quote:

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
Theodore Roosevelt

This quote is a good example of the limited choices left to someone who wishes to deny human desire. And, of course, the whole AGW agenda bares the hallmarks of yet another masqueraded attack on human desire.

Here, the man is puzzling over what to do when faced with the urgency of making a choice. Because he has outlawed his own desire, he can only choose between the abstract "right" and "wrong". Doing "nothing" is recognised as the "worst thing" (the thing to be avoided) as it would land Roosevelt back at square-one and face-to-face with the vacuum his denial of human nature leaves him in. Doing "nothing" would also force him to call into question the validity of the "moment of decision" itself - that is... what else might he be using the moment for if he wasn't using it to make a decision in. Doing "nothing" (if he can tolerate it) might be a good way to use a moment. But a moment with nothing in it - an empty moment - would seem like a very dangerous and unguarded place to anyone determined to keep human desire out.

Just as with Roosevelt, the villain in the AGW crusade - the thing to be conspired against and outlawed - is desire. Human desire is the naked target that "global warming" is made the cloak for. It is this "wanting" that causes the waste-matter AGWers are pouring over and forensically sifting through to find - or fabricate - incriminating evidence to sentence it to death. And like Roosevelt, doing "nothing" is deemed the "worst" choice... not because the world will be overwhelmed in waste-matter (as we are led to believe), but because "nothing" leaves those empty moments in which AGWers come face-to-face with their own overwhelming nemesis... human desire.

Of course, human desire has been tried and sentenced many times before - the last big show trial was 100 years ago in the USSR... with a jail-break 7 decades later (and double-jeopardy now guarantees immunity from the socialists). The Islamic fundamentalists are also clamouring to construct a credible case against desire (perhaps they could share evidence with the AGWers and keep prosecution costs down).

That this desire inspires such hatred and envy in those who demand its end makes it an irony of suppression. After all, no end of abstract "rights" and "wrongs" and over-compensatory swagger can fill up the moments convincingly enough to cloak the fact that this hate and envy are in themselves a very revealing and intense form of desire.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
realprimate,

I think your sentance realy needed a commer

APL - See what you've done? And Steve's the only one of us who knows climatology!

Or are you really "PAL" or "ALP" or "LAP". Or even CLAP?

Mmmm that's more like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

How about this one - CO2 has increased and global teperatures have increased so CO2 causes GW.

Correlation doesn't prove anything. A prediction backed up by physical theory that is borne out by events however...

What I've been saying for ages. I'm still waiting, though.....

But that's just the problem, JL. It may well take another hundred years for you to be satisfied that something has been going on here, and that our carbon emissions really have had an effect on the climate (or not). But by that time, we could well be in a situation in which we are much less able to do anything about it, particularly if the consequent temperature increases and water shortages have caused mass migration and civil strife. At least at the moment we are in a relatively stable situation in terms of world power and politics to do something. In 100 years, that may well not be the case. What on earth is wrong with trying to conserve our resources now? Surely that is a sensible strategy, whatever the outcome?

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
But that's just the problem, JL. It may well take another hundred years for you to be satisfied that something has been going on here, and that our carbon emissions really have had an effect on the climate (or not). But by that time, we could well be in a situation in which we are much less able to do anything about it, particularly if the consequent temperature increases and water shortages have caused mass migration and civil strife. At least at the moment we are in a relatively stable situation in terms of world power and politics to do something. In 100 years, that may well not be the case. What on earth is wrong with trying to conserve our resources now? Surely that is a sensible strategy, whatever the outcome?

I don't mind trying to conserve resources.

What I do resent is having the greenies trying to railroad mankind into accepting them as our rulers by creating panic. Much the same as would-be dictators everywhere try to. And if you think I'm being melodramatic, just go to a FoE meeting and watch them licking their licks at the propspect of them being able to impose restrictions on other people.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
But that's just the problem, JL. It may well take another hundred years for you to be satisfied that something has been going on here, and that our carbon emissions really have had an effect on the climate (or not). But by that time, we could well be in a situation in which we are much less able to do anything about it, particularly if the consequent temperature increases and water shortages have caused mass migration and civil strife. At least at the moment we are in a relatively stable situation in terms of world power and politics to do something. In 100 years, that may well not be the case. What on earth is wrong with trying to conserve our resources now? Surely that is a sensible strategy, whatever the outcome?

Lucibee - I think you're operating a sleight-of-hand here and swapping around two different concerns.

If it's shown that using our resources does NOT put enough emission into the atmosphere to significantly change its temperature (as looks to be the case), then what other reasons are there for conserving those resources?

One reason is they're finite (also fossil fuel IS a renewable resource... it just renews too slowly).

Another reason is profit. The market relies on competitiveness and puts huge research and development into conserving more and more resources to keep a competitive advantage and maximise profit. Capitalism, by its nature, extracts as much as it possibly can out of as little as it possibly can making it the best governor of conservation. The logical goal of trade (or developing big business) is to use zero resources. No one wants cheap, reliable and renewable resources more than business does.

Once emissions are out of the equation, history shows the market as being the best and most super-efficient resource-conserver we've had since the industrial revolution. Which is great! (whispers: 'unless you hate capitalism, of course' ).

quote:

What I do resent is having the greenies trying to railroad mankind into accepting them as our rulers by creating panic. Much the same as would-be dictators everywhere try to. And if you think I'm being melodramatic, just go to a FoE meeting and watch them licking their licks at the propspect of them being able to impose restrictions on other people.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather doubt that most of the scientists on the IPCC panel, or even most of those who support their research, are signed-up greenies or members of FoE. I'm not. And if they do want to impose anything it is because they have a real concern that the actions of the few might be affecting the lives of many.

quote:

Capitalism, by its nature, extracts as much as it possibly can out of as little as it possibly can making it the best governor of conservation.

This is the most utterly naive view of capitalism I've ever read.

But then obviously I hate capitalism, don't I Roger.

Capitalists care that each unit is produced using as little resource as possible, but also wants to sell as many units as possible.

This is done by marketing which means that you create a demand to consume more units, and rapid innovation, to re-sell new and improved units to owners of old units.

Furthermore, if a resource is under-used in a capitalist market it becomes cheaper, meaning that units can be produced even cheaper and sold even quicker. And if it is overused, it becomes more profitable to find even more of the resource.

Hence, in an efficient market, a resource is used up as quickly as it can be.

Capitalism doesn't care if the resource could have been put to better use.

This isn't a tirade against capitalism, it's just basic facts.

capitalism is about making money, its that simple. Its usually done by coming up with a product that no one wants or needs,enslaving the poor (lets call them employees) and paying them a pittance to produce the product, convince them through blanket marketing that they really do need afore mentioned [useless]product, then sell it to them at a profit. The rich get richer and the poor(employee) get to show each other how fantastic their new mobile phones are. everyones a winner!!

quote:

Originally posted by APL:
AGW is a scam - anyone with half a brain can work it out.

See:
CLIMATE SCARES BASED ON DESIRE TO CONTROL WORLD ENERGY
MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING BITES THE DUST

Also take the test see how you do:
The Global Warming Test

No.1 Question - Global warming is a real phenomenon: Earth's temperature is increasing.


Brilliant! Reduce the global warming debate with a series of misleading questions!

How about the real debate. Has the earth ever seen such rapid warming? What do climate scientist believe is the most likely cause of the rapid warming we are expericing?

What a disingenuous website!

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
capitalism is about making money, its that simple. Its usually done by coming up with a product that no one wants or needs,enslaving the poor (lets call them employees) and paying them a pittance to produce the product, convince them through blanket marketing that they really do need afore mentioned [useless]product, then sell it to them at a profit. The rich get richer and the poor(employee) get to show each other how fantastic their new mobile phones are. everyones a winner!!

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Just kidding, but I didn't expect that, except ironically.

Well, in my line of work the idea is to make a product that the market wants (and is satisfied with) using as fewer resources as possible. Resources such as time and materials. I will then charge for that product what I believe the market will bare... knowing full well that if I attempt to charge more than it can bare, the market will go to my competitors. Because I have competitors, what I can charge is also constantly under downward pressure, therefore I constantly seek more efficient and smaller sized resources AND deliver a better quality product than my competitors which the market wants.

As a part of the overall market myself, all of the above determines the amount of financial resources I have and I engage in exactly the same process when seeking products I want or need.

In both directions, CONSERVATION is the name of the game. The natural beauty of this is clear by looking back 50 years and seeing how enormous efficiencies in resource use, development and technology has enabled a huge general increase in our standard of living and quality of life. Today's third world is no different to the West's underclass a century ago. And market dynamics has proven that they too will develop and share an equal life with the West. It heartens me to see countries such as China and India developing the infrastructure for achieving that goal and joining us.

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:
Try this New Scientist guide:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Yes seen this pro-AGW biased site before. I noted that although Micheal Le Page attempts to appear neutral saying;

"Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways"

and

"With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories."

Yet fails to recognise the unsubstantiated onesided 'wild theories' in the reference material he uses to emphasise his point - in other words he tries to wrap the pro-AGW rubbish posted by other authors with a legitmate facade.

So let's take one 'Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming'

Catherine Brahic acknowledges that there is a lag then says:
"but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."

Second point first. Of course it does when realising that CO2 has risen and fallen naturally AFTER the planet has warmed naturally for over 400,000 years. Clearly showing that CO2 follows temperature rise and fall, and does NOT cause it. She then builds her point based on not why the 800 lag is not true but only on the assumptions of other areas that support AGW and this is pretty much the theme throughout the other 'myths' - it's complete rubbish.

"Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

realclimate.org

quote:

As for 'climate scientist' - what is this? What are the required qualifications to be a 'climate scientist'? This is a political correct pro-AGW term that enables these people to select only those scientists who they consider worthy to speak about global warming.

These people? What people? What are you suggesting? Some kind of huge conspiracy theory? If so, it takes in virtually every scientist who has published a peer-reviewed paper on climate, it takes in the scientific academies of virtually every developed nation on the planet along with the following organizations:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)

American Meteorological Society

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

Once emissions are out of the equation, history shows the market as being the best and most super-efficient resource-conserver we've had since the industrial revolution. Which is great! (whispers: 'unless you hate capitalism, of course' ).

So why is it unsustainable?

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:
Capitalism, by its nature, extracts as much as it possibly can out of as little as it possibly can making it the best governor of conservation.

Hmm, sometimes I think that's not the case. If capitalism was to run rampant outside of the laws. We wouldn't have a countryside left cos the real estate would be put to more profitable use as theme parks and golf courses. And it would be cheaper to log the Amazon than to grow sustainable forests.

quote:

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Just kidding, but I didn't expect that, except ironically.

LOL communism ahh! the other side of the same coin

quote:

Originally posted by JLSF:

I don't mind trying to conserve resources.

What I do resent is having the greenies trying to railroad mankind into accepting them as our rulers by creating panic. Much the same as would-be dictators everywhere try to. And if you think I'm being melodramatic, just go to a FoE meeting and watch them licking their licks at the propspect of them being able to impose restrictions on other people.

Greenies? “railroad mankind”? Dictators? What’s a “lick” anyway? Imposing restrictions?

You being melodramatic? Nope. Your words are just an infestation of reactionary garbage filled with Daily Telegraph ad hom remarks. Sadly so typical of a certain type.

Just put down peer reviewed science links rather than display your bigotry and wilful ignorance.

BTW it’s spelled prospect.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Greenies? “railroad mankind”? Dictators? What’s a “lick” anyway? Imposing restrictions?

You being melodramatic? Nope. Your words are just an infestation of reactionary garbage filled with Daily Telegraph ad hom remarks. Sadly so typical of a certain type.

Just put down peer reviewed science links rather than display your bigotry and wilful ignorance.

BTW it’s spelled prospect.

Apologies for my typos - the penalty of not being able to preview posts I'm afraid.

I'm sorry you don't seem able to see the way these "threats" are being used to restrict freedoms, in much the same way that the "terrorist threat" is being used. Still, sleepwalk your way into dictatorship if you want....

And if you took the trouble to read my other postings ,you will see that what I am waiting for from the AGW proponents is an application of scientific method, ie, produce a set of specific predictions which can be tested against reality. We can then proceed to test their hypothesis in much the same way as any scientist would test an hypothesis. There seems considerable reluctance to comply with this simple request.

quote:

Originally posted by JLSF:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Greenies? “railroad mankind”? Dictators? What’s a “lick” anyway? Imposing restrictions?

You being melodramatic? Nope. Your words are just an infestation of reactionary garbage filled with Daily Telegraph ad hom remarks. Sadly so typical of a certain type.

Just put down peer reviewed science links rather than display your bigotry and wilful ignorance.

BTW it’s spelled prospect.

Apologies for my typos - the penalty of not being able to preview posts I'm afraid.

I'm sorry you don't seem able to see the way these "threats" are being used to restrict freedoms, in much the same way that the "terrorist threat" is being used. Still, sleepwalk your way into dictatorship if you want....

And if you took the trouble to read my other postings ,you will see that what I am waiting for from the AGW proponents is an application of scientific method, ie, produce a set of specific predictions which can be tested against reality. We can then proceed to test their hypothesis in much the same way as any scientist would test an hypothesis. There seems considerable reluctance to comply with this simple request.

Dictatorship? There you go again.

I'm well aware of your other postings. Perhaps you can find a model that shows an increase in sea ice...

Communism, fascism, totalitarianism - whatever you call it, just a couple of examples in the press today about the consequences of the "Precautionary Principle", neither of which are surprising but the stomping boot is only just around the corner to address these and what will be a growing number of such issues as we progress down the road of precaution.

Miscalculation

Biofuels

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Perhaps you can find a model that shows an increase in sea ice...

I doubt there is one.