[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2014-September-13, 13:06, said:

Hey Mike.
What evidence might that be? Lowest hurricane/tornadic activity in the last 50 years. Greening of the Sahel. Greening of the biosphere in general. Specifics that are not computer model projections would be appreciated. Thanks.

Yo ***** for brains, did it ever occur to you that claiming that climate anomalies are happening is completely inconsistent with your usual claims that no climate anomalies are happening.

[nige1]

Man's effect on the weather is a contentious issue because of random and cyclic changes (e.g. ice-ages).

Intuitively, however, it seems likely that fracking, fossil-fuel burning, CFC release, water-table paving, rain-forrest removal, toxic-waste dumping, and so on are likely to make things worse -- possibly irretrievably with positive feed-back.

IMO, strict governmental control and investigation are urgently needed. Control should come first. If subsequent investigation indicates that some fears are unfounded, then those controls can be relaxed. Waiting to prove damage before imposing control is an unjustifiable gamble with the welfare of future generations.

The rest is propaganda fuelled by greed and avarice.

[blackshoe]

 nige1, on 2014-September-14, 03:31, said:

IMO, strict governmental control and investigation are urgently needed. Control should come first. If subsequent investigation indicates that some fears are unfounded, then those controls can be relaxed. Waiting to prove damage before imposing control is an unjustifiable gamble with the welfare of future generations.

Why oh why can people not see that it is "strict governmental control" that causes most problems?

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 18:44, said:

Why oh why can people not see that it is "strict governmental control" that causes most problems?

Instead of insisting that everyone is out of step but you, you might consider an alternate explanation.

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 18:44, said:

Why oh why can people not see that it is "strict governmental control" that causes most problems?

Even your co-religionist admit to the existence of externalities and say that there is a role for the government in addressing them...

[Daniel1960]

 mike777, on 2014-September-13, 01:16, said:

you seem to suggest that global warming science is not settled science. In fact your posts over time suggest new evidence and new science that reject old conclusions. At times they seem to go against the consensus of old. The consensus of experts

-----
Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem.

As I have stated for many years I don't know how urgent the problem is. If urgent then we have to look at radical, dangerous options.

If not urgent in 2014 we can look to innovation and the Entrepreneur

New evidence in science can either confirm or reject old conclusions. Sometimes even the major of experts can be wrong. Not that this is the case here, as the consensus was only that the globe had warmed - not the cause(s).

Both the seriousness and urgency of the problem are critical issues here. Obviously, the more dire the situation, the more urgent is the action needed. However, if the situation is rather slow and benignm, then you suggestion of entrepeneur innovation is the best course of action. In an ideal world, with unlimited funding, we could throw all sorts of money at this issue, and see what works. However, we have other real world problems that need attention also. Should we divert funding from these issues, which may be more dire and urgent?

[Al_U_Card]

As the science evolves (settled and consensus are not terms that can be applied to scientific endeavor) we get a clearer picture of just what exactly is happening over time viz:

Global assessment of trends in wetting and drying over land. Nature Geoscience

We find that over about three-quarters of the global land area, robust dryness changes cannot be detected. Only 10.8% of the global land area shows a robust ‘dry gets drier, wet gets wetter’ pattern, compared to 9.5% of global land area with the opposite pattern, that is, dry gets wetter, and wet gets drier. We conclude that aridity changes over land, where the potential for direct socio-economic consequences is highest, have not followed a simple intensification of existing patterns.

So the meme about CAGW causing dry to get drier and wet to get wetter was just plain wrong, based on actual observation and measurement. Like so many other tenets of alarmist zealotry, the sky is NOT falling!

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2014-September-13, 03:16, said:

"Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem."

I would tend to agree that weather does cause some serious problems and that, over time, trends can go in different and thus better or worse directions, but that has nothing to do with [CO2] unless you have found some as yet undescribed in the literature correlation?

[blackshoe]

 PassedOut, on 2014-September-14, 19:14, said:

Instead of insisting that everyone is out of step but you, you might consider an alternate explanation.

I did not say that "everyone is out of step but me". There's a lot of people who believe as I do.

[Al_U_Card]

Recall that the IPCC is claiming that CO2 is mainly responsible for the recent warming (1975-1998) but not for that which occured in the 30s and 40s or any time previously. Not to mention the recent 20 year pause in global temps despite ever more CO2.....REALLY?....really.

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2014-September-14, 18:44, said:

Why oh why can people not see that it is "strict governmental control" that causes most problems?

In all seriousness, most people don't see that because they've seen too much evidence to the contrary. No one believes that governments are perfect (far from it), but other institutions are far from perfect also and sometimes must be reined in.

 blackshoe, on 2014-September-15, 15:55, said:

I did not say that "everyone is out of step but me". There's a lot of people who believe as I do.

I would quibble with "a lot," but certainly you aren't alone. Every now and then one reads of an attempt to start a libertarian community to show how well it would work in practice. And yet, if there is a thriving and successful libertarian community, I've not heard of it. An example like that would make folks take notice.

[mike777]

 Al_U_Card, on 2014-September-15, 06:12, said:

mike777, on 2014-September-13, 03:16, said:

"Clearly when I look at the evidence rather than just consensus of expert opinion we have a serious global climate problem."

I would tend to agree that weather does cause some serious problems and that, over time, trends can go in different and thus better or worse directions, but that has nothing to do with [CO2] unless you have found some as yet undescribed in the literature correlation?

good point, when it comes to co2 concentration I think I posted something by Dyson a year or so ago in this forum.


At the time the concentration had not reached urgent.

[mike777]

"In all seriousness, most people don't see that because they've seen too much evidence to the contrary. No one believes that governments are perfect (far from it), but other institutions are far from perfect also and sometimes must be reined in."


Thus the debate.

Many feel that govt is the lesser of evils..at least some feel govt is the greater of the evils... \\\


thus the debate of where the limits of govt are.


For example some if not many accept that the destructive power of capitalism, the power to destroy the status, is a great evil or downside of capitalism.


At the very least advocates of capitalism concede it is a crucial element of capitalism. The power to destroy.


Governments often step in to protect the status for the sake of stability. It stands to inhibit this power to destroy by capitalists

[blackshoe]

Two kinds of power: economic power and political power. Either can create, either can destroy. I think you'll find in most cases where economic power is used to destroy, the user violates a primary part of the golden rule: "an' it harm none, do what thou wilt". They take the second part, and discard the first, bolded, and IMO more important, part. Political power is all about force. Sometimes that works out well, more often not. Though the downside can often be hard to see, particularly early on.

A small "capitalist" community has the same problem as any small non-mainstream community - they have to deal, somehow, with the rest of the world.

People are lazy - they see something that needs fixing, and instead of getting out there and fixing it, they scream for the gummint to fix it - and oh, by the way, gimme moar welfare while you're at it!

[mike777]

I disagree. The ability and action to destroy is an integral part of capitalism. Without destruction you cannot have capitalism. This has nothing to do with the golden rule or morality or ethics. IT is by definition. Capitalism disrupts companies, jobs and at times an industry. This disruption often results in destruction at some level of the economy. However many do see evil in this action.

Now of course governments often also step in to try and stop or at least inhibit this destructive force.

There are many examples but one current issue is the debate over net neutrality. A wave of destruction will pass over the internet if net neutrality goes. Thus the fight.

Recent past disruptions are many including such things as video rental industry, blockbuster anyone and the usa auto industry.

The govt of France is currently doing battle with Netflix, destructive capitalism in action and the push back.

Remember when BBO came along and what happened to the then big bridge site?

[blackshoe]

If you're talking about Okbridge, then no, I don't remember - unless you're referring to the fact that BBO now has a bigger market share. That's not destruction, that's consumers making a decision.

That an entrepreneur can come up with an idea does not give him any "right" to make money. If he does make money, that doesn't give him any "right" to continue to make money if somebody comes along with a better idea.

[PassedOut]

Back in the real world: Global Oceans Break All-Time Heat Record; World on Pace for Warmest Year Ever

Quote

The Earth’s oceans have never been this far beyond the bounds of normal.

New data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that Earth’s oceans reached a level last month not seen since humans have been keeping comprehensive records. Global ocean temperatures in August 2014 warmed to “the largest departure from average for any month on record” according to a NOAA statement. The previous record was set just two months ago, in June 2014.

Fish can tell the difference too.

[billw55]

Quote

The Earth's oceans have never been this far beyond the bounds of normal.

New data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that Earth's oceans reached a level last month not seen since humans have been keeping comprehensive records. Global ocean temperatures in August 2014 warmed to "the largest departure from average for any month on record" according to a NOAA statement. The previous record was set just two months ago, in June 2014.

While the data is likely valid, "never" is clearly an exaggeration.

[PassedOut]

 billw55, on 2014-September-19, 12:37, said:

While the data is likely valid, "never" is clearly an exaggeration.

Yep, just another example of our severe and prolonged editor drought.

[Al_U_Card]

Were it so unusual or unprecedented, then it would be reasonable to expect that sea ice would be melting apace....as opposed to increasing (Antarctic) and recovering (Arctic).