out with false accusations at what are obviously your superiors. You should be GRATEFUL that they are willing to lay their precious pearls of wisdom before us — the intellectually unwashed. But you are not grateful. Your arrogant, prideful heart rejects this gift, this undeserved kindness, that they so selflessly bestow upon us. Shame on you.

    2 Timothy: 3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

  23. 151 All Bundy 16 Feb 2019 — “guys/gals, this whole FUBAR we’re in has its origins in the truly obsolete concepts of “country” and “district”…. Patriotism is a mental illness and districts don’t do anything productive – they’re just a guarantee that stuff will devolve into a me me me me give me and my district free stuff. We need world government that bubbles up naturally, instead of the current winner take all and might makes right. Seriously, Why TF would anybody want the USA to lead anything? A desire to fail? The enemy is not government, but USA capitalist theory and conservatives. Private capitalistic ”free” enterprise is incredibly harmful and inefficient, so much so that the only way they can pretend to be non-stupid is to compare themselves to totalitarianism. Conservatives are scientifically proven to be almost a standard deviation dumber than liberals, and in the USA conservatives spend their lives eliminating any vestige of IQ they might have. Sad. So, no. The GOPers will never agree to anything that doesn’t have shoving cash into the rich’s pockets as the primary goal. The path forward is to destroy the house of cards they’ve built with their scientifically proven stupidity.”

    True, all that. But consider this very encouraging statistic: there are ~2.6 million deaths per year in the U.S., overwhelmingly in the over-60 age range. These are the same people who tend to be Republicans, climate deniers, religious fanatics, anti-science types (all of those tend to go together, albeit you can find exceptions). Those kinds of people are overwhelmingly older, typically over 60. Therefore, we have at least, say, 2.0-2.3 million deaths every year of old right-wing idiots. And they are not being replaced with young right-wing idiots. The millennials, and to a large extent gens x and y, embrace socialism, Bernie- and Tulsi-like candidates and ideas, the climate emergency, etc. (Again, generally speaking, and with exceptions.)

    SO: 20-23 million fewer right-wing idiots in a mere 10 years! A large number, more than enough to shift election results, possibly even enough to allow some real change. Even FIVE years could make a substantial difference.

    The Republican Party is facing a demographic collapse in coming decades, because young people are being driven away from it in droves. It is a party of rich, complacent and (typically) mean old white guys and gals who have no understanding or appreciation for the multiple predicaments facing younger people, not least climate change. The Democrats are also a right-wing money-driven corporate party at present, but: 1) with the exception of foreign policy and military matters (which might wind up being the death of the planet, I confess), they are not quite as wildly, insanely right-wing as the Republicans, and 2) they will be forced to change, to some extent, with the changing demographics. Either that or a strong socialist third party will arise.

    Remember that people almost never change their minds, no matter the facts. Which is the idea behind that great Thomas Kuhn (?) quote to the effect that (paraphrased): “new ideas in science do not succeed by convincing the opponents. They succeed by waiting until the opponents have physically died”. The same applies in the U.S.: the physical death of the older generation of brainwashed right-wing idiots, like our MKIA, is necessary. That combined with external factors: China/Eurasia rising, ongoing repudiation of the U.S. dollar, decline of the West in general. It is critical to support Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, while waiting for the death of sufficient numbers of right-wing idiots; all is necessary before meaningful change might actually commence here in the retarded U.S.

    The only question remaining is: will this happen in time to avert catastrophe? I have no answer.

  24. alan2012 @322, yes I’m roughly aware of modern monetary theory. I’m probably a bit more conventional. However these things might also depend on circumstances so there’s a place for a form of it at certain times.

    For example during The New Deal of the 1930’s, The Fed essentially printed a lot more money than normal.This made sense to me because of the scale of the down turn was catastrophic, and so of course the economy was deflating so money printing was unlikely to be inflationary. And of course quantitative easing is a form of money printing and has been used since the GFC of 2008.

    The question is would it make sense to fund the GND with money printing? Well it might be. I’m no economist, but we don’t have much inflation currently to worry about, so more money is unlikely to be a big problem.

    I tend to think carbon fee and dividend would be the other promising solution. Maybe both could be combined.No reason they couldn’t be that I can see.

  25. I also feel that moral codes are just informal belief systems and not exactly rational. I think not everyone accepts them or whats written in old books. However people are at least attempting to come up with something useful and rational.The law basically takes many of those morals and adds consequences, so is more rigorous and codified, and has at least some degree of public mandate.

    But to me the real point is how do we know the law, or any particular moral rule, is correct? We obviously need something better than gut reactions, or circular debates on the issue. I suggest the only useful criteria is to look at the actual physical harm people cause each other and use that as a basis. At least this can be analysed and quantified, and its a key issue in maintaining a stable society. The point of morality is to promote stability and peace isnt it?

    For example theft causes people harm. In comparison it’s hard to see that smoking cannabis causes other people harm. Its largely a victimless crime with the exception of driving etcetera, so hard to say that its morally wrong. The problems could be dealt with as we deal with drunk driving. I’m not saying smoking cannabis is wise, simply that its a stretch to claim its morally wrong or should be illegal.

    Now burning fossil fuels. Is that morally wrong? It causes “other people” and future generations harm. Should it therefore be illegal?

  26. @nigelj, #318

    ” you are certainly not alone thinking that, but its more complicated and insidious. Some fossil fuel companies no longer deny the problem, at least not entirely: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/20/exxonmobil-joins-oil-gas-climate-change-alliance-global-warming ”

    Hehe, that’s the game: Always financially support both sides, so you will always be in control. That’s a very old game of smoke and morriors and more smoke and more mirrors.

    ” Fossil Fuel Industries Pumped Millions Into Trump’s Inauguration, Filing Shows

    Among the big donors were Chevron, Exxon, BP and Citgo Petroleum…”

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19042017/fossil-fuels-oil-coal-gas-exxon-chevron-bp-donald-trump-inauguration-donations

    These guys know the business and they know the scientific facts. So Trumps denial is f* calculated despite knowing better, his denial is just smoke and mirrors financed by the fossil fuel industry once again. “Democrats vs Republicans”- what is that? It’s a game, nothing but a game as the one and only power is the global military-industrial complex fueled by fossil fuels. Some call these games “satanic” or “illuminatiish”, I call it foolishness and stupidity. The Laws of Nature can not be fooled for a second. They think they are smart, but they are greedy, ignorant fools and they will end in hell.

  27. Some forced response:

    This Be The Verse

    They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
    They may not mean to, but they do.
    They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.

    But they were fucked up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,
    Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another’s throats.

    Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
    Get out as early as you can,
    And don’t have any kids yourself.

    – Philip Larkin

  28. Carrie says @317, “Like what is New Zealanders GND? What does that sound like – do they even have one? If they don;t do they already have things in place the GND is calling to be introduced a NEW change in the USA. eg like long term unemployment benefits, minimum wages that provide a living wage so people can afford to invest in a solar panel to begin with …. when will NZ be 100% off fossil fuel electricity? How do they do that?”

    Firstly what I respond to positively about the Americans GND is its an actual plan with a list of points, so much more compelling than piecemeal policies raised with no real plan or context. And I agree with most of the points in the GND. What I have questioned is how its best funded, and whether the socioeconomic provisions might have been better placed in a separate plan (but good to see the Democrats taking a stand on basically sensible provisions like some form of accessible healthcare and decent wages etcetera).

    As to New Zealand and the GND. Political parties have all had a set of climate policies, but falling short of a “plan” to deal with climate change comparable to the GND in scope or theme. What we have is an emissions trading scheme (not my preferred option but it is one approach) and the current Labour Government has just banned new exploration of offshore oil. The current government is implementing an independent policy advisory panel on all climate issues to try to diffuse the partisan and tribal problem and policy flip flops and vested interests similar to what the UK has done.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme

    NZ already has approx. 80% renewable electricity mostly hydro and geothermal power and about a dozen wind farms, not much solar (too cloudy). The big Huntly coal fired power station is being phased down I think form memory check yourselves if its of any interest.There is some gas plant for peaking demand.

    There is a general bipartisan commitment to build more wind farms and geothermal but I would say only a moderate sort of commitment, 5 / 10. Its very unlikely we would build more coal because we have many other good options.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand

    We have public healthcare with a tax payer funded hospital system, subsidised doctors visits, a comprehensive social welfare system, family income support, minimum wages all seems more progressive than America. Such stuff is easily googled I don’t have time for a long list. It’s getting OT anyway.

    I hope Carrie is not setting me up, looking to try to nit pick holes in my recollection of facts! :) Which is pretty good overall anyway.

    “Talking about real things – actual hard facts – true knowledge regarding real societal responses to climate change – on real climate would be a lovely change.’

    It’s what I do. Refer comments 318 – 320, all made before you raised this point about “hard facts”.

  29. Further to nigelj comments, Huntly power station’s remaining coal/gas unit (500MW) will remain open till 2022. They are protection for a dry winter until more alternative generation is online for backup. Huntly also has a gas CCGT generator that is not going anywhere soon. With ban on offshore exploration, NZ has only about 10 years of gas left unless an unexpected onshore find is made. How durable the ban will be politically remains to be seen (National has promised to repeal it if gets power), but otherwise that sets the time frame for ending FF electricity generation.

    Neither of the main political parties have shown much interest in business subsidies, including a lack of subsidies for renewables. Building new generation is a market decision for the generation companies. However, that also means that there are no subsidies for FF either, unlike many other countries.

    The major GHG sources in NZ are animal-related emissions and transport fuels. Since cars are easier to re-engineer than cows, the government is certainly interested in electrification of transport. So this has only been evident in establishing charging infrastructure and exempting EVs from road-user chargers. Since NZers are very keen on low-priced second-hand cars from Japan, EV take up in NZ is rather dependent on EV take up in Japan. The Green’s are interested in doing more but subsidy remains a dirty word in government (though some specialist commercial EVs look to get some help).

    Animal emissions are tough problem and so far only answer has been plant more trees. Given the value of dairying to NZ economy, I dont expect much else anytime soon.

    While NZ has way to go, it isnt doing too badly either and has very much stuck to market-driven solutions.

  30. “The millennials, and to a large extent gens x and y, embrace socialism, Bernie- and Tulsi-like candidates and ideas, the climate emergency, etc. (Again, generally speaking, and with exceptions.)”

    True. I have read a couple of articles on this lately one in The Economist one below:

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/millennials-are-embracing-socialism-poll-indicates-2018-10?r=US&IR=T

    Millenials are also a bit less materialistic (apart from owning screens)

    “The only question remaining is: will this happen in time to avert catastrophe? I have no answer.”

    Some of these right wing guys are old and rich and built like bull elephants so I’m not too hopeful.

  32. alan2102 @321, do I sense a tiny little bit of sarcasm there? (excuse my own sarcasm)

  33. 328 nigelj, it’s obvious that NZ and the US are not comparable on almost any scale. Except they both have govts, both have a “democratic electoral system”, both have political parties etc, both know about agw/cc.

    NZ having 80% hyrdro is a huge difference with the US electricity grid. As a result of that policies to implement action on lowering emissions has a different scale of problem in the US than NZ has, as you pretty well pointed out. Youlist is a good one.

    I think what is most telling about that list in connection with the GND project in the USA is that NZ already has almost everything in place regarding the “social equity” issues that the GND contains. The negative reactions to the GND have often focused on those very issues being in there. The push back tot eh GND is coming form both GOP and Democratic party “leaders” and their supporters in the US.

    This is one of the reasons why people like Feistein say it can’t be done or will be too expensive. It is not a surprise to me then that the GOP conservative predatory capitalists in the US especially their Media arm would be highlighting these “social welfare/socialist” issues and components to hopefully undermine the credibility of such a GND plan.

    The left leaning social democrats and justice democrats are pushing a revolutionary strategy here. By placing all these “issues” into the one basket they are leaving themselves open for a relentless attack by the most wealthiest anti-Agw/CC denialist group of activists on this planet.

    It’s a very brave strategy combining the two at once under the very same Banner GND. I think what your comments should show others here is that a GND in NZ that focused on re-engineering the economy to adapt to 100% renewable energy, and restructuring transport and manufacturing over to electric (not sure how NZ will adapt to lower ag emissions but suspect it’s doable) would be a much simpler proposition for BOTH the Political classes and the Public to embrace because of all the social systems and accepted Norms already in place in the country.

    It’s one of the reasons why I suspect the noble goals they have will fail to move this very far in the USA over the short term. Which can only further extend the time frame of that nation from returning to the UNFCCC system as weak as that is and being sane and rational about AGW/CC.

    M Mann said a few ago he was “quite positive” of progress being made in the USA this year in 2019. I have no idea how he could draw such a conclusion and he did not specify it in the article in which eh was quoted.

    The agw/cc issues every nation faces is unique and yet there are a multiple similarities too, which manifest in different forms and times – it depends on where the nation is at at any particular time.

    In the case of the USA it stands out as being disconnected from the rest of the world in multiple ways too many to list. From afar the GND seems almost self-evident common sense. But when viewed from within the USA with all their biases and blinkers and lack of knowledge about the real world outside of it – plus their extremely incompetent and controlled media – it is a completely different kettle of fish.

    That’s all I wanted to say using the NZ situation as a useful comparison point. No setup. No nefarious intent. Merely my opinion of course based on what I believe I know.

  34. Does anyone know if this is the case?
    ” . . . the IPCC report is faulty, based on ten year old CO² emissions data . . . yet the IPCC report neglected to include the last ten years of emissions in it’s calculations.”

  35. Zebra,
    Yes, and just to round out your point, an insulated box of water/ice is the practical solution. Twas solved decades ago.

    But Teslas are cool…

  36. Nigel,
    You’ve seen the design for the analog piston engine.

    Right now Noria, a lubrication company is analyzing it.

    If they give it a thumbs up just how relevant will Donald Drumpf be? New Zealand could become stronger than the USA

  37. Zebra,
    BPL and I were not trying to discuss anything. I told him to leave his religion at home and that I would not refrain from discussing morals.

    “Fuck you” is not an invitation.

  39. Zebra,
    Moral codes have little relationship to morality. “Do unto others” is morality. What folks add is code, and often spaghetti style

  40. Zebra,
    From memory and I don’t know the climate the design was for, but if you bury a ten foot cube of water you can run your AC off of the ice you made last winter.

    Instead of promoting toys that go fast we should be digging in the dirt.

  41. Alan,
    Yes, cohort replacement is how humans advance. Lots of kids don’t bother to get drivers licenses nowadays.

    Are we’re busy perfecting a dying system?

  42. Alan,
    The difference between Dems and GOPpers is that Dems hold their nose when accepting the check.

    Thus, GOPpers are more honest?

    Carrion speaker,
    No, nobody on this site has the slightest clue except you. Duh!
    (According to you)

    Nigel,
    You miss the point. Downturns, and especially depressions are opportunities for the purchase of the means of production at rediculously low prices. Only the poor and/or the stupid and/or the moral fear depressions. Dude, have you never played a game? Or do you not see the link?

  44. 328 Nigel,

    Geez, dude. You just turned Carrion Speaker into roadkill!

  45. Re: 314, 319, 321: Wake up.

    alan, yes, there are people smarter than you. Deal with it. I do. Also, there are people who know things you don’t. Deal with it. I do. E.g., there are a few people posting here who have a grasp of the maths/specifics of climate. Have you never noticed I *don’t* question their chops, nor those of the site owners? It is important to know your strengths and weaknesses. I defer to those who have skills I don’t.

    You do not seem capable of this.

    So be it.

    I repeat:

    It’s a comedy of errers. A sussuration of Straw Men. A concatenation of hypocrisy. A slew of self-delusions.

    Play, Nero, play.

  46. 324 nigelj 28 Feb 2019 — “yes I’m roughly aware of modern monetary theory. I’m probably a bit more conventional.”

    MMT is very conventional. It describes how money actually works in the modern world. It is not some wild new suggestion; it is a DESCRIPTION of reality, the reality that we’ve lived for decades.

    “during The New Deal of the 1930’s, The Fed essentially printed a lot more money than normal. This made sense to me because of the scale of the down turn was catastrophic, and so of course the economy was deflating so money printing was unlikely to be inflationary.”

    Same situation now, only worse: 1) implications of climate change are much more catastrophic than anything that happened in the 1930s, and 2) technological advancement is inherently deflationary and this is about to get much more intense with robotics and AI. Read Kartik Gada’s book on the subject, or just the executive summary: https://atom.singularity2050.com Snippet: “In response to technological deflation, the central banks of the world will have to create new money in perpetuity, increasing the stream at an exponentially rising rate much higher than is currently assumed.”

    “And of course quantitative easing is a form of money printing and has been used since the GFC of 2008.”

    That’s right. TRILLONS of new dollars. And where’s the inflation? There isn’t any, to speak of.

    “The question is would it make sense to fund the GND with money printing?”

    Yes. Few things have ever made more sense.

  48. do you have information about fox glacier in NZ ?

    retreat or expand ? Please, Give me some information (historic) about this glacier.

    Thanks

  49. 342 Al Bundy says: “Carrion speaker,
    No, nobody on this site has the slightest clue except you. Duh!
    (According to you)”

    And yet there are here above and in other comments proving you do not have a clue over and over. Good for you! I hope it makes you feel good to now using “funny ad hom names” to call someone like a 3 year old at the nursery so you can feel even more clever and self-righteous about everything and everyone. Whoopie do dude. Get a clue.

    345 Killian, I am not sure myself but you may have taken alan’s post with the bible quote the wrong way. If you read it and take it ‘literally’ versus assuming he is being clever and speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time (as so many are want to do for humourous reversed effect eg the serial killers namesake -[see I just it myself smile]- sometimes the room affects the way we see / read things – it’s like the atmosphere influences how we ‘breathe’ or cannot breathe’ – especially when another person walks into it out of the blue (again)

  50. 334
    James Charles says:
    1 Mar 2019 at 4:48 AM

    Does anyone know if this is the case?
    ” . . . the IPCC report is faulty, based on ten year old CO² emissions data . . . yet the IPCC report neglected to include the last ten years of emissions in it’s calculations.”

    ———

    More details required – which IPCC report, who said it, what’s the ref url etc. what’s their evidence, which page number of the IPCC report did they reference to support their claims – and do they even know how IPCC reports are assembled in the first place (likely not) – and it really should directed to the Unenforced Responses thread as it’s a science question.