March 2017 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    April 23, 2017

    Stu2, read the Farrell papers before making a bigger monkey out of yourself. Of course there is a huge anti-scientific war being waged. Farrell went through 20 years and tens of thousands of pages of documents showing a very well funded and organized veritable labyrinthine network of denial involving corporations, think tanks, astroturf groups, the media and politicians in the United States. His papers are truly alarming, or they would be if it wasn’t so patently obvious that powerful vested interests focusing on short-term profit are doing everything in their power to influence public opinion. You make off-the-cuff remarks without even reading what Farrell and others have to say.

  2. #2 Stu 2
    April 23, 2017

    Jeff.
    It’s politics.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    April 23, 2017

    Stu2, your #99 kicks off with a display of ignorance and continues with arguments against thing I have not written or have not called into question. You have been insinuating words and ideas that are not mine – that is dishonest, to say the least.

    There is no ‘anti science war’.

    You are displaying a high degree of insouciance. For that has been well documented e.g. in:

    The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do about It
    by Shawn Lawrence Otto

    Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists as the Earth Heated Up
    by Raymond S. Bradley

    The Inquisition of Climate Science18 Jan 2013
    by James Lawrence Powell

    Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming
    by Mark Bowen

    Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate
    by Stephen H. Schneider

    The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth
    by Eric Pooley

    Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity
    by James Hansen

    Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
    by Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes

    Climatology Versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics28 Feb 2015
    by Dana Nuccitelli

    Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
    by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore

    Straight Up: America’s Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions
    by Joseph J. Romm

    Now you Stu2 flippantly suggested that I read more widely, it happens that I have – you not so much clearly otherwise you would have been aware of and studied the above sources.

    But there is more:

    Robert Brulle has done much to expose the donor links to the anti science propaganda effort, follow the ‘The full paper is available here
    ‘ link at the foot of that article. See also http://drexel.edu/now/experts/Overview/brulle-robert/ for more.

    John Mashey is another who has done stirling work in uncovering the money trails as well as assisting, along with DeepClimate, with the demolition of The Wegman Report also shedding additional unfavourable light on the activities of a Steve McIntyre (search around here at Deltoid to discover more about the unsavoury behaviour of that trouble maker).

    You’re confusing science with politics.

    Oh no! Not at all! It is you who cannot appreciate that scientific studies has coalesced around lines of reasoning vis a vis climate change and the environment, reasoning which should inform political actions in order to ameliorate the situation we are heading into. Unfortunately there are those who see only a hit on their revenue stream, which is clearly the case with some fossil fuel interests with Matt Ridley being just one such. These compromised individuals are well represented in the sources cited above.

    Local efforts, including the ones that Jeff mentions @#85 and Craig links @# 74 are far from negligible.
    They’re actually measurable.

    Where have I indicated otherwise. I have not been suggesting they are negligible. Indeed I have not been discussing those other than to point out without a concerted effort across the globe to recognise that we are asset stripping the planet, living high on the capital of natural resources, clearly a situation that cannot continue. We outstrip sustainable resources and have been doing so since around 1975.

    I disagree with your contention that nothing is worthwhile unless we all focus on your ‘the bigger picture’.

    Wordtwister. That is not what I was saying, go back and read it again. OK here it is:

    Efforts which are of negligible value unless this bigger picture painted by short-termism in corporate and governmental strategies where the likes of Tol and Lomborg so like to muddy the waters [is tackled too].

    Which I admit was not correctly finished, I was interrupted, now I have inserted some context in parenthesis.

    There is no evidence that dismantling whole socio-economic systems achieves good environmental outcomes.

    That is a logic fail. Evidence can not be obtained before the fact.

    I repeat, we are asset stripping the planet, living high on the capital of natural resources, clearly a situation that cannot continue. We outstrip sustainable resources and have been doing so since around 1975.

    The most fundamental change we have to make is to the short-termism endemic in business and governance. Continuing the ‘current socio-economic systems’ (as you put it) is a route to disaster. This is why I think you should pay attention to books such as that written by Tony Juniper. Have you done so yet? If not don’t respond on this point until you have.

  4. #4 Betula
    April 23, 2017

    Hardley – “Notice how Betula is ranting on about me again and nobody is listening?”

    Who are you taking to, the half dozen people that follow this nothing blog?
    The fact is Hardley, you’re listening and it bothers the hell out of you that I have exposed your many lies and exaggerations…
    Meanwhile, it is obvious that you have yet to prove where I have distorted, lied, or misled. Just because you say it, it doesn’t make it so…prove it.
    Here’s an idea….use your computer to take any words I have posted that belong to you or Elberling, and then try to explain how they are not your exact words or Elberling’s exact words…

    A few examples:

    1. An Algonquin Comedy –

    Hardley -: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

    Hardley – “In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

    And when confronted about these statements:

    Hardley – “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”

    2. Comedy Gold Regarding a paper you posted:

    Hardley – “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

    So I read it, including what the co-author said about it…and found this:

    Elberling – “urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

    Elberling – “We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says.

    Perhaps you should consider doing “scientific” stand up. I’m sure it would be much more lucrative than hanging out with spiders while getting frostbite…

  5. #5 Lionel A
    April 23, 2017

    Did somebody pass wind again @#4?

  6. #6 Lionel A
    April 23, 2017

    Stu2

    I forgot one title in the above:

    Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America
    by Shawn Lawrence Otto

    Informed people get it, clearly you do not.

    From elsewhere:

    “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

    Now can you grasp the FACTS of the matter?

  7. #7 Stu 2
    April 23, 2017

    Lionel & Jeff.
    Humans & human politics create & engage in wars. Not science.
    So even if human scientists are engaging in a war, it’s still human politics, not science.
    Have you ever heard of the concept ‘noble cause corruption’?

  8. #8 Lionel A
    April 23, 2017

    Humans & human politics create & engage in wars. Not science.

    Stating the obvious now aren’t we.

    So even if human scientists are engaging in a war, it’s still human politics, not science.

    By which time they are no longer scientists but advocates – cut price advocates at that, paid by the fossil fuel lobby and friends. Judas money.

    As for ‘war on science’ have you ever heard of the concept of a metaphorical allusion.

    Maybe you are one of those unfortunates who always take things literally – there is a name for that condition, one which escapes me right now. Could explain allot about your wibbling in exchanges.

  9. #9 Stu 2
    April 23, 2017

    Yes Lionel.
    It’s obvious that you’re arguing politics and not Science.
    If scientists are being ‘advocates’, they’re being political not scientific.
    It is not only happening via ‘the fossil fuel lobby & friends’.
    Once again, you’re assigning teams and labels and attemting to claim some type of noble ‘high ground’ and manufacturing a melodramatic white hat/black hat political opinion.
    It’s entirely unproductive, negative and circular.
    The real environment doesn’t care about human politics.
    But plenty of humans, from all walks of life do care about the environment.

  10. #10 Betula
    April 24, 2017

    It’s nice to see that Lionel is on board with Trump regarding his selection for Secretary of Defense…Here’s another quote from James Mattis that Lionel will enjoy-

    “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

    Oh, and Lionel….if you continue to smell something while you are alone at your computer, well, maybe it would be wise to get a check up. You’re getting up there in years….just sayin.

  11. #11 Christopher H
    Australia
    April 24, 2017

    So Stu 2 says there is no war on science: because any such war is by, and on, people.
    Funny, that. If someone dedicates themselves to attacking the methods, practitioners, and results of science, because they are the methods, practitioners and results of science, I’d call that making a war on science.
    And if someone defends the methods, practitioners, and results of science I’t call that defending against a war on science.
    Maybe politics explain the reason for the war. Maybe there are political reasons to defend against the war. But the war isn’t somehow separate from science. And for scientists to defend their methods and results is obviously part of science.
    Try for a rational position, Stu 2.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    April 24, 2017

    ” this experiment (in American democracy)”

    Since the US is a plutocracy, ot worse still, a kleptocracy, its just another example of a retarded moron wearing a military uniform spouting absolute garbage. And the US won’t wage any wars it doesn’t think it can win. After humiliating defeat in Viet Nam the doctrine has been to beat up countries that are defenseless but worth the trouble. Iraq is a classic example. And yet they botched even that cake-walk up, too, and it was illegal anyway. The ‘vaunted’ US military is, in fact, something of a laughingstock in much of the world.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    April 24, 2017

    Betula thinks he is bothering me? In your dreams thrid rate tree pruner. Its actually the other way around you twerp, or else you wouldn’t see the need to write in here trying – and failing – to counter everything I say. And you are the clot who once made a big deal out of the illusory fertilization effect as a benefit of increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations (utterly hilarious) and the wild turkey/white-tailed deer/coyote remark. Comedy gold as you would call it.

    Again, who is reading your shit? You? Seems like the rest of us aren’t. Lionel sums it up. You are passing wind. You seem good at it. If you want to rey debating science go right ahead. You rarely do, and its clear why. You realize that your arguments will be destroyed. So insterad you rather obsessively search high and low for everything I have ever written or said on the internet and stick with that. I think you need a shrink, seriously. I feel uncomfortable with your stalking. I hope that your family is aware of your obsession. They might call the doctor on your behalf.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    April 24, 2017

    As for Elberling, he never said that the risk of stored carbon in the arctic being released into the atmosphere was a trivial concern. That’s your reading, idiot. Thankfully you are an island. The rest of us know exactly what kind of threat it represents. You appear to think that your views are legion, hugely important. My gosh you have a monstrous ego. Based on what? Shearing tree branches?

  15. #15 Betula
    April 24, 2017

    Hardley – “you wouldn’t see the need to write in here trying – and failing – to counter everything I say”

    You do a pretty good job of countering yourself – It’s very entertaining:

    Hardley -: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

    Hardley – “In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

    Hardley – “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”

  16. #16 Betula
    April 24, 2017

    Hardley – “As for Elberling, he never said that the risk of stored carbon in the arctic being released into the atmosphere was a trivial concern. That’s your reading, idiot”

    Actually, it’s your reading. All I did was post was you said and then post what he said….the rest is comedy gold:

    Hardley – “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

    Elberling – “urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

    Elberling – “We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says.

    If the above comments bother you, perhaps you should interpret yourself differently…

  17. #17 Betula
    April 24, 2017

    Lionel @6 posts –
    “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee”.

    Hardley @12 gives us his opinion of Mattis – “its just another example of a retarded moron wearing a military uniform spouting absolute garbage”

    The Deltoid forces working against each other…just too easy.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    April 24, 2017

    Stu 2 your #9 on this page is another hagfish type response. That, BTW is a comparative description and not a personal insult – another concept of which you have a rather loose understanding — which also is a statement of fact, if you take it as an insult and don’t like it you know what to do.

    It’s obvious that you’re arguing politics and not Science.

    In one respect yes, so your point here is….?

    It is abundantly clear that political influences have attempted to distort or neuter the messages that have come out of the sciences involved in climate and ecological issues.

    If scientists are being ‘advocates’, they’re being political not scientific.

    Well yes. But the difference is between the lackeys (Curry, Soon, Michaels, Lindzen etc) of the fossil fuel and related industries (I was using those by way of example not wishing to turn one post into a thesis) and those uncompromised scientists who are countering the miserable efforts of the aforementioned by presenting information from their still active research.

    If a political and fossil fuel beholden ideologue such as Lamar Smith (a lawyer) turns a supposedly House Committee on Science, Space & Technology hearing into a denial circus then of course any response from a climate scientist witness such as Michael Mann is going to be political. How could Mann avoid that.

    The difference between Mann and the likes of Curry and Christy is that Mann is still carrying out scientific studies and publishing in journals. If Curry and Christy have fallen out of that loop it is because of their continuing use of devious language and illustrations (e.g. charts) at successive hearings of the type Lamar Smith called, as did Ted Cruz at the back end of 2015.

    When it comes to labels, these are useful for categorizing the mode of behaviour of idividuals engaged in the controversy, this has nothing to do with claiming any ‘noble high ground’ but if you think that I can see why it should irk you because Mann & co. can easily claim any such whereas Curry & co. clearly can not.

    The real environment doesn’t care about human politics.

    But the real environment is going to be affected by the resultant politically directed actions for good or bad. If Lamar Smith and similar get their way it can only be bad and he is of the ilk that is creating unproductive, negative and circular arguments and policies.

    Just a couple of examples marking Lamar Smith’s trail of destruction:

    The House science committee hates science and should be disbanded

    The House Science Committee’s Anti-Science Rampage. You may not know who Lawrence M Krauss is – look him up, I have some of his books and other writings here – a part of that wider reading of mine about which you showed ignorance.

    But plenty of humans, from all walks of life do care about the environment.

    Have I ever made out to the contrary? No, quite the reverse. Besides, there are many more, in supposedly educated civilised societies who do not. You may like to find out how the US population stands on ability in science and mathematics compare with other nations – the low standing is shocking and Lamar Smith is but one example.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    April 24, 2017

    The Deltoid forces working against each other…just too easy.

    My quote re Mattis was to enlighten Stu2 about the fact that others recognise the role of climate change in destabilising a region of interest to US foreign policy.

    The fact that Mattis has a rather nasty anti-humanitarian streak is another matter and is not contradicting the point of my message, or any of Jeff’s. Of course we have to make allowances for your lack of ability in separating concepts within a larger sphere of geo-politics.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    April 24, 2017

    More wind at #15 and #16 I see.

  21. #21 Betula
    April 24, 2017

    Lionel – “My quote re Mattis was to enlighten Stu2 about the fact that others recognise the role of climate change”

    Yes, other “retarded morons”…..well done!

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    April 24, 2017

    “Its so easy’ ridiculing us according to Betula in his own N = 1 cheering session. The idiot thinks others are listening to him. They think that people care why I went to Algonquin Park, or what our PR person wrote about after I cam back. Yes, my friend and colleague went there first and foremost to become the first people to cross the park in winter. We achieved it. A smaller reason was to see if there is any evidence of climate change in a central part of the norther mixed forests. I only commented that I saw huge numbers of inverts along a linear transect when normal temperatures are 21 F in the day and 0 F at night. Was it a first hand example of climate change? Most probably yes. Sure.

    End of story.

    Not for the wood chipper. No, be is a right wing asshole who believes in UN-orchestrated conspiracies and who denies the reality of AGW and its potentially serious consequences. So this uneducated jackass has been banging away about Algonquin Park for the past 5 years. Did I see AGW first hand? Or Not? Does my entire credibility as a scientist hinge on this? In birch bark’s view it does. So he relentlessly pounds away at it, when nobody else on this frigging planet does. Lionel and I put up piles of scientific links – virtually all ignored by our Tea Party worshipping geek. He’s a wimp, we all know that, as he hides behind an anonymous handle. Coward.

    And when this wimpy geek does reply to a paper, its to try and dismiss its significance not with any scientific rejoinders but by partially quoting the 17th author who didn’t write it. As if that is the end of the story. Of course it isn’t, but to the wimpy anonymous tree pruner it is.

    Methinks its time to get Betula banned from here. And I can do it. I got Kim’s ass booted out of here and Betula hasn’t once in 6 years contributed something scientific here so what stunning contribution can he make? Zilch.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    April 24, 2017

    Yes Lionel, Betula thinks that if Mattis accepts the serious nature of AGW then that excludes anyone from criticizing the fact that he is an imperialist jerk.

    Does Betula even work? It seems like he sits around on his computer all day obsessing over me (how sick) or else searching via Google for anything he can find to dismiss Nature papers. The guy’s a loon – one of the worst I have ever encountered on a blog. He makes Jonas look good.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    April 24, 2017

    …The guy’s a loon…

    Except that is an insult to loons

    Similarly I could describe him as a blue footed booby matching the colour with the shade of his politics but that would be an insult to boobies.

    Now I wonder if……..? I would bet he does.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    April 24, 2017

    And before Stu2 comes back with more vacuous attempts at avoiding the truth about a war on science I offer clear evidence of fossil fuel involvement in the campaign of denial and obfuscation often involving ‘deliverables’ (Willie Soon). I feel compelled to include these links because Stu2 never shows evidence of following links in articles. It is as if it doesn’t exists if he hasn’t seen it.

    The Climate Deception Dossiers

    What Exxon Knew About Climate Change

    and following a link in the above takes us here:

    Exxon: THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

    Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

    Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

  26. #26 Betula
    April 24, 2017

    Hardley – “The idiot thinks others are listening to him.”

    What ‘others”….Lionel?
    How many people do you think read this nothing blog?

    Hardley – “They think that people care why I went to Algonquin Park”

    Who are “they”? And whoever “they” are, I’m positive “they” don’t care about your Algonguin vacation…It’s your outright lies to boost your ideological belief that is the issue…and remember, you are supposed to be a “scientist”

    Believe me. I don’t care who knows. as long as you know I know…

    By the way, I notice you had the English version of the article removed. You wouldn’t have done this if it weren’t a lie…

    Hardley – “or what our PR person wrote about after I cam back.”

    Your “PR” person just wrote the lies you told him/her….without questioning the absurdity of it. Not the PR person’s fault.

    Hardley – “Was it a first hand example of climate change? Most probably yes. Sure.”

    So now it’s a “probably yes” and a “sure”. You split your previous conflicting answers right down the middle in an effort to wash away was has already been exposed…

    Good stuff Hardley….you really are a comedian

  27. #27 Betula
    April 24, 2017

    I’m still laughing at the fact that Lionel used a quote from a “retarded moron” to make his point…

  28. #28 Lionel A
    April 24, 2017

    Having been interrupted by another display of wind @#26 here is a round up of the actions of one nearly as brain damaged as Betula.

    Way to go US of A!

  29. #29 Stu 2
    April 24, 2017

    All of you are still far more interested in arguing about wars and politics and barracking for teams and etc .
    Contrary to your assertions otherwise, people are not denying that this is happening, they’re just realising that the behaviour is unproductive.
    The only result is just more and more people clamouring for attention and funding.
    There’s no shortage of information about man’s inhumanity to man or that human activity impacts the environment.
    Academic and/or bureaucratic not picking or finger pointing or duck shoving or buck passing that is only focusing on who or what is the ‘least worst’ or ‘the least not wrong’ or ‘ not specifically accountable via their job description or terms of reference’ & etc etc ad nauseum.
    Nothing gets done when that’s what everyone wants to focus on.
    What are people actually doing to actually achieve positive TBL outcomes?
    What programs and initiatives actually work to improve socio-economic and environmental outcomes?

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    April 25, 2017

    Betula is living in his fantasy world again whereby its just me and him sparring away on an innocuous blog. Well, for him it is. This blog is his only little corner of the universe in which to vent his right wing angst. Me? Sorry Mr. third rate tree pruner, I have bigger fish to fry.

    I am a Professor at a University in Holland where I teach a Master’s course in science and advocacy. Right now I have over 10 students undertaking major theses with me. I am senior editor on a strong journal and a former editor at Nature. I have published over 180 papers. Last week I was interviewed by the American Geophysical Union on how I perceive the influence of blogs to be in terms of disseminating disinformation on climate change. And I have recently been the lead author on a paper that, when published, you will definitely know all about and it will further enrage your puerile mind..

    And you? Just a sad, frustrated tree pruning nobody pining away here.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    April 25, 2017

    Stu2

    All of you are still far more interested in arguing about wars and politics and barracking for teams and etc .

    So, you have failed to study sources cited and continue to harbour misapprehensions on the slant of our arguments. You are displaying wilful ignorance – the worst kind.

    Contrary to your assertions otherwise, people are not denying that this is happening,

    Typically vacuous unspecific statement by not delineating what ‘this’ is. There are other similarly unqualified in your post which makes most of it debatable indications of a hagfish type response.

    Whatever, I have provided you with numerous sources to establish what ‘this’ could be. ‘This’ is not a single entity as you imply but rather views along a continuum from denial that climate change is happening and at a faster rate than for millennia too eschewing humanity’s role in that rapid climate change. Humanity’s now established role is the reason why the rate of change continues to accelerate.

    The remainder of your post is similar to Betula’s, akin to passing wind for you are not engaging honestly with our arguments. Why, because you could not possibly have followed my advice at the foot of #3 the one containing a list of sources you really need to study before replying further.

    That you refuse to do so does indeed demonstrate that you are repeatedly looping the loop which if not interrupted ends in a crash and burn — you are close to that point.

  32. #32 Betula
    April 25, 2017

    Hardley – “The idiot thinks others are listening to him.”

    Hardley – “Betula is living in his fantasy world again whereby its just me and him sparring away”

    Which is it Hardley. make up your mind…

    Again…too easy.

  33. #33 Lionel A
    April 25, 2017
  34. #34 Betula
    April 25, 2017

    Hardley @14 – “My gosh you have a monstrous ego”

    Hardley @30 – “I am a Professor at a University in Holland where I teach a Master’s course in science and advocacy. Right now I have over 10 students undertaking major theses with me. I am senior editor on a strong journal and a former editor at Nature. I have published over 180 papers. Last week I was interviewed by the American Geophysical Union on how I perceive the influence of blogs to be in terms of disseminating disinformation on climate change. And I have recently been the lead author on a paper that, when published, you will definitely know all about and it will further enrage your puerile mind”

    Again, Hardley @14 – “My gosh you have a monstrous ego”

    Yes, when someone’s life revolves around hyperparasitoids, they have to imagine they are more important than they really are….and others that have (and create) real meaningful jobs are less important.
    How else could they make it through the day?

  35. #35 Stu 2
    April 25, 2017

    Lionel
    sigh 🙁
    Yes we know.
    Humanity impacts the environment.
    But what are people actually doing to actually achieve positive TBL outcomes?
    What programs and initiatives actually work to improve socio-economic and environmental outcomes?

  36. #36 Betula
    April 25, 2017

    Stu – “What programs and initiatives actually work to improve socio-economic and environmental outcomes?”

    You know the answer Stu …. the development of the undeveloped nations paid for by the developed nations, creating more CO2 emissions in the process…..unless of course, someone can explain how massive development on a global scale would reduce CO2 emissions in the short and long run, particularly since there would be more consumption, manufacturing, construction, shipping, transportation, use of the earths resources etc…

    I wonder if any of the big evil corporations would be involved in the development? Probably not, I’m sure it would be just the small mom and pop shops…

    Anyway, Hardley studies hyperparasitoids and sees global climate change in every spider….so I’m sure he has the answer.

  37. #37 Betula
    April 25, 2017

    @33 – At what point will Lionel realize that he is sitting in his own stink?

  38. #38 Lionel A
    April 25, 2017

    I see amidst the gale of wind evident in #36 B-bopper mentions one of the very sectors which require realigning of their business model. BAU can only lead us into more trouble and it is not the fault of the populace of developing countries who have been pillaged and enslaved to the rampant beast of economics based upon so called ‘free markets’ and endless growth, which latter is based upon damaging metrics for a finite planet and which the likes of which Colin Tudge addresses in his books – the ones that Stu2 refuses to study for if he had he would not be repeating his inane simplistic questions and expecting to be fed information on a plate.

    It is this picture that Stu2 is trying so hard to not see.

  39. #39 Betula
    April 25, 2017

    Lionel – “BAU can only lead us into more trouble and it is not the fault of the populace of developing countries who have been pillaged and enslaved to the rampant beast of economics based upon so called ‘free markets’ and endless growth”

    Well there it is, what this is really all about… and yes, I did notice how my question was side stepped.

    The rich nations are to blame for the poisonous CO2 that may potentially cause the future catastrophic scenarios that will obviously affect the poor nations the hardest.
    The solution is to have the rich nations pay to develop the poor nations, thus creating a net of more CO2 emissions…
    This way, the poor nations are compensated for the pillaging, plundering, and raping of their resources, the world gets to share in the emitting of CO2, and we all become equally evil and destructive…..social justice at it’s best.

    Except for Lionel and Hardley of course, who like Gandhi, will reduced themselves to zero in order to save the world…