blueice2hotsea said on May 30, 2013 at 9:07 am
“IMO, Max_OK promotes ageist bigotry from the perspective of having read only one book.”
_______
I love old people. Where would I be without old people? Where would any of us be without old people?
I am indebted to my parents, my grandparents, and all my ancestors, as well as a lot of other old people living and dead.
I even believe ancestor worship makes some sense.
It’s too bad our society emphasizes youth so much.
Mosher,
willard calls my admiration for the way you argue a position cheerleading.
I see it simply as good observational skills.
Agreed, although that is a completely different order than Mr Hansen and his supporters would argue makes sense. There you go being pragmatic
Mosh said
‘I would argue for more resilience on a different fact pattern. Namely, we are not prepared for the weather of the past, much less the weather of the future.’
The weather of the past (LIA and MWP) was MUCH worse than the weather of the present, so if we base our resilience plans on that it will probably be perfectly suitable for the weather of the future.
tonyb
Or, one can watch real combat. This is foreign made. The splicing tells an interesting story, and there is some rarely seen combat footage:
Max,
Japan’s decision on energy supply (i.e. gas vs. nuclear) is political.
And being so, the current PM is working to turn nuclear back on.
Your right about one thing. Perception is a huge factor in the discussion about nuclear power. If you are interested in becoming more informed, I suggest ignoring the perception of nuclear and look at the facts.
*Sustainability* is now a code word for environmentally leveraged politics. Therefore, what is popularly deemed “sustainable” is actually unsustainable. Organic agriculture, failure to build infrastructure to prevent growth, etc.
Actual sustainability is like climate equilibrium, e.g. a static square human construct in a dynamic, round universe. Rather than play politics and Merriam Webster games, perhaps it makes better sense to accept that actual sustainability is a series of bridges that get us to the next better solution to help us be flexible in adapting to a changing environment. In that way, evolution and resilience are nearly parallel, synergistic paths to the future.
In a sense, this is the pseudo-default approach already being conducted as a slow, market-based, government nudged transformation to low carbon energy with the confidence we can take the future body-blows coming our way.
OK, now y’all can go back to your endless bickering over nomenclature and political idiotology.
Max
The Japanese were not forced to move away from nuclear power they made choices to do so. In some cases people make bad choices and unfavorable results happen. Japan decided to stay with a very old nuclear plant design, they decided not to properly protect their backup power supplies, and they decided for largely emotional reasons to reduce their reliance on nuclear power. It would seem that several of those decisions were poor now considering the facts available
Why is building and maintaining robust infrastructure not agreeable by all? It must be deniers that oppose such a plan
Max_CH, consider videos of yourself to passed down to your descendants. If you want to give them something really useful, have a video made of you talking about your life and what you remember about your parents and grandparents. Make up a list of questions your wife or children can ask you while you are seated in front of a camera mounted on a tripod. Drink some wine to overcome any inhibitions you may have.
I believe most of your descendants will find your oral history video interesting, and those interested in geneology will be delighted. Make one of your wife too.
Judy,
Just an observation; this article seems to begin with you confirming the alarmism, and advocating that congressman skeptical of the alarmism be called out and labeled as deniers.
Then, at the end of the article where you post your comments it becomes a bit more clear that you consider the tactics OFA et. al. to be counterproductive, even as you continue to call people with legitimate skepticism “deniers”.
I take your point that name calling and exaggeration are counter productive, even as I see that you inadvertently call certain congresspersons ‘deniers’ because they don’t agree with the alarmism or urgency. Even to the point that you blame such ‘denialism’ on unsupportable meme’s as ‘unconvincing settled science’ and ‘backlash against ‘alarmism”. Am I confused?
Judy, I have read enough of your missives and other work to know that you are very comfortable with the fact that ‘science is never settled’. Yet, from your comments it seems you consider this particular science to be ‘fairly close’, even though your very next comment indicates that you know all too well that the issue of attribution is really really important in this argument, going forward and that it (attribution) is far from settled.
Maybe I am picking at nits here, but if I wasn’t very familiar with your position in regards to CAGW, I would take this as an endorsement and a call to arms to begin castigating these elected officials. I realize that the ending paragraph negates that, but 90% of the people who read this did not get that far.
The last line about ‘sanity could emerge in energy and climate policy’ gives you away, however. Without sound science supporting the notion that we are having a controlling and detrimental influence on our climate, our energy policy ought to be ‘drill, baby, drill’, even as we work to perfect the technology that allows us to make more efficient use of our energy resources. I am not saying we shouldn’t have and enforce pollution controls, but CO2 is not pollution as far as I can tell, and holding back on developing our natural resources is not a winning strategy for anyone except China and the middle east. Last time I checked, they will not be participating in either human rights issues or alarmist climate policy. Hobbling our economy while they work to get ahead does not bode well for the state of humanity on this planet.
Cap and trade is not a solution to anything but capitalism. And before you say anything about capitalism please realize that, as bad as it can be, it is the only economic system that has produced anything resembling prosperity OR equality anywhere on this earth.
Without it, you and I would likely belong to some feudal lord somewhere or in a gulag somewhere for speaking our mind in a communist state.
Just my $0.02
Well, Max_CH and timg56, those guys weren’t right about everything. Some owned slaves and probably didn’t think women should be allowed to vote.
Our current approaches are failing the objective test of conservation of
biological diversity. Environmental decline in Australia has not been reversed over more than twenty years of effort.
Losing species at a great rate is progress?
My read of the the Chris Cook social cost paper is that is a very speculative piece that alarmists can use to justify very high carbon taxes.
In particular, the paper ignores the huge economic benefits of adaptation in rejuvenated infrastructure. IMHO, it over-estimates the costs and ignores the benefits of higher CO2. The model is tunable, but I did not find a place it could be downloaded.
I am solidly in the Myles Allen camp – let’s wait until we see 1 degree Centigrade of global warming (whatever that is) that is unambiguously attributed to increased CO2, then decide what to do with CO2.
We may decide we like the result just fine.
GaryM said on May 30, 2013 at 10:28 am
“As usual, the economic illiterates around here try to conflate economic anarchy (no regulation) with the free market.”
____
When GaryM says “free market” he doesn’t mean a market that’s free. He means a market that’s regulated.
He means a market that’s sort of free but not entirely free.
He doesn’t mean a free-market free-market.
It’s like my definition of “right now.” When my boss request I do a chore right now, I readily agree to comply. When 30 minutes later she reminds me I haven’t started on the chore, I say oh, did you mean right now right now?
Mr. Cripwell,
I share your frustration at people who rely unduly upon appeals to authority, especially a single authority, to make their argument whether that be the IPCC or Steve McIntyre; however, I would defend izen’s [who ever he or she really is] choice to be pseudonymous as ‘common sense’ rather than cowardly. I don’t think anyone would suggest that izen is making professional or learned claims that might require backing up with a real identity.
For the rest of us in the blogosphere, maintaining one degree of separation between our public ‘mask’ and our private lives is only common sense. There ARE predatory sociopaths out there and you don’t know who it will turn out to be, go ask the Pointman what happens when one of these types feels sufficiently ruffled by something you write in a comment to him to try to destroy your life. So long as we are consistent it really does not matter what our real identities are – really. ‘Well, there goes that long winded polemicist Wygart again!!! I wish Judy would ban him forever!!’ It really doesn’t matter who I really am, I don’t have any professional creds to defend here, maybe you do. I wouldn’t use someone’s choice to use an internet ‘handle’ as a means to invalidate their argument, that starts to smack of the ‘ad hominem’. What I’m more concerned about is if you are polite and cogent. I fail at both of those from time to time myself, and not just as Wygart.
Webhubtelescope [who ever that is] might owe you an apology, but you might owe izen an apology as well.
Regards,
W^3
Just what I said, but I will elaborate. In your lifetime, will you have to be resilient as a result of climate change?
Rud and David,
I’m sorry to burn out. I’m tired. Let me read your posting, do my homework and reply tomorrow evening. I promise I will, but you, of course, may not still interested enough to come looking :-)
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Eric H. | May 31, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
Of course it’s nationalized.
That’s what you call a shared, unpriced Commons.
The cure for the Tragedy of the Commons is privatization.
See, “has not been nationalized” is a clever trick of language. Mobile phone bandwidth “had not been nationalized” before it was privatized. You’re fooling no one.
You knock down the doors and stop enforcing the laws, and no goods have value in a riot. Everyone takes what they want. They smash what is in excess of their wants, and waste it. But that’s not an economy, and it’s not a Market. You’re advocating theft and mob rule.
Tony B/cr, the way this site is going, you might soon have enough income from fines to need advise from Bjorn Lomborg on how to spend $75 billionm.
Dang, that’s off-topic, I’d better lock the door against your debt-collectors.
