The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: but at what price? on 10/26/2010 09:13:30 MDT Print View

They are banking on us to no longer be men of reason... and if we are no longer driven by our own self-interest, but the common good, why would we challenge them or anyone else.

Nick, for once I agreed with most of what you said, except when you changed tack and made a blanket statement about the whole climate argument. I believe, and I'm certain many others here do, too, that I AM using my own intelligence and reasoning to come up with my own conclusions about what is happening with the climate. The answers (which I won't spell out here) just happen to follow a different logic from yours and Rog's. Shame on you for calling people unreasonable and unintelligent just because they don't come up with the same conclusions as you do. Who's to say that you are necessarily the reasonable and intelligent one? (I'm not saying you are not, or that you and Rog are wrong, mind you).

It is interesting reading a lot of the comments in this thread, because so much of the reasoning is based on, probably unconsciously, a Christian mindset. Christianity in its very essence sees the whole world as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. It leaves almost no room for grayness. So many conversations by people from the west tend to focus on "righting wrongs" and "seeking a better world".

I live in a culture where there is absolutely no sense of "original sin" or "laws of god". No one here follows any dictum laid out in a book or spends their days fearing the retribution of an invisible father-figure. There is no sense that there is something wrong with humans, at all. It makes for very curious, illogical by our standards, sometimes infuriating outlooks on the world that people used to western culture just see no sense in.

For instance the entire sense of individuality is different. People here deeply believe and live by a whole worldview where the individual is NOT the most important unit in the world or in society. In Japan (and very much in other Asian cultures such as China and Korea and India) the society is what is important. Each individual submits themselves to the whole and lives by the creed that, as in Spock's message, "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few". Most Japanese find it shocking and extremely immature and in bad taste to live for oneself and express oneself for oneself. It has created a society where, in spite of it being one of the top most prosperous nations in the world, the gap between very rich and very poor is far smaller than in the US. Japan is a nation of the middle class. Most presidents of companies tend to downplay their wealth and distribute it far more equably among their workers than western companies do. Almost no one, even the prime minister or the president of Toyota, lives in hugely ostentatious houses or continues to pay themselves handsomely while the company goes through a financial crisis. I have many criticisms of Japan and it has a lot of problems, but I also find it to be one of the most just, even-handed, safe, tolerant, socially aware, and open-minded societies I have ever lived in. In many ways far more so than the States. And all this was achieved on a very rational, unsentimental, completely void of religious fervor way of thinking that many in the west would find unacceptable. (I wonder how many people in the west would fare if suddenly, one day without warning, all traces of the Christian worldview were to disappear in everyday western culture. I think people would be quite overwhelmed by the vacuum of attitudes and logic that they have always taken for granted. In the same way the Japanese would be at a great loss if their precious "Japaneseness" were to suddenly be taken from them).

The Japanese had no doubts and no confusion when first introduced to the ideas of evolution. They took it in stride and accepted it as logical. They have a cuisine that is made up of a huge selection of foods from the rest of the world, in such variety and such willingness to experiment that even they don't know for the most part that most of their "traditional" dishes do not originally come from here. The quintessential individual is represented in manga and anime and literature and cinema as a group of five heroes, each member incomplete on their own, but with each of their characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses, together they form a powerful unit that can take on the world. Almost always this group of five is represented by 1) a charismatic leader who is not the strongest in the group, but can bring the others together 2) a close friend and rival of the leader who questions the decisions of the leader and understands the leader's weaknesses 3) an emotionally-self aware, empathetic character (usually female) who can see and voice the mood and morale of the group and who is a healer 4) a huge, usually not very smart, physically extremely powerful backup character who protects the group's back and can withstand any onslaught without complaint. Usually this character is the one with the sense of humor that makes everyone laugh, and 5) the bespectacled brain of the group, usually diminutive, but smarter than everyone else, who can figure out the technical problems and is usually a little different from the rest. The brain has the ability to see problems in a different light because of their difference. All these stereotypical characters play a different role that unifies the whole group, and if one member is lost the group suffers. Japanese never make movies or games where there is one superhero who saves the day; they don't believe that superheroes or lone wolves are a benefit to society. You should see the mocking commercials for such American movies or television shows as Rambo or 24! They recognize that no one individual EVER creates or moves a society. It is always the concerted efforts of many that make a society function.

So, on a few points I agree with your earlier comments about businessmen. Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with them and they do get a bad rap in many cases. Here in Japan movies, very popular television shows, manga, even computer games emulate businessmen, very often making them, as seen in the eyes of Japanese, likely heroes. No one puts businessmen down. They are seen as essential motivators in today's world. If you read Japanese blogs there are many instances of people talking as excitedly about meeting practices, management styles, efficiency quotients, etc., as we talk about gear here. It's very refreshing from a westerner's point of view.

People don't take sides very often here. If you asked the average person on the street what they thought about global warming most would probably shrug and say, "Yes. I hear the scientists talking about it." WIth no offer of further explanation. And they see no need to. They are smart enough and reasonable enough not to get embroiled in an argument that has no end nor any right or wrong answers, at least from our stance as picayune figures in a gargantuan painting.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: but at what price? on 10/26/2010 12:54:45 MDT Print View

Miguel says:
If you asked the average person on the street what they thought about global warming most would probably shrug and say, "Yes. I hear the scientists talking about it.


When people ask me what I think of global warming I say

"It was nice while it lasted." ;-)

Any further forward with the ID of the page 58 critters?

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: The Carbon Flame War on 10/26/2010 15:04:49 MDT Print View

Rog:

“As you can see, the rate of rise has dropped by around a third since the sun went quiet in late 2002.

This coincides with the drop since 2003 in ocean heat content. That drop proves there is no "heat in the pipeline" and that solar influence on Earth's temperature is greater than has been assumed in the alarmist computer models. That means they have overestimated the Earth's sensitivity to increases in co2.

That is scientific logic, and all the bluster and attempted character assassination in the world isn't going to change it.”


“Lynn, relax, the temperature of the planet isn't varying enough to get worked up about.”

You can’t assert these as *facts* any more than the ‘warmists’ can assert the opposite as *facts*. You, just like the warmists, are just speculating based on selection of a subset of information.

Nick:

“We are a society dependent upon drugs because no one is responsible for their action, or their own happiness. It is not a technology problem, but society who promises to make our life happy.”

“Drugs” have been used by man probably forever. It is not a sign of weakness or unhappiness, it is just part of the human desire to experiment with consciousness, and explore new experiences.

“NO system at all would be best.

No one makes demands on any other person. No person initiates force against another man period. No one takes anything from anyone.

Unfortunately throughout history we need society/government to protect each man's basic rights from those who want to limit these rights. And the goal of some societies/governments is to eliminate all personal freedoms.

No one should force technology on another person. If someone wants to be an island and be self-sufficient without technology, that is fine by me, just don't ask/force me to finance any part of it.”

This is so naïve, and so flies in the face of history that I am saddened to hear you think this. Yes, a lucky human can be an island unto himself is he wants (why would he want this??), in an ideal world, but in the real, modern world, we are very interdependent on each other. Again, this is not a weakness of humanity, but a strength in my eyes. The days of the wild west, self-sufficient pioneers is gone. Sadly they destroyed many things of beauty in their quest for this self-sufficiency. Massacres of native people, wildlife and destruction of forests were but a few of the problems with this ideal of self-sufficiency.

“No coercive monopoly has ever been created or could be created in a free market economy. Every pure monopoly ever created, was created by............................

GOVERNMENT intervention into the economy. They provide special privileges to a few, and then close competition to all others by law or regulation.”

Again, this flies in the face of history. There have always been, and always will be, selfish or ignorant people who want power, want more than their fair share at the expense of other’s freedoms. Government is a way to level this playing field, at least a good government should act this way. Of course, in the real world governments include individuals in the selfish and ignorant category.

I gotta agree with Miguel’s observations that that this attitude is a very Protestant point of view. There are other ways to run a good society where the individual will happily give up some of their freedoms (though they probably don’t see it as losing their freedoms, so it’s not really a valid comparison) for the betterment of society as whole. I am one of these people…I happily pay taxes to support community projects that benefit everyone. In return I also enjoy subsidised health care, education, welfare if I ever should need it, libraries, roads, sewage, security (police, military), civil defense, water supply etc…without having to organise and provide all of these services for myself. It seems a fair exchange and I don’t feel deprived of any freedoms that don’t harm anyone else (except for recreational drug use in this country). Of course, I am not free to harm others.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/26/2010 18:00:33 MDT Print View

"We will never resolve this in Chaff."

I never expected to, Nick. Rather, I participate for the opportunity to interact with intelligent, highly educated individuals, both to learn and, hopefully, give them reason on occasion to reexamine their own ideas and beliefs.

"I do not think man is evil. I think he is good. And he can be good without government/religion forcing him to be so. Man is not defective."

I would hesitate to reduce something as complex as human nature to being either good or evil which, in any case, has meaning only within the context of a thelogical or philosophical system(there are many to choose from). That we have evolved legal systems to control behavior, and governments to enforce them, bears sad testimony to the fact that most men have proven incapable of conforming to your idealized image down through the millenia. Man is neither perfect in his natural state, nor defective. He is an organism evolving over time in response to his environment, hopefully in a direction that leads to that idealized state of enlightenment you seem to feel he has possessed from the beginning.

"To survive, man must ACT in his own rational self-interest."

One of the first things men did after they came down out of the trees, probably even before that, was to form groups. They quickly realized that, on their own, they were at a severe disadvantage to the many bigger, stronger, meaner, faster animals that dominated their environment. Indeed, throughout most of human history men have operated in groups and, to this day, most cultures still emphasize the welfare of the group, with that value thoroughly embedded in every aspect of their cultures. If this had not been the case, our existence as a species would have been "nasty, brutish, and short". We here in the US are an anomaly in that respect. It remains to be seen how we shall fare as a society in competition with group oriented societies in the years to come. From what I have seen in my lifetime, the outcome is not promising.




"For us backpackers, this is obvious... when in the wilderness, it is crucial we act in our own self-interest... our survival depends on it."

This applies only if you backpack solo. You will very quickly learn if you backpack with others, that decisions are made by the group as a whole, with the welfare of the whole group in mind. It is, in a way, a return to our ancient past. Perhaps that is part of its appeal? Whether or not the group fares well depends on the quality of the decisions they make, just as it has always been. Some will make the right decisions, some will not, with consequences to follow. This is particularly true when the trip is into serious terrain, think the Arctic1000. Like yourself, I have backpacked alone much of the time, but I am under no illusions as to the outcome if I screw up or fall victim to objective hazard. I am also under no illusion as to the superiority of solo travel over group travel when it comes to survival odds. Yet I choose it for personal reasons, just like you. The difference is that I do not extrapolate from my own personal preference to make a statement about which mode of operation is best for mankind as a whole.

"IMO, what is lacking for most people is a philosophical system that supports the idea that men can live freely with their own self-interest as the purpose of their life; and they can do it without infringing on the rights of others and visa versa."

Philosophical systems that do not lead in practice to survivability and improvement in the lot of mankind will not long survive outside the pages of philosophy texts or, perhaps, Ayn Rand novels. ;)

"This was so eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence."

Jefferson was a keen student of human nature who also realized a system of checks and balances would be necessary to safeguard the system from the darker impulses of the men who would be occupying positions of power. Enough of The founding Fathers agreed that this principle forms the bedrock of our system of government.

Edited by ouzel on 10/26/2010 19:47:43 MDT.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
re: but at what price? on 10/26/2010 18:03:32 MDT Print View

Well said Tom.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/26/2010 18:45:44 MDT Print View

Rog - Good link.

>> The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives.

The rats always first to jump ship : )

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re but at what price? on 10/26/2010 19:04:56 MDT Print View

Nicely stated Tom.


Well, I guess that just about wraps it up here.

:)

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: A question for Miguel. on 10/26/2010 20:03:36 MDT Print View

"So many conversations by people from the west tend to focus on "righting wrongs" and "seeking a better world"."

I once came across a saying, attributed to a Japanese whose name escapes me, that goes something like this: "Americans see the world as they want it to be; we see it as it is".

Does this ring a bell, Miguel?

I enjoyed your post, BTW.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 00:25:28 MDT Print View

George says:
The rats always first to jump ship : )


The way I see it is that there are a lot of people like Lynn and many others here including myself who are genuinely concerned about the environment.

A substantial number got duped into joining the AGW bandwagon because they saw it as an overarching issue which supported their drive towards a more sustainable way of life for society as a whole. But the wheels are starting to come off the bus.

This has been a substantial part of my motivation for attempting to get people to see that the science isn't solid around the climate issue. The danger is that once the global warming bubble has been burst, there will be a backlash by the media, the taxpayer and the politicians, and worthwhile environmental initiatives which hitched their trailer to the AGW bus will get caught in the crossfire, regardless of their merit.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/27/2010 04:05:44 MDT.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 07:01:26 MDT Print View

Record Altering Trickster Scientists


rat

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 08:40:16 MDT Print View

"The danger is that once the global warming bubble has been burst, there will be a backlash by the media, the taxpayer and the politicians, and worthwhile environmental initiatives which hitched their trailer to the AGW bus will get caught in the crossfire, regardless of their merit."

Right-wing/anti-environmentalist interests in the USA have latched on to groups that are a driving force behind bursting the global warming bubble, with a secondary motive at work....If global warming could just be proven false, the entire environmental movement can be branded as being concocted by the "same" alarmists and discredited as well. You don't think many of those trying do debunk warming have political and financial motives as well?

Edited by xnomanx on 10/27/2010 08:50:44 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 09:13:03 MDT Print View

Craig says:
Right-wing/anti-environmentalist interests in the USA have latched on to groups that are a driving force behind bursting the global warming bubble


Craig, there are people with murky motives and hidden agendas on both sides of the debate. This is why upholding and defending the scientific method is so important, and why we must resist "ends justify means" arguments.

Nature itself will burst the global warming bubble by proving the co2 global warming theory wrong as ocean heat content has fallen for over seven years now. The result of that drop will be felt on land soon enough.

I have worked out a more realistic theory of climate and produced a simple model which has enabled me to make accurate predictions over the last 18 months, and it ain't co2 that drives it.

So forget about the left wing and right wing rhetoric. It's our solar system environment we need to consider, not whether the majority in the house is Republican or Democrat. We all need to plan for colder times ahead, domestically, agriculturally, and industrially. It's a challenge for farmers, engineers, scientists and statesmen of all political viewpoints.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/27/2010 09:17:22 MDT.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 09:23:44 MDT Print View

"So forget about the left wing and right wing rhetoric."

Agreed. Too bad the world doesn't work this way. Take the average person in this country, tell me their political affiliation, and I'll tell you whether or not they believe in climate change. Unfortunately, it's become that simple and both sides are equally guilty.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Floating cities to deal with rising seas. on 10/27/2010 09:32:31 MDT Print View

"Sea levels rose as much as 20 centimeters, or 7.8 inches, over the course of the 20th century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates a rise of 18 to 59 centimeters by 2099. In low-lying, heavily populated deltas used for agriculture, like those in Bangladesh, China and Egypt, such rises will have a devastating impact. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/business/energy-environment/28iht-rbobfloat.html?src=twrhp

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 15:37:41 MDT Print View

"I have worked out a more realistic theory of climate and produced a simple model which has enabled me to make accurate predictions over the last 18 months, and it ain't co2 that drives it."

And when might we have the pleasure of seeing your theory, or is it a hypothesis at this point, published in a reputable scientific journal and subjected to peer review?

I for one would look forward to this scientific "Gunfight at the OK Corral" with great interest. I think it would be much more enlightening for all of us to see you defending your views in a forum of your peers rather than having you hold forth here in front of an audience which, for the most part, does not have the background to evaluate the validity of your claims.

Edited by ouzel on 10/27/2010 15:45:31 MDT.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
good luck on 10/27/2010 15:54:31 MDT Print View

"And when might we have the pleasure of seeing your theory, or is it a hypothesis at this point, published in a reputable scientific journal and subjected to peer review?"


Tom, this will never happen.

The Warmist Conspiracy will conspire in conspiratorial ways to squash the ground-breaking science Rog has discovered, Fermi-like, with nothing more than a plastic child's wading pool, cling film, a smudgepot, and a playset of rubber dinosaur figurines, all whilst locked in a dimly-lit basement to the strains of Holst's "The Planets."

Shakes fist... "Warmists!"

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 16:08:45 MDT Print View

Tom Says:
And when might we have the pleasure of seeing your theory, or is it a hypothesis at this point, published in a reputable scientific journal and subjected to peer review?


Two published physicists have told me I should try to get it published. I can't afford the $7-10k to get it published by people who will then hide it behind a pay wall so nobody reads it. So instead I'm putting it up at the conference I've been asked to present at in January in Lisbon, where some climate bigshots can have at it. Then I'll put it up for open peer review on a couple of sites on the net.

I wonder if Dave T is the Dave T John Manning told me some funny stories about from the northern end of the PCT.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/27/2010 16:10:06 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/27/2010 16:17:03 MDT Print View

"So instead I'm putting it up at the conference I've been asked to present at in January in Lisbon, where some climate bigshots can have at it. Then I'll put it up for open peer review on a couple of sites on the net."

Now we're getting somewhere. Please do let us know when it's up for peer review, and the URL's for the websites. This will be really interesting for us laypersons. A potential "teaching moment" that could lead to a balanced understanding of the issues surrounding the great climate change debate.

Thanks Rog

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: good luck on 10/27/2010 16:19:51 MDT Print View

"The Warmist Conspiracy will conspire in conspiratorial ways to squash the ground-breaking science Rog has discovered, Fermi-like, with nothing more than a plastic child's wading pool, cling film, a smudgepot, and a playset of rubber dinosaur figurines, all whilst locked in a dimly-lit basement to the strains of Holst's "The Planets."

Shakes fist... "Warmists!"

LOL Vintage Dave T. I've been wondering where you were.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A principled stand by a real climate scientist on 10/28/2010 01:36:31 MDT Print View

Craig says:
Take the average person in this country, tell me their political affiliation, and I'll tell you whether or not they believe in climate change. Unfortunately, it's become that simple and both sides are equally guilty.


Except that positions on AGW of the two political sides haven't changed much in the last four years, whereas the public's assessment of AGW has. Here's the latest Pew poll:

http://people-press.org/report/669/

Belief that global warming has been caused by humans has fallen from 50% IN 2006 TO 34% Now. There hasn't been such a big swing in political affiliation. So what has brought about this change?

Scientists behaving badly?
Three cold winters?
Catastrophe fatique?
The non-occurrence of the scary things Gore promised would happen by now?