Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by genghiscunn

$
0
0

“Gautama … finally realised that he was not seeing the world as it really was …” The meaning of Vipassana, the technique by which the Buddha became enlightened and which was his main teaching for 45 years, is “To see the world as it really is, not only as it seems to be.” It doesn’t mean rejecting the world at the gross, apparent level in which we live and function from day to day, but going beyond that to experience reality at the deepest level, as sub-atomic particles arising and passing away with great rapidity, and through this understanding the impermanent, essenceless, egoless nature of ourselves and the universe of which we are a microcosm. With that understanding, we can overcome the deep-seated mental conditionings which lead to lives of craving and aversion, of unhappiness and disharmony, and live happy, productive lives, good for us and good for others.

I highly recommend a ten-day Vipassana course, in the tradition of my late teacher S N Goenka, to all climate scientists (and everyone else).

Faustino


Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by David Springer

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by genghiscunn

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by genghiscunn

$
0
0

OF, see Marie Curie’s comment above. Conformity is the response of those who fear the world and its infinite variety and try (inevitably unsuccessfully) to contain it; as, for example, with futile attempts to control and manipulate the climate. Old Faustino

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by bedeverethewise

$
0
0

One must put up barriers to keep ones self intact

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by genghiscunn

$
0
0

benatbou, I was once a journalist, the story was the thing, not the truth; I couldn’t accept that, so pursued an economic policy career instead. Though many I advised also found the truth inconvenient.

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by genghiscunn

$
0
0

aneipris, anger is never helpful, it harms you more than the object of your anger.

rud, while some wind power funding has been cut off in Australia, the subsidies (and cost of electricity) will continue to grow for many years, and will increase further if the ALP regain government. The battle is far from won here.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by RiHo08

$
0
0

JimD

“it turns out cheaper to regulate than to care for the added health impacts,”

You’ve got that back a$$ wards. Only 10 to 15% of cigarette smokers get COPD. The story of COPD gets murkier as some with COPD start off with low lung function from childhood and NEVER cigarette smoke. How’s that! Some of the issue regarding diagnosis relates to how COPD gets defined: on pulmonary function tests i.e., the fraction of a maximal breath exhaled in one second: FEV1.0. Some people have larger lungs and smoke like a chimney and yet don’t get COPD.

Finding out what causes COPD is much more informative and cost effective treating the few than making sweeping generalizations like Federal regulations tend to do, applying regulations to everyone; catches fish and fowl quite indiscriminately.

Besides, government regulations are a lazy man’s way of thinking, or, in reality, not thinking at all.


Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by David Springer

$
0
0

Please don’t make engineers seem lazy. What’s wrong with the paper Pangburn linked. Be specific.

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

$
0
0

Appeal to the lack of education is the first defense of incompetent bureaucrats.

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by mosomoso

$
0
0

I’ve looked over endless fields of canola in south-west France, all of it primarily destined to be bio-fuel in some green/government/EU-directive/subsidy fiddle. It was April, so the crops were in dazzling yellow bloom. All I could think was that the same people who are happy to see such waste would be hostile to much of the modern agronomy which makes such huge production possible. Meanwhile, the Golfech nukes down on the river were powering away, potent and consequently disdained.

Our Green Betters turn up their noses at anything effective and potent while rushing to praise any pea-shooter technology with vaguely green credentials, even if it isn’t happening yet. Especially if it isn’t happening yet.

How much waste of money, effort, heavy transport, heavy industry, fossil fuels, hydro, nukes, food, fertiliser, water, soil and space is needed before something “green” loses one star from Nanny?

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by ordvic

$
0
0

I believe Mosh cut his hair and lost some weight scince he got married? Also I agree with Willis he is a scientist!

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Joseph

$
0
0
<blockquote>It is not the science of AGW that leads to fears, it is the unscientific speculation of what “might” or “possibly could” occur in the far future</blockquote> The whole point of science is to enable us to make predictions.

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Jim D

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Joseph

$
0
0
<blockquote>Using models known to be unreliable</blockquote> Who knows they are unreliable?

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

JimD, If you want to regulate you can start one barbeque at a time.

“In 2013 it was reported that the Beijing authorities were destroying open air chuan barbecues in a bid to reduce pollution from small particles that can enter deep into the lungs. Hundreds of barbecues were reportedly confiscated over a three month period leading to ridicule from the local Beijing population.” Wikipedia.

You might want to read what RiH008 says though. Then instead of 6 cities and a few thousand cohorts try two countries and a billion subjects. CVD and Lung cancer rates are about the same in the US and China.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D

$
0
0

captd, since the pollution is short-ranged it is better to look at people living in the pollution versus those not. Maybe some of those 40k papers have done that for you already.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by RiHo08

$
0
0

Jim D

“since the pollution is short-ranged”

Peculiar that you say that. Now, if you listen to the US EPA, then you would know for certain that the tail of the pollution plume is long and the tiniest bits and pieces of mercury or what ever toxin they have conjured pollutes the lungs of mothers, infants, newborns, and a whole range of people down wind of say coal fired power plants. Funny thing. If you label at the site of pollution any number of pollutants, the outcome measurements are different than that predicted by the paper shuffling bureaucrats who seem to inhabit dark corridors breathing stultifying air.

At least for mercury, the plume rides on our West to East air streams. Mercury is a great global circumnavigator appearing in the tiniest amounts that seems too little to measure and too little to be health impactful.

All is not what it seems.

Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Joseph,

You asked –

“Joseph | July 13, 2015 at 11:42 pm |
Using models known to be unreliable

Who knows they are unreliable?”

Me. And anybody with a brain, in case you think I’m as dumb as a box of hair.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D

$
0
0

Stands to reason that the plume is more likely to hit you if you are closer to the source. There is at least an inverse distance effect to consider here.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images