Sorry, Stephen.
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by GaryM
It’s funny when social “scientists” “discover” concepts that have been around for centuries, and think they have something new because they attach a new word to it.
Google “free market” and “thrive” and see how many hits you get.
“Among civilised and thriving nations, on the contrary, though a great number of people do not labour at all, many of whom consume the produce of ten times, frequently of a hundred times more labour than the greater part of those who work; yet the produce of the whole labour of the society is so great that all are often abundantly supplied, and a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order, if he is frugal and industrious, may enjoy a greater share of the necessaries and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
Combine a free market system, with the Judeo-Chritian ethic, and you allow people to thrive, which is their nature, in a humane, generous, free society. It is the intrusive “elites” who use the governments they so love to “manage” society, that constrain this natural human tendency.
CAGW is the antithesis of “thrivability.” The whole point being to constrain society by limiting its access to cheap energy. Pol Pot was more vicious than our current greens, but he had the same idea. Force mankind to retrench.
We conservatives have been trying to get you progressives, moderates, independents and luke warmers to get out of the way of humanity though out the debate.
Don’t worry though. Thrivability will become passe’ as soon as y’all realize that the massive government programs you want are incompatible with the concept.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Bart R
timg56 | August 4, 2013 at 11:23 am |
The reason I say philosophically is because the people proposing them cannot be trusted.
Admirable points and all, but you seem to think I’m proposing background checks by government.
See, I’m a capitalist and a _min_archist. I don’t want the government involved at all. I want the idiots who let those with sick minds have powerful weapons to serve time, and pay civil damages.
Sell a gun to a crackhead? Well, you’re a fiend who is making the addict a victim, and their victims are your victims, as surely as if you’d pulled the trigger.
Leave an unlocked and loaded gun in your house and get burgled by a teenager high on crystal meth?
Explain to me again why you shouldn’t get the chair when methmouth shoots up a bus with your weapon?
Give your immature and violence prone troubled teenager an armory?
Well, when they kill you before they turn a gradeschool into an abattoir, not much more the state can do to you.
But the people who sold the gun to an idiot like you?
How are they not serving sequential life sentences?
I don’t want the government interfering in people’s decisions. Government should stay out of decisions.
But consequences?
There should be those, and they should be severe enough to discourage responsible individuals from handing over their duty of care to the incompetent and ill.
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by jacobress
“Have you noticed that none of these big corporate slogan driven programs ever get fully implemented?”
Fully implemented? What’s to implement?? They are just empty slogans, words with no meaning whatever. You can’t implement slogans.
It’s poets that think that words is all there is “out there”. Engineers don’t get poetry, and don’t have much time for poets.
↧
Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
If Erhlich was forced to deal with Intelligent Design advocates he would have to get down to their level as well. He would toss it over to Pharyngula, I would imagine. Long time since I visited that site.
The kranks in ID circles are similar to the kranks in climate change circles. Peer reviewed journals won’t deal with them, but social media is quite happy to do battle.
↧
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by Matthew R Marler
<i>thrivability</i>
This basically is what entrepreneurs, inventors, investors, and researchers have always striven for, with and without government support.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Bart R
Homicide and murder are not the same word, or the same meaning.
And how can anything that ends in death by physically entering the body and blowing apart any person’s internal organs not be called violent death?
That’s a quibble.
I don’t even have to go into the demographics that suggest when comparing populations that suicides by all other means are roughly equivalent, but among groups that have suicide by firearm — many don’t — the firearm deaths are off the scale a distinct phenomenon.
In essence, almost everyone who commits suicide by firearm would not have committed suicide if they hadn’t had the firearm. Period.
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by Joshua
Taking the risk that because of my linking to his comment, he may have to shower, Matt says it better and far more succinctly:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/04/bouncing-forward-not-back/#comment-360345
↧
Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by miker613
I complain on your reading comprehension. Why does it matter why it got better? Isn’t the fact itself enough to show that Ehrlich is wrong? He is trying to give an impression of a planet falling apart, and it’s getting better by almost any measure.
↧
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by jacobress
Wasting huge amounts of money on windmills is not sustainable, not mitigating anything, not no-regrets, not promoting resilience, not thrivable and not robust. It’s just idiotic. Same for biofuels. So, call a spade a spade, and no need for new buzzwords.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by GaryM
Andy May,
What you don’t understand is that climate scientists can’t model the climate without anthro CO2 acting as the Earth’s thermostat.
Of course, they still can’t model the Earth’s climate even with CO2 as the thermostat, but let’s not quibble.
Think about that though. The CAGW modellers are like card sharps, who get to stack the deck. And for the last 15 years, they can’t even win a hand. Imagine what would happen if the climate models weren’t all created by true believing chicken littles, and were not chock full of warmist assumptions about the climate.
Same with the temperature models. They program them, fill them with their own biases, constantly adjust past temperatures to conform to their expectations, create “data” with nifty statistical prestidigitation. And they still can’t show a statistically significant warming trend since 1998.
If things don’t change, pretty soon they are just going to decide their starting assumptions were too “conservative,” and that their “adjustments” did not go far enough. And the “pause” will simply disappear. There is too much at stake to let something as irrelevant as reality get in the way.
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by GaryW
John Hagel says:
“Resilience is used very loosely as a term, so there are many different definitions. But across all the talks given in that conference (and much of the literature I have read outside the conference) there is one common theme that can be reduced to a simple phrase: it is the ability to “bounce back” in the face of unexpected shocks. In engineering, it is the ability of a material or structure to resume its original size and shape after being deformed. In systems science, it is the ability to return to equilibrium, steady state or original function after a shock to the system. In social analysis, it is the capability of a social group to absorb disturbance and reorganize to retain essentially the same function structure and identity.”
It is interesting that this statement, while being a correct dictionary style definition, completely misses what engineering is all about. In doing so, he feels he needs to invent a whole new concept. He is wrong about the art and practice of engineering.
Engineering is about creating the best you can given the physical and financial constraints. One of the key components of any engineering design process is projecting future needs and uses. Returning to some equilibrium state is far outside concepts of engineering.
However, there is a use for the Thrivable concept. It need not be directed at Engineers. It should be directed towards government decision makers. It is they that over-constrain reconstruction and development efforts.
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by miker613
“The more Angry camp seems to be the Denialist one, judging by the webosphere”. I have never seen a believer who thinks that believers are the more angry camp, and I have never seen a skeptic who thinks that skeptics are the more angry camp. Maybe you are more sensitive to anger directed in your direction? Just hop over to Huffington Post, or Skeptical Science for that matter, and find seething commenters as far as the eye can see. Or go to Deltoid or Tamino to see seething bloggers.
↧
↧
Comment on FT on the IPCC by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Manacker,
McIntyre has now resorted to equating world class climate scientists to high school teachers.
David Appel is suggesting that this may indicate that Mc wants to exit the scene with a bang, and do it ugly-style.
As Appel says, only superior science will win the debate, and I could clearly see that Mc was coming up short on this end of things. Good at stats but not up to snuff on the science. The arrogance of Mc is telling, who exactly does Mc want to take up climate science?
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by Steven Mosher
“Heh, I’ll see Kali and raise you Adam and Eve. How pretentious!
Steven, I know it is hard for you to take, but there are subjects about which you know very little. Worse, there are people here who know more about some things than you do, having spent many years working on them.
No, worse yet there are people who spend many years and still dont get it. You cannot understand Weber without understanding, Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche. Your argument is basically that instead of discussing a popularizer like Russel ( who is accessible for the non specialists here ) that Judith should discuss Weber. And as someone who spent way too much time studying german philosophy, I’m going to suggest that instead of starting with Weber, she should start with German philosophy. And then somebody who specializes in some other field is going to suggest Shiva or Kali or Adam or Eve
You should get the joke.
Judith wants to start with something simple and accessible. that many folks here can discuss without years of study. You want to control the discussion so you suggest Weber. I’d like to control the conversation so I’ll suggest Nietzsche ( or Kant or Hegel take your pick ). Such a fun game.
The bottom line:
If you want to start a blog that discusses Weber, Then do it.
Otherwise you are invited to comment here. When you raise your nose
dont be surprise that you find others who can also play that game. Sometimes for real, sometimes for fun.
and yes, there is something in me you dont like about yourself
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by Joshua
<blockquote>Maybe you are more sensitive to anger directed in your direction?</blockquote>
+1 for a skeptical (no quotation marks) comment.
Although I'd suggest a modification to make explicit what was probably implied: <blockquote>Maybe <i>people</i> ("realists" and "skeptics" alike) are more sensitive to anger directed in their direction?</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by miker613
Good point, Joshua.
↧
↧
Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Bob Droege
Yes, we don’t know where the damage will hit but we know it won’t be good.
↧
Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Rob Starkey
That vote would be interesting. How does the AGU defend not having such a vote?
↧
Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by M. Hastings
Peter principle?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
