Past time for more thread.
Welcome back to our big tourist attraction -- the World's Biggest Empty Echo Chamber.
Welcome back to our big tourist attraction — the World’s Biggest Empty Echo Chamber.
Of course, this proves nothing and is merely poisoning the well.
IOW "SO FUCKING WHAT?"
I just knew, before investigating, that Rick would have dropped some inane bubkes.
Who is he? Another WTFUWT dummy?
I have come across Rick Bradford before e.g. here at post 13 and elsewhere including on comment threads at The Conversation IIRC.
They have no objective reality on their side, so they have to do the best with what they've got: "Hey, it's quiet in here!" being a good indication of how bad their "best" is.
You think that after 2015 broke the annual temperature record by a country mile that idiots like RB above would melt away like snow in the spring sun.
But they stick around with their outdated memes and profound ignorance. Sad.
Your definition of 'a country mile' must be quite different to mine.
FWIW, where I come from in the phrase "to beat someone by a country mile" it means by a significant margin. For me it seems apt in the context of 2015's record. What's your definition in such a context Stu 2?
Here's a couple turboblocke
I disagree that it's apt in this context.
This use of language is 'a country mile' from scientific terminology.
0.13 degrees C at the global level for a deterministic system is easily a 'country mile'. Our definitions differ for one main reason: you do not understand the dynamics of large scale systems and I do. This is in turn because you lack even the most basic qualifications in the study of systems.
Get over it.
"Your definition of ‘a country mile’ must be quite different to mine."
Evidently if you believe Jeff to be wrong in his conclusion.
Your version of it is wrong, and being "quite different" doesn't make you right. You know, the same way as ISIS have a quite different idea of what god wants doing to everyone else. OR are you claiming that ISIS are doing the right thing??
"I disagree that it’s apt in this context."
Yes, you do. But this merely means you're wrong.
#1 Empty echo chamber.
Idjit. Dec 2015 open thread
was a ripper.
I love the way deniers often quote sources
like BoM , NASA etc, to use the
implied authority of those sources to
assist their pet issue. And
concurrently, try to undermine those
same sources with conspiracy ideation.
I havnt seen a denier yet who dosnt
do this in some form.
Further to the correct definition of country mile:
It means by a large amount or an amount that is larger or a distance that is longer than anticipated.
Last year, the global mean temperature was 0.13 C higher than any previous year in recorded history. That is a staggering amount at such a large scale; truly alarming. These records are usually broken by a fraction of a tenth of a degree, not 0.13 C. That requires immense forcing which came by the way of the largest El Nino in recorded history that was enhanced by anthropogenic warming.
Thus, as I correctly said, last year's mean temperature beat the previous recored (2014) by a country mile. Its correct.
That requires immense forcing which came by the way of the largest El Nino in recorded history that was enhanced by anthropogenic warming.
Start again, cat jumped onto the keyboard mid composition.
That requires immense forcing which came by the way of the largest El Nino in recorded history that was enhanced by anthropogenic warming.
Indeed, the fact that this latest El Niño has been drawing upon that energy stored in 'the flywheel' that is the ocean, energy not escaping back into space from GHG forcing, is lost on many who commonly retort with 'but El Niño' when recent high temps and severe weather events are discussed.
This was born out by the comments of one RickA on Greg Laden's blog of which Comment #5 here is but one example:
The more warming sloshing from the ocean to the atmosphere (nature moving heat around) – the less that can be caused by human CO2 emissions.
That RickA is confused us also born out by statements such as in #2 here :
I am assuming when you say global warming you mean human caused. How much of the warming was el nino and how much was global warming?
Now I wonder if Stu2, or any other of our troll visitors, can explain why RickA is confused. Should not be difficult after all I have hinted at the answer.
Lionel and Jeff.
Despite your assertions otherwise, Stu 2 does not and never has claimed that human behaviour does not impact the planet.
You may perhaps being drawing a rather long bow trying to argue human activity is the ONLY contributing impact on ocean heat uptake and global temps but it doesn't matter.
Unfortunately, when asking people like Jeff Harvey what should be done about it we get directed (with much scientific authority) to people and organisations like these:
People and organisations like these claim they are 'anti-civilisation' and they promote violence.
As Craig commented in an earlier thread, history teaches us that the most shocking examples of pollution and environmental damage occur when these type of tactics are employed.
Further, a belief in some type of benevolent global dictatorship that will run a 'free market' for emissions is bordering on an oxymoron IMHO.
I absolutely agree that Humanity must be encouraged to take better care of the planet.
I absolutely disagree with the 'misanthropic' views of modern 'environmentalism'.
Of course this planet would be a different place if there was no such species as 'homo-sapiens'.
But there is such as a species and whether you like it or not, this species is part of the environment too.
We need to encourage practical, workable solutions to these issues, not negative politics and claiming that people must be denied the opportunities that you we been fortunate enough to have.
"Despite your assertions otherwise, Stu 2 does not and never has claimed that human behaviour does not impact the planet."
Then what the hell was the point of all your bullshitting? Why the hell do you whine about "corruption" and "scams" if what those you whine about are right as far as you know?
Where have EITHER of them said that the ONLY contribution to ocean heat uptake is human caused?
We need to encourage practical, workable solutions to these issues,...
Indeed we do, but before this can happen we need to be able to recognise, and acknowledge, the issues causing the problems and this is where the wide gamut of scientific investigations and research comes in. The state of our knowledge on this has been growing since the first efforts of Fourier and Tyndall and also of those in the then yet to be described field of geomorphology, amongst others. We now have more than enough EVIDENCE that science is on the right tracks.
You on the other hand try all manner of tricks, such as the strawmen in you last, to evade the truth using links to false witnesses and prophets.
Nature is apolitical and the resilient papers on this topic follow where nature goes. One only has to look at that Ted Cruz farrago before Christmas to see why we are still at loggerheads with certain sectors who grasp at any straw to nay-say human impacts. Curry's, "...we have to look at the satellite data..." being a classic example. It is through the antics of a few scientists gone rogue — Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Michaels and the PR hacks who they feed — Morano, Delingpole, Rose etc that the issue has become so politicised.
If you have problems understanding that then the fault lies with YOU and YOU alone.
Trust Stu2 to create more strawmen. By now he has an army of them.
Derrick Jensen believes, along with many others, including author Chris Hedges, that the dominant political-ideaological system of for-profit capitalism not only does not work, but is incompatible with life and with sustainability. I think he's right, and there is a lot of evidence to prove it. We are now at the end of a 500 year rampage across the planet which started out with the annihilation of native North Americans and which, in bringing prosperity to a comparative few, has also done great damage to the planet and the ecological life support systems upon which we depend for our survival. I believe that to stand any chance of long-term survival, and to create social justice and equity for all, we need to dump the current system asap and find an altogether more humane, ecologically sustainable sone to replace it. If we don't, I think we are sleepwalking towards our own extinction. That's why I salute those who advocate civil disobedience in the face of the plutocracies run by a tiny ruling elite. We've known for decades that humanity and nature are on a collision course and we've done bugger all to stop it. Instead, we've embraced political parties and movements for the most partr that have sped up the process of destruction.
Although I am a scientist, I see the solutions to the current predicament as being locked up in politics and economics. And I am not alone in this - many of my qualified peers think exactly the same way.
Stu2 believes we can tweak ongoing programs within the current system and deal with the burgeoning crises that we are rapidly approaching. I respectfully disagree. If he actually knew how the world worked he might have something useful to say. But all of his posts on Deltoid are shallow.
I do not advocate violence, and there is where I diverge from Jensen and converge with Hedges. But I do believe that we need to resist the current system.
And as Stu2 continues with inanities here is something that tells that we are entering a very new stage of life on Earth which means we need to worry.
Apart from being an essential component of the food chain phytoplankton produce around 80% of the O2 in the atmosphere.
I think this is an 'oh shit' moment, or as someone else says, 'Oh bugger!'
I think we are sleepwalking towards our own extinction.
Folk here will well know that for a number of years now I've been less than optimistic in this regard.
In the last few years the global political non-response to AR5 was IMO the first really major flagging of a Problem, and the similar inaction after Pope Francis' encyclical last year was the second. The absence of any movement after COP21 in Paris is the third: yes, it's 'only' been a month, but there has been nothing at all to indicate any real governmental interest in acting, let alone any sense of imperative, and I'm convinced that it will be tepid at best all the way to COP22 or whatever takes its place.
So, I was somewhat down about our chances, in 2012, morose in early 2013, and downright miserable later in 2013. There have been many times since then that I've been even more pessimistic, but by the start of this year I've become convinced that humanity's continued fossil fueled damage to the global climate will now inevtiably lead to the destruction of globally-cohesive civilisation, and probably by the end of the 21st century. Too much damage and too much commitment to more has been locked in...
Our extinction? On that score I'm still only at the initial stage of pessimism that I was four or five years ago with respect to global civilisation, and inclined to consider, say, Frank Fenner's estimate as overly extreme. However if AR7 comes along and we're still at the same stage of dithering as we are now, I may have to capitulate and accede to the fact that our extinction - and not just modern civilisation - is likely measured on the scale of centuries rather than millennia or tens of millennia.
One thing that I am certain of, though, is that the human species will not live to see its one millionth birthday.
"...the destruction of globally-cohesive civilisation..."
The mechanism will be mediated by that horseman known in some cirlces by the moniker War, whipped along by his colleagues Famine and Pestilence.
That's what climate change, as we're creating it, will unleash.
Another marker of human foolishness?
So sad when this happens: Sperm whales beached in Skegness following Hunstanton death.
PCBs or a hundred other chemical contaminants. Micro-plastics or larger bits like Lego bricks, fishing nets, plastic bags, 'toy' balloons (the release of hundreds of these as a publicity stunt or remembrance needs to be stopped — also Chinese lanterns) - speculating yes but from a POV of knowing how polluted our seas are.
The other cetacean hazard is submarines and sonar and leaking oil and gas extraction infrastructure.
Happy New Year to all the usual suspects including Tim.
OTOH it is getting right scary in the US, so please prepare a bolt hole for Eli
I suppose that the USA is currently awash with "blizzards, ergo no global warming", eh?
Except that such blizzards are entirely consistent with global warming...
The Earth is a heat engine, and when the engine is powered with greater amounts of heat courtesy of humanity's greenhouse gasses, the results will be more of the heat engine's outputs.
It's both amusing and dismaying to see how the Dunningly-Krugered Denialati fail to understand the basic thermodynamics.
Stu 2 says,
"We need to encourage practical, workable solutions to these issues, not negative politics and claiming that people must be denied the opportunities that you we been fortunate enough to have."
*The* practical and workable solution is for the fossil fuel industry to actually *pay* for emitting CO2, which it is currently getting away with externalising at zero cost.
This is the Carbon Tax. A workable bit of free-market regulation that doesn't involve imaginating dodgy alternative political systems (which won't work).
In the second half of your comment, Stu 2, I detect the echo of the idiotic fossil-fuel-lobby propaganda to the effect that the 3rd-world "deserves" a coal industry.
This is utter bullshit. The coal industry is a very mature industry that has been around for around a century. Despite this, it only survives via massive taxpayer- subsidy AND the free externalising of its polluting emissions.
And despite all the subsidy received by the coal industry, the International Energy Agency has been listing wind power as cheaper per kW for about 3 years now.
There is absolutely no excuse to be supporting the government-subsidised development of more cola mines and more coal plants - wind power is cheaper, AND solves several of the serious issues caused by coal.
That's not per installed kW, either, wind power is cheaper per kW produced.
I was commenting on NRM in general.
I live out in rural/regional NSW & have been a fan of wind power for my whole life.
We have been using windmills out here for a very long time.
I thought you got it that I am no fan of any of the politics, but totally disenchanted with the rapid rise of 'environmentalism'?
That does not mean that I support what the likes of Jeff & others would call 'the other side'.
"I was commenting on NRM in general."
How can you when you claim you've not said anything?
Stu2 opines, "That does not mean that I support what the likes of Jeff & others would call ‘the other side’"
That's because you are clueless as to what the 'other side' is saying. I might as well be discussijg these issues with a primary school student. You have little understanding of the way the world works. This is sadly a problem I encouter all the time with people whose ideas are gleaned entire from a narrow range of mainstream sources. Clearly, 'your side', whatever side that is, is responsible for the already huge and growing gap between rich and poor and of generating a wide range of serious environmental problems. I am afraid that the current political system under the guise of capitalism just does not work. Its no use tweaking a few programs here and there while the foundations of this morally bankrupt system remain intact. We are sliding into the abyss and its going to take a helluva lot more than that to get us out of it.
Listen to this and then learn something:
And then read this:
He also has nothing on what "the other side" means, what it is that is wrong and why and what it should be instead.
Just a valueless, contentless evidence-free whine based on personal identification predicated on EXCLUSION, not inclusion.
Not to mention that stupid doesn't propose anything workable as an alternative, nor why his conclusions about the science (whatever THEY might be, he refuses to come clean about them other than to deride those who accept them) are in any way affirmed by this created fiction of "the other side".
After all, just because German Nazis were pivotal to the Apollo missions doesn't mean I think the entire moon landing was a hoax.
Yet stupid does this when it comes to AGW.
With respect and IMHO.
Your 'white hat/'black hat' melodramatic explanations are far more reminiscent of a primary student's view of the world than most.
While people like Derrick Jensen, Chris Hedges et al are wasting time with their misanthropic views, there are plenty of us who as well as thinking such people are downright creepy, are actually quietly 'doing something' about 'it'.
History teaches us that the tactics you are so obviously enamoured with result in some of the most shocking examples of environmental damage.
The real environment doesn't care about politics.
"With respect and IMHO."
with all due respect,you have nothing to support your claims and ensure that you remain silent on anything substantive, preferring everyone else to work out what you're on about rather than risk being shown why your assertions would be incorrect.
"Stu makes a fair point Jeff"
Stupid makes no point about how captialism has been, if anything, worse.
At different times and for different reasons:
The political 'isms' as bad as each other.
Empty words, Stupid. Nothing said there other than bland soundbytes from someone who really doesn't care to know what they're talking about.
Please provide your proof that the political isms are as bad as each other.
Otherwise this is no different than fourteen rail carts.
The proof is all around you.
Modern politics is far more interested in proving one lot is less creepy than the other lot and hijacking all sorts of research to lay claim to that.
They all have good aspects too.
Practical people (antonymn for political people) are far more interested in NRM that demonstrably works, not hanging their hats on an 'ism'.
Once again IMHO & with respect, I think societies based on democratic principles have the best proven track record in terms of TBL outcomes.
However, that does not mean I think there's a perfect example or that there isn't plenty of room for improvement.
Please point that proof out, Stupid. Don't demand I find your proof for you.
What is it you're trying to say anyway? Are you saying that as Jeff and I have said, capitlism is "just as bad" as communism when it comes to fucking up the planet?
To be honest WoW.
It's highly amusing to watch your verbal gymnastics to prove that whatever : you're 'not wrong'.
Your last 2 comments are a perfect example.
In one you say one is 'if anything worse' & the next you say that you and Jeff say they are 'just as bad'.
I quite clearly stated IMHO , societies based on democratic principles have the best track record re TBL outcomes.
I also clearly qualified that there is still plenty of room for improvement.
#42: your pretense at amusement does not provide proof of your claims preceding.
Please try again.
"societies based on democratic principles have the best track "
Proof pls, boith that this is the case and also that this doesn't disabuse you of your earlier claim that all isms are as bad as each other.
After all, the democracies have ensured that oligarchs get to fuck over the majority just as much as feudal systems did. Worse, in fact.
"In one you say one is ‘if anything worse’ & the next you say that you and Jeff say they are ‘just as bad’."
Nope, you say they're just as bad, stupid.
I did say that.
What therefore are you saying?
I also said that societies based on democratic principles, although not perfect, historically have the best track record re the TBL.
Do you disagree?
Stu2 continues to show how utterly ignorant he is when he writes this piffle: "While people like Derrick Jensen, Chris Hedges et al are wasting time with their misanthropic views, there are plenty of us who as well as thinking such people are downright creepy"
There are plenty who don't. A large number in fact. Those who apparently do, like you, are those who have been dumbed down by the current system and know bugger all about how our political systems have been hijakced and controlled by a ruling corporate elite. Stu2, by knowing nothing about this, justifies his ignorance by making flippant remarks like the one I quoted. Again, when people start off a debate on very different intellectual levels there is a problem. Stu2 thinks he is world-wise. That he understands the global economic and political structures of power. He clearly doesn't, so he's left with vacuous smears. Misanthropic? Give me a break. Hedges has 4 children. He worries about the world they will inherit from the current generation. Its a world going to hell. One in which the children and grandchildren of the current hedonistic generation in the developed world will look back and say, 'What the hell were they thinking? They knew they were destroying their ecological life support systems, and yet they did not stop'.
I might as well be talking to a wall. Then GSW wades in with his less than a pennie's worth of wisdom. As if we have a choice, as Roderiko said, between Marxism and plunder. This is the intellectual acumen of skeptics and deniers, folks. Its why the internet is both good and bad. It allows a veritable army of the ignoranti to pontificate their views as if they are informed.
Here's the clincher. Stu2 writes this: "I also said that societies based on democratic principles...." et al. ad nauseum.
Hilarious. At least it would be if it were not so utterly vacuous. What 'democracies' are those Stu2? The ones managed from the top down? This statement of yours is so utterly peurile that its not even really worthy of a response. Its like I said earlier: debating at this kindergarten level is a waste of my time.
Ever hear of Alex Carrey? You should. he was an Australian academic. He had a lot to say about our 'democratic' principles.
"I did say that.
What therefore are you saying?"
That since you say they're all "as bad as each other", why is it you didn't say that to begin with but argued that capitalism was brilliant, that democracy beats communism?
Given COMMUNIST China is doing FAR MORE about AGW to real effect (despite you obstructionists' claims that if we cut back on fossil fuel use, they'd get cheaper and China would just use more cheap coal, which hasn't happened) than CAPITALIST USA, Australia or UK, the evidence is clear that if anything capitalism is worse.
Yet here you are claiming one is worse than the other (the opposite of any indicator of difference) and in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of what you also claim in your FAKE "even handedness".
What I'm saying is that not even YOU believe your shite.
"As if we have a choice, as Roderiko said, between Marxism and plunder."
The point is jeff, the totalitarian, non democratic, anti capitalist/marxist/communist/ extreme left wing/ whatever that you advocate. we've already done that experiment and the environment was not the winner.
"North Korea is on the verge of an environmental collapse. Its fresh water is polluted and bacteria-infected, its land deforested and the soil eroded. The North Korean people are struggling to find clean water to drink and to grow food to eat."
I don't see a queue forming to replicate the environmental stewardship of the DPRK.
"we’ve already done that experiment and the environment was not the winner."
You're talking about capitalism, right? I mean, China is communist and doing FAR more than you merkins with your capitalism. Europe is doing far more than you, and they're socialist.
So the evidence rather insists that capitalism is the WORST for the environment.
"Its fresh water is polluted and bacteria-infected, its land deforested and the soil eroded"
You're talking about the USA again, right?
GSW proves he has the hallmark traits of a lunatic. He writes, "the totalitarian, non democratic, anti capitalist/marxist/communist/ extreme left wing/ whatever that you advocate"
Since when have I advocated that? In your dreams perhaps. I just don't advocate corporate elitist tyranny, that's all. Heck, you live in a plutocracy, effectively a military-industrial state. One thing is for sure: the US is NO democracy.
Just to re iterate jeff, we've done the "anti capitalist" experiment and environmentally it was a disaster - see examples above.
"Just to re iterate"
Though the question arises: do you know what reiterate means? Given that you just repeat the same cockshite that you blatted out earlier and ignored the FACT that communism is doing far better than capitalism is in serving the health of the environment.
See examples already given many MANY *MANY* times.
I wonder why I waste my time with nitwits like Stu2 and GSW. Now he writes as if Marxism is the only political alternative to nakedly predatory capitalism/free market absolutism.
I know GSW is intellectually challenged, but sheesh. He's even worse than I previously thought. No wonder he is an anonymous nobody.
"Now he writes as if Marxism is the only political alternative to nakedly predatory capitalism/free market absolutism."
Ok, in an attempt to stop you wriggling, are you happy to concede that the "anti capitalist" ideologies we've experienced to date were disasterous for the environment?
It's a fairly obvious thing to say, but trying to make progress on this.
"Ok, in an attempt to stop you wriggling"
You'll notice that your claims are utterly debunked by reality and stop BSing?
So what now?
You DO accept that capitalism has been disasterous for the environment, right?
I mean, if you want to progress here as you claim, you do.
It's just that so far you've wanted Jeff to accept your single sided and blind assertion. Which is really not you trying shit, really, is it.
So you must be accepting that capitalism has been fucking up the environment BADLY.
Well, while we're waiting for Jeff to collect his thoughts on where he stands on Marxism vs the environment, here's a youtube link for Alex Epstein vs the sinister Bruce Nilles from the sierra club.
So your "thought" on "getting somewhere" is really just "Agree with me or else".
Very Stalinist of you.
Gitter, why not give up on trying to get everyone to agree with you that marxism is bad for the environment and get the fuck on with whatever the hell your diseased imagination believes it can prove or just merely assert by fiat.
Here you go fellas.
Stumbled over this today.
Having a nice family does not preclude someone from
having misanthropic views.
People with all sorts of different views and lifestyles can also have a nice family which they also care deeply about.
I have a nice family, I even have nice pets.
Yeah yet more empty rhetoric meaning nothing.
Are you referring to the link or to my comment re nice families?
jeff doesn't have a nice family (darwin made sure that wasn't going to happen), jeff doesn't have nice pets. jeff is a lonely individual that spends his time thinking of ways to poison young minds. We're still waiting on the position piece on Marxism vs environment.
@# 41 & 44 you ask for info.
The link provides some info.
No, you need to know what "information" means, stupid.
Your posts contained nothing.
It contained even less than gary glitter's post there above yours contained.
GSW, just because your family engages in a lot of inbreeding doesn't make it a nice one.
This is entirely current and while looking up something else I stumbled across it today.
It is in fact info about the type of political systems which historically have the better track records.
As the article also points out: it's not an example of 'perfect'.
Here are a few snippets for you and Jeff:
"Scholars point to Australia as a country that got it right. We owe our success to our inclusive and democratic institutions, not dumb luck, writes Tim Harcourt."
" Every time I return home I am amazed at how well the Australian economy stacks up, despite the noisy pessimism in the media."
" In Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson basically take a journey through the history of the world to see why some nations have succeeded economically and others have been disasters, even if they had similar climates, historical cultures or endowments of natural resources.
The central thesis of their argument is that nations who build inclusive and democratic political and economic institutions will do better economically than nations that don't. It doesn't matter if a nation has an abundance of mineral wealth and natural resources; if they don't get the institutions right - with democratic inclusivity, fairness and the protection of property rights so citizens have the incentive to invest, save and innovate - the nation can squander its inheritance."
'Australia's not perfect - far from it, especially in terms of Indigenous disadvantage and the need to support reconciliation - but as Why Nations Fail shows, we have developed the right institutions that could build a future Australian nation that could really be a lucky country for all."
Tim Harcourt is the JW Nevile Fellow in Economics at the Australian School of Business, UNSW in Sydney and author of The Airport Economist. View his full profile here.
See, even YOU claim your posts contained rubbish, not info.
"The central thesis of their argument "
Has bugger all to do with anything here, or nice families or your fatuous belief you have one.
Sorry, you just proved that your posts contain sweet fuck all.
Are you saying in your opinion that these people just talk rubbish?
The central thesis does indeed have something to do with my comment about the track records of societies based on democratic principles.
It was Jeff who tried to introduce an argument based on whether someone has a family that they care about.
I agree with you that it is a fatuous argument.
I'm saying what I said. Are you saying that you can't read?
Is THAT your claim?
Or is this just to make me say it again?
See, even YOU claim your posts contained rubbish, not info.
“The central thesis of their argument ”
Has bugger all to do with anything here, or nice families or your fatuous belief you have one.
Sorry, you just proved that your posts contain sweet fuck all.
Get it this time?
Despite us being the right side of 1989, Jeff persists in believing in Unicorns:
"‘your side’, whatever side that is, is responsible for the already huge and growing gap between rich and poor and of generating a wide range of serious environmental problems"
This "gap" exists because of wealth. Wealth is a by-product of Freedom, including a Free Market.
Your alternative method has been tried. Arbitrarily redistributing people's wealth results in loss of productivity, corruption, inefficiency and ultimately no wealth for anybody,
(Mind you, Communist regimes still managed to cultivate a very wide gap between the abjectly poor workers and the pigs at the top).
I spent some time on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain - obtaining a car involved a 10+-year wait. And the cars were awful. The pollution was extreme. The buildings in towns and cities were black from it. A totally shit system, no 2 ways about it.
Just because something can be continually improved is no justification for fantasising about implementing a provenly inferior alternative.
Wealth is also a byproduct of feudal systems.
And I have spent some time in China.
The pollution and abject poverty there is heart breaking.
The gap between the haves and have nots is quite obvious.
I'm wondering who told Wow that:
" COMMUNIST China is doing FAR MORE about AGW to real effect "?????
Perhaps Wow could follow his own advice and provide actual proof about this " FAR MORE about AGW to real effect "?????
The last time I checked, China was building FAR MORE coal fired electricity capacity than just about anywhere else on earth.
In Beijing it's nearly impossible to see and breathe properly due to smog and pollution.
The buildings, like Craig has observed behind the iron curtain, are covered in greasy black muck and asbestos dust.
Out in rural areas the poverty and environmental degradation is very sad.
I certainly hope they are doing something, but quite clearly they're operating from a FAR LOWER base and could learn FAR MORE from other places.
Go to a US slum, or a Favela.
Capitalism breeds as much poverty, it just assumes that this is your fault.
And the rivers caught fires in the west because capitalism didn't care.
Where's your proof that Communist China is doing far more about AGW to real effect?
You do realise that I commented that societies based on democratic principles look to historically have the better track record. I didn't say societies based on Capitalism.
If you actually bothered to read the link I posted for you, there is mention of the failures in the US system via 'robber barons'
It seems the research by Acemoglu and Robinson has concluded the same thing about an inclusive democratic society and Tim Harcourt agrees.
Now GSW claims that I have no family, friends, and that I am a Marxist poisoning young minds.
This is the kind of fanatic I have to deal with all of the time. He is a complete right wing lunatic.
This excellent article by Chris Hedges sums up the predicament pretty well:
As for GSW and his kind: brainless right wing morons. The internet and blogs are full of them. They read little, rehash the musings of clowns like Donald Trump, and live in their own myopic worlds. They endlessly create strawmen by arguing that the only alternative to the current rapacious and unsustainable system is extreme Marxism as practiced in North Korea. They espouse neoclassical economic theory without understanding any of its basic tenets, while attacking steady state economic theory which they also do not understand. They also believe, erroneously of course, that the US is not only a healthy, functioning democracy, but that it is exceptional is this regard. Any notion of it as a plutocracy - inverted totalitarian as Sheldon Wolin calls it - is dismissed. They also conveniently ignore their foreign policies that literally kill millions of poor, either indirectly through economic policies or directly through military interventions both aimed at maintaining the status quo. And they also ignore or downplay the huge and growing body of evidence that humanity, primarily in the developed world, is destroying our ecological life support systems. These are systems people like GSW also do not understand, so they are also dismissed.
When anyone says something contrary to their limited and fragile mind sets, they are routinely smeared. It must really gall a nobody like GSW, stuck in his own little closet, that I am a successful scientist and well known and respected amongst my colleagues around the world. He knows who I am; he hides behind an anonymous handle. The reason I give my name is that if I argued from the perspective of a scientist, I would be attacked for 'making up my qualifications'. I realized that in saying who I am that I would also be attacked for (as Olaus puts it) "waving my CV", although note how GSW never hesitates to "wave the CVs" of people he likes or whose views he agrees with, even if their CVs, like Susan Crockford's for instance, are pretty poor.
Truth is, these clowns cannt debate their way out of a wet paper bag. This is why they have to resort to habitual smearing. I've read the books by Tainter, Redman and Wright that detail the collapse of complex societies, and I see us heading in exactly the same way. Capitalism began its death spiral during the 1980s when Reagan and Thatcher began their massive drive towards deregulation. It hasn't stopped, and now, at least in the US, corporations control every lever of government. As I said before, its a recipe for disaster.
Craig, please get this through your head (Ihow many bleeding times do I have to repeat it?!): I DO NOT ADVOCATE MARXISM. Do you honestly think the only alternative to our clearly ecocidal system is that? Come on man, learn something, You might start with Brian Czech's "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train" or a smilar primer. But stop this nonsense about the only alternative to plunder being communism. Its bull****.
As for Stu2, he conveniently forgets the fact that the so-called 'democracies' (I choke on those words) export their ecological damage to the south. Every developed nation fosters an ecological deficit that can only be countered by reaching into developing countries to exploit (read: plunder) their capital. If we were to be sustainable in the Netherlands, we'd need to be some 17 times as large as we are now; if everyone on the planet lived like just the average American, we'd need another 4 Earth-like planets to sustain current levels of consumption at the global level. Looting has huge social and ecological costs, and we in the quad are big-time looters.
I read Tim Harcourt's blurb.
I think he needs to learn some ecological economics. He's a typical old school neoclassical economist. Soon to become extinct, like the dinosaurs. I can deconstruct his entire piece if you want, Stu2. Its a waste of my time, as I am busy working on two of my PhD student's theses, but debunking the kind of silly twaddle Harcourt wrote in your link will not be hard. He's clearly someone who thinks that human prosperity is independent of natural constraints. As I said, old school. And totally wrong.
My god jeff, you don't half generate some froth. This shouldn't be controversial, do you accept that "anti capitalist"/Marxist/(or any label you're happy with) regimes have been environmentally disastrous?
See former Soviet Union and DPRK links above. Please avoid more froth.
"Where’s your proof that Communist China is doing far more about AGW to real effect?"
Where's yours that capitalism does more?
My evidence is here:
Did you not check YOUR "facts" before claiming them?
"My god jeff, you don’t half generate some froth"
Says the moron who posted #68...
Again, we have GSW creating false dichotomies. Seems like he, Stu2 and Craig can only fall back on one alternative to rapacious capitalism: communism. I don't know what ecological economists like Geoffrey Heal, Herman Daly, Stephan Viedermann, John Gowdy and many, many others would make of this. They'd probably laugh.
Here's the thrust of GSWs arguments: Communism was a disaster for people and for the environment. It was a bankrupt system. Therefore, the only alternative is unregulated capitalism. Sure, the latter is both socially unjust and is destroying nature at an ever-increasing pace, but at least its brought short-term benefits to a privileged few. Therefore, we must stick with this system until we sink. Otherwise, we'll end up like North Korea or the Soviet Union.
This is what I am debating here. Of course there are much more humane alternatives to both systems, but dopes like GSW don't want to know. They think they attain the intellectual high ground by creating binary choices.
"Sure, the latter is both socially unjust and is destroying nature at an ever-increasing pace, but at least its brought short-term benefits to a privileged few. "
You are expecting more of glitter et al here. THEIR "thought" goes instead:
"It's not communism, so that's better".
It's no more "reason" than that. It's not communism, therefore it's better.
Just to be clear jeff, you are saying past "anti capitalist"/marxist/communist (your preferred label(?)) regimes have been environmentally disastrous?
Just trying to wipe some of the froth away so it's clear what you are actually saying.
Just to be clear, you're accepting that past and current pro-captialist/democratic/whatever regimes have been environmentally disasterous?
Just trying to clear some of the underbrush away.
Jeff, as long as deltoid's paedobear here doesn't feel it worth clearing up the state of capitalism vs environmentalism, it's patently obvious that you aren't needed to clear up anything to do with communism and environment either.
jeff? You've gone all quiet again. For someone used to posting interminable amounts of eco-rubbish on this blog, you've become unbelievably coy.
jeff? You’ve gone all quiet again.
What? For ignoring that character salad that kicked off your #93. Your monkeys need more keyboard training.
Besides, his last and your #93 & #96 have the same date stamps and there are such things as time zones. Why should Jeff bother to keep awake just to not miss any more drivel from you - you aren't that important although you are bloody boring.
" got it right "
If getting it right means
take by violence and scaping the
bottom of a barrel of morals
( whilst maintining the self delusion
of polar opposite highest morals )
scraping off the vegetation covering
ancient dirt, nuking the joint,
introducing the most horriblest
feral plants and animals,
pumping endless shit into
then yeah, Australia got it
Its a fucking model to be envied.
And of course the cleverest
" getting it right ".
Lets go to the driest place with
the most rooted soils and grow
rice and cotton.
No Gormless, I have not gone silent, its just that I have another life as a scientist and that is my priority. You are a sad, lonely little man who sits up on blogs untilt the wee hours of the morning. Its clear that you spend an unhelathy amout of your time at your computer. Do try and get a life. Don't take this personally, but I have much more important things to do than to respond to jokers like you with silly arguments. I've addressed your point a dozen times and its clear that you have cognitive issues.
Now do us all a favor and go away. Shoo.
One final point: I actually enjoy the likes of GSW, Olly et al. trying feebly to attack my scientific credentials and integrity as a scientist. Its fun! You know why? Its simple really. I take their attacks as a complement because neither of them has a shred of expertise in the fields they routinely comment upon here. Now it would be a different kettle of fish if I were being attacked by really qualified people, fellow scientists, and my colleagues here and around the world. But the ridicule is generally restricted to laymen with political axes to grind.
I am sure that other scientsits - Mann, Ehrlich, Diamond, Wilson et al. - feel the same way that I do. They are lampooned by the same kinds of anti-environmental right wing simpletons I encounter on here. You roll with the punches, and if my views concurred with theirs I'd need to take a long, hard look at myself and wonder where I went wrong. In short, I am offending the right people.
jeff, having been subjected to your numerous badly informed ecorants, aka Capitalism's going to kill us all, it's obviously amusing watching you prevaricate about the atrocious environmental record of "anti capitalsm"/marxism/communist countries.
On this, you seem totally unable to comment for some reason. I find it entertaining.
Know why you find it amusing GSW? Because you're patently ignorant. The environmental record of communist countries is and was abhorrent. But is that letting us off the hook? Not at all. If you bothered to take your right wing head out of your backside, you'd see that our record is pretty appalling too. We export much of the damage to the south, as I said, and are consuming natural capital like there is no tomorrow. Every major ecosystem on Earth is in decline. But you clearly don't read much, and what you do read is aimed simply at reinforcing your own myopic political views. I've had more enlightened discussions with my parasitoids than with you.
As I said, go back to your brain-dead blogs like Bishop's Hill, Climate Depot, WUWT and stay there with your like minded simians.
I also find it amusing that a layman like GSW, with no relevant expertise, can somehow feel qualifed to comment on my ''badly informed ecorants". This from a guy who can't tell a mole cricket from a giraffe. Go figure.
Has Ian Plimer paid up yet?
"The environmental record of communist countries is and was abhorrent."
Thanks jeff, you got there in the end. Next time you embark on one of your "Capitalism is bad" rants, we can have quick run thru how "abhorrent" the alternatives have been in practice.
GSW, there are alternatives, but you are just too thick to know about them. Now please, go away. You exasperate me with your stupidity. I am sure you'll fit in well with a Trump fund-raiser or with any of the other right wing idiots who live close to you.
“Capitalism is bad”
THAT is the closest you can come to acknowledging it????
Shit, man, you're small.
"On this, you seem totally unable to comment for some reason. I find it entertaining."
On this, I don't find it amusing, I find that your inabilities to be honest depress me about the state of beings that insist they are humans.
Wow, GSW clearly thinks that capitalism is a wonderful system, virtually perfect. I am sure he also believes that deregulation is fine, that the revolving door between industry and government in the US is to be applauded, and that NAFTA has been a resounding success. I am sure he also cannot wait for TTP and TTIP to be implemented so that the poor masses will emerge from poverty. He also probably believes that Friedman's 'shock therapy' worked miracles in Chile and Bolivia.
He's a right wing ideologue, hence why he thinks as he does. We might as well be speaking to a brick.
It still claims to be part of the human race and frankly I'm ashamed to be in the same species as it.
I don't see anyone attacking your SCIENTIFIC credentials.
Your POLITICAL OPINIONS are being questioned.
I do however, see you stooping to inappropriate name calling and hubris.
Yet wiki also tells us that China is still building coal fired plants faster than any other country.
Your links do not claim that Communist China is doing FAR MORE.
Thankfully, China is doing something.
It's about time.
The largest plus in China for renewable energy is the huge hydro electric scheme they have constructed.
It is indeed impressive.
Yet 'environmentalism' loathes dams.
And a little table from wiki about emissions.
This thread at Stoat may be of interest to those who like to watch mental cases in action.
GSW, the answere to your query to mr Jeff, "the totalitarian and authoriarian mindset majoris", Harvey about “anti capitalist” ideologies we’ve experienced to date were disasterous for the environment?"
is of course that all of them were disastrous for the environment with the caveat that German national socialism was very much also infested with green ideology.
"I don’t see anyone attacking your SCIENTIFIC credentials."
"None so blind as will not see", but in this case I believe it's just flat out lying your ass off, stupid.
PS why is it fair to attack someone's political opinions, but not yours? Double standard much? Hell, what am I saying, double standard for you all the damn time.
#2 badly informed
"Yet wiki also tells us that China is still building coal fired plants faster than any other country."
Over one billion people.
And they're closing more coal fired power stations than anyone else on the planet.
How the fuck d you square your pretense at validity with the FACT that they've reduced CO2 output???? What the fuck do you think coal fired power stations output???
Hilarious that mentally challenged Olly thinks that Nazi Germany was not a corporate state. Its was in its entirety. But then again, Olly is as thick as his mentors. Read his last post. Its pathetically written gibberish, not only in terms of content but in terms of grammar. But heck, he thinks that species that disappear 'go instinct'. This is the level of intellectual discourse of the anti-environmentalists and climate change deniers on Deltoid.
As for Stu2, I really want to ignore his simpleton remarks. He calls Chris Hedges misanthropic, which is as ridiculous as it gets. Hedges misanthropic? Stu2, you speak utter garbage. You know nothing about the man but because he is a strong critic of the corporate state and of the serious damage it has inflicted upon the environment you criticize him. Read 'Wages of Rebellion' or learn about his work to educate inmates of the corrupt and overloaded US penal system before you say any more.
"mentally challenged Olly thinks that Nazi Germany was not a corporate state"
Olaus didn't say anything about whether he thought Nazi Germany was a "corporate state" or not. This is another example of the version playing out in your head being at odds with reality.
He did make the statement, "German national socialism was very much also infested with green ideology." and that is undeniably true, for example see,
"Prior to attaining political power, several Nazi ideologues, such as Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg, and Walther Darré linked ideas of Agrarianism and nature conservation with anti-semitic, racist and militaristic ideas. Using the doctrine of "Blood and Soil", Nazi thinkers argued that the German people had a special bond with the natural world, which had to be protected both from industrial pollution and "inferior" ethnic groups. These ideas remained in Nazism, despite its post-1936 emphasis on mechanical and military mobilisation."
"Olaus didn’t say anything about whether he thought Nazi Germany was a “corporate state” or not. "
Surely then he should do so!
You're the warrior against nonexplicit claims, aren't you? So get on it!
GSW, the propensity for ideation is strong in totalitarian mind sets. :-)
Jeff's ability to invent his own reality is uncanny.
Ideologically national socialism is anti-capitalistic (and has a strong vein of green ideology too). And nothing strange in that since fascism grew out of the head of a blood thirsty communist, hence fascism's anti-liberal and anti-capitlistic corner stones.
You still haven't proclaimed your position on Nazi state, Lappers.
Seeing as how deltoid's paedobear here won't hold YOU to the fire for an answer, I will.
#13 It takes years to build coal plant and there is a lot of inertia in the process. The important question from a climate change perspective is whether they actually get used. Over the last couple of years the operating hours of existing plant have been falling.
Hilarious that mentally challenged Olly thinks that Nazi Germany was not a corporate state.
Indeed. Maybe a reading of Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust will understand more on this topic including the links with elements of corporate America. The current state of play of politics in the good ol' US of A has uncomfortable echoes of the post Weimar Republic period and even the UK is slipping that way aided and abetted by a certain Aussie media mogul who feeds propaganda to the willing sheeple.
You know what GSW? You're a lunatic. If anyone is paranoid and yet has delusions of self-grandeur, its you. This idea that Nazi Germany had a green agenda, while its war machine was tearing nature to smithereens across Europe has to be one of the most insidiously stupid things you've ever said, and that's saying a lot. I have to admit that you do provide comic relief, but why on Earth you venture into Deltoid when all but one or two here think you're a clown is beyond me. You ought to stick with WUWT, inhabited by some of the most asinine people I have ever read. Sou at Hot Whopper frequently posts comments from WUWT on her blog and they are so utterly stupid that they make me realize how dumbed down deniers are. You belong with them.
Speaking of inventing reality, given that you and Olly are both in a tiny minority if we contrast your opinions on climate change and its effects with those of real, bonafide scientists (you, Olly and Crockford don't qualify - not even close), then who is creating their own reality? Olly cannot even write proper English, and he incessantly copies smears from you and Jonas and other idiot AGW deniers on here. Last year Olly harped on and on and on about the 'pause' or 'hiatus' that never was. He's shut his mouth on that little discredited canard, and now I suspect he, like you are going to copy-cat the new 'reality' of vile morons like Delingpole whose last argument is the claim that the NASA/NOAA data has been 'fudged'.
Again, you two bobsey twins are the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Thank heavens I very, very rarely encounter your likes in academia.
"This idea that Nazi Germany had a green agenda"
This "idea" is well researched historical fact Jeff. See,
"How Green Were the Nazis? illuminates the ideological overlap between Nazi ideas and conservationist agendas. Moreover, this landmark book underscores that the "green" policies of the Nazis were more than a mere episode or aberration in environmental history."
Also jeff, and we've spoken about this before, english is Olaus and Jonas second language and yet you're always trying to belittle them,
"Olly cannot even write proper English"
Why don't you have a go at your next lengthy tome in Swedish? - maybe Olaus could pass remarks on whether it's "proper" or not. You really are a repellent, intolerant individual jeff.
"This “idea” is well researched historical fact Jeff."
The "idea" that they were doing god's work is also researched historical fact, paedobear.
And if (and it really IS "if") it were conceded, that would be something democracies like yours has in common with Naziism.
"Also jeff, and we’ve spoken about this before, english is Olaus and Jonas second language"
Who gives a fuck? If these morons are so because they're using the "wrong" language, they need to use the "right" one. If even using their right one they continue to be complete and utter morons, then the problem doesn't lie with the language.
Two points: why on frigging Earth are we talking about Nazi Germany? Is there some correlation between that vile regime and steady state economics? What the hell has this got to do with the destruction wrought upon the environment by unregulated capitalism? What has it got to do with the abominable environmental records of a huge number of huge multinational corporations based in the US?
Diddly squat, that's what.
And as I said, the Nazi's were so environmentally minded that they built and economic juggernaut that ravaged the environment and then, to add insult to injury, initiated the Second World War and caused untold harm to nature via their massive war machine. Environmentalism my ass.
As for Olaus, I don't give a damn if English is his fifth language. He writes piffle, copy-cats you and others and knows jack-s*** about what he writes. If he can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. He's insulted me enough times and I am just returning the favor. Your views and his are one and the same, that is why you appear to be tolerant. But I've seen your posts elsewhere to know you are full of it. A complete hypocrite.
And once again, if I am repllent to a clot like you, GSW, then I see that as a compliment. I've got lots of colleagues and friends around the world who I get along with just fine. Most of them wonder why I bother with nobodies like you - those who read Deltoid wonder why I waste my time here. I do it because most of the posters have common sense and are good people.
For what its worth, this morning I gave a lecture to a group on the evolutionary and ecological factors that enhance the process of endemism on contiguous land masses. I say this because its clearly way over your head. You often come on here citing obscure studies that support your own narrow views of science as if they represent the bottom line. The last example was the Cronin paper on Polar Bear genetics. I have argued - but I may as well be speaking again to a brick - that Cronin's paper is an outlier, and that I could easily cite 50 or more studies on Polar Bear ecology and biology that draw very different conclusions from those you literally scraped from Crockford's site and Cronin et als. paper. But you will ignore them, and argue that one paper in an obscure journal represents the bottom line.
In case you were wondering, this is not how science is done. If I were to submit an article to a journal with conclusions that were different from most studies in my field, I would at least have to cite the other studies and explain why I am right and they are wrong. But since you aren't a scientist, and don't publish in the scientific literature, you can say whatever you want and get away with it. But here's a clue: nobody is listening, except in your denier echo chamber.
"why on frigging Earth are we talking about Nazi Germany?"
Ok I have a question, as we've spent the last day or so discussing past,present political/economic systems, their effect on the environment, and your intellectual refusal to consider anything that was not a consequence of "Evil Capitalism" why are we now talking about,
"For what its worth, this morning I gave a lecture to a group on the evolutionary and ecological factors that enhance the process of endemism on contiguous land masses." ?
Let's have a look at the rest of your post, oh no,
"What the hell has this got to do with the destruction wrought upon the environment by unregulated capitalism? What has it got to do with the abominable environmental records of a huge number of huge multinational corporations based in the US?"
We got you to "The environmental record of communist countries is and was abhorrent." in #3, getting blood from a stone would have been easier, but we got you there.
Anyway, do you have any insights on "abhorrent" record of any"anti capitalist"/Marxist/Communist countries you'd like to share or are you just a USA/Capitalism problems only kind of a guy? Yeah, that's what I thought.
""Why are we talking about Nazi Germany?"
Ok I have a question,"
Why don't you answer the question you quoted first? Or is there something "special" about you that means you can't clear away the froth if it comes from you?
Turboblocke @ # 25.
That does not indicate that Communist China is doing FAR MORE .
China is starting to do something.
It's about time .
The problems with pollution and environmental degradation there are far worse than I expected.
Their improved renewable energy usage is due largely to the massive hydro system they have constructed.
That took time too.
Of course, 'environmentalism' doesn't favour that either.
"That does not indicate that Communist China is doing FAR MORE "
Yes it does.
"China is starting to do something.
It’s about time ."
When will YOU start???
"Their improved renewable energy usage is due largely to the massive hydro system they have constructed."
By hydro you must mean "solar and wind and hydro", right?
"That took time too."
And still ahead of you.
Well, trying to make the point a slightly different way -for those of you that think "Communist China is doing it's bit" for the environment, but the real problem is Capitalism in the US,
"23 Shocking Photos Reveal How Bad China’s Pollution Problem Has Become"
we still haven't cleared up capitalism being shite for the environment. how about sorting that out first?
I definitely wrote Hydro.
In particular, but not exclusively, it's this one:
But of course this is what 'environmentalism' writes about it:
If you look up China's figures you will perhaps notice that Hydro power is by far their largest 'renewable energy' figure.
Your other question is not clear.
Do you mean me personally compared to Communist China or my country compared to Communist China or perhaps an 'inclusive democratic' country compared to a Communist Country?
Either way, perhaps you could go to China and see for yourself?
I was shocked by the pollution: atmospheric and the landscape.
There's nothing even close to that here.
“23 Shocking Photos Reveal How Bad China’s Pollution Problem Has Become”.
Our poor GSW is so fucking dumb he doesn't know that China has had a capitalist economic system operating for the last 25 years. There are hardly any vestiges of the communist system remaining. Maybe dumbo thinks that one party authoritarian rule is what communism is about _ nothing more.
If you're going to reply to the gormless wanker directly, it's best not to write more than a paragraph at a time. Preferably a short one. Any more than that and our intellectually challenged idiot finds it hard to keep up; his two brain cells get overworked and heat up and everything starts to appear frothy and blurry.
Deniers are a classic demonstration of how simple minds are so easily brainwashed and how impervious they are to all reason, facts or evidence. Psychologists and psychiatrists will be studying the denier mind for decades to come. I've been reading their stupidity for years, here and elsewhere, and I'm still gobsmacked, constantly going "Oh my fucking god, how thick is this fuckwit", and when it comes to GSW the stupidity and ideological encrustation is compounded by a heavy dose of hubris and dishonesty. In other words, a totally repugnant individual. Definitely not someone you'd piss on if they were on fire; more likely you'd be more of a mind to go looking for kerosene.
In the previous thread, GSW says:
"as far as I’m aware the
'Accordingly, the Arctic should have been by and large ice-free in the Eemian summers'
Is the accepted wisdom. "
That was in response to being caught out by Ian Forrester, who showed that the Gormless Wanker didn't understand the paper he linked to.
What a fucking moron. He tries to show that the "Arctic should have been by and large ice-free in the Eemian summers" by linking to a study which argues the opposite, and thereby demonstrating his "special" powers of comprehension. When taken to task, he then repeats the initial stupidity. He's special alright, our GSW: a special type of wanker as Li D would say, and as thick as a fucking brick.
The gormless one quotes from the polar bear study:
"It seems logical that if polar bears survived previous warm, ice-free periods, they could survive another."
So impressed is he with that statement that he repeats it at least half a dozen times, even after he's been told many times by Jeff and others of the time-scale issue. It went right over his head. Gee, what a hard concept to understand: that if, and that's a big "if", polar bears did survive previous inter-glacials, because the transition periods happened over thousands of years it gave the bears time to adapt. This time around it's predicted to happen in less than a hundred years. No fancy modelling required to see that, just straighforward extrapolation of the data.
So in conclusion, no, there's nothing logical about that statement.
Come to think of it, I'm not really surprised that he wouldn't see the flaw in that logic. I mean, Christ, this is the bloke who thought some idiot's gibe about climate scientists licking each other was so thought provoking he spent months thinking about it.
The gormless idjit goes, "are you happy to concede that the “anti capitalist” ideologies we’ve experienced to date were disasterous for the environment?"
That statement is so broad as to be meaningless. Classic strawman though; assert something as fact without establising that it is and then attack it. First, the "disastrous" would have to be defined. Provide examples. And then which environment. Local? Global? And even if that can be demonstrated the next point, and the most important one of relevance to the argument, is to explain what are the intrinsic characteristics of those "anti capitalist" ideologies which bring about those disastrous environmental outcomes.
Even though I'm not confident that GSW will understand the question, let alone answer it in a cogent manner, I'll repeat it anyway as it is absolutely central to the whole argument:
_ What are the intrinsic characteristics of those "anti capitalist" ideologies which bring about those disastrous environmental outcomes.
If history is a predictor, I can sense an intelligent reply coming... "Jp, I'm happy to let you play with yourself."
The "Marxism/Communism is bad for the environment" assertion demonstrates the classic correlation vs causation confusion.
The bloke across the road beats his wife and he's also dumped 20 litres of motor oil at the rubish tip. GSW's two brain cell are whirring furiously: Aha! I've got it _ wife beating is bad for the environment.
O'louse says "Sweden has probably the most developed infra structure for insimination of unscientific governmental crap". Hahaha...The word you were looking for starts with "d", O'louse, but it's ok, we understand Freudian slips can happen. I'm sure there's plenty of insemination happening between you and GSW. And you don't even have to fantasise about Jeff to have an orgasm. Hahaha.
Hitler was a vegetarian!!!
We need GSW to acknowledge the fact that when he says,
"China is still building coal fired plants faster than any other country."
...but leaves out the fact they are also *shutting* them down faster than any other country, he is exhibiting either dishonesty (partial truth) or delusion.
He is also trying to minimise the facts of China's strong push into renewables.
As at the end of last financial year,
China had 36GW of solarPV producing about 12TWh and is the world's largest producer of PV.
China has well over 100GW installed capacity of wind power, generating over 150TWh.
Hydro is about 300GW installed, producing 900TWh
The USA produces about the same Solar, a bit more Wind, and about 1/3rd as much hydro.
The Chinese economy is about 60% the size of the US's.
Jeff Harvey @ #31.
For what it's worth I spent time last night with 2 PhD professors.
Nice blokes and passionate about river and wetland ecological productivity.
They however don't need to use pretentious jargon like 'the process of endism on contiguous land masses' when all it means is something quite natural and quite well known by anyone, educated or not, who lives and works outside the major centres.
I commented about China in response to Wow claiming that Communist China does FAR MORE.
I did not claim China does nothing.
I have been there.
It's about time they did something about pollution.
"They however don’t need to use pretentious jargon like ‘the process of endism on contiguous land masses"
Of course it means something you nitwit. But perchance, please explain the biotic and abiotic processes which drive endemism. I am up for a chuckle. Furthermore, I am a scientist, not a Sunday school teacher. This is not pretentious jargon. Its scientific and I was lecturing to scientists.
So do me a favor and piss off.
Now I have dismissed Stu2s brazen stupidity, on to the other twins. GSW and Olly are experts in bait and switch. They cannot explain why their 'reality' with respect to GW is correct and why that argued by me and 97% of the scientific community is wrong. Moreover, since the hiatus meme is now over with, they then switch to the poor, deeply troubled Polar Bear, in which GSW cites a couple of studies (gleaned from the echo chamber he ritually inhabits) whose conclusions differ from over 70 other studies in the empirical literature. I call him out on his and am greeted with veritable silence. Then he uses the old, discredited dichotomous strategy to defend the enormous and destructive costs of unregulated capitalism - of which there is a huge amount of evidence - by suggesting I am therefore a Marxist/communist who opts for a political economic system akin to that in North Korea.
Can these idiots get any more ridiculous? Methinks not. They just bait and switch, over and over and over. In front of an audience I would skewer them, but on a blog this kind of tactic allows all kinds of escape functions.
Yeah, and you're back on polar bears for some reason(?). You and I are discussing your obsession with attributing every ill in the world to US capitialism, whilst at the same giving a free pass on environmental issues to the states with ideologies closest to your own, the Marxist/Communist countries.
So go on then, lets see one of your multipage eco rants about the People's Republic of China aka "Communist China". There's enough material there, go on really let rip on this one.
I definitely wrote Hydro."
Then you're wrong.
"I commented about China in response to Wow claiming that Communist China does FAR MORE."
And we both did.
Did you miss that, or do you just not care?
"Yeah, and you’re back on polar bears for some reason(?)."
Because you're wrong and won't accept it, despite demanding acceptance of some half-formed insanity you repeat endlessly.
Plus it was YOU coming up with polar bears in this thread, not jeff.
"about the People’s Republic of China aka “Communist China”."
So you're saying they're not communist????
#34 I donn't really see how you could take my comment ",It takes years to build coal plant and there is a lot of inertia in the process. The important question from a climate change perspective is whether they actually get used. Over the last couple of years the operating hours of existing plant have been falling." to be saying that China is doing "FAR MORE"?
Isn't it obvious that it's a response to you saying, " Yet wiki also tells us that China is still building coal fired plants faster than any other country."?
BTW #38 to see how much of an effort China is making now, it is more instructive to look at what they're doing now rather than to look at what they've done in the past. For example the The Gorges Dam is a project that started over 30 years ago, how is that relevant to their efforts today?
China is no longer communist, Wow. It is a capitalistic autocracy.
Hehe...Jeff is at his prime when he can engage in fighting down his inner demons. :-)
Just imagine how much the planet would benifit if his authoritarian mind set and self loving could rule the world!
They still operate communism, they are more communist than Europe, who are socialist (with capitalism in it), just as China is communist with capitalism in it and the USA is capitalism with republican democracy in it (and used to be republican democracy with capitalism in it).
"Hehe…Jeff is at his prime when he can engage in fighting down his inner demons."
I find many people struggle with
correllation, and believe the
wackiest causations as a consequence.
Theres certain very widely held ideas
in society that are not borne out by
A bit funny and a bit scary.
Just imagine how much the planet would benifit [sic] if his authoritarian mind set and self loving could rule the world!
Which statement clearly proves how Vacuous you are. Along with the others Inane (GSW) and Futile (Stu2) what a trio of empty heads you are, the VIF club.
Duffer seems to have abandoned ship and rednoise has gone quiet - you all are having trouble finding reliable nails for the supposed AGW coffin.
More vacuous and worthless musings from Olaus: "Just imagine how much the planet would benifit if his authoritarian mind set and self loving could rule the world!"
If anyone loves and adores themselves and think that they make witty quips, its you and your love-in idiot, GSW. Clearly you are both self-righteous hedonists. This is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Neither of you have anything useful to say with respect to science. As I said, its bait and switch, bait and switch.
Stick with your asinine denier blogs. They are heavily populated by people like you. Intellectual lightweights.
OMG, now GSW claims that I attribute every ill on the planet to US capitalism. Where the hell did I say that? I am saying that unregulated capitalism is doing profound damage to the environment, as well as magnifying social injustice and inequality, and there's bags of evidence to prove it.
Earth to GSW. Stop making things up as you go along. As brazenly ignorant as you are, anyone can see through your crap.
The strategy, if you can call it one, of GSW, is to suggest that if one opposes the kind of political system currently run under the guise of the Washington Consensus, then they must by default be a Marxist/communist who advocates dictatorship. The other thing he does is to say that one cannot criticize the US political system until after thay have lampooned China, North Korea, the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany first. This is like saying that we must criticize people who murder with guns before we are allowed to criticize those who kill with knives.
*Sigh*. GSW claims to have a basic university degree. Given his comments here my guess is that it is in basket weaving.
"GSW claims that I attribute every ill on the planet to US capitalism"
You do nothing else but. e.g. again from you #31
" What the hell has this got to do with the destruction wrought upon the environment by unregulated capitalism? What has it got to do with the abominable environmental records of a huge number of huge multinational corporations based in the US?"
And, just to remind you where we are in this conversation, we're waiting for one of the unbridled Eco Rants you're so famous for targeting your favoured Marxist/Communist regimes. You give these guys a free pass, come on apply yourself with same vigour when I doesn't involve some US bashing.
Your prevarication on this has been noted.
"You do nothing else but. e.g. again from you #31"
You don't know what "you do nothing else" means. You also don't know what you quoted meant from #31.
Are you insisting that capitalism has caused no problems with the environment????
Quickly, while we await your Eco Rant, why do you think you can't bring yourself to criticise Marxist/Communist regimes with the same fervour?
Why did you acknowledge that jeff did but now want to pretend he didn't?
And where's your agreement that capitalism has fucked up the planet too?
GSW: continually uses the term 'eco-rant'
Real definition from GSW: science that he does not understand. So he dismisses any comments as 'rants'. Makes him feel better about his own ignorance.
I've dealt with lots of GSW-typel people. They all do the same thing when confronted with people who know more than they do. The 'eco-rant' smear is a case in point.
What a sad, little man.
And thanks Wow, that's a good point. Let's hear from GSW how capitalism is also screwing up the planet, and not one of his anti-AGW rants.
'Your prevarication on this has been noted'
OMG, I cannot stop laughing. GSW is a hoot, as well as a sad little man. Noted by whom!? By you?!?!?!?!?!
My #51 - "whilst[you] at the same giving a free pass on environmental issues to the states with ideologies closest to your own, the Marxist/Communist countries. "
Your silence on this is deafening.
paedobear, your silence on capitalism is drowning out any answer jeff is giving.
"closest to your own, the Marxist/Communist countries"
Not even worthy of a polite response. Pure drivel.
Wow #60 - "...a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state." (wiki).
Not at all the case with China whose socioeconomic order is capitalism up to or akin with the US Ideology of Plunder. Like the capitalist world China shows the escalating trend of accumulation of capital and riches at cost to poor and middle class in hand of ever fewer people. Communism absolutely forbids such a trend.
On the other hand, a communist state may never have existed - those calling themselves communist were more or less pure fascist systems (defined as subservience of individual to state - like Mao's China, the USSR, the DPRK).
Europe's economies are mixed. Hardly socialist in most cases. The typical Ideology of Plunder reigns here, too, as does Goldman Sachs, as does Uncle Sam whose vassal states we are.
Europe is now pushing for TTIP. There was some criticism. So documents pertaining to TTIP are now kept out of parliament.
"Not at all the case with China whose socioeconomic order is capitalism "
Nope, not different. It's the same thing.
Why the reticence? you're normally only one puff away from the old Eco rant - It's starting look as though you're just not willing to slag off the members of your own team - the Marxist/Communist countries.
Why not? When your petulant demands are met, you pretend at whim they never happened. So why the hell bother?
Here's GSWs logic. If you are a critic of capitalism, you must be a Marxist/communist. Again, the dichotomous hypothesis.
Does anyone here wonder why he and people like him exasperate/annoy me? If this was a public debate, he'd be laughed into oblivion.
My biggest problem is in taking the bait. Just as with Stu2. I have a new non-pretentious title of my last lecture for him: Why buzzy little hummingbirds like to live in isolated mountain treesy-weesy places of Costa Rica. I don't dare use the words 'endemic' or 'contiguous'. Too complicated for him.
By the way, GSW, cRR sums up capitalist ideology pretty well above. Go from there and you might learn something. Plunder, looting, concentration of wealth, greed, outsourcing, sweat shops, mass environmental damage, subversion of democracy, plutocracy, et al are tenets of your religion. Its not the basic tenets of capitalism that are wretched, its the fact that many large corporations have worked hard to subvert and/or undermine democracy to avoid accountability for the damage they are doing and have done. If you cannot see this, then you are willfully blind. Deregulation in the US and UK - beginning under Reagan and Thatcher - put increasing power into corporate boardrooms and has undermined democracy. If democracy really worked from the bottom-up, then I would be optimistic. But it most certainly does not. We live in managed democracies in which the interests of the privileged few are prioritized. The Trilateral Commission - ever heard of it? Probably not - was created by the Rockefellers, Zbignieuw Brezinski and the so-called 'liberal' end of the political spectrum in 1973. Other more conservative groups formed around the same time, all in response to the growing threat of democracy in the US. Yes, you read that correctly. In the 1960s 3 major issues began to galvanize public opinion and make people become more empowered in the political arena. The first was the environmental movement which gained strength and support after Rachel Carson published her seminal work, 'Silent Spring'. The second was the growth of the civil rights movement thanks to people like Martin Luther King. And the third was the Viet Nam war. Ruling elites in the US became worried about the threat of democracy - that there was too much of it. Read publications from the TLC and this becomes clear. The last thing the rich and powerful wanted was to put power in the hands of the general public, who would elect governments that would try to create a more egalitarian society and the elites saw this as a major threat to their power.
Read Joel Bakan's "The Corporation" and you get a pretty good idea of the pathology of that institution. One of the biggest myths is that the US promotes democracy and human rights in its foreign policy. Thomas Carrothers, a senior figure in the Reagan administration, actually admitted a few years ago that the US only supports democracy if 'it is in line with US interests. If it is not it is downplayed or ignored'. Its the same at home. Read what Sheldon Wolin says about the US political system. An 'inverted totalitarian state' ruled by corporations. A lot of people already know this, hence why US elections have become a farce in which less and less people vote. The same thing was happening in the UK with the New Labour Party under Blair as right wing as the Conservative Party. The number of people turning out to vote has decreased strongly over the years. With Jeremy Corbyn now leading the Labour Party, that will change. Its no surprise that the corporate media in the UK have launched the most vitriolic attacks on Corbyn because they see him as a threat to the status quo.
Mmm... you've not really worked it out have you? Well anyway, thanks for another rant blaming it all on the US, US corporations, US capitalism etc... still waiting on your equivalent for DPRK, China etc.
Kind of like to explore the extents of your bigotry. Dutch capitalism for example, where do you stand on that?
The Dutch pretty much invented capitalism, I'm thinking Dutch East India company, present day RDS obviously, they're a major player.
Do you hold the Dutch in the same contempt as the US? or is your hate agenda purely a US thing?
"Mmm… you’ve not really worked it out have you?"
What? That you're a complete waste of time?
Wow, you nailed it. GSW sees the world in black and white. Didn't read, or understand a thing I said. He doesn't like it, so its a rant. IMHO he's seriously deranged. Spends an unhealthy amount of his time on blogs. I see his posts everywhere. Must be a lonely guy. Sits behind the computer drinking up AGW denial sites. I've had it up to here with him.
Mmm… you’ve not really worked it out have you?
And you have not stated to work it out. I could throw a slew of reading material at you but you are too dim and too entrenched in your ideological bubble to even begin tackling it.
You are the equivalence of the UK 'Red Top' reader who laps up everything the right wing media puts under their noses. The only part hope is the BBC and that has a less than stellar honesty/courage to tackle many issues head on - such as climate change. But those in charge of legislation here are attempting to undermine that organisation with the aid of propaganda from the Murdoc press and the like.
Jeff and cRR have nailed it, as has Bernard J beforehand. We have all wasted time against you but then it is not you that we hope to inform — you are clearly beyond that — but lurkers.
"Didn’t read, or understand a thing I said."
No I didn't jeffrey - other than getting it's the usual rant, obsessing about the US. Come on then, let's have a proper response, you're just avoiding the issues.
"“Didn’t read, or understand a thing I said.”
No I didn’t jeffrey"
At least you cleared that up.
Try learning then come back again after that.
Turboblocke @ # 57.
I agree totally that China should be encouraged and recognised for its efforts to start righting some wrongs.
All countries should be encouraged.
What I don't agree with is putting up China and its political system as the leadership example or claims that Communist China is doing FAR MORE than any other place.
I have recently been to China.
They are operating from a very low base re pollution.
Jeff Harvey @ # 49.
The influence of natural geography is a well understood and well known concept. Even to people who have never stepped inside a university.
Congratulations to scientists who choose to research in this space and develop our understanding.
Scientists are just people however. They are not some type of exalted being. They suffer from human foibles just like all the rest of us.
They do not own a monopoly over informing us about geographical influences on the landscape and the environment.
People who live and work outside of the major urban centres and major academic institutions are cognisant of " the biotic and abiotic processes which drive endemism."
And further to my comment above Jeff Harvey.
Some of those people who are cognisant of ” the biotic and abiotic processes which drive endemism” and are fully capable of discussing those influences could, quite conceivably, even be Sunday School teachers.
That would of course have nothing to do with the fact that they are/aren't a Sunday School Teacher or scientist or farmer or doctor or nurse or shop owner or clerk or builder or a myriad of other occupations that are filled by all sorts of different people.
Stus2 is clearly another sufferer of the Dunning-Kruger effect. OK Stu2, can you reconcile the factors driving endemism with Hubball's neutral theory of evolution versus the MacArthur/Wilson Island Biogeography theory? Can any Sunday school teachers do it that you know?
How about the relative importance of r versus K selection regimes as factors affecting life history evolution relative to either of the theories I mentioned above? Care to throw in some predictive models while you are at it? Let's go further: what are the various contributions of trait and context dependent factors on the evolution of endemism?
I could go on, but I have made my point. Don't wade as an utter layman into fields into which I have been trained and claim to have the same level of expertise. I don't belittle your career; don't you belittle mine. You don't understand the basic tenets of the study of complex adaptive non-linear systems. It seriously pisses me off when people like you think all you are all ecologists. You're not. So keep your pithy ideas to yourself. You know the bare basics and think that gives you a strong understanding of the empirical factors involved in what are actually complicated processes.
I am always asking how many peer-reviewed papers you and your denier/luke warming friends on here have in the scientific literature. Put up or shut up. Its a big fat ZERO for all of you.
Thanks Lionel and Wow for the support. I lived in the Us for two years doing a postdoc and I had a great time there. Most of the strident critics of US domestic and foreign policies are Americans. They are not 'anti-American', a cheap smear used when your opponents run out of arguments. They just don't like what their government and the corporations who effectively run it are doing. I've read many of them and spoken with others. I also traveled coast to coast across the US in 2001 by car observing and photographing wildlife. I gave lectures at Princeton and Stanford Universities 4 weeks apart and had a fantastic vacation and met many very wonderful people. But that does not change the fact that every major ecological indicator on the planet is in decline, much of it due to the drive towards deregulation and the increasing power of the corporate state.
One final point to Stu2: I am not downplaying the important role of the general public and workers in a variety of non-scientific professions in working to protect nature. I know and work with many of them and 'citizen science' is gaining steam in he Netherlands. I believe scientists have a singular responsibility to get our findings to the general public; we are advocates, and this reflects a Masters course I teach in Amsterdam. But I get seriously annoyed when every layman out there thinks they understand climate or environmental science or ecology as much as those trained in these complex fields do. I can see from the musings of GSW that he's a total neophyte and doesn't understand much of the stuff he comments on with respect to ecology at all beyond the most shallow basics, but he thinks he knows a lot. Its once again Dunning-Kruger at work. I see this all the time, GSW is hardly the first, but its ludicrous. I don't even attempt to discuss the most complex aspects of climate science because I was not trained in it, but I see blogs contaminated with a veritable army of 'armchair experts' who claim to know more than the real experts in the field. However, I will readily comment on the ecological and physiological effects of warming because I and many of my colleagues work at least partially in that area. Some of the comments from bloggers in this respect make me cringe - and that includes even fringers like Susan Crockford who IMHO is a pretty awful scientist, and her wafer thin publication record proves it.
Jeff, people like stupid,paedobear and lappers have neither the capacity nor the desire to work out any actual problem and produce it as counterpoint, they just have to caricature and distort into anything, even if 1000% irrelevant, into something that makes you out to be a "bad person", because that's the only way they can pretend to themselves that your statements are wrong.
They will make ANY claim, even if entirely unsupported,to ensure that they can continue to believe loudly that your ideas are wrong and therefore can be safely dismissed.
This is, among many other reasons, why they refuse to make any claims themselves.
One of the issues of multi-national corporations wielding enough power to threaten the well-being of the population of individual countries is provided by the now numerous cases of big tobacco taking suing those countries who make laws to ensure tobacco products come in plain packaging.
Thus, after Australia, we have the UK being sued , and this before TTIP and its close cousin TPP which will make opposition to such global entities even harder.
Note that this move in the UK comes after the following was reported earlier last year :
One such measure is the introduction of plain cigarette packaging – a policy that David Cameron’s successful spinmeister and tobacco lobbyist, Lynton Crosby, thankfully failed to block.
Note, the political animal, with now apparent sociopathic  chancer tendencies, Lynton Crosby was awarded a knighthood in the New Tears Honours - thus further cheapening the honour. Crosby being part responsible for the PR campaign which ensured a Tory win in the last election thus having a party in charge with the least real support by population for decades - and one that is sewing up the loopholes that will prevent their further entrenchment.
Of course precious little of this is reported, in context, by the sound byte worshipping sub-eds in the media, including the BBC.
I was recently amazed that the BBC gave the death of David Bowie a near fifteen minute slot on the main BBC 1 News broadcasts. One would be forgiven for thinking that there was nothing else going on in the UK let alone the world. Given the simultaneous extreme weather events at the time, and such as Delingpoles ill judged (well not judged at all really) and crass comments blaming the EU for the lack of river dredging which, according to him, allowed the floods to swamp many communities, communities still struggling as more extreme weather impacts.
But the way that many such interlinked components, I have barely scratched the surface, exemplify our ill managed and organised society are too much for the likes of the VIF to comprehend being each in their own epistemic vacuum, as is Delingpole of course who is clueless about the role of trees in upland moors.
Trees with their leaves, or pine needles, bark which swells when wet, extensive root systems which channel water deeper than the soggy top layers, can trap 60 times the amount of water than the surface does. Furthermore, the shelter from trees allows a diverse community of other plants, mosses and lichens to take hold in the surface further holding back water. This is all too complex for the 'interpreter of interpretations' to comprehend.
There is a continuum of learning:
data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom
I appears that the likes of "The VIF" and Delingpole can barely cope with the second stage — information, for they show no aptitude for gaining enough to form valid opinion, their 'facts' are faulty to begin with.
 spell-check barfs on such a common word, even the root.
And here is more evidence that democracy is a figment of peoples imagination:
Spotts is starting to think the only way to protect yourself is to leave the state. When her group first pushed for a moratorium in 2014, the state passed a law making local moratoriums illegal.
Similarly the UK central government went around a local Lancashire council to allow fracking development in spite of the protests and refusal of the local authority.
One wonders where the brains are of police who are tasked with protecting developers rather than the population, but then divide and conquer probable means that police forces from elsewhere are bused in.
I expect social media to be curtailed er long. Cant have the oiks (the type of phrase likely used by such as Oliver 'the NHS will be history' Letwin) organising now can we. Google recently were allowed recently by Chancellor George Osborne and the IRC to get away with a minimal tax bill - this whilst forcing a bedroom tax on a disabled grandfather looking after a severely handicapped grandson (Wales) where the second bedroom is used for special equipment. Justice, justice! Oh I forget, the Justice Secretary is now Michael Gove who was so confrontational (with no relevant experience himself — see ability comments in previous) in Education (in which I have a degree only a mere BEd Maths & Science Honours) they had to reshuffle. At 'Justice' they could have appointed Goebbels if he was still alive, Govels has a certain ring to it - we shall see.
Now I am not a socialist or a communist just anti-greedy-selfish-bastids whose own career (if one can call it that) prospects are more important than the fate of the planet and all its other inhabitants.
Scientists are not exalted beings.
Just because you can reel off impressive sentences replete with scientific jargon does not mean that you have any more practical knowledge about political systems than anyone else.
I note your comment @ # 93 is somewhat toned down from the
Good for you.
Unfortunately however, you still advocate a mindset that succeeds in alienating the demographic which should be working with NRM authorities to achieve practical & workable initiatives.
Despite your frequent assertions otherwise (and those of Hedges et al) it is possible to achieve TBL outcomes when people (including scientists) work together.
In my experience, Big Government and Big Environment and Big Academia and Big Unionism & etc are no different to Big Business.
"Scientists are not exalted beings."
Really? Do you have evidence? Does this mean morons are exalted beings?
I should add Big Religion too!
It's worth watching this with an open mind.
Although I'll probably cop yet another stream of abuse from people here, I am indeed passionate about achieving actual measureable practical results in NRM.
That is one of the reasons I spent time with the 2 professors a few evenings ago.
I have recently witnessed one of the worst examples of a triple bottom line fail that I have ever seen in my country.
The most annoying part of it is that it was perpetrated by the vey people who deem themselves the 'authorities' and the 'experts' in these matters.
Instead of being responsible and accountable and pro active about it, they are instead trying to blame each other and 'play down' the mess they have created.
Because it is far enough away from the major centres and the major academic institutions they're not going to even attempt to either be accountable or make an effort to right a very obvious wrong.
So OEH and the MDBA and the BoM and CEWH and ANU and etc are all blaming each other.
The rest of us who actually care about it, don't really care whose fault it was. We want to make sure that it doesn't happen again and that some effort is made to help the environment and the communities there.
I guess I have inadvertently answered your question via crossed posts.
"It’s worth watching this with an open mind."
The lorn cry of the frequently-spotted loon when they want someone to listen to their crap. "Don't discard this because it's rubbish or you're being closed-minded!".
"I am indeed passionate about achieving actual measureable practical results in NRM."
No you aren't. You don't want ANYTHING done.
"The most annoying part of it is that it was perpetrated by the vey people who deem themselves the ‘authorities’ and the ‘experts’ in these matters."
No, you are the most annoying part."ooh, they're bad people, because i say so!".
"Instead of being responsible and accountable and pro active about it"
You mean "instead of waiting until the 'perfect' (unspecified and unachievable) answer, they're doing something now!".
"The rest of us who actually care about it"
"It" being the status quo of capitalist rapine.
"We want to make sure that it doesn’t happen again and that some effort is made to help the environment and the communities there."
You want nothhig done, but blame it on there being no good answer. As proven by the fact that you've never come up with anything you'd accept. You only go "No, we can't do that, it's communist!"
"I guess I have inadvertently answered your question via crossed posts"
Welp, we know you have problem swith knowing what "answered" means, this is merely the same expected BS.
"Just because you can reel off impressive sentences replete with scientific jargon does not mean that you have any more practical knowledge about political systems than anyone else"
Ostensibly true except for one little fact: I READ A LOT MORE THAN MOST ANYONE ELSE. Get that Stu2? I've read several hundred books on history and the political economy across the spectrum and its give me a pretty good insight as to how the world works. Your pointis akin to saying that getting a BSc and PhD in science does not give me more acumen in ecology than anyone else.
And the terms I use are not 'jargon'. They are scientific terms that explain a phenomenon. Again, like others, you use the smear-light card to make a point. By feebly attempting to admit you are out of your depth on some point or other you resort to vacuous jibes and putdowns. as if this legitimizes your position. Its so utterly transparent but it's so often used. I''ll counter your political arguments every time because its clear to me they are shallow and based on limited information. Like it or not, we are debating on different levels.
Try harder next time. You guys are easy.
Do you actually believe that you are the only one here who can read & therefore somehow more widely read?
"Do you actually believe that you are the only one here who can read & therefore somehow more widely read?"
No, obviously not. However by writing that you think nobody else can read, since that's 100000% made up shit right there.
Just like your “I am indeed passionate about achieving actual measureable practical results in NRM.” was completely made up bollocks.
Strewth people, some guy over at
Climate Denial Crock of the Week has claimed this:
Look at, for example, the Deltoid blog. It has essentially zero original writing and yet a very erudite commentariat. It’s just an open thread every month where – for more than a decade(?)
I noted the (?) but even then it is something of an exaggeration and Gingerbaker (who wrote the above) was way out and should have checked first.
Given the gumbified comments that you write on here, Stu2, its clear that if you do read widely or else you've forgotten all of it. You don't seem to know much about the way the world works, that is for sure. When I read many of your comments, I cringe. So naive.
So pfffffftttttttt back.
Wow and Jeff Harvey.
Thankyou for, once again, demonstrating the point.
Perhaps you might consider actually looking at that link I posted?
BTW Wow @ # 1
I meant what I wrote, not your hilarious rephrasing and reframing of what I wrote.
Thanks for the laugh.
"Wow and Jeff Harvey.
Thankyou for, once again, demonstrating the point."
All we pointed out was that you don't or won't or can't read.
What was the point, what did I say that "proved" that point, and how?
I'm not going to "trigger" you with asking so specific a query, am I?
BTW, you didn't mean what you wrote because only the insane or deluded would mean what you wrote in the face of reality.
Inside the mind of a gormless idiot...AAARRGGHH!!!
GSW is on the computer, talking to himself, and occasionally to O'louse who's in the corner playing with himself.
_ Looking for scientific papers to skewer this AGW hoax. Bloody hard work. I wish google would make it a bit easier. Apparently there's about 100,000 papers out there on global warming and most of them prove that humans have got nothing to do with it. Anthony Watts, one of the smartest men I've ever come across, debunked that 97% Cook et al crap. He proved that there was only 0.13% of papers supporting the consensus science. Or should I say CON-sensus science. Hahahahahahaha...(yells out to O'louse) ...O'louse!! help me, I'm laughing so hard I've got stomach cramps. Ooohh, that's better. Thanks for rubbing my stomach, hon. The last time I laughed so hard was when someone said something about climate scientists licking their own butts. God that was funny. But it was a strange feeling, though, because it was also thought provoking, so I was laughing out loud and thinking at the same time.
(goes back to talking to himself)...Consensus. Pff... science doesn't work like that. That's why we have 50,000 papers that prove there's no warming, 40,000 that show that it's the sun (hahaha, alarmists don't even know the sun is warming the planet), 10,000 that say it's undersea volcanoes and another 10,000 that say it's Force X. And the rest, the 0.13% of 100,000, is the sum total of about 13 alarmist papers. A range of opinions, that's what science is all about, not this stupid consensus...of 13 papers, hahaha.
Oh, here we go...I found something scientific. Paul Sheehan at the SMH, he got bad marks in his social science units and he reckons that's because the lecturers are all socialists, feminists and lesbians. Shit! that's what happened to me. Bloody bitch lecturer failed me...she said the references in my essay were not relevant to the topic, my hypothesis wasn't backed up by evidence, half of it was plagiarized and my conclusion was illogical. Oh yeah? Well, she's obviously a socialist lesbian who doesn't know what she's talking about. What Paul Sheehan wrote is not climate science but Paul is a smart bloke, and he's not a commie, so I think it's probably worth 10 alarmist climate science papers.
Here's another one...and it's climate science this time. From the New American. I'd like to see any of those crappy pro AGW papers pass peer review at the New American. OMG! this is powerful stuff. It says here:
_ "and remember, humans exhale CO2"
_ "Climate alarmism and its war on beneficial carbon dioxide has become a dangerous new religion that threatens individual liberty worldwide"
_ "IPCC is wrong and cannot be trusted"
_ "the worst thing that can happen is decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air"
_ "how some scientists had been brought on-board with the alarmist movement, and why others remain silent despite knowing better
the alarmist movement will cause real devastation"
Wow! that's real science.
And here's something from the Quadrant. I'm getting the knack for finding good climate science papers now. Alarmist scientists wouldn't get a look-in at the Quadrant. The sub-heading of this paper says "With an obstinate atmosphere failing to warm", and the first paragraph goes, "The previously scary 'global warming' stopped 19 years ago". When the Quadrant says that, only an idiot would doubt it.
I see that one of our heroes, Bob Carter, passed away. That's a shame. I booked a place for one of his public lectures this week...it was called "How to cherry-pick data to show any trend you like". Paid $30 bucks. Shit. Would have been good value too...2 sessions...one theory and the other practical. They'll probably take their time to refund our money. Sure, we have so many others in our camp who can teach that, but he was one of the best; he could find a 50 year pause when others could only find 18 years.
Camp...hahaha...I like that word. O'louse used it when we first met; that was his pick-up line. I've got to say, it's been nice having him around the last few years but he's getting a bit much for me. The guy's a nympho...fuck, I'm exhausted. I must ring up our therapist tomorrow _ Dr Felatio. That's not his real name but that's what me and O'louse call him, hahaha...for obvious reasons. He charges a bit more for those 'extras' but it's worth it. And that bastard Carter, couldn't he have waited another week before dying? I was really looking forward to go to that lecture. It seems that it's not just the alarmists who can be inconsiderate. Oh well, every flock has a few black sheep. Generally speaking though, we're the considerate ones... the ones who care...not the other mob _ commie alarmists! Yes, we even care about the poor. But first we have to get rich...trickle down effect and all that. Makes sense to me...everything trickles down. It's called gravity. But alarmists wouldn't know that. Give more money to the poor and is it going to trickle up? No. They'll just keep it for themselves and most probably waste it on food, clothes, movies, cigarettes etc.
Wow, Bob Carter has died. He wasn't even that old. Do you suppose he died of shame?
Stu2 utterly disqualified himself from being taken seriously when he stated that our democracies are not perfect. Talk about understatement of the century. We live in MANAGED DEMOCRACIES - managed from the top down: elite rule. There's ample evidence for this in that actual public opinion on a plethora of matters is disregarded if it conflicts with the interests of the privileged few. Our media is owned almost exclusively by corporations. In the US they have a fully fledged plutocracy. Our democratic systems do not merely need tweaking but need to be dismantled and started with again. Ever hear of the Washington Consensus? Ever read any declassified government planning documents with respect to foreign policy? The current dominant political/economic system is plundering the planet fro profit, driving extinction rates unseen in 65 million years, and is at least largely responsible for the current rapid rate of warming. The ruling elites have always seen true democracy as a threat to their interests, hence why it is managed. Look at the candidates vomited up in the upcoming US election: Trump and Clinton. No choice at all. Vile and viler. Both beholden to the corporate lobby as their predecessors were.
I am all for real democracy if it can be wrestled away from a small minority of wealthy, powerful people who control it. If we don't, we are screwed. We need a revolution.
You can laugh all you want, but do it in a mirror next time. You are essentially laughing at yourself.
Jp, O'louse and Gormless worship at the alter of Jonas N. Go to that threat if you want to see both of them wetting themselves. Jonas N has an ego the size of a planet, and routinely smeared scientists he didn't like (including me). And of course he had not formal expertise in any fields remotely related to climate or Earth science.
While in Venezuela:
Poor sods, suffering from government full of Jeff's. Me thinks it the fault of the US and A.
Own goal here from Olaus. Washington Post=corporate media. They've had it in for the country since they dumped the previous regime and voted in Chavez. Check out the conditions of the country in the early-mid 90's and you'll see a country that is much more egaltitarian and ranks consistently highamong how the population views its democracy. Moreover, the pirce of oil has been a major factor: if the right wing oligarchs were in power things would be a helluva lot worse off. And furthermore, the short-term coup in 2002 that ousted Chavez was orchestrated by the US, of that there is little doubt. Read Greg Grandin's excellent "Empire's Workshop" and you'll see the huge and destructive role the US has played in Latin America for the past 150 years.
Try again, you intellectual lightweight twerp.
For non-corporate media bull****, and more honestey, read alternatives:
Evem the equally corporate-beholden NYT admits Venezuela is safer than Colombia, quite an admission for a rag that consistently downplays or ignores US crimes around the world. For example, the words "International law" did not appear once in the NYT editorials leading up the the illegal Iraq invasion. Instead, they cheerled for war, with Judith Miller leading the cheering by writing information provided from the Pentagon as fact and then Dick Cheny and other war criminals claiming that Iraq must be a threat because it said so in the NYT. Pathetic.
Notice also the puff-pastry pieces the WP and NYT write on neighboring Colombia, with its vile human rights record - more trade unionists are murdered by paramilitary units allied with the right wing government there than in the rest of the world combined - and yet Venezuela is consistently targeted because it does not play ball according to the rules of the 'Washington Consensus". Forrest Hilton wrote an excellent book on Colombia's history - "Evil Hour in Colombia" - which contrasts with the continually positve spin put on the country by the corporate media.
Olly has never heard of Hilton or Grandin, yet alone read their books, so, like Stu2 who smeared Chris Hedges as being misanthropic (Stu2 has never read or even heard of Hedges either, for that matter), all that will be left for him are more vacuous smears. Meaning, or course, he does not have an intellectual base on which to argue.
Venezuela has been a disaster for some time.
"Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Head of state and government: Nicolás Maduro Moros
The security forces used excessive force to disperse protests. Scores of people were arbitrarily detained and denied access to lawyers and doctors. Torture and other ill-treatment of protesters and passers-by were reported. The judiciary continued to be used to silence government critics. Those defending human rights were intimidated and attacked. Prison conditions remained harsh."
Yes, I see what you mean, jeff would love it. God help them if "corporate media" ever got involved.
Corporate media or not Jeff, the facts are the same: the country is a mess, economy wise. And that is close to a miracle given what the angry man parading in uniform had to work with. I can give you that Chavez beceme more and more left (not right) international socialism for a national oriented version: "Venezuela for the people of Venezuela"!
“Empire’s Workshop” and you’ll see the huge and destructive role the US has played in Latin America for the past 150 years.
Indeed. Now Olas the clot, what do you know about Augusto Pinochet what do you know about him? Ever heard of the 'Chicago Boys' and their leader old Milt' doyen of free market neo-liberalism (sp.chk wants neon-liberalism WTF?).
But don't stop with Latin America, how about that other Latin influenced archipelago that was the scene of the Balangiga Massacre in 1901. Why massacre, well it turns out that for every one Filipino injured fifteen were killed, this compared to the American Civil War ('Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era' by James McPherson is a reasonably good source on that conflict) where for every one killed five were injured.
Those who have studied WW2 and The Korean War will be aware of the malign effect of a certain Douglas MacArthur.
Later there was the sad farce of 'Eagle Claw' which was used by the Republican Party and Nixon in an underhand move to undermine Jimmy Carter. As it happened I actually met the CO of Delta Force Col Beckwith when the carrier they were operating from paid a visit to the UK south coast and we entertained him and some of his men in the mess. Whatever they were about, they were full of confidence. That worked out did it not. This could lead onto discussion of Iran-Contra, Ollie North and other miscreants. The history of US meddling in Latin America is a matter of record - for those willing to approach such.
Try looking up 'Body of Secrets' by James Bamford for more light on US overseas shenanigans, one chapter is not much appreciated by Israel, do you know which and why?
The whole Middle East politics is of course now driven by oil and has been since before the fiasco led by Townshend of Kut. Interestingly on the surrender of that 'stellar leader and his men Townshend lived in luxury as a POW of the Turks whereas his men, and other officers, suffered' privations, torture and executions Turk style. That latter not for those who don't like sucking on their own genitals.
What was Lawrence of Arabia really about, and have you heard of Sykes-Picot and 'The Balfour Declaration' sent to a Rothschild?
How about the origins of J.P. Morgan and the other railway barons who helped control coal and steel. J.P. Morgan happened to be a financier behind both Harlan & Wolff and The White Star Line, builders and operators respectively of Titanic and her sister Olympic. Now there is plenty to think about there for those knowledgeable about structures and ship navigation, navigation in the general sense and not just course plotting etc.
The tendons of US railway/steel/coal/oil and banking magnates stretched into the upper tiers of UK society.
I could go on but enough already to make any sensible person think deeper about how the supposed civilised world got to this point in time.
"The security forces used excessive force to disperse protests. Scores of people were arbitrarily detained and denied access to lawyers and doctors. Torture and other ill-treatment of protesters and passers-by were reported. The judiciary continued to be used to silence government critics. Those defending human rights were intimidated and attacked. Prison conditions remained harsh.”
Sounds exactly like the corporate prison system in the USA, GSW.
Or else your extraordiinary rendition program. While you are at it, check out some of the conditions in the countries under US control like Haiti. Miles worse than Venezuela. But the right wing corporate media give them all a bye. You really are a hoot.
"“Venezuela for the people of Venezuela”!
Like it was in the US-supported fascist dictatorships across Latin America in the 1980s? El Salvador? Guatemala?
Note also how the complete collpase of the Chilean economy under Pinochet after he invoked monetarist policies also got a free pass in the western media. Its job is to focus laser-like on states deemed a threat to the dominant political order. Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador fit the bill. All of the US-UK-proxy states are ignored.
"Venezuela Finally Turns Communist"
"When Hugo Chávez was running in his first successful presidential campaign, back in 1998, he was asked point blank in several television interviews whether or not he was a communist. His reply was identical to the one given by Fidel Castro to Princeton University students during his visit to the United States in 1959: “I am a humanist.” Years later, on consolidating total power in his own hands, Chávez again emulated Fidel and confessed to being “a convinced follower of Marxist-Leninist ideology.”"
"Thus, during the first four years, he concentrated his efforts in changing the Constitution, packing the Supreme Court, installing soviet-style political commissars in army units, and changing the national identity card and the electoral system to ensure his reelection through manipulation of voter-rolls."
Yes, can't quite put my finger on it, but it does sound very much a jeff kind of a thing, he'd love it.
“a convinced follower of Marxist-Leninist ideology.””
Oh dear! There you go again simplistic and selective from a source which does not paraphrase correctly.
See this from the book Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography, start from the sub-head 'At bottom, you are a great Christian' at the foot of page 156.
Yeh, Chavez was such a communist that he held multiple elections and won them all. His popularity rating remained very high until his death. He was rescued and returned to power after the aborted coup (with much US involvement) in 2002. Venezuela under Chavez consistently scored among the highest in polls taken by how people viewed their country as a democracy, according to the leading polling agency Latinbarimetro. On it goes on and on.
Note how GSW avoids discussing central America during the 1980s and US support for death squads the murdered hundreds of thousands. But of course he does. Its all in his addled brain. He prefers to wallow in his own brand of right wing ignorance. 'Give it up, GSW. You are way, way out of your depth. Lick your wounds and LEAVE.
Its gets funnier. The Pan Am Post is based in Miami, Florida, heartland of exiled Cubans.
Good grief it could not be more transparent. Another right wing blog for GSW to throw in here. I wonder how many articles they have attacking Colombia for its abhorrent humans rights record, or commentaries about the US-supported slaughter of indigenous peoples, priests, trade-unionists and civilians opposed to fascist regimes during the 1980s? My guess is none. Another pro-US propaganda source.
Sheesh. How dumb is GSW? Very, clearly. Why does he even try? Is he that thick?
Venezuela under Chavez consistently scored among the highest in polls taken by how people viewed their country as a democracy...
Similarly with Castro's Cuba. This was one of the countries studied during a semester on a degree course I undertook in the 1980s, and passed BTW. We had to use wide ranging references to support arguments in assignments in order to satisfy the head of that department, as with anything else one does whilst studying at university. I don't think GSW would have got very far.
And here you are you duffers in the VIF — how the 1% of the 1% do it:
there has got to be another word other than philanthropy, which lo longer fits, to describe this.
"Venezuela’s Maduro Responds to Scathing US Editorials and Blames Capitalism for ‘Environment Collapse’"
"This morning, while addressing the UN assembly, Maduro declared, “The environmental crisis is a result of the crisis of the dominating capitalist model, based on unsustainable production methods and consumption, which generates iniquity, injustice, poverty, and the destruction of the planet.”"
The one thing that strikes me about this, human rights abusing, political opponent jailing, communist authoritarian, jeff - is how much he sounds like you.
He's another one that gets a 'free pass'. Let me guess, the real evil is 'free market capitalism' and the US of course. Enjoy your enduring misery jeff!
Here's how to educate the dumbed down masses (GSW, this is just for you). John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man explains the world in 2 minutes. Even a right wing simpleton like you can understand it.
PS How much I laugh whenever you call me a communist. It means simply that, as I already knew, I've repeatedly crushed your pathetic arguments. Your only recourse is to call me a communist, which is highly amusing and hilariously funny at the same time. No evidence procured except that I criticize US empire. For a dope like GSW, schooled in US exceptionalism since his birth, this is too much. I have yet to see him criticize the vile foreign policy of his home country just once. He goes on about Venezuela but for some reason ignores US sponsored carnage in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, et al. ad libitum as well as directly inflicting carnage inflicted in the Philippines (1899-1902) Cuba (1915) Haiti (1918) Korea (1950-53) Viet Nam and Cambodia (1962-75) and of course Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The list is endless, as authors like Bill Blum have explained.
Oh, and by the way gormless, Maduro was elected in elections where a far higher proportion of the electorate participate than in the US where people have no say. Corporations run the show. So he is (1) no communist (that's utter b*, but in keeping with the logic of your inane stupidity) and (2) he is no authoritarian. If you want authoritarian go next door to Colombia. Oh, but it is a US vassel, client state. I see people on the right calling any one whose politics they don't like a communist. Well then I suppose you are a fascist. Joseph McCarthy would be a good friend for you. You are 65 years too late, though.
The problem in Venezuela is that 65% of the poor in the country tend to like left wing leaders who have created a far more eglalitarian society than would ever happen under a US-supported oligarch from the elites. And these pesky 65% voted for Chavez every time, as well as Maduro, although the latter unfortunately lacks the charisma of Chavez. But I digress. Its the wealthiest 20% in Venezuela who hated Chavez and now hare Maduro. Not because they have taken away that much of their wealth, but because they have taken away their political power.
You apparently tend to think that the US does not interfere in the internal matters of other countries. If this is really true, you really are a schmuck.
Lastly, having repeatedly demolished your crap, I am getting sick of you. Your ignorance and the fact that I have to question why I respond on here to some anonymous clown in the US who parrots elite jargon like many others do. Unlike you, apparently, as you live on blogs, I do have a life. And spending excessive time on you is a waste of my valuable time. The vast majority of people who post on here think you are a jerk. You've got precious few friends on here, and you aren't making any more by the stuff you write. You came on here after a long absence calling posters 'halfwits' as if you are some great, big towering intellectual. I got news for you. You aren't.
Oh, and which country has the fastest growing economy in South America.... drum roll... wait for it.... wait for it....
But hey, hold on there, Wait a minute. Isn't Bolivia a ... erm... a socialist (for the right wingers, communist and authoritarian) country? Isn't its president Evo Morales who was a close friend of Hugo Chavez? What gives?
Seems that socialism can work.... but how can that be possible? Maybe, just maybe, because democratic socialism is a much more humane system than unregulated capitalism? Say it ain't so, Joe!
#11. That's what a junk science diet will do to you
#18-28 GSW / Olaus : global corporate banditry has your interests at heart, of course, sweeties. That's what a junk political diet will do for your insight.
The point that was being made was how sympatico you and the "Marxist-Leninist" are- and here you don't even deny it.
Lionel mentions the Philippines, and then says,
"Those who have studied WW2 and The Korean War will be aware of the malign effect of a certain Douglas MacArthur."
Did you know, Lionel, that Macarthur's father was the Governor of the Philippines in 1901?
"Our democratic systems do not merely need tweaking but need to be dismantled and started with again. "
No, Jeff, they do not. The faults in governing systems are down to human nature. Every time somebody has tried a "dismantling", we've seen a Stalin, a Hitler, a Napoleon or a Pol Pot.
Your belief in "dismantling" is an unconscious expression of the irrational Marxist views prevalent within your politically-immature environment.
The Democracy that is now widespread around the world is a method of government that has slowly come into being thanks to slow advances in governance chiefly provided by the Britain, but also the US, inspired by the bits of the French revolution that they liked.
Many countries developed an institutional philosophical opposition to slavery (eg China), but it was Britain (and the US) that actually took steps to eliminate it around the world.
Yes, the system of Democracy is not perfect, but it is *way* better than anything that has ever resulted from any "dismantling".
And the US isn't simply an example of bad things, it is also the world's leading example of most of the best things as well.
Expecting perfection and then demanding "dismantling" is a child's view of politics.
Of course the system of Democracy is not perfect.
However, generally, it does have the better score card across the triple bottom line.
Can we all do better?
As you say:
Expecting perfection and then demanding “dismantling” is a child’s view of politics.
Any sensible person wants a fairer, more inclusive system of governance.
It's the HOW that causes much of the argument.
It's interesting that you use the term MANAGED DEMOCRACY.
Russia is the key example of 'managed democracy' or 'guided democracy' that academics use.
I don't disagree that our Democracies can be 'over managed' and/or 'over regulated' which is not what we would call a 'real democracy'.
Please do yourself a favour and look at the link I posted on the previous page with an open mind.
Here it is again:
"Any sensible person wants a fairer, more inclusive system of governance."
Maybe. They tried a bit of that with citizen-initiated referendums in Calfornia. Disaster.
On the whole, the influence of the governed needs to be balanced against ability of government to govern.
I thought of this recently after reading that somebody like Barnaby Joyce announced, "whatever the result of a referendum on gay marriage, I will vote against it".
The Lefties were horrified, "You would vote against the will of the people!".
And yet...Capital Punishment?
Slavishly following the will of the people is not always the best way for a Democracy to progress society...
And Jeff's "dismantling" is the ultimate extreme of populism, pleasing to Anarchists, mafiosi and Libertarians, alike.
Jeff's 'dismantling', Craig, may be the only way to avoid the cumulative disastrous effects of climate change and other anthropogenic effects upon the biosphere. You and Stu2 may naively think that we can work within the current system and 'tweak' and program here and a program there, and thus achieve sustainability, but you are dead wrong. We've been headed in the wrong direction for decades, and have certainly been aware of it since the 1980s, but nothing has changed; if anything we have gone in reverse. John Perkins little video above explains to a large extent why. So stop this nonsense talk about 'anarchy' and 'mafiosi' (Mafiosi - why would they benefit form a wholesale shift in the political system?) and learn something.
OMG, I just read Craig's little lecture above and its cringe inducing. Let's get this out of the way for starters: since when have Britain or the United States EVER promoted democracy in their foreign policies? Um... how about NEVER? If you bothered to get off your butt and read internal declassified planning documents from state planners in the US and UK you'd see that 'democracy promotion' has never been prominent in their aims; in fact, its never even mentioned. The prime aim has been to pursue ways in which they can enhance the ways in which their governments can influence decision making processes within countries in ways that are most profitable for the corporate sector. Have you ever read anything from influential people like Smedley Butler, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Zbignieuw Brezinski and others as to how the US should purise foreing policy and what agendas matter? Clearly you have not and yet you have the audacity to lecture me about the evolution of alleged democracy and its origins. Ever read what Thomas Carrothers, whose remit was 'Democracy promotion' in the Reagan administration, said about what the real agendas were? Then do it and again come back to me with your bilge. You also talk about MaCarthur and the Philippines. Do you know ow many people US forces slaughtered in claiming that country as a colony? Estimates range from 600,000 to a million; one US general famously remarked how he aimed to make a 'howling wilderness' in the country as the native people opposed US occupation, a theme that would be recurrent later. US scholar Ward Churchill has described US history as '200 plus years of senseless butchery and democracy deterred'. Many US-born academics have laid out the bloody costs of US expansion around the world. Britain is no better - Mark Curtis, a British historian, in his book 'Unpeople' estimated that the British are responsible conservatively for as many as 10 million deaths across the world through their foreign policies since the 1950s. You can airbrush reality out of your head as much as you like but the victims do not forget so readily.
Three main factors have driven US-UK foreign policies for decades: 1. Subjugation of other countries assets and resources; 2. Nullification of alternative, more humane and eglalitarian policies that represent a threat to elite and corporate interests; 3. Outright expansionism. There is abundant evidence for this, but you are too dumbed down to learn it. Its a form of denial, much like climate change denial.
And then you pull out the 'Marxist-Leninist' canard as a smear How pathetic. Grow up. I am fed up with simpletons who think they know ow the world works while having their heads firmly planted in their back end.
Its pretty much a trademark of
deniers to indulge in conspiracy
theory about the seppo government.
Devoid of science based challenges,
its pretty much all they can claim.
I do worry when decent average
folk who get the drift of the science
also get into a thing about the yank
government and its history.
Imo conspiracies of any type about
anything are best left to the loons at
That said, there was an appalling silence
both by Washington and Canberra after
Malisbong. A fucking ppauling.
A conspiracy to be silent? Dunno.
Snuck a peak at the heartland
Man, are they off their trolleys.
They got a chart claiming no
warming for however long that
clearly shows warming. Couldnt
even get their own propaganda
correct. Talk about own goals...
Snuck a peak at the heartland
Man, are they off their trolleys
Fossil fuel money buys that
John Perkins little video above explains to a large extent why.
Indeed it does, very good. On a view of the world that was re-enforced for me when I went to university post RN service.
And yes Craig I have heard of Arthur MacArthur (clue in my mention of a certain massacre when placed in context) the wife of whom ensured her son grew up as neurotic and humiliated in public by his own wife.
We have mentioned 'The Scramble for Africa' previously and 'The Boer War' by the same author is also a must read - concentration camps accident or policy?
Another valuable insight into the effects of imperialism, describing situations which make the plight of the Boer women and children seem insignificant (not that I would judge it that way) is provided by Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World.
Now Mark Curtis is indeed one to pay attention to and his 'Web of Deceit' provided more revelations along the theme we are following. It is worth looking him up to find his other books cited.
Anther great writer is John Pilger who will, through his books and documentaries, provide correctives for wayward views of the world, e.g. Australia should be ashamed of its actions WRT East Timor.
What is abundantly clear is that the discovery of valuable resources, minerals, gas oil in the ground does little but bring misery to the people forced, by circumstances, to live there. Indeed such resource discovery is a curse for the indigenous inhabitants.
"The Democracy that is now widespread around the world is a method of government that has slowly come into being thanks to slow advances in governance chiefly provided by the Britain"
Repace "democracy"with "plutocracy" or "corporatocracy" and I'll accept the statement. Elites loathe democracy, because it puts power into the hands of the general public who will most often seek policies that more evenly distribute wealth, reduce spending on the miltary and increase spending on basic values such as health, good wages, poverty reduction, and environmental protection. That's why our so-called democracies are essentially a farce. Look at TPP. Obama signed it into law yesterday, with the corporate media greeting it with collective yawns and writing virtually nothing about its impacts. It is just another example of corporations expanding their already immense power base to control economies. TTIP will follow soon over here In Europe. The public certainly does not support either alleged free trade agreement, but the transnationals do, so its rammed down our throats.
Leading up to the Iraq war, people were polled in three of the participating countries (Britain, Spain and Italy) About 70% of Brits opposed it, whereas in Italy and Spain it was closer to 90%. Did that stop the war party? Not at all. What is public opinion other than a pesky nuisance when it gets in the way of elite priorities, including expanding control over a region containing what the US State Department in 1950 called, "The gretest material prize in history" and a "Source of stupendous strategic power".
The point that Craig and Stu2 need to address, instead of depnding utterly on the sanctioned view of history, is that we live in democracies that are stage managed by the rich. Again, go to your library and read some declassified government planning documents. I have. I have read a number of them especially pertaining to the Middle East. As I said, our planners pay lip service to human rights and democracy. If they are in line with western economic and corporate interests they are supported. If not they are downplayed, ignored, or dealt with through the means John Perkins explains above.
As a foot note, I watched that appalling Fox (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) interview Stu2 linked above. It says a lot alright - about Stu2's mindset. First, its from one of the most obnoxious right wing broadcasters on Earth (Fox). Over here they are a running joke. Second, what has a reformed Islamic extremist got to do with the havoc wrought upon the planet by unregulated capitalism? The guy being interviewed was fine. But what has this got to do with the far more important subject of global deregulation and corporate expansion as John Perkins explains above in his short video? Have you watched that? Did you learn anything from it?
Mark Curtis created a section in his book 'Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World' — reviewed here entitled 'The Mass Production of Ignorance' which points to the lack of substantial reporting from the mainstream media on the real effects of multinational imperialism, a policy carried over into the issues of climate change.
Note this statement in the article:
"To secure the desired result, some preparation of public opinion seems to be essential," noted the British delegation to the UN.
One event which displays this clearly is the genocide in Rawanda and the careless role of the establishment in the UK where prominent figures such as Lynda Chalker (then Minister for Overseas Development) and Sir David Hannay (UK ambassador to the UN) walked away from their responsibilities and encouraged a draw down of UN peacekeeping forces thus allowing the killing to continue.
Mark Curtis reprises the background here: Bloodshed and whitewash: Britain and the Rwanda genocide
We need people such as Mark Curtis, and Linda Melvern, to expose the policies of the 'western' governments for what they are.
Apposite quote from page 374 of 'Web of Deceit' under the chapter heading, 'The Media's Propaganda Role':
The News is not a neutral and natural phenomenon; it is rather the manufactured production of ideology. Glasgow University Media Group
Furthermore it is often a case of keeping unsavoury details out of the news by giving unfair amounts of coverage to celebrity persons, akin to putting a sticking plaster over a machete hack. The cult of celebrity is another marker for societal decline.
Jeff, here is a great example of the “corporatocracy” you referred to:
Jeff Harvey @ # 42.
Re the interview
I can't say I'm surprised by your response but I am disappointed.
I did suggest to watch with an open mind.
Here's a little hint about the relevance.
The topic of discussion has been largely about political systems and why all sorts of people, even highly educated people, get totally side tracked and often become the epitome of what they claim they despise.
Try replaying from about the 5 minute mark to around the 7 1/2 minute mark and please try keep your mind open and listen to what he says.
He does unfortunately, like you, tend name tag a little too much but he does indeed discuss the pros and cons of political systems.
His comments about the 'regressive left' and how they play into the hands of the 'sensationalist right' were interesting.
And yes, I did watch the short Perkins video.
I also read some of the comments.
My take home message from that is it's a perfect example of what was being said in the earlier interview where we have intelligent people using simplistic arguments which results in adding fuel to the argument that all established systems, right, left, centre, capitalist, communist & etc & or whatever want us to keep having.
I agree that 'elites loathe democracy'.
I do however severely question your white hat /black hat melodramatic view of who or what those 'elites' are.
Big Government, Big Religion, Big Environment, Big Academia & etc are just as 'elitist' in behaviour as 'Big Business'.
There is no evidence in human history that 'dismantling' a political system that tries to at least model itself on basic democratic principles achieves better outcomes for people, for communities or for the planet.
As Craig points out above, one of those systems, although far from perfect, has the better track record in terms of facilitating positive leadership and change.
Also Jeff Harvey.
In the interview, he expresses a personal viewpoint on 'delusions of grandeur' which IMHO is remarkably similar to 'elitism'.
I found it particularly interesting because he actually admits that he suffered badly from it himself.
Notice Jeff's criticism focuses exclusively on those nations which have done the most to advance the human race?
He advocates an entirely imaginary alternative to the current ongoing progress.
And, he makes no comment on the evident deficiencies of all the alternatives that actually do exist - apparently his expectations of Riyadh, Moscow, or Pyonyang are so low he doesn't bother criticising them: an implicit admission he doesn't actually believe in the alternTives anyway.
Craig and GSW might as well be the same person. First he writes this drivel, "Notice Jeff’s criticism focuses exclusively on those nations which have done the most to advance the human race?"
Then he draws a comparison with Marxist/communist regimes as if that is the ONLY alternative. Again, a pathetic example of debate. Of course he could not counter a thing I argued yesterday. Of course he couldn't. Nothing left to say except that the US and UK did the most to 'advance the human race'. Forget the genocide of British and European colonialism as they expanded across the world, plundering resources for king and country and killing anyone who got in the way. The death toll is staggering. In India, British occupation was a disaster, and the median wage did not increase for two centuries. British involvement in Africa was equally as bad. The 1950's Mau mau uprising against British rule led to the slaughter of well over a hundred thousand people, and the Brits can claim to have set up the first concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer war in which several hundred thousand more people were killed. They used the term 'strategic hamlets' to describe the concentration camps with abhorrent conditions under British military occupation of Malaya during the 1960s. This is jsut the tip of an inceberg. Forget how the North American settlers committed veritable genocide on the Native Americans (wiping out over 99% of them) before expanding their empire across the planet, as explained by John Perkins in the video Craig did not view not would understand, even though a school child could. Bring in the recent carnage in Iraq (over a million dead) and Libya (tens of thousand dead) in the drive for regime change to control resources but which has turned into a humanitarian catastrophe then we see these policies are ongoing. Craig evidently finds it easy sitting in his warm living room in his confmortable house to put these countless examples of murder and killing and plunder in the hands of the US-UK marauders (and other European nation states from colonialism to the present day). Well I can tell you the victims don't.
Moreover, Bolivia is an alternative of capitalism light (indeed it is socialist) and it sure is working well. See link above, which will also scupper your non-existent arguments.
As for Perkins, he simplified the story for people like you, Stu2. He WAS an economic hit man. He worked for a major consulting firm for 15 years in this role before getting out. He's written several books about it. Again, as with Chris Hedges, you make simple labels about somene who you have never heard of nor ever read. You are only left with vacuous epithets as a riposte.
Here's the facts: both Stu2 and Craig know jack-**** about the world and how it works. They clearly rely on elite sources to justify their views - the Fox interview was a case in point. You won't see critics of western policy like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges on there any time soon. They are lucky they can write what they like and avoid addressing the real points I make on Deltoid. As I have said before, in a face-to-face debate, I would annihilate them both. And they bloody well know it.
What they are saying is that our system is brojken badly. The signing by Obama into law of TTP and soon TTIP is just another example of the expansion of the predatory corporate state. You and Craig just don't geddit because you rely pretty well entirely on mainstresm sources for your world views.
You both should be thankful
ooops . to continue
What I am saying with plenty of evidence is that our political economic system is brojken badly. The signing by Obama into law of TTP and soon TTIP is just another example of the expansion of the predatory corporate state. Stu2 and Craig just don’t geddit because they rely pretty well entirely on mainstream sources for their world views (that is patently obvious). Confronted with a dose of reality, they don't like it. They squirm and dodge and weave and spin and slither with all they can to get around the facts. John Pilger summed it up when he said that , "Terrorism, barbarism and mass murder are standard practices on our side; only the technology is different". Exactly. And once again, its easy for the guy wearing the jack boots and kicking a victim on the street to claim that he's either doing it for the victim's good or else that the victim deserves it. But we are forever unable to see how the victim sees it. How those losing brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews etc. either under our 'humanitarian bombs' (meaning aggression) feel, or else how those living in dire poverty think while knowing that the wealthy are forever concentrating their wealth. This is lacking entirely in western discourse. We certainly hihglight the plight of victims of offically designated enemies but those of our own policies are, as Mark Curtis describes, 'Unpeople'.
As with GSW, Craig and Stu2 exasperate me with their ignorance. I am at my breaking point and will end this now. They are too dumbed down to be worthy of any more responses from me. This is not a debate because we are working on very, very different levels.
Lionel, as ever thanks for your insightful comments. I have already read Web of Deceit and its both shocking and very informative. And IanF the link is just more evidence of the power of the corporate state. Unless we can wrest power back from these criminals, I believe we are pretty well doomed.
I'm fascinated by your regime selectivity also jeff. It seems you can get a "free pass" on any environmental destruction, citizen welfare, or even "plunder," as long as the regime can be tagged with jeff's "they'r ok, there Marxist-Leninist/Communists" or whatever. It's a form of ideological blindness.
Entertaining to watch though.
"Though rich in mineral and energy resources, Bolivia is one of South America's poorest countries. Wealthy urban elites, who are mostly of Spanish ancestry, have traditionally dominated political and economic life, whereas most Bolivians are low-income subsistence farmers, miners, small traders or artisans. "
It is a poor country, world bank GNI dat here,
Whats' the other thing jeff goes on about, oh yes "Plunder"
"“If the government had run the mountain rationally, with technicians, this wouldn’t have happened,” he said. “People have gotten rich. They have plundered and plundered.”"
Environmental Pollution is rated as high across the board,
Do those 'mainstream sources' that you are so dismissive about include 'mainstream science' ????
Sorry, missing BBC link above,
"Bolivia profile - Overview"
“Though rich in mineral and energy resources, Bolivia is one of South America’s poorest countries. Wealthy urban elites, who are mostly of Spanish ancestry, have traditionally dominated political and economic life, whereas most Bolivians are low-income subsistence farmers, miners, small traders or artisans. ”
So rather than the bad countries you obsess over, the US (and now the UK apparently), we should be more like Bolivia?
Wanna ask yourself that query
about mainstream science?
How bout NASA eh?
Reckon they just lyin their arses
off about about numbers?
How bout USA navy data?
Reckon they in league with the
global UN commie cabal thats
got nuthin better to do than take
away peoples V8 wank cars?
Ask yourself about mainstream science
and what trust ya put in it?
#53 oh ya trust the BBC
as a source gobshit?
Or only sometimes?
I can tell ya bout a zillion
BBC climate articles i bet ya
...apparently his expectations of Riyadh, Moscow, or Pyonyang are so low he doesn’t bother criticising them...
Craig that is absurd, what do you expect Jeff to write a post that could compete in length with Arthur Marder's five volume 'From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow: The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era 1904-1919' or Tolstoy's 'War and Peace'. Absence of example does is not example of absence.
But then Riyadh is a curious example to bring to the fore given the track record of western governments supplying that regime with arms and going out of their way not to upset the Saudis. The close relationship of the second Bush administration with the Saudis is described in House of Bush, House of Saud: The Hidden Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties by Craig Unger.
It seems that at present these could be interesting times for the Saudis, and the world, as oil prices become more fluid, with more finger pointing over ISIS and racism.
Basically, every man and his dog and
especially his arsehole cat of any
political stripe, manipulates and
fucks over the environment.
Mechanisation and incredible labour
saving devices like pipe just up
the rate to unsustainable planet changing
We gotta be the stupidest monkeys in
Have a little think about it.
Lets say the CO2 issue gets
sorted and theres big mobs
of pollution free energy for
Well thats not gunna lessen signifigantly
impacts on fisheries is it?
Having shitloads of cheap pollution
free energy just means miners and
processors of minerals can really hook in.
Ditto farming and land clearing.
Electric tractors goin 24/7 with plumes
of topsoil blowing away behind them.
Not a critter in sight.
GSW is sure a sucker for punishment. I find it so easy to crush him and his arguments, time and time and time again. Yet he keeps on coming back. He's such a clown. Dumb as an ox.
Why is South America poor? Greg Grandin explains it in his book, "Empire's Workshop". Read it. I will not write a lengthy reponse here to an intellectual lightweight like GSW. He is so far down the pecking order that he is clearly not worthy of my time.
Re: Bolivia, I guess GSWs suggestion is that the country should embrace the oligarchs and capitalist cronies like it has done in the past and become a fully-fledged proxy state of the US, like El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Haiti and many other coutries where the wealth gap is massive and the poor live in depravity. He probably thinks that the World Bank, IMF and their structural adjustment policies will save the continent. Again, his intelligence is so low that I will not make this too long.
Here's some information showing GSWs kind of system and its implications. He probably thinks that the US has had little or no influence on the political systems and poverty in South America. He's also probably never heard of George Kennan either, nor is he aware that Kennan just before his death said that the US should be worried about a leftward shift in South America because it would represent a threat to 'their resources'. By 'their' he meant American, as if, by some magic, the resources found under the soil of South American countries was, by some right, the property of US corporations and investors. This is the long-term mind-think of the plutocrats in the US and the elites in the south . But again, GSW is too stupid to know any of it.
GSW loses again. In a way, its fun responding to a guy who knows so little. But in another way its depressing as there are so many GSW-type people out there.
You've either misunderstood the criticism or gone off on a tangent Lionel.
"…apparently his expectations of Riyadh, Moscow, or Pyonyang are so low he doesn’t bother criticising them…"
Craig, is also remarking how ideologically one sided jeff's analysis' are. There are some fairly toxic regimes around the world and for some reason jeff obsesses with the US (and now UK(?)) as being the "Bad Guys". The "free world" ,as it used to be called, is by no means perfect, but no sane person would ever try to equate them with Communist China, DPRK, former Soviet Union, or the politically unstable, poverty stricken countries in South America- let alone claim they are somehow superior in some way.
I think there's a clue there, "no sane person would" and jeff does nothing but.
But in another way its depressing as there are so many GSW-type people out there.
Indeed there are, and amongst one time compatriots of mine judging by posts that find their way onto one social media vehicle, they do not look past the diatribes in the press. They are on one side of the mirror described by John Pilger in his 'Hidden Agendas'.
Japanese style torture was not the forte of one British commander during the Kenyan rebellion was it? I wonder who he was (I have a hunch)? Couldn't have happened now could it? I must try a find that copy of 'Uhuru' that I read in the early 1970s, must be here somewhere. Problem is I loan books out to relatives and sometimes they don't come back.
Stu2, you are almost (though not quite) as bad as GSW. Mainstream sources in the media are a wholy owned subsidiary of the corporate state. Mainstream science isn't.
Tha was easy.
I also watched your sad interview again and I chuckled at the ignorant interviewer when he went on about 'throwing off extremist values'. I guess the clot wouldn't think that carpet bombing countires and killing millions of people, as the US and it proxies like Australia and the US does is 'extreme'. He is intimating that we are civilized and our opponents lie ISIL are the barbarians. He kind of overlooks the fact that the US and UK have for many years armed, trained and funded groups like ISIL (certainly Al Queda and its spawn the Mujahadeen) if they see it in their political and economic interests to do so. As I have said before, no Iraq war, no regime change in Libya, and no ISIL. WE created this monster, nurtured it, and now suddenly throw our hands in the air as if we have nothing to do with it. Hilarious.
Moreover, the guy being interviewed for some reason does not talk about the factors which drive people towards extremism and terrorism. In the 1960s and 1970s it did not exist. But when the west starts killing people in industrial numbers, then this drives people towards violence. I abhor terrorism as much as you do, but it is the weapon of the weak. People whose cities and towns are blown to smithereens by western bombs and who lose their loved ones under western assault are far more easy to recruit to terrorist groups. Why did the interviewer not bring this up? And why di the interviewee not say what drives young people to extremism? I'll tell you why. Because it does not fit the narrative of us being good and our enemies being bad. Not once in the interview was western culpability raised for the rise if ISIL. Its like it happened by chance.
Again, the appalling mainstrem media at work. I don't necessarily blame the interviewer. In my experience most of these mainstream media pundits have gone through the 'fllter' as described in 'Manufacturing Consent' by Edwards and Chomsky. Many are also plainly stupid.
And I see Australia's now joined the US and UK on your "hate list" of despised populations. if only we were more like the "Good Guys", the DPRK's, the China's, the environmentally toxic Bolivias or other totalitarian regimes around the world, maybe you'd give us a break/ benefit from your ideological blindness then?
" mainstream science isnt "
This made me think about
something. Something i know
almost nothing about.
When penicillin was invented,
was that science diseminated right
away amongst the worlds medical
specialists for review, and to
assist treatment of those suffering
infections as soon as possible?
Or was there some secrecy?
Id hope the former but dont know.
If anyone here does please share.
Yup, GSW is at it again. If I don't like a country's foreign policies, I 'despise it populations". Seriously folks, this is what GSW is intimating. I suppose with this brush he tars a huge number of scholars and academics as well. In fact, many of them are American, British and Australian. Thus in GSWs warped world one is not allowed to criticize the foreign policies of their own country because they must 'despise their own people'. And by default they must love the policies of the DRNK or China etc. Is this guy for REAL?
He's clearly getting desperate and IMHO this dude is seriously ziek in de kop. He's lost the debate and he knows it. He must be sitting behind his keyboard gnashing his teeth and frothing at the ritual humiliation being dished out to him. Yet he keeps coming back. He's clearly also into self-punishment.
Let us hope he goes away soon before he breaks something.
Oh, and as an addendum, also note GSW cannot counter a point I make with evidence. When he feebly tries, its completely easy to demolish him. And he calls me 'idealogically blind!!!!'.
HILARIOUS! Comedy gold.
"one is not allowed to criticize the foreign policies of their own country"
Of course one is jeff, that's the one of the benefits of living in the "free world". It's the fact that you're ideologically blind to the faults of the others that's the problem.
"cannot counter a point I make with evidence."
For "evidence" try your bigoted posts here.
"If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot. The intolerance expressed by that bigot is called bigotry. Bigotry is ugly."
It's as if that word were invented for you jeff.
And I see Australia’s now joined the US and UK on your “hate list” of despised populations.
You 'stupid boy', you just don't get it do you. Comprehension never your strong point is it.
It is those in control of geo-politics who are our targets not the populace per say, which latter are simple tools of the mainstream media - controlled by those same targets.
Look up the role of Paul Keating and Gareth Evens in the genocide that was East Timor e.g. in Pilger's 'Hidden Agendas'.
To underline our meaning here are some words by a long dead politician:
The World is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. Benjamin Disraeli
as repeated on the leading pages of Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs.
Now where along the
data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom
continuum are you? Stuck at stage two methinks.
You’ve either misunderstood the criticism or gone off on a tangent Lionel.
No GSW, my post obviously was beyond your comprehension ability.
“If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot.
Now do tell us under which of the three entities delineated in that statement is applicable to Jeff's arguments.
It is clear that once again you fail to comprehend the reasoning.
Here is laid out where you fail:
...because no one asks fluent readers if they know the meaning of what they just read. They’re good at recognizing words and saying them out loud, but that doesn’t mean they’re accomplished readers.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly the point.
As 'the poor clot' says.
People like you, possibly for the beat of reasons, become the epitome of what they claim to despise.
You claim to despise 'elitism'.
here's a definition of 'elitism'
And the word above should be BEST, not beat.
#73...can't handle the reality? Dismiss the message as elitist.
Can't handle reality? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/csiro-bracing-for-massive-job-cuts/7139224
"But then Riyadh is a curious example to bring to the fore given the track record of western governments supplying that regime with arms and going out of their way not to upset the Saudis. "
(This is why energy independence from the middle east is so important - it would provide an opportunity to dismantle some of the political corruption that governs our dealings with that part of the world).
I don't have to approve of individual policies or decisions by individual governments in order to be consistent. All I am saying is, if you want to dismantle something, dismantle the theocracies and dictatorships, NOT, the system of government that has produced the vast bulk of human achievement in a gradual process of improvement over the last 500 years. Keep improving it.
Past dismantlements have unerringly produced disasters.
Jeff's alternative? "dismantle it and then...something...something...Bolivia".
Not very convincing, and not credible. Typical academia-inspired puerile myopia.
Nick @ # 76.
For some reason your link won't open but I have seen other media around this.
No one likes to lose funding and/ or their job.
I'm still sad about the decimation of funding to agricultural research in CSIRO.
Australia lost good people when that occurred.
The funding was redirected to other research.
Looks like it's happening again.
It's not however particularly relevant to my comment @#73.
On ABC radio this afternoon the boss of CSIRO said that funding was being redirected to CC adaption.
Considering the 'mainstream' has been saying 'the science is settled', I guess they've decided it's time to move on?
He also said there will be no 'net job losses'.
But of course that doesn't mean that some individuals won't lose their jobs as the funding is redirected to different research programs.
"Typical academia-inspired puerile myopia"
Says Craig, an Islamophobe who thinks 'they' are out to get us. Craig writes kindergarten-level stuff here and then writes the crap he does. Let me put it less than succinctly: he does not have a clue about much of anything. And that is being kind. I won't waste too much more of my time on his histrionics.
Notice how Craig, Stu2, and especially GSW airbrush thge vast array of western crimes from their memories? It's like the utter carnage and bloodshed committed by the US and its proxies never happened. I can present buckets of evidence; for that I am smeared as a bigoted communsit sympathizer.
Finally, Stu2 talsk about mainstream (meaning publicly funded) science as if there is some sinister agenda at stake, whereas he soemhow mysteriously ignores the fact that the non-mainstream sources are mainly privately funded. In other words, corporate science. The truth is that corporate science is often about as directed, and dishonest as it gets because more often than not it is expliclty aimed at promoting the agendas of those who fund it. Heaven knows what terrible agendas public money is funding, but if you go by the comedy simplistic level of GSWs posts than its a global communist dictatorship or in Craig's opinion a global Caliphate.
What depresses me is that people with the mindsets of GSW, Stu2 and Craig actually exist and that there are lots of them. Dumbed down by their corporate media, accepting elite explanations for just about everything and believing that if one criticizes the appalling foreign policies of their governments then they 'hate the people' who live in these countries.
I lived in the US for two years as a post-doc back in the 90s and had a wonderful time. I like the country a great deal and made many friends there who know exactly what I think about US foreign policy. Most of them agree with me and we have great discussions. I was educated in the UK and have British citizenship. The story is the same. Moreover, as I said, most of the strongest critics of US-UK foreign policy are natives. They weren't born in China or Russia or North Korea. They are home-grown, love their countries but loathe what their countries have done or are doing in support of the corporate state. I salute these people. They aren't communists or Marxists but true patriots who should be celebrated.
It's now becoming funny.
Your attempt to reframe what Craig said into something he quite clearly say made me laugh out loud.
At no point here did Craig or I say that government systems based on democratic are perfect and pure.
What has been pointed out is the better track record.
If you believe it all should be dismantled, then you need to offer a credible alternative.
History teaches us that what turns up in the vacuum left by dismantling is worse.
Has it not occurred to you that much of the stuff you point your finger at is because systems of governance were 'dismantled' by countries like Russia, America, Spain, China & etc?
They all claimed a 'noble cause' or some type of 'grand challenge' for facilitating the 'dismantlings'.
What you seem to be advocating is the epitome of what you claim to despise.
Sorry for the typo.
Insert DIDN'T between clearly and say.
What has been pointed out is the better track record.
That is just the point, that so called better track record is based upon lies, upon lies, upon lies ....and so on ad infinitum. How many more examples do you need?
Brad Keyes, as we always suspected he might, is now dabbling with amateur comedianism:
"There’s nothing easier than deceiving a captive audience. That’s why I don’t accept speaking invitations unless I have the audience’s undivided attention. For their sake, I’m not willing to share the credibility of the stage with forces who don’t accept what the science is telling us."
OK Jeff, why don't you list the achievements and improvements in human society and governance that have occurred as a result of the islamic plague that has spread out of Arabia over the last 1400 years?
Use of the term "islamophobe" as part of your apologism for what is without doubt the most destructive single force in human history is right there on par with the rest of your woolly-left non-real-world thinking.
We see how islam governs (one of the alternatives to modern civilisation that might arise if you get your wishes and we suffer a "dismantling?).
Murder, destruction, and intellectual regression. Corruption of all the institutions that give us our values, our freedoms, and our ability to progressively improve the lot of humans.
If you remain in denial as to the nature of islam, despite the global evidence that is on display, it's no wonder your understanding of politics is so tainted by irrationality.
It's days like this that we could do with Tim Lambert's keen insight into Australian politics:
#85 Craig, you're not making any sense.
Noting Islamophobia when it occurs is not a de facto endorsement or apology for Islamist regimes
#78 The relevance is that in the act of mutilating CSIRO climate research, you're seeing the real elite and their ability to set the agenda
The 'real elite' ????????
BTW, it's a redirection of funding, not a mutilation of climate research.
It's not a new phenomenon for funds to be redirected at CSIRO.
Sorry Stu 2, but I'll take the word of my scientific colleagues in the CSIRO over a climate science-denying lay person such as you.
Marshall's vision has nothing to do with the CSIRO's original remit to do national- and international-level research: his inclination is to use CSIRO to kickstart industries, rather than to provide the knowledge that private companies can use to create innovative industry. Basically, instead of the top-level knowledge-generation that should be core to CSIRO, it's now becoming venture capitalists' money pot to do the hard yards in industry establishment that they can then pick up and profit from.
But that aside, we desperately need further understanding of the impacts that humans are having on the atmosphere and the oceans. There is much serious understanding that we still lack, and there's no way that we could engage in Marshall's vaunted "responses" without knowing how they're working to address the environmental issues.
Further, if Marshall and especially his government pals are so accepting of the science, it's peculiar that the conservative government policy responses have been effectively as far from acknowledging the problem and addressing them as it is possible to be.
I wonder why that is?
Some of my colleagues are scientists & researchers from CSIRO.
They're good people who know how to work collaboratively in the community.
Unlike you apparently, they don't resort to petty name calling and 'elitism'.
But of course they work out in regional areas in the real
environment amongst real people.
Some of them aren't particularly impressed with the way resources have been over allocated to climate research & the urban institutions.
Perhaps Marshall believes that 'the science is settled' and it's time to allocate resources elsewhere?
There are plenty of excellent scientists who would certainly appreciate some funding to do more research out in the regional areas.
Dutch tolerance was inspired by the Ottoman system, against the catholic Spanish oppressor/Inquisition. Note the symbol of William of Orange's group: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_paaps
You still haven't replied to my repeated question as to why Greece did not become an islamic state. This is because you cannot reply. It destroys your reasoning.
The way the world really works and who are pulling the strings is partly revealed as the curtain twitches open a little: How Barack Obama could end the Argentina debt crisis
The "vulture" financier now threatening to devour Argentina can be stopped dead by a simple note to the courts from Barack Obama. But the president, while officially supporting Argentina, has not done this one thing that could save Buenos Aires from default.....
See more at Who hatched Rubio?
Greg Palast's writings are something else to pay attention to, I have some books here I could quote from as an answer to the troll collectives epistemic bubble.
As for the corporatisation of academia where do you think Naomi Klein got some of her inspiration for 'No Logo' from?
Some here are seriously under informed.
For vulture read sociopath.
Greg Palast, like Mark Curtis, John Pilger, Robert Fisk etc. is a journalist with integrity, hard to find these days.
Stu2 writes, "Your attempt to reframe what Craig said into something he quite clearly say made me laugh out loud"
Gee, I could have sworn that you were merely looking at yourself in the mirror...
Read your comment @#80.
That was the one that got me laughing.
BTW, if governments are controlled by 'black hats' and what you seem to define as 'mainstream science' is 'publicly funded' (govt), then according to your own argument, wouldn't 'mainstream science' therefore be controlled by the same 'black hats'????
On ABC radio this afternoon the boss of CSIRO said that funding was being redirected to CC adaption.
Considering the ‘mainstream’ has been saying ‘the science is settled’, I guess they’ve decided it’s time to move on?
He also said there will be no ‘net job losses’.
Marshall is a venture capitalist through and through, and his technological inclination is to the conversion of coal to deisel. Apparently CCS is on his radar too - this is the guy who thinks that "the science is settled".
And if you really do think think that there will be "no net job losses", I have a steel bridge across Sydney Harbour between Milson's Point and Wynyard to sell you.
Some of my colleagues are scientists & researchers from CSIRO.
Many of mine are.
They’re good people who know how to work collaboratively in the community.
All of mine are. They're international class, and at least two are lead authors for the IPCC. They have science and the welfare of humanity and the planet absolutelly front and centre in mind.
Unlike you apparently, they don’t resort to petty name calling and ‘elitism’.
I have no truck with "elitism", and I am not sure why you want to label me thusly, but if someone's behaving in a particular manner I'll point out that they're doing so. Whether this is "petty" depends on a everyone's personal definition of such, of course.
But of course they work out in regional areas in the real environment amongst real people.
As do all the scientists I know, myself included.
Some of them aren’t particularly impressed with the way resources have been over allocated to climate research & the urban institutions.
Yeah, if you're hanging around the ag sector in conservative rural heartland where denialism still filters into the tech workers you'll see this - I have the 'privilege' of seeing this in some of the agricultural scientists in my own institution. Interestingly they're all slowing coming around though as the evidence becomes incontrovertible, although you'd never know listening to them now that they denied the fact of warming for years, but the weird thing is that they are as still derisive as ever of climatologists who investigate warming of the planet. But guess who are in fact their best friend for trying to minimise the damage to the agricultural and aris ecology sectors...?
Perhaps Marshall believes that ‘the science is settled’ and it’s time to allocate resources elsewhere?
Marshall understands that overt scepticism is no longer tenable, and that this understanding in the political scene is a perfect opportunity for pushing the false meme that climatology and oceanography are now somehow complete and and/or obsolete, so that he can instigate his and the LNP's pet project of moving public money from the funding of the overall public good to publically capitalising the private enterprises of tech entrepeneurs.
There are plenty of excellent scientists who would certainly appreciate some funding to do more research out in the regional areas.
There are "plenty of excellent scientists who would appreciate some funding to do more research" in ecology, or biomedical research, or astronomy, or physical chemistry, or botany, or food science, or psychology, or any of a large range of other disciplines, but none of the ones I know would expect Australia's world leadership in climatology and oceanography to be dismantled in order to divert some of the proceeds to technology start ups.
News flash Stu 2 - there's not a snowball's chance in hell that Marshall is going to be diverting wads of cash to your NMR folk, and in another decade or two your corner of the world will be absolutely rueing the loss of climatological understanding that this "Marshall Plan" (gag...) will cause.
#89...redirection of funding is indeed nothing new at the CSIRO....now Marshall is redirecting the dwindling reserves on behalf of the 'elite' leaners of Australian industry and politics.
And absolute idiots like Curry are being promoted by The Australian as having a clue about its implications. LimitedNews' War on Science is never over.
Stu 2 might be interested to hear that there are remote dry region farmers who are aghast at the Marshall plan to silence climatology and oceanography in the CSIRO:
It's good to be reminded that not all traditionally conservative folk are as scientifically stupid as is Stu 2.
Stu2, what strikes me is how utterly naive you are. Its not really worth my time educating you as the the vagaries of our so-called alleged democracies. I will say what I have said many times: you and I start on very different intellectual levels. Take that as a putdown, a smear, whatever, but its the plain truth. The fact that you linked to a Sky interview with a reformed 'extremist' says it all; the questions asked by the presenter were softball. Nothing about western forms of extremism that drive young people towards radical ideas. Nothing about western bombs blowing people to smithereens across the Middle East, and a long history of continuity on the part of western elites in murder and plunder in the lands of the poor. Seeing it, I realized fully what I am up against in you. A novice.
I'll end with a few lines about an important interview Noam Chomsky gave to BBC political correspondent Andrew Marr back in 1996. Chomsky is ignored by the mainstream corporate media simply because his message conflicts with those holding power and privilege, so any reference to him is usually aimed at isolating his views to make them seem as if they are way out; radical; extreme. Its a part of the process of 'normalizing' western crimes of which of course there are many. Anyway, Marr, a friend of Tony Blair, said in April of 2003 live on BBC news (I vividly remember the segment) that The Iraq invasion had been a resounding success, vindicating Blair, and that he saw minsters walking around Whitehall brandishing smiles 'like split watermelons'. He went on to say that there had been no bloodbath in taking Iraq, and it had comprehensively vindicated the invasion.
So much for holding power to account as was the original remit of journalism. These days our corporate media act more like stenographers to corporate and political elites.
Anyway, back in '96, Marr asked Chomsky if Chomsky thought that he was 'self-censoring' as a journalist. Chomsky smiled and said 'not at all. I truly believe that you yourself believe everything that you say and write. What I am saying is that if you believed something different, you would not be sitting where you are, working for the BBC'.
Therein lies the rub. As the propaganda model in 'Manufacturing Consent', the groundbreaking expose of the state-corporate media by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky argues, there is a 'filter' (or indeed several filters) through which journalists must pass in order to secure jobs in the top corporate-state media outlets. The filter is ideologically biased to support out own elite agendas. Indeed, the propaganda model explicitly states that, 'The aim of the western media is to inculcate and defend the social, political and economic agendas of the rich and privileged groups that dominate domestic society and the state'. he book is filled with examples in support of the model and has since been further supported by books from the UK team at Medialens ('Guardians of Power'; 'Newspeak in the 20th Century') and Greg Philo's research unit in (I think) Edinburgh as well as FAIR in the US.
Until Stu2 can even understand the basics of the model and of the system underpinning it, I might as well be discussing this with my little dog Charlie.
A lesson from ants
He joined as someone from the west (UK) precisely for those reasons & had an epiphany, where he realised he had become the epitome of what he despised.
Maybe you need to watch it again with your own filter switched off?
Unbelievable... Mark Steyne is a panelist on next week's QandA - and he was hailed as a "conservative beacon of light".
I vomited a little bit in my mouth.
A hot new book that should provide a corrective for some of the reasoning, or lack thereof, displayed by some of our troll collective of late H/T Greg Laden Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution. These are clearly not nice people and they explain why the world is going to hell in a handcart, and a hot hell it is going to be with reductions in available vital resources such as water and food.
Jeff, you may be interested in the proceedings to come from this conference which is currently in progress:
"he realised he had become the epitome of what he despised"
If only war criminals like George W. Bush and his coterie of neocons and Tony Blair would have such an 'epiphany'. Same for Obama really - he boasted that he 'is good at killing people'.
But of course, our state/corporate media normalizes our crimes and focuses laser-like on those of officially designated enemies. Its as if the carnage of our policies, which, if truth be told, makes groups like ISIL look like lethal fleas by comparison, does not exist.
Bernard, thanks for the link! Some of the lectures are very relevant for the work being done under an ERC grant in our department. I'll check out some of the abstracts.
I highly recommend the papers Jeff. There's some excellent work there, and some profoundly disturbing impacts being detected.
Bottom line for the planet... unless we pull out of the dive now, the collision with the future is going to be messy. Very messy.
" Very messy."
Thanks Bernard J. for that species on the move. Any accesible papers there that may be of interest e.g. in answering the recent surge in cetacean numbers, particularly sperm whales, washing up on UK North Sea coasts?
There have been algal blooms in North Atlantic waters over recent decades with some last year stretching across the Icelandic waters, Svalbard and the Scandinavian coasts as well as down past the Hebrides into the Irish Sea. Some reported on here..
Having visited the Trishnish Isles and photographed the Puffin I am saddened to hear that populations are in decline around UK, probably as the waters become too warm for their staple of sand eels.
Lionel, if you ask Sou to pass on your email address to me I'll talk to some people and see if I can get some material to you. It may take a small period of time though.
Thanks Bernard, the required is highly visible here.