August 2012 Open Thread

Still here. It seems the carbon tax has not destroyed the Australian economy. Phew!

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    “You are bringing ‘it’?”

    He’s being quiet and leaving out the “sh”.

  2. #2 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    “Yes, but people pay money willingly for the products that come from engineers.”

    THIS PROVES ENGINEERING IS A SCAM!!!!!

    You’re JUST in it for the money, making up all this so-called “science” to peddle your woo!

    YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THE HOAX EXISTS!!!!

  3. #3 ianam
    August 30, 2012

    ben, everything you have ever posted here is immensely stupid and dishonest…

    If you can get Tim to agree with you then we’ll discuss further, otherwise not.

    Another immensely stupid and dishonest comment.

    Where did you see Jeff implying that he doesn’t do, or has not done, field work?

    WTF? How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?

    And another. And your sequelae are even more so. You’re quite the grating imbecile. Why are you here … for Mack and Karen to admire you for being marginally less stupid than they are?

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    August 30, 2012

    One final point here.

    I am in a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Most climate change deniers here – Mack, Karen, Jonas, Olaus, Ben et al. – responded to my posts by saying that “You’re not a real scientist” and stuff like that. I respond by providing evidence that I am, and their response is effectively, “You’re an arrogant s.o.b. who waves his CV around!” and similar verbiage.

    When Chek defended my scientific background on the infamous Jonas thread, Olaus accused him of being one of my slavish supporters – and worse. Yet note how this bunch of hypocrites see nothing wrong in telling everyone how esteemed a few scientists in the contrarian camp are. I’ve seen the qualifications of Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Singer, Christy, Spencer and others described in the most glowing terms by many of those belittling me as well as Mann, Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Schmidt and others.

    As i said, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And then BPW wades in here and calls me a ‘tool’ whilst giving the deniers a free pass. Go figure.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    August 30, 2012

    Just released from the American Meteorological Society:

    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

    There conclusions support all of my recent posts. But I suppose the many scientists involved in the preparation of this document will be attacked now by the D-K mob.

  6. #6 ianam
    August 30, 2012

    “Without ecology, we would not understand the importance of complex adaptive systems in maintaining a wide array of supporting services upon which human civilization depends.”

    Tell that to the average passer-by on the street.

    Like ben!

    Count the number of eye-rolls that you get.

    From ben!

    Ben, you are so fucking stupid and vilely dishonest.

  7. #7 ianam
    August 30, 2012

    “Without ecology, we would not understand the importance of complex adaptive systems in maintaining a wide array of supporting services upon which human civilization depends.”

    Tell that to the average passer-by on the street.

    Like ben!

    Alright Jeff, that’s it, I’m bringing it…

    You’re not even competent at insulting people, you stupid fuck. Jeff is spot on that you are ridiculing yourself.

  8. #8 ianam
    August 30, 2012

    I have said it a hundred times–for the most part, I agree with the message

    The tone patrol has arrived.

    You might be educated, but you don’t seem that smart.

    How would a cretin like you know smart, BPW? You apparently don’t even know your own name.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    August 30, 2012

    Ben(der) again threw up with:

    …in 2001 a leaked memo from the lefty institute of left leaning insufferable a-holes expressed concern that the heads of left-leaning climate scientists were getting to big to be supported by the local ecology. I have the memo right here, you can trust it!

    So you have the memo. Citation and link please.

    Whatever, which of these is not a past Republican voter, Richard Alley, James Hansen, Michael Mann.

  10. #10 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    Over at the Guardian Arctic Ice thread, the deniers are now going on about how it’s the scientists fault nobody is doing anything about the climate because they’ve been saying it’s going to happen for too long.

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    August 30, 2012

    THIS PROVES ENGINEERING IS A SCAM!!!!!</blockquote.

    FTW!

  12. #12 Karen
    August 30, 2012

    Jeff Harvey
    7:02 am

    “Moreover, you have not got a clue who I am or what my “FIENDS” and colleagues think of me.”

    LOL…….LOL…………LOL………..

    Jeff your such a nuffy, they all think the same about you as we do, hehehe

    You have been given many many links to peer reviewed papers that debate the CO2 hypothesis as the sole contributor of any piddly bit of warming the planet may have had, from respectable journal’s I might add.

    But you ignore them, and this is one of the reason’s that you are not a scientist’s anal sphincter muscle, you are a follower, a devotee, an IPCC groupie and you are a fund sucking leach.

    You don’t know why there is a small change in the globull climate, so in reality all your paper’s that blame AGW for any changes in the biosphere are a fiction, a guess, bunk !!!

  13. #13 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    You’re really proving your case there, KMS.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    August 30, 2012

    Karen, if you are correct, then every National Academy of Science as well as large scientific body on Earth that endorses the IPCC findings (e.g. The American Meteorlogical Society) and the human effect on climate must be involved in some massive global scientific conspiracy. Moreover, the scientific papers you allude to in no way downplay the role of CO2. Pretty well every author on every paper you’ve ever cited here (and that ain’t much) agrees that the human contribution to global warming is the primary factor. You write as if the scientific community is split down the middle, and as if the empircal literature is too. Wrong.

    As for ‘piddly’, on what temporal/spatial scale do you draw this conclusion? A 10C rise in much of the Arctic over the past century is hardly ‘piddly’. Nor is the 2-3 C change in central Europe since the 1970s. You comment has not a shred of scientific fact. Since when have you possessed the ability to determine what is signifcant in terms of climate-warming related effects on nature and what isn’t? Have you tested this empirically? No.. like other deniers, you are speaking off the top of your head.

    As for fiends, glad you spotted that one. It pretty well sums you up.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    August 30, 2012

    From Sharon Beder regaring the API:

    http://herinst.org/sbeder/PR/ecologist2.html

    Pretty well crushes Ben’s farcical response.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    August 30, 2012

    Ben(der)

    Further to Jeff’s 2:11 pm, if you wish to see where many of these hang out have a lookee here.

    Well, well. Whadayouknow.?

    And note the presence of GMU which John Mashey and DeepClimate have done so much to expose, look for Wegman Report. Look up See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others for one which leads you into much of the skulduggery originating from that sinking seat of academe.

    Ben, you are too easy. Next troll please.

    ‘Trolls ain’t what they used to be….tra-la-la.’

  17. #17 ben
    August 30, 2012

    Back to Ben. Where do I begin? Well for starters, how low do you have to stoop to attack the universities where I studied did my research?

    Dude, it was a joke. I don’t know anything about your university. Lighten up Jeff.

  18. #18 ben
    August 30, 2012

    These same corporations loathe regulations that limit their profit making potential, so its hardly surprising that they would invest in think tanks that aim to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.

    And I loathe the regulations that increase prices on the goods and services that I want and need. I don’t give a flying fuck how much profit the booga booga corporations make. I also loathe the regulations that make it more difficult and expensive for small businesses to hire employees.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    August 30, 2012

    Ben(der)

    And I loathe the regulations that increase prices on the goods and services that I want…

    So you don’t wan’t to pay a fair price for anything which includes covering the costs of externalities like the impoverished ecosystems and dreadful working conditions of those in sweat slave shops and plantations who are forced to endure short and brutal lives, at home and abroad, wherever that first may be.

    Unless of course that is another joke of yours.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    August 30, 2012

    And I loathe the regulations that increase prices on the goods and services that I want and need.

    Oh, spare us your right-wing economic extremism.

    If you want a world where you also have the right to a clean and reasonably intact environment, your production of goods and services needs to stop swinging its fist where the noses of others begins. No profiteer is going to stop of his own volition bopping everything on the nose to shake out the coinage – the global financial crisis demonstrated that quite plainly.

    I’d bet that you’re all for having a fire-arm or several in your house to ‘protect’ yourself, and to make any ‘offender’ pay: it’s no different to having laws to making profiteering offenders pay who would otherwise harm the beings and the environments that they exploit.

    Typical of the right-wing nut: protect your own interests where the interests of others might conflict with yours, but scream and shout when others’ interests are protected where your interests might conflict with theirs.

    What the word that I’m looking for…?

    And speaking of right wing hypocrites, Gina Rinehart is making the Kims of North Korea look like Ghandis:

    http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2012/08/30/3579469.htm

  21. #21 zoot
    August 30, 2012

    I don’t know anything about your university.

    Fixed it for you.

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    August 30, 2012

    Beaten to the punch by Lionel…

  23. #23 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    “And I loathe the regulations that increase prices on the goods and services that I want…”

    So you want and insist on slave labour?

  24. #24 Lionel A
    August 30, 2012

    More on Richard Siegmund Lindzen.

    Before I weigh in, look what turns up when I search on Richard Lindzen. Gee look who’s pictures pop up in the sidebar at right. Yes, Spencer and Christy, along with Singer and Happer, white men who speak with forked-tongue all.

    Now earlier this year Lindzen spoke to a group of invitees, amongst them whack job Piers Corbin (hey Google on him and Christy and Spencer pop up again along with Joe Bastardi – now we know that we are cooking on gas – Joe Bastardi FFS!), in a room in the House of Commons, also he made similar misrepresentations in Australia.

    Much has been written about this exposing Lindzen for the serial deceiver that he is. Lindzen may well now believe what he says for he has been coming out with the same ol’ same ol’ for some time now – look out ‘Merchant’s of Doubt’ for one.

    I offer this piece by Doug Bostrom where Doug rounds off with this:

    We may see that punctilious observation by professional societies of the line between doing science and interaction with the public is outmoded and in any case no longer is in practice. AGU has emphatically pronounced on the requirement for members to behave well as public citizens. Taking into account his track record of advice to lawmakers and the general public it’s been amply demonstrated that regardless of his reputation as an arguably brilliant scientific researcher Lindzen nonetheless serves as an archetypal example of a scientist who feels no compunction against trading on his reputation and associations as a researcher to foster malformed thinking in the mind of the public. We in the general public very much need the help of professional societies in picking where to obtain the least slanted and most useful information required for solving what we’re told by the same societies is an absolutely dire problem.

    Now in case you missed the link in the first line of that article here it is Misrepresentation from Lindzen which article only takes Lindzen to task for one of his misdemeanour’s although in the comments some others are touched on. Look out ‘Lack of Environment’ for more. I will not link as I will run over the limit and get held in moderation (I think).

    Lindzen has a pedigree all right but it ain’t what you thought.

  25. #25 ben
    August 30, 2012

    So you want and insist on slave labour?

    I don’t recall writing anything of the sort. For my part I run two small businesses with no employees. My business partner and I do all the work. I would love to hire employees and I would if it was as simple as “would you like a job doing X for Y compensation on Z terms?” If the prospective employee finds the terms satisfactory then I’d hire the person.

    Lionel A, I was merely pointing out persons in possession of Jeff’s requisite “scientific pedigree,” as that was the bar he established.

  26. #26 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    ben: obbleflobbleobble

  27. #27 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    “”So you want and insist on slave labour?”

    I don’t recall writing anything of the sort.”

    Of course not. Because you avoided writing it. But emancipation laws increase the cost of production of a good and therefore is something you abhor.

    You just know you’d be justifiably crucified for doing it.

    PS “I run two small businesses”

    MORE PROOF ENGINEERING IS A SCAM!!!!

  28. #28 ben
    August 30, 2012

    Of course not. Because you avoided writing it. But emancipation laws increase the cost of production of a good and therefore is something you abhor.

    Increases in the cost of production = increases in prices and decreases in productivity. The increase in prices is born by everyone. The workers have to pay for things too, and its not like they get the regulated work environment for free.

    I’ve been there done that as an employee and I found the regulations to be more cumbersome then helpful. The union regulations were always the worst, most idiotic hindrance to getting a job done.

  29. #29 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    “Increases in the cost of production = increases in prices and decreases in productivity”

    WRONG.

    Increases in the cost of production = incrases in prices.

    FULL STOP.

    “The increase in prices is born by everyone.”

    Only in a free market with no barriers to entry and a fully informed consumer.

    But, as can be seen with the regional pricing of anything from DVDs to software to Jeans and TVs, the pricing has ALMOST NOTHING to do with the cost of production but what the market will bear.

    Not to mention that all the libertards who prattle on about how the free market will save us all ™, go completely APESHIT about removing restrictions on all those things needed for a free market. Because without a corporate class with rights and powers that the lower classes cannot beat, the corporate class cannot ream the customer and give you your stock dividends.

  30. #30 Rattus Norvegicus
    August 30, 2012

    And Ben unwittingly argues from a return to slavery!

  31. #31 ben
    August 30, 2012

    “Increases in the cost of production = incrases in prices.

    FULL STOP.”

    I’m sorry that you are so stupid.

  32. #32 Wow
    August 30, 2012

    I’m sorry that you think that someone who doesn’t believe your lies is stupid.

  33. #33 chek
    August 30, 2012

    Why does Ben imagine anybody is interested in his primary school lemonade stand level of economic theory? Two clicks can take anyone genuinely curious to an article by for instance Paul Krugman who shits Ben and his proterozoic antisocial ilk before breakfast.

  34. #34 ben
    August 30, 2012

    Two clicks can take anyone genuinely curious to an article by for instance Paul Krugman who shits Ben and his proterozoic antisocial ilk before breakfast.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha! Krugman isn’t fit to run a lemonade stand. Look, nitwit, there’s are costs associated with freaking regulation besides simple up front capital costs. Some reasons regulation detracts from productivity are:

    1. Reduction in available capital = fewer parts in stock, less investment, etc

    2. Increased cost of compliance = time wasted pushing freaking papers around that could be used to produce products. Either existing workers have to take up the burden, or new workers must be hired to push the papers. Either way, the time is taken away from time that could have been put to better use.

    Paul Krugman indeed.

  35. #35 Turboblocke
    August 30, 2012

    WOW at 5.09 Would WEEEEED be an appropriate response?

  36. #36 chek
    August 30, 2012

    Ben said: “there’s are (sic) costs associated with freaking regulation

    Yes Ben, just as there are costs associated with no regulation. In the main those unledgered costs are externalised to be paid for by others rather than your putative profiteer. CO2 is a very good example.

  37. #37 ben
    August 30, 2012

    Yes Ben, just as there are costs associated with no regulation. In the main those unledgered costs are externalised to be paid for by others rather than your putative profiteer.

    In the end, all the costs are born by the consumer.

    CO2 is a very good example.

    Ungh.

  38. #38 Chris O'Neill
    August 30, 2012

    Wow:

    the deniers are now going on about how it’s the scientists fault nobody is doing anything about the climate because they’ve been saying it’s going to happen for too long.

    Indeed, such people are entering the final stages of denial.

  39. #39 Wow
    August 31, 2012

    “In the end, all the costs are born by the consumer.”

    Except it isn’t.

    The cost is taken from the PROFITS.

    If that isn’t enough, then either the company folds (90% of new ventures do so even if the ebil gubmint has nothing to do with it) or it charges the customers more.

    It is idiotic to insist that any cost is passed on to the customer anyway, since those customers have to be paid by another company and, to employ them, that company will have to increase pay, therefore you can just as validly say “the costs are passed on to the company”.

    But thought was never a libertard’s strong point. Reality doesn’t conform to your ideologies, therefore must be ignored.

  40. #40 Wow
    August 31, 2012

    Turbobloke, I think ben Weeed himself.

    Ben, when your worker is killed by a worplace accident, you now have to pay to get him replaced and have lost ALL the investment in their abilities to do their job.

    That is a cost to no regulation that you ignore.

    And without regulation, there’s nothing to stop someone walking into your office, taking your ideas and walking out with them.

    Another cost to no regulation.

  41. #41 bill
    August 31, 2012

    This one stands out as moronic, even in the field. Reinforcing the message of Lewandowsky’s recently published research – Deniers are Libtards and/or conspiracy nutters.

    How many of these buffoons cannot learn to master something as simple as

    a blockquote?

    We are frequently bombarded by these economic and scientific geniuses who can’t master HTML…

    The GFC finished this Thatcherite crap for ever, though shambling armies of the dreary Zombies are still abroad, particularly at the RNC. The undead survival of a multiply-disproven doctrine is an issue of class power: Aspergersy muppets like Ben are merely doing the lumpenintellectual dirty work of the plutocrats they slavishly adore.

  42. #42 bill
    August 31, 2012

    Downfall videos are pretty old-hat, but I got several genuine laughs out of this one!

    Don’t worry about it, Ben – you can just play at claiming Medicare with your Ayn Rand dolls…

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2012

    In the end, all the costs are born by the consumer.

    And all profits are ultimately provided by consumers who prove both willing and able to pay.

    Which rather suggests you might want to get past simplistic first-order thinking and consider the factors that lead to consumers having sufficient money to buy your products and services after they buy other things they deem even more essential.

    Like (say) having a decent paying job. Like living in a society where the costs of protecting oneself from both physical and financial marauders is not a significant burden on the average consumer – due in large part to freakin’ regulations and enforcement thereof. Like having a decent semblance of job security (through regulations, no less!) thereby increasing confidence about one’s financial position and willingness to go into debt for various things, or make purchases that are not strictly necessary for survival. Like living in an environment where food security is not a prime daily concern and major health hazards are relatively rare.

    If you only look at one side of the ledger you will mislead yourself. And an awful lot of corporate political propaganda these days (Hi Mr. Abbott! Hi Mr. Romney!) is based on loudly pointing people at one side of the ledger and quietly ignoring the other.

  44. #44 zoot
    August 31, 2012

    I would love to hire employees and I would if it was as simple as “would you like a job doing X for Y compensation on Z terms?”

    This could be interesting. Ben has found a regulation that stops him hiring someone and paying them a fair wage for a fair day’s work.

  45. #45 MikeH
    August 31, 2012
  46. #46 MikeH
    August 31, 2012

    Arctic

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    August 31, 2012

    Ben’s problem is that he confabulates the existence of unnecessary regulation with the need for no regulation at all.

    It’s the “all men are rapists” argument.

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    August 31, 2012

    It’s worth noting that POIMAS usually posts in October its monthly-updated ice volume graph showing the (record) minimum for the latest season’s melt.

    This year the breaking of the record minimum was demonstrated in an August release, and there’s still some loss to go before the season’s end:

    http://i46.tinypic.com/21entrs.jpg

    I wonder where Jonas N and his Scandinavian Troll Collective are? I’d really like to know what odds it would take for him to accept any of my wager alternatives as detailed in his eponymous thread.

  49. #49 Wow
    August 31, 2012

    “Ben has found a regulation that stops him hiring someone and paying them a fair wage for a fair day’s work.”

    Ah, you think that Ben wants to pay someone a fair wage? I don’t think so. His role is “job creation”, you don’t want him to PAY for the work too, do you?!?!?

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    August 31, 2012

    Another of Ben’s problems is that he does not understand the basics of how the natural economy underpins the material economy. The examples I present in my lectures are quite appropriate. People in NYC took for granted that they had about the purest drinking water of any large city in the industrilized world. What they didn’t know is that the water came from a large watershed in the Catskill Mountains that was naturally purified by the forests there as well as their associated micro-organisms in the soil. This is one example of a natural subsidy that was not captured in economic price-cost scenarios. During the 1980s and into the 1990s, developers moved into the Catskills and began to replace the forests with golf courses, luxury homes and other forms of development, At the same time, farms expanded, leading to more forest loss. Unbeknownst at the time, the loss of the forests threatened the water purification services and thus the clean water supply to NYC. When this was finally realized, city planners were faced with a dilemma”chlorinate the water, build a massive water purification plant (costing 3 billion dollars with 300 million dollar-per-year maintenace costs) or cease development in the Catskills and replant the forests (cost a one-off 6 billion dollars). The planners opted for the last option, ensuring for the time being at least NYCs clean water.

    This si but one small example of an ecosystem service in which the costs were (eventually) internalized. But, as Wow has said, the vast majority of critical ecosystem services are externalized, hence we have no idea how important and valuable they are until they are added or (more usually) lost. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where they do, they are prohibitively expensive.

    Our economies are loittered with perverse subsidies that are reducing the capacity of nature to support man. People like Ben may take fro granted that our crops will always be pollinated, that the groundwater supplies will always be ample and pure, that the soils will always be fertile, that the wastes we produce will always be reassimilated, but the scientific community is well aware that this is not a ‘given’. We already know that many critical services are being degraded at clearly unsustainable rates. Moreover, the price of many commodities does not incorporate ecological damage. The price we pay for gasoline does not incorporate the effects of extraction, refining, transport and use on the planet’s climate-control system. We know that in Chesapeake Bay in Delaware the entire water column was once recycled in a week through filtration by the bay’s bivalve fauna; now this takes many months, and as the bivalves continue to be overharvested we can expect water quality to decline there.New technologies often mask underlying declines: sonar- and drag nets anble us to catch more fish than was possible using old technologies 50 years and more ago, but this is concomoitant with a decimation of populations of many marine fish species. We were once constrained by technology in terms of how far afield we could exploit food and other resources; now, thanks to the global technology and nakedly predatory economic policies, we can plunder and deplete local resources and not worry about the immediate consequences because we can plunder and deplete resources in some other part of the planet. More than 90% of top-level predators in coastal marine ecosystems (the ‘green seas’) are gone: these have been replaced in some areas by jellyfish at the terminal end of the food chain. We’ve seriously f*****-up the way these systems function, with who-knows what consequences for their functioning and stability in the short- to-medium term.

    Effectively, humans are living off of a one-time inheritance of capital rather than income. We are spending it like there is no tomorrow. People like Ben wearing their blindfolds might think that everything is hunky-dory but the reality is that we are headed for a wall.

  51. #51 bill
    August 31, 2012

    Bernard : I could use the same ad absurdum argument as follows: many criminals are never caught, and miscarriages of justice occur far-too frequently – therefore we should simply get rid of the police and courts.

    Isn’t it interesting, while we’re on the topic, that subsequent to the Reaganite ‘Libuurty’ revolution America has become the most incarcerating state on Earth – far more so than even Putin’s Russia and Communist China.

    Of course, their prisoners are rebellious heroes striking against the yoke of oppression, whereas ‘ours’ are shiftless moochers who couldn’t cut it and fully deserve their fate.

    One thing you’d have to concede is that when you’ve incarcerated fully one quarter of the world’s prison population your crackpot system clearly ain’t working.

    Well, you would know it if you weren’t a socially lobectomised propagandabot in the mould of Paul Ryan.

    Incidentally, Genius, how much friggin’ money does this over-regulation cost?

  52. #52 Lionel A
    August 31, 2012

    Given the Arctic sea ice decline that Moron Marano and failed meteorologist Watts are trying to hand wave away see recent ice related threads at Tamino’s the true cause of one must consider the impact on the already invigorated hydrological cycle which is also showing signs of geographical instability.

    This together with the fact that higher latitudes are warming faster than equatorial should lead to concerns about the increasing instability of mountain areas, many like the Cascades of volcanic-subduction zone type, origin.

    The warming of mountain areas from the Himalayas to the Andes, from the Cascades to Iceland and on to the French/Swiss/Italian/Austrian Alps is causing the ice bonded rock to fracture and result in increased incidences of rock falls and mudslides. Some of these result in the formation of debris dams across narrow ravines which then burst with further and more catastrophic consequences often to settlement far downstream.

    Also the removal of ice cover, weight, and rising sea levels are shifting the loading on the Earth’s crust and mantle provoking an increased tectonic response – volcanism and fault release.

    Increased rainfall also has another deleterious effect by increasing the pore pressure in the material covering mountains and volcanoes. This can cause the sudden collapse of the whole side of a volcano promoting a sudden release of pent up magma – Mount St Helens type.

    Check out Bill McGuire’s book ‘Waking the Giant’. I am slowly gather more background on this aspect of climate change as I follow reference’s.

    As the globe warms be prepared for a bumpy ride the likes of which the Romneys and Ryans of the world are totally oblivious to. Load the main Thinkprogress page and see that Gina ‘noheart’ Rinehart’ has a slot and much else.

    If these goons are elected then it is essentially game over for the US as far as science is concerned. After all what is better than having to shoot the messenger? Don’t create messengers in the first place.

    I don’t know what businesses that Ben has going but will they survive what’s coming and coming sooner than most expected. Another Ben, Franklin this time, is now rolling in his grave at the GOP antics.

  53. #53 Chris O'Neill
    August 31, 2012

    Lighten up Jeff.

    Your list of publications is almost as long as my last excrement. I clubbed a baby seal in your name last week as well, you simpering chimp-minded intellectual pansy.

    Your dog probably does all your work, and it shows, but luckily for you it could be worse. Saying the name “Jefferey Harvey” in the presence of infants makes them cry. My milk man has better scientific pedigree than you do, you oafish Canadian yak milker. You’ve probably been neglecting your yaks in order to conduct your research.

    Yeah that’s light. Just making a joke. Har, har.

  54. #54 Mack
    August 31, 2012

    Thanks for the laughs Ben.

  55. #55 Wow
    August 31, 2012

    Well, Ben is misanthropic self-obsessed and ignorant. What do you expect? If he can’t come up with a reason for being an arsehole and the evidence is shoved in his face, he’ll just go “Oh, I was kidding”. But note how he would NEVER accept that response himself, would he.

    That’s because he’s “special”.

  56. #56 bill
    August 31, 2012

    BEN: Ook! Hurr hurr! [grunts]

    MACK: ‘Ook! Hurr hurr?’ Hurr hurr hurr! [grunts]

    The Simian Mutual Appreciation Society in action. Fun-nee stuff…

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    August 31, 2012

    *Lighten up Jeff*

    I do actually – by listening to Over Kill, Onslaught, Destruction, Testament and other thrash metal bands, and by playing my BC Rich Warlock guitar. I also like to go on long-distance cycling tours (will do from Saturday to next Wednesday).

    BTW, much of your excrement originates from your mouth…
    Just an observation.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2012

    Gina Rinehart at ThinkProgress as cited by Lionel A above.

    falo posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Aug 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Gina Rinehart, the world’s richest woman.
    According to the world’s richest woman, low-income people are only poor because they don’t work hard enough, and because the government has coddled them with a minimum wage that is too high.

    The article goes on to wryly note (my emphasis):

    Australian Gina Rinehart, who inherited her $30 billion fortune,…

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    August 31, 2012

    Sorry, slight cut-n-paste fail there.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    August 31, 2012

    On Gina Rinehart, why do I think ‘Muppets’ when looking at pictures of this insult to humanity.

  61. #61 Mack
    August 31, 2012

    Ben,
    “you simpering chimp-minded intellectual pansey” :) Jeff fancies himself in lycra too.

  62. #62 Mack
    August 31, 2012

    Trim taut and terrific are you Jeff?

  63. #63 ianam
    August 31, 2012

    And I loathe the regulations that increase prices on the goods and services that I want and need. I don’t give a flying fuck how much profit the booga booga corporations make. I also loathe the regulations that make it more difficult and expensive for small businesses to hire employees.

    be, you’re a fucking ignorant cretin … go live in Somalia.

  64. #64 ianam
    August 31, 2012

    I don’t recall writing anything of the sort.

    You are not only too fucking stupid to comprehend the implications of your views, you are even too fucking stupid to understand that there’s a difference between what one says and what is implied by what one says.

  65. #65 ianam
    August 31, 2012

    “The increase in prices is born [sic] by everyone

    And you are too fucking stupid to mention or even consider any benefits that might derive from that cost … or the costs saved by incurring such costs. Dead, sick, suffering people aren’t as productive, just to name the financial consequences … of course we can ignore any effect on the quality of living, because you’re too fucking stupid to grasp that there is such a thing.

  66. #66 ianam
    August 31, 2012

    Paul Krugman indeed.

    Paul Krugman: Nobel Prize in Economics

    ben: ignorant imbecile

  67. #67 ianam
    August 31, 2012

    In the end, all the costs are born by the consumer.

    Non fucking sequitur. You referred to costs for regulation. It was pointed out that there are also costs for non-regulation, so accounting sheet is unbalanced, stupid, inept, and dishonest. Your response is no response — the subject was the costs of regulation, not who bears the cost. The costs of non-regulation have to be subtracted from the costs of regulation, you stupid fucking piece of shit. And the result is negative … arguing for regulation, you dumb liberfuck.

  68. #68 ianam
    August 31, 2012

    Mack’s only salient feature is that he’s dumber than ben.

  69. #69 ianam
    August 31, 2012

    Jeff fancies himself in lycra too.

    I cycle 140 miles a week, in lycra. That’s why I’m not an obese sack of shit like you probably are.

  70. #70 BPW
    August 31, 2012

    Nice to see the same 10 people wailing away. Better trolls? You need better commenters. Might want to get out a bit more too.

    ianam, contrary to your moniker, it seems you do possess some moronic qualities. Calling people you disagree with cretins, stupid and trolls is boring and not very intellectually creative. Some might say it’s moronic. And it seems to be the entire basis of your argumentative powers. Then you go with “you’re fat”? Brilliant.

    Here’s a question. Do you think, just maybe, that when discussing a topic, especially one deemed as important as AGW, that the tone of your argument might matter? That it might be a problem if you act like a dick? I think so. And I think it is a rather large part of the overall problem. People don’t usually pay much attention to those they feel are talking down to them or selling them a bill of goods. Never mind, better to just call anyone you don’t agree with stupid. 20 years of that seems to have been very effective.

    Jeff, I called you a tool because you come off as one. Doesn’t mean you are one. Just my opinion based on your screeds. You may well be a great guy. No doubt you are a fine ecologist. Who am I to say you aren’t? That said, I don’t much care. What does grate is your use the word “science” as if it has magical powers or is some sort of pure entity not to be sullied. Do nuclear weapons scientists, for instance, get the same status under the purity of science?

    I am also curious, why do you waste so much time arguing with people you obviously have no respect for? What are you trying to prove? The other 15 people who comment on this blog already agree with you. Every time I read what you write, I cringe, because I know that, to someone who is perhaps actually looking for information, it has the opposite effect you are shooting for. So many appeals to authority, so few substantive points.

    As for a free pass for “deniers”, where do you get that? If you deny that humans negatively affect the workings of the planet, or if you want to spin the laws of physics to suit your view, you are an idiot. No pass for that. Any other use of that term is far too black and white for my taste. As is the entire issue as it is framed by many like yourself.

    Sorry I can’t spend more time. I know you are all disappointed. Especially ianam. I’ll come back later in the weekend to see how many different ways he’s found to call me stupid. Do be careful on that bike i–you too Jeff–I took a nasty spill a few weeks back on mine and the road rash has not been pleasant.

  71. #71 Wow
    August 31, 2012

    “Your response is no response — the subject was the costs of regulation, not who bears the cost”

    It’s a shibboleth to tell you why you should FEAR regulation.

    Because irrational fear of it is the only thing that libertarians have. By any rational assessment, there’s no need to fear regulation. Hence you have to be told why it is to be feared, even though it is unsupported.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2012

    blockquote>And it seems to be the entire basis of your argumentative powers.

    Sheesh, you missed a lot of…you know, actual argumentation which tends to undermine your position.

    Then you go on to call deniers “idiots” and Jeff “a tool” – in the comment where you denounce someone else calling others cretins, stupid and trolls – which tends to undermine your high horse.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2012

    Ugh, another blockquote fail. Need more sleep ;-)

  74. #74 Jeff Harvey
    September 1, 2012

    BPW writes,

    *so few substantive points*

    Then you haven’t been digesting what I say. My aim is to reach those who don’t understand the importance of natural systems in providing services that sustain the global economy but which (1) are externalized in price-cost scenarios, and (2) are under threat due to the combined effects of a range of anthropogenic stresses – climate change included. I’ve detailed what these services are and what they mean – you apparently think this is unimportant, even if people like Ben flippantly dismiss them entirely. In my experience, I have met many people who literally do not have one iota of understanding of what is at stake as humans continue their global assault against nature. Many cling to the flimsy hope that technology – i.e. through scientific innovation – will save the day. Many others don’t give a hoot and don’t spend any time thinking about what is happening. They may be dumbed down by the corporate media, and are content to live their lives insulated from ecological and environmental realities. Or, like the optimists, they innately are programmed to think that everything will continue as it is – business as usual – forever. They are insulated against reality, a point Derrick Jensen makes in his quite excellent books, ‘Endgame Vo.s 1 and 2′. Jensen spells out the problem with civilization quite well in the beginning of his book. Some may think his anarchistic view of society is extreme; I personally do not. Civilization is like a city state that is clearly unsustainable as currently defined. People may not like to hear this but let us be honest: since when have many people wanted to face up to the ugly truth that they are part of a culture that depends on violence of all kinds to maintain its prosperity, and to know that this cannot last for much longer? So they bury it into the recesses of their mind.

    As for deniers, look all around you BPW: they are everywhere. They deny Jensen’s conclusions, they deny that natural systems are in decline, they deny that the developed world fosters an immense ecological deficit to sustain its affluence, they deny that climate change is down to us, they deny that humans are undermining the ability of nature to sustain us in a way that we habitually take fro granted, they deny the extinction crisis, they deny, deny, deny, deny, deny.

    What strikes me is that people like you, who claim to be enlightened in these issues, do not hesitate to attack members of your ‘own team’ for alleged misbehavior, but I rarely if ever see you attacking those on the other side who are defending people and systems that are intent in taking our planet to hell in a hand basket. Why aren’t you lambasting the vacuous arguments of Mack? Karen? Ben? Jonas? Olaus? … and co? All you do by coming in here to criticize me is open yourself to the apparent truth that, deep down, you loathe the science that supports my arguments, as well as the scientists who collect, analyze and publish the data. For some strange reason, you claim to agree with many of my points, but then use that as a platform for a vitriolic personal attack. Ultimately, your posts shed more light on your mind set than on mine.

    As for lycra, I am not into it… I prefer denim and leather when I am cranking up my guitar. Or listening to any of the aforementioned band.

  75. #75 John
    September 1, 2012

    That it might be a problem if you act like a dick? I think so. And I think it is a rather large part of the overall problem. People don’t usually pay much attention to those they feel are talking down to them or selling them a bill of goods. Never mind, better to just call anyone you don’t agree with stupid. 20 years of that seems to have been very effective

    Jeff, I called you a tool because you come off as one.

    A hypocritical tone troll. I am simply shocked!

  76. #76 Mack
    September 1, 2012

    Jeff,
    Settle down and peace man. Take a look at this and ask yourself is there a ” global assault against nature”? It may gladden your Cannuk heart. (I hope it works)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ctz2jT8l8&feature=related

  77. #77 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    Mack: if you loved me, Ben, you’d swallow it.

  78. #78 Mack
    September 1, 2012

    You’re a foulmouthed juvenile imbecile Wow.

  79. #79 Anthony David
    September 1, 2012

    If there was any doubt that the “Galileo Movement” was confused about who were the dogmatists and who were the empiricists:

    http://twitter.com/Gdfollow/status/241840693721591808
    ppl forget,whole scientific community had concensus the world was flat

    Followed up by the ‘Movement':

    http://twitter.com/GalileoMovement/status/241843362422996992
    And the sun revolved around the earth

  80. #80 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    “ppl forget,whole scientific community had concensus the world was flat”

    Scientific community knew the world wasn’t. Heck, even the priests knew it wasn’t, it was the unlettered who were told by the church that the world was flat because the bible said so. Gallileo got into trouble for putting the evidence in Spanish which the common man could read rather than in Latin which only the educated could read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

    Seems ppl think that ppl are stupid.

  81. #81 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    Mack, coming from you, that’s practically a professional endorsement!

  82. #82 bill
    September 1, 2012

    BEN:

    the lefty institute of left leaning insufferable a-holes

    You mustard spreading ecological paper weight.

    your arguments fall apart like cat chow in a digestive tract.

    Your list of publications is almost as long as my last excrement

    I clubbed a baby seal in your name last week as well, you simpering chimp-minded intellectual pansy.

    you oafish Canadian yak milker.

    MACK: [to Ben] Thanks for the laughs Ben. I wish to carry your babies.
    [to Wow] You’re a foulmouthed juvenile imbecile Wow.

    I notice your new featherweight hero has flitted away, incidentally.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2012

    For some strange reason, you claim to agree with many of my points, but then use that as a platform for a vitriolic personal attack.

    That’s the classic hallmark of a concern troll – claiming to agree, and then using that agreement as a platform to attack or mislead those in agreement by expressing concern about their methods and advocating changes they (covertly) prefer.

    I’m not asserting that BPW is a concern troll – but I’m (ahem) concerned that (s)he’s giving off that odour which seems to reduce the effectiveness of BPW’s overt goals ;-)

  84. #84 Chris O'Neill
    September 1, 2012

    so few substantive points

    I noticed this on the ABC news website:

    A 1997 study put the global economic value of soil biodiversity – thanks to often scorned creatures such as worms, woodlice and beetles – at $US1.5 trillion a year.

    $US1.5 trillion a year. Yeah that’s insubstantial.

  85. #85 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    BPW is als completely unconcerned about MackKarenSunspot’s posts.

  86. #86 jrkrideau
    September 1, 2012

    @ Wow
    “ppl forget,whole scientific community had concensus the world was flat”
    Scientific community knew the world wasn’t. Heck, even the priests knew it wasn’t, it was the unlettered who were told by the church that the world was flat because the bible said so. Gallileo got into trouble for putting the evidence in Spanish which the common man could read rather than in Latin which only the educated could read.

    Err you might want to check that a bit more. The flat earth myth seems to have been part of the reformation propaganda, later expanded on by various factions in the 19th Century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth. It was no part of Medaeval or Early Modern Church dogma.

    Gallileo did not write in Spanish—I don’t know but I doubt that he spoke or wrote the lanaguage. He wrote in Italian although he was perfectly fluent in Latin [Drake, Stillman, Galileo, Past Masters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980)]

    Writing in Italian was a bit daring as it limited the availability of his writings to those who read Italian. Most or all educated men (and women?) in Europe in Gallileo’s time read and wrote Latin (it was a bit like English today, the scientific and policital lingua franca). Remember Newton wrote “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” not “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” which was published 45 years after Gallileo’s death.

    And Gallileo did not get into trouble for puttng something in the vernacular, whether Spanish or Italian–I think he did get some snide comments from the “learned” Aristotilean _scientists_ of his day. He got into trouble for a) advancing the heliocentric model without quite enought proof to convince a somewhat stacked jury of almost peers and b) publishing something that a paranoid pope thought was a deliberate personal attack on him. Well a bit over simplified but it covers some or most of the issues See the Trial of Galileo Galilei – where is that ref?

  87. #87 ianam
    September 1, 2012

    Again the imbecile BPW tone trolls … what a bore.

  88. #88 ianam
    September 1, 2012

    Well a bit over simplified

    Yes, quite a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

  89. #89 ianam
    September 1, 2012

    What strikes me is that people like you, who claim to be enlightened in these issues, do not hesitate to attack members of your ‘own team’ for alleged misbehavior

    I don’t see any evidence in BPW’s posts that s/h is enlightened, or a member of “our team”. The turd has nothing of substance to say and has nothing to say about the large amount of substance we post. I just posted a series of substantive comments about economics, and all the imbecile can see is that I said “fuck”.

  90. #90 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    Well, you did say it quite a few times.

    But don’t you realise? BPW is the one and sole arbiter of how you should live your life. Just bow down to him and he’ll bless you.

  91. #91 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    “What strikes me is that people like you, who claim to be enlightened in these issues, do not hesitate to attack members of your ‘own team’ for alleged misbehavior”

    Well, apart from being rather hypocritical, are the right arguments and the truth more important than maintaining a clique?

  92. #92 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    “Err you might want to check that a bit more. The flat earth myth seems to have been part of the reformation propaganda, ”

    Err, you may just want to correct me.

    After posting I’d realised I’d put spanish in instead of italian. But couldn’t be arsed over it.

  93. #93 ianam
    September 1, 2012

    Well, you did say it quite a few times.

    Gee, really? You’re so sharp. Now excuse me as I go back to ignoring you.

  94. #94 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    Did you ever stop?

    Oh, you did. Just so you could be an arsehole.

  95. #95 ianam
    September 1, 2012

    That makes two of us. Now fuck off.

  96. #96 Wow
    September 1, 2012

    Nope, you’re the only arsehole here, inane.

  97. #97 ianam
    September 2, 2012

    Unlike you I’m honest, asshole.

  98. #98 Wow
    September 2, 2012

    I decline the request to enter into your alternative universe, inane.

  99. #99 Marco
    September 2, 2012

    Children, children, get a room!

  100. #100 Wow
    September 2, 2012

    Eeeeew!

    Off to get some brain bleach. And just before teatime, too!

Current ye@r *