April 2015 Open Thread

April already

More like this

Less than a month now! Dear Aard readers Heather Flowers and Erin Emmerich of the University of Minnesota have invited me to speak there in April. My wife will accompany me and interpret whenever we run into someone who speaks only Mandarin. Now, Dear Reader: can you offer me further Minnesota…
After a week of excitement—complex volcanism, the 40th Earth Day, and cinematic cephalopods—the weekend brought us the 20th anniversary of the Hubble Space Telescope's launch. On April 24, 1990, Space Shuttle Discovery lugged the silvery tube of mirrors, circuitry, and solar panels into low earth…
OK, skeptics, listen up! Bora's set to host the 33rd Meeting of the Skeptics' Circle over at Science and Politics on next Thursday, April 27. If you haven't already done so, this weekend is the perfect opportunity to submit your best skeptical blogging to Bora before 5 PM EDST on Wednesday, April…
So here it is, already a week into 2015. Truth be told, I'm still finding myself having a hard time believing that it's already 2015, but then I say that about every year in early January. Be that as it may, I've already seen one hopeful sign that it could be a decent year when it comes to science…

So lets recap from the end of March:

Stu2 references an article saying:

” The data shows that between 2003 and 2012, the surface vegetation has increased by 4 billion metric tons of carbon. The improvement in the green cover was particularly notable in former Soviet nations, China, the savannahs of Africa, Australia and South America.”

and claims this is "good news for a change".

1. I ask why this is good news, providing helpful hints that this is substantially due to La Nina patterns of the time of the study, with the obvious corrollary that this carbon will likely be returned to the atmosphere during the next similar-length period dominated by El Ninos - the "greening" has only been borrowed from the future.
Stu2 fails to respond.

2. Wow asks the very pertinent question: "And how many billion metric tons of carbon did we add to the atmosphere during that time, Stupid?"
Stu2 fails to respond.

3. Bernard J makes the ggod point: "Do you understand that an increase in vegetation biomass does not necessarily indicate an increase in floral biodiversity, and especially not an increase in faunal biodiversity?"
Stu2 fails to respond.

4. Jeff observes: "The fact that the study shows that increased biomass only countered around 50% of that lost by deforestation isn’t really good news at all. "
Stu2 does respond, with a vacuous Micawberan "The last time I checked 50% is indeed better than nothing."

And then doubles down with some fantasising: "if a study in the future finds that the remaining 50% had been rejuvenated you & your fellow misanthropic mates would still not find anything good to say about it."
Clearly this moron has no idea what "misanthropic" means. Jeff and "his mates" argue against devastating the lives and livelihoods of billions by continuing our progress towards completely fucking the environment on which they depend. And they are the misanthropes? Get a dictionary, Stu2 and then look in the mirror .

In the immortal words of the philosopher Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

That'd be right. I post a set of replies to Craig on the March thread and only THEN do I notice the April one has arrived. Doh!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 05 Apr 2015 #permalink

Jeff and “his mates” argue against devastating the lives and livelihoods of billions by continuing our progress towards completely fucking the environment on which they depend. And they are the misanthropes?

All together now: "it's always projection!"

1/2 a ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 05 Apr 2015 #permalink

Frank D.
The headline states it is good news.
The researchers found there was a 50% improvement.
They also mention variability.
The amount of carbon added to the atmosphere was not included in this particular paper.
The finding was that there is a 50% improvement in greening the planet so I guess Bernard J would need to ask the researchers if they studied specific flora. They make no mention of fauna.
I know what misanthropic means.
Hope that helps?

I know what misanthropic means.

So your error was malice rather than incompetence.

OK.

The headline states it is good news.

You stated it was good news.

If all you're going to do is say what the headline says, then don't say it, let the headline say it where it likes to be, on the original source.

Chill out and read the paper Wow.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2581…

I'm not the one suffering from malice malaise here. My use of the word misanthropic, while perhaps being a little harsh, was merely an observation of long term behaviour here.
Frank D's comment that was repeated by Lotharsson also exhibits similarities in attitude:
" continuing our progress towards completely fucking the environment on which they depend."

Here is a definition of Misanthropy for you:

"a hatred of mankind; pessimistic distrust of human nature expressed in thought and behaviour. Cf. philanthropy. — misanthrope, misanthropist, n. — misanthropic, adj.

We also should probably define pessimism:
pessimism
/ˈpɛsɪmɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: pessimism
a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen.
synonyms: defeatism, negative thinking, negativity, expecting the worst, doom and gloom, gloom, gloominess;
More
hopelessness, lack of hope, cynicism, fatalism, depression, despair, melancholy, despondency, dejection, angst, distrust, doubt;
Weltschmerz;
informal
looking on the black side
"formerly he had been prone to pessimism, full of gloomy predictions about the future"

And because of Jeff Harvey's comment re the glass, this might also help?

A common idiom used to illustrate optimism versus pessimism is a glass with water at the halfway point, where the optimist is said to see the glass as half full, however the pessimist sees the glass as half empty. The term is originally derived from the Latin optimum, meaning "best".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism

What you all seem to missing is that some good work is being done by many, including people I work with.
Along with climatic variability, that work is showing positive results.
In Agriculture, in places like Australia, much work has been done to correct past errors.
Unlike some of you apparently, I do think that is good news.
Of course it isn't perfect or 100%.
Neither the research nor the subsequent reporting is claiming 100% perfection.
However, the glass is filling up, which is good news.
:-)
50% improvement is indeed better than no improvement.

2.

Philosophy

a belief that this world is as bad as it could be or that evil will ultimately prevail over good

"The finding was that there is a 50% improvement in greening the planet"
Exactly, orthagonally wrong. I wonder if Stu2 got past the "Good news" headline he repeated?

The authors discuss the paper here: http://theconversation.com/despite-decades-of-deforestation-the-earth-i…

"We also found unexpectedly large vegetation increases in savannas and shrublands of Australia, Africa, and South America....More variability and an apparently increasing frequency of extreme El Niño and La Niña events due to climate change would create stronger boom-bust cycles in Australia’s vegetation....However, it remains to be seen how the increased climate variability that accompanies climate change will affect this terrestrial “carbon sink” in future. This is particularly true for seasonally dry ecosystems that experience fires, such as Australia’s savannas, where a single fire event can easily remove the carbon stored in plant biomass over many previous years."

The "50% improvement in greening" Stu2 (wongly) claims they found represents the pemanent loss of habitat in rainforests against the temporary sequestration of carbon in other habitats - storage which will only last until the next prolonged dry spell.

Describing this as good news is like thinking that a pawn-broking transaction favours the borrower, not the broker. Is Stu2 really that stupid?

This paper is, in any case, not news at all. We already knew 25% of our carbon imbalance is taken up by terrestrial plants, and another 25% by the oceans. This paper simply reaffirms that point and provides more accurate measurements on a regional basis, and from a "debit / credit" perspective. (But note that from that last perspective, we are still deep in the red).

I'll finish with another quote from the authors: "Therefore, stabilising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the consequent impact on the climate system will still require large reductions of global fossil fuel emissions.

Stu2 said it was good news. Where's the good news then?

"However, the glass is filling up, which is good news."

So a temporary gain offset against a permanent loss is "the glass filling up", in Stu2's world. What happens when the temporary gain is lost, as it will be (by definition) and as the authors state. Will Stu2 think the glass is still half-full then?

There is a difference between "optimism" and "self-delusion". Stu2 does not seem to have grokked it, though.

For all Stu2's convenient distraction into the question of optimism and pressimism, misanthropy has little to do with those concepts, except perhaps in casual misuse.

It comes from the Greek roots "misein, "to hate" and anthropos, "man". His dictionary quote is formally accurate only as far as "a hatred of mankind".

So who hates mankind here; the Stu2's who are happy to see mankind continue slouching to disaster, or the "Jeff and his mates" who would rather see that end?

Have you ever heard of an 'own goal' or 'hoisting your own petard' Frank D?
And I do indeed think the glass is filling, despite the fact that of course, more needs to be done.
Some excellent work has been done to repair past errors and it is indeed measureable.
The plethora of rejuvenated, thriving native flora and fauna where I live and work is quite remarkable.
It happens right amongst improved land use practices.
I'm not a bit surprised that one of the places that exhibits improvement is in Australia.
Neither am I a bit surprised that variable climate conditions play an important role.
The recovery since the millennium drought broke in Australia is simply amazing.
Of course, our natural environment is largely ephemeral, especially in inland Australia.
Neither the quoted research nor any of the subsequent reports in the media have claimed anything other than the fact that there is measureable improvement and that they have a better way to record and measure.
The last time I checked, measureable improvement is good news.
50% improvement, on any scale, is also much better than nothing.
Your assumption about me in your rhetorical question is simply laughable.
Why would you assume that I am happy to see mankind continue slouching towards disaster?

“However, the glass is filling up, which is good news.”

No it isn't. It's not filling up. All that's happening is that something is a negative feedback, slowing the disaster. Spreading your arms out as you fall to your death will slow you down, but it's not good news.

But Stupid, you're not really here to claim good news,because you don't believe that there's a problem.

It's a rhetorical trick to pretend to be nice when you're trying to claim that there's no problem.

The "news" that you parrot (do you have ANY thoughts of your own?) isn't news, it's just evidence that the science is correct. Which means more proof that AGW is correct.

"Have you ever heard of an ‘own goal’ or ‘hoisting your own petard’ "

Yes, you have done both. Another word you know the meaning of, but don't care?

The "news" is confirmation that the science is sound, the science that says AGW exists, and it's evidence that if we stop CO2 emission we'd fix the problem, its not necessarily too late.

But you won't take the news, will you? Because it shows that you need to do something to cut emissions.

And you won't do that.

"Chill out and read the paper Wow."

I did.

And, unlike you, understood it.

I take it that your "good news" is that it isn't as if plants have stopped growing?

"Another word you know the meaning of, but don’t care?"

Actually, whether he cares or not, he doesn't even know the meaning of it, since the expression is not "hoisting your own petard". Anyone who knows the phrase in context would never make that error, so we can confidently infer that Stu2 doesn't. But then Stu2 doesn't really "do" context, does he.

*For those who are curious, it is first seen in print in Hamlet, when he reveals that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are bearing their own death sentences:
There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way,
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

Hoisting your own petard, indeed. What a buffon.

Why would you assume that I am happy to see mankind continue slouching towards disaster?

Why? Because you have been posting here for, what, two years, and in that time I have literally never seen you post anything that genuinely suggested the optimistic Pollyanna-ish delusion you like to ape. Rather your behaviour shows evasion, mendacity, deliberate wanton falsification. And whatever your reason for your conduct, it reveals, inter alia, that you are content that humanity should continue its current automutilation.

The cynical, wafer-thin veneer of civility and optimism fools no-one, (except perhaps yourself). I've seen sealions do it better. If you are happy to be seen in this light, then the question itself is just another example that pathology. If, against all expectation, you do want to change or "correct" peoples impression of you as a low-life enabling scumbag, you need to stop behaving like one.

But pending such a change, I will continue to prize your miserable* faux-optimism as described in that previous quote from Hamlet: "I will trust as I will adders fang’d"

*in every sense covered by miserabilis: pitiable, miserable, deplorable, lamentable, wretched, sad.

Enough of this garbage from Stu2 for he could do with watching this presentation by Jim White: Abrupt Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future, H/T 'Climate Denial Crock of the Week' for the reminder.

Pay attention Stu2, one zombie slain is '...it has changed in the past..' We know that and understand the context.

Come on Stu2, don't be an ignorant numptie all your life.

"It's changed in the past" says nothing, though. Yes, it changed in the past. And it's changing now.

This time it's us.

the intent is that "It changed in the past" is that we should discard the idea it's us now. It doesn't SAY anything of the sort, though.

It DOES call bullshit on those claiming it's not changing now, however.

"Why would you assume that I am happy to see mankind continue slouching towards disaster?"

Because you're doing everything possible to make sure it happens, Stupid.

Stu2 writes like a poor grade school student. His argument is like saying, "Initially we believed that 100% of species of amphibians worldwide were decreasing, but instead new data shows that only 50% are actually experiencing negative population trends! That's good news innit? Or that "We formerly thought that all Polar Bear populations were in population freefall, but now only half of them are!"

It's not good news at all. It still constitutes a disaster. The same thing is true about plant biomass. Bernard raised some serious ecophysiological points. But its amazing how contrarians can take any bit of information and twist it to support their own warped views.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Apr 2015 #permalink

One final point. That tropical deforestation has slowed in no way means that it has stopped. Given that about half or even more of the world's tropical forests have been cut already, at some point it has to slow because there simply won't be any left to cut. Stu2 is trying to cunningly (or not) indicate that increased atmospheric C02 concentrations have good fringe benefits in facilitating the regrowth of degraded ecosystems. At the same time he's trying to suggest that natural systems can cope well with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Its clear where he's coming from. Its the old nature can deal with whatever we throw at it canard and not only that; he's implying that its a good thing we are putting more C02 into the atmosphere because forest and savannah ecosystems will benefit offsetting the destruction humans have wrought on these systems.

Aside from the usual suspects, you won't find a scientist around who would say that this kind of result is good news. It seems idiotic to argue that we are destroying vast tracks of forest and grassland ecosystems on the one hand but that burning more fossil fuels will allow them to regenerate on the other. In fact, its insanity in my view. Its tampering on a large scale not only with the dynamics of important ecosystems but there is absolutely no guarantee that those which partially replace the originals will in any way be as diverse (species, population and genetically as rich) or as functionally stable.

The kind of conclusion Stu2 makes is based on knowing virtually nothing about complex adaptive systems, or how they assemble and function. His understanding reduces this complexity to the level of a simple board game.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Apr 2015 #permalink

No, it's simpler than that, Jeff. Stupid's conclusion was nothing more than an insistence that we should stop doing anything about AGW.

Knowledge, or its lack, was irrelevant. All that the conclusion wanted was AGW to be ignored.

Wow, Jeff Harvey & et al,
Isn't improved, sustainable land use & rejuvenating native flora and fauna doing something about the human element in AGW/Climate Change?
A lot of good people who really do care have put a lot of time & effort into that. Some of them are highly qualified even with PhDs in science.
They are interested in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Isn’t improved, sustainable land use & rejuvenating native flora and fauna doing something about the human element in AGW/Climate Change?

Isn't not fuckung the place up something BETTER for humans to be doing?

However, you don't wan that.

Your problem is you're a con and everyone knows it.

Pretending is not working.

Stu2, Prevention is far better than cure. There are limits to the abilty of terrestrial and marine ecosystems to soak up ever increasing amounts of C02 that we are putting into the atmosphere. Essentially, we have lucked out in that biomass levels in some systems are partially (but not fully) compensating. This was not always a given; its just slowing but not stopping the ultimate effects of C02 and thus AGW.

The solutions to AGW are political and economic. All you do is play into the hands of those who think business-as-usual is the only business. Delay, fudge, obfuscate etc. and pray than natural systems will rebound and deal with every assault we inflict upon them.

By Jeffrey Harvey (not verified) on 07 Apr 2015 #permalink

Stu2 writes like a poor grade school student. His argument is like saying, “Initially we believed that 100% of species of amphibians worldwide were decreasing, but instead new data shows that only 50% are actually experiencing negative population trends! That’s good news innit? Or that “We formerly thought that all Polar Bear populations were in population freefall, but now only half of them are!”

Actually Jeff, while you are quite correct, I think you've missed the subtlety in Stu2's gambit here. Stu2 claims a "50% improvement in greening" (which is factually incorrect - the paper doesn't claim that at all). Your analogy to Polar Bears would be more accurate as: "we thought that all Polar Bear populations were in free fall, and it turns out they are, but don't worry because Grizzlies are growing, so it all kind of evens out".

Stu2's optimism depends on:
1. False equivalence between regions (that low-diversity scrub and grassland is equivalent to high diversity rainforest).
2. False equivalence between the nature of the losses and the gains (deforestation is effectively permanent, recent greening is substantially temporary)
3. False characterisation of what the paper actually says (nowhere do they talk about a 50% improvement in anything)
4. (as you point out) the false presumption that because 50% is less than 100% therefore we are not in a slow motion catastrophe. Just a slow motion not-so-good-as-it-might-be-thing.

Stu2 has shown a mildly impressive talent for squeezing multiple layers of bogosity into a few short sentences. Would that there was a practical application for that skill.

Jeff Harvey @ # 25.
Of course prevention is better than cure.
However, over clearing has already happened right across the globe, including my own country.
I agree that it was a mistake.
Don't we need to come up with practical solutions to do what we can to repair past errors?
I ask again:
Isn’t improved, sustainable land use & rejuvenating native flora and fauna doing something about the human element in AGW/Climate Change?
I will also point out again that good, highly qualified people who really care have done much work in this area and the results are measureable.
Where I live and work in southern NSW, the rejuvenation of native flora and fauna is spectacular, along with measureable improvements in soil, surface water, ground water' yields per hectare & etc.
Much of that is natural and occurred because the drought broke but much of it is also because of improved, better informed, management techniques.
Your comments about BAU are out of date and rather 'last century'.
It is a sound bite that sounds good but doesn't mean anything relevant.
One of the things that successful business models do is adapt and change and embrace new science and technology.
In my field the entities who resist change and who inexplicably cling to out-dated and demonstrably unworkable status quos and theories are usually rooted in governance, academic and regulatory entities.
I find their major talent is to point fingers, blame another department or another institution and 'pass the buck'.
The result from that behaviour is usually that nothing gets done and nothing changes.
Out in the rough and tumble of the real world, change, adaptation and progress is happening, usually despite the behaviour of the governance, regulatory and academic entities.

Stu2, What on Earth has your last post got to do with a Nature Climate Change study suggesting that terrestrial ecosystems are partially compensating for increased atmospheric C02 concentrations? A: Nothing. Nix. Nil. What I am saying is that the fact that terrestrial and marine systems do absorb some of it has been pure luck for humanity at a time when it comes to dealing with this problem and AGW our species has done absolutely nothing. This is a point emphasized recently by James Hansen. We seem intent on delaying, sidestepping, call it what you will, as long as our addiction to fossil fuels remains intact. All the while Rome is burning. This IS business-as-usual. There's nothing remotely last century about it. The fossil fuel industry is working hard to see that things remain the same. Many of our allegedly democratic institutions are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate state. Shell doesn't see the dramatic loss of Arctic ice as an emerging ecological and environmental disaster but as a business opportunity dropping half a billion dollar drilling rigs into the sea there. Many of the new technologies you emphasize are more ecologically destructive than the ones that preceded them. This is evident in logging, fishing, mineral extraction, and other areas. And there is abundant empirical evidence that the general health of ecosystems across the biosphere is in decline. If you want, I will educate you in some of these areas. But you come on here with your kindergarten-level soundbites and expect us to accept them.

If we really want to change things we have to change the dominant economic-political system that is driving our planet's ecological life support systems down the drain. The current system is ecocidal and unsustainable. That much is patently clear.

By jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2015 #permalink

Stupid, lets start with something here: Why is that information about plant growth good news? Does this mean that you thought it was really bad, worse than the IPCC thought?

Nobody else here thinks so, which is why you're getting roasted over bringing it up. Because we know you're talking shit.

Don’t we need to come up with practical solutions to do what we can to repair past errors?

It's completely pointless to do so if we don't stop making it worse first.

Something you fight tooth and nail.

Stupid would shit in the municipal water supply and when in court claim that he's helping because he picked up a crisp packet, which made the place cleaner than before.

Where I live and work in southern NSW, the rejuvenation of native flora and fauna is spectacular,

And it's easy to get a large percent when you come from a low level.

You don't seem to realise that those plants are a spit in the hurricane compared to the CO2 we're releasing from fossil fuels.

My use of the word misanthropic, while perhaps being a little harsh, was merely an observation of long term behaviour here.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And FrankD has already dealt with "hoisting your own petard" (although the military etymology is worth noting).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Apr 2015 #permalink

Remember, Loth, to Stupid's kind, corporations are humans, and they are hurt by AGW mitigation. Proving corporations or the free market unable to make things all right hurts them. Proving that we need social structures like government to organise fixing what corporate short-sightedness did hurts them.

And it sears the very soul (such as it is) of people like Stupid.

Corporations are the 'anthropes' he thinks of, not humans, when he "sees misanthropy" here.

Stu is exaggerating the tiny.
In 2014 the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere has stabilized for the first time since (probably) the start of the Industrial Revolution or perhaps even the Roman Empire.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration however showed one of the strongest rises in the record.
This means Stu's sinks are doing nothing to help for the apparent clogging up of some much larger sinks (ocean).
It means we might be already too late to prevent kind of runaway CO2 concentration rise even if mankind sharply reduces emissions now. There seems to be a feedback kicking in and we may guess it is rising ocean temps, SST's in particular.
Meantime rain forests are being hacked away as fast as ever (and Brazil is getting taught the consequences of that).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2015 #permalink

Remember in 2004 when McKitrick and Michaels boasted about their AGW paradigm busting paper that had "four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever"? Remember how that ostensibly long and rigorous peer review failed to note that they had fed latitudes measured in degrees into a function that expected radians?

Looks like McIntyre has done something almost as incompetent in the last few days by not grokking what the data represents.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Apr 2015 #permalink

What McIntyre did (again!), Lotharsson, with this Rahmstorf et al bombshell is not 'incompetent'.
Remember: we are not his audience. By engaging in discussion with him or over his (professional, nót 'icompetent') concoctions we help give the electorate the impression that there is no real consensus over CC within the scientific community. That is what McIntyre is after and his and his ilk' success cannot be underestimated.
A poll just weeks ago showed that less than a third of the US public is aware of the granite consensus within the scientific community over CC and its cause. That number is McIntyre et al's resounding success.

A note on that poll, what it actually showed was that knowledge of CC (I'm not calling this 'belief') depends very strongly on confrontation with actual climate change. It takes a Sandy to convince some (though there are signs New Jersey and New York are already forgetting again), or a California drought to convince some others; rest of the Americans basically think 'well CC may be real but it ain't gonna affect me'.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @ # 28.
The paper and the subsequent reporting was partly about 'improvement' including 'improved' methodologies.
It opens the door to discuss other areas where there is improvement.
This comment by you is rather odd:
"Many of the new technologies you emphasize are more ecologically destructive than the ones that preceded them."
The only area I was emphasizing was improved, better informed, land use practices and management techniques.
Preceding technologies did not account for triple bottom line (TBL) outcomes. New methods are far more sustainable.
I suspect the same would be true for logging, fishing and mineral extraction.
The entities which are lagging in facilitating TBL outcomes are overwhelmingly the governance, academic and regulatory institutions. They are littered with double standards, cross purposed, divisive, out-dated systems and flat out resistance and incompetence.
They artificially divide departments and resources and far too often focus on what Walter Starck quipped are: 'academic pissing contests'.
Their much touted 'privatisation' models are disasters which end up focusing on ways to gold plate 'user pays' and 'cost recovery' principles and hence focus primarily on meeting their own financial objectives.
They are empowered to make up their own rules, write their own contracts and mark their own homework.
They result in hybrid corporations that derive their operative monopoly status from legislation and the result is they are even less accountable and transparent than the big, multinational corporations you habitually (and correctly) criticize.
Instead of working together to achieve sustainable outcomes, they compete for attention and dwindling resources.
What is patently clear in NRM in Australia is that the institutional frameworks that have been put in place by legislation are not meeting expectations and they are very seriously underperforming.
Much of the improvement in land use and land management happens despite the poor governance and regulatory systems.
I agree that change is necessary but my experience is that the major resistance to change and progress across the TBL is from the governance, regulatory and academic entities and not from modern business models that are designed to change and adapt.

The only area I was emphasizing was improved, better informed, land use practices and management techniques.

No you weren't.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Stop pissing in the pool and claiming you're clearing it of carp.

Wow.
My only response to your comment is:
Chill out & try engaging on the subject matter.
ATM, your commenting reveals more about your attitude and your focus than anything about me.

Sorry, Stupid, you're stupid. And a habitual liar and fantasist. Whatever you said wasn't in any way related to reality or even sanity.

"try engaging on the subject matter."

This would sound less hypocritical if Stu2 hadn't so obviously failed to engage with his own subject matter - as per post number 1 of this thread.

Stu2 - why have you not responded to Wow's, Bernard's and my responses to your "good news", apart from simply lying about what the paper says?

Frank D.
My initial response is @ # 4.
If you're asking why I'm not answering rhetorical questions that assume character faults, that's because they are are rhetorical and you have answered your own question for yourself according to your own focus.
As I previously commented to Wow, that style of commentary reveals more about your focus and attitude than anything else.

No your #4 is not what Frank asked for. Answering different questions from the ones asked does not answer those questions.

You aren't fooling anyone, Stupid.

I have not, as you claim, answered my own question, Stu2. I have commented on the facile rubbish you've larded in Jeff's direction, and the falsehoods you've so casually laced the last two threads with, but I'm still waiting on an answer to my question (and the others). The question is not rhetorical, and it is yours to answer. You know, if you decide you want to "engage on the subject". Why is this good news? Do you disagree with the caveat I threw out, or not?

You can stop being a hypocrite any time you want to follow your own advice. But that's entirely up to you. As I said earlier - If, against all expectation, you do want to change or “correct” peoples impression of you as a low-life enabling scumbag, you need to stop behaving like one. See, I don't need to assume character faults, you display them every time you post.

Stop being a douche, and people will stop treating you like a douche (or I will, at least, I can't speak for the other misanthropes around here) :-/

"If you’re asking ..."

Speaking of douchiness, really Stu2? "If you're asking..." followed by a completely different question to that which you were asked?

I called you out on that tired old schtick ages ago, but you persist in doing it. I guess old habits die hard. Very douchey.

Frank D.
Maybe this might help?
Let's go back to the original report.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/good-news-satellitte-data-earth-turn…
The title points out that it is good news because the satellite data is showing that the Earth is turning Greener.

"Despite massive deforestation across the glove, the latest satellite data shows the Earth has actually turned a bit greener. "
" This new green cover has counterbalanced nearly half of the carbon loss due to deforestation in the Amazon and southeast Asia, the researchers said."
And yes, the researchers also point out the role of natural variability.
Nowhere does this study claim that we can all stop working on further improvement, nor does it claim that everything is 100% perfect because of this research.
I agree with Jeff Harvey that some serious mistakes have been made.
I disagreed that many of the new technologies are more ecologically destructive than preceding ones.
Just for a start, preceding technologies didn't even measure ecological activity or TBL outcomes.
I'm interested in measures that are focused on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
So I will ask this question again:
"Isn’t improved, sustainable land use & rejuvenating native flora and fauna doing something about the human element in AGW/Climate Change?"
I will also point out again that there has been much work done in this space with measureable results.
That's definitely not bad news.

The title points out that it is good news because the satellite data is showing that the Earth is turning Greener.

So you read a title.

Do you want a medal or something???

I’m interested in measures that are focused on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Hmmm. Shall we test that?

You are in favour of cutting back drastically on fossil fuel use and employing low carbon energy futures such as solar, wind and tidal, including incentives to roll them out quickly.

Yes or no?

Wow.
Considering that's actually a complex question that has three questions embedded, it is not possible to answerwith a simple yes or no.
However happy to provide you with 3 simple answers.
Yes, partly & no.
My question upthread can be answered with a simple yes or no.
It is also a tad more relevant to the linked report that was about greening measurements.

it is not possible to answerwith a simple yes or no.

Yes it is.

Are you in favour of those things? They *all* "are focused on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem."

Therefore you should be saying yes. Unless that claim was a load of shite.

Since you've said "partly yes", what parts?re focused on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

It's a pity to see, though, that you do not want solutions that mean we stop using up fossil fuels, the CAUSE of AGW.

Neither of those articles appears to have any obvious rational basis for a "partly yes" or a "no" answer. Colour me surprised.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Apr 2015 #permalink

Pfft, you can tell that just by the link name.

It's not like Stupid needs *reasons* to clam any old shite.

Stu2, can you see a difference between these two sentences, placed adacently in your comment:

"...the satellite data is showing that the Earth is turning Greener."

“... the latest satellite data shows the Earth has actually turned a bit greener. "

If you can see the difference, please comment on how that affects the goodness of your "good news".

And it also doesn't address what happened earlier.

IOW what did all those efforts to stop deforestation do?

Stupid probably wants to believe they were worthless and did nothing. Because environmentalists get in the way of profits. And therefore are the most evil people on the planet.

Because insanity.

Ignoring tossers like 2Stupid for a moment there is an excellent repost at the Rabett's of a superb reply by Andy Lacis at the Curry House where Andy sets Steve Koonin right about a 1% change being small potatoes.

I followed through (sorry for that image) to Judith's (and that made me do just that) to get the context and could not help noticing amongst the wreckage a lawrencepierce drumming up cheerleaders to pump up reviews on Amazon of a book he is about to publish, open link so you don't fall inadvertently into Judy's pit:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/08/are-human-influences-on-the-climate-r…

but just look at the luminaries (must be a book of jokes) he lists:

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. George Kukla, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Ian Plimer, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge, Dr. Jan-Erick Solheim, Dr. Jack Sauers, Dr. Ross McKitrick, Dr. Edward Wegman, Steve McIntyre, David Archibald, Donna La Framboise, and Brian Fagan.

Serious stuff eh!

I note Bernard's comments at Eli's (I cannot seem to break through the wall of options there to comment in particular I cannot get my WordPress to work) and ATTP at Judith's.

I tried my Wordpress account at Eli's and it failed with "You don't own that identity" as well.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Apr 2015 #permalink

Frank D?
Do you mean adjacent?
Also, the sentences were from the linked article.
Are you critical of their use of the word 'bit'?
Obviously ' much' greener would be better news.
However, any positive measurement of 'greener' is definitely not bad news.
If you're asking if I think it's good enough, the answer is no.
It is however better than a negative measurement or a 'no change' which can still be defined as some good news.
I note that while demanding I answer multiple questions, no one is answering my question.

Poor Stupid, nobody wants to play.

We have answered.

Wow?
@ which number did you or your 'we' answer my question?
Unlike your question, which was a complex question with 3 questions embedded, it is possible to answer mine with either a simple yes or no if you wish.
You are of course entitled to elaborate or qualify your answer if you believe it's necessary & I would welcome that.
I'm not trying to set a trap.
I am genuinely interested in the deltoid crowd's opinion of TBL reclamation & rejuvenation work in concert with land use and NRM.

Last page, Stupid.

But since all you're saying is that the headline was read by you, what sort of answer do you want? "Oh, loo, Stupid can read!"?

You ARE trying to avoid answering any questions that explain what the hell you mean, though.

Probably because you want to hide the fact that what you want to believe is that there is no need to mitigate AGW, which you've never even agreed you agree with.

As shown with your evasion on the last page, Stupid.

Sorry, Stupid, we're not stupid.

And why are you interested in our opinion for a reason that means we must give it?

Wow.
My question was asked on this page not last page.
First @ # 23 and again @ # 27.
It actually asks about doing something to mitigate the human element in GW/CC.

Stupid, what was that supposed to tell me?

That you're stupid?

March page. See the post from FrankD at #1. Unless you're claiming to be wondering why people have not answered a DIFFERENT question, in which case, again FrankD shows why we're still waiting for Stupid to catch up.

Yes, why are you going on about mitigation? Reducing the rate at which our emissions go into warming the planet (if they do, which is entirely not shown by you to be the case) isn't actually solving the problem.

Remember, you claimed (we knew you were lying) you wanted to be "doing something about the human element in AGW/Climate Change" and become "part of the solution rather than part of the problem.”

Stu2 at #52. Obviously that was too hard, so let me make it simpler: Can you tell the difference between "is turning" and "has turned".

If you can see the difference, please comment on how that affects the goodness of your “good news”.

As to sooking about everybody asking you questions and not answering yours - you referenced the article under discussion, and we are now discussing it. Isn't that what you wanted?

Frank D.
Whether it is turning greener or has turned a bit greener does not change the fact the satellite data reveals it's greener.
That's not bad news.

Not necessarily. If I punch you in the gob and you fall down, you may get back up afterward. But if all that's going to happen is anther smack in the mouth puts you down, you can hardly call the "getting up of the ground" an improvement.

Stopping the punching would be required.

This is what you are avoiding.

You want to just let the planet get worse. Because stopping the problem is something YOU DO NOT want to do.

Oh, and it would be better for you not to whine about stuff that isn't responding to the poster you're addressing the reply to.

"Can you tell the difference between “is turning” and “has turned”."

Ring a bell?

"Uh, it's not *bad* news!".

Half a lie is worse than a full lie. But you really don't care to tell the truth, the whole truth.

Because it's devastating to your ideology.

Wow @ # 65????
Reducing the rate at which our emissions go into warming the planet (-) isn't actually solving the problem?????
????

Hmmm?
Crossed posts.
Wow.
Re your analogy.
Of course it would be better if a person was not punched in the first instance.
However, getting up rather than not getting up is an improvement.
That gives the person an opportunity to heal and also to repair the relationship that created the punch in the first instance.

Reducing the rate at which our emissions go into warming the planet (-) isn’t actually solving the problem?????

No, it's not actually solving the problem, unless you can demonstrate that the reduction can and likely will be strengthened until it has reduced the rate to zero or below.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2015 #permalink

And doing that requires some understanding of the system dynamics, which means that in this case, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition to understand the difference between "turning" and "has turned". Or to put it another way, understanding the distinction between good news and news that is bad but not quite as bad as we previously thought.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2015 #permalink

Reducing the rate at which our emissions go into warming the planet (-) isn’t actually

isn't actually what the piece you linked to was about.

If you think that reducing the rate our emissions going into the warming planet was a good thing, you'd be asking for the reduction of GHG gasses we're emitting into our warming planet.

Except you aren't.

Our questions are to see whether you understand the link. Your evasions and responses are proof you do not understand it in the least.

YOU are Stupid. WE are not.

understand the difference between “turning” and “has turned”???

Then linking to two definitions of words you haven't a clue as to how they relate to the statement.

Stupid does as stupid is.

Of course it would be better if a person was not punched in the first instance.

And it would be better to stop emitting CO2 into our atmosphere from fossil fuels.

However, getting up rather than not getting up is an improvement.

So being punched in the face so you fall down on your ass is a *good thing8 to happen to you???? That's already been posited in the illustration as the INEVITABLE consequence of getting up. Staying down means no more punching. How does "getting up" denote an *improvement*???

Can you explain why?

At all?

Why is getting up an improvement?

Don't just CLAIM it, EXPLAIN it.

Or are you so stupid, Stupid, you don't know why, just that it helps your argument?

Same old same old pattern.

Stu 2 makes some claim/posts some comment, based on an article somewhere.

Some people point out his view of it doesn't seem to entirely correspond to the article itself, at least as far as their understanding of the words and the issues go.

After some discussion, which usually includes discussion of the distinction between what the article appears to say and what Stu 2 appears to imply it says, Stu 2 falls back on the explicit or implication that the discussion isn't meaningful because it's about semantics.

Well, of course it's at least partly about semantics, and of course that's meaningful given that the original claim rests on Stu 2's interpretation of what has been written by someone else!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Apr 2015 #permalink

Well, Stu2 has once again showed that he's nothing but a time wasting idiot who can't parse a simple English sentence (indeed, he thinks that is a "semantic dispute"), so I'll cut to the chase. The discussion is not about semantics, it is about the significance whether that paper describes past conditions or current conditions. That is massively important to intepreting its significance, not a "semantic dispute".

Stu2 finds it convenient to talk about things getting greener in the present tense, when the paper he references looks at a specific time period in the past. Stu2 repeatedly pretends that because it got greener during a specific period in the past, it is getting greener now, and further implies (though I'm just sure he would deny any intention to do so) that it will go on doing so.

My #8 really covered my point, but I note that Stu2 never answered the question there. What exactly is the good news here. To which Stu2 has only responded with facile - no, worse - infantile glass-half-full pablum.

Stu2's "good news" is like someone who stops paying their bills and on finding that their bank balance is growing, deems it "good news". They also stopped showing up for work a couple of days ago because parking and lunches and shit costs so much money, and they haven't stopped getting paid yet, so win!

But what happens when next months paycheque doesn't turn up and the debt collector arrives? In Stu2's magic-thinking-world*, nothing happens - remember, it's only good news, folks. Asking those sorts of questions in Stu2's world* makes you a misanthrope.

Stu2 now weasels away from his absurd "good news" over to "its not bad news". Well that's a different question (something Stu2 would regard as a "semantic dispute"). But what of the good news Stu2 was once proclaiming? The good aspects are trivial and transitory, and need to be weighed against the bad, which I've mentioned, but has an additional sting in so far as it allows hypocrites like Stu2 to falsely claim that things are getting better, when it is simply that the worst bits are not in his plain view right now. Stu2 gives this paper all the intellectual rigour of the Boltards saying "AGW stopped in 1998" because one satellite shows little atmospheric warming. Or that Arctic Sea Ice is recovering because we didn't set a record this year. Is that it Stu2, are you just a Boltard with better vocab? Is that what you aspire to in these conversations - to be the dumbest common denominator?

See, we offer you learning moments, but you're so busy being a try-hard douche you never learn anything. Even from being called out on your own serial stupidity more times that I can count, politely or rudely, through direct instruction or socratic question, Jeff, Wow, Lotharsson, Bernard, me... it's all the same to Stu2, who is probably capable of learning (unlike some of the other coat-trailers here) but is too idiotic to want to.

Lotharsson - indeed the same old pattern. These hollow men can only master one register at a time. You have summarised Stu2's exactly. What a waste of time he is.

*As we have seen in previous episodes of "Stu2's World", small is big, the educated are ignorant, a single anecdote carries more weight than a wall of data, unending cornucopian growth is really real, and problems can be solved by the behaviours that caused them. Now we can add "indifferent news" is "good news", as long as it comes with a piece of candy.
"Its a magical place."

Oh stop thinking we're buying your bollocks, Stupid

If we're not supposed to ask what you mean, then shut the fuck up.

Pid still getting waaaaaay more attention than he merits, I see. He gets off on it, you know.

When were the hottest 12 months in the record, incidentally?

Let's face it; given reality's continuing liberal bias, one day in the not-too-far-distant future you people - i.e. deniers - are gonna be persona non grata on an international scale. And few in history will have so richly deserved the opprobrium... How clever are you going to feel then, do you think?

Yeah, since it appears all stupid will allow is abject agreement with what he says that a headline says, even if he can't explain why it's correct ("It *says* it's good news!" So? If it said it was bad news, would you be going how it's bad news? No), his "conversation" is with himself.

Stupid is too dumb to see that, however.

The false allegation of misanthropy comes up a bit in WUWT comments, at least according to a small sample in one of Sou's recent articles. Interesting...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Apr 2015 #permalink

Dang, Lotharsson beat me to it:

"Hi Bernard, The Australian Government today announced they would contribute $4m for Danish climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg to establish a new “consensus centre” at the University of Western Australia.In the face of deep cuts to the CSIRO and other scientific research organisations, it's an insult to Australia’s scientific community.As the Climate Commission, we were abolished by the Abbott Government in 2013 on the basis that our $1.5 million annual operating costs were too expensive. We relaunched as the Climate Council after thousands of Australians chipped in to the nation’s biggest crowd-funding campaign - remember this video?It seems extraordinary that the Climate Commission, which was composed of Australia’s best climate scientists, economists and energy experts, was abolished on the basis of a lack of funding and yet here we are three years later and the money has become available to import a politically-motivated think tank to work in the same space.This is why the work of the Climate Council is so important - to counter this continuing ideological attempt at deceiving the Australian public. Please consider chipping in a few dollars a week to help us stay independent and continue to fight the rising tide of misinformation. Mr Lomborg’s views have no credibility in the scientific community. His message hasn’t varied at all in the last decade and he still believes we shouldn't take any steps to mitigate climate change. When someone is unwilling to adapt their view on the basis of new science or information, it's usually a sign those views are politically motivated. But with your support we will continue to fight back and reach millions of Australians with information that is based on the best science available. Thank you Tim FlanneryP.S We're already busy responding to misinformation in the media. We just called out The Australian for deliberately misinterpreting the science and the Prime Ministers Business Advisor Maurice Newman for getting his facts wrong."

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Apr 2015 #permalink

Or I could format it for this site...

"Hi Bernard,

The Australian Government today announced they would contribute $4m for Danish climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg to establish a new “consensus centre” at the University of Western Australia.

In the face of deep cuts to the CSIRO and other scientific research organisations, it's an insult to Australia’s scientific community.

As the Climate Commission, we were abolished by the Abbott Government in 2013 on the basis that our $1.5 million annual operating costs were too expensive. We relaunched as the Climate Council after thousands of Australians chipped in to the nation’s biggest crowd-funding campaign - remember this video?

It seems extraordinary that the Climate Commission, which was composed of Australia’s best climate scientists, economists and energy experts, was abolished on the basis of a lack of funding and yet here we are three years later and the money has become available to import a politically-motivated think tank to work in the same space.

This is why the work of the Climate Council is so important - to counter this continuing ideological attempt at deceiving the Australian public.

Please consider chipping in a few dollars a week to help us stay independent and continue to fight the rising tide of misinformation.

Mr Lomborg’s views have no credibility in the scientific community. His message hasn’t varied at all in the last decade and he still believes we shouldn't take any steps to mitigate climate change. When someone is unwilling to adapt their view on the basis of new science or information, it's usually a sign those views are politically motivated.

But with your support we will continue to fight back and reach millions of Australians with information that is based on the best science available.

Thank you

Tim Flannery

P.S We're already busy responding to misinformation in the media. We just called out The Australian for deliberately misinterpreting the science and the Prime Ministers Business Advisor Maurice Newman for getting his facts wrong."

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Apr 2015 #permalink

Maybe I can somehow get into the fray here. I am one of Lomborg's prominent critics - having reviewed his book for Nature and the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I debated him over here in Holland in 2002. He avoids me now like the plague since I pretty much skewered him with his own ignorance. I'd be willing to step up to the bat here. The Abbott government's decision to fund this charlatan is an outrage. One thing it will hopefully do is to galvanize the scientific community to action.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

Is Lomborg a homoeopath, he may as well be for these have successfully infiltrated our health service and sucked funds like the leaches of old. Lomborg pedals fraud and thus Abbott is trying to perpetrate a fraud at taxpayer's expense.

Abbott is criminally negligent in his ignorance, ignorance across a wide spectrum of knowledge at that. Abbott, and Newman, should be called to account.

"Abbott, and Newman, should be called to account." - they will but not before Cairns is off the map by a high end cat 5 or something. Should hope for that first.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

Meanwhile, remember rent-a-corporate-green-PR-washer Patrick Moore? And those who reckon he should be listened to on environmental matters, because he was around somewhere near the beginning of what became Greenpeace (which requires ignoring his hastily withdrawn offer to drink some glyphosate because it was safe, when the interviewer offered him some then and there which shows he was lying)?

He's rolled out some more falsehoods in - where else? - The Australian this week.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

Meanwhile, in comments on the Redfearn deconstruction of that article at the Australian, there's someone called Rafterman wanting to "bet every dollar they have" "against the global warming scam".

I've told them to come here and ask for Bernard J. What do you think the chances are that they will put some money down?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

It would be great to see Jeff Harvey in the fray in Australia. Would it be worth contacting the journalist who wrote the Guardian article? Any other ideas?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

Jeff v Lomborg would be good providing the referee did not allow gish gallops and allowed Jeff to counter any and every misinformation point from Lomborg without interruption from the Scandinavian Troll.

A points system for each infringement of rules of engagement, say gish gallops, evasions, changing the subject or interruptions. Points to be exchanged for extra time for he who has least to make further counter arguments without interruption. Just germs of ideas.

I remember Monbiot’s exchange with Plimer where the latter had his nose fairly rubbed in his own.

That Fernado Leanme (WTF?) character who appears over at Eli's is off the wall again with this:

I think it's time to get much more serious about geoengineering. Any ideas?

which is almost Lomborgian.

I would like to throw this under his feet but cannot get in the door:

We have been doing that for 200 years or more and look where it has got us.

With a suitable link to a picture or two of how the world has warmed.

Maybe somebody can do the honours.

"I think it’s time to get much more serious about geoengineering. Any ideas? "

Well, stopping the cause of the problem would be a good start.

Otherwise all you're doing is spending money because you can't be bothered to stop.

Which is hella dumb.

I think it’s time to get much more serious about geoengineering

What Wow said, but just as importantly this:

If you're going to suggest geoengineering, you'd better be quite confident in the depth of our understanding of and ability to accurately model the climate system. You know, just like faux skeptics aren't.

And you'd better have a viable proposal with some reason to believe that costs of your scheme will be less than (say) the costs of "stopping the cause of the problem". You wouldn't want to be one of the "let's not do anything because we don't have accurate estimates of total cost" faux skeptics in that case.

And I haven't been playing close attention, but even from those who aren't faux skeptics in either of those fashions I'm not sure I've seen a good proposal. Some propose ways to reduce incoming solar radiation, which is fine as far as it goes (apart from issues with cost and robustness and so on...) but they do zilch to address ocean acidification (or sea level rise in the pipeline etc.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

I see Jeff (and the Onion if concerned scientists) is happy with having Lomborg onboard. :-)

Good choice to call in Lomborg. An honorable and wise man. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

Lappers,do you somehow think that that was funny?

Welp, I guess for three year olds, it is...

Gee, I thought the resident meatball was on permanent leave. Its too bad that I was wrong. He's been humiliated so many times on here that I thought the message had sunk in. But heck, he's not called the meatball for nothing.

As for Lomborg, its telling that the only bodies that promote him these days are far right think tanks, front groups and governments. Its his own personal gravy train. He's shunned by the mainstream and depends on the elites to back up his apolitical nonsense. As I said before, I'd be delighted to face off with him again. I'd annihilate him and he knows it. Hence why since Ede 2002 he's stuck with the shills and the conservatives who embrace him. He cleverly avoided me in Aaarhus, Copenhagen (twice) and Amsterdam. He's a bloody coward.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2015 #permalink

Its his own personal gravy train

Yup, follow the money and you'll find out what drives Lomborg.

Easy cash for no work. All he has to do is sell his integrity and he has a bright career lying for money.

Coke and hookers aren't free, johnl.

And I haven’t been playing close attention, but even from those who aren’t faux skeptics in either of those fashions I’m not sure I’ve seen a good proposal. Some propose ways to reduce incoming solar radiation, which is fine as far as it goes (apart from issues with cost and robustness and so on…) but they do zilch to address ocean acidification (or sea level rise in the pipeline etc.)

The only geo-engineering approach I've heard of which meets any kind of common sense analysis would be imitating natural rock weathering as a way of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's also easy to do - we've already learned how to blast big holes in the ground and/or shear tops off mountains. We could do the same for CO2 absorbing rocks as we've done for getting at CO2 releasing fossils. And olivine and similar silicates are far more widespread and easily accessible than fossils are.

But it's a massive quarrying and crushing and distribution task if you want to make any difference. Last I heard, offsetting one year's worth of emissions would cost $25 billion. And that's without knowing much about how and where the gravels and dusts would be best dispersed. Though it sounds a lot, $25 billion per annum out of the whole worldwide financial resources will look like peanuts compared to the possible costs of coping with floods and SLR in rich countries.

It has none of the drawbacks of sulphate aerosols which will acidify oceans even more when they come down with the rain and which must be continued ad infinitum if you don't want a sudden jolt to surface temps if you stop them for whatever reason.

Personally, I think we'll eventually get to the stage of spending $25 billion per annum on something like that. But it will be far too late to stop a lot of ecosystem and agricultural losses.

(I've occasionally imagined that someone who understands both the chemistry and oceanography could construct a proposal for constantly feeding ground olivine into the oceanwards waters off coral reefs and locally ameliorating pH levels. At least enough to forestall the worst of coral losses. I know that would be pretty well futile if water temperatures are still rising, but it still appeals to me. I can dream of better things - even if no one can make them come true.)

But if we don't stop, that 25bn increases each year. But people aren't talking about stopping producing CO2, so it's kind of worthless without that.

Wouldn't it be much cheaper just not to use fossil files?

Stopping burning fossils only stops emissions. What we really want to do longer term, but sooner rather than later, is to reduce concentrations.

Whether we start doing that while we're still emitting the way we do now, or we wait until we're emitting significantly less, is a question for international politics.

But not stopping emissions first means you're not reducing concentrations unless you spend more money and effort and resources on whatever scheme you have for unnatural draw-down.

It's a fallacy to think we can start drawing down when we haven't even started working out the way to stop emissions.

It’s a fallacy to think we can start drawing down when we haven’t even started working out the way to stop emissions.

I don't think it's a fallacy. (I sort of have a mental picture of a parallel to the IPCC reports showing the various influences on climate, some positive, some negative , and an overall aggregate net effect.)

The bigger problem with starting now would be the human problem. If someone found an economical way to do this - and managed to completely offset a year's worth of emissions so that the Keeling curve actually plateaued for a year - then you can bet every boot you've ever owned that some people, far too many of them, would see that as a green light to keep on emitting (or land clearing or forest cutting) for "just one more year".

Now you understand why we need to agree and plan and at least start cutting emissions first.

GSW

That's the funniest thing you've ever posted. Albeit a re-tweet.

Here's another for you:

A person comes to a [Soviet era] post office and complains: "These new stamps with Lenin do not stick..." The clerk answers: "Comrade, you probably spit on the wrong side."

GSW: "it’ll help you guys with a sense of perspective – something you’ve demonstrably struggled with in the past"

No there's the ironic statement of the morning, coming from one of the most narrow-minded, myopic thinkers I have ever encountered on the internet. A guy who relies on sites like Bishop's Hill and Joanne Nova for his world view.

Comedy gold.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2015 #permalink

4XS Craig those thugs never heard of kelp and if they did they'd consider it a pest.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Apr 2015 #permalink

"I see Tasmania’s disappearing Kelp beds are in the news this morning."

I guess Stupid will be sad at this bad news, then. Given his concern that we increase plant growth to because he's "focused on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem".

Aha, Wow, well then, kelp is not a plant...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Apr 2015 #permalink

Yeah, but before you told him, HE didn't know he could claim that!

Remember, he doesn't know anything, he only repeats what's he's been told by others.

Well I thought I wanted to shortcut it all for a change but I know it won't work. I'd probably get some comment like 'well it's plants under water and they are dif fe rent'. To which I could reply 'when dead they look the same - gone'. Finally no-one would give a damn about what is said and dead and Cali keeps on burning, just as well that.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Apr 2015 #permalink

No, that's not a strawman, dearie. That's taking the piss out of you.

You'd have to have an argument to refute for a strawman. You haven't got one. "The headline says..." is not an argument.

Sorry Wow.
Read your comment @ # 17 & then the next 3 comments.
A classic.

As if you'd built that strawman yourself and slapping yourself for your classic strawman, but too bad I did it for you and I'm not taking your compliments for it mate.

"he doesn’t know anything, he only repeats what’s he’s been told by others." said Wow, well Wow, looks like he got entangled into his own little gotogoto loop. Reminds me of a scene in 'eXistenZ'.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 23 Apr 2015 #permalink

"Read your comment @ # 17 & then the next 3 comments."

Look, we're supposed to take the piss out of you, please don't start taking the piss out of yourself too.

But you're the retard who believes that ad hominem is when someone insults you, so why the hell should I expect any better understanding of strawman?

Actually, I never did expect better.

Just liked pointing it out as yet more material to take the piss out of you for!

You're still doing it Wow & cRR Kampen.
It's hilarious to read BTW.
Thanks for the laugh.

[Posted originally at Sou's, but repeated here for those who might not wander over there.]

The Australian Liberal [sic] government's granting of $4 million to Bjorn Lomborg is creating a bit of a shit-storm in the scientific arena. The ABC's World Today has just broadcast a piece about the issue:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4222956.htmThere's quite a bit that deserves comment but education minister Christopher Pyne caught my attention when he said:

I don't remember them reacting that way when Labor put $7 million into the Whitlam Institute at the University of Western Sydney or the $3.5 million into the Conversation when they were in government.

Pyne is completely ignoring that Lomborg himself is demonstrably ignoring science in order to twist policy response to the best scientific evidence and understanding. This makes Lomborg a propagandist/mouth-for-hire rather than an objective researcher, and Pyne a promoter of propaganda.

Pyne also says that "[Lomborg] is not a climate sceptic" but does not mention that in contradiction of the best science Lomborg insists that humans can adapt, and that mitigation is essentially unnecessary. Again, Lomborg misrepresents or denies whole disciplines of science in coming to his pronouncements, and to follow Lomborg's path would mean that a small cadre of corporations and their mates would make studendous profits for several decades at the expense of the future of human civilisation and much of the planet's biodiversity.

Greg Hunt, Minister for Destroying the Environment and the man who''s Honours thesis was about a tax to make polluters pay, says this:

[Lomborg] brought together a panel of Nobel economic laureates to look at the most efficient way to do it and the fascinating thing is, of 15 mechanisms, all based on the presumption of a need to act and a need to act quickly, the worst three, the least effective were all variations of the carbon tax.

The real point, why he's criticised, is it doesn't fit the narrative of those who want to punish people with higher electricity and gas prices.

He's saying you can reduce emissions, you just don't need a massive electricity and gas tax.

Notice how he changes a carbon price to an electricity tax. These are different things, especially as electricity can be generated by water, wind, waves and sun, so effectively Greg Hunt is deliberately (or incompetently) misleading the Australian public in order to support the formation of Lomborg's propaganda centre.

Note too that Hunt is referring to Lomborg's modelling and that he is ignoring the fact that whilst it was in place Australia's carbon price reduced emissions by around 7%. I'd propose that this is a very effective reduction for a first attempt at a policy response to carbon emissions, especially as its effects were also immediate and that the lower-paid people in Australia were more than completely compensated for any flow-on effect.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - it's a pity that there is no such thing as Hell, because if there was then justice would be served when the likes of Lomborg and our conservative politicians burn there for eternity, in reflection on the burning away of the Holocene climate that they are so determined to facilitate.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Apr 2015 #permalink

Well, stupid, you're giggling again. Doesn't change the fact that you don't understand what a strawman is,

Bernard, someone notable needs to point out how different it is to getting Lomborg in to generate propoganda and getting someone explaining the scientific results is.

In public. TV or something.

Wow.
I linked the definition FYI.
There is no shortage of publicly available references to scientific literature nor 'notable' people who espouse different socio-economic perspectives.
Bernard J's comment @ # 28 is a comment far more related to politics, particularly his view of 'conservative' politics.

Yes, you linked to the definition. That doesn't make it apply to your definition.

Go read the definition. Try to work out how the hell you think it applies.

Is there something you're not getting about this? Or is it because you're Stupid?

Wow.
I am amazed that you are persisting with this.
It is rather pointless and doing absolutely nothing to further a discussion about the Kelp beds in Tasmania.
But in the interest of answering your question @ # 32, because it does appear that you are being insistent about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3] "

To make it simple for you:
@ # 14, Craig Thomas commented on a link re Kelp beds and asked a question re Tony Abbot and Lomborg.
@ # 17 you created :
" the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]"
For the next 3 comments, you and cRR Kampen continued to argue with a proposition about Kelp that you had created.

Perhaps your intention was based on your comment @ # 26 but the result was you were arguing with a:
" false representation of an opponent's argument."
But hey!
It's really not that big a deal Wow.
I just found it amusing, that instead of actually engaging with Craig Thomas' post, you and cRR Kampen made it about something else.
ie: you created a straw man.
Hope that helps?

"I am amazed that you are persisting with this."

Others are too, though not for the same reason. Mostly because they're not stupid.

Posting the definition of something does not mean you've proven it applies. Nor does it mean that it does apply.

The situation you're calling a strawman on isn't strawman.

We're not arguing with you, we're taking the piss.

You moron.

Don't you get it, Wow? There is only one discussion, can only be one discussion, and that is what Stu2 says it is.

So when people have engaged with one of his comments, but not in the desired way, Stu2 gets to say the conversation is about something else. Now he's extended that to everyone else's comments about anything. Stupid says, talk about kelp. Stupid says...

Attentive readers will note that Stu is so concerned about keeping the discussion on Craig's topic, that he has in fact said not one word about kelp beds except the words "kelp beds". Don't need Greg Hunt's research skills to know that is a textbook example of "fucking hypocrisy".

Stu2 would tell us why it's all good news on the kelp front, but you and cRRK ruined it for everyone....

Bernard,

It wasn't massive.
It wasn't on electricity.
It wasn't a tax.

Looks like the Minister for Looking Things up on Wikipedia is talking out of the wrong orifice. Again.

The thing that intrigued me was that they auctioned 15% of the target for 25% of their fund. That suggests they'll hit 60% of the risible (if it wasn't tragic) target. Except that this was a flog-off of the lowest hanging fruit. Pretty much guaranteed the next round of the auction will see higher prices paid for less abatement. And the one after that. Based on the first round, this policy (already a moronic approach) will be lucky to deliver 40% of the target for the allocated funds. And that on the basis that every abatement action is carried out as stipulated and is as successful as planned - I mean it's all well and good to pay for a tree planting program, but in 2020 when the trees didn't capture as much as planned because of the drought of 2018 (or whatever), who's going to be claiming a refund? The scheme and the government that foisted it on a gullible electorate will be in the dustbin of history, and the replacements will only be able to point and bitch about it being someone else's fault.

Meanwhile, the sellers will have trousered the latest installment in corporate welfare, no doubt squirrelling it away it in the Cayman Islands in a financial three card monte.

Frank D.
That's the straw man.
I did not comment on the kelp beds at all.
Wow & cRR Kampen & now you apparently are arguing with and questioning a false proposition.
Incidentally, I agree that the auction was poorly managed.
Same book, different page.
Incompetence in NRM, particularly monitoring and mearuring outcomes, is widespread.

"That’s the straw man."

No, it's not.

Too dumb to read, Stupid?

Like this Wow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss
"...Or it may be used to refer to a ruse where a person is led to believe something is true that is not (usually a fairly unbelievable story) for the purpose of ridicule of the subject."

it's incredibly similar to this definition of straw man don't you reckon?:

"...an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent’s argument."

So OK - perhaps your intent was to 'take the piss' but it doesn't change the fact that in the process you have also used a straw man.

"I did not comment on the kelp beds at all."

No, you didn't. Which didn't stop you having a sook at Wow and cRRK for not commenting on the kelp beds at all, either.

"It is rather pointless and doing absolutely nothing to further a discussion about the Kelp beds in Tasmania."

Stu2 takes time out from not commenting on a recent comment to comment on others not commenting on a recent comment. Too doltish to have the slightest self-awareness of your own double-standard, or too much of a hypocrite to care? We report, you decide.

Stu2, you've worked hard to earn Wow and cRRK's derision. You should own it instead of sooking about it. Even the resident clowntrolls manage that, and I wouldn't credit them with enough sense to come in out of the rain...

Absolutely top job of making the the point and then committing the same error Frank D.
I was not intending to comment on the Kelp story. I am not from Tasmania, I am not familiar with any scientific work on Tasmanian Kelp and I have never seen that "divebuzz' diving site before.
That was why I was highly amused that Wow and cRR Kampen were commenting about a non existent comment from me.
It's also highly amusing that you have now added a bit of character to that straw man and attributed 'sooking' to it.
Thanks for the laugh.
The real Stu 2 would be much more interested in further discussing the points you raised @ # 36.

"Stu2 takes time out from not commenting on a recent comment to comment on others not commenting on a recent comment"

Stupid just wants to whine. Whinging pom.

Too dumb to know anything. Too stupid to learn.

The real Stu 2 would be much more interested in further discussing the points you raised @ # 36.

And yet, the real Stu2 has remained silent on those points. So you are saying my point at #35 is correct? Interesting.

...attributed ‘sooking’ to it.

Sadly no, Stu2, my comment was pointedly directed at your actual comments not some imagined construct. Your attempt to disown them is instructive but unsurprising. But your claim to be "highly amused" merits attention; one would normally think that meant "finding funny", but in context that is so improbable that I rather think this works best with the word's original meaning, "staring stupidly".

As to the rest of your continued, tedious deflection, here's a hint: They were talking about you, not to you.

But keep on about the other kids being mean to you, if you want to...and don't forget to keep reminding us how you would rather talk about "something important" instead, because that schtick is so convincing...

@ # 36, not # 35.
I agreed that the auction was poorly managed and added that there's a systemic issue in NRM.

Deflecting away from overcooked Stew for a moment I was reading the '...and Then There's Physics' article 'How many times do we have to do this?' on the GWPF's latest malarkey and comments below where I found interesting links in a comment by John Mashey.

'The Trip Report by Bark [sic should be Mark] Boslough' and comments at Real Climate provides interesting perspectives on the duplicity of both Judith Curry and Fred Singer.

At comment #47 Michael Sweet wrote:

I looked at Dr. Curry’s presentation. The bands are not visible at all. It is Dr. Curry’s responsibility to ensure that her slides are properly formatted, especially considering the argument she makes. She is being deceptive with her arguments.

Amoeba at #46 produces links to evidence of Singer deception.

Finally, coming back to the recent display of bizarre behaviour by Stewpot via the link to Cluster B type behaviours at #39 Dr Mat offers possible classifications.

Stu2 #44.

@ # 36, not # 35.

No Stu2, read the words. My point at #35.

I agreed...

And that's the "further discussion" you wanted? "I agree". Nothing else? Jeez, dinner time at Stu2's place must be a regular fuckin' Algonquin Round Table. (walks off, shaking head in bemusement...)

Lionel,

I'm not sure why ATTP thinks this is some sort of unnecessary do-over. It is unnecessary, but its not a do-over.

Leaving aside the partiality of the participants ("ad hominem!"), their Terms of Reference show the extent to which they have poisoned the well before the first bucket of water is drawn. So good, they could have been penned by Sir Humphrey Appleby himself:
On Terms 2 and 5, Sir Humphrey remarked "The job of a professionally conducted internal enquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence."
On Terms 3 and 4, he was wont to say: "Never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be."

Term 3 is the winner for mine: "Are warming and cooling adjustments equally prevalent?" And why, by the beard of Zeus should they be equally prevalent?

Well, I can see what I'll be spending 2016 doing... :-(

Frank D.
I agreed that the auction was poorly managed which was your comment @# 36.
I also commented that in NRM that is not uncommon.
Same book different page.
Your comment @#35 was further straw man or, if you like, 'taking the piss'.
Incidentally, I also agree that a lot of time and money is being wasted by running enquires that get shackled by TORs.
That's part of your comment @#47.

"I was not intending to comment on the Kelp story." - yes you were Stu 2. Thank me for doing it for you.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 28 Apr 2015 #permalink

The Koch brothers at it again:

"“Our results show that the basis for a sea ice tipping point doesn’t hold up when these additional processes are considered,” said Wagner. “In other words, no tipping point is likely to devour what’s left of the Arctic summer sea ice. So if global warming does soon melt all the Arctic sea ice, at least we can expect to get it back if we somehow manage to cool the planet back down again.”"

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-arctic-sea-ice-loss-li…

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Apr 2015 #permalink

"if we somehow manage to cool the planet back down again"

Conveniently ignored by Olaus and his mates.

What about the death spiral Marco? The canary in crystal ball? :-)

And I did not forget “if we somehow manage to cool the planet back down again”. We have already achieved an hiatus of ca 15 years (without nowing how we managed to do so). ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Olaus, that death spiral of arctic ice melt has become most obvious in the same time period as your beloved (but oh so fake) "hiatus of ca 15 years".

And now its gone Marco: "Our results show that the basis for a sea ice tipping point doesn’t hold up when these additional processes are considered,” :-)

The crystal ball has become less clear, it seems. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

The crystal ball presented in the paper actually describes the arctic death spiral, Olaus. I know you are a little bit short on understanding of these things, so I will try to explain it in simple monosyllable words to the extent possible.

The arctic death spiral refers to the permanent loss of summer sea ice when we stay on the current track of energy gain of our planet due to CO2 emissions. The paper you cite in support of the supposed absence of a death spiral actually *supports* that death spiral, by noting that a further increase in energy resulting in a temperature increase of 2 degrees will mean permanent loss of arctic summer sea ice........until the temperature goes down again.

Since we aren't doing much to reduce our emissions, that 2 degrees increase will very likely come before the end of this century.

The article in fact expands slightly up to and including a demise of winter ice as well, as early as, well, this century's end.
Poor Petri has to change the subject again.
Inb4: Antarctic...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Marco dear, of course a paper saying that the tipping point isn't anymore, is a proof of the very same tipping point. Silly me. :-)

And Dr. Zwally is still accruate too:

"NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.h…

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Olaus, a tipping-point is not the same as a death spiral.

And yes, Zwally is still accurate. "At this rate" being the operative words.

Yes it is, and "of no return" is too. ;-)

"The process models forecasted that increased global warming would push the Arctic into an unstoppable cascade of melting that ceases only when the ocean becomes ice-free"

"UNSTOPPABLE CASCADE" :-)

And yes Marco, the hiatus wasn't forseen either. ;-)

Zwally: "The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

Union of concerned portentologist...

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Ah, the goalposts are moving again. After pointing out that "tipping point" and "death spiral" are not referring to the same thing, Olaus quickly changes his narrative to not have to address his misrepresentation.

And still the Arctic is continuing its melt and will do so for at the very least the next few decades, as we are continue to throw increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I note also that you conveniently ignored the fact that the arctic ice melt became most clear during that supposed "hiatus".

"the hiatus wasn’t forseen either" and never seen. Either.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

'Hiatus' after another global record set last year with this year set to obliterate that again...

'the canary has died' after the earliest and smallest winter extent in the record...

Evolutionary wonder these people but I guess human altruism keeps these parasites alive and bawling.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Well, one good thing about Olaus's post. It shows he now supports the output of GCMs :-)

Baby steps....

Measles (aka 'nuts').

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Marco my friend, your sciency opinion that the death spiral and the unstoppable cascade isn't synonymous isn't very convincing. :-)

I guess you have read the meters of research making the distinction between the two? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Olaus my not-friend, your unscientific opinion that the death spiral and tipping point are the same is not even not very convincing, but just straight wrong.

I have no problem finding literature that allow anyone with a functional scientific brain to see the differences. If you have even the tiniest scientific capabilities, neither should you have any problems finding that literature. But we all know you don't have any scientific capabilities.

Suddenly Petri's strawman is about 'death spiral' vs 'unstoppable cascade' instead of 'tipping point'. What a disconnected mind. Or perhaps the account is shared by a number of numbskulls.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Marco, my friend, I'm not sure you can find lots of sciency stuff discussing the great difference between the death spiral and the unstoppable cascade tipping point. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Petri's dish of mixed up concepts and scrambled thoughts is a wonder to behold!

Kampen, my friend, I haven't changed anything, but please assist Marco sending "litterature" my way that tell apart "death spiral" and the "unstoppable cascade" tipping point not recognized in the article I gave you guys in the first place. :-)

I am willing as ever to learn new stuff. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Craig Thomas @#51

And we have Richard Dawkins pushing this side of the argument:

New research links opposition to genetically modified foods with specific emotional susceptibilities - on Face Book for those who don't feel ready to face the shitstorm of comments (making it pointless to even attempt rational argument there) on FB there is more here at RDF Psychology of the appeal of being anti-GMO

Maybe Dawkins can explain how the blasting of genetic material into the cells of other organisms is in any way similar to modifying computer code. By his argument maybe throwing computer upgrades into a working box will improve the machine.

This is Dawkins' Achilles heel methinks, shame.

Have you seen 'Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation' by William F. Engdahl?

There is also

'Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating'

and

'Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods'

both by Jeffrey M. Smith the first of which came with video dvds attached.

Some denigrate Smith for his demonstrations of levitation such as this article at Rational Wiki, which does not allow for DNA fragments surviving in the gut. Maybe a look at 'Virolution' by Frank Ryan may give pause for thought about allowing stray strands of virus genetic parts float around and join up with what was once considered junk DNA in the human genome.

"I am willing as ever to learn new stuff."

No you are not. If you were, you would have already admitted moving the goalposts and would have noticed yourself that "death spiral" does not even feature in the press release you refer to.

You are way too deep into confirmation-bias-land.

Marco, my friend, so there are no sciency articles discussing the difference between "death spiral" and the "unstoppable cascading" tipping poing that no longer was recognized in my press release?

And do you now why? Becuse they are synonmous! But hey, I told you so all along, didn' I? ;-)

What's the fuzz about Marco? Good news shouldn't be unwelcome, me thinks.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Lionel, that link to Rational Wiki seems to have been written by a scientifically illiterate GMO PR flak.

I got a laugh out of this comment:

Any possible danger must be limited to the specific introduced trait

That is why any competent scientist who has even a limited knowledge of gene regulation is worried about the insertion of powerful genetic promoters such as the CaMV 35S promoter gene. Of course all the negative comments by FDA scientists were just ignored by the regulators. So much for the "scientific consensus" on the safety of these organisms. This is well documented in Druker's book.

I also got a laugh when they described Arpad Pusztai as a "usual ideologically motivated suspect". He was pro-GMO until he showed that there were problems with them.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Lionel, I sincerely hope you were not earnestly suggesting people to read Engdahl's book for its useful content?

If so, are you aware that Engdahl is a LaRouchian, holding such wonderful beliefs like AGW is just a scare to make the masses poorer, and a tiny elite richer, and that oil is non-biological in origin?

Tells me enough.

Smith is also an interesting character to refer to. This is what his biography on the Institute for Responsible Technology website states:
"He is the founding executive director of The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), a leading source of GMO health risk information for consumers, policy makers, and healthcare professionals."

It is filed under "About Us".

"Us" being Jeffrey M. Smith. He is the one and only member of that "Institute". Even SEPP has more people involved!

I am not very enamored with Ryan's Virolution either (he's not an expert in the field), but to the best of my knowledge he does not nearly go as far as your suggestion that small pieces of DNA may pass through the gut and then enter our genome. If it were that easy to introduce DNA into our genome, some of my colleagues would not be struggling so hard to get gene therapy to work even on single cells.

Sad to see people fighting cranks referring to other cranks in support for their own pseudoskepticism.

Olaus, I already told you they are not synonymous. It is easy to find for those with the mental ability to do scientific research.

Ian, claims that Pusztai was pro-GMO are just that. There is no evidence he was.

Marco, my friend, so there are no sciency articles discussing the difference between “death spiral” and the “unstoppable cascading” tipping point

There are no sciency articles about you either.

What does that mean?

Nothing? So does your assertion.

Neither fact indicate that there is no such thing as a difference or you.

Marco, just how much do you actually know about Arpad Pusztai? I suspect you just regurgitate what you read on GMO PR flak sites. You appear to be in love with GMO technology for some reason and will not accept any rational criticism of it. At least this time in your response to my comments you have not used your normal ad hominem attack.

There is ample evidence of small fragments of DNA and RNA moving from the gut to the organism consuming it and being metabolically active. In fact, the transfer of small RNA fragments has been used as a form of experimental pest control where the RNA is added to a plant and silences the gene in the organism eating it. I suggest you read more than your normal GMO flak sources for real information on the potential harmful effects of GMOs.

http://www.agbi.tsukuba.ac.jp/~odoken/seminar/my2.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020504

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Two points: Olaus 'meatball' Petri is an imbecile who hasn't been near a university science lecture theater in his life. As cRR says, the so-called alleged hiatus includes 2014, the warmest on record, and 2015 (to date) which is warmer still than any of the first 3 months in recorded history. And for the record, the Arctic ice extent is at an all-time low for this time of the year, and reached its earliest maximum winter extent ever this year (February 25). Ice is declining in exten at almost 3% per year and the age of the ice is showing that older ice is decreasing faster than that. Meatball thinks large-scale events occur in the blink of a geological eye. That shows what an imbecile he really is. By now AGW is given; there are few rejoinders and the evidence is clearly in. Its over for the deniers. As more and more of them abandon ship expect them to swing fully into 'adaptation' mode in the coming decade.

As for Pusztai, he claims to have leaned towards a pro-GM stance until the results of his snowdrop lectin experiments showed clear effects on the health of young rats. The way he was treated after these results became apparent shows how much power the GM lobby has over policy.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Gosh, my friend Little Napoleon steps in to reinforce Marco's empty words about sciency articles making a difference between "death spiral" and "unstoppable cascading" tipping point. :-)

And of course Little Napoleon keeps on inventing his own reality. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Ah, Olaus is back with his hiatus meme.

Olaus, would you care to answer the question that was repeatedly put to you on the March thread?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2015/03/19/march-2015-open-thread/comme…

In case its beyond your abilities to follow a link (your ignorance of basic science would impute this) I'll repeat it again for the umpteenth time. How would you tell that the “pause” has ceased and that warming is continuing?

In answering this all you need to do it to provide a mean global annual anomaly value, a taking into account of variability over time in the temperature dataset, and the interval of time over which you are assessing a cessation of the "pause".

Can you do that?

If you post again without addressing this it will be apparent (yet again) to everyone reading that you are simply unable to address the issue.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

So, more experts speaking out to draw attention to the fact that trouble is brewing. The Australian Medical Association and Academy of Sicence speak out to say that politics has subsumed the science:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4226691.htm

They say that "Australia can't afford to wait"...

It's a shame then that we have sky fairy-fearing, homophobic, sexist, racist, classist numpties running the place.

And it's not just health and food that are looming as serious problems, it's going to be ecosystem collapse, extreme weather damage and consequent expense, and mass migration from refugees. Assuming that financial mayhem doesn't wipe many of them from the face of the Earth first, Australia's red-neck conservative majority, who can't can't stomach even a few thousand refugees, are going to vomit like Linda Blair in the Excorcist when the shit really hits the fan and millions of boat people arrive in the hope that Australia's still the "Lucky Country".

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

Bernie, my friend, good to hear that you, like me, can't tell the difference between "death spiral" and "unstoppable cascading" tipping point.

Regarding your other Q it has been answered many times. It's easy Bernie. Take the 15 years something of unscientific armwaving about an accelerating global warming and compare with reality for the same timeperiod. What you get is a great difference, called "hiatus", even by the IPCC. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 29 Apr 2015 #permalink

See this on Lomborg and $ in USA.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Meatball, this Little Napoleon guy that you go on about has a standing in science light years ahead of yours and has the bonafides to prove it... I've asked you repeatedly what your day job is and you repeatedly ignore the question. We all know why.

The IPCC never claimed that the Arctic would be ice-free in 2012. What you are doing is classic Serengeti-strategy stuff - taking the opinions of one scientist out of context and then trying to suggest that the entire scientific community said the same thing. The Arctic ice is shrinking at a statistically significant rate, whether you claim it is or not; and the age of the ice is also decreasing at a statistically significant rate. So your points and vacuous. Meaningless.

But what's funny is that you write on here as if the whole world is listening to you, one non-scientific schmuck with an axe to grind. There is no dispute amongst the rank and file of the scientific community about the threats posed to the Arctic by climate change. None. Zero. Its taken as a given and the evidence is in, whether clowns like you like it or not.

As for your imaginary hiatus, those suggesting it based their data sets on up to 2011 or 12, and excluded 2014 and 2015. But what's more telling is that the same people harping on about a GW hiatus originally said that there was no GW at all. They stuck with this, and then suddenly switched into hiatus mode. There was no middle ground; denial did a sudden swing to hiatus. If ever evidence was needed of the dishonesty of deniers, its this simple fact.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Dear Little Napoleon, you invent evil well funded guys that deny that the globe has been warming and than you figtht them. Sorry Monsigneur, they only existist in your self loving conspiracies.

Your invention "accelerating global warming" is challenged though, since it's in conflict with reality. The hiatus isn't an invention, it is a result from "the missging heat", and nothing else. No fossil fuel lobby in operation obstructing climate science my dear friend. Only facts.

Not a cup of tea for a portentologist like you, that's for sure.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

"And for the record, the Arctic ice extent is at an all-time low for this time of the year" and it looks like this cost the great Dutch Arctic researcher and expeditionist Marc Cornelissen his life, together with Philip de Roo: http://coldfacts.org/news/42/our-dear-friends-marc-and-philip-are-missi… .

As nothing can land there the bodies will probably never be recovered.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Ian, rational criticism?

Would that be pointing to RNAi (and with one paper using an insect, not quite the same as a mammal, as an example) to argue that "small fragments of DNA and RNA moving from the gut to the organism consuming it and being metabolically active" ?

I think not. Because if you are so concerned about that, you should not be eating anything that contains DNA or RNA, because you then *also* have the possibility of "small fragments of DNA and RNA moving from the gut to the organism consuming it and being metabolically active".

Note also the size of the dsRNA getting through. Now try that with a gene and (oh, the horror) a promotor.

And if we are talking ad hominems, you may want to consider toning down your continued claims that I just regurgitate what I read on GMO PR flak sites. Not only do I get my knowledge from the primary literature, I happen to work in a group that has done considerable work to get RNAi to work in humans, and previously in a group that worked on gene therapy; as a result know a bit about the challenges of getting any RNA or DNA molecule into a cell while maintaining their function - and that's after you have solved the primary delivery challenges, like metabolism (siRNA survives for about a minute in blood, DNA not that much longer).

Jeff, "he claims to have leaned towards a pro-GM stance" is where I am skeptical. Too many times I have already seen these "He used to be..., but then he..." conversion stories, ranging from religious conversions (I used to be an atheist - read: not go to a specific church - but then I became a christian - read: I became a member of this denomination) to conversions about AGW (I used to believe the IPCC, but after doing some study myself I decided it was all a hoax).

I am well aware that the GMO industry has a lot of influence on policy, but that does not mean the primary literature is wrong. More importantly, however, I cannot understand why supposed skeptical scientists do not correct the often outrageous claims coming from certain people. Take Lionel referring to supercrank Engdahl. Or take the repeated claim that Indian farmers are committing suicide due to Monsanto bt cotton. There is no credible evidence, but that does not stop GMWatch, Ian Forrester's beloved website, to continue making that claim.

Meatball, put your money where your big mouth is. Go to any major international scientific conference in which climate change is discussed and see how far your views get you.

Nowhere. AGW is taken as given. And the hiatus is an artificial construct. Your myopic worldview would be laughed out of the venue.

Now that is reality.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Marco, my objections to transgenic technology cover a lot of ground. And I am not the only qualified scientist to voice objections to it. Many do. One thing is clear: the technology is not driven in any way shape or form as a means of benefitting humanity(except for the very rich). The very fact that it falls under the guise of 'intellectual property', should say something. In the 1960s multinational corporations indirectly controlled the food chain by making farmers dependent on fertilizers, pesticides and other products. Now they are taking it over directly by patenting seeds. This in my view is a terrifying development. What essentially are chemical/pesticide manufacturers are patenting the very essence of life for profit. They invest billions into it and want many more billions of dollars back. If the technology was being freely shared with the poor of the south then I would seriously think something good was happening. But it is not being shared... it is falling under patent rights and the corporations want their returns to be maximized.

With respect to the science, the jury is still out. Many new technologies have stings in the tail that are not clearly manifested for years or even decades after they are released into the environment. The green revolution has taken a huge toll on natural systems and the effects of transgenics on nature are still unclear. There is clear evidence that transgenic plants that are resistant to certain herbicides lead to their oversue and concomitant resitance amongst weeds, leading to an ever increasing cycle of more use and more resistance. Moreover, many chewing herbivorous insects are already resistant to Bt plants, and a recent study by colleagues in Sweden shows that transgenic plants have messed up volatile profiles with potential ecological consequences. And there are clearly many more risks. We also lose a great deal of genetic variation in relying on GM crops that emphasize only one or a few traits. Genetic variation is a necessary pre-requisite for adaptation to multiple challenges and stresses. But variation is one thing that those who control the technology do not want.

Two other points are worth considering. Many GM plants contain genetic combinations that could never occur in nature. This is not an extension of conventional crop breeding. Also, the technology is still very basic - shoving DNA from one organism randomly into the genome of another using a gene gun that can lead to all kinds of strange phenotypic responses. Finally, GMOs are the latest technological gimmick to convince mankind that we can effectively counter a range of environmental problems we are inflcting on nature. Instead of dealing with the causes, we deal with the symptoms. GM organisms require deep PR cover which they find using the specter of world hunger. But the reality is that hunger is rooted in politics and global inequity. GM technology goes no way towards dealing with that - instead it reinforces it.

So Marco, take some advice: don't come at me with this science stuff with respect to GMOs. I've debated (and hammered) many pro-GM people in the past few years. The major political and socio-economic aspects are rarely addressed. And since regulatory bodies in the US have been gutted, its no small wonder that GM varieties get through with hardly any scrutiny.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Jeff, my freind, you are still frabricating the enemy. What a surprise! :-)

The accelarating global warming, the Arctic unstoppable cascade tipping poing a.k.a. "death spiral", "the thing of the past" a.k.a snow, etc have a hard time right now, not to mention the notsomuch vanishing Antarctic sea ice. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Look at all those typo's. Either an unhappy drunk mind or an unhappy mind with some sort of disorder. If the latter is the case I'd like to know, Olaus my friend, please, because I won't be so hard on you then. Do not be ashamed, a psychological disorder is a tragedy one cannot help.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Kampen, my friend, anything to add regarding the sciency difference between "unstoppable casade" tipping point and "death spiral"? Marco says there are many articles on the topic, but he won't give me any. :-)

And Jeff, he only talks to his demons, as usual.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

cRR, do you want to know what's really funny and sick about Olaus the Swedish meatball? He appears to think that his views represent the scientific mainstream. That's the most hilarious point. Every major scientific body (including National Acaddmies of Science) in every country on Earth has stated that AGW is real and a profound threat to natural and managed ecosystems. Every major scientific body affirms the need for immediate action. Every major scientific conference takes AGW as a 'given'. Yet Olaus seems oblivious to all of this, and instead settles into his own little lyopic corner of the blogosphere with his own little world view intact.

I've attended many of these conferences where the ecological effects of GW are discussed and debated. In not a single one have I seen a senior scientist, post doc or PhD student get up on stage and talk about 'hiatuses' or argued that AGW isn't happening or is not serious. Again, its accepted as fact and the discussion has moved on to explore the possible consequences on natural systems across variable scales.

The problem for clots like Olaus is that I am a qualified scientist and I can say this with confidence whereas all he can do is pout and huff and puff and make vacuous empty smears. That's about it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Jeff, I finished laughing about the clots of climate revisionism long ago. It is a serious matter and it is very effective exactly the vile way it is. The products of this 'Olaus Petri' are special in no respect at all, they are typical.
What does strike me as somewhat odd is the large percentage of instable characters that do the footwork. We've seen Keyes degrade into panicky typo's when he felt some pressure of facts or nice retorics, we see it here with 'Olaus' (who really tried hard, with some succes, to get himself somewhat together again by #99).

The clot has (modulo some sort of psychological) no problems. You, as an integer and productive scientist has the problem and the problem is the success of revisionism. Deluded people like Abbott have no problem, the Climate Commission/Tim Flannery have the problem.
And, of course, world society as a whole has a problem. Climate revisionism kills and does so in hecatombs. Climate revisionism sets all of us to living ever more dangerous years. Climate revisionism thru a certain regime is the root cause of the Syrian war, for instance.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Marco, are you an evolution denier and believe that higher organisms are not related biochemically to insects and other lower organisms?

and with one paper using an insect, not quite the same as a mammal

There are far more similarity between these organisms both biochemically and metabolically than you seen to understand. Also, there are more than just "one paper" describing this. You really should get out there and read what is in the scientific literature rather than relying on the dishonest rubbish put put by the likes of the SMC and other GMO shill sites. You are certainly not coming across as a knowledgeable scientist in this area with your ad hominem comments and repeating of nonsense.

The one thing that people should take away from these discussions is that there is no consensus on the safety and benefits of GMO crops.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Olaus Petri said verballed me:

Bernie, my friend, good to hear that you, like me, can’t tell the difference between “death spiral” and “unstoppable cascading” tipping point.

I'd be much obliged if you could link to the post where I said that. I'll give you a hint - I didn't.

Regarding your other Q it has been answered many times.

Only with faff, and mostly not even that, and certainly never with anything remotely resembling a sensible scientific answer.

It’s easy Bernie. Take the 15 years something of unscientific armwaving about an accelerating global warming and compare with reality for the same timeperiod.

Make that "many times" + 1.

So the short answer appears to be either that you don't know, or you do know and you realise that to provide a proper answer would require that you acknowledge parameters that irrevocably invalidate your delusion of a "hiatus".

What you get is a great difference, called “hiatus”, even by the IPCC.

Olaus, the thing to which the IPCC refers as a "hiatus" is a feature of variability in the climate system. It is not a cessation of warming. You'd understand this if you were just able to answer my simple question.

Only an intellectual deficient could spent as much time as you have being exposed to the basics of climate science and seriously not grok that there is a difference.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

Marco

I am not very enamored with Ryan’s Virolution either (he’s not an expert in the field), but to the best of my knowledge he does not nearly go as far as your suggestion that small pieces of DNA may pass through the gut and then enter our genome.

No, it was not my intention that Ryan should be responsible for that idea, I was simply putting some of the ideas from Viral RNA into the context of the digestive processes not destroying all genetic chains introduced within by normal processes (as mentioned by Druker and others) leaving open the possibility of such DNA or RNA fragments linking up with others that form part of what was once considered junk DNA and becoming active in a new form of virus perhaps.

Don't forget the evolutionary steps that led to eukaryotes and then us.

Also consider that the placental wall is not as impervious as once thought.

As for Enghdale, please note that I was not endorsing all his writings I only asked if the knowledgeable here had seen a specified text by him.

To be sure he has offered idiotic opinion on what is known as, but non existent, abiotic oil. It may well be that some oil is squeezed from rock but that begs the question how did it get there? Geological processes are many and varied with sedimentary rock understood to be dragged under the crust by plate tectonics, the Farallon Plate for example was once an oceanic bed and thus likely to have biological matter deposited upon.

As with Dawkins' erroneous (IMHO) opinions about GMO (GE) one should not use that to throw out all his writings on evolution.

Marco, can you attest, without fear of any error, that Enghdale is wrong about the motives and strategy behind such as Monsanto and Cargill?

Thanks, Jeff, for a very good perspective on the GMO industry.

I think it's worth also highlighting that the PR emitted by the GMO industry is so incredibly, transparently, dishonest that it is impossible to resist scepticism towards their product.

I'm thinking of the bald-faced assertions to the effect that GMO is "proven safe". This is simply nonsensical. And the bizarre arguments the likes of - GMO is the same organism, therefore safe. GMO is the same as selective breeding, therefore safe...etc...

Cane toads are also safe.
UNTIL SOMEBODY RELEASED THEM INTO THE WRONG ECO-SYSTEM.

How, TF, could you claim that GMOs are necessarily safe?
And, having made this claim, How, TF, do they get anybody to take them seriously?

I'm well into Chapter3 and I am amazed at how complicit the FDA has been in all of this - to the point of trying to airbrush the Showa Denko GMO-related epidemic out of history by claiming that a subsequent GMO food-product 6 years later was "the first".

(Also interesting that the symptoms of the Showa-Denko epidemic sounded very similar to those suffered when a drug-trial that went horribly wrong about 10 years ago in the UK, testing a product designed to boost the immune system...).

Anyway, Chapter3 has a few, faint, warning bells in the form of what sounds like a slight case of Big-Pharma-phobia, so I'm keen to see where this goes...

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 30 Apr 2015 #permalink

One thing is clear: the technology is not driven in any way shape or form as a means of benefitting humanity

I think it best to point out here that it is a fact that the corporate intent is usually not the intent shown by the people who work there on the "coal front". Do you think that the workers at Phillip Morris were twirling their moustaches and going "Hehehe, we're making a more addictive cigarette as 'lite' to sound as if it's better than you, rather than addicting you and ruining your lungs with cancer!"? No, most were just working a job. Many thought that cigarettes were actually OK. Or your choice.

Many of the biologists will work on GMOs under the assumption that things will work out great, therefore they're doing good. Because they genuinely want to do good. And assume that the result of their work will be.

And in isolation, probably is.

However, the roll out procedure is entirely half-assed and nearly guaranteed to be bad. Not because the tech or "expected" response bad, but because it's rolled out in a way that maximises profit and precludes the necessary paranoid processes needed in a situation where we really do know next to nothing on a subject we depend life and limb on. Massive monoculture planting.

See Marco's point on how hard it's been to get some gene trait incorporated into a genome. To him it indicates how hard it is to cross gene traits, therefore proof he's safe. To me it indicates we don't know how the gene mechanism works.

He doesn't consider that planting 1000 square miles of the stuff will entail a quadrillion tests of gene transfer with tens of thousands of test subjects in only a few years,and no way to measure the results of each test, even if you had the time: they are spread out over a huge tract of land and migrate in many cases across the globe. That's a big lab.

Marco probably wants to do good, so thinks he is, and only thinks far enough to support that.

Much the same happens with people working in the fossil fuels industry too, I reckon. Those who are moving (very slowly) to new tech, investing in renewable industry, etc. As the money to make the "right decision for the industry" becomes more overtly tied to making a required judgement and less an evidenced on, and as the intransigence to changing processes gets more strait, there is less and less justification and more self-deception. Until you get to the likes of Inholfe, Lappers and other strident deniers, where it's not about evidence, it's about the tribe being right or, in the case of Lappers and others, the "other tribe" *being wrong*.

Jeff, if those genetic combinations cannot occur in nature, why are we able to make them occur in nature?

Whatever moral and ethical reasons there may be to be critical of the GMO industry, making up scare stories that simply do not hold water is rather unscientific. You may wow some people with your scientific credentials, but you don't wow me with those. I look at the arguments.

Ian, why did you ignore my request to explain why the introduction of foreign DNA/RNA into humans is such a concern with GMOs, but not with anything else?

Remember, if you (as you seem to argue) believe that small pieces of DNA/RNA may be taken up and then exert some type of function in the human body, then this should happen with the DNA/RNA of *any* organism that is eaten.

"Marco probably wants to do good, so thinks he is, and only thinks far enough to support that."

I think quite a bit farther than you give me credit for, but I just do not have the energy to discuss with people who have an ideological bias. It is extremely telling to me that I see no one else here tell Lionel A to be a bit more skeptic about the sources he cites. I also see no one putting even the slightest question mark with Ian Forrester's repeated references to GMWatch. I know he always gets upset when I mention it, so I will do it again: many of the people featuring on GMWatch as supposed trustworthy people promote wacky stuff like homeopathy. Séralini and his CRIIGEN have direct associations with the homeopathic industry.

"Marco, can you attest, without fear of any error, that Enghdale is wrong about the motives and strategy behind such as Monsanto and Cargill?"

Yes, I can attest that. The man is a good example of crank magnetism and conspiracy theory peddling. In his book he also cites such 'luminaries' like Mae-Wan Ho, who, oh dear, is yet another of those homeopathy-peddling woo artists.

Sorry, could not leave that one out.

"I’m well into Chapter3 and I am amazed at how complicit the FDA has been in all of this – to the point of trying to airbrush the Showa Denko GMO-related epidemic out of history by claiming that a subsequent GMO food-product 6 years later was “the first”."

Craig, Is it also mentioned that further scientific studies have shown significant problems with the original attempts to link L-Tryptophan from Showa Denko to EMS?
And how the GMO supposedly came into this?

Marco:

It is extremely telling to me that I see no one else here tell Lionel A to be a bit more skeptic about the sources he cites.

It is very telling that you have ignored some of the skeptical tone in my comments. A clear case of confirmation bias. You read into a statement I made something I did not intend and formed a critical judgement on that basis and then lead yourself by the nose to more such. You were so eager to attack that you overlooked my expressed reservations of some of Enghdale's opinion of which only indicated one area through interests of brevity.

Maybe instead of only mentioning such as '...further scientific studies have shown...' you could link to sources.

One of the problems as I see it from reading what I have so far is that the model of genetic control of biological functions is flawed. It appears that there is another control layer outside of the DNA - RNA which acts on those as mere system components.

If this is true, and I think it highly likely, then many text books will have to be re-written and maybe it is the thought of this that brings on the attacks by Dawkins from he realising that he is now rather too old to re-think and re-write much of his oeuvre and thus he hides behind cognitive dissonance.

I may be being unfair in that judgement but recent articles by him suggest that he has not shifted his thinking at this time.

Marco, just an informal question: is your scientific background chemistry, biology or something close to one of the two?

Marco once again brings up GMWatch. He usually spends considerable energy and vile attacking this source of information. Just shows how lacking in ethics and science he really is. Notice that he attacks people like this:

making up scare stories that simply do not hold water is rather unscientific

but I just do not have the energy to discuss with people who have an ideological bias

The man is a good example of crank magnetism and conspiracy theory peddling. In his book he also cites such ‘luminaries’ like Mae-Wan Ho, who, oh dear, is yet another of those homeopathy-peddling woo artists.

Notice how Marco hardly ever responds to science in the accepted scientific way? That is by producing papers from the scientific journals to support his case. Instead he is the one who regurgitates the dishonest rubbish he finds on the GMO shill sites. He also uses ad hominem attacks on anyone who shows the negative effects of GMOs.

I think that Marco is a scientist but hardly one who we would respect and consider trustworthy. He appears to be completely lacking in knowledge of biochemistry, cellular metabolism and real molecular biology (as opposed to gene jockeying). It is obvious that most of the scientists who are involved in genetic manipulations also seem to be lacking in these areas or completely ignore them (see for example how the regulators ignored the scientific advice from their expert scientists).

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 01 May 2015 #permalink

Marco, I put up a whole slew of arguments yesterday - you are just so utterly clueless on the topic of GMOs that you chose to ignore them.

Scientific: genetic resistance of herbivorous insects to single varieties of transgenic crops; resistance of weeds to herbicides sprayed on GMO-resistant varieties; loss of genetic variation in crops which is a pre-requisite to adaptation to multiple stressors; alteration of phenotypic traits (e.g. herbivore-induced plant volatiles, allelochemicals) in plants that affects trophic interactions; contamination of wild-type plants with GM pollen; longer-term effects on human health that are manifested long after introduction; creates genetic combinations involving DNA from completely unrelated phyla; all kinds of unpredictable pleiotropic effects; primitive technology where DNA of donor organism can end up randomly in the genome of the recipient;

Political/social/economic: GMOs as intellectual property and patent rights; eradication of small-holding farms and the rise of industrial agriculture; corporate control of the human food chain; reduction in food security because of high costs of the technology on the south; requires deep PR cover and thus GMO producers are major clients of the public relations industries;

Logistical: deals only with many of the symptoms of overconsumption/overpopulation but not the root causes; fools us into believing that there are no limits on material growth.

Pretty incisive reasons these. Yet you choose to ignore them. Your arguments don't fool me or many of my colleagues. The political reasons alone cast serious doubt on the veracity of GM technology. The corporations that control the technology are responsible for some of the greatest environmental calamities on Earth. This includes the destruction of entire towns and the contamination of wetlands and watercourses, as well as a huge human toll. They were involved in the production of agent orange that was used as a defoliant in Viet Nam that has generated a human catastrophe there. They do not give a rat's ass for human welfare but see the technology simply as a means of maximizing profit and controlling what we eat.

None of your arguments above counter any of this in even a small way. You may not think that having scientific qualifications matters but since my research involves plant-insect interactions, it sure as hell does. You're venturing into my area of expertise with an empty cannon.

By jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2015 #permalink

Sydney dams nearing 100%. Warming = duck egg. Not looking good, eh climate clowns?

Some idiot named Graham pops up with a superfluous comment. Typical mindset of deniers. Try telling that to water managers across the western united States.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @ # 17.
Interestingly, you have ventured into my area in your comment.
Some questions for you:
1) How small are and where are those small holding farms that you claim are being eradicated by industrial agriculture?
2) How do you propose to supply and feed our highly urbanised populations without paying attention to efficient logistics and attention to utilising smarter technology?
(including those who must reside in what is the 'south(?)' in your summation but I'm guessing you really mean what most call 'third world' countries?)
3) What do you propose is an acceptable sized family farm holding and what is acceptable farming practice on those acceptable sized farms?
4) Did you know that there are literally millions of small to medium and even larger family farm holdings all over the world (north, south, east and west) who did use, are using and are planning to use the same technologies that you are claiming is eradicating them?

Further- it wasn't the chemists and/or corporations and/or companies who invented and/or produced and/or supplied 'Agent Orange" (aka 245T and 24D) who used it inappropriately in Vietnam. It was most definitely Government sponsored military departments who did that. And they did indeed use the stuff entirely inappropriately and caused a great deal of damage.
Those compounds had been around and used for their actual, designed purpose well before they were used entirely inappropriately in Vietnam.
As a scientist, I thought you would at the very least understand that 'the dose makes the poison".
As Marco points out above, homeopathy and entirely natural compounds if used inappropriately can just as effectively kill people too.

Sydney dams nearing 100%. Warming = duck egg.

Explain.

The equatorial forests are quite wet, yet also quite warm. The Antartic very dry yet cold.

So how do you get from "a lot of water" to "not warming"?

Or did you just not think this through before coming to a conclusion?

Did you not think it through, Stupid? Or did the error not worry you?

Stu 2 imagines that warming was supposed to bring permanent drought to the east coast of Australia because Tim Flannery and other scientists pointed out that droughts will be more severe at global warming progresses.

He has committed a logical fallacy in equating the occurrence of flooding with disproof of severe drought. The sad thing (both for him and his ilk, and for humanity) is that the mistake is completely opaque to the understanding of those who make this error.

I could forgive Stu 2 this mistake though is he is able to tell us in hindsight exactly what type of lofical fallacy he has committed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 May 2015 #permalink

Yeah, that's "logical"...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 May 2015 #permalink

And it was Graham, not Stu 2.

Serve myself right for trying to respond to two people at once. Still, that brand of Stupid is Stu 2's too, so my own error was easy to make...

:-)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 May 2015 #permalink

StuPid asked:

How small are and where are those small holding farms that you claim are being eradicated by industrial agriculture?

The simple answer is that it is happening all over the globe. However, it is particularly bad in Asia

http://www.grain.org/article/entries/5195-asia-s-agrarian-reform-in-rev…

Africa:
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/5137-the-land-grabbers-of-the-naca…
http://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/4478-land-grabs-leave-afric…

South America:
http://www.landgovernance.org/system/files/Carabellese_Argentina.pdf

It always amazes me that StuPid people are so short sighted that they think the whole world is the same as what they see through their myopic and faulty eyes.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 02 May 2015 #permalink

Since the introduction of industrial farming in the 1950s, France had lost about 5 million employees from the agricultural sector. The number of small farms is still decreasing.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 02 May 2015 #permalink

Folks.
No one is arguing that farming practices haven't changed.
Further, no one is arguing that there is no such thing as corporate farming.
Many of those 'small farms' that you claim are eradicated by industrial agriculture are still in the hands of small to medium family farming enterprises. In Asia and Africa a significant percentage of those 'small farms' were little better than subsistence and/or 'slash & burn' agriculture. They were also seriously overgrazed.
Unless you can answer questions like mine above re acceptable farm sizes and acceptable farming practices you are just making vague , romantic, ideological comments about noble peasants or some bygone era.
Did you also notice that much of the displacement you complain about is the result of government policies that end up favouring corporate farming?
So yes, the number of small farms is decreasing. There are less farmers being forced to 'do more with less'. Economies of scale in agriculture, government NRM policies and better technologies are key drivers.
And yes turboblocke that also results in less employment in agriculture. To remain viable, family farming enterprises need to reduce manual labour.
Who or what do you propose should have ownership of
agricultural production?
The experiments in Russia and China last century were not successful.
At least in places like France, ownership is still primarily in generational family enterprises, even though there are less of them.
There is no clear definition of what is 'small' here.

Your contention that small farms still remain in the family is not true in France. The number of farms, especially those run by owners and using family labour are decreasing all the time still. Meanwhile the large scale corporate farms are increasing in number.

Finally the realisation is beginning to dawn that the consumer gets "cheap" food, but then has to pay for the solving the public health, pollution and societal problems. Just like fossil fuels, the industries have privatised the profits and socialised the costs.
This has lead to calls by the EU Commission to reevaluate farming policy and reduce incentives for large scale farming to combat pollution, job losses, rural depopulation, etc.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 03 May 2015 #permalink

A blog from each side of the GMO (GEO) debate:

There is no scientific consensus on GMO safety

and

GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe Helping readers navigate the confusing myths of modern biology

but that latter is under suspicion if

Source Watch is on the nail.

As Professor Ian Stewart has, and others have, pointed out, GM techniques are based on a flawed and out-of-date understanding of genetics and the function of DNA and RNA.

Turboblocke has nailed it. The costs of induistrial, corporate agriculture are externalized, much as the costs of economic activity in general are, meaning that the costs fall on society as a whole. This lies at the heart of the debate on protecting supporting ecosystem services, because at present although they sustain us in a myriad of ways they are not captured in price:cost scenarios.

The corporate takeover of the human food chain is having immense societal and environmental costs. If GMOs were free of the intellectual property tag, I might - just might - think that a small number may help in helping us to sustainably maintain or increase agricultural productivity per unit of land. But because they fall under patent rights those who own the copyright do so on the basis of profit and profit alone. That a few corporations will determine who eats and who doesn't is in my view both terrifying and ridiculous. Moreover, the idea that bioprospectors can go into remote tropical regions, be shown important medicinal plants and other biota, and that they then take these materials back to the labs in the north, experiment on them, then patent them, is insane. In this way we don't protect biodiversity because of their ecological or aesthetic importance, but because they bring a small number of investors big financial returns. Nature thus becomes nothing more than a commodity to be bought, sold and traded.

As I said before, GM technology falls well within the realm of wealth concentration and drives further inequities between the rich and the poor. And this in turn lies at the heart of burgeoning social and environmental problems.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 May 2015 #permalink

Marco says,
"attempts to link L-Tryptophan from Showa Denko to EMS"

'attempts'?

10,000-odd people got sick, and it unquestionably was linked to a GMO.

You may want to believe the GM part of the O was not responsible, and you may even be right. But maybe not.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 May 2015 #permalink

I have a nit to pick with Druker, though, and it's on p.78.

He accuses Big Pharma in cahoots with the FDA of trying to prevent choice and reduce competition by insisting on regulating "natural supplements".

er...but this particular "natural supplement", tryptophan, was GMO'd, so not "natural" at all, and it made people sick, indicating regulation of "natural supplements" by the FDA is a need...

also,
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/how-supplements-work/…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 May 2015 #permalink

I guess that Stu 2's answer is "no".

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 May 2015 #permalink

Sorry Bernard J????
Your guess that my answer is "no" to what question???
The only direct question you have asked is can I do better than Olaus.
I thought it was an odd question especially after your blooper above re Graham's comment @#18.
Turboblocke @#30 seems equally confused.
I actually agreed that there are less farms & less farmers having
to 'do more with less'.
I pointed out however that 'ownership' is still primarily in the hands of generational farming families.
Unless there is some type of definition of 'small' and some idea
about what is an acceptable sized farm and/or acceptable
farming practices, turboblocke and Jeff Harvey are just hand
waving about a trend in agriculture and not recognising the
drivers.
Government and UN NRM & agricultural policies based on 'environmentalism' are actually facilitating the increase of corporate farming.
But subsistence agriculture & primitive slash & burn agriculture & peasant farming are not good for the environment either.
Right throughout Asia & Africa & places like Argentina, those people basically had to choose between starving or flogging their tiny plots to death.
Government farming was tried in Russia & China along with their 'agrarian revolution' theories. That was not successful.
You seriously need to ask yourselves what you're actually promoting.

I just assumed you were still confused about who you were actually addressing & what topic you were actually addressing.
Hope that helps?

Stu2, You are stuck on conditions down under in your country. Last time I looked at an atlas, I saw that there were many more land masses on the planet. The role of corporations in driving industrial agriculture that (1) reduces food security, (2) concentrates wealth, and (3) further damages the environment should be patently obvious by now. The US is by now a plutocracy; corporations run the show. They determine (in fact control) policy and are doing the best to see that other countries around the world follow suit. The current dominant global political system isn't called "The Washington Consensus" for nothing. Moreover, your pithy non-response to my arguments re: transgenics shows how utterly out of your depth you are. Your only riposte is to throw in the useless term "hand-waving". When it comes to the political and economic forces underpinning agriculture over much of the world your views reveal that you are as thick as a sack of potatoes. No pun intended.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 May 2015 #permalink

The only direct question you have asked is can I do better than Olaus.

And you didn't. You did no better. Therefore the answer to Bernard's question was "no" you can't do better than Lappers.

It is odd therefore that you find it odd that you answered Bernard's question and it being odd to you that you did so.

Sorry Jeff Harvey?
I note you have completely ignored my questions upthread.
Unless you can answer those simple questions you are merely hand waving about a trend in agriculture.
I don't like it either.
If, along with me, you don't like the actual outcomes of that trend- what is the solution?

"I note you have completely ignored my questions upthread."

Time to note that, but no time to answer your rather longer and older backlog, Stupid?

How dumb do you think other people are, so they won't notice that?

The solution is actually quite simple, although achiveing it may be hard. That is to dump the current dominant political system (corporate capitalism) and replace it with something more human, more sustainable.

You may think that's not possible. I think that if we don't, our species won't last much longer on this planet.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 May 2015 #permalink

I mean more humane...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff - Stu2 is not "stuck on conditions down under in [his] country". He is fantasising about those conditions.

The majority of invididual properties may be "family farms" (often the banks actually own them), but the farmers are virtual indentured labourers for the supermarket oligopoly here. Vertical integration, seed-to-plate control, overwhelming market dominance and no compunction about leveraging it.

This article is very long, but worth reading in full. It really highlights the difference between "cost" and "price" - a difference that Stu2 has proven unable to grasp in past discussions. "Steve" the lettuce grower who has no control over his own produce, Mike Blacklock, the dairy farmer, who can no longer afford to subsidise the predatory pricing tactics...these are the Australian family farmers Stu2 thinks he's speaking about.

I'm not sure why he put "ownership" in quotes in #36, but its apt, because its ownership in name only. The conventional accounting definition of an asset requires both "ownership" and "control"; they have the former - the title or lease (if not hocked to the eyebrows) - but in many cases not the latter.

Of course, that is when the system is working as it is supposed to. Of course, our big chains are so "concerned" by reports of slave labour in the prawn industry that they decided to opt for producers deploying much the same practices in out domestic ag. labour market. Prices are down, forget about costs.

I had a view of the other end of the chain when the local chamber of commerce did a bit of "community consultation" on a question that effectively boiled down to: "Do you want your local independent retailers to be crushed by one additional behemoth or two?" The designated area does not even have room for the one that is there without considerable reduction of community amenity, but when I asked "How do I vote for 'none'?", the suit just blanked me and shifted to another punter, "Do you think you pay to much for groceries each week?"... Such is "community consultation" when business is involved.

The politicians will loosen the rules under the squeeze from both ends of the business, the supermarkets will tell the farmers to plant GMOs, and the farmers will have...what choice exactly? Family owned...right...

Of course, Stu2 knows all this, yet he continues to talk about family-run farms as if they still had much choice about how they conduct their business, when the fact is that most of them don't.

For the record, I have no particular stance on GMOs - some are okay, some are nokay. But the business side of it, some of the most brutish dog-eat-dog, price-not-cost capitalism one would (n)ever want to see just reminds me of the proverbial boot stamping on a human face for ever.

Just one example of the market distortions from a globalised ag' system is that of the UK dairy industry farmer The price of milk where the following is typical of many farming sectors:

Farmers responded by vastly increasing their milk production, mostly by expanding their herd sizes and further intensifying production, with the very large industrialised farms getting even bigger.

Industrialised milk production is cruel and dangerous, being another 'farming' industry supported by high tec' in antibiotics (largely misused or needed because of other malpractices) and cheap feed produced by over-harvesting from our oceans or use of mono-culture GM.

This is nowhere near a new story, there were articles in the papers back in April 2012, and fits in with Denis Thatcher's alleged remarks about being happier when the population have reverted to serfdom. For many farmers this is a reality, serfs to the supermarkets who are beholden to investors to maximise profit for shareholders. This is, hedge funds etc aside, includes pension funds.

Unfettered capitalism is a nasty beast one which has made slaves of most politicians, certainly those who rise to the top. In one of 2012's Guardian articles the then farming minister did not know the retail costs of a pint of milk, let alone the cost of production.

Joe Otten in Thatcher, Blair and the Road to Serfdom writes a thoughtful piece which sets out some of the back issues and 'The Spirit Level' is worth a look.

Things have to change if we humans are to leave our children a planet worth living on. One of my concerns is that our children are not learning the truth about how we got here. Such an information vacuum is of course a part of the plan supported by debasing education and letting the media have free reign in pumping out gossip titillation and trivia. With that latter, by making 'celebrities' out of game show contestants and thus providing fodder for the former being but one example. OK, Hello, etc. yuk, what a waste of resources.

Just to show how far the corporate influence has infected the supposedly hallowed halls of Academia one has only to look at the despicable behaviour of the Dean of Agriculture at the National University of Cordoba when funding my Mosnaot is at stake.

The Dean, Juan Marcelo Conrero, requested an administrative inquiry and sanctions into the actions of Dr Medardo Avila Vazquez a teacher and researcher at the Faculty of Medicine.

The request was made after Avila Vazquez coordinated a health survey in the town of Monte Maiz, where he confirmed high rates of cancer, birth defects and spontaneous abortions. He linked the disease to transgenic and agrochemicals. Avila Vazquez commented, ”It is a clear ideological persecution. If the study had been favorable to Monsanto they would not have said anything – they would have praised it.”

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-271898-2015-05-04.html

For anyone wanting an English version and are not allergic to articles in GMWatch (such as Marco) you can read about it here:

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2015-articles/16141-unive…

Fortunately, public pressure has resulted in the dropping the action against Dr Medardo Avila Vazquez.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2015-articles/16136-unive…

The whole mood is changing regarding the growing of GMO crops and their resultant ill health effects in South America.

It is too bad that people like Marco and other GMO promoters bury their heads in the sand when the negative effects of this technology are exposed. It is very telling when the only ammunition in their arsenals is just vicious ad hominem comments.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 04 May 2015 #permalink

ooops, funding by Monsanto is at stake.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 04 May 2015 #permalink

Global warming/climate change/weather extremes malarkey bites the dust. Smashed out of the park by empirical evidence. GM bashing is the mad Left's new scam, it seems.

Jeff Harvey @#41.
If the solution is to dump the current political system - what is the 'more humane' system it is to be replaced by?
'Our species' has become highly urbanized (including in poor nations) & those large concentrations of 'our species' need efficient logistical access to essentials for their daily survival.
The 'small' farmers (whatever your definition of small actually is?), can at the very least feed themselves and their immediate family.
Upthread I mentioned systems that have not worked (not even as well as the system you advocate dumping entirely).
UN directives and regulations based on international environmental treaties are facilitating the trend that neither you or I like and also what Frank D has highlighted as negative impacts to family or small to medium agricultural enterprises.

Stu 2,

The only system good enough for Little Napoleon is when he can be Great(st) Napoleon. Imagine how his tolerant views, his reluctancy to read evil into "others" and inability to see conpiracies everywhere would creat the perfect world. And fast too. Probably based on scieny stuff as well. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 May 2015 #permalink

Another vacuous musing from the meatball (Olaus). I have fun with some of the new terms he invents. I recall him once talking about 'instinction rates' in animals (that was a real howler) and now he comes up with the word 'scieny'. Also he has conjured up a word, "Greatst" which sounds like it may some slang Swedish term. Whichever way you cut it, Olaus is a dope. And he loathes the fact that my qualifications shit all over his (that isn't hard though, as he doesn't have any).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 May 2015 #permalink

Stu2, Read "Endgame" by Derrick Jensen. He explains how urban populations depend on externally obtained resources that are often obtain by coercion, theft and/or violence. The current political system is both genocidal and ecocidal. If you think we can work within it to create a socially just, sustainable world I think that you are living in cloud cuckoo land. We require a system that does not put profit ahead of people or the environment. Given that human nature is often based on greed, I can't tell you what system should replace the current one. But the current one isn't working and if we don't dump it then the consequences will be dire.

One further point about meatball: in re-reading his drunken narrative above (# 49) its clear he does not have a grasp of the English language. His second sentence is totally illogical on the basis of inferring negatives when in fact he is trying to infer positives. He's such a clot that he doesn't know what the hell he is saying half the time.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 May 2015 #permalink

oopps, now I am becoming infected: I mean 'obtained'.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 May 2015 #permalink

Do you mean Derek Jensen of DGR ?
Seriously?
Look up that organisation and what it advocates.
I didn't notice anything that I would define as 'humane'.
I would submit that 'misanthropy' would be a closer definition of DGR's and the founder's basic philosophy.
I also note that he could not be defined as an 'elite scientist' and does not have any respect for agriculture and/or 'small' farms.

Until you read what Jensen mhas to say, you aren't really worth responding to. He is a renowned speaker and environmentlist. Essentially he argues that civilization as currently defined is unsustainable. And he has plenty of evidence to prove it. Humanity has a lot of definitions. Wantonly destroying the environment for short-term profit that benefits the privileged few does not figure highly IMHO.

You interpret misantropy on the basis of your narrow world view. You don't appear to think that the current system is all that bad, nor do you think that the planet faces any potentially dire consequences as a result of human overconsumption and overpopulation. You say that Jensen is not an elite scientist - he isn't - when you are not either. In fact, given my bonafides, I probably am, although I leave that for my peers to decide. And I can clearly see us heading towards an abyss. Jensen sees it too, only that he advocates more drastic measures to deal with it. If we don't change course, then he will be proven correct.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 May 2015 #permalink

Well done Graham. Completely void of any sign of intelligence there.

So just proclaming something is good enough for you, then?

I claim you are a moron.

If the solution is to dump the current political system – what is the ‘more humane’ system it is to be replaced by?

Anarchism. Not the media interpretation of it, but the actual real one in reality.

One that is basically identical to libertarianism, but with the absolute proviso that your freedom doesn't extend to freedom over others, which is what libertarians want libertarian philosophy for: so they can be in charge.

2 Stupid

Do you mean Derek Jensen of DGR ?
Seriously?

Not exactly ISIS are they, far from it.

Now if you bothered to read up on the social costs alone of the present economic-political construct you would realise why such actions are required, i.e. a total re-jig of the system, better a rebuild from scratch. Free-market economics (an Orwellian term for it is anything but free-market) have more than failed they have led directly to mass murder whether direct mass murder or that more subtle kind through marginalisation and starvation. WTF do you think the aims of GMO agro' are?

Search out 'The Little Earth Book' which touches many bases in a succinct manner easy to grasp. Hint, check out sources cited therein for more detail as required.

Also these are worth studying:

'The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better' by Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett,

The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future by Joseph Stiglitz, you can find a PDF to download but at your own risk.

and

'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' by Thomas Picketty

Stu2:

UN directives and regulations based on international environmental treaties are facilitating the trend that neither you or I like and also what Frank D has highlighted as negative impacts to family or small to medium agricultural enterprises.

Are you saying that Australia's supermarket duopoly, and the consequent abuse of market position, is the fault of the UN? Which UN directives and regulations have facilitated the exploitation of 417 visa holders to shave production costs to unsustainably low levels?

#55, that's called 'observing a fact'.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey,
I have read what he has to say and your interpretation of what I think is incorrect.
I don't think it's all good.
Derek Jensen et al are no friend to agriculture or family farming.They have no solutions to reversing the trend in agriculture that we were highlighting. They don't like anything
about modern civilization or progress or innovation.
Lionel A?
Not exactly ISIS?
Frank D.
I was referring to the trend in farm debt levels.
I am no fan of the pressure that the duopoly puts on producers.
Agriculture encompasses far more than just fruit & veg production BTW.

"They don’t like anything about modern civilization or progress or innovation".

Modern civilization? Progress? Innovation? You mean the current situation where mankind is wantonly destroying natural systems, driving species to extinction at rates unseen in 65 million years? Where entire ecosystems that sustain us are being annihilated to make way for development? Where disproportionate amounts of state budgets are allocated to 'defense' which is reality killing people in industrial numbers in wars for profit? Where wealth has been so concentrated that as few as the richest 80 people control more combined wealth then the poorest 3.5 billion? Where its clear that humans and natural systems have been on a collision course for the past half century but bugger all has been done about it? Where a tiny minority of wealthy elites dictate policy and control immense power?

You are living in fantasy land, Stu2. Even Chris Hedges, a quiet voice of reason, yesterday said that resistance is essential.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 May 2015 #permalink

“They don’t like anything about modern civilization or progress or innovation”

What's modern about burning things for heat and light?

That's pre-stone age technology.

Your problem is that renewables are supported by liberals, hippies and ecologists, and if you accepted the 20th century technology of them, you believe you'd have to be one of them.

Because you're

a) stupid
b) insane

I was referring to the trend in farm debt levels.

So you are saying that Australia’s farm debt level is the fault of the UN, then? Or not? How about instead of leaving us to guess the intent of your flatulent, content-free bollocks you actually nail your colours to the mast and make one explicit point? All you've managed so far is to complain that Jeff is too vague, while being even vaguer yourself. So how big is a "family" farm? Is a "family" farm still such if its owned by the banks? How big is a "small" farm when you use that term. What do you mean by a "significant percentage"? When you get through them, there's about 20 other terms so vague as to be functionally useless you can follow up with. Holding other people to a standard you epically fail to sustain? I'd be shocked, if I ...no, wait, I'd never be shocked by that.

Perhaps Stu2's purpose here merely random, disruptive crepitation to hamper what might otherwise be a coherent discussion?

Agriculture encompasses far more than just fruit & veg production BTW.

After you summoned up dictionary definitions and argued for nearly a hundred posts about it, I really thought you would be able to identify a strawman by now. But in case you can't, that is what one looks like, muppet. Who ever claimed otherwise?
The economy encompasses far more than just cash and barter transactions, BTW. (Shall we all play Stu2's Strawman game?)

Stu2

We have an intractable problem: free market ideology is predicated on the notion of endless growth. Endless growth is impossible in a finite world. The paradigm of endless growth also implicitly excludes a full accounting of external costs. That's why Nicholas Stern called AGW 'the greatest market failure the world has ever seen'.

He might have added - but didn't really need to spell it out - that AGW falsifies the paradigm on which free market fundamentalism rests.

BBD et al.
Who or what should be administering this full accounting of external costs?
Where does the money go and what does it get spent on?
The system you seem to be vaguely advocating is not a new concept and does not encourage your vague definition of 'small farms'
In essence 'big government' delivers no better results than 'big corporations'.
In agriculture they're both squeezing out the 'little guy'.
Frank D has asked the wrong question.
It is not specifically the fault of one entity.
The developing bureaucratic systems are 'facilitating' the worrying trend in agriculture and creating perverse outcomes.
That means that they're exacerbating the challenges being faced in agriculture, rather than their stated goals of solving them.
In your language, your argument appears 'counter intuitive'.

Or - in agricultural terms and colloquially your philosophy appears to advocate ' biting the hand that feeds you'.
BTW Jeff Harvey, aren't such things as solar power, telecommunications, satellite technologies, satellite tracking, advanced metering, remote telemetry, and a myriad of others examples of progress and innovation?
How do you track, monitor and evaluate such things as endangered species or atmospheric CO2 & etc?

‘ biting the hand that feeds you’.

Yes, and as applicable to the slaves who revolted against their owners as here.

"Who or what should be administering this full accounting of external costs?"

Same as everything else: international agreements.

"Where does the money go and what does it get spent on?"

Doesn't matter any more than any other task enacted by groups. You don't get an itemised bill from your shop on what they spent their money on when you hand them cash for goods.

"The system you seem to be vaguely advocating is not a new concept and does not encourage your vague definition of ‘small farms’"

So?

"In essence ‘big government’ delivers no better results than ‘big corporations’."

In essence, this is the deluded imagination of any libertarian moron ever. Concocted only because for some reason you feel that government MUST be bad.

Wow.
Reread your comments @#56.
Then please outline how 'international agreements' are currently achieving that, particularly in agriculture and protecting the very vaguely defined 'small farms' that was highlighted as a problem.
We all agree that there is a 'trend' that we don't like. There are less farms and less farmers who are being expected to do more with less. They're being squeezed out. Your 'international agreements' are not reversing that trend.
Unlike you apparently, I'm not arguing anything is inherently bad or good.
That is just attaching subjective opinions to a discussion that should be objective and based on outcomes.
In agriculture, most things need to be judged by results, including impacts to the environment, negative and positive.

There are some on this blog and elsewhere who feel that Jeff Harvey is extreme in his views about how humans fit into the biosphere, but the hard truth is that a dispassionate analysis of the trajectory of human resource use relative to the state of the global ecosystem will inevitably lead to a corroboration of Jeff's statements.

If people can't see why Jeff is correct in his projections of the consequences of human activity, then that is just a reflection of the inability of most people to intuitively grok the reach of human influence, the timescales on which it takes the effects of human actions to ripple through the ecosphere, and the degree to which their own selfishness subsumes rational consideration of other species and future generations.

The human brain evolved to communicate verbally with sophistication, to watch other tribe members in social and hunting circumstances, and to make useful tools from rocks and wood. It is spectacularly good at doing these things, to the extent that the resultant intelligence packed into that brain has extended far beyond the purposes for which it evolved. The trouble is that, due to the explosive emergence of unintended ability resulting from the evolution of the human brain, humans didn't simultaneously evolve mechanisms to innately balance the consequences that emerge from the use of their intelligence, or the nous to perceive, identify, and respond to such consequences.

Stu 2 asks the question "[w]ho or what should be administering this full accounting of external costs"? It's a simple one to answer - either humans with the capacity* to account for all the costs of our actions should do so, or nature and her laws of thermodynamics will do so and we will have no right to complain when we're about to be tossed off the field forever.

The revenge of the dodo...

*This excludes most politicians, economists and corporates. The trouble is that we have no mechanism to properly gauge those so disqualified... If humans don't get their shit together and think beyond the interests of individuals, then as a species we're stuffed.

It's a decision for all of us to make. Someone just needs to start the ball rolling on the poll.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 May 2015 #permalink

Bernard.
Humans are essentially a herd animal and are also tribal.
'Individual Interests' is not the problem. IMHO there is not enough respect for individual rights in most governance systems in the world.
Despite their many failings, especially as human civilization becomes increasingly urbanized, democratic systems are
where we learn to be 'more humane' and start respecting each other and our environment.
Those systems foster such progress as universal suffrage and universal access to such things as education and health care.
Appointing humans to 'be more equal than others' is not a new concept. It doesn't work.

Here's a brazen example of Stu2's inane stupidity:
"democratic systems are where we learn to be ‘more humane’ and start respecting each other and our environment".

Comedy gold. What democracies are we talking about? The US? Australia? Canada? Europe? Countries that all foster ecological deficits and are involved in expansionist agendas employing violence and coercion that are plundering resources from the lands of the poor? That export their ecological destruction?

Get his through your head Stu2: there are no true democracies in the developed world. We are immersed in plutocratic systems ('Corporatocracies' as John Perkins calls them) that serve the interests of the corporate elites (the 1% in other words). Corporations are in charge. they've won. In the US they control every level of government and the judiciary.

The late Australian academic Alex Carrey once said, "The twentieth century was characterized by three great developments with huge societal implications. The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporations against democracy". Totally true words, coming back to resonate as wealth becomes ever more concentrated.

Stu2, its a waste of time discussing these issues with you. Your views are stuck in the sandbox.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 May 2015 #permalink

Stu2

Who or what should be administering this full accounting of external costs?

Humanity.

Where does the money go and what does it get spent on?

Humanity.

It is not specifically the fault of one entity.

It is the consequence of a flawed *ideology*. Read. The. Words.

You are doing your usual thing where you invent a completely different conversation to the one in progress.

Once again for the hard of thinking:

We (humanity) cannot go on like this for much longer.

Stu2

Appointing humans to ‘be more equal than others’ is not a new concept. It doesn’t work.

But that is exactly what vested corporate interest has done for itself. You appear incredibly naive, sometimes.

Appointing humans to ‘be more equal than others’ is not a new concept. It doesn’t work.

Stu 2, yet again you are verballing me.

I never said that some people are "more equal" than others. I simply said that people qualified to assess what needs to be done should be the ones responsible for seeing that it is done.

This is a fundamental tenet of most civilised societies. To say othewise is to decend into conspiratorial la-la land.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 May 2015 #permalink

‘Individual Interests’ is not the problem. IMHO there is not enough respect for individual rights in most governance systems in the world.

The self-interest of humans is exactly in the centre of the problem. Humans individually are feathering their own nests at the expense of other nations, other species, and future generations. It's teh tragdy of the commons.

You might have your humble opinion, but I rely on demonstrable fact. And the fact is that given our technological reach across the planet and into every planetary system there simply is no room for the amount of individual selfishness that is currently manifesting in too many countries around the world - especially in Western countries. YMMV, but the trajectory of environmental degradation is both my evidence, and the nail in the coffin for any individual human freedoms in the future.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 May 2015 #permalink

Joanne Codling will be having kittens right at this moment, because the pressure on UWA from its staff, students, alumni, peer institutions, and the general public has resulted in them tearing up the Lomborg contract:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708

Expect an avalanche of righteous umbrage from the deniers donning their tinfoil hats and declaring censorship, conspiracy, and any and every other excuse for the university's administration seeing sense.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 May 2015 #permalink

Please strip off the 'U' of 'UWA'. That this institute needed to be taught by the people instead of being able to assess climate revisionism as such ends its status as a university. Any chance for a good wildfire there?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 May 2015 #permalink

"I simply said that people qualified to assess what needs to be done should be the ones responsible for seeing that it is done."

See, the thing is Stupid is a moron and he likes other morons who agree with him.

They're all unqualified.

But they want to be in power. They want to be the decision makers.

Therefore letting the qualified decide means they cannot.

Therefore they want morons to decide on any issue, so that they can claim superior qualification in that area.

Pretty simple, really Just like Stupid. Except he's not pretty.

" Appointing humans to ‘be more equal than others’ is not a new concept. It doesn’t work."

So companies, with executives and directors and a board don't work, then, Stupid?

Hmmm. A new line from you. Incompatible with your other claims,though. But that's never worried you, has it.

Wow
Reread your comments @#56.

I did. They don't appear to have any problem in them. Nor do your following statements indicate any relevance to them, or an error in them.

Then please outline how ‘international agreements’ are currently achieving that,

Ozone Hole.

If you're talking about agreements that haven't been implemented as proving international agreements haven't implemented the fix, then you're in a tautological circle you cannot (will not) escape.

There are less farms and less farmers who are being expected to do more with less. They’re being squeezed out. Your ‘international agreements’ are not reversing that trend.

Because there are no international agreements to reverse that trend.

Duh.

In agriculture

What about climate?

#77, Great news, and really the only correct outcome. UWA, seeing dollars, was a little thoughtless in accepting the proposal, but probably did not do diligence on Lomborg and saw a bigger picture, of which he was functionally a small part. They did not see the Trojan horse aspect until they started to absorb the pushback.

I reckon UWA had no idea initially that Abbott's office was behind the idea, and had little awareness of Lomborg: the world is full of political scientists and economic projectionists.. Once they knew of the PM's office impetus, the Pyne distraction and Lomborg's Errors, they realised they would be compromised forever if the Centre was allowed to go ahead.

Pyne, throwwing your predicted tantrum, has vowed to shoehorn the 'borg into something: just set him up with the IPA, Chrissy. They wanted him, they can fund him.

‘Individual Interests’ is not the problem.

They are precisely the crux of the problem if we account for the manner in which they are actually honoured and employed. Individuals' perceptions of their interests are all too frequently one or more of:

a) in their short term interest but even more strongly not in their long term interest

b) not actually in their interest at all

c) in opposition to the actual interests of others, including larger groups of organisms up to and including the group "all of humanity" and the group "all life on Earth".

Allowing individual interests to override those in (c) often has very severe consequences.

Those systems foster such progress as universal suffrage and universal access to such things as education and health care.

The trend in universal access to education and even to a certain standard of health care in many so-called democratic countries is arguably towards less universal access and lower standards of service provision. The USA is the poster child for this phenomenon, and the current Australian government is trying to move this country more in that direction.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 May 2015 #permalink

UWA, seeing dollars, was a little thoughtless in accepting the proposal, but probably did not do diligence on Lomborg ...

I've seen it suggested that when one looks at the upper management of UWA and their political and commercial affiliations, one might conclude that they went in enthusiastically with eyes fully open. That would explain their attempt to brazen out the revolt of their academic staff.

I reckon UWA had no idea initially that Abbott’s office was behind the idea...

I'm not sure of that. UWA was the first to report to the media that Abbott's office was behind it, IIRC (although they may have just said the government was).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 May 2015 #permalink

BBD@#74.
Unlike the systems you appear to be advocating, those 'appointed' humans in private corporations are directly accountable and sackable.
That in no way implies that I think it's all goog.
However, I don't believe the system you are advocating is a new concept or demonstrating anything better for humanity and the globe.
One of the obvious manifestations is in that worrying trend in agriculture.
Lotharsson @#83
Sorry?
Are you claiming that systems based on democratic principles (despite their many flaws) have not delivered universal suffrage and access to health and education?
Which governance systems are you claiming have done a better job?
All of you seem to be operating under the idea that someone else should be made to pay for all the ills and inequality in the world without understanding that you're the 'someone else' along with family farming enterprises, SMEs and numerous others who you claim you support.
I think you all need to get out and about a little more.
At least 80% of the world's population think well educated, well clothed, well housed, well watered & etc people- just like you-are the fortunate ones.
They would happily swap places with the likes of Jensen and Jeff Harvey who are actually products of the governance systems they quite clearly despise.
Interestingly, in most cases, it is in those systems based on democratic principles where opposing ideologies can voice their opposition. In other systems even women who want to improve the lives of their daughters and granddaughters via political equality are opposed and oppressed.
Along with you, I don't approve of excesses and overconsumption and waste & etc. Along with you, I agree there is a worrying trend developing in agriculture.
However, I don't subscribe to your vaguely misanthropic mindset that has unclear definitions about something even as simple as 'small farms' and much negative hand waving and doomsaying and nay saying.
As well as not being 'all good', neither is it 'all bad'.
As well as being capable of monumental stuff ups, humanity is also capable of spectacular success.
We are part of the global environment, not a feral pest that needs to be eradicated.

More b* from Stu2:

"Interestingly, in most cases, it is in those systems based on democratic principles where opposing ideologies can voice their opposition"

Thus stupid man did not read the post I put up yesterday. To retierate, and emphasize, WE DO NOT LIVE IN HEALTHY FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACIES. WE LIVE IN PLUTOCRACIES WHERE CORPORATE ELITES ARE IN CONTROL. Sheldon Wolin has described out systems as 'Inverted Totalitarian', meaning that they don't find their expression through a revolutionary leader or party but through the anonymity of the corporate state. They've won, as `I said yesterday. They ensure that we live in 'managed democracies' where their power is unchallenged. There's nothing fictional at all about this; it just 'is'.

I despise the system because its ecocidal and genocidal and if not changed will drive natural systems beyond a point whereby they cannot sustain us. We are heading for an abyss of our own making and tweaking programs within a clearly bankrupt and corrupt socio-economic political system will not work.

The problem with people like Stu2 is that they are clearly not aware of the underlying mechanisms that drive the Washington Consensus. As I said yesterday, I might as well be debating with a kindergarten student. We are clearly debating on very different intellectual levels. I've read hundreds of books on economics and policy and sadly there's nothing controversial in what say. But telling this to someone with little knowledge is a waste of my time.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 May 2015 #permalink

"Unlike the systems you appear to be advocating, those ‘appointed’ humans in private corporations are directly accountable and sackable."

Yeah, right. You get a chance to vote on your politician and government. Unless you put money in for the corporation to use as they wish (a tax), you get no say.

Of course, you get no say anyway, since you cannot afford many shares. And you can't afford one share in every company in the world, despite the fact that they sell and pressure your politicians for international trade rights.

Unlike politicians who can lose their job, their election and their position to the electorate based on the indivudyal rather than their bank balance (it costs so much to buy shares that only other businesses can afford to have a say in shareholder meetings), CEOs get golden parachutes, big bonuses and no ill consequence for their malpractice.

They do not ever have to answer to the people.

And they have the job for life if they want, using the business a s a piggy bank all the while.

Look at the Guiness Directors. Even though in this case one director WAS actually jailed for their fraud, they got out of jail because their doctor diagnosed them with Alzheimers, and would not last many more years. It later turned out it only LOOKED like his brain was melting.

Despite a criminal record for corporate fraud and a mental disability that was indistinguishable from terminal advanced Alzheimers, he got a job as a director with the board of another firm.

Sorry, that/s complete and utter bollocks form you there, Stupid.

Wishful thinking at its most fundamentalist extreme.

Stu2

Unlike the systems you appear to be advocating, those ‘appointed’ humans in private corporations are directly accountable and sackable.

At the risk of repeating what Jeff and Wow have said: don't be such a fucking clown. Corporate elites aren't accountable to the rest of humanity for the harm they do in the service of themselves. That's what this mess is all about. Just for once at least try to see reality for what it is.

Sometimes I wonder how you manage even to operate a computer.

Stu2

Unlike the systems you appear to be advocating, those ‘appointed’ humans in private corporations are directly accountable and sackable.

That is absurd, I strongly suggest that you study something that will disabuse you of that fanciful notion, try this:

The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz, you can find a pdf but at your own risk, and or watch this:

Joseph Stiglitz - The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future.

Now those who have already conducted crimes against humanity look to be getting more free passes with the last most regressive UK government having been exchanged for one with fewer shackles. We ain't seen nothing yet from these 'arrogant posh boys'.

Of course Cameron delights in promising more money for the NHS for as more of it is privatised his chums, like Lansley [1], can scrape of more from the taxpayer. 'I'm fracked' will become a new term for 'I'm knackered' and workers in the public sector will, like those who drive ambulances (some sectors being privatised here with a demonstrable worsening of response times as ever with the private sector), fire appliances and many more.

Read Stiglitz, which though concentrating on the US, is applicable elsewhere for it is from there the winds of change blow such as with TTIP:

Scrap the Human Rights Act and keep TTIP: Here's what you voted for and will get with a Tory government, Britain

As for energy and environmental policies - did somebody swear?

Expecting to be dragged off to some Gulag any-time soon for terrorist offences. Just you wait.

[1] Look up 'If Andrew Lansley was a doctor, he would be facing disciplinary action for his impact on patient care ' for more.

PS I would be watching a Labour administration closely on these issues too, it is just that this lot are the worst possible.

Oops '...scrape off more...'

Darned keyboard with its vanishing characters, I have never seen this on another keyboard bar this one with an MS logo on it.

To reiterate what BBD and Wow said, corporations are not democratic institutions. They are tyrannies. Its as simple as that. And they act out of a single motive: profit maximization. They have no humanity. Read Joel Bakan's excellent book, "The Corporation" and/or see his documentary of the same name to get a better idea.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 May 2015 #permalink

Are you claiming that systems based on democratic principles (despite their many flaws) have not delivered universal suffrage and access to health and education?

I said nothing about suffrage. Perhaps you should routinely re-read what I actually wrote after you think you've understood it and before you hit "Submit"?

Regarding universal access to health care and education, it's really obvious that a number of systems haven't delivered universal access to decent health care. Consider the US which is the archetype for that failure, or even the Australian lack of universal access to important forms of healthcare such as dental care and timely access to a whole bunch of medical procedures for those who can't pay up. Consider higher education where again the US is the classic example.

And I pointed out that the trend is towards less access (often justified by conservatives the world over with the rhetoric of "user pays [more and more]" or similar terms).

Which governance systems are you claiming have done a better job?

Again, perhaps you should try reading my comment more carefully instead of putting words into my mouth!

(But since you ask, consider the Cuban system which delivers universal health care, as one example. And it is decidedly not democratic.)

There's a lot to be said for democracy - that is, if you actually have an actually democratic system rather than a "system based on democratic principles" that actually functions as a plutocracy or inverted totalitarianism - but your claims about what is universally delivered are far more rosy than the evidence indicates.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 May 2015 #permalink

All of you seem to be operating under the idea that someone else should be made to pay for all the ills and inequality in the world without understanding that you’re the ‘someone else’ along with family farming enterprises, SMEs and numerous others who you claim you support.

Nope, we understand exceedingly well that we are collectively the 'someone else' and we are fine with that because we believe in the value of addressing ills and inequality. We are also smart enough to understand that we and the people we care about are also collectively the beneficiaries of those organised efforts to deal with adversity and disadvantage, both directly and indirectly (e.g. through higher national standards of education improving the entire country, the functioning of society and the ability to find educated employees for our businesses, or higher health standards significantly improving our own and our employees' productivity and quality of life, or as Stiglitz and Piketty and others have pointed out more economic equality leading to better national economic performance). We also understand that the same person can in different years pay through taxes to support other people and receive more support from taxpayer funded programs than they paid in taxes, so the distinction between "beneficiary" and "the someone else" is artificial and incorrect. And as was once famously said, we like paying taxes because they buy civilisation.

I have previously enjoyed a good run of of years of income high enough that I paid quite a lot more annual tax than the Aussie average wage in those years, and even during that period I was scathing of our national disinvestment in our collective welfare and common wealth and I argued that taxes for people in my situation should be quite a lot higher, for precisely those reasons. (They still should be. We're one of the richest nations in the world, in a time when humanity is collectively as rich as it's ever been, and our government is crying poor in order to pretend that it has to cut back on all kinds of support and common welfare programs including programs to deal with climate change. It's doing this largely in the name of more "user pays" and "corporations get what they want", which ties in to my previous comment about reducing access to education and healthcare and other comments about corporations being far more in control than voters are.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 May 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson @ # 92.
Have you been to Cuba and had a good look around away from the popular tourist destinations?
Have you seen their methods in agriculture?
Have you seen the actual standards of health care?
Most Cubans would willingly swap places with you, very much including access to the standard of health care you enjoy.
Last time I checked, there were not many refugees from those horribly evil western style democracies heading off for Cuba.
I'm pretty sure the movement is mostly in the other direction.
'User Pays' in the manner you are describing is a bureaucratic concept not a concept developed by corporations.
No one knows that better than people & communities in rural & regional areas.

Have you been to Cuba and had a good look around away from the popular tourist destinations?

...in which you shamelessly shifting the goalposts to distract from your failure to acknowledge that my counter-example to your claim is in fact an obvious counter-example. Tut tut!

‘User Pays’ in the manner you are describing is a bureaucratic concept not a concept developed by corporations.

Well, doh! I was describing it as a philosophy of government, i.e a "bureaucratic concept". Thanks for reinforcing my point for me.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 May 2015 #permalink

Have you been to Cuba and had a good look around away from the popular tourist destinations?

Have you?

In 2012 I spent an hour talking to Roberto Perez, a pioneering Cuban permaculturist who was touring Australia and staying overnight with an aquaintance. Whilst he was scathing of some of the politics of the Cuban government he was no less admiring of Western corporate government, and indeed he took great care to point out that as long as one "gives it a go" in Cuba the government went to lengths to ensure that basic food requirements were met - no matter how far from those "tourist destinations" one goes.

The result? Like it or not, Cuba is the only nation in the world to have a standard of living and sustainability measure that can be deemed to be acceptable on both counts:

http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/nova/newscientist/107ns_004.htm

The irony? That continuing Western hatred for an out-dated political system resulted in the development of this sustainability, including the significant health benefits that come with not emulating the Western penchant for junk diets and sedentary lifestyle.

Roberto is a very proud Cuban and I suspect that he would want little of the Western culture that would erode the basic long-term ecological viability that Cuba has made for itself. He'd certainly scorn numpties who try to make vacuous political points such as you do, in an orverall attempt to deny the move toward destroying the planet's currently-habitable climate.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 May 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson, do you tweet?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 May 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson.
Which goal posts?
You were the one who said Cuba delivers universal health care and is decidedly not democratic.
Has it also not occurred to you that one of your favoured solutions called 'pricing externalities' is just another name for the bureaucratic concept of 'User pays' and gets matched up with another one called 'cost recovery' which develops into another well known concept called 'gold plating'?
It doesn't have much to do with 'corporations get what they want'.

Stu2 reiterates what an utter dork he is. Cuba has been effectively blockaded by the United States for the past 56 years. This blockade represents something akin to a siege and has effectively made the country dependent on its own internal resources - something none of the 'western style democracies' (in other words corporate-controlled plutocracies) would survive on for a year. And yet the country has done remarkably well under these conditions. We can only imagine how well Cuba would have fared if it had been allowed to engage with the world during the past half century and had not been punished for failing to follow orders from the Master of the Western Hemisphere.

Stu2 clearly knows very little about internal US politics, but there is a body called the 'Office of Foreign Assets Control' which is a kind of watchdog organization that monitors and regulates capital flows in and out of countries and organizations the US deems as enemies. its telling that, even under the so-called 'War on Terror', that the office staffed only a few people (around 6) to monitor cash flows to Al Queda, but had almost 30 - the bulk of their staff - employed to monitor Cuba and to ensure that the siege remained unbroken. This gives some sense of priority in US foreign policy.

As ever, Stu2 exhibits rank ignorance about what he writes. In true Dunning-Kruger he thinks he knows more than he actually does. When it comes to the dominant global economic and political systems under the guise of free-market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism he knows pretty well nothing.

The mystery for me is, given these facts, why he persists here in showing how little he knows. That's a question only he can answer.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

And I pointed out that the trend is towards less access (often justified by conservatives the world over with the rhetoric of “user pays [more and more]” or similar terms).

It's driven by the poisonous ideology that you only have a right to life if you have enough money to prove you deserve it.

Everyone, in a capitalist democracy is equal, but the richer you are, the more equal you are.

Which goal posts?

Er, these ones:

You were the one who said Cuba delivers universal health care and is decidedly not democratic.

I said that because you said democracy delivers universal healthcare despite the obvious counter examples of the US and Cuba.

And instead of qualifying or correcting your claim you then talked about "methods in agriculture", and how many people are interested in going to vs leaving Cuba, neither of which rebuts the point that Cuba provides universal health care at a level well above the level provided universally in democratic nations such as the US.

Is your goalpost shift detecting ability on par with your strawman detection?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

Has it also not occurred to you that one of your favoured solutions called ‘pricing externalities’ is just another name for the bureaucratic concept of ‘User pays’...

Not in the sense that I was using the term. The reason I make the distinction is that "conservative" goverments around the world make the distinction in both their rhetoric - in almost all cases they will not be seen applying the term to corporations or pricing externalities - and in action - they will enthusiastically apply the term to much of what used to be considered the social safety net and national investment as they can get away with, but jump through flaming hoops to avoid applying it to corporations. (Also, I am not suggesting that "user pays" as conservative politicians use it is the same notion as "corporations get what they want".)

If you re-read my comment in that light it may now make more sense to you.

I'm happy to agree that if we consider "user pays" in a broader sense than conservative politicians deploy the term, then pricing externalities fits into that broader sense. This only serves to further highlight the blatant hypocrisy of conservative politicians who imply this is a guiding philosophical principle.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

Bernard, I haven't broached the Twittersphere yet. Every now and then I wonder if I should...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey

I have come across a poster at CP who has thrwon out a list of scientists who challenge the notion of AGW. On the lisyt is Phillip Stott.

Now I have found at

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=126

a link to something you wrote about Phillip Stott's qualifications but the link is dead.

A google yields a possibly interesting comment at Real Climate back in 2007 at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/global-warming-de…

but any comment by you on the 14th as hinted at by this search result:

RealClimate: Global Warming debate
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/.../comment-page-3/?...
12 Mar 2007 - Phillip Stott and his thinking seems weak, so I don't really know what he will have to say… The thinking of the ...... Jeff Harvey: March 14th, 2007 ...

does not exist either.

This is the ClimateProgress article that kicked off my search:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/07/3653307/where-have-all-the-…

Stu2

This is what happens when corporations hold the reigns of selfish political types, he who pays the piper calls the tune:

Scott Walker’s Corporate Tax Breaks Come Back To Haunt Him. This is democracy in action! Do me a fracking favour!

Education is gutted, after all can't have educated populace they will get uppity. Besides Walker has said he will crush unions if he is elected president. Watch for the turkeys to vote for Christmas like they just have in the UK.

Stu2

Has it also not occurred to you that one of your favoured solutions called ‘pricing externalities’ is just another name for the bureaucratic concept of ‘User pays’

Climate impacts and ocean acidification are not 'bureaucratic concepts'. They are as real as the un-costed externality that causes them.

and gets matched up with another one called ‘cost recovery’ which develops into another well known concept called ‘gold plating’?
It doesn’t have much to do with ‘corporations get what they want’.

Blah and bollocks.

Lotharsson @#3.
You used Cuba as an answer to my question about a governance system that does a better job than systems based on democracy.
There was no change of goal posts.
I have traveled through Cuba & except in the popular areas, access to a good standard of health care like you enjoy is not happening.
BBD @ # 9.
Who said they aren't real?
The concept of 'pricing externalities' as a method of managing such things as 'climate impacts' was under question.
That is the 'bureaucratic construct' that is really no different to the 'User pays' concept that was tagged as a poor concept earlier by one of you.
Lotharsson @ # 4 tries again to argue that the user is 'someone else'.
Corporations don't make those obscene profits unless they have something that the actual, real, bona fide 'end users' will buy.
Once such things as decent access to education have been achieved, why should they become ever more expensive at a
governance level?
Who or what is actually the beneficiary of that?
The end user?

You used Cuba as an answer to my question about a governance system that does a better job than systems based on democracy.

So you remove the qualifiers that I specifically used to be more precise in order to create a strawman, you removed my counter-example, you pretend that I didn't point out the specifics of your goalpost shift to methods of agriculture and how many people want to come/go - and you protest that you haven't shifted the goalposts. Methinks you understand "goalpost shift" as well as you understand "strawman".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson @ # 4 tries again to argue that the user is ‘someone else’.

Don't be a frackin' idiot! I argued precisely the opposite on the previous page and I did not argue what you said I argued in #4 here.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

And speaking of putting words in my mouth:

That is the ‘bureaucratic construct’ that is really no different to the ‘User pays’ concept...

...except that, as I took some pains to point out, the term as actually used and as actually applied by those applying it to policy that affects all of us is rather different.

And I hadn't even made much of the fact that it is ALSO different because one is applied to people and another is applied to corporations, and the goals of public policy should presumably place the welfare of people first.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

Corporations don’t make those obscene profits unless they have something that the actual, real, bona fide ‘end users’ will buy.

You'll need to help me out here. I have no idea why you're saying this in response to what I wrote given that I didn't mention profits let alone obscene profits. I have no idea what you're trying to say in the rest of the paragraph. I don't know what "it" you're referring to with "ever more expensive at a governance level". I do not understand why you think obscene profits conceptually links to the rest of the paragraph.

You also appear at first blush to be defending obscene profits, which would be an interesting tack to take given what we know about the mechanisms often used to extract obscene profits from a population, which typically puts "end users" in the position of having to buy rather than your far more sanguine framing of "will buy".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

And while I'm at it, Stu 2, have you visited the countries I mentioned in response to your universal healthcare in democracies claim and gone beyond the tourist spots? You know, countries like Australia (where I pointed out that basic medical treatment in areas such as dental care are far from being universally delivered, and I didn't even mention the lousy health care that most remote communities have access to). What about the US (where I lived and my partner worked in the medical system), a country where I pointed out that decent medical care is far from from universal (and that applies even to highly urban areas)?

Is it a mere coincidence that you apparently can't grok these facts that conflict with your panglossian claims about democracies?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 May 2015 #permalink

I live in Australia Lotharsson.
I live and work in regional Australia.
Despite the fact that it's not perfect, after traveling in rural areas in South America, Asia, Malaysia & India, by comparison, I consider myself way more fortunate.
I have far better access to healthcare, including dental care. All
my family have had far better access to education. From quite
humble beginnings people like Jeff Harvey can live in cloistered
academia because of that same system. That does not happen in places like Cuba.
But it is not perfect. People still fall through the cracks. People in remote areas do not have the same access to services as their urban counterparts.
I asked you quite specifically what governance systems deliver
a better result.
You offered Cuba as a 'non democratic' example re healthcare.
Are you still claiming that's correct?

Hi guys.
Could there be a CO2 feedback that could cause global cooling?

I do not understand why you think obscene profits conceptually links to the rest of the paragraph.

Stupid is trying to assert that you're only saying what you do out of envy therefore he doesn't have to consider your arguments because you're only saying them for emotional, not logical reasons.

This is all sorts of incorrect, but Stupid really doesn't understand that this is yet again projection. His mantra is driven by his greed. It's why he doesn't want the rich to be taken to task: he wants to be there some day.

And is terrified of things changing too.

So what we have NOW cannot change. Unless, of course, it changes back to what Rose Tinted Hindsight says it was in the past, when everything was fine.

'course the little shithead wasn't there then, so didn't know how crap it was, but it's a "known change" therefore acceptable.

Unknown changes, though, terrify the little idiot. So they must be resisted.

"Despite the fact that it’s not perfect, "

So it's not a democracy then? Or is it that democracy doesn't supply what you claimed?

One of the two has to be the case, Stupid.

Note how Stu2 cunningly avoided my point with respect to the effect of US sanctions on Cuba. Most countries would have been utterly destroyed by sanctions imposed by the world's only empire and dominant superpower, yet Cuba had managed remarkably well. As I said yesterday, one can only imagine how prosperous the country might be now if it had not been under a veritable siege from the US since 1959.

One of the major problem with blog debates is that people They can dishonestly avoid comments that undermine their points and instead create one strawman after another. His grasp of international politics and economics is appalling and selective. Methinks he relies too much on his corporate-state media for his news.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 May 2015 #permalink

One last point: Cuba's healthcare system is the best in the America's. That includes Canada and the US. No other coutnry comes even remotely close to it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @ # 21.
Seriously?
In what specific manner do you assert that Cuba's health care system is ' the best in the Americas' ? Including Canada and the US?
Why or how does no other country come close to it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cubas-health-care-system-_b…

And again, bear in mind that the country has been effectively blockaded for the past 56 years by the US. Its an amazing success story. Too bad that Stu2 has never ever heard of the Orwellian-named 'Office of Foreign Assets Control' or is aware of how an effective blockade can strangle a small nation.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 May 2015 #permalink

In what specific manner do you assert that Cuba’s health care system is ‘ the best in the Americas’ ? Including Canada and the US?

He says including them. Therefore why the question mark.

Yes.

You see, Canada and especially USA, you only get the best care if you spend shitloads of cash on it. Most people can't afford that and their healthcare, the ACTUAL care people get, is shit.

Really shit.

Meanwhile, Cuba has good solid healthcare for everyone. And many Canadians and USisans go to Cuba for their medical treatments that aren't allowed or are more expensive (and not covered by insurance) in their country.

If Cuba was worse, why do USians and Canadians go there?

"Why or how does no other country come close to it?"

By being worse by a notable margin than Cuba's. How else do you think that would happen?

I have far better access to healthcare, including dental care. All my family have had far better access to education.

And that still doesn't prove your point or rebut mine.

Your original claim was not about the quality of care you have access to, but the minimum level that anyone in Australia has access to, that being implied by your own choice of the word "universal". Unless, of course, we add "universal care" the list of concepts that you don't properly understand.

(Secondly, you haven't even demonstrated that merely having a system of governance that can be called democratic must inevitably result in even the minimum quality levels provided in Australia. That, of course, will be rather difficult as the US has significant portions of its population suffering from large healthcare issues.)

I asked you quite specifically what governance systems deliver a better result.

And I did not answer that specific question precisely because it appears to presume a fallacy - that the "governance system" of the country determines "the result" (see my previous sentence). I merely offered a counter-example to the presumption.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 May 2015 #permalink

Of course, you must remember, whilst Stupid wants to claim that it is the government system that does this, the government is a vile orgnaisation responsible for all sorts of atrocities in their grab for power and must be limited to only those things pundits he agrees with say they should: law (keeping the powerless powerless), contracts (keeping the powerful powerful) and defence (which obviously would never be turned to insurrection and oppression of the people, despite that being what they think the government is doing with everything else they do).

In other words, a fractured mind full of contradictory insistences, all created ad-hoc and not remotely understood by him, but believed with all the fervour and intensity of an ISIS murder squad.

Alright Bernard, I have now tweeted!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 May 2015 #permalink

Wow @# 25.
That's a phenomenon known as 'health care tourism'. It's mostly about cosmetic surgery.
Americans go on a holiday to Cuba and get such things as nose jobs or facelifts or breast enhancements done.
It's not a free service. Neither is it available to the 'little guy' in Cuba or America.
Lotharsson.
You have reverted to your usual MO.
You said I said then that means you think I think you meant when I meant the other thing I think you meant so therefore I meant something different to what you think I think I meant etc.
It's tedious.
No one here is arguing that the theory of universal access to healthcare is not a worthy goal.

You don't go deliberately to a place that has crap facilities, though, Stupid.

Your response is only showing that you know Cuba's health service is excellent.

Despite not being a democracy.

Wow.
My response was very simply an answer to your direct question.
At no point at anytime did I say that Cuba's healthcare facilities were universally bad, particularly in those popular tourist spots.
The cosmetic surgery services are cheaper and wealthy Americans can have those jobs done along with a holiday in a nice tourist resort.
Are you claiming this service is offered free to ordinary Cubans?
Or perhaps to ordinary Americans or Canadians ?

Geez Harvey, I keep waiting for you to get one thing correct. In vain, apparently.. The United States does not block Cuba's trade with third parties. Cuba can, and does, conduct international trade with many third-party countries;[6] Cuba has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 1995. Cuba's main imports are machinery, food and fuel products, while its major exports are refined fuels, sugar, tobacco, nickel and pharmaceuticals.

By Tom Fuller (not verified) on 11 May 2015 #permalink

You have reverted to your usual MO...

...precisely because you've reverted to yours, and clarifying or correcting requires pointing out what was said. Yes, it's frackin' tedious so I'd be as happy as you would be if your discussion style did not require that in response.

A different part of your MO is pointless distractions rather than dealing with the main point. Here's another example:

No one here is arguing that the theory of universal access to healthcare is not a worthy goal.

In the meantime, you still haven't acknowledged that universal healthcare in the US, allegedly the leading light of democracy, is pretty shoddy, and it's not that great in Australia either - and therefore that your thesis that the system of governance determines the quality of healthcare that is universally available is broken.

Care to try and defend that instead of talk about Cuba? It's not like the rest of us have forgotten your claim.

(And in the interests of forestalling your next distraction I will point out that (a) I raised Cuba, which was foolish because it gave you a lovely distraction to chew on, and (b) no discussion of Cuba can ever save your thesis that democratic governance means good quality universal healthcare because we all agree that Cuba isn't democratic).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 May 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson & Craig.
At no point have I claimed that the USA is the leading light of democracy or that health care is cheap in the USA.
This conversation appears to have been sparked by my comments on the previous page about what governance systems based on democratic principles have delivered
compared to other systems.
Lotharsson has claimed that Cuba does it better than places like Australia.
I disagree.
There have been serious health issues and accidents in my
family, none of them centred in the urban coastal fringe.
I have nothing but compliments to our healthcare system.
The most relevant example to this discussion would be when my son had a serious accident when he was working in a remote aboriginal community in QLD.
What was done, for no cost, saved his leg and his life.
That could not happen in remote communities in Cuba.
They can most certainly visit a doctor in very poorly resourced local clinics, but when it really matters those doctors and remote clinics do not have access to anything like the services my son received.
My sister had breast cancer. Once again the services and care were exemplary.
My father suffered from cardio vascular disease. At very little cost he has had access to the best of life saving medical care and technologies.
I found it illuminating that people waiting in ER in Brisbane when my son was airlifted there bitterly complained that he was sent straight into surgery & they had to wait for longer.
I can guarantee you that at that moment my son would have willingly swapped medical conditions with those people who were complaining about poor service.
I think you may all need to think about what you're wishing for as you might just get it.
Cuba has done a good job in its attempts to improve healthcare. Those remote, poorly serviced clinics are certainly better than nothing at all.
After having traveled through there however, I'm grateful my son had his accident in remote QLD and not in rural Cuba.

There goes Stu2 again above, making things up. He hasn't got a clue about the standards of the Cuban health care system and claims that his son was better off down under than in Cuba when he was injured. He speculates a lot; no evidence procured.

He's a waste of space. Lost this debate pages ago. Move on.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 May 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson & Craig.
At no point have I claimed that the USA is the leading light of democracy or that health care is cheap in the USA.

So your claims regarding system of government (re democracy) and healthcare systems was done without a single shred of evidence.

If you'd SAID you were making shit up out of your own anus' pickings, then we'd have saved a lot of time trying to show you evidence that democracy isn't a panacea and that socialism is a required part of any, ANY, functioning society.

"I can guarantee you that at that moment my son would have willingly swapped medical conditions with those people who were complaining about poor service."

I can guarantee you're making that shit up from your anus pickings again.

At no point have I claimed that the USA is the leading light of democracy or that health care is cheap in the USA.

Sigh. I see that we need another one of those "you said" discussions to bring you back to the argument you actually made, an argument that implies that the healthcare standards enjoyed by the least privileged in the US must be quite decent by virtue of its governance system.

I have nothing but compliments to our healthcare system.

Great to hear, but it's fallacious as applied here. Argument from personal experience does not bear ANY relevance as to the minimum standard of experience - either in Australia, or in the US.

Speaking of fallacies, you're continuing to talk about Cuba, despite it being pointed out that Cuba has no bearing on the US-as-counter-example to your claim. It's obvious to most readers why...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 May 2015 #permalink

Sorry Jeff Harvey?
Did you miss reading that I traveled through Cuba?
Most of it away from places like Havana, Holguin or Guantanamo.
The access to health care is not anywhere near the standards or the class of down under.

Stupid, given that you're already saying that you have no evidence for your stance, why the hell does reading anything you say have a relevance? There's not going to be any evidence, only your rhetoric. EVEN YOU admit it, but you think this is somehow a good thing.

Sorry Stu2? Did you get sick while in Cuba? Did you require immediate health care?

Of course you'll say no to both these questions so where on Earth do you think you are qualified to comment on the health care system in the country?

You aren't. Not one bit. And again, you keep avoiding the important fact that Cuba has been under an economic blockade since 1959. Get that through your head. If Australia had been under a similar siege its health care system would be non-existent.

Stu2, you are one big dope.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 May 2015 #permalink

"The access to health care is not anywhere near the standards or the class of down under."

The ACCESS to health care in Cuba is VASTLY superior to that in Australia, never mind the USA, and a hell of a lot better than the UK.

The picture that heads this article tells almost everything one needs to know about how the NHS in the UK is going to fare in the coming years as the conmen are now unfettered.

Of course the 'arrogant posh boys' are keen on this after all an extra 8 Billion a year from the taxpayer to be filtered off by private sector cronies is not to be sniffed at.

From that article:

Whatever the uncertainties, there are some givens. The Conservatives are signed up to NHS England’s Five Year Forward View and to finding the £8 billion minimum required each year up until 2020 to enable the transformation called for to succeed. But promised further public spending cuts affecting local government, and social care in particular, are likely to have the effect of increasing pressure on already stretched and, in some cases, threadbare healthcare services compared with other wealthy countries. They can only make the realisation of integrated care more problematic.

Another given is that the Health and Social Care Act will remain intact. The chances of any legislation that will reinstate the NHS along the lines proposed by Lord Owen – to remove the forces of marketisation and commercialisation from legislation. In particular, removal of the controversial Section 75, which promotes outsourcing and competitive tendering and opens up a market in healthcare, must be off the agenda.

Unfettered by coalition

A major uncertainty must be over how far the government, unfettered by coalition partners, will further hollow out the NHS through the outsourcing of services to the private sector. The fear is that the NHS progressively becomes a brand on the façade while myriad private provide back-room functions to support clinical commissioning groups and frontline health and community services.

Regardless of whether using public funds in this way is efficient and in the public interest, it is inconceivable that the new government, propped up by powerful donors, lobbyists and business interests who stand to do well from lucrative NHS contracts – what the Social Market Foundation termed “institutional corruption” – will not move swiftly down this road.

Jeff Harvey @ # 44
No I didn't get sick in Cuba. However, one of the people on our study tour did need immediate medical attention.
We all did experience the difference.
Australia wasn't blockaded.
Your argument about the sanctions is counter intuitive.
If Cuba's healthcare system is far superior to America's, why
would they need America's help?
Why compare that to something that didn't happen in Australia?
Wow & Lionel.
Craig's link upthread ranks the UK as number as number one.

Stop making shit up, Stupid.

You've never been to Cuba.

"Australia wasn’t blockaded.
Your argument about the sanctions is counter intuitive.
If Cuba’s healthcare system is far superior to America’s, why
would they need America’s help?"

WTF????

They didn't need the USA's help.They needed them to stop fucking about with their country.

Maybe you're saying that Australia was helped by the USA get the shite system they got (the USA are still working on it, your system is STILL too socialist for their taste: they don't want any example of a government run system that works. Makes them look incompetent or liars).

Comprehension failure Stu2?

Read the words again:

But promised further public spending cuts affecting local government, and social care in particular, are likely to have the effect of increasing pressure on already stretched and, in some cases, threadbare healthcare services compared with other wealthy countries. They can only make the realisation of integrated care more problematic.

Wow?
Maybe I'm saying?
There's that straw man thing again.
Wouldn't postulating what Australia's health care system would be like if it was in similar political circumstances to Cuba be an example of ' making shit up'?
I'm also wondering who/ what you all think a healthcare system is for if you decide to completely dismiss people's personal experiences with these systems?
Like I mentioned earlier, you all may have to think carefully about what you're wishing for as you might just get it

"Wow?
Maybe I’m saying?"

Maybe you're not.

Question?

"Wouldn’t postulating what Australia’s health care system would be like if it was in similar political circumstances to Cuba be an example of ‘ making shit up’?"

If anyone were doing so, that would be CONJECTURE.

Saying that Australia WAS under blockade would be "making shit up", but you haven't a clue, have you, dingbat, at least not if it makes you appear to have a case.

Short:

Australia's access to healthcare is much worse than Cuba's

"Like I mentioned earlier, you all may have to think carefully about what you’re wishing for as you might just get it"

Oh, good, I always wanted a new pair of shoes that fit better.

Goodie!

"I’m also wondering who/ what you all think a healthcare system is for if you decide to completely dismiss people’s personal experiences with these systems?"

What I think a healthcare system is for has fuck all to do with your fantasy claims about your personal experience is.

Wow @ # 53.
In what ways is Australia's access to healthcare much worse than Cuba's?

Stu2, you really, really are a first rate dork.

Arguing that sanctions are 'counter-intuitive' is utterly ridiculous. It means that Cuba has to essentially depend on its own internal resources for its survival. If the United States was similarly blockaded, or indeed any country in the developed world, their economies would collapse within months. Every country in the developed world has an ecological footprint that well exceed the area of land contained within its own boundaries; they can only maintain their affluence though reaching beyond their own borders to obtain the resources that perpetuate ecological (resource-based) deficits at home. Thus, if any of these countries were effectively forced to depend on their own internal resource base, they'd be in deep, deep trouble.

Cuba has done remarkably well under the 'siege' imposed on it by the US. If Australia were under such a siege, its economy would be in utter ruins and its health care system virtually non-existent. Your pithy throw away point about sanctions being a counter-intuitve point shows how shallow your arguments are.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff, if Australia was blockaded it would become an apocalyptic nightmare with no health system after about 6 months. We have ceded most of our manufacturing capacity and too much internally-circulating wealth is obtained from real estate, fees/dividends/ interest, and other non-productive economic parasitisms.

In fact I'd be surprised if civil order lasted more than a month if the country was cut off from the rest of the world.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 May 2015 #permalink

"In what ways is Australia’s access to healthcare much worse than Cuba’s?"

Access to Australia's healthcare is limited unless you pay for it through the nose.

Even the "free" care

a) has a fee for most of it
b) has a long waiting list in most areas
c) is being cut back because austerity doesn't mean cutting big business items

Cuba;s best private care may be around the same (but limited by the budget and population available, obviously), but the access to it by the majority of people is better.

In what sense is Australia;s health care access better than Cuba's?

Jeff & Benard.
You're now discussing ifs and maybes.
You may be right or you may be wrong about Australia's capacity to supply health care if it was sanctioned.
Whether or not Cuba has done remarkably well under the circumstances is not the same as claiming that Australia's or the UK's or any other country's system is not as good as Cuba's.
Wow.
You are incorrect.
As I explained above, Australia's standard of health care punches way above its weight in terms of available budget and population.
When it really matters there are no waiting lists and we do not pay through the nose.

"Jeff & Benard.
You’re now discussing ifs and maybes."

Well, yes. So? We DO know that blockades are deleterious to the financial welfare of a country, otherwise they wouldn't be used.

And since Australia isn't blockaded, but Cuba was for 50 years, that will have had an effect.

That the health system is better than Australia's is a testament to what their system of government can do for their country.

"Wow.
You are incorrect."

No, you're wrong. Cuba's outstrips Australia by a long chalk, based on cost and populatiion

As Bernard said, if Australia was sanctioned like Cuba there would be no health care system. There'd be anarachy. The country would collapse in the matter of months.

Stu2: you've lost this debate. Lick your wounds and take it like an adult.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 May 2015 #permalink

I have recently come across a rabid denier who appears to have only recently stumbled on the 'arguments' against AGW and he made a claim about a large number of scientists who agree that AGW is a hoax. Later he produced a list, each of which appears in DesMogBlog's Database - surprise surprise.

Now I have discovered another who is pushing this list, a blogger going by the handle of '1000frolly' who has posted this video of an interview with Freeman Dyson:

Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015

note how the interviewer phrases the GM question, he clearly has no clue himself just reading words.

Maybe John Cook of Skeptical Science would be interested in this statement made by 1000frolly in the comment thread (have a barf bag handy when viewing):

1000frolly 3 weeks ago (edited)
+euug "the word "decency" appears several times in your channel's about page?"
.
When it comes to 'decency' I have none for straight-out fraudsters like Cook, who mislead the public so willfully.
He is now ripping off the taxpayer to pay for his ridiculous thesis on why people 'deny' the reality of climate change.
- So it means that I can now do a thesis on the psychology of people who fall for the CAGW cult.

So, Cook is a fraudster ripping off the taxpayer!

1000frolly is off his trolly.

So, as I understand it, Stu2 argument that Australia's health care system is better than Cuba's is that he has no personal complaint about the former and he claims to have seen one person who went through the latter with less good...something - care, outcomes, whatevs, he doesn't say.

What with Stu2's well documented medical qualifications and experience in public health policy, I'm sure he's equipped to give an expert opinion on this subject. What a shame then that his reasoning is analogous to the tired old denier meme: "Global Warming? I just looked out my window and its snowing. Fail!"

Stu2 still seems to be unaware that his tedious warries, even if authentic, are not evidence for any of his arguments, only for his experience.

And on the subject of personal experience, shall I share my tales of permanent damage at the hands of Australian public health care, such as their inability to diagnose a comminuted fracture with the help of multiple X-rays? They are just as valid as Stu2's purported experiences, but I won't, because they are just as valid as Stu2s. ie - not. Although they are probably marginally less tedious.

I also note that Stu2 to has been silent on Lotharsson's post #93 on the previous page. An outstanding comment, which I think I will be quoting in future discussions, and one that has disappeared behind ridiculous non-argument about something Stu2 knows next to nothing about
(I also know next to nothing about it, but I don't claim to on the basis of one example).

Yes Jeff Harvey.
That is what both of you have said.
That argument is irrelevant.
Whether or not Australia could tough out US sanctions as well as Cuba has nothing whatsoever to do with comparing availability of good quality healthcare to ordinary people in both countries.
Last time I checked, Australia was not as economically dependent on the US as Cuba is.
Didn't Russia's withdrawal of economic support also have a detrimental affect on Cuba's systems?
Australia has never relied on that type of assistance.
Cuba was offered as an example of a comparably better health care system for the ordinary citizen.
I am an ordinary citizen who has seen how they both work when it really matters, particularly in rural and regional areas.
Australia's system delivers better resourced, higher standard care.
Even in terms of what it costs in relation to % of the average wage in both nations.
Of course everyone, everywhere would like everything to be cheaper.
Of course Cuba can argue it has done the best it can under the circumstances.
So can Australia & the UK & every other country that has public healthcare.
However, comparing apples with oranges neither wins or loses
any argument.
I guess if you believe Cuba offers better healthcare for the really important stuff, you could move to Cuba for health reasons.
I won't be joining you.

So Frank D?
Are you arguing that you could or couldn't get better access to multiple x rays in Cuba?
Or perhaps you're arguing that Cuban specialists would have been better at diagnosing your fractures?
Or maybe you're trying to argue that Australia's healthcare system is not perfect at correctly diagnosing and treating every complaint because of your experience?
I would agree with the third argument, but then you would not be arguing with me because I have not claimed that any system delivers perfectly every time.
But in comparison, I pick my access in Australia as 'better'. Particularly in terms of delivering at the coal face when it really matters.
We're commenting on access here which does not necessitate well documented medical qualifications or experience in public policy.
Why would I need to comment on Lotharsson's #93?
He agreed that he is one of 'the someone else'.
He also backed it up with his personal example.

Say what you like about Cuba's health system, but their average life expectancy is still 3 months longer than Denmark's and 6 months longer that the USA's.

Rather good for a country that was profoundly ostracised from the rest of the world for half a century...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 May 2015 #permalink

Last time I checked, Australia was not as economically dependent on the US as Cuba is.

Huh, how much economic support does the USA give Cuba? And given the shellacking that Australia's trade and legal sovereignty would take in the proposed TPP, I'd say that we must be quite dependent on greenbacks if our government is willing to bend so low to grasp their ankles.

Why would I need to comment on Lotharsson’s #93?

Just goes to show that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Stu 2 still can't buy a clue.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 May 2015 #permalink

Bernard J @# 69.
Yes, good for Cuba. It is still an irrelevant conjecture.
@# 70.
It looks like you're having a bet each way there re your comments on reliance on US.
&
Am I supposed to be feeling personally guilty because Australia as a country has done relatively OK?
Lotharsson's comment was actually agreeing that people like him are the 'someone else' the rest of his comments was his personal opinion based on his personal political perspective which in a country based on democratic principles he is perfectly free and absolutely entitled to have.
Apparently, according to the collective democratically based system of voting in Australia, that personal political opinion is
not a majority opinion.
Nonetheless, he is entitled to have his own opinion, lobby for it &
vote according to it.
You and I are also entitled to have our opinions, voice them and vote according to them.

Yes, good for Cuba. It is still an irrelevant conjecture.

But that's the point. You are wont to drag discussion to whatever irrelevance suits your purpose, and in doing so make specious claims in the process. I was simply pointing out that fundamentally your diversion into the adequacy of various health systems fails at a very basic level.

Oh, and it wasn't "conjecture". Cuba is ahead of Denmark and the USA in terms of life expectancy.

Am I supposed to be feeling personally guilty because Australia as a country has done relatively OK?

I didn't say anything about what you are supposed to "feel", but this verballing of yours is another example of how prone you are to thimble-rigging.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

<blockquoteYes, good for Cuba. It is still an irrelevant conjecture.

So is your whine that started this all off, Stupid. Your "what if" on what changed governance system would be put in place and then your alarmist scare tactics were based on your conjecture, therefore just as irrelevant.

But it's still the case Cuba has better healthcare access as proven by Jeff's longevity results than Australia.

Therefore democracy does NOT provide better healthcare.

Bernard J.
Sigh :-(
Your conjecture and Jeff's. was about Australia, which BTW is 3.85 years ahead of Cuba for life expectancy.
In Australia you're also 6.09% less likely to die in infancy.
Catch that Wow?
Longevity results are better in Australia.
Unlike you apparently, I don't think you should draw such a conclusion about health care and democracy based purely on a singular statistic.

No, that stat is completely fake, Stupid.

Bernard is correct. You are not.

Hello, Tim? You there, mate? It's May now! Time to update the threads! I know I know, it must be a depressing and debilitating experience for you to watch catastrophic climate crap, that mother of all scams, getting blown out of the water by wall-to-wall empirical evidence.

It's cold comfort, I know, but it's not the first time that a worldwide cabal of bigoted knuckleheads have managed to silence debate before being kicked into historic oblivion. Sadly, for the good of humanity, it won't be the last.

Graham, hows it going? Doing well? Good. Just wanted to ask you a question: how does your rampant stupidity affect your work life?

Does being a dribbling fool cause a problem when working out whether your boss is a human or whether he's an alien lizard overlord out to steal your underwear?

Or do you find that being unemployed just a better way of dealing with this inability to comprehend reality.?

"...wall-to-wall empirical evidence".

Its too bad that none of this miraculous 'empirical evidence' is published in scientific journals. In fact, the empirical evidence proves without a shadow of a doubt that AGW is very real and a profoundly great threat to humanity. Graham, like the other deniers who write in here, hasn't been near a university or science class in his life. His world is about as large as a matchbox.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff, we crossed. Was chortling at Wow's response to the new buffoon on the block ;-)

Stu 2, I am well aware of Australia's life expectancy compared with Cuba's. But I made no claims about this comparison. Again you are wandering around like a drunken sailor with those verballings.

You seems to be missing the point. Remember when someone on this thread said:

Am I supposed to be feeling personally guilty because Australia as a country has done relatively OK?

I was pointing out that Cuba "as a country" does relatively better than First World countries that suck off the tit of the Third World, and which are not so profoundly ensieged as is Cuba. More fundamentally though, I was responding to the person who said above that:

This conversation appears to have been sparked by my comments on the previous page about what governance systems based on democratic principles have delivered compared to other systems.

My point in response to this is that the USA and Denmark both have what are touted as shining examples of "democratic principles", but they cannot achieve what a poor, boycotted dictatorial banana republic can manage with a meagre fraction of their GDPs.

Why was I doing this? To emphasise the logical flaws to which you are so prone, and to underscore the over-generalisations that you toss about with gay abandon, and to point out what can be done with modest resources and gritty determination if only people put their minds to it.

Meanwhile in the West we are cowering at the thought of paying even a small fraction of a fair price for the pollution we spew into the biosphere, a full price that is still negligible compared to the effective destruction of civilisation which is the inevitable consequence if we persist in our self-indulgent fetish for business-as-usual. It's beyond shameful that we can't even sufficiently motivate the average person in the street to accept that they need to eschew that second holiday house, that third 65" flatscreen, that fourth trip to have their faces lifted and the bellies tucked...

Apparently all we are good for is gloating that our health system is better (cough) than some poor tinpot dictatorship's on whose neck we've pressed our jackboots for the last half century. It's reprehensible that instead of saying that perhaps we should do something about the scandal of Third World disadvantage (amongst other pressing global emergencies), it's preferable to bask at home in our privileged bubbles. And it's that self-centred sybaritism that results in the ideology and self-delusion of science denialism, the sort of denialism of which you are an enthusiastic proponent.

That's,/i> what I was getting at.

But perhaps I'm rather to subtle for you - which is no great shakes given that you repeatedly demonstrate that it's not for nothing that the great majority refer to you with some permutation of the prejorative "Stu-pid".

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

Bugger, I dropped a tag, and we know what happens to the formatting of the thread if that's left undone.

Hopefully I've nipped it in the bud...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

Success.

(What's the bet that Stu 2 doesn't even know what I did...)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

Some idiot said:

...it must be a depressing and debilitating experience for you to watch catastrophic climate crap, that mother of all scams, getting blown out of the water by wall-to-wall empirical evidence.

It seems that said idiot is completely oblivious to the fact that the empirical evidence indicates that it's warming with no sign of slowing:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

and indeed that some correlates of warming show acceleration:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2635.

http://theconversation.com/sea-level-is-rising-fast-and-it-seems-to-be-…

Crawl back into your sewer Graham.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

Although deniers claim that combating agw will drive us all to poverty, the average German pays less than €60/year for their energy transition. For this they reap the benefits of cleaner air, less pollution and lower wholesale electricity prices thanks to the merit order effect.

One might argue that the Germans are not greening their economy fast enough, but even if they double, triple or even quadruple the rate, it's still not going to reach a dollar/day.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

Bernard.
I was particularly referring to your comment @#58.
My apologies if you misunderstood.
I will reiterate however that singular longevity statistics from places like Denmark or the USA do not conclusively prove or disprove anything that was being discussed.
You seem to think that they are conclusive evidence of a logical flaw somewhere?
I guess if you think that life is better in Cuba because of its political system and presumably because you think they're amazingly successful under the circumstances - you could relocate to Cuba?
BTW. I don't think you're too subtle. I don't particularly have an opinion about you as this discussion wasn't about you or what I may or may not think about you.
I'm also spectacularly uninterested in your personal opinion of me as it's not about that either.
Of course you are entitled to have whatever personal opinion you like in a country like Australia.
Another random comparative stat is that you are 3.5 more likely to be in jail in Cuba and 4.3 likely to be murdered in Cuba.

Wow @#77.
I think you may be a tad confused.
Your conclusion @#74 is what was highly questionable.
I could point out why but I will assume you can figure it out for yourself.
BTW. The 3.85 stat is not fake.
Australians longevity is 3.85 years longer than Cuba's.

I guess if you think that life is better in Cuba because of its political system and presumably because you think they’re amazingly successful under the circumstances – you could relocate to Cuba?

I didn't say that "life is better" in Cuba. I did say that their life expectancy is better than Denmark's and the USA's despite the fact that they don't have the benefits of "democratic principles". I also noted that Cuba is the only country in the world to have an "acceptable" standard of living whilst maintinaing a sustainable impact on the planet.

Indeed, one may infer that perhaps it is because they don't have a democracy that Cuba has this unique combination of advantageous life expectancy and ecological footprint. Certainly the life expectancy in part and the environmental impact in toto are as positive as they are because Cuba necessarily follows a particularly careful utilisation of resources. This is what I pointed out, not the various diversionary verballings to which you are prone.

What does it say that democracy has yet to produce the combination of sustainability and quality of life that Castro acheived? That's a discussion for another forum: all that I and others are pointing out is that the vaunted triumps of Western democracy are technological, but most certainly not ecological. And when all is said and done we are inextricably tied to ecology, but not necessarily so to technology. You work out the right side of the equation.

And before you start putting more words into my mouth I am NOT saying that Cuba consciously understood and chose their path. In fact had they been allowed access to Western advantage they'd probably be less healthy and more destructive than they are - which only goes to highlight the fact that humans have not evolved to deliberately make the 'difficult' choices between indulgence and survival of future generations and non-human species. This should give (enlightened) leaders and members of the public in Western democracy a great deal of pause for thought...

As to your non sequitur about moving to Cuba, do you really not understand why this is an egregious logical fallacy in the context of this thread and more generally?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

So Bernard?
Are you therefore advocating a Cuban/Castro type governance system as a better, fairer, more supportive of 'small farms'(whatever that actually means) & etc than a system like ours in Australia?

BTW Bernard.
I agree that Australia is perfectly capable of being self sufficient.
I also agree that there is over indulgence and questionable motives operating in our country.
However, I see nothing in the type of policies that you are vaguely advocating that are facilitating either better self suffiency or a will to be less indulgent and less wasteful.
The political concept you appear to support is not a new
concept and has not necessarily succeeded in achieving sensible TBL outcomes.
As I mentioned some while ago, humans are actually part of the
environment, not an invasive weed or a feral animal that must be eradicated.
Also, without those evil advances in technology we could not
even monitor such things as threatened species and
atmospheric CO2. We probably couldn't even confidently state that on average you could live 3 whole months longer if you
lived in Cuba instead of Denmark.

Stu 2, why do you argue against Denmark?

Kim.
I have absolutely nothing against Denmark.
It's a lovely place full of lovely people.
Bernard J submitted a comparative longevity stat about Denmark vs Cuba to apparently defend Cuba's healthcare system.
I don't think it means much of anything either way other than it's a vaguely interesting statistic about comparative longevity.

Whether or not Australia could tough out US sanctions as well as Cuba has nothing whatsoever to do with comparing availability of good quality healthcare to ordinary people in both countries.

Pile the arrant bulldust higher and higher, Stu 2! It was your own claim that democratic governance of a country leads to better health systems. That claim can only be assessed if all other factors - including national wealth and supply blockades - are equal or their impacts are accounted for.

You're presumably trying to rule out assessments of those other factors because you know it undermines your foolishly tossed off claim. Either that, or because you're really truly too stupid to understand why that assessment is necessary to evaluate your claim. Neither one reflects well on you, and they both risk people marking you down even more strongly as a time waster who doesn't even know what his position implies. Bernard J. put it better:

You are wont to drag discussion to whatever irrelevance suits your purpose, and in doing so make specious claims in the process.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

In Australia you’re also 6.09% less likely to die in infancy.

Oh, FFS! Let's drag you back to your actual claim from your random walk in any and all directions that lead away from it. You might want to look up the infant mortality rates in the US and compare them to Cuba - you know, the US, that shining beacon of democratic governance, a class of governance systems that, you know, you personally allege necessarily delivers better access to health care than any other governance system.

Seeing as I'm prepared to bet good money that you won't, here are some selected rates from that source:

USA: 6.17 per 1000
Cuba: 4.70 per 1000
Australia: 4.43 per 1000

Your "6.09%" figure for Cuba vs Australia appears to be obtained from these mortality rates because 6.09% is the relative increase using the Australian rate as the baseline. That means you've calculated the figures you said you were reporting the wrong way around. You should have calculated the relative decrease against the Cuban baseline which is 5.74%. However, let's go with the methodology you did use. That results in the equivalent conclusion (bearing in mind that this is described incorrectly) that "In Cuba you're also 31.28% less likely to die in infancy".

Now we can see a very plausible reason why, despite you apparently having access to these rates, you have not cited the comparative mortality rate of that great shining beacon of democratic governance.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

I will reiterate however that singular longevity statistics from places like Denmark or the USA do not conclusively prove or disprove anything that was being discussed

...says the guy who relates his own anecdotes as conclusive support for his claim - and then selectively cherrypicks singular infant mortality statistics. You couldn't make this up!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 May 2015 #permalink

Rubbish Lotharsson.
Go tie yourself up in verbal, semantic, methodology knots arguing complete crap with someone else.
I am completely not interested in your superciluous, conflated, pseudo psychological waffle that sees you flipping yourself
inside out proving something is not quite wrong or not quite
right by some personally designed, process orientated judgment system that is entirely controlled by your self assigned legendary status.
It's even boring describing it to you.
Along with Bernard, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU or what you think I think you said which means that you think it means something else or whatever.

Oh and BTW, just like Bernard, I looked the comparative longevity statistics up. If you think they're wrong you will have to take that up with the presumably qualified experts who published them.

Rubbish Lotharsson.

Your "rebuttal via mere assertion" fallacy is duly noted.

IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU

Transparent red herring duly noted.

If you think they’re wrong...

Complete denial/lack of comprehension of the flaw in your argument duly noted, despite said flaw being pointed out several different ways.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 May 2015 #permalink

ZZzzzzzzzz.
Boring!

Stupid: "Your conclusion @#74 is what was highly questionable."

No it isn't. You're confused: not wanting to believe something doesn't make it questionable. It makes you a brainwashed moron.

Cuba's access to healthcare is much better than Australias. And they have better outcomes than Australia. Jeff is right and you are wrong. It's only questioned by you because you will not accept error anywhere.

Because you're a brainwashed moron.

BTW. The 3.85 stat is fake.

Re: 1, yes, truth is boring to you. Boring old truth. Whereas insanity, that's exciting! Reality is a one-trick pony, insanity? The sky's the limit!

Which is why you love your insanity. You won't let it go, you love it sooooo much.

Compare Cuba's ecological footprint with Cuba's:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats38013__42233100_ecological_f…

There is no comparison. Australia, like other developed countries, takes far more than its equitable share of resources and can only do this by reaching beyond its own borders using coercion, theft and violence. Cuba on the other hand is almost entirely self-sustaining. Imagine if Australia had to reduce its footprint from the current 8.50 ha/person to Cuba's 2.0. As I said before, Australia's economy would implode.

Stu2 is so brazenly ignorant that it tickles my funny bone. He has no intellectual support for any of the nonsense he is spewing out here yet he persists.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 May 2015 #permalink

I mean Australia's ecological footsprint with Cuba's! But Stu2 probably won't even notice the gaffe...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 May 2015 #permalink

Indeed from the data, the less democratic and more socialist the government schemes, the better the healthcare in the country so run.

Going "But USSR!" really isn't any proof, all it means is that it is either

a) an outlier
b) never was a socialist country
c) indicates not ONLY dependence on socialism but on other factors

And in the case of c), this still refutes and reverses the point Stupid is wont to make.

For every logical fallacy and verballing of Stu 2's that I point out, he produces two more.

It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice in a Stupidity form...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 May 2015 #permalink

Along with Bernard, IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU or what you think I think you said which means that you think it means something else or whatever.

Are you arguing that you could or couldn’t...

Or perhaps you’re arguing ...

Or maybe you’re trying to argue...

The lack of self-awareness is just precious :-)

What I was arguing was really tremendously simple and obvious: Stu2's claimed personal experience of Cuba's health care system, even if true, is epically irrelevant to the discussion. As irrelevant as my personal experience of Australia's health care system. One anecdote is useless to support or rebut a generalised claim.

IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU

On second thoughts, that lack of self-awareness? Possibly terminal....

I wonder why Stu2 found it so difficult to understand this point, when it was explicitly stated in my post. I don't think he comes here for the hunting...

Hey Stu 2, is the planet warming?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 May 2015 #permalink

LOL!
You're all behaving like a pack of schoolyard bullies or petulant toddlers chucking a mass tantrum.
It's funny, but it's not a good look fellas.
I have however learnt something from this experience.
So thanks for that.

"You’re all behaving like a pack of schoolyard bullies "

So you say we're bullies because we insist on correcting you.

Right.

Has this gambit EVER worked on adults before? Or is this a first attempt for you?

Wow.
I wouldn't know if you are actually a bully or not.
I was commenting on your behavior at this blog.
You could be the sweetest, most agreeable bloke who ever drew breath in this world in your everyday life.
May I also suggest you need to catch up on that 3.85 longevity statistic?
Even though I think it's a bit meaningless in terms of the specific conclusion you were attempting to draw, it is not a fake statistic.
Bernard J should be able to help you as he quoted others from Denmark and the US.

Second attempt:

Hey Stu 2, is the planet warming?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 May 2015 #permalink

Hey Bernard?
Can you help Wow with that 3.85 statistic?
In answer to your question:
Yes.

Stu2 has resorted to childlike whining now that his arguments have been shredded. Note he didn't even try and counter the stats I put up yesterday about comparing Australia's deficit ridden ecological footprint with Cuba's. He can't, so instead he accuses people here of bullying him.

Get this through your head Stu2: your 3.85 years-long life expectancy statistic is just a reflection of the fact that Australia, like other developed countries, imports a large measure of its carrying capacity. If the country had to sustain itself on its own resources, the life expectancy stat you trump on about would drop rapidly.

You are such a simpleton. Its scary.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 May 2015 #permalink

"I wouldn’t know if you are actually a bully or not."

So even you admit you're making shit up and complaining about nothing.

So why do it?

Or is this yet another "argument" you've never tried on an adult?

"Can you help Wow with that 3.85 statistic?"

You mean the "lies, damned lies, statistics" statistic?

Yeah, no need to help me here, Bernard. I know the fucker is lying here (like even he admits about the claim we're all bullies).

Stupid, have you heard about a Cancer Vaccine?

Do you know where it comes from?

Hint: it's not a democratic country...

So then Stu 2, you are telling us that humans will severely damage the habitability of the biosphere with their emissions if we do not take immediate and effective steps to halt them?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 May 2015 #permalink

Second attempt.
Hey Bernard?
Can you help Wow out with that 3.85 statistic.

Wow.
Are you talking about the vaccine that has been developed in Cuba for lung cancer?
Have you heard of the research into and development of a myriad of vaccines for many different cancers?
Hint: They come from all sorts of different countries and governance systems.
Some of them even come from the US & Australia.

Jeff Harvey.
I did not claim that a comparative longevity statistic held any particular significance or conclusively proved anything at all.
I don't think it does as there are numerous different reasons why a person is likely to live 3.85 years longer in Australia than they would in Cuba.
It was Bernard who started submitting them as significant.
I just pointed out that he missed Australia's compared to Cuba's.
Wow seems very confused and is claiming that it's conclusive proof that Cuba's healthcare system is better than Australia's.
You are now introducing ecological footprints as some type of significant evidence that Cuba's systems of governance is better than somewhere like Australia.
Those are based on a global per capita per hectare scale.
It's an interesting concept but I'm wondering why you suddenly think it's amazingly conclusive of anything in terms of this discussion?

Stu2

The meta-argument is about climate change mitigation. Bernard J. asks:

So then Stu 2, you are telling us that humans will severely damage the habitability of the biosphere with their emissions if we do not take immediate and effective steps to halt them?

Why not answer?

Earlier, we touched on uncosted externalities. You seem to believe that costing the escalating and irreversible consequences of unmitigated CO2-forced climate change will involve malfeasance ('gold plating').

This is not a valid counter to the position that there are uncosted externalities with potentially very serious consequences for future generations, the ecosystem etc.

What I would like to know is whether in principle you accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response.

This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.

Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.

BBD.
I'm happy to answer questions that facilitate a civil discussion.
I absolutely agree 'in principle', that we need to become more responsible about the environment, our land use practices, our use of recycling & etc, etc, etc.
I don't agree it must all rely and be exclusively based on a best
estimate of CO2.
That theory is failing miserably.
As I have mentioned here on numerous occasions, these policy measures need to be judged on measurable, accountable results.

Also BBD.
I'm not claiming 'malfeasance'.
Under the system that you seem to be vaguely advocating, that is just the nature of the beast.
A legislative, bureaucratic monopoly is still a monopoly.

That theory is failing miserably.

Thank you, Stu2.

* * *

Under the system that you seem to be vaguely advocating, that is just the nature of the beast.
A legislative, bureaucratic monopoly is still a monopoly.

Modest proposals these days start with a revenue neutral carbon tax, not eating the poor.

As demonstrated by the contrasting cost of the freemarket-based US healthcare system versus the socialised model employed in France and the UK, a "legislative, bureaucratic monopoly" delivers better results at half the cost.

As the coal industry is currently being allowed to fully externalise a vastly expensive component of its costs (in the form of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere), we are currently allowing society to subsidise this industry in a completely unaccountable way.
This has to change. The carbon tax is the accepted method by all rational economists.
Stu2 needs to stop swallowing industry-concocted propaganda and start accepting some rational analysis for a change.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 May 2015 #permalink

Which Industry-concocted propaganda am I swallowing Craig?
According to Lionel and Wow, the UK healthcare system is no good.
My original comment was governance systems based on democratic principles (which of course includes UK & France) have generally delivered better access to such things as universal suffrage & healthcare. I think that's a good outcome.
You do realise that energy infrastructure & delivery to the general population is 'socialised' via legislation in most countries already don't you?
It is a feature of our increasingly urbanised societies.
I don't believe that taxing CO2 will enable humanity to control the weather/climate and make it behave better and keep us safe from the weather or several other similar touted justifications.
I think the whole idea is proving to be a failed social experiment that is achieving perverse outcomes.
Theoretically it looked like it had legs. I even happily accept that it was based on good intentions.

Note how Stu2, in his punch drunk stupor, is weaving, dodging, avoiding, etc. etc. etc. all the points that have been raised that demolish his thesis.

And while the planet's ecological systems are going to hell in a hand basket, he writes this utter tosh: "I absolutely agree ‘in principle’, that we need to become more responsible about the environment, our land use practices, our use of recycling & etc, etc, etc."

In other words, while Rome is burning, Stu2 suggests that we need to do a little more fiddling. What his comment shows is how utterly clueless he is about the real state of ecosystems across the biosphere and projections based on current trends. He also does not understand the importance of terms like ecosystem services. I might as well be debating a thrid rate primary school student.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 May 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey.
Seriously?
You are just hand waving and doomsaying.
The only actual action you appear to advocate, along with the likes of Jensen, is to eradicate most of humanity like it's some type of invasive weed or feral pest.
Which particular ecosystems and ecosystem services are you referring to?
What fiddling?
What debate?

"Second attempt."

See earlier repsonse

"Are you talking about the vaccine that has been developed in Cuba for lung cancer?"

Yes.

It's in Cuba.

Gosh, a scientific and medical advance that none of the other countries have managed, and happened in a "socialist dictatorship".

Proving your claim about democracies being necessary wrong.

And it costs them $1 per shot. They're giving it to their people.

PROVING their healthcare access is better than Australia's.

"What fiddling?"

Fiddling like when you say "Partly yes, partly no" to actually doing something about AGW and cut CO2 emissions.

Hey, next time you ask about your blatant acts, don't.

EVERYONE knows what they are, and JAQing off about it stops nothing. You will STILL refuse to do anything with the knowledge, just as you've refused to do anything (other than whine about how we're all bullies) before.

That theory is failing miserably....

As is his wont, Stu2 has not explicitly said what theory is failing miserably... The theory that anthropogenic GHG emissions cause warming? The theory that pricing carbon can modify behaviours that cause emissions? Has Stu2 finally gone full retard? Who knows? Perhaps Stu2 can tell us, and point out the specific failings of the specific theory he is referring to...

I don’t believe that taxing CO2 will enable humanity to control the weather/climate and make it behave better and keep us safe from the weather or several other similar touted justifications.

Of course, Stu2 - being an expert on strawman fallacies - would never stoop to indulge in one himself. So any moment now he will provide an example of someone claiming that taxing CO2 will enable people to control the weather. Just one will do to show this is not a strawman (hint, failed attempts at humourous exaggeration don't give a free pass).

I think the whole idea is proving to be a failed social experiment that is achieving perverse outcomes.

Any moment now, Stu2 will crack on with providing some examples of these perverse outcomes. That would be the case of a carbon tax being implemented which prompted increased emissions. I'm sure there are a rich vein of clear examples for Stu2 to grace us with.

Not holding my breath...

"Perhaps Stu2 can tell us, and point out the specific failings of the specific theory he is referring to…"

Maybe he's talking about HIS theory that democracy is a requirement to have good healthcare?

Maybe he's finally seeing reality!

Stu2 says, "You are just hand waving and doomsaying".

Says a guy whose never been near an environmental science lecture in his life. This is what rank ignorance does for you folks: it produces people like Stu2 who have no relevant expertise, stick their finger into the wind and think all is well. And for what isn't, we tweak the odd program here and there and bingo! Everything is fine.

Considering the planet is losing at least 30,000 genetically distinct populations a day (Hughes et al., 1998), humans co-opt over 40% of net primary production and 50% of net freshwater flows (Vitousek et al., 1986), that humans are using at least 60% of supporting ecosystem services unsustainably (Milennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2006), that extinction rates are 100 to 1000 times higher than natural background rates, and that the latest Living Planet Index showed that humans have used up perhaps as much as 50% of biodiversity since 1970, the projections are clear. Throw in rapid climate change, and we are heading for a cliff.

Against the growing evidence are twerps like Stu2 who have absolutely no professional qualifications in understanding the extent of the predicament. The symptoms are clear to see if one learns the basic science, but Stu2 is too brazenly ignorant for that.

Its precisely this ignorance that will be the downfall of our species. The inabilty or unwillingness to grasp the empirical evidence, and the belief that no matter how much evidence accrues, that our species will always muddle through. I presented above research that Stu2 has never read, let alone heard of. Instead, like the metaphorical ostrich, he prefers to keep his head firmly stuck in the ground. And throws in nonsensical musings for added effect. And if I was so inclined, I could list up here literaslly thousands of studies on the Web of Science backing up what I say. Agaisnt that we have Stu2 providing precisely zero counter evidence, just wishful thinking.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 May 2015 #permalink

It was Bernard who started submitting them as significant.

And yet you completely missed the significance of my point.

I just pointed out that he missed Australia’s compared to Cuba’s.

No, I did not. As I said above, you missed the significance of my point.

I absolutely agree ‘in principle’, that we need to become more responsible about the environment, our land use practices, our use of recycling & etc, etc, etc.
I don’t agree it must all rely and be exclusively based on a best
estimate of CO2.

Once again you are engaging in the logical fallacies of false attribution and red herring. I have never said that our protection of the ecosphere must "all rely and be exclusively based on a best estimate of CO2" [sic]. Quite the opposite in fact, if you had the wherewithal to read my past postings on these various subjects. Please feel free though to provide evidence to the contrary.

And please make it entertaining. I'm growing bored with you Stu 2.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 May 2015 #permalink

Stu2

This sounds as though you may be a 'lukewarmer':

I don’t agree it [environmental policy] must all rely and be exclusively based on a best estimate of CO2 [sensitivity?].

That theory is failing miserably.

But it isn't clear what the that theory refers to.

Can you be more specific?

I'd have posted some analysis/response but earlier comments covered it :-)

I think it would be great if Stu 2 were to be specific about what "that theory" is, what he believes it to be based upon, and what evidence compels him to conclude that it is "failing miserably". Otherwise it looks like a throwaway statement that convinces only its author.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 May 2015 #permalink

You do realise that energy infrastructure & delivery to the general population is ‘socialised’ via legislation in most countries already don’t you?

The trend is most definitely the other way in advanced economies, that is away from socialisation and towards privatisation. However understanding this requires rejecting the fallacious conflation of "regulated" and "socialised".

IIRC the grids in the US are private, the generators are private, the markets are private, the retailers are private - and a good argument could be made that the fossil fuel energy companies partly own both branches of the legislature, based on analysis of policies that get implemented .

We're certainly moving towards more and more privatisation. IIRC we've sold off parts of our grid in a number of our States and some of our State governments are trying to sell more. I seem to recall that the retailers are all (or almost all) private and so is a fair whack of generation capacity.

The trend seems to be the same in the UK if I'm not mistaken too - more so with the re-election of their Tories.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 May 2015 #permalink

The trend seems to be the same in the UK if I’m not mistaken too – more so with the re-election of their Tories.

You are not wrong there, from health to schools and of course the power grid was sold off decades ago, and look at the clusterfuck that was the railways in the last decade of the last century. C*u*t*r*u*ks created by ideological zealots who know nothing about the sector they are dabbling with, or worse see a quick fat profit in it.

And when they have facked us to hell and polluted all our drinking water - those filters commonly used are not going to do any6 good with frack-fluids, they will sell us bottled water stolen from some other poor suckers somewhere else in the world (check out India and the soft drinks industry) for the likes of these:

Nestlé CEO On Bottling Water In California: ‘If I Could Increase It, I Would

are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect.

But what do the ignorati such as Stu2pid know even when one rubs their noses in it for they make up shite like this:

According to Lionel and Wow, the UK healthcare system is no good.

No you clot, I am pointing up that the healthcare system is in danger, and is becoming, unusable unless you can afford to use it. Tell me Stu2pid, how do those without money manage to travel the increasingly long distances to get to health care centres? Even the car parking fees cripple those who have to attend often or relatives visiting their sick, and staff also get hit here by that PFI bad-bargan. I have two daughters highly qualified in the nursing part, not admin', who know all about this.

Sure there are parking concessions for the disabled, but that doesn't work if you are there after the Enquiry desk people clock off for they issue the tokens for you to get out of the car park. Good that eh!

Sheesh, some people have little twixt the ears, Stu2pid would make a good sub for that idiot Abbott.

"According to Lionel and Wow, the UK healthcare system is no good."

According to Stupid, that is.

We've only said that it has worse healthcare access than the UK.

Reality, as always, refuses to play ball with Stupid.

Gentlemen.
You are seriously spraying vitriol all over the place.
To adequately answer all of your questions and to adequately field your numerous personal accusations I would need to write a massive referenced report or a long opinion piece.
I don’t have the time nor the inclination to do that so I will instead just summarise in order of appearance.
Wow @ # 32. Yes Cuba has developed a promising vaccine for lung cancer.
IMHO, that’s probably a champion idea considering Cuba’s economic reliance on tobacco?
Good for them.
It does not however:
"1.Proving your claim about democracies being necessary wrong. Or:
2.PROVING their healthcare access is better than Australia’s.
Jeff Harvey @ # 38
Hilarious.
Your argument is basically that humans (like me) need to be gagged and that it is humans (like me) who are the source of all the world’s ecological problems. You base this argument on the presumption that humans (like me) are completely ignorant and have no understanding of ‘environmental science’. Apart from being absolute nonsense, it’s also just pompous hand waving and doomsaying. If the world is falling over a cliff Jeff Harvey, there is absolutely nothing in your pompous rant that will help us to save it. There’s nothing in Jensen’s stuff that will save it either. DGR promotes violence.
Bernard @ # 39
Your pasting of my comment @ # 24 was my answer to BBD’s question @ # 23 not my answer to your question.
So you claiming to me :
“I have never said that our protection of the ecosphere must “all rely and be exclusively based on a best estimate of CO2″ [sic].” Therefore looks like you may be just a tad confused.
I’m also wondering why you require me to make something entertaining for you?
For all of you who are asking for specifics (Frank, Lotharsson, Wow & etc) you can find it at BBD’s comment @ # 23:
Here:
“This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.”
That is the ‘specific theory’ that IMHO is failing. The ‘grand challenge’ idea of gaining a specific global agreement about a specific climate sensitivity to CO2 @ 2 x CO2 is about 3C in order to formulate a global price to charge us all to save us all from all of ourselves is not succeeding (which means it’s failing). IMHO, it has only succeeded in creating a deeply divisive political debate about whose/what politics/ which faction/which system & etc and what Walter Starck calls “academic pissing contests”. Meanwhile, the people who are trying to do specific things about specific environmental issues are being dismissed or specifically accused of ducking and weaving or fiddling or having only one wing or insidiously belonging to some human ‘contrarian’ tribes categorized by such names as ‘lukewarm’ or ‘denial’ or whatever. It’s nonsense.
Lionel @ # 43.
Along with you, I don’t like being charged for parking when I go to visit people in public hospitals. My 2 cousins and my Aunty who are all doctors in public hospitals and a further two cousins and an Uncle who are nurses in public hospitals and yet another cousin who is a specialist orthopedic surgeon, don’t like it either. What has that got to do with it? The people who are actually inside those hospitals or specialist clinics getting medical attention for their medical complaints are the ones that matter.
If you don’t like paying for parking- then join the club Lionel.
It’s not up to the public health care system to pay for the fact that you’re inconvenienced and out of pocket because you have to pay for parking when you visit friends and relatives in hospital. That would be another area of our governance systems that needs attention wouldn’t it? I agree that access to specialists is becoming centralized and urbanized. That however is a feature of our increasingly urbanised society and our increasingly specialised medical services. I would love to have personal access to every type of medical specialist that I could possibly need for the rest of my life out here in central NSW where I live. What I do know however is that when it really matters I do have immediate equal access, despite the fact that it’s not right next door. I believe you live in England? Wanna swap the distances that you or I might have to negotiate and what our healthcare systems have to factor in?
&
I am also not a fan of the ‘bottled water’ industry in countries that have perfectly acceptable drinking water that meet all standards. I’m not on ‘town water’ where I live. I still don’t find it necessary to drink branded bottled water. I drink rain water that’s stored in a tank and which I further filter (all at my own cost). I actually think it’s enormously pretentious and highly amusing that well fed, well clothed, well paid, well watered people swan around with branded drinking water in our cities and towns which have excellent FREE drinking water supplied by their own taxes. Of course in other places around the world that is a different story. I certainly do drink bottled water when I travel around rural and regional areas (for work), in places like Asia and India. I have also had it explained to me that if the affluent nations did not like the concept of being able to choose to drink bottled water (as silly as it is), it would not be as accessible to those who do truly need access to it. I have not read any official reports or studies on that BTW, but the people who explained it to me most certainly have.
But your comment here:
“But what do the ignorati such as Stu2pid know even when one rubs their noses in it’
Is perhaps a little harsh considering you have only just raised this as an issue?
And BBD @ # 40.
If there is such a tribe known as “lukewarm” I regret to inform you that I am not a member of that tribe.
See above for the ‘specific’.

Apart from being absolute nonsense, it’s also just pompous hand waving and doomsaying.

Ah, the extreme irony of actual pompous handwaving being used to dismiss an evidence-backed argument by assertion - to be clear, that is to dismiss it without reference to any evidence.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 May 2015 #permalink

That is the ‘specific theory’ that IMHO is failing.

More pompous handwaving dismissal without evidence!

But wait, there's more, so maybe it's not handwaving dismissal so much as evasion. The very next sentence appears to walk back the agreement that that is indeed the 'specific theory' in question by embedding it in a larger ... something:

The ‘grand challenge’ idea of gaining a specific global agreement about a specific climate sensitivity to CO2 @ 2 x CO2 is about 3C in order to formulate a global price to charge us all to save us all from all of ourselves is not succeeding (which means it’s failing).

Maybe that's the 'theory' that's failing rather than the specific theory that the best estimate of ECS is about 3C? Who knows?

If there is such a tribe known as “lukewarm” I regret to inform you that I am not a member of that tribe.

Given your earlier comments that give the superficial appearance of answering BBD's earlier question but then rapidly remove that impression, I suspect you don't know what you're claiming.

Let me try once more. Very simply question: do you or do you not accept the scientific finding that the best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 3C?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 18 May 2015 #permalink

That wasn't the question @# 23Lotharsson.
Go read it again.
My answer to your different question is:
The best of scientific evidence supplies a range not a specific number.
There is no 'consensus' or 'theory' that has landed on a definite, indisputable singular figure per doubling of CO2. (about or otherwise).
As you pointed out re that 6.9% figure earlier, the methodology that's used will influence results too.

Note how Stupid2, in his lengthy rant above, failed to address a single point I made and clearly does not grasp the empirical evidence. The twerp has never read the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (he wouldn't understand it if he could), doesn't understand the concept of human appropriation of NPP, doesn't comprehend the consequences of losing genetic diversity, and most obviously does not ever read the primary literature.

And he tries ti lecture me about 'facts'. As for DGR promoting violence, that is a bit rich for a dude living in a country whose political system not only promotes violence but carries it out. Last time I checked Australia was a willing participant in a number of NATO-led resource wars. Talk about hypocrisy.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 May 2015 #permalink

That wasn’t the question @# 23Lotharsson.

I already read it again before I wrote my comment.

The question as I read it was not "do we need an international agreement...", it was "whether you in principle accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response", evidence that "...specifically requires [your] agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C."

BBD will clarify if you don't think my interpretation is correct when you re-read it.

The best of scientific evidence supplies a range not a specific number.

Which is yet another evasion of a carefully posed direct question that implicitly acknowledged that fact by asking for the approximate value of the best estimate.

However, since you're in evasion mode, let me accept your gambit and ask you this, which is entirely consistent with your earlier "answer":

Given that the question is about public policy response to potentially severe impacts, then based on the scientific evidence that you accept what is the highest climate equilibrium sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 that cannot be ruled out with 95% confidence?

If you're willing to gamble more heavily on the potentially severe impacts, please substitute 90%, 75% or even 67% if you're particularly willing to increase the risk level and provide a corresponding climate sensitivity number.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 May 2015 #permalink

Evidence of Stupid's stupidity.

Claim:

The best of scientific evidence supplies a range not a specific number.

Other claim:

“This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.”
That is the ‘specific theory’ that IMHO is failing. /blockquote>

Stupid, how do you square the theory that failed being one that isn't the science as you claimed in the first quote?

One reason (among many) your claims on out arguments being "spraying vitriol all over the place" is spurious: your record on accurate claims dooms you.

And you've sprayed vitriol aplenty. Even just to Cuba.

Don't complain about vitriol emissions when you're the chief exporter of the stuff,dumbass.

It doesn't take you long does it Lotharsson?
ZZzzzzzzzz.

ZZzzzzzzzz.

You need a new handwaving/evasion tactic. You've vastly overused that one and everyone who isn't you understands that's exactly what it is.

As it stands everyone else will assume that you either do not know the required information to answer my rephrased question or that you are unwilling to put your position on record. One of those makes you look like you've made claims you can't back up and the other makes you look like you're arguing in bad faith. Only you can change that set of inferences.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 May 2015 #permalink

"ZZzzzzzzzz."

And this answers what? That you're too lazy to write, but awake enough to press the shift and z key then enter?

As mentioned above, when you cried off "What evasions"?, that'd be one.

Or are you saying that you answered and the answer was "My brain was asleep, sorry"?

Stu2pid misses again,

It’s not up to the public health care system to pay for the fact that you’re inconvenienced and out of pocket because you have to pay for parking when you visit friends and relatives in hospital. That would be another area of our governance systems that needs attention wouldn’t it?

my reference to PFI. Maybe you don't know what that means in which case look it up, the homework will do you good.

Meanwhile WRT 'DGR' and their attitude. Whether the collapse of industrial civilisation, when it comes not if, will affect you or yours I know not but considering the climatic events in the US alone a Mad Max scenario is very much on the cards as Jason Box (I doubt you have heard of him but it is never too late) sees only too well and touches on it in Dr. Jason Box Interviewed by Bill Maher.

BBD’s comment @ # 23:
Here:
“This specifically requires an agreement that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.”
That is the ‘specific theory’ that IMHO is failing. The ‘grand challenge’ idea of gaining a specific global agreement about a specific climate sensitivity to CO2 @ 2 x CO2 is about 3C in order to formulate a global price to charge us all to save us all from all of ourselves is not succeeding (which means it’s failing).

Waiter? Can you tell me, does the word salad come with vinaigrette or mayonnaise?

Seriously, WTF does that even mean? 3 degree climate sensitivity is an estimate deriving from theory and observation. It's not a theory in itself, failing or otherwise.

And why is gaining agreement on that figure the "grand challenge" that needs to be met to put a price on carbon? It might be needed for an exact price, but no price on carbon yet imposed comes anywhere near an authentic cost, so an exact figure is not yet necessary. I don't need to know anything about Stu2's house at all to know its worth more than $10000 dollars.

We know that sensitivity is above 1.2 degrees - everyone agrees to that, unless you're a fan of Dick Lindzen's Iris theory (speaking of failing ones...). That allows a relatively simple estimate of $35 to $70 per tonne. If we are not above that range we are not even pricing carbon at the bare minimum that there is near-universal agreement on. So lets at least get to that level, hmmm? The reason carbon pricing is unevenly and inadequately applied is not because of uncertainty about CO2 sensitivity. Its because of people who think that doing the thing that caused the problem with solve it. People who believe in cornucopian endless growth. People who believe that the problem is as simple as ABC (Anything But Carbon). In fact, people a bit like Stu2 - as demonstrated repeatedly in his posts.

to save us all from all of ourselves

In all seriousness, If Stu2 doesn't want to be taken for a douche, he shouldn't talk like one. These sorts of phrasings make him sound like Tim Blair...

Sorry - for "with solve it" read "will solve it"

Thanks Lotharsson and FrankD

The usual confused, evasive rubbish from Stu2. Not in the mood tonight.

Jeff Harvey @ # 50.
No one accused DGR of violence. If you read their material you discover quite clearly that they condone violence.
I do indeed live in Australia. Why is that relevant or yet another reason why you think I should be gagged?

BBD @ # 60.
Your question was answered. There was no evasion.
Apparently you and others didn't like the answer?
I didn't answer to have it marked or graded or categorised.
Frank and Lotharsson are trying to read something between the lines and analyse something that wasn't there.
For some inexplicable reason they then assume they can then do some amateur psychoanalysis on their unsubstantiated personal perceptions of my supposed highly flawed character and my supposed inabilty to correctly use their rules about rebuttal and that then proves something important.
It's sometimes funny to read but that's about it.

Frank D @# 57
Lotharsson & BBD both claimed there is global, scientific agreement that the figure is (about) 3C.
1.2 is less than half of (about) 3C.

The usual confused, evasive rubbish from Stu2. Not in the mood tonight.

I hear you brother.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 May 2015 #permalink

LOL!
:-)
What are you finding confusing and evasive about me Bernard ?
You have got yourself remarkably confused about who said what about you quite a few times.
It was particularly funny when you have corrected yourself and then still tried to argue that it was because of what you think about me and therefore somehow my fault that you made a mistake.
Priceless.
I had no idea that I could be the major cause of you making a mistake. I don't know how that could be possible.
I would be inclined to suggest that you may have not read all the comments properly and then just made a mistake.
That's OK. We all make silly mistakes sometimes.

Your question was answered. There was no evasion.

You appear to be the only who thinks it was answered. This suggests at a minimum you weren't as clear as you thought.

Frank and Lotharsson are trying to read something between the lines and analyse something that wasn’t there.

Don't be silly. We both tried to make sense of the "word salad" that was there, a word salad that everyone but you seems to think is evasive or confused or highly unclear and hence does not actually answer the question.

That's why I asked a specific rephrased question at #51 that you have so far declined to answer. How about it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 May 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson & BBD both claimed there is global, scientific agreement that the figure is (about) 3C.

Neither of us used the word "global" in conjunction with "agreement" (because we didn't use "global" at all). That was your invention, and continuing to use it runs the risk of appearing as if you're rejecting the question itself and substituting one of your own (as well as putting words into our mouths). Can you explain why you keep using the word in this context?

Further, having just claimed to have answered BBD's question you are now using a re-formulation of that question that also goes out of its way to avoid stating that you personally agree that the scientific evidence points to a best estimate of around 3C and can even be read as subtle disagreement.

Do you or do you not agree that the best scientific estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity is around 3C? Or will you clearly answer my question at #51 by providing values that you do agree with? Answering either one will suffice.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 May 2015 #permalink

1.2 is less than half of (about) 3C.

And so...?

Instead of pointing out the bleedingly obvious for no apparent reason, how about explaining what you had in mind when you thought that? Better still, how about tackling the argument FrankD advanced when he pointed out that we don't need an exact or even near-exact figure to motivate serious action, that no-one in their right mind thinks it's under 1.2C, and that 1.2C is sufficient by itself to motivate a serious policy response?

And even better still, how about tackling it in the context of your answer to my question at #51 on the correct bound to use when analysing responses to risks (and to be explicit, that's not the lower bound of the confidence interval)?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 May 2015 #permalink

Oh!
Sorry Lotharsson. I missed seeing that question amongst all the pseudo psychoanalysis.
Now that I have read it, I have to admit I'm entirely confused.
Given that.....then based on....what cannot?
Huh?
It's a terrible question.
You've thrown in numerous unclear qualifiers, used 'motherhood statements' over complicated it and then demanded I supply you with a simple singular % figure which cannot be ruled out?
You then ask me to pick from 3 figures according to a risk vs climate sensitivity scale that you don't actually supply.
I sincerely hope you are not responsible for setting exam questions or composing surveys or similar.

Sorry again.
Cross posts.
If you read BBD's original comment you will discover he said this SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES AN AGREEMENT .........is about 3C.

Stu 2, you are an incoherent amœba and a waste of electrons, grossly prone to misrepresentation of facts and situations. And for the record that is not ad hominem, it's a simple observation of demonstrable fact.

You're also prone to unintended irony, but sadly it's not of the amusing sort.

For the record Lotharsson and I were commenting on your confusion, not his or mine. My 6 year olds can parse Dr Seuss better than you can anything on this thread or in the scientific literature.

The only thing good about keeping you in front of your monitor is that it keeps you away from heavy vehicles and sharp instruments. For that public service the rest of us can take some small satisfaction.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

having just claimed to have answered BBD’s question you are now using a re-formulation of that question

Also doing so after complaining that he's answered the question asked indicates he knowingly changed the question and "answered" a different one.

"scare quotes" there denoting that he answered only in so far as he thinks. It was a reply, but not an answer.

But the fuckwit doesn't know anything other than the political dogma he was infected with as a child by his cult-driven associates.

"Democracy is good! Socialism bad!" and "Governments bad, corporations good!".

Just rote ideology spurted out like unwanted semen spread over his bedsheets at the thought of one day having money and power. Terrified of the power being threatened in case it goes before he gets to chow down at the gravy train.

"If you read BBD’s original comment you will discover he said this SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES AN AGREEMENT ………is about 3C."

No we won't.

Please, just because you hallucinate doesn't mean reality is what you claim it to be.

There ARE no purple spiders tapdancing on the sink top.

If you read BBD’s original comment you will discover he said this SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES AN AGREEMENT ………is about 3C.

I pointed out that he presumably did not mean "requires an international agreement" but rather "requires an agreement from you". I also pointed out that he would correct me if I misinterpreted, and he has subsequently commented without doing that, so I think we can assume I was correct.

Are you in fact agreeing to the simple proposition that the scientific evidence indicates that the best value for climate sensitivity is about 3C? I ask because it's not clear to me and presumably many others that you do.

Or is this meant to refer to discussion of FrankD's use of 1.2C as the lowest possible lower bound? If so please note that lower bounds are not best estimates, so pointing out that lower bounds have different values to best estimates is pointing out the obvious.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

You’ve thrown in numerous unclear qualifiers...

Er, no. Precisely the opposite in fact for those familiar with scientific convention.

...used ‘motherhood statements’...

None are in evidence.

...over complicated it...

Nope. Much of that complication is necessary in order to have the discussion at the level you pitched it when you rejected BBD's simpler question in favour of "well, I can't give you a single value, not even a best value, because science does ranges, not single values". The rest is to give you more degrees of freedom to answer.

...then demanded I supply you with a simple singular % figure which cannot be ruled out?

Yes, because that's precisely what the endpoints of a confidence interval - a "range" if you will - specify.

You then ask me to pick from 3 figures according to a risk vs climate sensitivity scale that you don’t actually supply.

No, I didn't ask you to pick. I offered you the option to do so if that made it easier for you. And the entire point of the question was for you to specify a single point on the likelihood vs climate sensitivity curve that you agree with. If I supplied it that would defeat the point!

But I live in hope, so let me break it down and explain it even further:

"Based on the scientific evidence that you accept..."

So this is a question about your opinion, no-one else's.

It's asking for whatever opinion you hold that you assert or believe to be based on the scientific evidence.

It's not telling you that you must accept the same scientific evidence as everyone else. It's asking you to base your answer on whatever scientific evidence you accept.

If all that is too hard to understand, just ignore that part and base your answer on whatever the heck you think the answer to the rest of the question should be based upon.

...what is the highest climate equilibrium sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 that cannot be ruled out with 95% confidence?

This is a question that acknowledges your answer about scientific understanding leading to a range of values by asking you about one point on the curve defined by the values and confidence levels in those values.

This is a question about the range of values for equilibrium climate sensitivity.

This is a question specifically about the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.

Since we can't know the precise value of climate sensitivity, it is asking you about the range of values that you are 95% confident contains the actual value. In other words there's a 5% chance that the true value lies outside the range, or to put it another way the idea that the true value lies outside the range is ruled out with 95% confidence. That means the idea that the true value lies inside the range cannot be ruled out with 95% confidence.

And it is asking you for the climate sensitivity value at the upper end of that 95% confidence interval range. In other words, the endpoint is defined by the point where even higher values are considered less than 5% likely.

The follow on paragraph gives you even more latitude:

...please substitute 90%, 75% or even 67%...

If you prefer use the 90% or 75% or 67% confidence interval when answering. Specify the interval you are using (how confident you are that the true value lies within the range defined by the interval), and specify the upper end of the range defined by that interval.

I hope that makes it clearer.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

In other words, the endpoint is defined by the point where even higher values are considered less than 5% likely.

(I forgot to point out that this is an inaccurate simplification because the range has not one but two tails, but it seems necessary at this stage.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

I forgot to point out that this is an inaccurate simplification because the range has not one but two tails, but it seems necessary at this stage.

I weep that it is.

God must really have hated humanity to inflict the STU2 gene on it.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

If you read BBD’s original comment you will discover he said this SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES AN AGREEMENT ………is about 3C.

Oh good gravy! Stu2 cannot even parse a simple declarative statement....no wonder he has such trouble getting to grips with Lotharsson's more demanding but tightly-reasoned prose. This is the sort of thing that shifts me back to thinking Wow has the right register - is Stu2 just Olaus without the amusing Swedish accent?

No wonder the atmospheric proportion of O2 is dropping so fast. It's not the fossil fuel burning, its all the fucking oxygen thieves :-)

# 69 Stu2

FFS

FFFS

FFFFS

What I would like to know is whether in principle you accept the scientific evidence that strongly suggests a public policy response.

This specifically requires an agreement ***FROM YOU*** that the best estimate of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is about 3C.

Do you agree with this? If not, please explain why not.

Lotharsson

I pointed out that he presumably did not mean “requires an international agreement” but rather “requires an agreement from you“. I also pointed out that he would correct me if I misinterpreted, and he has subsequently commented without doing that, so I think we can assume I was correct.

Alas, I failed to hypercompensate for the fucking parsomatics of Stu2. My apologies for the waste of your time this subsequently involved.

I was pissed off before, but now...

Lotharsson, BBD Frank et al.
There is a massive chasm between an agreement from me and any agreement that needs a policy response.
What absolute nonsense.
You have completely and totally lost the plot.

Stu2

There is a massive chasm between an agreement from me and any agreement that needs a policy response.
What absolute nonsense.

Enough evasive fuckwittery.

I asked you a straightforward question.

Answer it please.

I asked you a straightforward question.

Answer it please.

BBD, we'd have better luck unknotting a pretzel.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

Bernard J.

At least with a pretzel, after you fail, you can eat the bits.

ROFLCOPTER!

**Stupid** demanding answers to "simple questions"!

What a fucking moron!

Catch up on your fucking backlog, man.

I get the distinct impression that Stu 2 fails to comprehend BBD's question or prefers to give that impression than answer it - let alone mine, or attempt to rebut Frank's policy argument from an overly generous minimum climate sensitivity estimate!

Better to pile more evasiveness on top of the huge pile he's built already than say what he actually thinks the value of a policy-relevant climate sensitivity metric is, eh?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

Yep.
Completely lost it.
I am particularly highly amused by Bernard's comment @ # 70 that he claims is demonstrable fact.
Why oh why are you all screaming that policy depends on a number that's attached to a climate sensitivity figure that I have to agree with?
What policy ?
What outcomes will this numbers based policy achieve?
Who/what runs this 'policy response' and how will it be managed and monitored?

What policy ? [etc]

So, whilst alleging Bernard's comment is "amusing" to you and that OTHERS have lost the plot, you completely misinterpreted the scope (and point) of the question AGAIN, which - purely coincidentally, I'm sure ;-) - means you avoided answering it AGAIN.

You know, if you thought about it for a moment and reread some of your own output you might dimly perceive that there is a long term pattern here...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 May 2015 #permalink

Yes Lotharsson.
There is definitely a pattern.
:-)

..."There is definitely a pattern".

Yes, of willful ignorance and stupidity. Not only with respect to the climate questions, but also when challenged with empirical evidence about such divergent topics as the state of the biosphere and health care in Australia versus Cuba.

Stu2 is one thick bunny.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 May 2015 #permalink

Stu2

There is definitely a pattern.

Yes, there is. Evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty.

Let's try again:

The best estimate for ECS / 2 x CO2 is that it will be about 3C.

Do you accept this or not? If not, please explain why.

Hell, they're shooting themselves in feet they don't have!

Remember, peeps, honesty is devastating to stupid's case.

Hell, answers are an anathema to him. they mean he can be quoted on what he thinks.

And he doesn't know what he thinks: WTFUWT hasn't told him what he thinks yet...

BBD @#90.
See comments 24, 25 & 48.

We see them. Hence the comment BBD made in #90.

See comment 90.

Stu2

You haven't answered the question. Don't refer me to previous instances of your not answering the question.

Let's try again:

The best estimate for ECS / 2 x CO2 is that it will be about 3C.

Do you accept this or not? If not, please explain why.

What's the problem, Stu2? Come on.

BBD.
Read comment 48.

BBD.
After you read comment 48 perhaps you could explain why you clearly don't like the answer?
I'm guessing from your response that you don't like it, but so far the only reasons given are some unsubstantiated personal comments.