RealClimate logo


Forced responses: Sep 2018

Filed under: — group @ 3 September 2018

This thread is the bimonthly open thread for discussion of climate solutions. A good starting point might be this clear description from Glen Peters on the feasibility of staying below 2ºC. Please stick to substantive points and refrain from attacking other commenters (as opposed to their ideas). The open thread for climate science issues is here.

236 Responses to “Forced responses: Sep 2018”

  1. 201
    Carrie says:

    182 etc Barton Paul Levenson, you’ll find the box of tissues in the bathroom.

  2. 202
    Dan says:

    “Now go watch that Ralph Nader video…”

    And with that one phrase you absolutely annihilated whatever credibility you thought you may have had. Because Nader is directly responsible for getting us to where we are today. Lest you have forgotten, he and Karl Rove were very buddy-buddy in the 2000 election. Rove assisted the Nader campaign to defeat Gore despite Gore’s environmental record on global warming. Nader spent his last campaign days in battleground states, most notably crucial Florida. And Nader attacked Gore then more than he did Bush. He went where he was unlikely to get votes and thus would not get the 5 percent needed for federal funds in 2004. Even the Sierra Club called Nader out for what he was doing to hurt Gore. Suffice it to say, the votes that Nader did get would have been more than enough for Gore to win Florida. With that win, Gore would have given the US a head start to address global warming. And of course the entire post 9/11 world we are in now. smh

  3. 203
    Dan says:

    re: 161.”I WAS RIGHT :-)
    Again. ”

    No, you are just pathetically desperate for affirmation. Classic actually, complete with the use of all capital letters as if that somehow makes your point. Busted. “Again.” Critical thinking?

  4. 204

    C 200: I quit.

    BPL: I’ll believe that when I see it. At most you’ll come back under yet another alias.

  5. 205
    Killian says:

    Re #181 Kevin McKinney said #179, Killian–

    Not a parallel case. In the BBC instance, it’s about a news organization giving access to long-discredited views.

    This is bizarre logic. A scientist can say we should not engage liars and fools and give them any credence, but you two – in, what, your greater brilliance? – think the opposite is true merely on the basis that one is a news site and the other a science site? Run by… scientists… to promote… science? But the opinion of a scientist on science communication should not be listened to?

    Jesus…

    You’re logic is nonsensical. I mean that literally: It is nonsense. It has no sense.

    Science is clear on this: The more a lie is allowed to run and the more you try to debunk it, the more the lie is remembered. The FR threads have been absoluteley dominated by two posters for many months now because you people think this way. You. Are. Wrong.

    And the blog should be run by the blog owners, so it makes no difference if denialists are given free reign and all of you roll around in the mud with them? How is it relevant that the obvious – the owners get to decide – is true? What has that to do with anything? The professor did not dictate to the BBC, the BBC decided, on its own, he was right. The owners decided what to do with their resources.

    Goodness, Kevin. Do better. Your defensiveness is really messing with your thinking.

  6. 206
    Killian says:

    Re #186 Barton Paul Levenson said Nothing worth reading.

    First you call an observation a judgement: FYI, “You’re stupid and don’t know anything” is an example of judgment, but “You are not as smart as you think you are” is an opinion based on observation and in no way impinges on character, so is not judgment.

    Second, you engage in childish taunts.

    Third, you make a factually incorrect statement wherein you don’t seem to understand “up to” since you respond as if it had been stated as a definitive number.

    That’s impressive incompetence, to put it politely.

    That 20,000,000 figure is from some years ago, and I don’t remember the source, but here’s one from 2015:

    An international team of researchers concluded that the minimum population in 1492 would have been about eight million, with an “unlikely” upper figure of 50 million.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/amazon-rainforest-was-home-to-millions-of-people-before-european-arrival-says-study-10412030.html

    Let’s try thinking a little. Minimum is 8M. Max is 50M. Midway would be around 29M. Half of that would be 22.5M. 20 million is hardly preposterous given the starting numbers.

    However, thanks for your pointless, incorrect pedantry encouraging me to do a search on updated estimates. Perhaps the the best estimate as of 2018, based a single swath of the Amazon, then extrapolated, is “only” 14+million. I think that fits quite well into “up to 20M” given the older upper bound of 50M.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/amazon-jungle-ancient-population-satellite-computer-model/

    Like some others here, you have nothing to offer. Your attacks on others, your pedantry, damage the usefulness of this site… like too many others.

  7. 207
    Killian says:

    Re #198 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #185–

    I never accept stupid as reason to do, nor not do, anything.

    And you never seem to miss a chance to categorize disagreement as either stupid or dishonest.

    Wow. You really do come off like an idiot savant in English: Grammatical accuracy, but zero ability to understand what you read.

    Anyone think he’ll ever figure out what “stupid” was referring to? But who cares… he’ll post next that he knew I wasn’t talking about whom he was talking about.

    In my opinion, of course.

    No opinion of yours is ever accurate. No, Capitalism isn’t OK. No, unsustainable practices are not OK. Yes, people will change if given the chance and a small minority of fully aware people get momentum. No, living simply does not mean living like a caveman. No, you are not doing a service to society by engaging denialists with anything other than either ignoring them or calling them what they are and banishing them from public discourse. Etc.

    Try to remember: Everyone has a right to an opinion, but all opinions are not equal. Please, become a lurker. I do not speak this way to hurt your feelings. I do so to clear space on this forum from all the dreck, nothing less, nothing more.

  8. 208
    Killian says:

    Re #197 Kevin McKinney said Killian, —

    The conversation already happened. The process to design for zero carbon already exists. That you don’t accept the outcome does not mean the conversation hasn’t happened.

    It isn’t about me. It’s about all of us as a society. And until (functionally) everybody is aware of the realities and choices we face, the necessary conversation has not been had. Clearly, that is not yet the case.

    Actually, it is this time. About you. I was being literal: You, personally, do not accept the answers and so do not accept the conversation has already been had. The remaining conversation is getting people to begin doing it.

    You speak as if the problem lies elsewhere, but when you, and virtually all other, climate activists, still will not hear the solution, how can you share it with anyone?

    I’m dying to see the Incheon declaration. Wish I had been invited to the party; I’d have turned the entire thing on its ear… if they could hear.

  9. 209
    Killian says:

    Regenerative Governance model proof of concept:

    * Overthrew gangs, police dept and city hall.
    * Won the right to self-governance under indigenous rights law; argued before Supreme Court.
    * Autonomous neighborhood assemblies; egalitarian.
    * City assembly with people nominated from neighborhood assemblies.
    * City pay is subsistence bc it is considered a service
    * Process of independent self-rule initiated by women
    * Some land (seems to be non-urban areas, e.g. forests and lakes) held in Commons;protected by community policing
    * Discussion is pretty much daily, not only at some meeting time.
    * Extremely low crime rates.
    * policing is from within the community
    * small issues handled by assemblies, serious crimes referred to prosecutor

    *** No political parties, they are considered divisive. (I have said political parties are unconstitutional and should be banned for limiting the right to vote.)
    *** No campaigning: One becomes a candidate only via nomination. it is considered an honor and obligation, not a seat of power.
    *** No political paraphernalia allowed in the town at all. Cars are stripped of propaganda, and searched, as they enter.
    This proof of concept only applies to the community level of the model, but the model is fractal, so can be inferred to work at all levels.

    The city council is elected by councils first meeting to propose their members. The “election” involves nominations in public with all present. Those nominated can aver, but never seem to do so. The actual selecting is done by the candidates standing on chairs and people lining up in front of their chairs! Then they count, then the new council is announced.

    *** The councils lead and decide, the Council of Elders represents.***

    Celebration of 7 years of self-rule. Watch to the end. The elderly woman’s speech is powerful.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDspeScGZrQ

    TV piece on Cheran. Has some details the above does not.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrPBdLiqMb0

  10. 210
    Al Bundy says:

    nigelj: However you still need manufacture, supply chains and finance to get products to the consumer. Free market corporates can be very badly behaved, but have given us cheap technology because of mass production at scale and competition, and if you destroy the goose that lays the golden egg theres a potential problem.

    AB: You don’t show the alternative Earth. If predatory nonprofits ran the business world would things be better or worse? My plan is to find out.

    ————-

    K’s sockpuppet (after gushing on about how K is God’s gift to humanity [his only flaw is excessive humility]): You do not 300 million people calling for chnage and shaking the foundations of the political system … all you need is about a million people in lock step to tear it to pieces

    AB: You’re off by at least three orders of magnitude. Take out transformers, power lines, and pipelines. Set hundreds of wildfires. Drop overpasses onto hard-to-reroute interstates. Weld/glue straight wedges on curving freight railroad tracks (one wedge that gets the outer wheel’s flange up and over the track’s lip does the trick). Flush fat, fiber, and cement down toilets (super fatbergs!). Avoid killing anyone except Republican government officials and celebrities (hunting season for them!). I believe there have been books written (I’ve never seen one) that describe how to bring the USA to its knees with very little effort. (This is not a call to arms. My plan is in my response to nigelj.)

  11. 211

    Killian, #s whatever–

    OK, so the master of concision and self-control is advising me not to waste column inches.

    Got it, Wise One.

    Maybe try asking nicely next time.

  12. 212
    Carrie says:

    Killian suggests

    A) You’re logic is nonsensical. I mean that literally: It is nonsense. It has no sense. Science is clear on this: The more a lie is allowed to run and the more you try to debunk it, the more the lie is remembered. You. Are. Wrong.

    and

    B) Like some others here, you have nothing to offer. Your attacks on others, your pedantry, damage the usefulness of this site… like too many others.

    Ummm, yeah. This is not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact.

  13. 213
    Carrie says:

    202 Barton Paul Levenson says:
    C 200: I quit.
    BPL: I’ll believe that when I see it. At most you’ll come back under yet another alias.
    ……………..
    At least I am smart enough, in this day and age, to use a nym, unlike yourself.
    And unlike you I don’t spend my time cherry picking two words while ignoring the content of a comment I am replying to. Which says quite a lot about your mind Barton when compared to mine.

    “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” Eleanor Roosevelt

    The positive in this is there is still time in your life to get your own house in order Barton. Good luck. Will there be anything else?

  14. 214
    Tom Adams says:

    A couple of Harvard studies published on Oct. 4 seem to indicate that wind farms have a much lower energy density than previously estimated. This is based on simulations and field data. Wind farms also cause localized surface level warming. They estimate that wind farms don’t reduce net warming for 100 years, but I only read the press release and the exactly what is being delayed for 100 years was a bit hard for me to determine. Solar looked relatively better. There are currently big plans for the expansion of wind farms.

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/

  15. 215
    Carrie says:

    207 Killian says:
    Regenerative Governance model proof of concept:

    OK try this then too? It’s 2009, a Chris Hedges outtake discussing his then new book https://youtu.be/80CFKM473hg?t=314

    Seeing the world in hindsight can sometimes help gain a greater more accurate perspective. This is USA centric. If possible, really think about what is said here, it is 2009, the GFC is in full force, the banks insurance companies mortgage lenders, hedge funds, bond holders, the central banks and GM et al are being rescued from collapse, Israel has again bombed the crap out of innocent people imprisoned in Gaza for weeks on end, and Obama has just started his 8 year Presidential term. Hillary Clinton becomes the Secretary of State and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party. The war in Iraq rages on.

    Global CO2 was 385.46 ppmv vs today ~408 ppmv

    Chris Hedges:
    Hi we’re each going to talk for five minutes I guess the Reader’s Digest
    version of our books my book Empire of illusion the end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle makes the argument that we are the most illusioned (Delusional) nation on the planet.

    That we have become utterly disconnected from who we are, what we represent and where we’re going and replaced it with fantasy. It has allowed us to run offshore penal colonies where we openly torture other human beings, suspend habeas corpus, engage in warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping of American civilians, lived through a banana republic 2000 election where unfortunately this state contributed to the theft of the Democratic vote and yet described ourselves as the greatest democracy on earth.

    A democracy that abrogates the right to impose its virtues on others by force. We have built a system of unfettered capitalism which has turned everything from human beings to the natural environment into commodities for exploitation until exhaustion or collapse.

    This has hollowed out America from the inside. It’s why we are borrowing roughly at a rate of two billion dollars a day from the Chinese and have been for the last ten years. At some point that has to collapse. We have destroyed our manufacturing base and described it as an opportunity for
    growth.

    All of these things have fed into, I think, a very frightening fantasy about where we’re headed. That we have in many ways remained 40 year-old children unable to confront, as the historian Harvard historian Charles
    Mayor calls it: ‘That transition from an empire of production, to an empire of consumption.’

    Real wages in this country have remained stagnant since 1973. Just as we
    maintain Empire through credit and borrowing, we maintain a lifestyle that
    we can no longer afford through credit and borrowing. All of that is collapsing.

    One strives towards a dream. One lives within an illusion and the illusion that we are fed is:
    ‘That reality is never an impediment to what we want. That we can if we just dig deep enough within ourselves, if we find our inner strength, if we grasp, as Tony Robbins says, that we are truly exceptional, if we believe that Jesus can perform miracles, if we focus on happiness we can fulfill this pernicious psychological idea among consumer culture that has a sort of instilled massive consumption as a kind of inner compulsion.

    And the danger of illusion is that it allows you to remain in a state of perpetual childishness, infantile-ism.

    As that gap opens up between the illusion of who we are and the reality. Of the foreclosures, the bankruptcies that are caused by the inability to pay medical bills, the collapse of empire we are unprepared emotionally psychologically and intellectually for, what is about to confront us.

    And when the wolf finally pounds at the door, when our house is foreclosed, when the unemployment insurance runs out, then you react (if you have remained in a state of illusion) as a child reacts.

    You search for a demagogue or a savior who promises moral renewal vengeance and new glory and we can already see that very frightening psychological disease leaping up around the fringes of American society.

    The only way that one can speak about hope is to break free from a non-reality based belief system. To begin to speak in a new language of humility, to accept a lifestyle which frees itself from profligate consumption and endorses a new simplicity.

    And it finally, it is not incidental or accidental that the environmental crisis we face is twinned with the economic crisis. It stems from the same disease which is turning everything, human beings too, into a commodity. The natural environment into a commodity that we exploit, an end, and exhaust until it dies.

    Either we wake from this illusion or we commit collective suicide.

  16. 216
    nigelj says:

    Killian claims “A) You’re logic is nonsensical. I mean that literally: It is nonsense. It has no sense. Science is clear on this: The more a lie is allowed to run and the more you try to debunk it, the more the lie is remembered. You. Are. Wrong.”

    Yet Killian is the very first to respond to anyone he perceives as lying about, or criticising or denying his own pet theories and he does so with long attempts to discredit what they are saying, (and even more attempts to discredit the person.) He will probably claim thats “different” yet we know it isn’t.

    Anyway I dont blame him for responding, and I dont think it makes sense to ignore denialists of any persuasion entirely.

    I believe most of it is about having sensible moderation. This website says avoid repetition, then publishes Victors endless repetitive nonsensical statements, (call them lies of you prefer) so doesn’t enforce its own policy. I have huge respect for this website, but I will never understand this. Why have rules if they aren’t enforced.

  17. 217
    Killian says:

    Re #211 Kevin McKinney said :.. (

    Killian, #s whatever–

    OK, so the master of concision and self-control is advising me not to waste column inches.

    Got it, Wise One.

    This is hypocrisy. Not the first time. Why invalidate yourself?

    Maybe try asking nicely next time.

    I didn’t ask rudely the first time. But more so, if you need polite words to make yourself do the right thing, you are terribly weak, don’t you think?

    “He sucked at digging tubers, but I respect him because of his effort.” – Indigenous Elder

    This used to be how I saw you, misguided but working hard. Then your ego got spanked and ever since it’s been the sort of mess we see above.

    Do better. You can. It matters.

    ——-

    nigel,

    Lurk. Only that. Study “analogy” with your free time.

    Oh, and, nige, et al., I might have been wrong abt. Thomas/Carrie.

    See? I have ZERO problem admitting I’m wrong. Your problem, collectively, is you actually think you know better despite ten years of a clear record of accuracy.

    If you cannot list your successful analyses, in each case predating mine, if the same or similar, SHUT UP and get on with the problem solving. Lose the bullshit and the egos.

    It matters.

  18. 218
    Killian says:

    216
    As I said, it is not analogous. Climate denial is a glibal effort from gid knows how many fronts, bots, paid trolls, repeating the same lues over decades.

    You have lied about discreet points, with some repetition (though much more often just mucked it all up), but nothing like decades of myriad sorces repeating the same lies virtually verbatim, over a mere year or so.

    No, it is not the same. This shoukd be obvious to you. Please consider these issues with some intensity until it is.

    In the meantime, please lurk.

    The saving grace of MA, Kevin, etc., is they can explain the *known*, IPCC, science to others. You add nothing new and have nowhere near their clarity and specificity on issues.

    Please… be a student first.

  19. 219
    Killian says:

    Re #215 Carrie,

    Thanks, but I think the issues I deal with are not much informed by Hedges at this point. If I saw through a glass darkly, perhaps. As it is, Chaos, Permaculture Principles (natural First Principles), indigenous Peoples’ patterns, perspectives, ways of problem solving and pure democracy have far more to say.

    Shorter answer: I understand the problems, I only have time for the answers… because so very few of us understand them.

  20. 220
    nigelj says:

    Killian @217

    I don’t feel this need to brag about myself, however since you ask about predictions, I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates, in particular sea level rise and extreme weather, but I thought temperatures would lag estimates a little. This is exactly whats happened, so I have been vindicated fwiw. This is just one example.

    This is easy for me, and I’m sure I’m not alone, but like I say I don’t normally advertise this stuff because I cannot see the point. What really counts is the IPCC modelling and predictions based on physical equations, nobody is going to take my intuition or rough analysis too seriously, and I wouldn’t expect them to, although its pretty good.

    You say loose my ego while YOU brag about your personal record? Do you not see the huge contradiction here? You have the ego problem, not us.

    No criticism of your intuition, analysis or predictions is made or implied, because although I have criticised some specific points you have made, it seems reasonably ok overall. I’m simply saying you are not the only person in the world who analyses things and gets it right.

  21. 221

    Killian, #217–

    Kevin: Got it, Wise One.

    Killian: This is hypocrisy. Not the first time. Why invalidate yourself?

    No, just straight-up sarcasm. Very interesting universe you live in.

  22. 222
    Carrie says:

    If you get to the end of this …
    https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hell-is-empty-and-all-the-hedge-fund-managers-are-at-th-1795429824

    you’ll find this:

    “Wherever you are in the world, you’re finding that government interference, particularly to small businesses, is a barrier to growth … it’s when you have a government that has so many barriers for the small guy to come up and create something new, that’s when you have the real problems,” he said. “That’s the reason you’re seeing this populist sentiment. You see it in the U.S. You see it in Europe, where people are fed up with the bureaucracy in Brussels … a lot of people can’t articulate that, necessarily, but they just know intuitively that they’re being prevented from doing something they’d like to do.”

    From a billionaire investor’s perspective, the thought process of the frustrated common man is remarkably similar to the thought process of a billionaire investor. What is it that frustrates all those faceless regular people out there, whose wages have stagnated for three decades as the top 1% claims an ever-increasing share of national wealth, thanks in large part to deregulation? Well … it’s the remaining regulation, god damn it! All of those laid-off factory workers are mad as hell about the government bureaucracy that is impeding business development! They may not know it, but that’s what’s in their hearts. They’re being prevented from doing something they’d like to do — start a thriving international corporation with a minimal tax rate in order to maximize investor return. It is the classic dream of the little guy.

    Extremely rich people treasure money, yes. But once you have a certain amount of money, you can stand to give some away, if only for the praise that it brings you. What they cannot stand to give up is power. The attendees of the SALT Conference, the absolute winners of the grand American capitalist experiment, are capable of expressing heartfelt concern for the abstract idea of people poorer than them. What they are not capable of is admitting that in order for the public as a whole to win, the hedge fund class may have to sacrifice more than just the checks they write at the annual Hamptons charity balls. They may have to sacrifice power. That, I’m afraid, is unthinkable. To be very rich is to have the luxury of constructing a plausible theory of morality that allows you to hold on to everything you have. It is to believe that you can sit in the shoeshine booth and drive a $300,000 McLaren and raise money for Donald Trump and lobby for a zillion-dollar tax cut paid for on the backs of the poor and still be a good American. And to never have to think twice about it. On Thursday evening, the singer Jewel appeared to play a set for the crowd in the Bellagio ballroom. In front of a screen reading “INVEST IN HUMAN CAPITAL,” she recounted how she became homeless and was forced to live in her car and then her car got stolen, before launching into her tune,

    Who will saaaaaave your soul,
    After all those lies you told?

    When she finished, everyone looked up from their phones and applauded.

    [end quote]

    (smile) while you’re being screwed it makes you feel happier.

  23. 223
    Killian says:

    Re #221 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #217–

    Kevin: Got it, Wise One.

    Killian: This is hypocrisy. Not the first time. Why invalidate yourself?

    No, just straight-up sarcasm. Very interesting universe you live in.

    Really? So that was playful, friendly sarcasm vs rude, ill-intentioned sarcasm?

    I really can’t tell if you really believe this crap or are just to angry to admit what you are doing.

  24. 224
    Killian says:

    Re #220 nigelj said Killian @217
    I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates

    That’s not much of a prediction, is it, since it was obvious?

    so I have been vindicated fwiw. This is just one example.

    Had you done that, perhaps, but did you? How did you go from being ahead of the curve to downplaying the problem across the board on these fora? that’s quite a shift given you’ve had nothing but more and more reason to be more alarmist, not less.

    Hard to take you at face value on this.

    And you’ve predicted what since?

    You say loose my ego while YOU brag about your personal record? Do you not see the huge contradiction here? You have the ego problem, not us.

    Brag? You really are dull. Every thing I “brag” about was said on these pages at the time. I have no need to brag. I am invalidating the bullshit thrown my way. I am the only person on these fora that has made the predictions I have. None of the rest of you can claim *any* that I am aware of over the last ten years, yet, you dismiss me at every turn. So, I remind you. I let the readers know your denial of my skill is bullshit.

    It is not bragging to use the record in black and white to prove you all petty, untruthful and just plain dumb for putting your egos before solving the problem.

  25. 225
    nigelj says:

    Killian @224

    “I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates”

    “That’s not much of a prediction, is it, since it was obvious?”

    That is NOT what I said you liar. I said “I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates, in particular sea level rise and extreme weather, but I thought temperatures would lag estimates a little. This is exactly whats happened, so I have been vindicated fwiw. ”

    So you are deliberately missquoting me, lies by omission.

    “so I have been vindicated fwiw. This is just one example.”

    “Had you done that, perhaps, but did you? How did you go from being ahead of the curve to downplaying the problem across the board on these fora? that’s quite a shift given you’ve had nothing but more and more reason to be more alarmist, not less.”

    Another lie. In no way have I downplayed the problem. Quite the reverse. I have consistently said the IPCC predictions are on the conservative side in respect of sea level rise and extreme weather. I have however questioned whether Hansens estimates can be taken seriously but if you think that is downplaying the problem you have a pretty strange way of thinking. Being sceptical of a couple of the most extreeme claims is not downplaying the climate problem its simply wanting to see some hard evidence.

    “Hard to take you at face value on this.”

    I couldn’t care less what you think. You have a nasty, suspicious little mind where you personally attack anyone who gets under your skin or who asks you difficult questions or criticises some point you make. You then play the victim, who claims that because of this all your views or self worth is rejected when obviously nobody is doing this.

    I find this simplificiation philosophy has value, but I question some elements, thats all I have ever done. In no way do I deserve to be personally attacked as a result and called a liar or idiot.

    “And you’ve predicted what since?”

    I’m not interested in laying out what I have predicted. Its frigging childish points scoring.

    “You say loose my ego while YOU brag about your personal record? Do you not see the huge contradiction here? You have the ego problem, not us.”

    “Brag? You really are dull. Every thing I “brag” about was said on these pages at the time. I have no need to brag. I am invalidating the bullshit thrown my way. I am the only person on these fora that has made the predictions I have. None of the rest of you can claim *any* that I am aware of over the last ten years, yet, you dismiss me at every turn. So, I remind you. I let the readers know your denial of my skill is bullshit.”

    If you have no need to brag, why do you brag all the time? Bragging is pathetic.

    You dont get it. Im just not too interested in your predictions, and like I said before I believe you probably get some right and some wrong, and conveniently forget the bad predictions. I’m slightly more interested in someone like Ray Ladburys personal predictions given he has a physics degree.

    Regardless of whether you make good predictions or not, that doesnt mean your other various claims or statements are correct, and some look incorrect to me ( and clearly others), but I I would say the same of many people. We all make mistakes, and you write a lot so open yourself up.

    You need to get it through your thick skull that just because I criticise some specfic point you or someone makes, it doesnt mean I have a bad opinion of someone or absolutely everything they say. Honestly how hard can it be to work that out?

  26. 226
    Killian says:

    Re #225 nigelj whined Killian @224

    “I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates”

    “That’s not much of a prediction, is it, since it was obvious?”

    That is NOT what I said you liar.

    False. It was a cut-and-pasted quote.

    I said “I thought back in the late 1990’s that climate change would be worse overall than the middle range IPCC estimates, in particular

    See the last two words above? “In particular?” That phrase is used to set apart a subset from a set. The set was total prediction, essentially expecting changes above the middle range. That means ALL the predictions are included in my quoted part, and the specific ones are thus redundant. I don’t need to repeat the whole thing and did not for the sake of brevity. Calling that a lie is about as stupid and petty a comment as you are wont to make.

    sea level rise and extreme weather, but I thought temperatures would lag estimates a little. This is exactly whats happened, so I have been vindicated fwiw. ”

    Pretty much everything has been above the mid-range, and this is common knowledge, so what am I trying to hide? You did not specify what set those two apart, so they are not useful to set apart. I did not argue the point: Yes, things have been above the middle range.

    Since my point was that that was an easy prediction, it doesn’t have much merit as proof of skill. Of course, you miss the gist because you are trying to score points like a goddamned child.

    Enough. Not going to read the rest. You are absolutely useless.

  27. 227

    An uncomfortable but very worthwhile piece on the difficulties of climate policy, seen through the lens of the Canadian experience:

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-has-good-climate-policy-why-is-it-so-hard-to-love/?utm_source=Shared+Article+Sent+to+User&utm_medium=E-mail:+Newsletters+/+E-Blasts+/+etc.&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

    No answers, just observations on a political moment in historical context.

    Some will read it and conclude, once again, that we’re doomed; others will renew calls for their particular brand of ‘great climate policy’. I tend to see it through my habitual lens that reality is messy, and we are unlikely to either completely succeed or completely fail at addressing the climate policy. (And I fully expect to be pilloried by some for that formulation, because they don’t believe in anything ‘partial’ WRT climate change.)

  28. 228

    Killian, #223–

    I really can’t tell if you really believe this crap or are just to angry to admit what you are doing.

    Probably shouldn’t respond, as this is Way Off Topic into yet more personal crap, wasting time and space. However:

    1) Does one “believe” sarcasm? I would have thought that the point of sarcasm was play with the normal paradigm of ‘belief.’ So I find the question confusing, and “I know not how to answer.”

    2) I’m not angry, I’m amused and a bit melancholy at the waste of talent and resources.

    Again: you have important things to say, yet you waste server space and personal time with recrimination and name-calling that serve only to alienate those whom you claim to be trying to persuade. And from my perspective, you add a little salt to the wound by frequently accusing your interlocutors of doing things you yourself are very guilty of–such as wasting many inches of virtual column space on person recriminations, which is the subject that provoked my sarcasm in the first place.

    And that, I certainly do believe.

  29. 229
    nigelj says:

    Killian @226, what a load of pedantic time wasting nit picking rhetorical rubbish. Predicting sea level rise would be above IPCC estimates and temperatures would lag is not obvious, and in any event is not in substance different and / or easier from the sorts of predictions you have posted.

    Your ideas are not original. You are a time waster more interested in personal fueds than open discussion.

  30. 230
    Killian says:

    Re 228: You hold yourself up as so very polite, as do others, yet, you are not. My point is obvious: It is YOU who needs to stop going after me for things you do yourself. I do not initiate such quarrels, but I do respond strongly.

    I did initiate this one, with you, because you are one of those who puts style over substance, is rude but pretends he isn’t, and so creates unnecessary problems here.

    And that I do not believe, I know. Set an example: Don’t be a hypocrite.

  31. 231
    Killian says:

    #229 nigelj said Killian @226, what a load of pedantic time wasting nit picking rhetorical rubbish.

    Do you know why I typically only respond to your comments to me and only rarely initiate? Because you have, literally, nothing to say. You state the obvious or you completely donn’t get it.

    You are an entirely average intellect. I

    I was not nitpicking. You tried to call me a liar without cause because I deleted redundant information. You set those two points out as particularly skillful, then offered nothing to support it. Thus, from a reader’s perspective, they add nothing to the statement about things being above trend.

    See? I’m *still* having to explain the obvious to you.

    Your ideas are not original.

    All of them? No. Of course not. I don’t DO science, I analyze it. But I am always ahead of the curve because of how I think about things. It took exactly one statement from one scientist in late 2006 or early 2007 for me to be absolutely certain Arctic melt, Antarctic melt, Greenland melt, and thus SLR, would be far higher than the ’07 IPCC report was saying. I was a neophyte about these issues at that time. I had always been eco-conscious, but not a student of climate. At all. I started to become one in 2006 because of the coming IPCC report (and other reasons.) But one critique by one scientists – likely Box or one of the other more vocal ice scientists, was all it took to “get it.” I didn’t need persuading, i didn’t need to read forty papers on the topic. It was easily understandable. I can’t really explain fully why.

    Part of it is past knowledge. Chaos theory is a key element of my thinking, but also general systems. I get systems, non-linearity, chaotic patterns. I just do. When I read Gleick’s Chaos, it literally changed how I saw the world. While not as dramatic as The MAtrix with it’s data streaming under everything, it is yet kind of like that. It is fully assimilated into my thinking, so I never need to actively “think” about whether something is going to behave unexpectedly. Same with principles of Nature. They are deeply embedded. I don’t need to “think” about whether something is sustainable or not if I have enough info. Once some critical data point is available, I know. No active analysis required.

    Some people cogitate, some just do. I have a friend who I am absolutely certain is smarter than I am, yet she thinks long and hard on everything. It drives me nuts because I only rarely need to in cases where I am unfamiliar with the subject – and on personal issues. It slows conversation and problem solving. I honestly believe our brains are all wired somewhat differently, and mine is wired to do analysis largely subconsciously.

    So, I figure things out without much effort. You? You expend great effort and never get anything right.

    You are a time waster more interested in personal fueds

    Says the ankle-biter chasing me around these boards jumping into conversations that do not include him? We wouldn’t be having *this* conversation, or any of our three or four most recent, if you were minding your own damned business.

    Again, you are not bright. Hypocritical. Untruthful. Add nothing. I don’t even get angry at you. I used to. First, I was just frustrated. Then angry. Now? Nothing. Responding out of habit, i suppose. You’re just so damned… boring.

    As for other original things, well… there was 2016 ASI… and Regenerative Governance… and a risk/solutions framing for climate awareness… and Regenerative Community Incubators, etc…. and paintball! LOL… Really! A group of us kids were frustrated with throwing dirt clods at each other and wanted something less painful, less dangerous and verifiable… especially verifiable. We brainstormed the idea, thought we should contact a toy company, but did’t. This was two years before the first paint ball. Ah, well.

  32. 232
    nigelj says:

    Killian @231, you like to make out that you are some sort of genius analyst. I mean I dont know whether to laugh or cry. You say literally dozens of things on this website that are flat out wrong and dozens more that are ridiculous or just unsubstatiated or pure guesswork. This is not the sign of some genius analyst.

    But at least you are on the right side of the climate issue and smarter than some, and you are right humanity will have to start to reduce its consumption of resources, but I think you will find it wont be as much as you hope for.

    I only respond to a few of the weird things you say because they stand out. I notice Im not the only person who is critical, however I have always worded criticisms politely, and given you easy ways to walk yourself back from the issues, but no instead you go on trying to defend the indefensible over and over. Often its simply because I wanted to bring some research to your attention. I can assure you its nothing personal, or some attempt to single you out.

    I wonder how accurate your sea level rise predictions have been so far. It appears you have overestimated things if you think sea level rise is well ahead of IPCC estimates. Right now sea level rise is slightly above middle range IPCC predictions but not hugely. This is where I predicted it would be so I have some level of skill. I think I will trust my own judgement on such issues thanks.

    I think you have predicted that sea level rise by 2100 will be 2-3 metres. I have said 2 metres, and yet you respond to this by calling me every name you can think of including lying climate denialist and idiot who downplays climate change and a fool. This is despite the fact we are not that far apart on this issue. Honestly you are delusional. Something isn’t right with you.

  33. 233
    Carrie says:

    By Chris Hedges, award winning journalist, war correspondent, award winning author, christian minister and human being.

    Predatory Corporate capitalism is about the destruction of Democratic institutions and National economies to enrich a tiny cabal a Global Oligarchic Corporate Elites.

    Neoliberalism is the Utopian Ideology that was created to justify the massive social inequality and misery and destruction of social service programs.

    I mean right down through public education, so this is something Karl Marx got. Every ruling ideology, every ruling class, creates an ideology to justify their own privilege, their own elitism and their own right to hoard wealth, resources, and power at the expense of everyone else.

    From Reporter Tells Truth About War & Gets Fired By NYTimes w/Chris Hedges
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=965DwRyfcmo
    with 6,100 Thumbs Up in only 3 days!

    Con’t, so you had the divine right of kings, you had systems like communism and fascism that elevated a certain elite. In the case of fascism it was racial in the case of communism that was class. It’s all there.

    So Corporate Capitalism uses Neoliberalism but it’s an ideology that makes no sense economically. The whole idea, there’s nothing in 4,000 years of settled society to convincingly argue that by enriching your Oligarchic class this is good for the economy, or good for the working class.

    Hey, we know that it isn’t but we got spun this lie courtesy of these courtiers, these kind of intellectual courtiers, Leo Strauss, others and all the useful idiots like Alan Greenspan and everybody else.

    But as a rational ideology it was always absurd that you should make your entire society kneel before the dictates of the Marketplace and that the primacy of the Marketplace should determine how you structure your Government or your Culture.

    But those who criticize Neoliberalism, I’m going back to Sheldon Wolin who was our greatest contemporary Political Philosopher, they were ruthlessly shut out. Wolin wrote the book Democracy Incorporated, I highly recommend it, where he uses the term Inverted Totalitarianism to describe our system.

    But once he started calling out Neoliberalism for the con that it was, he and the other critics were purged from the Universities, purged from the Mass Media, social leadership circles and so on.

  34. 234
    Al Bundy says:

    From UV Kevin and Victor ponder the devastation that will result from dumping fossils.
    Well, it’s like descending from a ladder. Instead of going down one step at a time I’d bet that nothing will be done until all that beach front is worthless, along with the fossil reserves and infrastructure. Oh, and the darker skinned multitudes are marching en masse.

    So yeah, you’re both right.

    But then, Oct 27 is the filing date for my engine. Cleans the air, 60+% efficiency, cheap, and scalable. Imagine all the cash this one invention (of dozens) will bring as seed money to buy companies and take them nonprofit. Yo Kev, maybe we can turn this ship around.

  35. 235
    nigelj says:

    Killian @231, just adding to my response above and you might learn something.

    I really cant be bothered responding to most of your points here. They are so petty and personal, and I have a rule that I don’t go down that road anymore on websites. I’m not interested in spending pages on who said what when and the stuff you get into. Enough other people feel the same and have given you subtle and not so subtle hints.

    However I would clarify a couple of things for the record so I’m not misinterpreted.

    Firstly ok you were not putting words in my mouth over the IPCC predictions issue, but it annoys me that you cannot or will not see that my views on the IPCC are not “obvious”‘ It was not obvious that temperatures would lag or that sea level rise would be mildly above middle range estimates. Plenty of people argued sea level rise would be behind estimates or well above estimates. But Im not interested into getting into time wasting details about our mutual personal predictions. You simply made the reference that nobody should be commenting on this website unless they have made personal predictions. I’m simply pointing out that 1) actually I have made several predictions and I quoted one and 2) its a ridiculous thing for you to have said anyway.

    Secondly I meant your ideas on “simplification” are not original, not the main ones anyway, and it should have been obvious I meant that. If your ideas were groundbreaking I might make allowances for your other failings, but they just aren’t.

    Thirdly I don’t care what you thought about paintballs. I mean good for you if you and your friends had a bright idea, what do you want, a medal? I recall thinking wouldn’t it be great if we had a phone that combined a radio and digital camera and a big screen well before these things came on the market! But I doubt I was the only person who thought that. Nokia and Apple put it all together and good for them. You just have an inflated opinion of your abilities to predict things.

    And fourthly you dont understand what constitutes a personal feud. My making a few criticisms of your comments is no personal feud. You have to expect a lot of criticism on a science based website because its the nature of science to attack even the slightest weakness and this is absolutely essential. Al Bundy has criticised plenty of things I say but I dont take it as a personal feud.

    The clue is in the word personal. You make everything into a personal feud in the way you personally attack people over and over. If you cant see the difference between politely attacking some point someone makes and calling them names or a liar or otherwise putting down their abilities you better learn or you are in for a rough ride through life and relationships. Of course I dont like it when people criticise points I make, but I take a deep breath and I dont throw a tantrum.

    Finally please explain where I have stated the obvious. I don’t think I state the obvious. What might be obvious to you will not be obvious to other people.

    We have often both quoted the same research papers / articles. I don’t see how I’m stating the obvious if I quote some article. This is why I say you are so delusional in your thinking.

  36. 236
    Al Bundy says:

    Kevin McKinney: So the master of concision and self control is advising me to not waste column inches

    AB: it takes me about as much time to scroll through the Master’s inches as it does to read everyone else’s combined

    ——-
    Carrie, the use of a handle is not the problem, but switching the handle without being clear is evidence that you’re ashamed of yourself.
    (My current guess is that you’re Thomas.)

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.