Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[chops_a_must]

Just out of curiosity...

Put your guns down for a moment...

Ferret, Wayne and 20/20 especially... do you guys think that "Global Warming", or even specifically excess carbon emissions, is just a symptom of more substantial environmental problems?

And IFF so, (from your point of view) do you think that the GW debate will run its course and ultimately be replaced by matters that are arguably more central to the crux (don't know the plural for crux lol) of the matters. i.e. massive energy resource depletion.

Because as a "hard core" environmentalist (at least in these parts I am lol!), the debate to me is completely arbitrary. For instance, most people would agree that we are at or near peak oil production. Therefore the moves to combat this, in turn target carbon emissions. Without oil, we don't drive, don't have an economy etc. etc. So you look at mass transit ideas, which both help the economy, are an efficient energy use, and you reduce emissions that way.

And you can go on and on in this manner. Destroying farm land to extend cities etc. etc.

The follow up questions are then: do policies and initiatives towards reducing CO2 specifically, although desirable (maybe? maybe not?), go only part of the way in doing their job, because of this? And if so, what do you propose we target, or not target?

Of course, you could just ignore my effort and say "nah, they're aren't any environmental problems either!" Lol! :

p.s. If I get some good answers, you'll get to hear what I think about all this. Wont that be grand boys and girls?

 

[Aussiejeff]

Thats true but we are a very messy crowd and do not like eating our vegetables. So unless we start to show some restrain and disipline then we have a problem with the population.

Agreed. Add to that the fact that as populations around the planet become more "civilised" those populaces all eventually desire to live in the best house on the best land in the middle of the biggest city!

Hands up everyone who wants to abandon RIGHT NOW where they live, work and play to go and help populate the Simpson Desert? Hmmm. I don't see too many takers. Not even with massive subsidies. IT JUST WON't WORK.

If the philosophy of greatly increasing our population to build cities and towns in the outback actually worked in todays world, WHY ARE HUNDREDS OF OUR COUNTRY TOWNS going backwards or down the tube population and economic-wise???

AJ

 

[The Ferret]

Just out of curiosity...

Put your guns down for a moment...

Ferret, Wayne and 20/20 especially... do you guys think that "Global Warming", or even specifically excess carbon emissions, is just a symptom of more substantial environmental problems?

And IFF so, (from your point of view) do you think that the GW debate will run its course and ultimately be replaced by matters that are arguably more central to the crux (don't know the plural for crux lol) of the matters. i.e. massive energy resource depletion.

Because as a "hard core" environmentalist (at least in these parts I am lol!), the debate to me is completely arbitrary. For instance, most people would agree that we are at or near peak oil production. Therefore the moves to combat this, in turn target carbon emissions. Without oil, we don't drive, don't have an economy etc. etc. So you look at mass transit ideas, which both help the economy, are an efficient energy use, and you reduce emissions that way.

And you can go on and on in this manner. Destroying farm land to extend cities etc. etc.

The follow up questions are then: do policies and initiatives towards reducing CO2 specifically, although desirable (maybe? maybe not?), go only part of the way in doing their job, because of this? And if so, what do you propose we target, or not target?

Of course, you could just ignore my effort and say "nah, they're aren't any environmental problems either!" Lol! :

p.s. If I get some good answers, you'll get to hear what I think about all this. Wont that be grand boys and girls?

Some good questions there chops.... here are my answers. It may not look like it, but I have been brief.

1) I am not necessarily saying that GW is not happening at all. I am saying that there are enough questions remaining about its intensity and cause to warrant further observation prior to winding back the gains of the past 200 years. What I am saying, is that the “debate”, as it now stands, has been rushed, one sided and has become political in the extreme. There surrounds the issue of GW a religious fervour, a hysteria, and this is dangerous as it stifles honest open debate. Anyone, regardless of qualification, who questions aspects of GW, its causes and intensity, is ostracised and almost publicly shamed as a “non-believer”, a fool and a naysayer. History has shown us that this sort of mass-hysteria can have devastating consequences.


2) It is possible that the debate will run its course. However, because the issue has been embraced by so many, so publicly, that should it become apparent in the years to come that GW was indeed false or much less impacting than previously believed, what will happen is that the “movement” will claim victory and say they saved the day. They will claim that the (minor and futile) changes that were imposed on society averted disaster. I believe that too many people would be humiliated by a public declaration of “we were wrong” for the movement to ever declare that the entire basis for the GW debate was based on fallacy.

3) Peak Oil and resource depletion. Chops… I agree that right now, today, there are certainly supply constraints on oil and this will remain for some time into the future. It is obvious that OPEC elect not to increase output because they presently cannot. However, this will not always be the case..IMO. As exploration continues new, large reserves will be discovered, developed over time and exploited. Of course, I agree that eventually, one day we would have depleted the worlds oil reserves. IMO, however, this is some way off.

What is important to remember is this….. Even when (before) we deplete oil (or any other resource) the desire for profit will have lead to newer technologies. The market, seeing not a crisis, but an opportunity for profit, will react. This has been the case for 1000’s of years and will continue to remain so. No one develops new drugs for the good of mankind, it’s done for profit. The same can be said of any industry, any sector, any part of modern life. Advancement is driven by competition and profit.

Look at what we have achieved in such a short period of time and how society, just a short 200 years ago, would have never ever ever been able to comprehend (yet achieve through planning) what we can do now. Global travel was limited to a select few in tall ships. It was only 105 years ago that the Wright brothers had the first powered flight. 100 years! In that time we have gone from a single short flight to having developed something as impressive and astoundingly difficult as the A380. Every day millions of people travel on thousands of flights from thousands of airports the world over, in thousands of different aircraft. Do you think they would have even been able to imagine such a feat? This is but one example, but there are hundreds, thousands of examples. A short 230 years ago the globe was not even charted, it took years and years to chart a single continent with any degree of rough accuracy. Now we have satellites that look down upon us… imagine trying to explain to Captain Cook the concept of Google Earth…. he would not have been able to comprehend the entirety of it.

Everything we have become is because of the desire to be king, to be number 1 and the desire for profit. Just as those such as Cook and the Wright bros would not have been able to comprehend such advancements, we are not able to fully imagine (yet alone plan for) what will be discovered over the next 30/50/70 100 years plus. We cannot “plan” or centralise these things. The market itself will follow the most efficient path based firstly on what we need, and secondly on what we want. It’s erroneous to imagine running out of oil, using the image of what we know of society today. It’s erroneous because we cannot possible take into consideration developments and advancements that will occur.

All we have achieved as a society, as a species, has been done with no central planning, no “control” from a central agency or master-plan. It has been achieved by what F.A Hayek describes as the “spontaneous order”, essentially driven by free market economics and the desire for profit. As we speak thousand of companies world wide are researching energy alternatives. Why? Because there is money to be made. Not because of some Govt decision or order or because we signed a piece of paper.

It is easy to believe that we have reached the end-point of knowledge, that we know all there is to be known in regards to development. However, the same can be said for previous generations and times. All they knew was what they had then, and couldn’t possible fathom (or plan for) future development. Just as we now, cannot fathom and centrally plan for what happens next.

Trust the market, trust the spontaneous order….. it has worked for centuries and will continue to do so. As soon as we believe that individuals, Govt’s or committees can be more efficient in finding solutions to problems… we are doomed.

 

[Julia]

Ferret, that is just a great post. Thank you.

 

[Aussiejeff]

.... All we have achieved as a society, as a species, has been done with no central planning, no “control” from a central agency or master-plan. It has been achieved by what F.A Hayek describes as the “spontaneous order”, essentially driven by free market economics and the desire for profit .... we now, cannot fathom and centrally plan for what happens next.

Trust the market, trust the spontaneous order….. it has worked for centuries and will continue to do so. As soon as we believe that individuals, Govt’s or committees can be more efficient in finding solutions to problems… we are doomed.

Hi Ferret. It seems the *philosophy* you are espousing is one based ultimately on TOTAL CHAOS, where the "top dog" always wins out by destroying his competition. Indeed, that is a philosophy that has been often favoured by many despots and Kings over the centuries before now...

Of course, we mere humans have acheived much that is good, born out of such chaos - unfortunately, usually at the expense of millions of lesser lives (I shouldn't really have to point out such human "achievements" as the Holocaust, Crusades, WW1, WW2 etc - all brought about by a base human desire to "be the winner" at all cost. Great leaps forward in "technology" were the outcome of some of these events too).

That is the nub of it really. At what COST do we achieve an outcome, or invent a "useful" object or machine? Without a PLAN that takes into account the COST of our actions, it would seem we are also doomed.....


AJ

 

[The Ferret]

Hi Ferret. It seems the *philosophy* you are espousing is one based ultimately on TOTAL CHAOS, where the "top dog" always wins out by destroying his competition. Indeed, that is a philosophy that has been often favoured by many despots and Kings over the centuries before now...

Of course, we mere humans have acheived much that is good, born out of such chaos - unfortunately, usually at the expense of millions of lesser lives (I shouldn't really have to point out such human "achievements" as the Holocaust, Crusades, WW1, WW2 etc - all brought about by a base human desire to "be the winner" at all cost. Great leaps forward in "technology" were the outcome of some of these events too).

That is the nub of it really. At what COST do we achieve an outcome, or invent a "useful" object or machine? Without a PLAN that takes into account the COST of our actions, it would seem we are also doomed.....


AJ

You are wrong in stating that this is based on total chaos. Quite the opposite. I am talking about well know political and economic theory surrounding spontaneous order. I am talking about the power of free market economics and how the advancement of mankind, as a species, has been driven by this.

Look at where we are and what we have achieved. Who planned this? No one... it formed purely for the desire to achieve profit ie- survive! It's how we moved from hunter gatherers to small groups to structured societies. Agriculture, manufacturing.. all made possible by profit.

I note you talk of dictatorships and despots. Interesting to note that the vast majority (but not all) of history's failures and failed states had assumed a communist structure. The idea that man, govt and parties can somehow control the division of labour and production or any part of how mankind develops has been proven over and over again to be a fallacy with terrible results. Poverty, starvation and a total lack of freedom. China is a wonderful example.

The change in direction from a closed system, to moving towards a free market economy has brought riches to China already, despite the fact they still have a long way to go. this move by China is both another admisssion of failure that communist structures fail and a glowing example of how free markets can bring wealth to the poorest. Man cannot centrally control or plan for things on large scales. If we cannot bring man made "order" and structure to our markets (in a single country), what chance is there that we can plan and order all that would need to be done, in sync, with total co-operation from everyone, all the things that we allegedly need to do to save the entire planet???

This is a very, very complex issue, and one that has been debated by left and right for many moons. It is way beyond what can be effectively discussed on posts. Anyone who has studied economics, philosophy, politics, even anthropology will know the ideas that I have discussed and where they have come from. There are countless books on economics and political theory... go and read some if you REALLY want to learn more about yourself and how we got here.... and how we cannot centralise control for anything... let alone saving the planet. The free market will do it IF it needs doing.

The Ferret
ps- Thanks Julia

 

[2020hindsight]

Anyone who has studied economics, philosophy, politics, even anthropology will know the ideas that I have discussed and where they have come from. There are countless books on economics and political theory... go and read some if you REALLY want to learn more about yourself and how we got here

ferret
since you 've avoided answering the question, can I assume that you don't know what 1.65 sigma is. ?

 

[2020hindsight]

ferret
here's a clue... 1.65 standard deviations = 95% confidence limit ( for double sided distributions etc)

after all, we can talk about philosophy on philosophical threads, and we can talk about the advantages (and disadvantages) of blind adherance to last year's capitalism models on economic threads, (economists keeping up with the times are suggesting the correct decision is try to counter Global Warming incidentally - )

But let's get back to the topic shall we. IPCC base their science on 95% confidence intervals. i.e. they are 95% sure that what they say is happening is in fact happening, etc.

Back to the economic models, (where I know little, but you paint yourself as an expert) - I have the choice of listening to you on the one hand, or the likes of Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2196002.htm?section=justin

Garnaut outlines emissions trading proposal
Posted 2 hours 40 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 32 minutes ago
...
Modelling by Monash University reveals the permits could reap between $7 billion and $20 billion for the Commonwealth.

Professor Garnaut says governments will have to take a cautious approach in how they spend the money.

"When you add up all the associated demands for public expenditure you can quickly see that there's not going to be a limitless bucket of money," he said.

"Governments are going to have to be disciplined if they're going to get results from the use of finances that are generated by the sale of permits." etc

Furthermore ...
Those graphs were done BEFORE this report ..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/16/2190744.htm

Thaw of world's glaciers reaches record high: UN
Posted Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:14pm AEDT

A thaw of the world's glaciers has accelerated to a new record, with some of the biggest losses within Europe in a worrying sign of climate change, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) said.

"Meltdown in the mountains," UNEP said in a statement, saying that a retreat of glaciers from the Andes to the Arctic should add urgency to UN negotiations on working out a new treaty by the end of 2009 to combat global warming.

"Data from close to 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges indicate that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, the average rate of melting and thinning more than doubled," it said.

Some of the biggest losses were in Europe - in the Alps, the Pyrenees and the Nordic region - according to the UNEP-backed World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) at the University of Zurich in Switzerland.

"The latest figures are part of what appears to be an accelerating trend with no apparent end in sight," WGMS director Wilfried Haeberli said in a statement.

The estimates, based on measuring the thickness of glacier ice, indicated an average loss of about 1.5 metres in 2006, up from just over half a metre in 2005. UNEP said that the thinning was the fastest since monitoring began.

Since 1980, glaciers have thinned by about 11.5 metres in a retreat blamed by the UN Climate Panel mainly on human use of fossil fuels.

The thaw could disrupt everything from farming - millions of people in Asia depend on seasonal melt water from the Himalayas - and power generation to winter sports. The thaw could also raise world sea levels.

Climate 'canaries'
UNEP said glaciers were among the clearest indicators of global warming.
etc

but hey - there's no money in glaciers - why would you be interested. ?

 

[The Ferret]

lol... my posts were in direct reply to chops who asked some questions of us.

He took the time to ask us some valid questions, so I took the time to answer him... It's generally respectful to do so.

I note that he actually said "...... and 20/20 especially..." when asking the questions. Perhaps you too may like to answer the same questions he asked of us?

Anyone can copy and paste graphs and quotes from other people. How about a bit of free thinking? A bit of actually providing structure and depth to your arguement instead of copy and pasting? How about engaging with people by answering questions that have been put to you (by chops etc) and presenting your own reasoning?

No offence, but your posts to date have been largely devoid of structure and reason. They are more incoherent jumbled sentences interspersed with quotes from others and graphs that have been Googled. You seem to be confused, as you assume my reply to chops was somehow in reply to you. I wonder if you read some the posts at all before replying. It's like you just have this list of pre-planned posts with some other graph or quote from some other source all lined up and ready to go, regardless of what is being said by others. There is more to engaging people than that. You can do better, surely....

 

[Smurf1976]

Anyone, regardless of qualification, who questions aspects of GW, its causes and intensity, is ostracised and almost publicly shamed as a “non-believer”, a fool and a naysayer. History has shown us that this sort of mass-hysteria can have devastating consequences.

...

Peak Oil and resource depletion. Chops… I agree that right now, today, there are certainly supply constraints on oil and this will remain for some time into the future. It is obvious that OPEC elect not to increase output because they presently cannot. However, this will not always be the case..IMO. As exploration continues new, large reserves will be discovered, developed over time and exploited. Of course, I agree that eventually, one day we would have depleted the worlds oil reserves. IMO, however, this is some way off.

What is important to remember is this….. Even when (before) we deplete oil (or any other resource) the desire for profit will have lead to newer technologies. The market, seeing not a crisis, but an opportunity for profit, will react. This has been the case for 1000’s of years and will continue to remain so. No one develops new drugs for the good of mankind, it’s done for profit. The same can be said of any industry, any sector, any part of modern life. Advancement is driven by competition and profit.

1. Agreed about the global warming "debate". It's not really a debate at all in practice.

2. Oil. You might be correct but I must point out that thus far the market has failed absolutely despite a nearly 10 fold increase in prices over the past decade. It has failed despite rapidly increasing effort, which is itself now using an awful lot of oil, to find new large reserves. You might be right in the long term but it is already too late to find new reserves and develop them in time to avoid at least a period (years) where production declines. The oil debate is thus not about whether we will have a problem, to an extent we already do, but whether it is temporary or permanent.

Worth noting that the No.2 oil province is the USA, the most economically powerful and technologically advanced nation the world has ever seen. Nearly 4 decades later, no amount of technology and capital investment has been able to even halt their decline let alone reverse it.

So we might well have plenty of oil at some point. But if the market needs to go to $1000 to discover and develop it then for practical purposes it may as well not be there. Energy at that price is useless to man for all but a few applications.

Fossil fuels are only useful in the first place due to high productivity. Put a little in and get a lot out. If we end up putting half our collective efforts into fuel supply then that's going to make having that fuel rather pointless. If it takes 10 hours labour to produce enouogh fuel to drive 20km then it's pointless - for most trips walking would be the rational choice in terms of productivity unless you had to carry something heavy. You wouldn't gain anything by spending all your personal labour producing fuel if the amount produced only did the work of one man.

It only works when one person can extract enough fuel to do the work of many - that's the real issue and why oil has been so useful thus far. Same with any energy source. All commercial energy sources are essentially a means of leveraging labour. They aren't useful bar a few niche applications if they cease to achieve that end result - and oil is rapidly heading towards just that, it's leverage ratio having been in steep decline for years.

 

[wayneL]

2020

Talk of sigma with climate observations and you (and the IPCC) are entering the realms of the Twilight Zone. What utter tosh. A case of selective observation fallacy once again. (Yep, even smart guys are prone to that... perhaps more so)

Firstly, the distribution is not populated with enough numbers to make it statistically significant enough. If they have plugged in any number outside of what is definitively known, it is the result of bias prone guesswork

Secondly, the assumption of normal distribution is probably fallacious. There could be a substantial degree of kurtosis that is, at present, impossible to know, but my guess would be substantial leptokurtic. This will serious #### with IPCC assumptions. Try using 95% confidences with stock market distributions and you get seriously hurt; that is, unless betting against it. fat tails abound.

Sigma is BS for this discussion.

Ferret,

Good posts and agree with your Hayek hypothesis. 5 stars.

Chops,

do you guys think that "Global Warming", or even specifically excess carbon emissions, is just a symptom of more substantial environmental problems?

Oh abso-bloody-lutely. Though I question (but not deny altogether... open mind) the validity of AGW, my contention has always been that it's the wrong target. Target other environmental concerns and you would get a better CO2 result anyway IMO.

And IFF so, (from your point of view) do you think that the GW debate will run its course and ultimately be replaced by matters that are arguably more central to the crux (don't know the plural for crux lol) of the matters. i.e. massive energy resource depletion.

Dunno about that one. There is to much pro AGW money sloshing around for many to let it go... and to much (con rest of the environment) money sloshing around for the real crux to be addressed. I'm not hopeful there unless environmental degradation turns really nasty. (could be sooner than I think though)

Because as a "hard core" environmentalist (at least in these parts I am lol!), the debate to me is completely arbitrary. For instance, most people would agree that we are at or near peak oil production. Therefore the moves to combat this, in turn target carbon emissions. Without oil, we don't drive, don't have an economy etc. etc. So you look at mass transit ideas, which both help the economy, are an efficient energy use, and you reduce emissions that way.

Yes arbitrary, as stated above, address other, largely ignored) concerns and CO2 is dealt with (if indeed it has any role in GW).

And you can go on and on in this manner. Destroying farm land to extend cities etc. etc.

Also as a card carrying greenie, this drives me ####ing nuts. In view of the AGW, peak oil, and shortage of food hypothesis, this is absolutely insane. We humans are seriously cognitively dissonant in this regard.

The follow up questions are then: do policies and initiatives towards reducing CO2 specifically, although desirable (maybe? maybe not?), go only part of the way in doing their job, because of this? And if so, what do you propose we target, or not target?

Absolutely. My view has always been that an inordinate focus on CO2 emissions removes focus from the REAL problems on this planet. I could go on ad infinitum and these problems are too many to focus on here. But suffice to say, without the distraction of the CO2 debate, they are freakin' obvious to anyone with an un-atrophied frontal lobe.

 

[The Ferret]

1. Agreed about the global warming "debate". It's not really a debate at all in practice.

2. Oil. You might be correct but I must point out that thus far the market has failed absolutely despite a nearly 10 fold increase in prices over the past decade. It has failed despite rapidly increasing effort, which is itself now using an awful lot of oil, to find new large reserves. You might be right in the long term but it is already too late to find new reserves and develop them in time to avoid at least a period (years) where production declines. The oil debate is thus not about whether we will have a problem, to an extent we already do, but whether it is temporary or permanent.

Worth noting that the No.2 oil province is the USA, the most economically powerful and technologically advanced nation the world has ever seen. Nearly 4 decades later, no amount of technology and capital investment has been able to even halt their decline let alone reverse it.

So we might well have plenty of oil at some point. But if the market needs to go to $1000 to discover and develop it then for practical purposes it may as well not be there. Energy at that price is useless to man for all but a few applications.

Fossil fuels are only useful in the first place due to high productivity. Put a little in and get a lot out. If we end up putting half our collective efforts into fuel supply then that's going to make having that fuel rather pointless. If it takes 10 hours labour to produce enouogh fuel to drive 20km then it's pointless - for most trips walking would be the rational choice in terms of productivity unless you had to carry something heavy. You wouldn't gain anything by spending all your personal labour producing fuel if the amount produced only did the work of one man.

It only works when one person can extract enough fuel to do the work of many - that's the real issue and why oil has been so useful thus far. Same with any energy source. If 3000 workers can build a hydro scheme in a decade that for the next century produces the power of half a million horses then that's useful. But it's practically useless if it takes 300,000 workers to build it and produces less power than the manual labour of those workers. Same with all commercial energy sources.

I generally agree with you on most points. Although it's important to also remember that many oil fields once deemed unviable have since become viable and exploited. Plus, oil is now being extracted from fields at depths (sub ocean) that were unimaginable 10 or 15 years ago, so, there have been both advances made in technology and also some market response by bringing previously unviable fields online. It's certainly not the end game though as you say.

I do disagree however with suggesting that the reserves "may as well not be there" if the price needs to hit 1000pb. This price would serve the function of greater exploration, but the discoveries made would, in turn, reduce the price.

In the long run it is only logical that we shall exhaust all oil reserves. It's not a finite resource. But I am more than entirely confident that we will adapt and find new sources of energy to replace oil.

Look at it this way.... The only reason we are so dependant on oil is because it was essentially the first and easiest energy source we found all those decades ago. It doesn't mean it's the only source. It's the only source we have so far discovered, embraced and developed.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. lol... my posts were in direct reply to chops who asked some questions of us.

2. He took the time to ask us some valid questions, so I took the time to answer him... It's generally respectful to do so.

3. I note that he actually said "...... and 20/20 especially..." when asking the questions. Perhaps you too may like to answer the same questions he asked of us?

4. Anyone can copy and paste graphs and quotes from other people. How about a bit of free thinking? A bit of actually providing structure and depth to your arguement instead of copy and pasting? How about engaging with people by answering questions that have been put to you (by chops etc) and presenting your own reasoning?

5….. You seem to be confused, as you assume my reply to chops was somehow in reply to you.....

ferret

1. My recent posts were nothing to do with your recent posts – they were about your apparent lack of courtesy to reply to my post. i.e. I simply reintroduced the question which you had avoided answering.

2. Since you are such a respectful person to answer questions
how about answering questions 3, 4, and 5 that I posted for you back there.

After all I had the courtesy to answer your claim that I couldn't find any evidence that you were in the 7% who think we shouldn't have signed Kyoto.

You laughed and said who believes polls. - biased etc.

I pointed out that EVEN IF it was a biased poll, this entire thread is a poll (PRIOR to Bali) -
and worst case scenario was that you were in the 17% who think we shouldn't have signed Kyoto (PS if you look at the start of the thread, you 'll see that is a pretty accurate statement)

3. In due course.

4. “Anyone can copy and paste graphs and quotes from other people. How about a bit of free thinking?” ohh sorry – lol – my turn to laugh . I am posting from the IPCC website ( I gave you the links before, but I'm guessing you didn't bother to read any of them). - They happen to be top scientists. The best. You saying you can "freethink" better than they can. Are we talking something you learnt in old fashioned capitalist cutthroat philosophy again?

4a. They happen to be Nobel Peace Prize winners ! - ring a bell? - Nobel Peace Prize? - excellence and all that?

5. “You seem to be confused, as you assume my reply to chops was somehow in reply to you.... What the !!! lol - what you smoking dude? sheesh, and you reckon I’m confused.
Here’s the post I was referring to:- (next post)

 

[The Ferret]

Yes 2020..ok, you win, I lose, you're right and I am wrong. lol. I apologise if I have not answered questions posed to me by you. As I have stated, your posts are somewhat incoherent at times.... not sure if they are statements, questions or ??

Welcome back Wayne! Thought you must have been sucked up in a killer tornado or washed out to sea by a freak wave or something. Glad you like the Hayek post.

To quote Margaret Thatcher as she held up a copy of The Constitution of Liberty... " This..! Is what we believe.."

 

[2020hindsight]

ferret ,
ok - thanks for the concession , but I'll still post the rest of what I was going to say ..

Here's what I wanted you to answer :-

1. first question then is , would you accept 17% - sheesh. and that was before Bali.

You accuse people of a bias when they have nothing personal to gain.
Compare that to Singer and Ball (who I have now had to expose twice on this thread as complete scientific who-res - I trust you are not gonna ask me to do it again ...) . Ask them to give back the money they received from the oil companies for their opinions.

2. And whilst you're at it , ask them to give back what they got from the tobacco industry. - insisting that there was no evidence that smoking and cancer were related.

- in VERY similar language to current "lock-down-denial-against-all-the-evidence"

And you have the mmm incredible logic (almost said duplicity) to pretend that it's the scientists like the IPCC etc who are at fault here. To compare then to the tobacco industry deniers.

You have no further to look than your team. - these "scientists" (Singer and Ball) were then and still are arguably "criminals" - well they would be criminals if David Suzuki had his way you'd reckon - not only them but the politicians who follow their advice.

Moving on..
3. Are you in the group that say the world is not getting hotter? - that the ice is not melting etc ? Here is what the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC think about the facts...

4. I assume you know what 1.65 sigma means?

5. Back to Singer and Ball - If you had a relative who died from smoking-related cancer AFTER Singer and Ball went in to bat so strongly (including financial gain) FOR the cigarette companies, would you say it's fair to call them scientific who-res? Or would you use a term like murderers?

This is from the IPCC website ( talk by manning if you're interested). Trust you've been there in the course of your research.

You infer a link between scientists who proclaim GW to thse who backed the tobacco industry - now there I have to admit I took serious offence. Since it is easily proven that that is in fact what some of the scientist for your side are doing (Singer and Ball for starters).

"The Climate Institute" is a very official, scientific sounding title given to a group of people who are quite openly pro-left and pro-green (politically) who have a political agenda to push. And it sucks in people who don't do their homework. "Oh, The Climate Institute says it's so, with a name like that they can't be wrong".

It takes a fool to accept as gospel anything that comes from groups with a known bias. It's akin to believing studies commissioned by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't all that bad for your health. It's called vested interests....

You've been sucked in by a flash name...

Now remember that YOU introduced the tobacco industry ok?

Now, to preach that tobacco was not related to cancer (and be paid to say so) (question 5 ) – would it be
a) murder?
b) manslaughter?
c) or misdemeanour?
d) or a bit of larrikin mischief?

These same “scientists” are now proclaiming that AGW is a myth. – “all due to sunspot activity” etc (and this happens to be at a relative low at the moment btw – compared to predictions for 2012)

Now final comment .
I’ll put $5 on two bets
a) that the Globe will be hotter in 2012 than it is now , and
b) that you work for the oil industry or someone similar.

Heck I reckon the worst I can do is come out square

 

[chops_a_must]

This is exactly the sort of stuff I wanted to get out... Even the person from "the opposite side" has touched on some really important points and principles. Anyone been to Istanbul? A really good example of what Ferret is on about, and why on a certain level, some of the things he is saying, does work.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the questions I posed?

Julia? AJ?

I wont bite, I promise...

Want it to go a bit further before I have a spiel...

P.S. - Ferret... we have a chocolate and a polecat/ silvermit, yourself? I think they would make great traders. Fearless and cheeky pricks.

 

[2020hindsight]

I mean you can believe the oil industry if you are absolutely stupid ok?

THey are not saints ok -
in fact I'd go so far as to say they are the opposite -
SANTA worshippers !! - (damn that dyslexia - DNA = National Dyslexic Association as they say)

worse still - greedy dollar worshippers !! - at the expense of the planet!.


PS ferret
you mentioned philosophy
Try this for a bit of prose
think about it ! ok -
it'll cost you nothing to think about it !

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1895823.htm

JENNIFER MACEY: His final book was also a best seller. But it's probably the earlier novels that will continue to give Vonnegut his place in the American literary pantheon.

His last book ended on a poem.

POEM EXCERPT (read by actor) When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here.

 

[The Ferret]

ferret ,
ok - thanks for the concession , but I'll still post the rest of what I was going to say ..

Here's what I wanted you to answer :-


You infer a link between scientists who proclaim GW to thse who backed the tobacco industry - now there I have to admit I took serious offence. Since it is easily proven that that is in fact what some of the scientist for your side are doing (Singer and Ball for starters).



Now remember that YOU introduced the tobacco industry ok?

Now, to preach that tobacco was not related to cancer (and be paid to say so) (question 5 ) – would it be
a) murder?
b) manslaughter?
c) or misdemeanour?
d) or a bit of larrikin mischief?

These same “scientists” are now proclaiming that AGW is a myth. – “all due to sunspot activity” etc (and this happens to be at a relative low at the moment btw – compared to predictions for 2012)

Now final comment .
I’ll put $5 on two bets
a) that the Globe will be hotter in 2012 than it is now , and
b) that you work for the oil industry or someone similar.

Heck I reckon the worst I can do is come out square

1) Did not infer any link between GW scientists and tobacco backers. I stated that reports commissioned by lobby/interest/political groups, such as "The Climate Institute" ( a left wing political org), should be taken with a huge shovel of salt and used tobacco industry reports as an example.

2) E) Misguided.

3) The globe will be exactly the same temp as today and the sea will lap the shores at exactly the same height in 2012.
Hell, you can even lock me in for 2021.

And finally...lol, no, I do not work for the oil industry, although I do have money invested in oil stocks as part of my balanced portfolio.

Why is it that anyone who does not follow the GW bible is accused/suspected of being in the oil industry?? Talk about paranoia.

 

[2020hindsight]

1) Did not infer any link between GW scientists and tobacco backers. I stated that reports commissioned by lobby/interest/political groups, such as "The Climate Institute" ( a left wing political org), should be taken with a huge shovel of salt and used tobacco industry reports as an example.

2) E) Misguided.

3) The globe will be exactly the same temp as today and the sea will lap the shores at exactly the same height in 2012.
Hell, you can even lock me in for 2021.

And finally...lol, no, I do not work for the oil industry, although I do have money invested in oil stocks as part of my balanced portfolio.

Why is it that anyone who does not follow the GW bible is accused/suspected of being in the oil industry?? Talk about paranoia.

2. see we disagree. I'd call it murder.
Just as I'd call it murder that Bernie Banton died of asbestos related diseases! - THOSE BASTARDS KNEW ABOUT THAT IN THE LATE 20's sheesh.

3. try 2023 - it's an 11 year cycle . Perhaps you didn't know that -
but Galileo did

 

[The Ferret]

This is exactly the sort of stuff I wanted to get out... Even the person from "the opposite side" has touched on some really important points and principles. Anyone been to Istanbul? A really good example of what Ferret is on about, and why on a certain level, some of the things he is saying, does work.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the questions I posed?

Julia? AJ?

I wont bite, I promise...

Want it to go a bit further before I have a spiel...

P.S. - Ferret... we have a chocolate and a polecat/ silvermit, yourself? I think they would make great traders. Fearless and cheeky pricks.

Have not been to Istanbul. we want to though. Also want to go to Iran as we have been to other places in middle east.

I'm the only ferret in our house. Although we have domesticated a few brushtail possums who come around everynight for a bit of a play. Had one get stuck in a drain pipe which is ferrety! Had to cut him out at 1am in morning....