RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: Feb 2019

Filed under: — group @ 1 February 2019

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.

493 Responses to “Forced Responses: Feb 2019”

  1. 251
    James says:

    Quick message to RC posters, PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS. Resist the temptation to reply. It’ll never end because there’s no winning with some people or with hidden agendas. If you don’t play their game then maybe, just MAYBE this forum can be retaken by decency.

  2. 252
    Hank Roberts says:

    > 233 Hank Roberts says: Is this fake news?

    Carrie, I quoted that question as a heads-up to NASA folks; it’s not my question, I’m pointing out an uncertainty expressed in that article at the Soylenet News site.

  3. 253
    James says:

    Sorry, my last bit of advice on trolls. If the troll temporarily behaves civilly and posts something worthy or somewhat worthy of comment, it could be just a ploy. DO reply to the thought, but DON’T reply to the person by name. Again, just my advice.

    Carry on.

  4. 254

    AB 240: Rights arise from morals, which are simply statements of efficiency.

    BPL: There is nothing “efficient” about standing up for justice when it is likely to get you killed.

  5. 255
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @247

    “I speak the truth Kimosabe.”

    No you don’t, you made wild allegations against me that I get “nearly everything wrong in all my comments” and “nearly all the facts wrong”, and “my opinions are mostly wrong” and you now accuse me of lying, and you haven’t been able to back any of this up with evidence. You are wrong, and you are slandering me.

    I have given you a chance to walk your wild claims back, and you haven’t taken it. There is a huge difference between me getting the occasional fact wrong like the GND author issue, (and I admit I was wrong) and claiming I get nearly everything wrong.You get facts wrong yourself, eg you admitted you were wrong on the Guardian issue and claimed it was a ‘typo’, so you are acting like a hypocrite.

    For example I discussed population issues At comments 105 and 134 above. You have provided no evidence that the facts are mostly wrong or even slightly wrong. You have presented no evidence claiming the 5 links I posted are factually wrong. If so how would it be my responsibility anyway? I did not write that material. Where is your evidence my summary of the content was not representative? You have none.

    Or is it just that you don’t like my opinions? I think this is it, you just dont like the idea of smaller population but wont say so outright and just slander people instead.

    I discussed the GND with Bill Henderson @144. you have provided no evidence “all of this” is factually “wrong”. You cant of course.

    Why do you claim my views on a GND are “mostly wrong?” As far as I can tell it mostly aligns with you own views because you have supported the GND in general terms, and so was I in general terms, so you appear to not comprehend what is being said.

    I discussed welfare in NZ @149. you provide no proof this is “mostly all wrong” You don’t live in NZ, so what do you really know about it?

    I discussed the UBI at comment 173. The person I directed this to James made a response, and has not disputed any of the facts. We disagree over a couple of aspects of how the UBI should be structured, as people do.

    I discussed a carbon tax @175. Are you disputing the link I posted? On what basis? If its factually wrong (it isn’t) how is that my fault? You provide no evidence anything else is “mostly wrong or even partly wrong.

    I could go on. As you can see I fight back hard and do it without resorting to shallow ad homs.

    You are also consistently way outside of moderation policy the way you insult people and fill up pages with silly wild claims as I pointed out at comment 237 . I exercise some self control and generally abide with moderation policy. You should be expected to do the same :)

  6. 256
    nigelj says:

    Carrie says @250

    “Everything nigelj said was ( not true)… all that wasted money welfare recipients spend on drugs each week…”

    Just one example of your multiple mistaken claims. I have personally known welfare recipients who use drugs, smoke tobacco, and drink alcohol and who gamble. Some have been identified as part of legal proceedings reported in the media and others have volunteered the information.Ditto with working people and at all levels of society. We have a child poverty problem in my country and gambling and drugs and alcohol almost certainly play some part.

    I never said that welfare abuse of this type is massively commonplace, or that welfare recipients should be punished for this or benefits be cut. I was trying to make some constructive conversation on how to make sure welfare help gets to the kids. And I support higher welfare benefits and have lobbied for this!

    You just see what you want to see in peoples comments, and misinterpret things. It’s either careless of you or deliberate. I’m not sure which.

  7. 257
    nigelj says:

    Killian @246

    “James, you spewed Right Wing tripe on this board. ”

    His comment was that a universal basic income should involve some form of compulsory work, and he put it politely. It’s quite good to see a right winger at least considering a UBI might be viable.

    I don’t agree with his view for reasons already stated. But I don’t think it helps to call it right wing tripe, because it just seriously antagonises people, and we have to get votes of conservatives to get anything done. Sometimes its best to swallow a few dead rats if one is to be smart about things.

  8. 258
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @250,

    “228 Killian, it doesn’t matter. What you said about Jill Stein etc was correct. Everything nigelj said was not”

    You accused Mike of backstabbing at comment 132 on the UV thread and here you are doing some backstabbing yourself! Unreal! Do you think people don’t notice? :)

  9. 259
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy says “Rights arise from morals, which are simply statements of efficiency.”

    Morals are about allowing humans to work in groups peacefully. Lone hunters dont need morals. They are a regulatory mechanism. You could say that is efficiency.

  10. 260
    Al Bundy says:

    Killian,

    Only the unwise choose to swim in a pool of fools for over a decade.

    Interesting how Yang is defending what Yanger is complaining about.

    And it’s a red letter day. Killian said he was wrong about Nigel.

    And Yang and Yanger, Nigel isn’t into ego. He doesn’t care whether he was right yesterday because today is what matters. But it pisses him off (I think) when Yangers want to squabble over who scored the most points yesterday.

  11. 261
    scott nudds says:

    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

    A Cult of Ignorance” by Isaac Asimov, 1980

  12. 262
    Carrie says:

    234 James says: “Freudian slip?”

    Nah, sloppy editing of plagiarised material. I do make mistakes.

    So how long have you been reading RC James? Is this your first effort of making a contribution here? Good for you. And so you spend it making ad hom attacks against two posters you claim are “narcissistic” and/or “trolls”, “bullying” and “juvenile tactics”. OK whatever floats your boat. If that’s what you that is what you see. Who am I to argue with that? Everyone is entitled to their opinions and you have yours and now you’ve shared them. I’m there are others who would agree with you. Which should be comforting to you.

    Now what?

  13. 263
    Carrie says:

    240 Al Bundy says: “Carrie, When lurkers chime in, listen.”

    Why? Are they a more advanced form of our species or sumptin’ Al?

    I will decide who’s input I will listen to and take on board. I will decide what I do, what topics I’l address and how I talk about / communicate that.

    I did notice however how a simple two words “your guys” can create unexpected reactions. Maybe some of that “reaction” has to do with your own “critical put down attitudes” and your overall “communication style” albeit somewhat humourous. :-)

    I also note that Killian still provided you with his email contact. That Al Bundy and readers is how the adults in the room tend to behave. That shows their genuine attitude despite all the BS and hand waving going on. :-)

  14. 264
    Carrie says:

    234 James says: “I’ve looked back over a lot killian/carrie’s old posts”

    Your focus is skewed and not objective. One needs to be viewing those comments that came before “killian/carrie’s old posts” to objectively have a chance to see them in their “fullest correct context”. But that would require a lot more work than you’re willing to put into the project. :-)

    Besides that James, you missed all the really “choice” posts that got deleted before even being posted. LOL

  15. 265
    Carrie the ex-Catholic says:

    209 Barton Paul Levenson says:
    20 Feb 2019 at 7:54 AM

    K 191: 1. Neither your religion nor your ideology belong here.

    BPL: Sez you.

    —-

    A good Christian would have forgiven him. (wink)

  16. 266
    Carrie says:

    240 Al Bundy (revisit)

    Make my previous reply “your people” instead.

    If I make a mistake, provide false data info urls etc., or my typos are so bad that what I say is incomprehensible you have my OK to tar and feather me publicly.

    Then I will happily go back and fix my own mistakes to correct the record. Which is what all people on forums like this should be doing as a matter of course. But they don’t do they Al?

  17. 267
    Killian says:

    Re #234 James spluttered through his bile I’ve looked back over a lot killian/carrie’s old posts. Always the bile. Always the insults. Always the smug know-it-allness.

    First, we know more than you do. It’s not know-it-all in the sense you mean it, it’s actually knowing more than *you.* A wise man knows when to shut up and learn. A stupid man never does.

    Second, James, your hypocrisy is as absurd as anyone’s here. You have yet to respond to anything I have said with anything BUT bile, so far as I recall. I didn’t start that, you did – as it has been on this board since 2013 or so. We’ll see if you have the maturity to work through it as Al bundy has done. The fact you never go after anyone but me or Carrie says all we need to know about you objectivity given the massive amounts of rudeness that show up on this board at times. Carrie and I are the only ones being rude? Always starting it?

    You’re a joke, dude.

    The board was nice and quiet till you started up *your* bile. Hell, the content of your posts is sometimes bile even when you are supposedly responding on-topic. Your little melt down since being called on it is so… typical, and boring. We’ve seen this act before.

    And, finally, I’m in Korea. I’m 100% sure if you ask the admins where Carrie is you will find she’s not here. Me? I’m currently in an Ediya coffee shop near Singil Station, Singil-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. TI’m on here are seven women and myself here. Ask the admins. I give them permission to let you know I’m on an ISP/address *not* typical for me.

    Now, keep up the Carrie/Killian shit and you merely reinforce you’re a biased, putrid-minded damned fool. (That goes for the rest of you; get a fucking clue, people. I’m sick and goddamned tired of wading into a shit-filled kiddie pool every time I come to this site.)

    Shut up, James. These are serious times for serious people, not schoolyard bullies melting down after getting told what’s what.

    Consider yourself on ignore: You add nothing BUT bile here.

  18. 268
    Killian says:

    Re #232 and 235,

    Molten silicone? What’s the EROEI on this, negative 10? And silicone and its production are somehow sustainable?

    I dream of the day I see the typical person able to say of proposals like this, “Meh. More greenwashing. Come back when it’s sustainable.”

    I’m all for R&D, but it’s only useful to the developers as a learning process until it’s sustainable. We don’t really need to waste time on this sort of crap if it’s not sustainable. Let them make something that works first.

  19. 269
    Killian says:

    Re Carrie/Mike,

    Sorry, I got distracted. Here ya go:

    Carrie, I am actually confused as to your aggressiveness towards Mike. As things go on this board, Mike’s about as mild as they come most of the time. He fooled me with his recent shift to /sarc as a primary posting mode, but after his explanation it turned out he had not gone peanuttles on us, but was merely have some fun with all the anti-skyrocketty skyrockets.

    Beyond that, maybe I missed something? At any rate, I’d appreciate it if you’d chill out on this one. James is a much better focus at the moment given he’s in full meltdown. I’ve given him all the time I’m going to for his puke-worthy posts of late. We’ll see if he pull his head out and says something of use in the future.

    Nigel, well, you see how little I engage him compared to the past… a better tactic for my own sanity and one I intend to apply to any and all asshats – most of the time.

  20. 270

    K 267: we know more than you do

    BPL: And that’s Killian’s whole outlook in a nutshell.

  21. 271
    Carrie says:

    258
    nigelj says:
    24 Feb 2019 at 4:32 PM

    Carrie @250,

    “228 Killian, it doesn’t matter. What you said about Jill Stein etc was correct. Everything nigelj said was not”

    You accused Mike of backstabbing at comment 132 on the UV thread and here you are doing some backstabbing yourself! Unreal! Do you think people don’t notice? :)

    ——————–

    Why are you always so wrong nigelj? I must be psychic because I thought you likely to reply to that comment of mine as you have now done. :-)

    I stabbed you in the chest as I looked into your eyes and told you straight what was on my mind. After that I mentioned you in a comment to Killian who had also addressed you and what you are about. What I said to Killian was totally consistent with what I had already said to you DIRECTLY.

    There is a massive difference to what Mike did to me. I’m not surprised you missed it though. It’s quite typical of you now isn’t it?

    This is where you apologise, withdraw your false allegation and ad hominem attack and then hopefully learn from the exchange. No chance of that hey?

    pssst niglej – Do you think people don’t notice? :)

  22. 272
    Carrie says:

    269 Killian, thanks but I am not going to repeat myself. I have moved on.

  23. 273

    Molten silicone? What’s the EROEI on this, negative 10?

    I don’t think EROEI applies as a metric, as the molten silicon is for energy storage, not energy production.

    And silicone and its production are somehow sustainable

    Given that nearly 30% of the Earth’s crust is silicon, yeah, it’s pretty sustainable. The simple version of producing silicon is “melt some sand,” and it’s hard to see why you’d need it purified for thermal storage.

    But please don’t think I’m actually *advocating* this idea; I too found it, as I said, “startling.” But a team of MIT engineers is hardly going to fail to do the math, which makes me curious about what that math may have been, and what it meant.

    I can see that using molten silicon for thermal storage makes a certain kind of sense, in that you can store a lot of heat for the mass involved. What seems weird to me is using PV conversion to get the energy out again; for solar PV, the best efficiencies so far are ~23%, IIRC, and that’s cutting edge which of course is another way of saying “expensive.”

    But I’m guessing it may be Hobson’s choice; constructing heat exchangers for molten silicon would seem to be rather challenging. Ceramic tanks are one thing; ceramic piping, valves, seals and pumps quite another.

    And there’s another thing about this, too. One of the objections to RE one hears is that it’s not well-suited to supplying high-temperature process heat for industrial purposes. It would seem that this proposal puts paid to that idea; if you can use wind power to melt silicon, it’s going to be possible to use it for all kinds of processes.

    Oh, heck, let me go back and get the actual story and stop speculating:

    http://news.mit.edu/2018/liquid-silicon-store-renewable-energy-1206

    Says there they expect it to be cheaper than pumped hydro, which is the current price champion for hydro, and not limited by topographic requirements. We’ll see.

  24. 274

    Further to my comments above on the MIT ‘sun-in-a-box’ energy storage story, the link I posted partially answers another question I had, by specifying that the system would use multi-junction photovoltaic cells.

    That could more than double the conversion efficiency.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-junction_solar_cell

    It also specifies a graphite tank, which they’ve prototyped on a small scale, and says that the team has also demonstrated a pump that can tolerate the needed temperatures–but they’re coy about just how that works.

  25. 275
    Carrie says:

    252
    Hank Roberts says:
    24 Feb 2019 at 2:33 PM

    > 233 Hank Roberts says: Is this fake news?

    Carrie, I quoted that question as a heads-up to NASA folks; it’s not my question, I’m pointing out an uncertainty expressed in that article at the Soylenet News site.

    ——

    “it’s not my question” … I know, I never said it was. It looked part of the quoted text in your comment

    Have you ever noticed that every comment here goes like this:
    270 Barton Paul Levenson says:
    269 Killian says:
    266 Carrie says:

    Have you ever noticed that I have a pattern of replying to comments by quoting parts and leaving the “252 Hank Roberts says:” so everyone knows who and which comment I am replying about?

    Did you notice another person (KIA wasn’t it) showed you the page in “question” was on the way back machine web archive?

    Did you notice that I provided info about that “quoted article” where the content YOU posted here said it cannot be found – the way back machine?

    Did you notice that you never said your post was “a heads-up to NASA folks” here and everyone else should IGNORE it?

    Now why exactly are you writing to me now with “252 Hank Roberts says:”?

    What is that you really trying to say here, because frankly you are not making any rational sense to me at this moment. I’m confused by your response. Are you upset about something in particular you think I have done that you think I should not have done? Otherwise your comment seems like a waste of time to me.

    The Full Moon has passed, things should have settled down by now.

  26. 276
    Russell says:

    235, 238

    Cue rolling eyeball & facepalm emoji’s

    Silicon and silicone are as different as cheese and chalk . The former is an element that melts abruptly, the latter a broad family of polymers that char without melting and eventually the silcon on the silicone burns to refractory silica ash.

    What could possibly go wrong with a graphite swimming pool full of a molten element reactive enough to support ts own class of thermite reactions- silicothermic reduction , stored at a temperture a thousand degrees above its igntion point in air?

    The authors of this volcanic vaporware describe it thus :

    The system would consist of a large, heavily insulated, 10-meter-wide tank made from graphite and filled with liquid silicon, kept at a “cold” temperature of almost 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit. A bank of tubes, exposed to heating elements, then connects this cold tank to a second, “hot” tank. When electricity from the town’s solar cells comes into the system, this energy is converted to heat in the heating elements. Meanwhile, liquid silicon is pumped out of the cold tank and further heats up as it passes through the bank of tubes exposed to the heating elements, and into the hot tank, where the thermal energy is now stored at a much higher temperature of about 4,300 F.

    When electricity is needed, say, after the sun has set, the hot liquid silicon — so hot that it’s glowing white — is pumped through an array of tubes that emit that light. Specialized solar cells, known as multijunction photovoltaics, then turn that light into electricity, which can be supplied to the town’s grid. The now-cooled silicon can be pumped back into the cold tank until the next round of storage — acting effectively as a large rechargeable battery.
    “One of the affectionate names people have started calling our concept, is ‘sun in a box,’ which was coined by my colleague Shannon Yee at Georgia Tech,” Henry says. “It’s basically an extremely intense light source that’s all contained in a box that traps the heat.”
    A storage key
    Henry says the system would require tanks thick and strong enough to insulate the molten liquid within.
    “The stuff is glowing white hot on the inside, but what you touch on the outside should be room temperature,” Henry says.
    He has proposed that the tanks be made out of graphite. But there are concerns that silicon, at such high temperatures, would react with graphite to produce silicon carbide, which could corrode the tank.
    To test this possibility, the team fabricated a miniature graphite tank and filled it with liquid silicon. When the liquid was kept at 3,600 F for about 60 minutes, silicon carbide did form, but instead of corroding the tank, it created a thin, protective liner.
    “It sticks to the graphite and forms a protective layer, preventing further reaction,” Henry says. “So you can build this tank out of graphite and it won’t get corroded by the silicon.”

  27. 277
    Carrie says:

    256
    nigelj says:
    24 Feb 2019 at 3:56 PM

    Carrie says @250

    “Everything nigelj said was ( not true)… all that wasted money welfare recipients spend on drugs each week…”

    —————

    Yes well that was a bit of an exaggeration of your position, true. But a reasonable one given all that you had said about welfare people spending their money on drugs instead of their children. (I can quote that if you want, but surely you remember it?). It’s reasonable given your comment how much to you hate your tax dollars going to waste on welfare recipients who use drugs. IT’s reasonable given all that you had said before. So I captured all of that into a single “line” which captured what I truly believed was your general feelings and attitudes on the mater based solely on the words I have seen you write here.

    I think it was fair summary of my impressions of your own words. I claim some literary license in the manner in which I addressed the issues at hand. AOC/GND was a bridge too far. I figured I’d address the pattern and skip the hard details and unnecessary embarrassment by getting to the meat of the issue fast and offering solutions at the very same time.

    I am unsure the benefits now in belabouring the point further. I made my point. Do with it what you will.

    It’s OK for you now, after the event, after your prior words to now clarify your position and attitudes with much more clarity, details and in much broader terms than before, in a more BALANCED WAY, and to say things now you had not ever said before.

    This of course is acceptable and understandable. It applies to all the other top cis too, more or less you have addressed and which I was referring to. Or do you want me to nitpick every single little error you’ve ever made? How would that be helpful to anyone?

    There are good reasons why I consider myself a fairly good communicator. When I speak, good things happen (eventually.) :-)

  28. 278
    zebra says:

    BPL and Al Bundy,

    You are both off the mark because you are doing that thing… not agreeing first about what you are disagreeing about.

    To me, morals are a set of arbitrary rules.

    It is quite possible, Al, that some rule results in a societal benefit. But the question is how society decides on the rule, and how it gets people to follow the rule.

    There are legal rules, meaning that a system exists to impose consequences on behavior– that applies equally to the individual and to the government. In terms of utility, or “efficiency”, there is no need for anything but rational discourse on the topic.

    “You have the right to remain silent” imposes a penalty on the prosecution for “violating” that right; the evidence derived is invalidated.

    Likewise, “you will not drive over 65mph on this road”, imposes a penalty for speeders.

    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.

    So, for some people in, say, Afghanistan, if your 12-year old daughter is raped, you are morally obligated to kill her.

    This, BPL, would be an example of the idea of moral righteousness that you express when you say “standing up for justice”. Does the father not suffer in carrying out the dictates of, what for him, is “doing the right thing”? But, his belief that he is doing the right thing prevails.

    Of course, Al, you could argue that this rule has some kind of utility in that society, but it is doubtful that it would survive a truly democratic law-making process.

    Anyway, my original point is that neither of you has presented anything like what I just wrote, defining what you are talking about, so your “debate” is just talking past each other.

  29. 279
    Carrie says:

    255 nigelj, well, you’ve had a good run expressing your opinions and defending yourself. Is it enough or will you insist to Carrie On? :-)

    Or is it just that you don’t like my opinions?

    Seeing you asked I will answer. Generally no I do not like your opinions about almost every topic you’ve addressed here. I find them seriously wanting, but typically I ignore them and more often than not these days do not even read them – unless it is a topic I am well informed about, like the GND and AOC and the history of that “idealism” in the USA.

    Especially I do not like your opinions you hold about myself, but that’s water off a ducks back anyway. This is of course only my opinion. So why would you care in the least?

    What motivates me to action however is when you present patently false information here. I’ve explained that enough so I will not repeat it.

  30. 280
    nigelj says:

    James @253

    “Sorry, my last bit of advice on trolls. If the troll temporarily behaves civilly and posts something worthy or somewhat worthy of comment, it could be just a ploy. DO reply to the thought, but DON’T reply to the person by name. Again, just my advice.”

    Good advice, especially climate denialists, but others as well….

  31. 281
    nigelj says:

    Carrie says “And so you James) spend it making ad hom attacks against two posters you claim are “narcissistic” and/or “trolls”,

    No James doesn’t make ad hom attacks. He simply stated facts. He stated what is in numerous past posts by Carrie and Killian: endless personal abuse and bragging, although Killian has changed his attitude a little lately.

    James accused them of trolling. In the case of Carrie (aka Thomas) it sounds like a pretty sound accusation. I have lost count of her inflammatory, screaming, mocking, comments and really nasty allegations and threats, which is how we normally define trolling. But several are right above on this thread and over at UV.

    Google narcissism people and make Im your own minds.

    I’m not suggested be boring, because rich people should be called out over certain issues and there’s a place for emotive comments, but it can spill over into nasty trolling. God alone knows theres more than enough trolling on the internet without adding more. Not saying I dont get angry with people, but I make the frigging effort to exercise self control.

  32. 282
    nigelj says:

    Barton Paul Levenson @254

    “AB 240: Rights arise from morals, which are simply statements of efficiency.”

    “BPL: There is nothing “efficient” about standing up for justice when it is likely to get you killed.”

    nigelj: Self sacrifice can help make the system more efficient (or stable, just, or fair or whatever).

  33. 283
    nigelj says:

    Killian @269 “Carrie, I am actually confused as to your aggressiveness towards Mike.”

    Let me explain. Mike said the following on the UV thread at 10 responding to Zebra. “ok, I read your comments at 1. I am not sure that I understand what your mechanism is for reducing population. Let’s say we reached an agreement to reduce population to 1 billion…” Mike has made it clear elsewhere he supports smaller population, to some degree anyway.

    Carrie responded at 105 soon after with “mike this is the last time I’ll ever be directing a comment to you or offering assistance of any kind”. Then followd more criticisms of Mike and his alleged passive aggressiveness (seems an over the top claim).

    So I would say Carrie doesn’t like the idea of smaller population, and doesnt like Zebra (this has been made plain) and has decided to completely reject Mike just because of the issue. Everything was all fine and lovey dovey until that point. It all changed after that point. Mike has not changed.

    We have to be able to argue without taking it personally and to avoid group think.Thats the point I would make out of all this. The right wing make group think an art form, and we should not be copying them.

  34. 284
    nigelj says:

    Killian says “Now, keep up the Carrie/Killian shit and you merely reinforce you’re a biased, putrid-minded damned fool. (That goes for the rest of you; get a fucking clue, people. I’m sick and goddamned tired of wading into a shit-filled kiddie pool every time I come to this site.)”

    If you dont like it go away, and since you bring most of the shit and immaturity to this website, take that away with you. Ill pay your air fare to anywhere you want to go.

  35. 285
    Carrie says:

    270
    Barton Paul Levenson says:
    25 Feb 2019 at 8:34 AM

    K 267: we know more than you do

    BPL: And that’s Killian’s whole outlook in a nutshell.

    Really? That’s his whole outlook? I don’t think it is possible for even you BPL to dumb his outlook down any better than that. Good job.

    So you do not have anything to say on “societal responses to climate change” either. You know, the actual subject of this thread? It’s immature ad hom all the way down these days. The impacts of climate change are of little to no concern whatsoever on this forum.

    Well at least we know this and can stop pretending now.

  36. 286
    Carrie says:

    Some food for thought?

    Q. “Why is it that we as people have so much trouble acknowledging and understanding our limitations in particular areas?”

    A. “The reason we have trouble is because of a paradox. Which is that two-spot expertise and other people obviously you need expertise in yourself but that’s also true for spotting lack of expertise.

    That is to be able to tell when a person has a shortcoming or to tell when a person might be getting something wrong. Well you need the expertise to be able to judge that’s a true expertise to judge that.

    Now if you lack that expertise it means that you lack the very knowledge you need in order to identify shortcomings and that’s true not only in judgments of other people but it’s also true of the self.

    So ultimately what that means is people who lack knowledge lack the knowledge to realize they lack the knowledge.”

    “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.”

    Would anyone like a ref to that? (smile)

    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.

    Which is the only problem worth discussing on these threads right now. In my humble yet knowledgeable opinion.

  37. 287
    Carrie says:

    Typo in copy/paste sorry …

    “…. trouble is because of a paradox. Which is: to spot expertise in other people obviously you need expertise in yourself.”

  38. 288
    Carrie says:

    283 nigelj, ROTFLMFAO

    You could not be more wrong if you tried! But feel free. Go right ahead. :-)

  39. 289
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @277

    “Everything nigelj said was ( not true)… all that wasted money welfare recipients spend on drugs each week…”

    “Yes well that was a bit of an exaggeration of your position, true. But a reasonable one given all that you had said about welfare people spending their money on drugs instead of their children….. . IT’s reasonable given all that you had said before….. I think it was fair summary of my impressions of your own words.”

    No Carrie it was not a reasonable exaggeration. It is a flat out distortion. Your sophistry and media style spin doesnt fool me.

    “AOC/GND was a bridge too far. ”

    Oh how terrible for you. All you have done is point out I got the author of the GND wrong. I read a media article that it was presented by Ocasio-Cortez and assumed she was the author. Hardly the end of the world.

    I have accepted that error, but I have not missrepresented the GND and have read plenty about it. You have not disputed any other specifics of what I said, and you have not provided any evidence I got anything else wrong let alone “nearly everything wrong”. You just slander people.

    “I figured I’d address the pattern and skip the hard details and unnecessary embarrassment by getting to the meat of the issue fast and offering solutions at the very same time.”

    You figured you would make wild evidence free claims. There fixed it for you. This is a science website, so it’s based on evidence, and you provide almost none and so have no place here.

  40. 290
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @279

    ” Generally no I do not like your opinions about almost every topic you’ve addressed here. I find them seriously wanting but typically I ignore them ….unless it is a topic I am well informed about, like the GND and AOC ”

    You never specify why you disagree, so its not terribly compelling or useful to me. And how do you find them seriously wanting, if they are on topics you are not well informed about? Bit of bad logic there on your part :)

    “Especially I do not like your opinions you hold about myself”

    I have seldom expressed any, and where I have its only reactive because you have personally attacked me first. As a result you absolutely invite being labelled a troll, you leave me no option.

    99% of the time I concentrate on what people write about issues. I do criticise , but Im polite, (more so than MAR) and I give plenty of details and positive feedback as well (including to you).

    You hide behind sophistry, simplistic denials and copy and paste. But keep doing this if you want, for heavens sake dont take a risk and open up and discuss specifics.

    I think some of this problem is missunderstandings of each other. For example I agree Noam Chomsky gets a lot of things right. But this is not really the right website for it. I think the more of that you post, the more people wont read anything else you post.

  41. 291
    nigelj says:

    “To me, morals are a set of arbitrary rules.”

    Yes you could say this, but the goal is to have useful rules, and ultimately to make society work efficiently, and to have some degree of stability. Of course if the moral rules are crazy, like your well chosen example in Afghanistan, that will not help but that doesnt change the end goal it just means the rules are delusional.

  42. 292
  43. 293
    Al Bundy says:

    Ya know, it looks like things are getting resolved. Lancing does bring pus, but provides oxygen.

    Carrie, note how human memory is indirect. Thus, it is easy to accuse Nigel of saying that folks will buy drugs when he said the opposite.

    The reason human memory is indirect is that its cheaper. Brains are energetically expensive and laying down long term memory costs a lot. Indirect and summary provide cheaper but less accurate storage.

    This why memory is antagonistic to processing – to actually remember what Nigel really said would have been more energy intensive than, “Nigel mentioned drugs and UBI” and “Nigel is always wrong” and “I think”

    Thus, Nigel said…

    Nigel, yes, in a social species the individual life is just a part of the group. That’s why gays exist. “Gayness” is significantly epigenetic. Mothers in stress and mothers with lots of previous male children tend toward birthing gays. By the fifth male birth 30% are gay.

    The hypothesis is that humans over reproduce, plus women die in childbirth, so adding uncles who aren’t looking for aunts strengthens families.

  44. 294
    Al Bundy says:

    By the way, it is impossible to link UBI to community service. Unless you’re going to force everybody, without exception, to sweep streets, or whatever. Otherwise UBI degrades into “employer of last resort”.

    One of the goals of UBI is to reduce carbon emissions. Less work. More people living virtual lives, and not reproducing. Blogs and commenting and surfing make for a micro carbon life.

  45. 295
    zebra says:

    #276 Russel,

    I wade through the verbal diarrhea here because once in a while I find gems like “silicothermic reduction”. Who knew we make magnesium and other stuff by making sand.

    Anyway, there are, as you say, obvious issues with their project, but it may yield some useful materials work as they pursue it, even though it is unlikely to be practical as a whole.

    What’s really silly is that they use the example of a small town in Arizona that needs to run air conditioners after the sun goes down, and the rooftop solar stops working, as a potential application. So, we are going to perfectly insulate a tank of incredibly hot silicon to store heat, but we can’t just put a container of sand in the basement to store cold? That’s the kind of system to which those MIT folks should be devoting serious resources.

  46. 296

    z 278: So, for some people in, say, Afghanistan, if your 12-year old daughter is raped, you are morally obligated to kill her.
    This, BPL, would be an example of the idea of moral righteousness that you express when you say “standing up for justice”.

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

  47. 297
    Al Bundy says:

    Killian,
    Did you get the proposal?

    Carrie,
    I surely can’t fathom how “your people”, when spoken in terms of a business proposal, could be remotely insulting. Seriously, Thomas,”everybody” wants to be important enough to have “people”.

    Methinks you are suffering with self spittle blindness. Wipe the spray off your screen, dude.

  48. 298
    Al Bundy says:

    Carrie,
    You asked about listening to lurkers.

    You’re smart enough to figure this out but you chose to be Spouting Thomas instead.

    Regs have vested interests and alliances. Lurkers have no skin in the game. It’s the same reason that bystander testimony trumps the driver’s best buddy’s claim.

    Stop spouting, Thomas

  49. 299
    Al Bundy says:

    Carrie,
    Is Nigel ri… Rig…
    Uh, not entirely wrong? Is there something that irks you about those who see a smaller population as a desirable goal?

    Please be open. Nigel’s right. It doesn’t matter who was wrong yesterday.

  50. 300
    Dan says:

    re: 285
    “The impacts of climate change are of little to no concern whatsoever on this forum.”

    They certainly are to those who have taken/are taking personal responsibility regarding the greenhouse gas emissions from their daily activities. For example, commuting choices, how their homes are heated/cooled, energy choice, etc. Actions>words.